Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 02, 2016, 05:44:25 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Election 2016 predictions are now open!.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 1085
1  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Is it possible we could get a Trump/Fiorina or Trump/Cruz ticket? on: Today at 05:27:48 am
But the delegates are still restricted by the fact that they'd have to pick someone who's willing to take the job.  I don't think the nomination counts if the person in question rejects it.  I doubt Cruz is even interested in running as the VP nominee if Trump asks him, let alone if it's being done against Trump's wishes.

Unless the VP nominee wants to go totally rogue, being nominated as VP still means that you have to spend ~3.5 months defending Donald Trump, and I don't think Cruz wants to do that.  Though as I said in another thread, I do think it would be funny if the delegates get so frustrated by Trump that they troll him by nominating a #NeverTrump VP candidate who refuses to endorse the top of the ticket.  Maybe Mitt Romney.  He could spend the fall going full-on Bulworth and talking about how people should not vote for the Republican ticket, because Trump isn't suited for the presidency.
2  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: If someone had shown you the current primary map in 2013... on: Today at 02:51:24 am
Here is a “Who will win the Republican nomination?” poll from April 2013:

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=172417.0

Rubio was first, followed by Christie, followed by Paul, followed by Bush.  No one picked Cruz, while Trump and Kasich weren’t listed.

Of course, “Who will win?” is different from “Who will win a bunch of states?”  Cruz coming in second place nationally wouldn’t have been too surprising back then, given that we’ve seen candidates like Santorum and Huckabee do well in past cycles.  OTOH, if we’re talking April or May 2013, that’s only a few months into Cruz’s first term as Senator.  It was really later in the year that he started making a big name for himself.  Though yes, even by the spring it looked like he might run for president, which is why I included him in that poll.

Nobody had any clue Bernie would run in 2013.

Ftr, the very first indication that Sanders gave about a ’16 run was in November 2013:

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=164982.msg3945881#msg3945881

Though back then, he said it was more likely than not that he would run 3rd party.
3  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Primary Election Polls / MOVED: For Republican and independent voters who lean right: Facing the Trump reality on: May 01, 2016, 07:09:11 pm
This topic has been moved to 2016 U.S. Presidential Election.

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=235774.0
4  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Both Cruz and Kasich have actual *records* that are of the extreme Right on: May 01, 2016, 07:03:42 pm
How is the candidate with right-wing extremist rhetoric scarier than the elected officials with actual right-wing extremist records? I'm genuinely curious as to the logic of many posters on this forum.

Easy.  Trump is not bound by any of the normal political conventions that would restrict his behavior.  To quote Ezra Klein on this:

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/10/10956978/donald-trump-terrifying

Quote
[Trump] has the reality television star's ability to operate entirely without shame, and that permits him to operate entirely without restraint. It is the single scariest facet of his personality. It is the one that allows him to go where others won't, to say what others can't, to do what others wouldn't.

Trump lives by the reality television trope that he's not here to make friends. But the reason reality television villains always say they're not there to make friends is because it sets them apart, makes them unpredictable and fun to watch. "I'm not here to make friends" is another way of saying, "I'm not bound by the social conventions of normal people." The rest of us are here to make friends, and it makes us boring, gentle, kind.

This, more than his ideology, is why Trump genuinely scares me. There are places where I think his instincts are an improvement on the Republican field. He seems more dovish than neoconservatives like Marco Rubio, and less dismissive of the social safety net than libertarians like Rand Paul. But those candidates are checked by institutions and incentives that hold no sway over Trump; his temperament is so immature, his narcissism so clear, his political base so unique, his reactions so strange, that I honestly have no idea what he would do — or what he wouldn't do.
5  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: GOP’s Stop-Trump fever breaks on: May 01, 2016, 08:56:24 am
I bet the "actual" #NeverTrump crowd isn't that big.

You mean among party elites or among “regular voters”?  There’s a decent-sized list of party elites who’ve said they’re not going to vote for Trump in the GE, which we’re tracking in this thread:

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=230807.0

Of course, they’re vastly outnumbered by those who’ve said they will vote for him, sure.  Though I do think that #NeverTrump will grow before it shrinks, as many congressional Republicans have declined to answer whether they’d vote for Trump in the GE or not, I’m assuming that while most of them will do so, at least *some* won’t.  Whether they later flip-flop and decide to back him anyway, I don’t know.

Among regular voters…I still think it’s hard to say.  For a major party nominee, Trump is unusually divisive within his own party.  Not just among elites, but among ordinary voters.  People talk about the PUMAs, but that was different.  Obama never had unfavorable numbers among Clinton supporters nearly as bad as Trump does now among Cruz and Kasich supporters.

I think many are currently underestimating how much the media is going to use the post-Trump wrapping up the nomination months to talk about all the divisions within the party.  We’ll have to see how much air time folks like Romney, Baker, Sasse, etc. get, and to what extent they’re interested in speaking up.  We’ll have to see how much elite resistance to voting for Trump in the GE trickles down to regular voters.  And we’ll have to see if any 3rd party materializes, or if there’s at least some kind of “Write in X” movement.  I think it’s too early to say.

Incidentally, Megan McArdle posted an interesting set of testimonials from #NeverTrump Republicans (ordinary voters, not party elites) a couple of months ago:

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-02-29/the-die-hard-republicans-who-say-nevertrump
6  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Atlas forum leaderboard on: May 01, 2016, 08:32:00 am
Since Antonio’s taking a break now, jfern has managed to catch back up to him and re-take 11th place:

1) BRTD 76,462
2) Al 59,980
3) Lewis 58,715
4) Keystone Phil 52,861
5) opebo 47,160
6) Eraserhead 41,378
7) Kalwejt 41,270
8 ) Lief 39,493
9) Xahar 39,192
10) Tender Branson 39,133

11) jfern 38,023
12) Antonio 38,022

Looks like Al will soon reach 60,000, while Tender will soon be catching Xahar for 9th place.
7  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Primary Election Polls / Re: IN-NBC/WSJ/Marist: D: Clinton 50% Sanders 46%; R: Trump 49% Cruz 34% Kasich 13% on: May 01, 2016, 08:11:14 am
More:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/NBC%20NewsWSJMarist.pdf
http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-holds-15-point-lead-ahead-of-republican-rivals-in-indiana-poll-1462107603

2nd choices:
Kasich 39%
Cruz 31%
Trump 18%

If you reallocate Kasich’s 2nd choices to create a hypothetical 2-man race, it’s:

Trump 53%
Cruz 42%
8  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Primary Election Polls / IN-NBC/WSJ/Marist: D: Clinton 50% Sanders 46%; R: Trump 49% Cruz 34% Kasich 13% on: May 01, 2016, 08:04:35 am
NBC/WSJ/Marist poll of Indiana:

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/donald-trump-leads-cruz-15-points-crucial-indiana-race-n565356


9  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: #NeverTrump GOP endorsements (Sasse, Rigel, Whitman, Romney, Baker, Beck, Kristol...) on: May 01, 2016, 07:39:40 am
Some more #NeverTrump endorsements from weeks/months past that we missed:

Former Rep. Ron Paul (TX):

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/274811-ron-paul-i-will-not-vote-for-trump

Former PA Gov. and Sec. of Homeland Security Tom Ridge:

http://www.msnbc.com/mtp-daily/watch/ridge--not-a-chance-ill-support-trump-if-hes-gop-nominee-582361667654

Rep. Richard Hanna (NY):

link

Former Rep. Bob Inglis (SC):

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/04/heres-the-conundrum-for-the-never-trump-movement.html
(if I’m interpreting that right)

Former Rep. J.C. Watts (OK):

http://fortune.com/2016/03/01/republicans-oppose-trump/
10  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Vice Presidential denials thread UPDATE:Lots of people don't want to be Trump VP on: May 01, 2016, 07:11:31 am
So, to summarize the NYT story:

Not interested in being Trump’s running mate, either based on their own public comments or their comments to advisors:
Flake
Graham
Haley
Kasich
Martinez
Rubio
Walker

The New York Times said he was “circumspect” about it, yet he’s previously ruled it out:
Joe Scarborough

Have indicated that they’d consider it:
Carson (which means that he’s flip-flopped on this question a second time)
Christie
Fallin
Gingrich
Sessions (has gone as far as saying that if Trump asked him to participate in the vetting process, he’d agree to do so)

Really tried to dodge the question, but apparently wouldn’t rule it out:
Tim Scott
11  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Former Speaker Dennis Hastert sentenced to 15 months in prison on: May 01, 2016, 05:56:53 am
This is like putting a murderor away for tax evasion.


The only Republican Speaker to leave office without resigning in disgrace in the last 60 years....

Technically, he did resign in disgrace. Just several months after stepping down as Republican Leader.

Oh, I forgot about that. I had thought he didn't seek re-election. That's what Senate Majority Leader Frist did in 2006.

Yeah, Hastert stepped down as Republican leader in the House when the Republicans lost their majority in '06.  This followed a few months of calls for Hastert to resign over his involvement in the Mark Foley scandal.
12  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Al Franken, Anderson Cooper, Chuck Todd, Michael Steele to be on Jeopardy on: May 01, 2016, 05:13:31 am
Would winning this boost Franken's chances of becoming Clinton's running mate?
13  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016 on: May 01, 2016, 01:56:35 am
Trump won't have a majority of delegates who are actually loyal to him.  But that doesn't mean they're going to go nuclear and deny him the nomination.  The question is, do they still give him trouble on the VP nomination and/or the running of the convention?  Can the delegates actually seize control of the convention, and overrule Trump's choices as to who gets to speak, when, about what, etc.?

Also, if we suppose that a majority of delegates are anti-Trump (but will still nominate him for prez because of being bound by the primary results), are there other things they can do at the convention that will impact how the RNC operates during the fall campaign?  For example, can they force the party to direct money to help congressional candidates and avoid the presidential race, throw up roadblocks on data sharing between the RNC and the Trump campaign and so forth?  Or is that something that's really just decided by Priebus and a handful of people around him, which the delegates to the convention have no control over?
14  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: GOP’s Stop-Trump fever breaks on: April 30, 2016, 11:11:36 pm
The #NeverTrump crowd has to ask themselves this: If Trump is the Republican nominee, are they willing to go all the way to vote against him.

That's the definition of #NeverTrump, yes.  As distinct from the people who have been trying to stop Trump from getting the nomination, but have never ruled out voting for him in the general election.

AFAIK, no one prominent who's actually #NeverTrump (that is, who's been saying that they'll vote against Trump in the GE) has yet doubled back on that commitment and said that they're willing to vote for Trump in the GE after all.


Rubio issued several "#NeverTrump" tweets during his campaign at one point, and is now saying he'll probably support Trump in the general.

EDIT: Here's one:
https://mobile.twitter.com/marcorubio/status/703583966973075457

He used a #NeverTrump hashtag without actually knowing what it meant.  When he was asked about it very soon afterward, he said that he thought #NeverTrump just meant that he would never vote for him in the primary:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3kUlpyBwZc

The actual #NeverTrump people, those who said they'd never vote for Trump in the GE like Romney, Baker, Whitman, Sasse, and a bunch of conservative media personalities like many of those at National Review....I'm unaware of a single one of them going back on their earlier statements and now saying that they'll vote for Trump in the GE.  Some of them probably will, sure, but for now #NeverTrump is intact.


I bet the "actual" #NeverTrump crowd isn't that big.

The rest are a bunch of phonies.

No we're not.  We are just saying that he would be a terrible and completely unacceptable choice to be the de facto leader of conservatism, but that he would still be miles better than Hillary.

Never definitely implies never. It should have been #NotTrump or something. Of course Hillary is a gift to the Republican party for unity.

Again, #NeverTrump as used by most people using the hashtag really means never.  There are some interlopers like Rubio, who used the hashtag when they didn't understand what it meant.  But the original intention of the hashtag was "I'm not voting for Trump even in the general election".
15  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: GOP’s Stop-Trump fever breaks on: April 30, 2016, 10:23:37 pm
The #NeverTrump crowd has to ask themselves this: If Trump is the Republican nominee, are they willing to go all the way to vote against him.

That's the definition of #NeverTrump, yes.  As distinct from the people who have been trying to stop Trump from getting the nomination, but have never ruled out voting for him in the general election.

AFAIK, no one prominent who's actually #NeverTrump (that is, who's been saying that they'll vote against Trump in the GE) has yet doubled back on that commitment and said that they're willing to vote for Trump in the GE after all.


Rubio issued several "#NeverTrump" tweets during his campaign at one point, and is now saying he'll probably support Trump in the general.

EDIT: Here's one:
https://mobile.twitter.com/marcorubio/status/703583966973075457

He used a #NeverTrump hashtag without actually knowing what it meant.  When he was asked about it very soon afterward, he said that he thought #NeverTrump just meant that he would never vote for him in the primary:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3kUlpyBwZc

The actual #NeverTrump people, those who said they'd never vote for Trump in the GE like Romney, Baker, Whitman, Sasse, and a bunch of conservative media personalities like many of those at National Review....I'm unaware of a single one of them going back on their earlier statements and now saying that they'll vote for Trump in the GE.  Some of them probably will, sure, but for now #NeverTrump is intact.
16  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: GOP’s Stop-Trump fever breaks on: April 30, 2016, 09:53:12 pm
The #NeverTrump crowd has to ask themselves this: If Trump is the Republican nominee, are they willing to go all the way to vote against him.

That's the definition of #NeverTrump, yes.  As distinct from the people who have been trying to stop Trump from getting the nomination, but have never ruled out voting for him in the general election.

AFAIK, no one prominent who's actually #NeverTrump (that is, who's been saying that they'll vote against Trump in the GE) has yet doubled back on that commitment and said that they're willing to vote for Trump in the GE after all.
17  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: GOP Contested Convention ballots on: April 30, 2016, 08:19:20 pm
If it looks like Trump will get enough unpledged delegates to win on the first ballot, it's an open convention. If there's a high probability of multiple ballots, it's a contested convention. At least, that's how I define/discern the two terms.

Wouldn't the 2008 Dem convention be an "open convention" by that standard, since Obama didn't have the numbers to win the nomination from pledged delegates alone?  He needed the super delegates in order to put him over the top.
18  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016 on: April 30, 2016, 06:58:25 pm
It continues to amaze me that Trump pulled off 3/4ths of the PA unpledged delegates.  He's still getting creamed in that type of contest everywhere else.

I'm not sure what you mean by "that type of contest".  The PA unpledged delegates were directly elected by the voters, whereas all of these other events involve selection by "party insiders".  Seems pretty clear why Trump did better in the former than the latter.


Well, they weren't even identified on the ballot by whom they supported, which should favor well-organized insiders.

Only in the sense that you need to be well organized enough to get this information about who to support to your voters.  In the other delegate contests, it doesn't matter if you give people the information or not.  The people doing the voting at these state conventions are anti-Trump.  That's why they aren't voting for Trump delegates.  Not because they don't have the right info about who is and isn't a Trump delegate.
19  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: GOP Contested Convention ballots on: April 30, 2016, 06:53:59 pm
The most plausible contested convention scenario right now is that Trump goes in with 1200-1210 and the PA unpledged put him over the top.

I would assume that if Trump is over 1200 on pledged delegates alone, enough of the unpledged delegates will have already publicly promised to vote for Trump well before the convention begins that Trump's victory on the first ballot will be known well before the convention takes place.  So would that really count as a contested convention?
20  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016 on: April 30, 2016, 06:43:43 pm
It continues to amaze me that Trump pulled off 3/4ths of the PA unpledged delegates.  He's still getting creamed in that type of contest everywhere else.

I'm not sure what you mean by "that type of contest".  The PA unpledged delegates were directly elected by the voters, whereas all of these other events involve selection by "party insiders".  Seems pretty clear why Trump did better in the former than the latter.
21  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump Sees Little Need to Unite the GOP Behind His Candidacy on: April 30, 2016, 06:39:42 pm
"I’m a conservative, but at this point, who cares?"

The quote of the election, right there.  Tongue
22  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Primary Election Polls / Re: IBD/TIPP National Poll: Trump up 19, Clinton up 6 on: April 30, 2016, 05:51:37 pm
Northeast
Trump 45
Kasich 24
Cruz 22

Midwest
Trump 45
Cruz 27
Kasich 16

South
Trump 51
Cruz 31
Kasich 12

West
Trump 44
Cruz 30
Kasich 20

high school education or less
Trump 66
Cruz 25
Kasich 8

college graduate
Trump 41
Cruz 27
Kasich 23

12 of Republican primary voters in the poll were black, and:
5 support Trump
3 support Cruz
2 support Kasich
The other two support NOTA.

20 of Republican primary voters in the poll were Hispanic, and:
7 support Cruz
5 support Trump
5 support Hispanics
The other three support NOTA.

2nd choices:
Kasich 29%
Cruz 28%
Trump 17%


Uhhh...what? Do you mean Kasich?

Ha ha, yes.  Fixed.
23  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: Winter is Coming (GoT is back) on: April 30, 2016, 09:22:12 am
- Castle Black: Thorne and co. break down the door, Edd and the Wildlings arrive and kill the mutineers.  Thorne gets killed in a boss battle with Tormund and Ghost turns Olly into a Kid's Meal.  The episode ends with Jon being resurrected somehow (maybe Melisandre kills herself in a "only death can pay for life" type thing).  If this happens, the last shot will be Jon's eyes opening...and then Castle Black probably won't be in episode three at all (a good way to build suspense and HBO seems to enjoy that sort of weapons grade trolling).  As with the Pyke prediction, I'm not as confident about Jon coming back b/c there may not be room in the episode.

Kill the mutineers?  Don't the mutineers consist of all but about 5 Nightswatchmen?  So will the NW be completely done once this battle is over?  Castle Black will then be occupied by....the 5 or so NW left, plus a bunch of Wildlings?

Quote
- Brienne tells Sansa that Arya is alive, but she couldn't find her after the fight with the Hound.  Sansa gives Brienne a new mission: Go back to the Riverlands, find Arya, and bring her back to a safe part of the North.

Wait, you mean send Brienne away right now?  Wouldn't she want to keep Brienne around until she (Sansa) is somewhere a bit safer?  Also, wouldn't she think that Arya was in the Vale rather than the Riverlands?  The Brienne vs. Hound fight was in the Vale, right?

I haven't read the books, but I understand that San/San is kind of a thing in the books.  Do you think Sansa will have any reaction to the fact that Brienne (apparently) killed the Hound?
24  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump foreign policy speech.......... on: April 30, 2016, 08:51:57 am
Peter Beinart had an interesting take on it:

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/04/donald-trump-foreign-policy-republican/480324/

Quote
Trump, by contrast, assesses regimes based on whether they’re taking advantage of America. And in his view, they pretty much all are (Israel excepted). Some are taking advantage by building, or trying to build, nuclear weapons (North Korea, Iran), some are taking advantage by sending America their “rapist” immigrants (Mexico), some are taking advantage by stealing American jobs (China), and some are taking advantage by making America pay for their defense (most of Europe). Because Trump focuses as much on economic threats as on military ones, he doesn’t divide the world morally the way standard Republicans do. In his speech, he didn’t utter the words “freedom,” “liberty,” or “tyranny.” (In his big 2011 foreign policy speech at the Citadel, by contrast, Romney used variations of those words 20 times.) Trump’s one reference to a “dictator” came when he scolded the United States for overthrowing one in Libya. The only time he praised “democracy” was when he praised Israel. Every other time he mentioned “democracy,” he chastised American leaders for promoting it in the Middle East.

According to Trump, democracies don’t behave much differently from dictatorships. Governments, regardless of type, are like businesses: They pursue their self-interest. And America’s government has been doing a lousy job of pursuing its own.

Conventional Republicans say they’ll vanquish America’s adversaries by using, or threatening to use, military force. If America arms rebels in Ukraine and Syria, threatens to bomb Iran, intensifies the war against ISIS, and warns China against regional expansion while expanding military deployments in East Asia—America’s enemies will knuckle under.

Trump’s threat is different: Either other countries treat America more fairly, or the United States will take its marbles and go home. If Western Europe and Japan won’t pay more for their own defense, “the U.S. must be prepared to let these countries defend themselves.” If America can’t “make a deal” to cooperate with Russia in the Middle East, “then we will quickly walk from the table.” If China won’t reduce its trade surplus, “we can both go our separate ways.”
25  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Atlas forum leaderboard on: April 30, 2016, 08:43:44 am
Oh. Yay, I guess.

I guess it's time we take another leave, right Tony?

Please keep posting. I want to get knocked off of this list ASAP.

Kal will presumably knock you down to 7th place in the very near future.  But to drop out of the top 10 completely....even if you stopped posting completely right now, it would probably take about a year for enough people to catch up to you.  Of course, you can always delete some of your old posts to speed up the process.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 1085


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines