Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Election 16: Donald Trumps wins Presidency. God Help us all!

88Comrade2000

By 88Comrade2000
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

mcsluggo

mcsluggo

Posted
Posted

Yeah, this has been the argument from day one against Rubio around here.

 

Specifically Predicto has been going on about this a lot. But others as well.

 

He's essentially the establishment neocon and will be Bush #3I since Jeb can't win.

 

i would've been much more comfortable with Jeb.   

 

(and i recognize how convenient it is to say that now that he is gone!)

i would've been much more comfortable with Jeb.   

 

(and yes,  i DO recognize how convenient it is to say that now that he is gone!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mistertim

mistertim

Posted
Posted

Cruz only became a Christian about 6 weeks ago to grab Huckabee's 3% after he dropped out.

 

EDIT: And in anticipation of Carson dropping out, which Cruz is going to announce, this time via youtube while Carson is in bed.  Another 6% there.

Maybe it has actually been Cruz drugging Carson before every debate this whole time...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lombardi's_kid_brother

Lombardi's_kid_brother

Posted
Posted

I think the R race is over, and it doesn't matter who drops out. From what I can tell, a pretty hefty percentage of Jeb's supporters went to Trump in Nevada. And I can't find the poll now, but I read if most Rubio voters list Trump as their second choice.

 

I just think Trump's lead is so big that even if everyone but Rubio or Cruz dropped out, the end result would still be a comfortable lead for Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Duckus

Duckus

Posted
Posted

I think the R race is over, and it doesn't matter who drops out. From what I can tell, a pretty hefty percentage of Jeb's supporters went to Trump in Nevada. And I can't find the poll now, but I read if most Rubio voters list Trump as their second choice.

 

I just think Trump's lead is so big that even if everyone but Rubio or Cruz dropped out, the end result would still be a comfortable lead for Trump.

 

I wouldn't call it yet, but its 95% over. There are two races which really hold the entire race:

 

1) It is unlikely, but if Trump beats Cruz in Texas on Tuesday it is over. It would be such a massive upset, and such a sign of Trump momentum that I think everything sort of just collapse for both Cruz and Rubio in the following weeks. It honestly would be a massive blow to Cruz for the rest of his career. 

 

2) Much more likely, the end of the primary could be the Florida primary on March 15th. If Trump destroys Rubio in Florida, it is over. Recent polling shows Trump with massive leads. Something has to fundamentally change in the next 2 weeks, or the race ends there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
visionary

visionary

Posted
Posted

If Trump wins the primary, the Republican Party may be forced to pull an anti Trump coup to 'restore democracy' to the party. (To borrow a phrase from Kerry). Not sure how that would go though and more likely they would just accept his win and hope for the best. It would be interesting to see if some Republican politicians came out in support of Hillary or Bernie against him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
s0crates

s0crates

Posted
Posted

Like I've been trying to tell you:

http://static.currentaffairs.org/2016/02/unless-the-democrats-nominate-sanders-a-trump-nomination-means-a-trump-presidency

UNLESS THE DEMOCRATS RUN SANDERS, A TRUMP NOMINATION MEANS A TRUMP PRESIDENCY

Democrats need to seriously and pragmatically assess their strategy for defeating Trump. A Clinton run would be disastrous; Bernie Sanders is their only hope.

by NATHAN J. ROBINSON

. . .

Trump’s political dominance is highly dependent on his idiosyncratic, audacious method of campaigning. He deals almost entirely in amusing, outrageous, below-the-belt personal attacks, and is skilled at turning public discussions away from the issues and toward personalities (He/she’s a “loser,” “phony,” “nervous,” “hypocrite,” “incompetent.”) If Trump does have to speak about the issues, he makes himself sound foolish, because he doesn’t know very much. Thus he requires the media not to ask him difficult questions, and depends on his opponents’ having personal weaknesses and scandals that he can merrily, mercilessly exploit.

This campaigning style makes Hillary Clinton Donald Trump’s dream opponent. She gives him an endless amount to work with. The emails, Benghazi, Whitewater, Iraq, the Lewinsky scandal, Chinagate, Travelgate, the missing law firm records, Jeffrey Epstein, Kissinger, Marc Rich, Haiti, Clinton Foundation tax errors, Clinton Foundation conflicts of interest, “We were broke when we left the White House,” Goldman Sachs… There is enough material in Hillary Clinton’s background for Donald Trump to run with six times over.

. . .

A Clinton/Trump match should therefore not just worry Democrats. It should terrify them. They should be doing everything possible to avoid it. A Trump/Sanders contest, however, look very different indeed.

. . .

Think before you vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PeterMP

PeterMP

Posted
Posted

The most bizarre part of last night for me was the health care exchange.  

 

Ted was attacking the Donald for wanting to keep Americans from "dying in the streets."  

 

I'm still not processing the logic...

 

Cruz was focused on the concept of universal care, which is what Trump has endorsed in the past and the government paying for it (for everybody) (e.g. a Canadian single payer system) not people dying on the street.

 

Cruz came into the debate wanting to get Trump to say the government was going to pay for healthcare like in a Canadian style single payer system, which is usually what is consistent with universal care, but he couldn't deviate from his plan to get that response when Trump just started talking about people dying in the street.  Cruz was still focused on only getting that response and couldn't see the bigger picture that it came across as he was okay with people dying on the street.

 

(I really don't think any of these guys are very good debaters for this style.  They get so focused on one thing and whatever points they have planned to make that they don't switch gears very well or understand what the other person is saying.

 

Later when Rubio, the moderator and the Trump were talking about his health care plan, and Trump kept saying there would be lots of plans.  He was saying there would be lots of private health insurance plans from different insurance companies.

 

Neither Rubio nor moderator seemed to make that connection, but Trump didn't seem to understand that they wanted to give more details other than allowing competition across state borders.  What was the rest of the his plan?

 

Maybe in the moment on the stage with the bright lights, I'd do as poorly, but I'm not really impressed by any of their abilities to take in information and give a coherent response.  If it isn't something that was part of their debate prep (Cruz getting Trump to say the government was going to pay for health care was clearly a priority in his debate prep) or part of their normal responses, they really struggle.)

 

chip already posted that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted

I think the R race is over, and it doesn't matter who drops out. From what I can tell, a pretty hefty percentage of Jeb's supporters went to Trump in Nevada. And I can't find the poll now, but I read if most Rubio voters list Trump as their second choice.

 

I just think Trump's lead is so big that even if everyone but Rubio or Cruz dropped out, the end result would still be a comfortable lead for Trump.

Right now, the delegate count is:  (RCP delegate tracker.) 

Trump: 81

Cruz: 17

Rubio: 17

Everybody else: 14

Needed to win: 2,472

And the only reason Trump's lead is that big, is because SC was winner take all, meaning his winning the election 32%-22%-22% gave him a delegate count of 50-0-0. 

 

And all of the upcoming primaries are proportional.  The next winner take all is several primaries on March 15.  (The biggest is Florida, 99 delegates.) 

 

Now, Trump certainly has the momentum.  And that's important in these primaries.  I have the feeling that lots of people simply vote for who they think is going to win. 

 

But strictly speaking mathematically, I think things like announcing the race is over is like declaring the Super Bowl winner after Week 1. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PeterMP

PeterMP

Posted
Posted

Holy ****. Christie just endorsed Trump. What. In. The. WORLD. I am stunned. Bwahahahaha. 

VP play?

 

I'm not actually that surprised.  Christie isn't a super right evengelical or neocon.  He's pretty far right economically, but so is Trump (based on his tax plan).  Between Trump, Rubio, and Cruz, it isn't hard to believe that Trump's world view is most similar to Christie's.

 

Again, I don't know what Democrats want moderate Republicans to do in the primary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ExoDus84

ExoDus84

Posted
Posted

 

I don't buy it for one second.

 

Trumps mass appeal in a national election isn't going to be anywhere high enough to win, even if people are wary of Clinton.

Establishment conservatives don't seem to like him. He's alienated Hispanics and other minority voters, most who traditionally vote Democrat anyway. What's his appeal to establishment Democrats? Why would they vote for trump? He's not eschewing traditional democratic values. Why would Independents vote for him? Some may if they straight up don't like Hilary, but I think most educated independents can see right through his bull****.

 

I've seen him debate. He wouldn't stand a chance against Hilary or Bernie. He doesn't have any good ideas. He's schtick is just insulting the other candidates and saying,"The polls. Look at the poll numbahs!".

 

There aren't enough crazy tea baggers to vote him into office. He's winning the absolutely god-awful Republican field by default. Any minority votes he's accumulated in places like Nevada are probably much more of a rebuttal of Cruz/Rubio than an honest endorsement of Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JMS

JMS

Posted
Posted

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/two-former-mexican-presidents-take-aim-at-trump-and-his-stupid-wall/2016/02/25/2e48b57e-dc14-11e5-891a-4ed04f4213e8_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_trump-mexico-834%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

MEXICO CITY — Two former Mexican presidents said in separate interviews with The Washington Post that the xenophobic rhetoric of Donald Trump and the other Republicans running for president has damaged U.S.-Mexico relations and changed the way many Mexicans view Americans.

Vicente Fox and Felipe Calderón, who led Mexico from 2000 to 2012, said that insults from the Republicans — along with the rapturous reception such comments receive at huge rallies — show a new, alarming strain of anti-Mexican racism.

“Trump is saying stupid things, but the problem is that 40 percent of Republicans say, ‘Yes, you’re right,’ ” said Fox, 73, a former Coca-Cola executive who has long identified with the Republican Party.

Yeah Mexico, and China are all up in arms about Trump. That's a good thing.

Trump says that Mexico will pay for a 6 billion dollar wall, over several years, if it protects a 26 billion dollar trade surplus, a billion in economic aid, and massive job and corporate influx into their economy. And if they want to risk all that booty by refusing to pay for the wall, then its no big concern of his. And why is that even a question?

Why is the guy playing hardball on our behalf a Xenophobe, but the Mexicans playing hard ball are free traders.

Nothing wrong with playing hardball, especially when we hold all the cards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PeterMP

PeterMP

Posted
Posted

Not exactly, what he posted was by some blogger, but the blog did link to that Current Affairs piece by a reputable scholar, which is how I found it.

Anyway I suggest people read it and think about what it says before voting.

 

I'm not sure what makes this guy a "reputable scholar".  Does he have any history predicting election results?

 

Look, we get that you like Sanders and that you actually might believe he has a better shot at beating Trump than Hillary.

 

But still, the information was posted, including an extensive quote, and the link it came from, included the link you've supplied.

 

Just like chip's post or add some meaningful comment of your own.

 

Rather than give the same information from a different link that could have been gotten from the first link and quoting a huge junk of text (which realistically is probably against board rules).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JMS

JMS

Posted
Posted

I don't buy it for one second.

 

Trumps mass appeal in a national election isn't going to be anywhere high enough to win, even if people are wary of Clinton.

Trumps appeal will grow, mostly because his negatives right now are based on fake charges or racism, radicalism, and xenophobia; and because their is a huge reserve of anger at incumbents which Trump validates.

Hillary's appeal will not grow because after 25 years she's a known commodity.. you like her or you don't. She's not charismatic enough to sway folks attract new supporters. All that's going to happen is she will get weaker. That's what's happened in her two senate runs and her two Presidential runs including this one in the primaries. She started up by like 40% nationally over Bernie and today she's modestly behind him in national polls. She's also lost double digit support in every primary we've had so far.

You can't say the sam thing about Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...