The Republican Primary Race Is Filling Up

[BugI02]

"On one side, Trump could deal a crushing blow to Cruz, the Texas senator, across a series of Southern and Border States, from Alabama and Arkansas to Tennessee and Oklahoma, that are dominated by evangelical and blue-collar voters.


On the other front, polls show Trump leading in mostly white-collar, far less evangelical states including Vermont, Massachusetts, and Virginia that should be crucial building blocks for Florida Senator Marco Rubio and Ohio Governor John Kasich, the candidates relying most on mainstream conservative voters.


Trump’s strength in states that represent such divergent poles of the GOP coalition testifies to his unique assets as a candidate—and the challenge he presents for his rivals. If Trump can beat Cruz next week in heavily blue-collar and evangelical states on one side, and top Kasich and Rubio in white collar, less culturally conservative states on the other, it will grow increasingly daunting for any candidate to coalesce a coalition large enough to stop the front-runner. That prospect may help explain the urgency with which Rubio and Cruz assailed Trump at Thursday night’s debate."


Source" Trump Is Winning a Two-Front War - The Atlantic

 

[jamil]

At least until november

Well, I'll tell you what. If Trump wins the nomination. And Trump wins the general election. And Trump actually does the stuff you think he'll do. And doesn't do the stuff you think he won't do. Then you get to tell me you told me so.

I think Trump will likely win enough delegates to win the nomination. It's not outside of reason to suspect that the Republican party will pull some ****. But if somehow Trump does come out of the convention with the nomination Trump will lose to Hillary. That said, I think there are two ways any Republican can beat Hillary, even Trump. If the email scandal blows up on her, or Bernie hangs in there to the bitter end and there's controversy over the outcome, enough to keep the Bern Club at home on election day.

 

[jamil]

What would a candidacy going viral look like to current polling methods? You are incorrect in assuming that poll-takers only call land lines, but if you were correct how would that affect the representational mathematics of the sample. Numbers can hint at the shape of the territory they describe but that's about it.

Why do you think Trump's candidacy is going viral? Are you saying in terms of support? I'd say no. He's not. In terms of what people are talking about? Yes, he is going viral. People are talking about supporting him and not supporting him. His supporters are mocking the people NOT voting for him. His detractors are mocking his supporters. Yep lots of talking about Trump going on. It's a virus.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

This Trump rally today has turned into an extended dissertation on Trump University... Which means that line of attack is working. Apparently it's everyone's fault but his.

Con artist and scammer, excellent Presidential material. He's rattled... Ted and Marco shouldn't let up now, stay on the offensive and expose him further.

Also seems some charities are still waiting on him to pay up on donations he promised:

Some Trump Charities Waiting on Funds | Fox Business

 

[BugI02]

"Well, I'll tell you what. If Trump wins the nomination. And Trump wins the general election. And Trump actually does the stuff you think he'll do. And doesn't do the stuff you think he won't do. Then you get to tell me you told me so."

Not sure if I'll be able to in good conscience take you up on that, jamil. If he simply survives and gets elected I think he will have fulfilled my hopes for him, which is to deliver a death blow to the Republican establishment as it has been. Everything after that will be as much a surprise to me probably as it will be to you.

If he can choke the **** out of business-as-usual I will be twice happy

 

[BugI02]

Why do you think Trump's candidacy is going viral? Are you saying in terms of support? I'd say no. He's not. In terms of what people are talking about? Yes, he is going viral. People are talking about supporting him and not supporting him. His supporters are mocking the people NOT voting for him. His detractors are mocking his supporters. Yep lots of talking about Trump going on. It's a virus.

Just remember, you heard it here first. I think Christie's endorsement was the first brick in the wall

 

[ArcadiaGP]

... alright. Sometimes he lets those racist tendencies slip

Trump on the judge in Trump U. case: "This judge is very hostile against me. He happens to be Spanish. Fine. He's hispanic, which is fine."

 

[jamil]

Just remember, you heard it here first. I think Christie's endorsement was the first brick in the wall

Yeah, cuz so many people supported Christie.

An endorsement from the most authoritarian candidate in the race actually makes me think even less of Trump.

 

[MisterChester]

Donald Trump: As President, I?ll Reverse the Law That Prevents Churches from Endorsing Candidates

Go Trump! Make them lose their 501(c)3 status with the IRS.

 

[BugI02]

I found this to be a very good read (you have been warned)

Donald Trump & the GOP of the Future

"Q: But doesn’t he have only a passing acquaintance with the truth?

A: And sometimes not even that. Trump tells falsehoods loosely and spontaneously in a sort of stream-of-consciousness lying to boost his prospects, win over doubters, crush opponents, and save his face. Details can be found all over the Internet. Most of them strike me as trivial. But none of the three leading Republicans have been exactly models of truth-telling in this campaign. So the relevant question then becomes “Compared with whom?” Let’s compare Trump’s boastful and evasive untruths with the very different lies of Marco Rubio on various immigration bills he has tried to sell to conservatives (as detailed by John Fonte on NRO on Wednesday.) These amounted to a long campaign of deliberate mendacity intended to deceive allies on a matter of the greatest public interest so that they would unknowingly support what they really oppose. It’s a matter of taste whether or not frequent spontaneous untruths are preferable to a single important calculated deception. Neither should be regarded lightly, and they would usually be punished in the court of public opinion. But in a crowded field of Democratic deceivers, Hillary is the last person who could make lying the basis of a plausible attack."

"Q: Doesn’t that put the GOP in a bind?

A: It certainly does. Ideally, Republicans would like to keep Trump’s constituency without Trump. He is a high-risk candidate both because of his wayward personality and his high negative poll ratings. His chances of winning the White House are currently in the low 40s. As nominee he might well suffer a major defeat. Bad though that would be, the Trump followers would not then be alienated from the GOP. As with Goldwater people after 1964, they might inject both numbers and new energy into the party. There is even a possibility that Trump, who surprises everyone regularly, might win. On the other hand, an establishment “set-up,” either at the convention or by a forced marriage of Rubio and Cruz in later primaries, would drive the Trump people out of the party, maybe into a third party, more likely back into political apathy. Ideally, Republicans would like to keep Trump’s constituency without Trump. The set-up most likely to produce that self-destructive result would be one that put Rubio at the top of the ticket. Rubio is the poster boy for the liberal immigration policies that Trump launched his campaign by opposing. He incarnates the theory that the U.S. economy can be be endlessly stimulated by importing cheap labor to hold down costs. So, as Mickey Kaus has pointed out, his nomination would be a sign to the voters, including the Trump people, that the GOP’s brief flirtation with the idea of raising low incomes by tightening the labor market by reducing immigration had been defeated inside the party. Senator Jeff Sessions would be down, the donor class back, and the GOP’s new converts out — or at least heavily discouraged."

See, even the Brits know it

 

[spec4]

Sorry, not concerned about how the Brits look at anything here. Like they have done such a great job with freedom over there.
'
It was posted above that Bernies sycophants would stay home if he lost. I'm not so sure. The Dems (socialists) have a long record of pulling together against the common for (us).

 

[Kutnupe14]

Sorry, not concerned about how the Brits look at anything here. Like they have done such a great job with freedom over there.
'
It was posted above that Bernies sycophants would stay home if he lost. I'm not so sure. The Dems (socialists) have a long record of pulling together against the common for (us).

I disagree. There has been a handful of steadfast allies to the United States. Great Britain being FIRST among them. They may have steered off the path a little, but IMO at the very least we owe them the time to listen to what they say. They may be wrong, and painfully obviously so, but there must be discussion with them as to why they are, rather that a dismissive waving of the hand.

 

[Dead Duck]

I disagree. There has been a handful of steadfast allies to the United States. Great Britain being FIRST among them. They may have steered off the path a little, but IMO at the very least we owe them the time to listen to what they say. They may be wrong, and painfully obviously so, but there must be discussion with them as to why they are, rather that a dismissive waving of the hand.

They haven't steered off their path an inch.
They're still the world conquering red coats that we ran off not too long ago. Allies because they don't have a choice....but we do.

 

[BugI02]

But they're so delightfully unimpressed by us. Love the BBC news

 

[mrjarrell]

That article isn't by a British publication or author. It's by the National Review. A decidedly American publication. This is what comes of not reading posted links.

 

[Kutnupe14]

They haven't steered off their path an inch.
They're still the world conquering red coats that we ran off not too long ago. Allies because they don't have a choice....but we do.

Do we have a choice? Do you know how much parity there would be between us and Russia, if GB wasn't our ally? One of the MAJOR reasons they were so willing to give up their empire, was the good relations they had with their little brother.

 

[BugI02]

That article isn't by a British publication or author. It's by the National Review. A decidedly American publication. This is what comes of not reading posted links.

"John O'Sullivan, CBE (born April 25, 1942) is a British conservative political commentator and journalist and currently vice president and executive editor of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty."


Yes. Quite so

 

[Dead Duck]

Do we have a choice? Do you know how much parity there would be between us and Russia, if GB wasn't our ally? One of the MAJOR reasons they were so willing to give up their empire, was the good relations they had with their little brother.

This old dude comes to mind-

"Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer."
-Sun-tzu

 

[mrjarrell]

"John O'Sullivan, CBE (born April 25, 1942) is a British conservative political commentator and journalist and currently vice president and executive editor of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty."


Yes. Quite so

Yes, he is British, my bad, but he's a columnist for the National Review, an American conservative publication. He writes for them often, because he's a conservative. His nationality has nothing to do with his politics.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Bahahahahahahaha....

Trump to Christie: "Get on the plane and go home, it's over there. You go home."

https://t.co/oLXn4gG5qm


Even Christie looks surprised and how ****ty of a comment that is. So much cringe... Christie is the fat kid that gives his lunch money to the bully, and hopes they'll be friends.... then the bully turns him away and gives him a wedgie.