Originally Posted by SEC_Chick (Post 499254)

I defense of the GOP, I think it will be more difficult for Trump from here on out. I have seen a fairly strong argument that it is not really Republicans, but Dixiecrats who are putting him over the top in the open primaries. Trump has not yet won an open primary, and Nevada, though it in theory has a closed caucus, also had election workers wearing Trump attire and failing to check id, and it's Nevada, so I don't think anyone is shocked at voting irregularities.

There are only 10 open primaries left, and there are a number of upcoming closed primaries that are winner-take-all. I am putting my faith in the fact that Trump hasn't broken 30% and has performed poorly with real Republicans in closed primaries. I think he knows this, and that explains his post-Super-Tuesday kinder and gentler Donald Trump that has emerged.

Between that, and the fact that the rules of the convention will be set in the future, I am hopeful that we can pull off a brokered convention and put in anyone but Trump. Heck even Romney, even though he was a crap candidate last time. At least I would vote for him.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 499261)

How did she game anything with Bernie?

He seems to have lost this fair and square. He's getting votes in caucuses among the party hardcore, she's getting them in primaries, where larger populations come out; he's getting them in the North, she's getting them everywhere; he just didn't have the horses. And they've had more than enough debates for my taste, and I've only seen about half of them.

Some of that is being new to the national stage, some of it is the message, some of it is the messenger.

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick (Post 499254)

I defense of the GOP, I think it will be more difficult for Trump from here on out. I have seen a fairly strong argument that it is not really Republicans, but Dixiecrats who are putting him over the top in the open primaries.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 499265)

Just an aside, as I keep thinking about the point, but Dixiecrats (or what we used to call Dixiecrats - how many generations do they have to vote R before they become Rs?) didn't do the job for trump in Massachusetts and Vermont.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 499257)

Trump's full of shit. He'd run the country as a moderate. He'd drop the useful idiots like a hot rock the minute he was elected and start cutting deals. Yeah, it'd be fucking embarrassing to have him in office. But any more than having W in office? We've been an embarrassment for a long time. And you can look forward to many more Trumps in the future because this is the shit you get after decades of politicians promising shit they could never hope to deliver, and engaging in wars they couldn't hope to win. It's a rich tapestry of shit to which we've all contributed through apathy, greed, and stupidity. I can't think of a better gold plated figurehead to run this garbage scow of a country into the iceberg it deserves that a king clown like Trump.

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick (Post 499266)

Massachusetts was probably crossover from some blue collar and union types to whom the populism and protectionism may have some appeal. I know it was NY and not MA, but Hillary can't even fill a rally when unions make attendance mandatory and pay comp time for people to attend.

Vermont elected Bernie Sanders. They are both reliably blue states, and it's not Vermont, kind of like NH, doesn't have a reputation for picking winners on the R side. While any R would rather have the delegates than not, I would just assume that no one is going to spend time or money there and that it's a state where someone like Kasich would outperform, and thus no one else would even try. Bottom of the barrel for Super Tuesday.

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick (Post 499266)

Massachusetts was probably crossover from some blue collar and union types to whom the populism and protectionism may have some appeal. I know it was NY and not MA, but Hillary can't even fill a rally when unions make attendance mandatory and pay comp time for people to attend.

Vermont elected Bernie Sanders. They are both reliably blue states, and Vermont, kind of like NH, doesn't have a reputation for picking winners on the R side. While any R would rather have the delegates than not, I would just assume that no one is going to spend time or money there and that it's a state where someone like Kasich would outperform, and thus no one else would even try. Bottom of the barrel for Super Tuesday.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 499264)

Even if he had the horses, she had the superdelegates in her pocket from the start. And the debates were all scheduled to attract minimal viewers.

Wasserman Schultz has been under intense scrutiny for scheduling primaries and debates to aid Clinton.

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 499268)

So your saying that your theory, that "Dixiecrats" is what propelled Trump to win, is empirically demonstrated by the primaries and caucuses to date -- because you have other explanations for Nevada, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Minnesota?

I'm not sure that "Dixiecrats" even exist anymore, as those who once were have been voting Republican for a long time. But leaving that aside, and accepting what I believe is your sense of that, if you take "reliably blue" states out of the equation, and also take states with a lot of "Dixiecrats" out of the equation, you don't have much left.....

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick (Post 499271)

Ok then. The issue is people who frequently vote D for whatever reason (in state and local elections) are crossing over and voting for Trump in the open R primaries.

Cruz has won all but one of the closed primaries, and Donald Trump has won all but one of the open primaries.

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 499267)

There's a lot of stuff in your post I find interesting, ranging from things I agree with to those I think are just plain wrong (but in an always-endearing Sebby-like way). But I'll focus just on the last paragraph.

I agree that Trump's positions now have little bearing on his positions later. He's a personality candidate -- more like Putin than anyone I can think of. But that doesn't mean he'll be a moderate. Moderates have to build consensus and work across party lines. And moderation is boring.

My suspicion is that he'll do things that appeal to the largest group of the loudest people. Not good.

And I don't think this is a legacy of promises that can't be kept (for that, see Sanders). Rather it's a legacy of politicians -- primarily Republicans -- behaving as if standing on hard ideological principle and winning elections was the only thing that mattered, and governing was not.

Immigration reform is the great example. Many Rs knew it was needed, many supported it. But above all, they feared that actually enacting immigration reform would give Obama a "win", and that was unacceptable.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 499257)

Agreed. It is quite funny.

The Internet is polluted with so much hyperbole because of shit sites like Upworthy and Buzzfeed that wherever a strong verb or adjective is used, one should stop reading after the first line. "Marco Rubio Bought a Coffee at Starbucks This Morning. What Happened Next is Amazing!"

Except that he is worth over a billion, and has built a solid brand, garish as it is, so that part about business acumen... #justsayin And no. That he screwed people in r/e development workouts does not undo his success. First, that's an essential part of that business. Second, that only proves the guy can artfully work through a really tough deal.

Only half of it. He's appalling. But the way he's totally blowing up the GOP is incredibly entertaining. If only Bernie would get traction and do the same to that crooked stuffed pantsuit and her soldiers on the D side. (I disagree with Sanders on almost everything, but he is the only person out there with integrity.)

Still, I like one thing Trump is doing. Among the lies, there are occasional kernels of candor that are fantastic. His defense of Planned Parenthood (even though he has to claim he'll defund it to placate the Jesus Crazies) is great. And telling a bunch of corporate Bush stooges that W lied to get us into Iraq and did not keep the country safe was excellent. If nothing else, that pumpkinhead killed the Bush dynasty, and for that we all owe him a debt.

Oh, that's overwrought. A lot of people know he's full of shit but view him as the only "hand grenade" candidate who can actually get enough votes to get to DC and truly make a mess of the system.

Bullshit. Trump's attracting lower middle class voters who want protectionism. Our media is focusing on the David Dukes and the Mexican wall nonsense because nobody in the Establishment wants to address the criticism that globalization fucks over a lot of average people. It's all about money. It's always all about money. Trump is fueled primarily by poor folks who want to roll back globalization.

Trump's full of shit. He'd run the country as a moderate. He'd drop the useful idiots like a hot rock the minute he was elected and start cutting deals. Yeah, it'd be fucking embarrassing to have him in office. But any more than having W in office? We've been an embarrassment for a long time. And you can look forward to many more Trumps in the future because this is the shit you get after decades of politicians promising shit they could never hope to deliver, and engaging in wars they couldn't hope to win. It's a rich tapestry of shit to which we've all contributed through apathy, greed, and stupidity. I can't think of a better gold plated figurehead to run this garbage scow of a country into the iceberg it deserves that a king clown like Trump.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 499272)

I believe the NYT had an analysis yesterday saying this.

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 499274)

You have no fucking idea how Trump will run the country. Nobody does. Because he says whatever he feels like regardless of whether it contradicts whatever he felt like saying yesterday. That was part of Oliver's point. Yeah, maybe he'll get into office and say that the Mexican wall thing was just a "metaphor" and that when he talked about banning Muslims, he really just meant preventing infiltration of the country by radical terrorists of all religions. But you don't know that and if you think you do, you're more full of shit than Trump is. And the reason the media keeps focusing on the wall IS BECAUSE TRUMP KEEPS FUCKING TALKING ABOUT THE WALL. And every time he does, his scary fucking xenophobic supporters scream their neanderthal heads off and create more racist t-shirts and buttons and signs. Yes he has some supporters who just like the fact that he is a gigantic mind fuck for the establishment Republican party. And as someone who believes the two-party system is hopelessly broken, I also got a visceral thrill in seeing this loud-mouthed moron turn everything upside down. But the thrill is over. You say the media focuses on the David Duke issue unfairly? Seriously? He gets asked what he thinks about David Duke and the KKK and you can actually see the gears in his head turning as he tried to figure out how he could dodge the question without alienating is strong white supremacist base. So he lied about not knowing who David Duke is and then later lied about having ear piece problems and not understanding the question. And everybody says he's a strong leader who is not afraid to speak his mind. What a bunch of fucking bullshit that is. But there is no point debating the issue because our pointless speculation about what Trump will or won't do in office, or what his true motivations are, or whether he is a liar or just demonized by the media does not matter. It's all too esoteric for Trump supporters. Which is why the idea of sitting and typing words like these into some cyberspace politics chatting forum is so laughably sad, so absurdly grim, that I would not engage in it even as a joke. Which is why I never ever visit this sorry little page. Ever.