Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Woo-hoo!

Allllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll aboard the Trump Train!

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFRy4f73HTg[/youtube]

The juggernaut rolls on!

houndawg wrote:The juggernaut rolls on!

Trump's got him some soul.

Cluck U wrote:Woo-hoo!

Allllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll aboard the Trump Train!

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFRy4f73HTg[/youtube]

Lookit all those 'fros!

People actually show up to vote Republican when there's one person left on the ballot?

A majority of republicans didn't vote for Trump, right JSO?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pwns wrote:People actually show up to vote Republican when there's one person left on the ballot?

Is this supposed to be momentous? How many votes did Cruz and Kasich get?

Ibanez wrote:A majority of republicans didn't vote for Trump, right JSO?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That will probably still be the case even though he's been running unopposed for some time now. As of now he's at 41.6 percent of the popular vote cumulatively in the Republican primaries. that means 58.4 percent have voted for somebody else.

I won't even look up whether or not it's possible that he could get to 50% with big "wins" in New Jersey and California. But my initial thought is it's not likely.

In any case, it is clear that most Republican primary voters were voting for somebody else as long as there was somebody else running to vote for.

Cluck,

We went all in for Bernie and Trump! Washington is a badass state!

JohnStOnge wrote:

Ibanez wrote:A majority of republicans didn't vote for Trump, right JSO?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That will probably still be the case even though he's been running unopposed for some time now. As of now he's at 41.6 percent of the popular vote cumulatively in the Republican primaries. that means 58.4 percent have voted for somebody else.

I won't even look up whether or not it's possible that he could get to 50% with big "wins" in New Jersey and California. But my initial thought is it's not likely.

In any case, it is clear that most Republican primary voters were voting for somebody else as long as there was somebody else running to vote for.

In any case its clear that Trump wasn't getting the majority of the vote only when there was a large field of candidates.
Its clear most Republican primary voters were voting for Trump when there weren't more than 2 other candidates to vote for.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Ibanez wrote:A majority of republicans didn't vote for Trump, right JSO?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That will probably still be the case even though he's been running unopposed for some time now. As of now he's at 41.6 percent of the popular vote cumulatively in the Republican primaries. that means 58.4 percent have voted for somebody else.

I won't even look up whether or not it's possible that he could get to 50% with big "wins" in New Jersey and California. But my initial thought is it's not likely.

In any case, it is clear that most Republican primary voters were voting for somebody else as long as there was somebody else running to vote for.

In any case its clear that Trump wasn't getting the majority of the vote ONLY when there was a large field of candidates. If you're going to include the percentage of the vote he got when he was facing a double digit # of candidates (started with 17) then you have to include the percentage of the vote he gets when unopposed. In a plurality of the state primaries he faced between 16 and 4 candidates. .

Its clear most Republican primary voters were voting for Trump when there weren't more than 2 other candidates to vote for.

kalm wrote:Cluck,

We went all in for Bernie and Trump! Washington is a badass state!

Your primary doesn't have a thing to do with how your delegates cast their votes does it? I mean, WA is an absolute exercise in futility as a voter in a primary there correct?

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:

kalm wrote:Cluck,

We went all in for Bernie and Trump! Washington is a badass state!

Your primary doesn't have a thing to do with how your delegates cast their votes does it? I mean, WA is an absolute exercise in futility as a voter in a primary there correct?

From my understanding, yes.

Found it. Here is what I saw kalm.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_S2G8jhhUHg[/youtube]

kalm wrote:Cluck,

We went all in for Bernie and Trump! Washington is a badass state!

Hillary won your primary.

Again, BDK, the large field benefited Trump early on. At least through the point where Rubio dropped out. Polls consistently showed that he benefitted from the "anti Trump" vote splitting among several candidates.

This thing of acting like having a large field of candidates at the start hampered him is nonsense. It helped him a lot. If it had been just him and Cruz one on one from the start, for example, he'd have lost. Or at the very least he would've been double digits behind in the popular vote and well down in the delegate count going into the week of the Florida primary. Would not have had the momentum he had at that point.

Having a bunch of candidates in the race when the primaries were going on in the South was huge for him.

JohnStOnge wrote:Again, BDK, the large field benefited Trump early on. At least through the point where Rubio dropped out. Polls consistently showed that he benefitted from the "anti Trump" vote splitting among several candidates.

This thing of acting like having a large field of candidates at the start hampered him is nonsense. It helped him a lot. If it had been just him and Cruz one on one from the start, for example, he'd have lost. Or at the very least he would've been double digits behind in the popular vote and well down in the delegate count going into the week of the Florida primary. Would not have had the momentum he had at that point.

Having a bunch of candidates in the race when the primaries were going on in the South was huge for him.

It did prevent him from getting close to 50% of the vote in, which is what you keep harping on. When you have a double digit # of candidates that stay in for that long, heck even only 5-6 or more, likely NO ONE gets 50% of the vote as long as that many candidates remain.

Heck, if the donks had started out with 17 candidates, and still had 5 after 25+ states, and 4 after 30+ states, then Lying Hillary wouldn't be over 40 something % either..

JohnStOnge wrote:Again, BDK, the large field benefited Trump early on. At least through the point where Rubio dropped out. Polls consistently showed that he benefitted from the "anti Trump" vote splitting among several candidates.

This thing of acting like having a large field of candidates at the start hampered him is nonsense. It helped him a lot. If it had been just him and Cruz one on one from the start, for example, he'd have lost. Or at the very least he would've been double digits behind in the popular vote and well down in the delegate count going into the week of the Florida primary. Would not have had the momentum he had at that point.

Having a bunch of candidates in the race when the primaries were going on in the South was huge for him.

Cruz is an outwardly visible slimy piece of shit that was the most repugnant mother fucker out there and if it had been only he and Trump he would have been trounced. You can pretend all you want.

BD, when the 2000 Republican Primary started there were 13 candidates. No, that's not quite as many as this time. But it's a lot. George W. Bush ended up with 62% of the primary popular vote.

Look, there's no question that Trump generated turnout. But a lot of that turnout was turning out people who thought it important to vote for someone else.

Trump got a lot of votes. I still don't know where the thing about him having the most ever comes from because as far as I can tell, at this point, he's gotten 11,677,003 votes while George W. Bush got 12,034,676 in 2000. Either way he's gotten a lot of votes by Republican primary historical standards. But there have been about 13.7 million votes for other people vs. about 7.4 million who vote for people other than Bush in 2000.

It's pretty clear that he inspired a LOT of people to go out and vote for someone else because they didn't want HIM.

JohnStOnge wrote:BD, when the 2000 Republican Primary started there were 13 candidates. No, that's not quite as many as this time. But it's a lot. George W. Bush ended up with 62% of the primary popular vote.

Look, there's no question that Trump generated turnout. But a lot of that turnout was turning out people who thought it important to vote for someone else.

Trump got a lot of votes. I still don't know where the thing about him having the most ever comes from because as far as I can tell, at this point, he's gotten 11,677,003 votes while George W. Bush got 12,034,676 in 2000. Either way he's gotten a lot of votes by Republican primary historical standards. But there have been about 13.7 million votes for other people vs. about 7.4 million who vote for people other than Bush in 2000.

It's pretty clear that he inspired a LOT of people to go out and vote for someone else because they didn't want HIM.

The field was whittled much quicker back then...

BDKJMU wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:BD, when the 2000 Republican Primary started there were 13 candidates. No, that's not quite as many as this time. But it's a lot. George W. Bush ended up with 62% of the primary popular vote.

Look, there's no question that Trump generated turnout. But a lot of that turnout was turning out people who thought it important to vote for someone else.

Trump got a lot of votes. I still don't know where the thing about him having the most ever comes from because as far as I can tell, at this point, he's gotten 11,677,003 votes while George W. Bush got 12,034,676 in 2000. Either way he's gotten a lot of votes by Republican primary historical standards. But there have been about 13.7 million votes for other people vs. about 7.4 million who vote for people other than Bush in 2000.

It's pretty clear that he inspired a LOT of people to go out and vote for someone else because they didn't want HIM.

The field was whittled much quicker back then...

Exactly. The funniest part is the field wasn't whittled quicker due to the establishment. The establishment got the Iowa Straw poll killed because they knew Bush wouldn't do well in it. But cancelling it eliminated the first chance to pare down the list and they ended up with Trump.

Trump clinched today

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

The field was whittled much quicker back then...

That ought to tell you something. It was whittled more quickly because Bush was doing much better early on than Trump was. Trump was winning primaries with vote percentages in the 30s. Bush was winning early primaries by +50 percent majority margins. Through March 2000 there were 34 primaries and caucuses and Bush won more than 50% of the vote in 24 of them. He won 15 by while getting more than 60% of the vote. As far as I can tell Trump only won more than 50% of the vote through March once this time and that was the North Mariana Islands.

I don't see how you can deny that there has been MUCH more resistance within the Republican/Conservative community to the idea of a Trump nomination that there has been to the nomination of any other Republican eventual nominee in recent history. I was too young to remember much about when Goldwater got nominated. But after that there has been nothing like the kind of disdain within that community for the Republican nominee.

There has never been anything like the "never Trump" movement before. Now a lot of those people are going to go ahead and vote for Trump vs. voting for Hillary. But certainly not all of them. People say the Republican Party is rallying around him. But polls show that only about 70% of Republicans say they are going to vote for him. Romney got 93% of the vote among Republicans in 2012.

Speaking of Romney, you've got the Republican nominee from the last election saying he's not going to vote for Trump and will not support him. That is totally unprecedented. Can you ever remember the previous nominee from EITHER Party clearly coming out and rejecting the current nominee?

No, you can't because it's never happened.

JohnStOnge wrote:

The field was whittled much quicker back then...

That ought to tell you something. It was whittled more quickly because Bush was doing much better early on than Trump was. Trump was winning primaries with vote percentages in the 30s. Bush was winning early primaries by +50 percent majority margins. Through March 2000 there were 34 primaries and caucuses and Bush won more than 50% of the vote in 24 of them. He won 15 by while getting more than 60% of the vote. As far as I can tell Trump only won more than 50% of the vote through March once this time and that was the North Mariana Islands.

I don't see how you can deny that there has been MUCH more resistance within the Republican/Conservative community to the idea of a Trump nomination that there has been to the nomination of any other Republican eventual nominee in recent history. I was too young to remember much about when Goldwater got nominated. But after that there has been nothing like the kind of disdain within that community for the Republican nominee.

There has never been anything like the "never Trump" movement before. Now a lot of those people are going to go ahead and vote for Trump vs. voting for Hillary. But certainly not all of them. People say the Republican Party is rallying around him. But polls show that only about 70% of Republicans say they are going to vote for him. Romney got 93% of the vote among Republicans in 2012.

Speaking of Romney, you've got the Republican nominee from the last election saying he's not going to vote for Trump and will not support him. That is totally unprecedented. Can you ever remember the previous nominee from EITHER Party clearly coming out and rejecting the current nominee?

No, you can't because it's never happened.

I'd say Teddy Roosevelt's refusal to accept Taft's renomination in 1912, and TR's almost immediate formation of the Bull Moose party, comes pretty damn close. Recall that TR honored a pledge not to run for re-election in 1908 and actually supported Taft that time. Read your damn history.