Chris Christie just endorsed Donald Trump, too funny.
Chris Christie just endorsed Donald Trump, too funny.
Wow. So now Mitch McConnell is saying that if Trump is the nominee, the GOP should help the democrats slander him in the election
Originally posted by Lestov16
Hillary just won the South Carolina primary. Feel bad for Bernie, but as I stated before, I'm rooting for Hillary over him.
Daaaang, it's looking like this is an understatement.
20-30 points was about how much people thought Bernie would lose by- anything less than that is a good sign going forward at least. 538 predicted maybe 38.
One poll said 50 points- and it looks like that poll was right.
Exit polls say Hillary won among whites by about 6 points. Among older blacks, 96 to 3. African Americans period, 87-13. That's a wider margin than Barack Obama got in '08. And overwhelmingly in favor of continuing Barack Obama's policies. Exit polls on some stuff. more exit polls- including one on who they consider most trustworthy, which Hillary won too (most think both are trustworthy).
This leads to an overarching question. How does a woman who has been slandered for her husband's seemingly destructive policies towards blacks annihilate a man who was marched with Dr. King and even got arrested fighting for black rights?
The answer, quite simply, is political realism. Bernie is a saintly paragon of a man. A true egalitarian humanitarian that Clark Kent would probably admire. But at the end of the day, the practicality of his policies are pipe dreams just as impossible to implement as Donald Trump's nonsense. Black voters aren't stupid, and if the past 8 years of unprecedented congressional obstructionism have taught us anything, it is that being POTUS does NOT mean you just get to automatically implement the effective social changes to better society.
Bernie wants change, but he seems unwilling to recognize the mass societal overhaul it would take to transition to this new way of living. Obamacare is smart. It supplies millions, but it isn't mandatory for all people to have it. Under Sanders healthcare plan, all the health insurance you get from job benefits? Gone. You really think the millions with job health coverage are just going to surrender that en masse?
See that's the thing about Sanders and Clinton. Sanders message is that everything is messed up and we need a complete overhaul to fix it, whereas Clinton's message is that the changes needed have already been implemented under Obama, and she will just further cultivate Obama's policies. And the thing is, she's right. Dodd-Frank is reforming Wall Street, the DREAM Act is reforming immigration, and Obamacare is reforming health coverage.
That's the thing about Hillary. For all her faults and her email scandals and her hidden Wall Street speeches, she is the ONLY candidate in the entire race who has displayed practical policies that actually be implemented, the only one who can actual handle congressional obstruction, and quite simply, the only one who is actual presidential material, which is why the GOP view her as the antichrist.
There is a well known video of Sanders giving a very smart and sagacious speech about the flaws of engaging in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Pretty much all of his points are correct and it is almost precognitive, but the only thing is, he is delivering his speech not just to deaf ears, but a completely empty Senate floor. And that's the thing about him. He is uncompromising in his views, not even giving up if there is no one to hear him. And at the end of the day, he did know best. But knowing best and being POTUS don't mix, because being POTUS means compromising, knowing how to engage in effective bipartisanship in order to bypass congressional obstructionism and get legislation passed to make effective social change. Hillary, for all her flaws, has proven time and again that she can do this. Bernie, for all his virtues, has proven time and again he can't.
Delivering a speech to an empty Senate floor is noble and idealistic, but it gets nothing done on a government level. And after 8 years of seeing Obama get dragged through the mud for his idealism, black people don't just want an idealistic president. They want a president who can actually get stuff done. And again, Hillary has proven she can do that.
That's the thing about the "Super Predator" controversy. At the end of the day, it was a remark shared not only by her, but the numerous black business owners and pastors horrified at the unprecedented gang violence generated by the then-pervasive Crack Epidemic. Same with her support of homophobic marriage laws and the Iraq War. At those times, it was what the majority of her voters, the public, wanted.
Some have called her a flip flopper, but I view her as merely a servant who actualizes the will of the public, and at the end of the day, that is the epitome of what a democratically elected official is supposed to do. Any seemingly negative legislation she passed was done at the behest of the public, and thus it is the ignorance of public, and not her, to blame. Trump, Bernie, and the other candidates proselytize their views on the public, but Hillary wants her constituents to tell her what to get done, and she will develop the most practical plan that is most probable to get it done.
So, in my subjective opinion at least, these are the reasons for Bernie's massive loss tonight. Bernie has very noble utopian pipe dreams, but at the end of the day, nobody is going to take an impossible pipe dream over a practical reality.
Yea, that was solid.
I'll add some minor stuff that reaching out to the black community was one of the first things Hillary did in the race to make sure she was connected, while Bernie waited for awhile so black voters maybe felt there was less interest there, but Lestov's post is very insightful and says It better than I.
For a different matter on Chris Christie and Marco Rubio (and even a little on Bush)-
When Micah Cohen of 538 asked: Serious Q: What did Rubio ever do to Christie?
A link to the Hurricane Sandy relief bill was given.
Cruz and Rubio voted against it.
No wonder he didn't endorse Rubio and sided with Trump against him.
Also, according to this NYT article, Rubio tried to get Chistie's endorsement... via voicemail. Trump on the flip side, called repeatedly so he could actually talk to the guy.
Mr. Christie had attacked Mr. Rubio contemptuously in New Hampshire, calling him shallow and scripted, and humiliating him in a debate. Nevertheless, Mr. Rubio made a tentative overture to Mr. Christie after his withdrawal from the presidential race. He left the governor a voice mail message, seeking Mr. Christie’s support and assuring him that he had a bright future in public service, according to people who have heard Mr. Christie’s characterization of the message.Mr. Christie, 53, took the message as deeply disrespectful and patronizing, questioning why “a 44-year-old” was telling him about his future, said people who described his reaction on the condition of anonymity. Further efforts to connect the two never yielded a direct conversation.
Mr. Trump, by contrast, made frequent calls to Mr. Christie once he dropped out, a person close to the governor said. After the two met at Trump Tower on Thursday with their wives, Mr. Christie flew to Texas and emerged on Friday to back Mr. Trump and mock Mr. Rubio as a desperate candidate near the end of a losing campaign.
Mr. Bush has been nearly silent since quitting the race Feb. 20, playing golf with his son Jeb Jr. in Miami and turning to the task of thank-you notes. In a Wednesday conference call with supporters, he did not express a preference among the remaining contenders. When Mr. Rubio called him on Monday, their conversation did not last long, two people briefed on it said, and Mr. Rubio did not ask for his endorsement.
Rubio didn't even ask Jeb for an endorsement- and while it's not super valuable, it'd have helped consolidate the establishment.
I really question Marco Rubio's political skills, and see why Chris Christie, despite being an 'establishment type,' passed him over and went for Donald.
Scroll to the bottom and listen.
I was thinking of a conspiracy theory. What if Trump and Ben Carson made a deal and Trump is going to have him on his ticket as VP or enticed Carson with a monetary bribe?
Think about it. The only person Carson benefits by staying in the race is Trump by keeping voters away from Cruz and Rubio, and Trump has attacked literally every other Republican candidate, including Kasich, but not Carson, even complementing him.
Coincidence? Maybe. But maybe not.
Every time I see a story about Hilary being up in the polls I just get this image of storm clouds brewing in my mind. Like the calm before the storm is just about to violently end.
Oh btw some people think Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer. Even though he wasn't even born when the first killings began. So we need this guy as president since obviously he must have some kind of magical time traveling powers.
'Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer' is, apparently, a meme that started several years ago? Yea, I don't know what's up with it either.
Originally posted by |King Joker|
To make this still a competitive race Bernie would need to get Massachusetts, Colorado, and Minnesota. If he loses all of them, or even only gets one, it's pretty much over, IMO.
Ahh, even that's not really the case. See, if he gets them in a near-decision, he gains only a few delegates each, just like Hillary only got a few in Iowa and Nevada. That's why New Hampshire alone provided him with enough delegates to match what Hillary got from winning both of those larger states.
Proportional means you need not just wins, but big wins, and it's looking like Hillary is getting big wins in high-delegate states. Sanders desperately needs double-digit wins, like he got in New Hampshire and he's going to get in Vermont, and he needs them in multiple states. If Massachusetts, Colorado, and Minnesota all went to him at, like, +1 and +2, it'd be a moral victory but barely add to his delegate count. It'd be better to win one of them by +12 and lose the others by a hair, and better still if he can actually get a win by a margin in all of those
Here is an article that lists what Bernie's 'break even' targets would be- numbers that indicate, accounting for demographics, where he needs to beat in each state to be on track. "My opponent is going to win by a lot *there*, so I need to balance it out with a larger win *here*." type stuff.
I've seen people elsewhere criticizing the strategist looking like he's playing it kinda like a general election (where winning states matters, how much does not), not a proportional primary (where margin of victory/defeat matters more). Bernie's strategist is the same one that ran the Gore and Kerry campaigns (also a number of successful senate campaigns, I'm just saying nationally, guy does not have a good record).
Lestov16
I was thinking of a conspiracy theory. What if Trump and Ben Carson made a deal and Trump is going to have him on his ticket as VP or enticed Carson with a monetary bribe?Think about it. The only person Carson benefits by staying in the race is Trump by keeping voters away from Cruz and Rubio, and Trump has attacked literally every other Republican candidate, including Kasich, but not Carson, even complementing him.
Frankly, I don't think Carson takes enough votes any more to be worth *near* a VP slot, not any more.
Also, I think Cruz doing better benefits Trump a little, since Rubio is the second-place threat at this point, and Carson mainly takes from Cruz.
I think Donald didn't attack Carson much (he did a little, just not as savagely), because he was aiming to take Carson's voters- which he did- and because Ben Carson pretty clearly was not much of a threat in the long run, Carson did not do enough study on how to run a campaign and kept having problems with his staff and such.
Originally posted by Surtur
New poll shows Trump and Hilary are some of the most disliked nominee's in history. Or rather, they said if Trump gets it he'd be the most disliked nominee in history. If Hilary gets it she will be the 2nd most disliked nominee in history.
Studies show that female political candidates can either be regarded as competent or likable. The likability of Clinton is rated low, but her competency is rated high. And polling shows that voters prefer a candidate who would do a good job over one that they like. It is the inverse of the I-want-a-president-I-can-have-a-drink-with phenomenon. Apparently, people learned from electing George W. Bush. So likability is not as important for Clinton as it is for Trump.
How Bernie Sanders Could Win Super Tuesday Or Win Really Badly: http://www.npr.org/2016/02/29/468505162/how-bernie-sanders-could-win-super-tuesday-or-lose-really-badly
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Studies show that female political candidates can either be regarded as competent or likable. The likability of Clinton is rated low, but her competency is rated high. And polling shows that voters prefer a candidate who would do a good job over one that they like. It is the inverse of the I-want-a-president-I-can-have-a-drink-with phenomenon. Apparently, people learned from electing George W. Bush. So likability is not as important for Clinton as it is for Trump.
Which is rather comical. How can such a highly ranked govt official keep sensitive govt information on her unsecure, private server at home?
That is very much the epitome of incompetent.
Originally posted by Lestov16
I was thinking of a conspiracy theory. What if Trump and Ben Carson made a deal and Trump is going to have him on his ticket as VP or enticed Carson with a monetary bribe?Think about it. The only person Carson benefits by staying in the race is Trump by keeping voters away from Cruz and Rubio, and Trump has attacked literally every other Republican candidate, including Kasich, but not Carson, even complementing him.
Coincidence? Maybe. But maybe not.
possibly but i think trump is smart enough to know that even tho people won't vote for carson, they like carson. he comes off as a very nice and decent man and attacking him would push trump's loud mouth act too far.
plus carson never attacked trump