2016 Republican Primary

[BDKJMU]

JSO makes a good point; I genuinely think the Trump supporters are underestimating how many people, especially Democrats, will go out to vote against Trump. And how many Republicans will stay home.

I don't mind though.

Incredibly, I don't mind either in this sense: I think people that would vote for somebody like Trump need to be taught a lesson.

Anyone who backs an establishment candidate, conk or donk, needs to be taught a lesson.

[kalm]

Incredibly, I don't mind either in this sense: I think people that would vote for somebody like Trump need to be taught a lesson.

Anyone who backs an establishment candidate, conk or donk, needs to be taught a lesson.

My brotha!!!!!!!

[∞∞∞]

Honest question, but if my "establishment" candidate...let's say Senator or Representative, is doing a good job representing my opinions, is there a reason I need to vote them out?

[kalm]

Honest question, but if my "establishment" candidate...let's say Senator or Representative, is doing a good job representing my opinions, is there a reason I need to vote them out?

Who is your candidate and what are your opinions?

[∞∞∞]

Honest question, but if my "establishment" candidate...let's say Senator or Representative, is doing a good job representing my opinions, is there a reason I need to vote them out?

Who is your candidate and what are your opinions?

It really doesn't matter; I'm just trying to figure out what reason there is to vote someone out when they are well liked by their constituents? Isn't that the point of this nation: sending people to represent your slice of the country? If that means that person becomes an "establishment" politician, that's what the people wanted.

And anyways, if their constituencies don't like them, they'll get voted out. It's not like it doesn't happen...every election...ever. Including now.

[BDKJMU]

Anyone who backs an establishment candidate, conk or donk, needs to be taught a lesson.

My brotha!!!!!!!

Hell must have frozen over..

[JohnStOnge]

I now have permission to say something because it was described today on CNN with Louisiana being the specific example used. It has to do with what I think is going to happen to Trump if he doesn't get enough delegates to win on the first ballot. My wife didn't want me to talk about it but now that CNN reported it she doesn't care.

In Louisiana, the Republican convention elected delegates a couple of weeks ago. And those elected delegates are obligated to vote a certain way on the first ballot based on the primary vote. 11 are obligated to vote for Trump and 10 are obligated to vote for Cruz.

But that doesn't mean 11 are actually Trump supporters. The delegates elected people that really support Cruz. So if it goes to a second ballot the Louisiana delegation is going to vote overwhelmingly for Cruz.

And I suspect the same thing is going on all over the country. I really, really think that if Trump does not get over that 50%+1 hump so that the obligated vote gets him the nomination on the first ballot he's out. No way the Republican Party make him the nominee because the Republican Party wants no part of him. Again: A poll result reported on March 8 said that 63% of Republicans want the Party to pick somebody else if Trump goes into the convention without enough obligated votes to win on the first ballot vs. only 30% who want the Republican Party to nominate him.

And BTW what happened with the Louisiana convention is not what most people refer to as the "Establishment." The "Establishment" is part of it. But this is a situation where what most people would call the "Establishment" and what most people would call "Insurgents" are on the same side. They do not want Trump to be the nominee. The "RINOS" and the "Right-Wing-Base" are united in that regard.

[DSUrocks07]

I now have permission to say something because it was described today on CNN with Louisiana being the specific example used. It has to do with what I think is going to happen to Trump if he doesn't get enough delegates to win on the first ballot. My wife didn't want me to talk about it but now that CNN reported it she doesn't care.

In Louisiana, the Republican convention elected delegates a couple of weeks ago. And those elected delegates are obligated to vote a certain way on the first ballot based on the primary vote. 11 are obligated to vote for Trump and 10 are obligated to vote for Cruz.

But that doesn't mean 11 are actually Trump supporters. The delegates elected people that really support Cruz. So if it goes to a second ballot the Louisiana delegation is going to vote overwhelmingly for Cruz.

And I suspect the same thing is going on all over the country. I really, really think that if Trump does not get over that 50%+1 hump so that the obligated vote gets him the nomination on the first ballot he's out. No way the Republican Party make him the nominee because the Republican Party wants no part of him. Again: A poll result reported on March 8 said that 63% of Republicans want the Party to pick somebody else if Trump goes into the convention without enough obligated votes to win on the first ballot vs. only 30% who want the Republican Party to nominate him.

And BTW what happened with the Louisiana convention is not what most people refer to as the "Establishment." The "Establishment" is part of it. But this is a situation where what most people would call the "Establishment" and what most people would call "Insurgents" are on the same side. They do not want Trump to be the nominee. The "RINOS" and the "Right-Wing-Base" are united in that regard.

You would still have a situation where the people voted for one candidate and then the party ended up selecting another candidate.

Good luck to the GOP recovering from that. And going on to lose the election in a landslide.

[JohnStOnge]

You would still have a situation where the people voted for one candidate and then the party ended up selecting another candidate.

Good luck to the GOP recovering from that. And going on to lose the election in a landslide.

The majority of Republicans have not voted for Trump and the majority of Republicans are affirmatively AGAINST Trump being the nominee. I do not think Trump would be where he is, for instance, if there was a "runoff election" type of concept in primaries. You know, where if nobody wins >50% the top two vote getters run one on one. His nomination would not be "the will of the People" among Republicans. It would be an artifact of the resistance to him being divided among other candidates with a number of those candidates being people who would have beaten him if they'd had him one on one the whole time.

As I've said before, the Trump's presence has screwed the Republicans regardless. If he does not get the nomination his supporters are out. If he does win the nomination it'll be a Republican candidate that most Republicans don't want and who will gin up turn out among groups that tend to vote Democrat. I figure about 25% of the people who historically have reliably voted Republican year in and year out will either sit out or vote third Party. Some (like me) might even vote for the Democratic candidate.

Trump is an absolute disaster for the Republican Party. It almost makes me want to go back to when I half-jokingly said he's a Democrat plant.

[JohnStOnge]

Oh...another thing: With this Heidi Cruz thing Trump has given Cruz an "out" in terms of his pledge to support Trump in the general election if Trump is the nominee. Probably given others an "out" as well. Now they cal all say, "Yes I pledged that but what Trump just did is just beyond the pale."

The way this is going, unless Clinton gets indicted and the timing is such that the Democrats don't have time to field another candidate, this is going to be the biggest Democrat landslide in a Presidential election since at least Johnson vs. Goldwater. It's going to be very ugly for the Republican Party.

Thanks Donald.

[BDKJMU]

You would still have a situation where the people voted for one candidate and then the party ended up selecting another candidate.

Good luck to the GOP recovering from that. And going on to lose the election in a landslide.

The majority of Republicans have not voted for Trump and the majority of Republicans are affirmatively AGAINST Trump being the nominee. I do not think Trump would be where he is, for instance, if there was a "runoff election" type of concept in primaries. You know, where if nobody wins >50% the top two vote getters run one on one. His nomination would not be "the will of the People" among Republicans. It would be an artifact of the resistance to him being divided among other candidates with a number of those candidates being people who would have beaten him if they'd had him one on one the whole time.

As I've said before, the Trump's presence has screwed the Republicans regardless. If he does not get the nomination his supporters are out. If he does win the nomination it'll be a Republican candidate that most Republicans don't want and who will gin up turn out among groups that tend to vote Democrat. I figure about 25% of the people who historically have reliably voted Republican year in and year out will either sit out or vote third Party. Some (like me) might even vote for the Democratic candidate.

Trump is an absolute disaster for the Republican Party. It almost makes me want to go back to when I half-jokingly said he's a Democrat plant.

Wrong. again, as has already been pointed out to you before.

"..An Economist/YouGov poll published Tuesday finds no sign of Trump’s support diminishing in spite of a wave of attacks from his GOP rivals, with the percentage of likely Republican primary voters opting for Trump as their nominee reaching 53 percent..."
http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/15/trump ... irst-time/

[Skjellyfetti]

Wrong. again, as has already been pointed out to you before.

"..An Economist/YouGov poll published Tuesday finds no sign of Trump’s support diminishing in spite of a wave of attacks from his GOP rivals, with the percentage of likely Republican primary voters opting for Trump as their nominee reaching 53 percent..."
http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/15/trump ... irst-time/

Y'all are talking about different things.

You're talking about a single poll (and a single poll is pretty close to worthless).

I assume JSO is talking about actual votes... which paint the clearest picture you can get.

Trump is currently sitting at 37% of the popular vote.

Do you feel confident he'll finish the primaries above 50%?

[Ivytalk]

Wrong. again, as has already been pointed out to you before.

"..An Economist/YouGov poll published Tuesday finds no sign of Trump’s support diminishing in spite of a wave of attacks from his GOP rivals, with the percentage of likely Republican primary voters opting for Trump as their nominee reaching 53 percent..."
http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/15/trump ... irst-time/

Y'all are talking about different things.

You're talking about a single poll (and a single poll is pretty close to worthless).

I assume JSO is talking about actual votes... which paint the clearest picture you can get.

Trump is currently sitting at 37% of the popular vote.

Do you feel confident he'll finish the primaries above 50%?

Cruz is actually leading Trump in latest Wisconsin poll. Kasich third, but respectable. BDK, can you define for us the word "plurality"?

[JohnStOnge]

We already talked about that YouGov poll. It's purely an internet poll.

What I'm looking at most is the Real Clear Politics Report. As of today, Clinton leads trump by 50.0 to 38.8 percent in the average. The two latest polls reported are a Fox News Poll conducted 3/16 - 3/22 and a Bloomberg poll conducted 3/19 - 22. It's 49 to 38 percent for Clinton in the Fox News poll and 54 to 36 percent Clinton in the Bloomberg poll. It's even worse for Trump against Sanders. The average is 54.7 to 37.2 percent in favor of Sanders. And in the two most recent polls it'sFox News getting Sanders by 52 to 38 percent and Bloomberg getting Sanders by 58 to 34 percent.

Another thing is consistency. If you go to the Real Clear Politics report you see that they report results for six polls that ended during the March 20 through March 22 range and Clinton leads Trump by anywhere from 6 to 18 points in every one. With Sanders the six polls that ended during the March 20 through March 22 range have him leading Trump in every one by from 14 to 20 points.

Meanwhile Trump's "Unfavorables" are off the charts. For example: A poll released this past Thursday had 73 percent of women registered voters having an unfavorable view of Trump (http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/27 ... gender-gap). And that poll was taken before Trump attached Cruz's wife.

Yes, I know polls can change. But I just don't see Trump as an unknown quantity at this point. He is a disaster for the Republican Party and if he gets the nomination he's going to get routed really badly. UNLESS, again, we have a situation where Clinton gets indicted and the timing is such that the Democrats can't adjust and put up another candidate in time.

[kalm]

We already talked about that YouGov poll. It's purely an internet poll.

What I'm looking at most is the Real Clear Politics Report. As of today, Clinton leads trump by 50.0 to 38.8 percent in the average. The two latest polls reported are a Fox News Poll conducted 3/16 - 3/22 and a Bloomberg poll conducted 3/19 - 22. It's 49 to 38 percent for Clinton in the Fox News poll and 54 to 36 percent Clinton in the Bloomberg poll. It's even worse for Trump against Sanders. The average is 54.7 to 37.2 percent in favor of Sanders. And in the two most recent polls it'sFox News getting Sanders by 52 to 38 percent and Bloomberg getting Sanders by 58 to 34 percent.

Another thing is consistency. If you go to the Real Clear Politics report you see that they report results for six polls that ended during the March 20 through March 22 range and Clinton leads Trump by anywhere from 6 to 18 points in every one. With Sanders the six polls that ended during the March 20 through March 22 range have him leading Trump in every one by from 14 to 20 points.

Meanwhile Trump's "Unfavorables" are off the charts. For example: A poll released this past Thursday had 73 percent of women registered voters having an unfavorable view of Trump (http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/27 ... gender-gap). And that poll was taken before Trump attached Cruz's wife.

Yes, I know polls can change. But I just don't see Trump as an unknown quantity at this point. He is a disaster for the Republican Party and if he gets the nomination he's going to get routed really badly. UNLESS, again, we have a situation where Clinton gets indicted and the timing is such that the Democrats can't adjust and put up another candidate in time.

And you guys question whether the voters are progressive.

[JohnStOnge]

And you guys question whether the voters are progressive.

I don't know if this breaks down entirely into "progressive" and "conservative." I mean, I am probably about as "conservative" as it gets as far as such labels go and there is no WAY I'd vote for Trump. And as I noted earlier a poll released March 8 estimated that if Trump does not go into the Republican convention with a majority of first ballot votes 63 percent of Republicans want the Party to pick someone else as the nominee.

Rubio would've had a shot. A good shot. Cruz would have some shot. Both are "conservative." Trump has no shot unless the Hillary indictment scenario plays out with the right outcome and timing.

BTW I have to wonder why the Democratic "establishment" doesn't go ahead and go with Sanders. He does better in the polls against all of the Republican candidates than Clinton does and they don't have to worry about him getting indicted. Of course he's old enough where the risk that he could croak at any time could be too high.

[BDKJMU]

And that poll was taken before Trump attached Cruz's wife.

Honestly I haven't followed that but I heard Cruz backers attacked Trump's wife 1st..

[SDHornet]

And you guys question whether the voters are progressive.

BTW I have to wonder why the Democratic "establishment" doesn't go ahead and go with Sanders. He does better in the polls against all of the Republican candidates than Clinton does and they don't have to worry about him getting indicted. Of course he's old enough where the risk that he could croak at any time could be too high.

Wonder about what? bernie isn't bought and paid for (by both foreign and domestic interests) like hilldog is. I would like to believe its because bernie is morally above being bought off by Wall St, Saudi's, etc; but I think it has more to do with the super delegates never letting bernie get a fair shake so they figured there is no points in paying off both candidates.

[Skjellyfetti]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hO_MkcZh-VY[/youtube]

[Ibanez]

I now have permission to say something because it was described today on CNN with Louisiana being the specific example used. It has to do with what I think is going to happen to Trump if he doesn't get enough delegates to win on the first ballot. My wife didn't want me to talk about it but now that CNN reported it she doesn't care.

In Louisiana, the Republican convention elected delegates a couple of weeks ago. And those elected delegates are obligated to vote a certain way on the first ballot based on the primary vote. 11 are obligated to vote for Trump and 10 are obligated to vote for Cruz.

But that doesn't mean 11 are actually Trump supporters. The delegates elected people that really support Cruz. So if it goes to a second ballot the Louisiana delegation is going to vote overwhelmingly for Cruz.

And I suspect the same thing is going on all over the country. I really, really think that if Trump does not get over that 50%+1 hump so that the obligated vote gets him the nomination on the first ballot he's out. No way the Republican Party make him the nominee because the Republican Party wants no part of him. Again: A poll result reported on March 8 said that 63% of Republicans want the Party to pick somebody else if Trump goes into the convention without enough obligated votes to win on the first ballot vs. only 30% who want the Republican Party to nominate him.

And BTW what happened with the Louisiana convention is not what most people refer to as the "Establishment." The "Establishment" is part of it. But this is a situation where what most people would call the "Establishment" and what most people would call "Insurgents" are on the same side. They do not want Trump to be the nominee. The "RINOS" and the "Right-Wing-Base" are united in that regard.

I was a delegate in 2008. There were people that were going to give everything to Hillary, even though Obama had clearly won the state, will of the people be damned.

[Ibanez]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hO_MkcZh-VY[/youtube]

What a creepy family. How could anyone vote for that guy?

[Skjellyfetti]

How the hell did I miss this?

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

[kalm]

What a creepy family. How could anyone vote for that guy?

I hear he's popular in the JSO household...



Kind of reminds me of this...

[DSUrocks07]

Wrong. again, as has already been pointed out to you before.

"..An Economist/YouGov poll published Tuesday finds no sign of Trump’s support diminishing in spite of a wave of attacks from his GOP rivals, with the percentage of likely Republican primary voters opting for Trump as their nominee reaching 53 percent..."
http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/15/trump ... irst-time/

Y'all are talking about different things.

You're talking about a single poll (and a single poll is pretty close to worthless).

I assume JSO is talking about actual votes... which paint the clearest picture you can get.

Trump is currently sitting at 37% of the popular vote.

Do you feel confident he'll finish the primaries above 50%?

Which is why JSO, and anyone else who uses that argument is full of shit.

People are saying that Cruz or Kasich are clearly better and more "Republican" candidates...but they're getting nowhere near 50% of the vote either. Which means over HALF the primary voters looked at Cruz and Kasich and said, "Nope."

[Ivytalk]

Y'all are talking about different things.

You're talking about a single poll (and a single poll is pretty close to worthless).

I assume JSO is talking about actual votes... which paint the clearest picture you can get.

Trump is currently sitting at 37% of the popular vote.

Do you feel confident he'll finish the primaries above 50%?

Which is why JSO, and anyone else who uses that argument is full of ****.

People are saying that Cruz or Kasich are clearly better and more "Republican" candidates...but they're getting nowhere near 50% of the vote either. Which means over HALF the primary voters looked at Cruz and Kasich and said, "Nope."

Now you've done it! You've paved the way for several more lengthy, repetitive JSO posts!