Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 06, 2016, 12:55:51 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Be sure to enable your "Ultimate Profile" for even more goodies on your profile page!

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 64 65 66 67 68 [69] 70 71 72 73 74 ... 359
1701  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of the Republican Party? on: March 31, 2016, 11:45:58 pm
Has some big problems that need sorting out, but still on the whole a very literal Freedom Party.
1702  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: 2024 General Election: A Fractured America on: March 31, 2016, 11:44:39 pm
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen is a Cuban immigrant and not eligible for the Presidency. Which is a shame, because she would be fantastic. Voted for her in the poll.
1703  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: 1994 DC Mayoral Election on: March 31, 2016, 11:43:10 pm
The sort of people who voted for Berry are rather lacking on this forum.
1704  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Cruz will be the nominee. Prove me wrong. on: March 31, 2016, 11:35:28 pm
Trump has the option to win Michigan and Pennsylvania.
False. In a Trump vs. Hillary election, best care scenario for Trump is that swing states are Missouri, Arizona, Indiana and Georgia. Everything that Obama won in 2012 is gone, plus North Carolina.

Based on what? I mean, I know you don't like Trump, but it's not like he's gonna lose Kansas or Missouri. Let's be real.

trump is going to depress turnout in heavily-religious ancestrally-Republican southwest Missouri a great deal. It may not be enough for him to lose the state, but it would be very hotly contested between him and Hillary. (He'll have lost anyway and Hillary will just be trying to run up the score at that point, of course).
1705  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Cruz vs. Clinton: Early battleground map? on: March 31, 2016, 11:28:21 pm
Whatever the map looks like for Trump. Cruz is just as unelectable, just in different ways.

Not true at all. trump guarantees to the Democrats every Obama '12 state, and endangers everything that was single digits in 2012, along with IN/UT/MO/Dakotas. I would say Clinton v. trump begins at Clinton 332-trump 127. Cruz would start off behind Clinton, but he's by no means unelectable.
1706  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: So those people who thought Trump was a strategic political genius? on: March 31, 2016, 11:23:17 pm
Those people were always a few screws short of a hardware store.
1707  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Cruz will be the nominee. Prove me wrong. on: March 31, 2016, 11:21:58 pm
Whats the point?  Cruz will get crushed in tge general anyway under any of those senerios.    Trump will essentially campaign against the gop thus helping Hillary prob run some sort of 3rd party campaign .     Cruz will be served up as a sacrificial lamb. Funny thing is hes so stupid not to see it coming.

BTW Trump supporters are more likely to vote for Hillary than Cruzs small far right base.  The Gop is walking into a trap if Ted Cruz wins by some sort of convention trick.

Well, the point is that, while he is still unlikely to win, Cruz does seem likely to do several percentage points better than trump, which would probably be enough to keep the Senate, keep Scalia's SCOTUS seat vacant, and try to do this all right 4 years from now. You gotta work with the cards you're dealt. We can't go back in time, put a muzzle on Chris Christie (like a dog!), and give Rubio the nomination. Doesn't work that way.

In terms of the original post, I agree with your 80-90% that trump won't get 1237 through the voting, but he does have one final card left to play, which is that some of the territorial/Pennsylvanian uncommitted delegates will be sympathetic to him, and we don't know how many. That'll give him a final delegate boost. I don't know if it'll be enough to take him over 1237 on the first ballot (I personally doubt it), but I would say the odds right now are more 60-70% range than 80-90%.

Also, whoever talked about Montana: judging by Idahoan results trump does probably have an outside shot here (though Cruz is still favored, even in the three-way). He'd be doomed in a two-way race, so hopefully Cruz's effort to get Kasich off the ballot there will both be successful and not get too much bad blood between them.

Agreed.  I like Trump and support his ideas, but part of me wants him to lose the nomination.  Give it to Cruz, he'll likely do better in the general, and then someone with views similar to Trump (but makes fewer gaffes and is more moderate) can run and beat Hillary in 2020.  My fear is that Trump could deliver the House to the Dems, whereas Cruz can probably keep both houses GOP.

I agree that Cruz is the obviously better strategic bet between the two.  But the more I think about it, the senate situation isn't as obvious as it seems.  If Trump gets wiped out 58/40, then all is truly lost.  But think about where the vulnerable GOP seats are: WI/IL/NH/FL/PA/OH/NC.  If Trump does get some sense and shift to the center, he's likely to overperform in all of those states except Florida.  Cruz, on the other hand, is likely to lag behind Generic R in most of these places.  Someone like Ayotte or Toomey may legitimately be better off with Trump on the ballot than with Cruz.

Oh, and if senate Republicans actually hold a SCOTUS seat open for 5 years, they can be sure that the next Democratic government will just add seats to the court until they control it.

The problem with this (beyond the obvious that there's zero indication trump intends to or will ever shift to the center) is the amount of attention that trump's primary campaign has gotten. He's going to find it very difficult to pivot on anything because his core, extreme positions are very widely known (at his rallies, he asks his crowd questions about his positions and they reply in one voice because everyone knows what his positions are).

Cruz is a much cleaner slate in this sense. Even if, considering his personality, it's doubtful Cruz would pivot to the center either, if he tried it would work better for him than for trump because while people know "Cruz is an extremist who the establishment hates", few people outside of junkies like us could tell you why he's so extremist. But this is academic because Cruz doesn't do pivoting.
1708  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Cruz will be the nominee. Prove me wrong. on: March 31, 2016, 10:48:08 pm
Whats the point?  Cruz will get crushed in tge general anyway under any of those senerios.    Trump will essentially campaign against the gop thus helping Hillary prob run some sort of 3rd party campaign .     Cruz will be served up as a sacrificial lamb. Funny thing is hes so stupid not to see it coming.

BTW Trump supporters are more likely to vote for Hillary than Cruzs small far right base.  The Gop is walking into a trap if Ted Cruz wins by some sort of convention trick.

Well, the point is that, while he is still unlikely to win, Cruz does seem likely to do several percentage points better than trump, which would probably be enough to keep the Senate, keep Scalia's SCOTUS seat vacant, and try to do this all right 4 years from now. You gotta work with the cards you're dealt. We can't go back in time, put a muzzle on Chris Christie (like a dog!), and give Rubio the nomination. Doesn't work that way.

In terms of the original post, I agree with your 80-90% that trump won't get 1237 through the voting, but he does have one final card left to play, which is that some of the territorial/Pennsylvanian uncommitted delegates will be sympathetic to him, and we don't know how many. That'll give him a final delegate boost. I don't know if it'll be enough to take him over 1237 on the first ballot (I personally doubt it), but I would say the odds right now are more 60-70% range than 80-90%.

Also, whoever talked about Montana: judging by Idahoan results trump does probably have an outside shot here (though Cruz is still favored, even in the three-way). He'd be doomed in a two-way race, so hopefully Cruz's effort to get Kasich off the ballot there will both be successful and not get too much bad blood between them.
1709  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Cruz vs. Clinton: Early battleground map? on: March 31, 2016, 10:41:38 pm
Ignoring whatever the  you have going on in NH (which is Leans D, for the record), I would move AZ, NM, PA, VA, and FL one category to the right, whereas NV, WI, and ME-2 can move one category to the left. Too lazy to tinker with all the percentages on the EC Calculator, but I basically think you're just a couple of notches underestimating Cruz while still being pretty much correct. (In summary, I would say we start as Clinton 256-Cruz 235, not Clinton 269-Cruz 206).
1710  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Primary Election Polls / Re: WI - Marquette University: Sanders up 4, Cruz up 10 on: March 31, 2016, 08:07:15 pm
Seriously?, you seem pretty young, but you do understand that Dole and McCain were both very prominent opponents of the "Bush wing" of the party, right? The TP/establishment divide is a product of the Obama era that was not visible prior to ~2009, and trumpist personal movement dates all the way back to 2015.
McCain ran against Bush, however, he was never a true credentialed conservative. So if you want to claim he was an opponent of the Bush wing, I'll accept your premise only to that narrow point in 2000. By the time he ran in 2008, McCain was NOT a conservative by any means. In fact, Palin was put on the ticket to balance out his "maverick" record a/k/a liberalism.

Seriously?, the key divide in 2000 was that Bush was seen as a conservative, whereas McCain explicitly ran as a moderate. McCain ran as a moderate a second time in 2008, when the vote to his right was divided by Huckabee and Romney until it was far too late to stop McCain. It should be noted, however, that the conservative/moderate divide that existed prior to the TP/establishment divide was much less fractious than the current divide that exists -- nominees generally didn't have significant issues getting the other side to back them.

As far as Dole goes. He's also not a conservative in the mold of Reagan. He was Ford's running mate in 1976 (anti-Reagan) and at the time of his run against Clinton in 1996 was as establishment as you can get as the Senate Majority Leader. While he may have been good at building consensus between the conservative and moderate wings of the party, Dole never had a conservative voting record.

As far as Dole goes, he was chosen as VP nominee by Ford in order to placate the conservative wing, much as Palin was chosen in 2008 (although he ended up having more lasting power than Palin). Dole also ran against Bush in 1988 from the right. It's important to keep in mind when you talk about the Bush wing that the older Bush was generally associated with the moderate wing of the Republican Party, whereas the younger Bush was usually associated with the conservative wing.

"Establishment" in 1996 was not the same thing as "establishment" in 2016. The key divide in 1996 was within the establishment (moderate vs. conservative, and while anti-establishment candidates were already running (as early as 1988, with Pat Robertson; in 1996, you had Pat Buchanan and Steve Forbes), they generally didn't get anywhere because anti-establishment sentiment was not widespread in the party at that time, and it didn't become widespread until after Obama's election in 2008.

The fact of the matter remains that in this cycle, the establishment/Bush wing of the party has been rejected by the voters. If a contested convention happens and someone from the establishment wing like Paul Ryan -- or even worse -- Mitt Romney ends up being the nominee, the party will be destroyed from within.

I think it's very clear that a contested convention is going to nominate Ted Cruz and that very likely no one will get drafted. Even if someone does get drafted (if Kasich is kept off the Ballot through use of Rule Forty, his adherents abstain en masse, and there aren't enough defectors from trump to give Cruz the nomination, we'd see attempts at drafting someone), that person will only approach the nomination if they manage to get Cruz's support or trump's, for the simple reason that Cruz loyalist delegates + trump loyalist delegates are going to be an overwhelming majority of the convention.
1711  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Presidential candidates net favorability rating by month on: March 31, 2016, 07:53:52 pm
Good to see Cruz's number follow Trump's.

What? trump is at -32 with the general electorate while Cruz is at -19. I'm not going to pretend -19 is a remotely good score, but it's a helluva lot better than -32 (and it's comparable with Hillary's score of -15, while trump is more than twice as disliked).
1712  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump breaking loyalty pledge could lose him delegates on: March 31, 2016, 05:28:08 pm
...much as I want to cheer this on, it would look bad if 50 delegates he legitimately democratically won were taken away from him like this. Accepting and not trying to overturn or annul election results, even those you dislike, is part of the election system. The way to stop trump is to prevent him from reaching 1237 with remaining states, and then consolidating the #Nevertrump majority at the convention.
1713  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: More qualified to be VP: Palin in '08 or Castro now? on: March 31, 2016, 05:25:37 pm
Let's not forget that Dan Quayle had been in Congress for 12 years.

The word used in the thread title is "qualified". However bad of a speaker/possibly simply stupid he was, you can't deny that Quayle had the necessary qualifications.
1714  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Anyone else preparing for the *possible* riots that may occur at the RNC/DNC? on: March 31, 2016, 05:24:26 pm
Considering I'll be living in Cleveland this summer and hope to attend the RNC, maybe I should do something to prepare.
1715  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: latest Betfair odds on: March 31, 2016, 05:21:52 pm
Trump's crash in betting markets looks like a big overreaction to me.  Somebody play devil's advocate and convince me that I'm wrong.

He doesn't have much of a chance if there are multiple ballots, and it is increasingly likely that he will fail to meet the majority threshold on the first ballot.

Because people actually care about the abortion comments, because Cruz is surging in Wisconsin, or simply because he already peaked and is coming back down to earth?

The latter two, I think.
1716  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Primary Election Polls / Re: WI - Marquette University: Sanders up 4, Cruz up 10 on: March 31, 2016, 05:16:19 pm
Seriously?, you seem pretty young, but you do understand that Dole and McCain were both very prominent opponents of the "Bush wing" of the party, right? The TP/establishment divide is a product of the Obama era that was not visible prior to ~2009, and trumpist personal movement dates all the way back to 2015.
1717  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: More qualified to be VP: Palin in '08 or Castro now? on: March 31, 2016, 05:05:41 pm
Castro. Mayoring a large city is pretty similar experience to being Governor (yes, generalization, mayors in different cities have different powers, etc., etc., I know the comparison is imperfect) and VPs have been picked on the basis of Cabinet experience before (though this is more commonly a Republican thing; Cheney/Kemp/Bush Sr. all were picked in large part thanks to their experiences in the Cabinet). 5 years large-city Mayor + 2 years Cabinet > 2 years Governor.

McCain really messed up when he didn't pick Pawlenty. That guy ticked every box McCain needed him to tick.
1718  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: latest Betfair odds on: March 31, 2016, 02:40:09 pm
The chance of someone being drafted at the Convention is generally overstated, because I think there's no way trump loyalist delegates+Cruz loyalist delegates aren't a majority, and neither group will ever acquiesce to a draftee. They'd rather have the whole thing go to Ballot 40. The remainder of delegates will most likely be Kasichian/Rubian/establishmentarian uncommitted types, and will be much more sympathetic to Cruz than trump. They may hold out to get something out of Cruz (a change to the party platform, a VP choice they approve of), but they're not going to back trump and they won't have the strength to advance their own candidate to the nomination. Again, unless trump is very close (and how "very" is necessary is unclear but depends in large part on the result in PA; if he wins strongly there the uncommitted delegates there may feel pressured to vote for him; if Kasich wins there outright trump will get very few uncommitted) it's very difficult to see the Convention not nominating Cruz.
1719  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Sabato Crystal Ball Megathread on: March 31, 2016, 02:07:05 pm
Where does the "trump is more electable than Cruz" meme even come from? The reason Cruz has been improving in general election polling is that he's pursuing a strategy of constantly being compared to trump so people can see how preferable he is.
1720  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: How would you vote in the 2016 Republican Primary - by Ideology. on: March 30, 2016, 10:55:02 pm
Voted Cruz -- Libertarian, though whether my ideology is Libertarian or Conservative is really a question of where the border between the two mindsets is, and while I support Cruz my actual vote was for John Kasich.
1721  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Are you Prochoice? on: March 30, 2016, 10:19:43 pm
Yes (R )
1722  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Who would you rather have as a roommate? on: March 30, 2016, 09:50:50 pm
My roommate last semester was a Bernie supporter, it was fine. Bernie.
1723  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 Senatorial Election Polls / Re: WI-Marquette: Feingold +3 on: March 30, 2016, 01:56:42 pm
Can we get Reid Ribble to challenge Johnson? He seems like a competent politician and a sane, honorable fellow.  

If Johnson loses in a Republican primary, this seat is 98% gone for Republicans.  

Why? This poll is skewed because of the primary voter screen (and even then, Johnson loses), but pretty much all other polls have shown that Johnson is weaker than Generic R. How is it more gone if we replace him than not?
1724  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Who's more likely to win their party's nomination? on: March 30, 2016, 01:54:22 pm
The answer depends on whether you consider 2016 or ever. In 2016, clearly Sanders. Ever, clearly Kasich, who is much younger and could conceivably still run a successful presidential campaign in 2020 or 2024 or something. Didn't vote.
1725  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Have we passed Peak Trump? on: March 30, 2016, 01:44:49 pm
I keep trying to envision either Cruz or Kasich winning the CA primary, and I just can't see either happening.

Well, it seems pretty clear that unless something really radically changes it's going to be a battle between Cruz and trump, with Cruz favored. So you can wait till June and envisioning won't be necessary.
Pages: 1 ... 64 65 66 67 68 [69] 70 71 72 73 74 ... 359


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines