• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Presidential Primaries 2016

Donald Trump says risdiculous things about abortion and nuclear weapons.

Ted Cruz jokes about the possibility of running over Donald Trump with his car.

John Kasich's pizza eating habits are scrutinized. Is that the worst thing that they can come up with this week?
 
Maya22 said:
Donald Trump says risdiculous things about abortion and nuclear weapons.

Ted Cruz jokes about the possibility of running over Donald Trump with his car.

John Kasich's pizza eating habits are scrutinized. Is that the worst thing that they can come up with this week?
Click to expand...

Maybe it's an indication of how much of a chance he has that they haven't tried too hard to dredge up much dirt.
 
The Don said:
Maybe it's an indication of how much of a chance he has that they haven't tried too hard to dredge up much dirt.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. I was just being snarky. I think one reason that he is still in the race is in his words (more or less) "Do I really want to leave it up to these guys?"
 
Last edited:
Here's a general interest article about the super-delegate situation and what it has to do with a certain "Hillary Victory Fund":

How Hillary Clinton Bought the Loyalty of 33 State Democratic Parties

Margot Kidder said:
Collusion between the Clinton Campaign and the DNC allowed Hillary Clinton to buy the loyalty of 33 state Democratic parties last summer. Montana [where the author is from - CE] was one of those states. It sold itself for $64,100.

The Super Delegates now defying democracy with their insistent refusal to change their votes to Sanders in spite of a handful of overwhelming Clinton primary losses in their own states, were arguably part of that deal.

In August 2015, at the Democratic Party convention in Minneapolis, 33 democratic state parties made deals with the Hillary Clinton campaign and a joint fundraising entity called The Hillary Victory Fund. The deal allowed many of her core billionaire and inner circle individual donors to run the maximum amounts of money allowed through those state parties to the Hillary Victory Fund in New York and the DNC in Washington.

The idea was to increase how much one could personally donate to Hillary by taking advantage of the Supreme Court ruling 2014, McCutcheon v FEC, that [...]
Click to expand...


Being April 1 and the author called Kidder, I still can't bring it over myself to think that this is a joke...
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
Here's a general interest article about the super-delegate situation and what it has to do with a certain "Hillary Victory Fund":

How Hillary Clinton Bought the Loyalty of 33 State Democratic Parties
Click to expand...

One could reasonably infer that the tacit agreement between the signatories was that the state parties and the Hillary Clinton Campaign would act in unity and mutual support.

Sure, a conspiracy everywhere you look :rolleyes:

Childlike Empress said:
Being April 1 and the author called Kidder, I still can't bring it over myself to think that this is a joke...
Click to expand...

Margot Kidder is an actress. Apparently you've not heard of her.

But, I read the article and found the "evidence" to be a joke.
 
Last edited:
Anyone know why the talk is that Kasich voters would favor Trump over Cruz if Kasich wasn't in the race? That seems to be the narrative I'm hearing on CNN.
 
All these people that think Sanders gets a raw deal in the media, they are so much more interested in a big story (I mean my gawd one has to fill up 24/7 coverage with nothing but the primaries) that they are ginning up the Sanders' chance of winning.

MSNBC in particular is predicting Sanders might win in NY despite Clinton being up in the polls and Silver giving her a 98% chance of winning. They keep reminding us Sanders is from Brooklyn despite the fact he has't lived there in decades. Then they lament the "game changer" if Clinton loses her home state. Then note his big crowd in Brooklyn and down play the turnout Clinton got at the Apollo claiming she got a few hundred people.

Here's what the NewYorker said about Clinton at the Apollo last week:
The line outside the Apollo Theatre on Wednesday morning snaked along 125th Street and up Frederick Douglass Boulevard, before curling onto 126th. “The next President is going to be here: we love her!” Fanta Kouyate, a child-services worker who had come across the Harlem River, from the Bronx, volunteered. “I wouldn’t miss it for the world,” Harriet Natkin, an Upper West Side resident who had come with a couple of friends, said. “I’m a very big Hillary supporter.”

With the Secret Service forcing everyone who entered the famous Harlem theatre to go through an airport-style security screening, the line was moving slowly. But the sun was shining and the crowd was good-natured and expectant....

The theatre, which holds around fifteen hundred people, wasn’t quite full; the upper mezzanine, where I was sitting, still had plenty of spare seats. But the crowd quickly grew boisterous, as Charles Rangel, the eighty-five-year-old Harlem congressman and longtime Clinton ally, made a brief appearance, sashaying across the stage.
Click to expand...
So more than 1,000 is not a couple hundred. It's not Sanders size crowds, but Clinton is still ahead in votes, ahead in the polls and in a much better position than Sanders with several pro-Clinton states ahead on the schedule.

He has a movement, it's not big enough, and if we end up with POTUS Trump I'm going to blame the media for making the election a spectacle instead of doing their job informing the public of the issues.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Anyone know why the talk is that Kasich voters would favor Trump over Cruz if Kasich wasn't in the race? That seems to be the narrative I'm hearing on CNN.
Click to expand...

Polls don't necessarily seem to agree with that view.

Of the two recent polls I found, the more recent one appears to suggest that Cruz would benefit if Kasich dropped out, while the older one seems more like a wash, with the Kasich voters more evenly distributed:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/...ndidate-to-gop-clinton-leads-comfortably.html (3/29)

Kasich's continued presence in the race really is providing a boost to Trump- in a head to head match up he would lead Cruz only 46-44, as Kasich voters would move to Cruz over Trump by a 51-23 spread.
Click to expand...

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/2016-republican-poll-trump-cruz-kasich-221111 (3/23)

In a head-to-head matchup between Trump and Cruz — with Kasich voters re-allocated to their second choices — the Manhattan real-estate mogul earned 46 percent support, compared with 37 percent for Cruz and 12 percent undecided.
Click to expand...


What does seem clear though is that Trump has a ceiling. More people say they would never vote for him than any other candidate.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-...y-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2333

54 percent of American voters say they "would definitely not" vote for Trump, with 43 percent saying no to Clinton, 33 percent nixing Cruz, 27 percent saying no to Sanders and 14 percent saying no to Kasich.
Click to expand...

That would put Trump's ceiling at 46%.
 
WI Democratic exit polls from MSNBC:

31% want policies more liberal than Obama
54% want to continue Obama policies
27% moderate
25% very liberal
16% under 30

If I'm making the right inferences from that, it does not say Sanders blowout.

Clinton might even come out ahead, but at worse she will only lose by single digits.


Favoring Sanders: the turnout is good, and the population is overwhelmingly white.
 
Martin O'Malley, former MD Governor and former 2016 Democratic presidential candidate will appear on Rachel Maddow's show tomorrow. I wonder what they will talk about.

From his Twitter page:

The rumors are true: looking forward to visiting w/@maddow tomorrow. Can't promise any kilt conversations this time. Tune in! #2016 #Maddow
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Anyone know why the talk is that Kasich voters would favor Trump over Cruz if Kasich wasn't in the race? That seems to be the narrative I'm hearing on CNN.
Click to expand...

Honestly Kasich staying in helps Cruz at this point. Cruz would need 720 of the 882 delegates left to be assigned, which isn't practical. His only chance is keeping Trump from getting the 494 he still needs, so if even a noticable minority of Kasich voters would go to Trump, Kaisch being in helps Cruz.
 
If I were Republican, I would see choosing between Trump and Cruz and Kasich sort of like choosing between Hitler and King Ferdinand II (Spain) and Gerald Ford. Of those three, I would choose the bureaucrat instead of the fascist or the theocrat. Why don't more Republicans think like me?
 
Maya22 said:
If I were Republican, I would see choosing between Trump and Cruz and Kasich sort of like choosing between Hitler and King Ferdinand II (Spain) and Gerald Ford. Of those three, I would choose the bureaucrat instead of the fascist or the theocrat. Why don't more Republicans think like me?
Click to expand...


Because, I suspect, many of them think that America™ brand Facism and America™ brand Theocracy might actually be pretty nice. When it's Made In America, it's always better.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom