• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

US Election: 2016

New tack.

The merits of a madman in the Whitehouse.

In the not so distant bad old days the peace of the world was based on the MAD concept of mutually assured destruction.  The basic principle was that if the guy in the Kremlin were mad enough to push the button the guy in the White House would be mad enough to push his.

This only works if both sides perceive the other guy as nuts. Nuts as in shoe pounding on the desk nuts.  Or as in "We begin bombing in five minutes nuts."

Krushchev had Kennedy worried.  Reagan has Brezhnev worried.

Today nobody worries.  Or at least they didn't. 

The Bushes and Clinton and even Obama (who is a different type of crazy)  were not seen as likely to be obliterating the planet.

And so in slips Vlad.  Who may be crazy.  Or who may be cunning.  Who knows?  Just like Reagan (at least as far as the Russians were concerned).  Consequently everybody treats him like the homeless guy muttering to himself and gives him a wide berth and lets him go exactly where he wants.

Is Donald Trump the antidote to Vlad?

Does Vlad think he might be sufficiently mad as to have to take notice of him - just on the off-chance that he may "begin bombing in five minutes"?

 
I'm more worried about Cruz than I am Trump.

Trump is running a campaign built on saying whatever it takes to get elected, and then we'll figure out what the game plan is after we win. He's already shown signs that what he says and what he will do will be up for discussion. He's already backing away form the stance on torture.

Cruz is an ideologue who seems to overlook what the realities of his decisions will present. He was the one how lead the drive to shut down the government against the better judgement of the party. He only has party support because they want to kill the Trump insurgency and some see him as the only alternative, Rubio being too much of a lightweight.

Trump could be able to work both sides of the aisle, even though the party may not like it. Cruz wouldn't give any room for discussions with the Dems, even if it meant not getting any policy through Congress. He could well have issues dealing with his own party in Congress.

It's also hard to say which of the two would be a better ticket to run against for the Dems. They both would cause the Dem vote to mobilize at higher rates than normal, but Trump would have some effect down ballot on the Congressional races depending on how they want to play it. As long as the GOP plays the anti-Trump card in the general, then the Dems can capitalize and potentially use it against the GOP candidates.
 
It surprises me a bit that Evangelicals aren't going for Cruz in the numbers that one would expect, and seem to be splitting between Trump and Cruz. One explanation is that they want to back a winner who will be beholden to them down the road. But after being burned twice by Bush 43 you would think that they would prefer to back one of their own in Cruz in hopes that he pull off a win and bring in their policies to suit. Cruz is by all respects their man, right down to his mannerisms and the way he speaks, regardless of subject matter. Even his call for his fellow candidates to "prayerfully" consider ending their campaigns to allow him to defeat Trump.

Some points to consider about just whether there is an Evangelical base to begin with.

The True Number Of Evangelical Voters Depends On Who You Ask

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/21/467582494/the-true-number-of-evangelical-voters-depends-on-who-you-ask

MICHEL MARTIN, HOST:

And if you've been following the coverage of the presidential race, you've heard analysts say over and over again just how important evangelical voters are and what role they played, for example, in Donald Trump's win in yesterday's GOP primary in South Carolina. They're also being courted in the Democratic primary race there this coming Saturday. But you might have asked yourself - just who are we talking about, and what motivates these voters? NPR's Danielle Kurtzleben has been looking for answers.

DANIELLE KURTZLEBEN, BYLINE: Depending on how you measure, anywhere from 6 percent to more than one-third of American adults are evangelical. That's a huge range. And for all the attention the group gets, there's no firm consensus on what it means to be evangelical. Pundits often describe evangelicals as political conservatives. But it means something very different theologically. John Green is a professor at the University of Akron who focuses on religion and politics. He says the word comes from evangel, a Greek word that refers to the gospel.

JOHN GREEN: In some sense, all Christians have an element of being a evangelical because they all share, to one degree or another, those basic Christian beliefs.

KURTZLEBEN: While there may be complex theological definitions, political pollsters tend to just ask people - do you consider yourself an evangelical or born-again Christian? And it's hard to imagine that all of the people who answer yes agree on what being an evangelical means. Then there's the dynamic of race.

GREG SMITH: It's definitely true that in many ways, white evangelicals and black Protestants or black evangelicals, or evangelicals from other racial and ethnic minorities have a lot in common.

KURTZLEBEN: That's Greg Smith, an associate director at the Pew Research Center.

SMITH: But when it comes to politics, the data show that they are really at totally opposite ends of the spectrum.

KURTZLEBEN: White evangelicals are more conservative, while African-American Protestants, a group that includes evangelicals, tend to vote for Democrats. Lump them together and you miss that. Because of their voting power, that block of white, more often conservative, evangelicals gets lots of attention. Anthea Butler, a professor of religion at the University of Pennsylvania, criticized this in a 2015 speech.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

ANTHEA BUTLER: Watch the 2016 election. When they begin to talk about evangelicals again, they won't go to Bible-believing black evangelicals. They're going to talk to white people.

KURTZLEBEN: And that conflation frustrates Rev. William Barber, president of the North Carolina NAACP. He says the political dialogue in the U.S. ends up casting social issues like abortion as evangelical issues. Meanwhile, social justice issues that he says black evangelicals care about don't get the same attention.

WILLIAM BARBER: Admit it, they juxtapose it as though somehow, you can't be black and evangelical or white and evangelical, but not agree with that particular brand of evangelicalism.

KURTZLEBEN: So why does all of this matter? Part of the problem with having all of these different measures is that they can be easily manipulated, says one researcher.

DAVID KINNAMAN: For different purposes, I have found that evangelical leaders might say we're so small and such a small minority, and we're overlooked, and woe is us.

KURTZLEBEN: David Kinnaman is president of the Barna Group, a polling firm that specializes in Christian issues.

KINNAMAN: Other times they might say, you know, don't forget about us. We're huge and we're, you know, as many as a quarter or 40 percent of the population.

KURTZLEBEN: Barna has maybe the tightest definition of evangelical. They ask respondents nine questions about their beliefs, like whether they believe in Satan. And by that measure, just 6 percent of Americans are evangelicals. The term may be fuzzy, but measuring evangelicals matters. Pollsters want to know how people's religious and political beliefs interact. Jocelynn Bailey attends a Baptist church in Centerville, Va. She says her beliefs affect her vote, but she wants politicians to know there's a limit.

JOCELYNN BAILEY: I want them to tell me who they are and all of who they are, not just the stuff that they think I might want to hear. My vote is about more than my faith.

KURTZLEBEN: Danielle Kurtzleben, NPR News.

As Evangelicals Lose Faith In Cruz, His Campaign Could Be Beyond Resurrection

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/29/468553304/as-evangelicals-lose-faith-in-cruz-his-campaign-could-be-beyond-resurrection

The crux of Ted Cruz's campaign has long been mobilizing the Christian right to his side, working to galvanize enough evangelical voters to topple Donald Trump.

The Texas senator even launched his campaign at Liberty University, which claims to be the world's largest Christian college, declaring that "God isn't done with America yet."

Cruz talks with the cadence of a megachurch pastor, and exhortations of his faith are a mainstay at every campaign rally. His strategy in targeting the most conservative religious voters worked in Iowa, but the wheels came off in South Carolina and Nevada.

Now, if he can't fully convert religious voters in many critical Southern states set to vote on Super Tuesday, his campaign could be beyond resurrection.

"I think for him to continue to lose evangelical votes to Donald Trump is a fatal blow to the rationale for his campaign," said Bruce Haynes, a GOP strategist and president of the bipartisan consulting firm Purple Strategies. "He speaks openly of the relevance of his candidacy in churches and has openly identified that a key part of their winning strategy is evangelical voters. That's his base, but he's not carrying that base."

Cruz Battling Trump And Rubio For Evangelical Voters

The so-called SEC primary runs through states that are likely to have even more evangelical voters than the states that have voted so far. Cruz himself has only raised expectations about Super Tuesday, calling it "the most important day in this entire cycle."

According to 2012 exit polls, in Alabama 80 percent of GOP primary voters described themselves as evangelical. In Tennessee, 68 percent of Republican voters were born-again Christians. And in Georgia, 68 percent of primary voters four years ago were evangelicals.

Those states could have higher evangelical turnout than states that have already voted this year, according to 2016 exit poll data. In Iowa, 64 percent of GOP caucusgoers were evangelical, while in South Carolina 72 percent described themselves as born-again. Those numbers were up from four years ago. Super Tuesday states could see a record number of voters, including more evangelical voters, go to the polls.

With a heavy ground game, Cruz won 34 percent of evangelical voters in the Hawkeye State; Trump got 22 percent, while Florida Sen. Marco Rubio captured 21 percent. In South Carolina, though, Cruz finished third behind Rubio and lost the evangelical vote to Trump by 6 points, 33 percent to 27 percent. Rubio again got almost a fourth of that voting bloc though.

Now, just hours away from Super Tuesday, polls show Cruz's grasp on evangelical voters slipping away from him even more. And it's complicated by a rising Rubio, who is now getting nearly as much of the evangelical vote as Cruz is in some places.

"Cruz is basically splitting the evangelical vote with Trump, and Rubio's getting a share of that too," said Alan Abramowitz, a professor of political science at Emory University in Atlanta.

NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Marist polls released Sunday showed Trump easily beating Cruz in Tennessee and in Georgia. In Tennessee, that's fueled by a 15-point edge for Trump among white evangelicals and, in the Peach State, the bombastic billionaire is winning those voters by 8 points. Cruz does have a lead over Trump in his home state of Texas in those same surveys and wins evangelical voters there by 23 points.

The biggest loss for Cruz could come in Alabama, a state where 80 percent of GOP primary voters four years ago identified as evangelical. A Monmouth University poll released Monday showed Trump winning 42 percent of voters, while it was Rubio in second with 19 percent followed by Cruz with 16 percent. The split of evangelical voters in that survey follows the same trajectory — 43 percent for Trump, 18 percent for Rubio and 15 percent for Cruz.

The Texas senator got another blow on Sunday when Alabama's senior senator, Jeff Sessions, endorsed Trump over him. Cruz has frequently invoked his work and relationship with Sessions on the trail, particularly on immigration. But the hard-line conservative chose to throw his support behind Trump, and not his fellow senator.

Cruz's Trust Issue

But Cruz's plan to woo evangelical voters hasn't gone as planned. He is not just losing the critical voting bloc to a thrice-married casino mogul who until a few years ago supported the abortion procedure known as intact dilation and extraction and has even defended Planned Parenthood this year — he has also seen his own reputation take a hit as rumors of dirty tricks have plagued his campaign.

First, it was his staffers telling voters that neurosurgeon Ben Carson was set to drop out on Iowa caucus night, fueled by a CNN report saying his GOP rival was heading home to Florida after the vote. There have been misleading mailers and ads in South Carolina that the campaign has taken heat for; a superPAC supporting him even had to take down a misleading TV spot that hit Rubio. And some voters in the Palmetto State said the label of "liar" that his opponents were trying to paint him with was sticking.

"If Cruz doesn't win any of these contests outside of Texas, I think that's a really big sign for his campaign," Abramowitz said. "The lying charges have clearly hurt him, and also the fact that he has no support from any of his colleagues in the Senate is hurting him."

Cultural Vs. Committed Evangelicals

Even if Cruz does lose born-again voters on Super Tuesday, that doesn't mean Trump has somehow converted even the most faithful to his side. Top leaders in evangelical churches have denounced his rhetoric banning Muslims from coming into the U.S. and his refusal to say he has ever asked God for forgiveness. Still, he has received the support of Liberty University President Jerry Falwell Jr., and Robert Jeffress, pastor at First Baptist Dallas, has introduced Trump at many rallies and spoken very highly of him, though he hasn't officially endorsed.

It's important to remember that the seeming wide swath of evangelical voters who will go to the polls is not homogeneous, either in political or in religious beliefs. And defining what exactly constitutes an evangelical voter can be misleading in polling. A Vox study this month noted that "regular, weekly church attendance — as measured by a standard Pew Research question included in my survey — predicted a statistically significant and substantive opposition to Trump."

That's an important distinction, especially in the South, where church and religious activities are ingrained in the culture, but degrees of devotion vary.

"In the South, there aren't that many people willing to answer the phone and tell a live human being they're not born-again. After all someone in the room might be listening," said Haynes.

"The culture of the South is replete with people who've answered an altar call and qualify as born-again, but 20 years later it would be difficult for them to demonstrate how they're living an evangelical, Christ-centered life," he continued. "They're Christian by definition, but it's not the central driving force of their life."

It's those, maybe more tepid believers whom Trump has tailored an appeal to, with his bombast against illegal immigrants, America's weakness abroad and promise to restore the country's greatness. And in the South, it's that type of voter who will dominate the contests on Tuesday, likely denying Cruz his last prayer of a campaign resurgence.

Evangelical Leaders Question Movement's Support Of Trump

http://www.npr.org/2016/03/03/469005685/evangelical-leaders-question-why-their-movement-supports-trump

The apparent depth of support for Donald Trump among evangelical voters has produced an identity crisis within that conservative world. Some are disassociating themselves from the broader community.

DAVID GREENE, HOST:

Donald Trump continues to win over evangelicals. Exit poll data from the Super Tuesday states show he won the self-described born-again vote in most states. These Christians are choosing a candidate who's given to profanity, insults and boastfulness. And NPR's Tom Gjelten says some evangelical leaders are so upset they're now distancing themselves from the movement that carries their name.

TOM GJELTEN, BYLINE: The man winning the evangelical vote is a casino mogul who seems unfamiliar with the Bible and has been married three times. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, is disappointed, to say the least, that so many of his fellow Christians support Donald Trump nonetheless.

ALBERT MOHLER: His entire mode of life has been something that has been at odds with American evangelical conviction and character. So yeah, this is shocking.

GJELTEN: It's tainting the image of the evangelical movement, says Peter Wehner, who worked in the last three Republican administrations, mostly as a speechwriter.

PETER WEHNER: When Bill Clinton was president, an awful lot of evangelical Christians ranked moral probity high on their list of leadership qualities, and they attacked Bill Clinton because they felt like he was a moral failure. And now you have Donald Trump who's a moral degenerate, and a lot of the evangelicals are supporting him. By my definition, that's hypocrisy.

GJELTEN: A few conservative pastors, like Jerry Falwell, Jr., have no problem with Trump, but hostility among evangelical leaders is widespread. Russell Moore from the Southern Baptist Convention announced this week that he has stopped calling himself an evangelical so as not to be associated with Trump supporters. His own explanation for why so many self-described evangelicals are in Trump's camp - they're not all that evangelical.

RUSSELL MOORE: At least in the Bible Belt, someone may claim to be an evangelical who's drunk right now and who hasn't been to church since someone took him to vacation Bible school back in the 1980s. And so that's not a useful category. What's useful is finding out whether or not people are actively following Christ, whether they're church attenders, for instance.

GJELTEN: It may be that evangelical has become more a cultural label than a religious label. Albert Mohler of the Southern Baptist Seminary says that would mean the true evangelical block is smaller than he and others realized until now.

MOHLER: We have taken comfort in the fact that there have been millions and millions of us in America. And a part of that evidence has been the last several election cycles, with the evangelical vote being in the millions. And now we're having to face the fact that, evidently, theologically-defined - defined by commitment to core evangelical values - there aren't so many millions of us as we thought.

GJELTEN: So what is motivating the evangelical voters who are supporting Trump if it's not their faith? One recent study suggested that the best predictor of support for Trump is a preference for authoritarianism, a belief in the need for aggressive leaders. Trump's candidacy is also associated with hostility toward minorities. Some conservative Christians can seem judgmental, but Russell Moore insists there is nothing in the New Testament that, in his words, gives any space for hatred and bigotry.

MOORE: As a matter of fact, the Scripture tells us that we are to engage with people who disagree with us with kindness. That ought to be the message that drowns out any hint of bigotry or hatred in our lives. And as we've seen, over the centuries, Christianity has been a vibrant force against racism, for instance.

GJELTEN: With this new identity crisis in evangelical Christianity, Moore says he wants to be known - at least for the rest of this election season - simply as a gospel Christian. Tom Gjelten, NPR News.
 
cupper said:
I'm more worried about Cruz than I am Trump.

Trump is running a campaign built on saying whatever it takes to get elected, and then we'll figure out what the game plan is after we win. He's already shown signs that what he says and what he will do will be up for discussion. He's already backing away form the stance on torture.

Cruz is an ideologue who seems to overlook what the realities of his decisions will present. He was the one how lead the drive to shut down the government against the better judgement of the party. He only has party support because they want to kill the Trump insurgency and some see him as the only alternative, Rubio being too much of a lightweight.

Trump could be able to work both sides of the aisle, even though the party may not like it. Cruz wouldn't give any room for discussions with the Dems, even if it meant not getting any policy through Congress. He could well have issues dealing with his own party in Congress.

It's also hard to say which of the two would be a better ticket to run against for the Dems. They both would cause the Dem vote to mobilize at higher rates than normal, but Trump would have some effect down ballot on the Congressional races depending on how they want to play it. As long as the GOP plays the anti-Trump card in the general, then the Dems can capitalize and potentially use it against the GOP candidates.

Finally something that says out loud what may be wrong with Cruz or Rubio.  Mostly the verifiable bad stuff on Cruz that comes out is:
He is good at philibustering
He is a Canadian
He has religious morals and is not agnostic
He sticks to his guns

Now I hear that he is inflexible and will not work with the Democrats.  At least that is a point I can logically understand.

Please enlighten me on why Cruz is unacceptable as a leader and / or Rubio for that matter. I would like to know why logical people consider Cruz or Rubio are worse than the Buffoon Reality TV host Trump or the questionably corrupt and or dishonest Hillary Clinton or the old white socialist Sanders.
 
The Dems have their work cut out for them. And I don't think they have anyone in the wings right now that could turn this around anytime soon.

The Democratic Party Got Crushed During The Obama Presidency. Here's Why

http://www.npr.org/2016/03/04/469052020/the-democratic-party-got-crushed-during-the-obama-presidency-heres-why?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20160304

The GOP may be in the midst of an identity crisis, but the Democratic Party is also facing a political crisis that could be made a lot worse if it doesn't win the White House in November.

Here's why:

Part of President Obama's legacy is the health of his party. He's had many successes in office — health care reform, climate change regulations, Wall Street reform — but his legacy will also include one huge failure: a diminished Democratic Party.

Every president sees his party lose hundreds of positions — it's the price a party holding the White House pays — but no president has come close to Obama. During Obama's eight years in office, the Democrats have lost more House, Senate, state legislative and governors seats than under any other president.

When Obama took office, there were 60 Democratic senators; now there are 46. The number of House seats held by Democrats has shrunk from 257 to 188.

There are now nine fewer Democratic governors than in 2009. Democrats currently hold fewer elected offices nationwide than at any time since the 1920s.

How did this happen?

1. There are two different electorates in America

There is Presidential Election America, where turnout is diverse. The electorate is younger, browner, more single, more secular — more Democratic. Then there's Midterm Election America, where the electorate is older, whiter, more rural, more church-going — in other words, more Republican. What's great for Republicans and bad for Democrats is that the vast majority of the governorships and state legislative seats are elected in the midterms.

And those positions are the seed corn for a party — they're the farm teams for higher-level offices. Right now the Democrats are at a very low ebb.

This is something President Obama lamented when he campaigned for Democrats in the midterm elections of 2010 and 2014. Republicans manage to turn out their voters every two years, but Democrats, for some reason, only turn their voters out every four. Maybe, Obama mused, because Democrats just don't think midterms are "sexy enough."

2. Bad luck

Democrats had one spectacularly bad piece of luck. The Republicans' Tea Party-fueled surge in 2010 was perfectly timed to coincide with the decennial census, after which new congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn by governors and state legislatures. Republicans' huge gains in the 2010 midterms put them in the driver's seat when it came time to draw new congressional districts in 2011. Former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell remembers what happened when Republicans took over the governor's mansion and the Legislature in his state:

"When I left office in January of 2011," says Rendell, "there were 13 Democratic congressman and six Republican congressman. As a result of redistricting in the 2010 election, that turned around and we now have 13 Republican congressmen and five Democratic congressman."

3. Democrats don't care

It's not only bad timing and gerrymandering that have hollowed out the Democratic Party. Mo Elleithee, a former Democratic National Committee official, says Democrats have never put enough effort and resources into state legislative races. Republicans, on the other hand, make those races a top priority.

4. Too many Democrats live in cities

This is another problem that makes it easier for Republicans to draw congressional and state legislative districts that disadvantage Democrats. Democratic voters are clumped together in urban areas. You could say that for the purposes of winning elections, Democratic voters are just not efficiently distributed.

Its why even in red states like Texas and Utah there are cities that are solidly Democratic — and why lesbian mayors were elected in Houston and Salt Lake City. When Democrats cluster in and around cities, they win local elections, but that doesn't help them win suburban or rural congressional seats.

This November, the stakes for Democrats couldn't be higher. Without the White House, assuming party control elsewhere remains the same, Democrats would be truly out in the cold.
 
Jed said:
Please enlighten me on why Cruz is unacceptable as a leader and / or Rubio for that matter. I would like to know why logical people consider Cruz or Rubio are worse than the Buffoon Reality TV host Trump or the questionably corrupt and or dishonest Hillary Clinton or the old white socialist Sanders.

I never said that Cruz or Rubio were worse than Trump, Clinton or Sanders. Each is problematic in their own way.

To be honest, I think that Rubio would stand a decent chance of being elected, and is really the candidate that the GOP needs, but he's just not experienced enough to win this time around. Tt shows in the little gaffes and missteps. He is more apt to reach out across the aisle to to Dems and get bipartisan support. But that isn't what will sell this time around in the GOP. He's seen as an "establishment candidate" (whatever that really means  ::) ) Another 4 to 8 years of grooming would do him well. But this is not his time.

Cruz as I said is too much of an ideologue to be an effective president. He is uncompromising, and from what I've read about his early years too full of himself (it takes balls to cite yourself in a brief to the US Supreme Court). He believes what he believes and will not be persuaded otherwise, to his own detriment. Although he cannot be considered an "establishment" Republican, he is part of the problem with the political gridlock that exists inside the beltway. Whether they realize it or not, the people supporting Cruz because he is an outsider and they want to send a message to the establishment, are supporting the other side of the problem. He is partly to blame for the need of total collapse that now faces the GOP in order for it to get back to where wants to be. If you could point to one thing that is a failure in leadership for Cruz, it would be his unwillingness to compromise.

Trump is Trump. I seriously expect to open up the DSM-V and see his picture under Narcissistic Personality Disorder. He has no defined policy other than he's going to solve every problem facing the country. And it's gonna be great. It will be Yuge!. To borrow from another internet source, a typical Trump speech:
"Every Trump sentence has words. Sometimes three words. Or two. And they're great sentences. Terrific sentences. That I can tell you. Believe me. They're great. With the best words. Terrific repeated words. Not very big words. Every Trump sentence has words."

Trump has no desirable quality that would be considered presidential. But he is the thing that needs to happen to wake up the GOP to the reality of why they can't win the White House in it's current state of discord. Like the addict, they need to hit bottom before they can look at starting to recover.

Clinton? meh. Presidential material? Not really. Sure she has a broad range of experience on the points that matter for one elected president. But I just cannot see why she should be elected based on that experience. It's one of those things that you cant really say why, but you just know that it's wrong. (And could someone PLEASE explain to her that you have a microphone, so you don't need to yell though the entire speech  :facepalm: )

Sanders, while some of his ideas are admirable in sentiment, there is just no way that they would first get past a congress of any sort of makeup, and second not put the country in an economically unsustainable situation without huge increases in tax revenue, which goes back to the first point. And you can't fault the young voters for coming out to support him. Old guy with white hair handing out gifts. He's freaking Santa Clause.

So this election cycle, the GOP finds itself in the same position where they are about to select a nominee who will be fail to get to the winners circle in the general.

What they need to do is tell their so called base to STFU, and start campaigning in the center again. Bring forth policies that are neither conservative or liberal. Accept that compromise is necessary, and not the evil it's being made out to be. Maybe even govern. Wow, what a concept that would be. Eight years of No for the sake of No, instead of offering reasonable alternatives in place of the ideas being rejected is 7 years too much.
 
Maybe the Democrats got crushed because their legislative agenda sucked, the things they promised turned out to be lies ("you can keep your doctor", "recovery summer"), the people who were benefiting from Democrat initiatives were insiders and crony capitalists, the security picture deteriorated rapidly and visibly under their watch ("Red lines", Lybia, the Arab Spring) and the Dems were openly contemptuous of large segments of the voting public (white working class men, the same segment, ironically, that they claim to champion).

With that sort of record and love for voters, it isn't difficult to understand why large swaths of people who would normally consider voting Democrat went to Bernie Sanders or even Donald Trump (that's right, former Democrat voters are also turning to Trump) because they feel the political establishment has abandoned them or has no interest in their issues.

In one regard Cupper is very correct: there is no one in the wings, and I'm not sure there will be anyone in 2020 either (even 2024 may be problematic).
 
How did Trump ever think he could make such a campaign promise?  :facepalm:

Associated Press

Mexico government says it won't pay for Trump wall
[The Canadian Press]
The Associated Press
March 3, 2016

MEXICO CITY - The Mexican government has made its first direct response to Donald Trump's pledge to build a wall along the two countries' border — and make Mexico pay for it.

"I say it emphatically and categorically: Mexico, under no circumstance is going to pay for the wall that Mr. Trump is proposing," Mexican Treasury Secretary Luis Videgaray said late Wednesday to Milenio television

(...SNIPPED)
 
Good post cupper.

After the CNN debate, Rubio was interviewed and he looked like a deer in the headlights, repeating that Trump was a con artist at least 25 times in a few minutes, which goes back to the New Hampshire debate of his being robotic.

Some of Trump's misspeaks are because he is being attacked from all sides and now by the old guard of the GOP including Mitt the loser. Rubio's attacks are child like and Trump does not help himself when he replies in a like manner.

Cruz has from the start reminded me of the proverbial small lot, outside the gate, used car salesman. He is a divider and uncompromising a you said. I don't like bible thumphers in politics.

Kasich is boring no matter how qualified he may be. Not a hope of getting the nomination.

You live in the US. Here in AZ I am surprised at the number of people who said they will vote for Trump. Never heard anyone who said they will not. Saw a fair number of Dr. Carson bumper stickers, often with Vet plates!

I think it is a revolt and the old guard is driving voters to Trump who is bring in new voters because he is not politically correct, speaks bluntly. I also think if he debates Hillary he will go where no one else dares and rip her a new one.

If/when Hillary indicted on felony charges, and it clearly looks that this will happen in May, the Dems will get a new candidate via their Superdelegate system.

IMHO, the Obama's very much dislike the Clinton's. Pres Obama will be "forced" by the FBI's investigation to allow charges to be referred to a Grand Jury. Even if a trial is pending, and Hillary is still presumed innocent, she could not possibly run. Pres Obama will just say justice must be done, while smiling to himself, and Michelle will be happy. He will say, Joe we want the WH for 8 years, you are a faithful guy, but your time has passed due to your age. Let John Kerry carry our banner and you endorse him.

I would like to see Kerry without his expensive wig though.
 
Romney in the crosshairs of Trump's movement:

Canadian Press

A Trumpian wing is born in the GOP, it's motivated, it's angry at Mitt Romney
[The Canadian Press]
Alexander Panetta
March 4, 2016

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. - The establishment of the Republican party is playing with fire by seeking to smother Donald Trump. Because the embers of rebellion are crackling in this Florida retirement community.

Trump-supporting seniors here are unfalteringly determined to cross the street in two weeks, enter the local polling station, and vote for the swirly-haired scourge of party elites.

They exude indifference to an anybody-but-Trump strategy, articulated by Mitt Romney and proposed by the party bigshots desperate to wrest the nomination on the convention floor.

(...SNIPPED)
 
Meanwhile on the Democrat side of the fence:

https://pivotamerica.com/2016/03/03/theres-a-movement-within-the-sanders-movement-to-go-green-after-primaries/

TENS OF THOUSANDS TO LEAVE DEMOCRATIC PARTY THE DAY AFTER THEIR PRIMARIES IN PROTEST

As a protest thousands and thousands of Bernie Sanders supporters are making plans and preparations to say goodbye to the Democratic National Committee. Many have realized that as those who control the party move more and more right away from those who actually vote that it may be time for a revolt within the party itself.

Bernie Sanders calls for a political revolution, and many are now feeling that the establishment is conspiring against them at every turn. Whether it’s Bill Clinton’s election fraud in Massachusetts, or coin flips in Iowa, or rigged debate schedules – the fact is there are many people who just can’t let this race run fair and square and may the best candidate on merit and public opinion win.

To mangle Foch:

The Left is in revolt.  The Right is rebelling.  The Center cannot hold. 

Washington looks evermore out of touch.

 
FJAG said:
Whole thing is very reminiscent of the birth of the Reform Party.  ;D

:cheers:

Trump tried that down here before.

He ran into a little problem named David Duke.

Irony can be a bitch.  ;D
 
I had an interesting conversation about this topic with some friends this weekend.

Two interesting, if rather opposed conclusions:

Canada's political culture is docile and conformist. The Reform Party, which is the biggest and most successful "insurrection" to date was explicitly about joining with the power centres (or at least co-opting them). Their message and rallying cry was "The West wants in!".

The rise of Trump, Sanders, Le Pen and others of that ilk around the world, however, represent something far different: the rebellion of the "Plebes" against the ruling elites after having to endure decades of the failure of the policies endorsed by the elites. The closest historical analogy turns out to be the "Social Wars" near the end of the Res Publica Roma, and we know what eventually emerged out of that....

 
Momentum for Cruz this time?

Canadian Press

Cruz, Trump each grab 2 wins; Dems divide states too
[The Canadian Press]
Nancy Benac And Roxana Hegeman, The Associated Press

March 5, 2016
WICHITA, Kan. - In a split decision, Ted Cruz and Donald Trump each captured two victories in Saturday's four-state round of voting, fresh evidence that there's no quick end in sight to the fractious GOP race for president. On the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders notched wins in Nebraska and Kansas, while front-runner Hillary Clinton snagged Louisiana, another divided verdict from the American people.

Cruz claimed Kansas and Maine, and declared it "a manifestation of a real shift in momentum." Trump, still the front-runner in the hunt for delegates, bagged Louisiana and Kentucky. Despite strong support from the GOP establishment, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio had another disappointing night, raising serious questions about his viability in the race.

(...SNIPPED)
 
S.M.A. said:
Momentum for Cruz this time?

Canadian Press

He still has a long upward battle. Was watching Meet The Press this morning and the analysis shows that the best that Cruz can hope for is to force a contested convention in July. Right now Trump is at a point where if he continues to pull off 50% of the available delegates (not counting Florida or Ohio) he will have a substantial lead going into the convention. If he takes both Florida and Ohio he wraps it up. If Florida and Ohio go for their hometown boys, then Trump needs to take up to 60% of the remaining delegates to win outright. If Cruz takes either Florida or Ohio Trump needs 70% of the remaining delegates to win outright, otherwise they go to the Convention without a nominee.

Interesting insight from an interview during the same show. Kevin Spacey was on talking about the new season of House of Cards and this year's primaries. Seems that the story line in this seasons episodes mirror some events and themes that are coming forward in the primaries. But the series 4th season was developed, written and shot well before the start of all the shenannigans.

A case of life imitating art?

 
Interesting what voter ID does to races. Most particularly when the race is for a Dem primary....

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/03/dem_turnout_and_voter_id_the_dirty_little_secret.html

Dem turnout and voter ID: The dirty little secret
By Thomas Lifson

The numbers tell a story, and you can draw the obvious conclusions. Because the mainstream media certainly won’t.  Keep this statistic in mind the next time some progressive tries to claim voter fraud is not a serious problem.

Political Wire quotes the HuffPo:

Huffington Post: “Eight out of the 16 states that have held primaries or caucuses so far have implemented new voter ID or other restrictive voting laws since 2010. Democratic turnout has dropped 37 percent overall in those eight states, but just 13 percent in the states that didn’t enact new voter restrictions. To put it another way, Democratic voter turnout was 285 percent worse in states with new voter ID laws.”

Left unsaid: despite the “burden” of obtaining voter ID, GOP turnout was up.
 
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-gop-primary

Trump 43%
Rubio  19%
Cruz    17%
Kasich  8%

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-democratic-primary

Clinton 53%
Sanders 38%

Sanders has about as much of the Democrats as Trump has of the Republicans.

Establishment Election

Clinton vs Rubio

Anti-Establishment Election

Sanders vs Trump

The Democrat Establishment is creating exactly the same feelings amongst Sanders's supporters that the Republican Establishment is creating amongst Trump's supporters.  And using exactly the same tools, the perceived disenfranchisement of the electorate by taking the decision to convention and the electoral college.

:pop:  This is fun.
 
Thucydides said:
Interesting what voter ID does to races. Most particularly when the race is for a Dem primary....

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/03/dem_turnout_and_voter_id_the_dirty_little_secret.html

Not exactly sure that new Voter ID laws is really the drive behind the drop / increases in turnout noted.

The GOP is in the middle of a civil war and there are significant issues that the candidates bring to the mix, where as the Dems really only have a two candidate race, and in actuality the outcome has all but been decided anyway. So the GOP turnout is up because of they have motivation, the Dems don't. And it also doesn't take into account the number of independent and crossover voters in the open primary states. And caucus states are shouldn't factor into turnout as there are different mechanisms at play, and only the most ardent party voter tends to attend the caucuses due to the time involved in caucusing.

Always remember: Correlation does not imply causation.
 
Back
Top