NineOneFour wrote:

Columbus wrote:

OlivierK wrote:Back on the GOP for a second, that Cruz-Kasich plan worked like the stinker it was, with them splitting the non-Trump vote pretty evenly in the end. Given that Trump handily topped 50% in all 5 states contested, it wouldn't have made much difference had it worked, so its failure hasn't really cost them anything, if they want to look on the bright side

I don't think the Cruz/ Kasich thing was expected to rescue those states, because Trump was already the favorite to win. Rather, it backfired on the GOP in a spectacular fashion. So he didn't just win, he crushed them.
I don't think that Trump gained supporters so much as the ones he had were on fire. The sleazy tactics of the GOP, including Colorado delegates and such, are stoking the outrage of a group whose main feature is outrage. Trump has been hammering the "rigged system" thing very effectively.
The tactics are also demoralizing to the other Republican voters, grossed out by the shamelessness of their party leaders. That just doesn't energize people to go vote.
The Republican party may have just painted itself into yet another corner. A couple days ago I didn't think Trump would actually reach 1237. Now it looks like he could surpass it comfortably. With folks like the Kochs bailing on the GOP, I think the political landscape will be VERY different come November.
Tom

A LOT of big donors who donated to McCain, Romney, and Jeb are not going to donate to Trump. And he has few operatives on the ground.

Not only the Koch brothers, but Sheldon Adelson, DeVos, Wilkes, etc.

It's a loss for sure, but Trump is the king of getting his message out for free.

OlivierK wrote:
It's a loss for sure, but Trump is the king of getting his message out for free.

Though Trump might need to be a bit more cautious in his approach of getting his message out. I think his last attempt was probably an example.

Stating that a former US Senator and Secretary of State wasn't qualified to be President and only being considered because of her vagina is sexist and insulting to women in general. I think Trump has been able to dominate headlines by belittling people and personal attacks, but women are too big a voting bloc to alienate.

He is massively unpopular with them already. Considering his unpopularity with black and hispanic voters, he can't afford to perform worse among women than Romney, but its hard to see how he does better.

HRC seems wise to keep up her current strategy. She has strong command for policy details. Keep using these opportunities to highlight their differences on policy issues like women's issues. She shouldn't get drawn into a name calling fight she can't win. During debates she should point out that Trump is trying to distract from the issues facing people and keep circling back to them.

OlivierK wrote:

NineOneFour wrote:

Columbus wrote:

OlivierK wrote:Back on the GOP for a second, that Cruz-Kasich plan worked like the stinker it was, with them splitting the non-Trump vote pretty evenly in the end. Given that Trump handily topped 50% in all 5 states contested, it wouldn't have made much difference had it worked, so its failure hasn't really cost them anything, if they want to look on the bright side

I don't think the Cruz/ Kasich thing was expected to rescue those states, because Trump was already the favorite to win. Rather, it backfired on the GOP in a spectacular fashion. So he didn't just win, he crushed them.
I don't think that Trump gained supporters so much as the ones he had were on fire. The sleazy tactics of the GOP, including Colorado delegates and such, are stoking the outrage of a group whose main feature is outrage. Trump has been hammering the "rigged system" thing very effectively.
The tactics are also demoralizing to the other Republican voters, grossed out by the shamelessness of their party leaders. That just doesn't energize people to go vote.
The Republican party may have just painted itself into yet another corner. A couple days ago I didn't think Trump would actually reach 1237. Now it looks like he could surpass it comfortably. With folks like the Kochs bailing on the GOP, I think the political landscape will be VERY different come November.
Tom

A LOT of big donors who donated to McCain, Romney, and Jeb are not going to donate to Trump. And he has few operatives on the ground.

Not only the Koch brothers, but Sheldon Adelson, DeVos, Wilkes, etc.

It's a loss for sure, but Trump is the king of getting his message out for free.

Yeah, but his message is "I'm a dead rat covered in dog shit." Everyone already knows who he is, so he needs some good publicity. When you're a nobody any publicity is good publicity so you can get some face time, but at this stage? He's got the supporters he's gonna get.

Yeah, but his message is "I'm a dead rat covered in dog shit."

Millions of USA voters think that Sanders' message is "We communists will sell your children into slavery".
Tom

Columbus wrote:

Yeah, but his message is "I'm a dead rat covered in dog shit."

Millions of USA voters think that Sanders' message is "We communists will sell your children into slavery".
Tom

One of those is a misconception.

Columbus wrote:

Yeah, but his message is "I'm a dead rat covered in dog shit."

Millions of USA voters think that Sanders' message is "We communists will sell your children into slavery".
Tom

Which is silly because there's no buying or selling in a communist scheme. Child slaves would be taken from each according to their ability and given to each according to their need.

Boyle wrote:

OlivierK wrote:

NineOneFour wrote:

Columbus wrote:
I don't think the Cruz/ Kasich thing was expected to rescue those states, because Trump was already the favorite to win. Rather, it backfired on the GOP in a spectacular fashion. So he didn't just win, he crushed them.
I don't think that Trump gained supporters so much as the ones he had were on fire. The sleazy tactics of the GOP, including Colorado delegates and such, are stoking the outrage of a group whose main feature is outrage. Trump has been hammering the "rigged system" thing very effectively.
The tactics are also demoralizing to the other Republican voters, grossed out by the shamelessness of their party leaders. That just doesn't energize people to go vote.
The Republican party may have just painted itself into yet another corner. A couple days ago I didn't think Trump would actually reach 1237. Now it looks like he could surpass it comfortably. With folks like the Kochs bailing on the GOP, I think the political landscape will be VERY different come November.
Tom

A LOT of big donors who donated to McCain, Romney, and Jeb are not going to donate to Trump. And he has few operatives on the ground.

Not only the Koch brothers, but Sheldon Adelson, DeVos, Wilkes, etc.

It's a loss for sure, but Trump is the king of getting his message out for free.

Yeah, but his message is "I'm a dead rat covered in dog shit." Everyone already knows who he is, so he needs some good publicity. When you're a nobody any publicity is good publicity so you can get some face time, but at this stage? He's got the supporters he's gonna get.

I largely agree that it's hard to see Trump appealing to people beyond his current base, but I completely disagree that his ability to get his message out for free is somehow diminished because people know who he is. The message he's going to be preaching from here on in isn't about himself, it's about "Corrupt Hillary". If you don't think he can't get that negative message out for free to a greater extent than any previous campaign has done with a billion dollar spend on attack ads, then you're not paying attention. He'll be on every channel every day, and not paying a cent for the privilege, and there will still be a sizeable paid campaign on top of that, even if the Kochs and Adelsons of the world keep their hands in their pockets.

Anyway, the feeling I get is that Clinton's inevitability is pretty much accepted by everyone bar Trump at this point. Certainly the GOP establishment and DNC are treating this as a done deal with eyes on 2020 (GOP) or 2024 (DNC) as much as 2016. If I were a betting person, I'd put something on a landslide at this point, with Clinton turning some Southern states blue that have been red for decades. But in this cycle, anything really could happen from here. It's going to be a wild ride at times, especially at convention time.

Boyle wrote:

Columbus wrote:

Yeah, but his message is "I'm a dead rat covered in dog shit."

Millions of USA voters think that Sanders' message is "We communists will sell your children into slavery".
Tom

Which is silly because there's no buying or selling in a communist scheme. Child slaves would be taken from each according to their ability and given to each according to their need.

OlivierK wrote:

Boyle wrote:

OlivierK wrote:

NineOneFour wrote:

A LOT of big donors who donated to McCain, Romney, and Jeb are not going to donate to Trump. And he has few operatives on the ground.

Not only the Koch brothers, but Sheldon Adelson, DeVos, Wilkes, etc.

It's a loss for sure, but Trump is the king of getting his message out for free.

Yeah, but his message is "I'm a dead rat covered in dog shit." Everyone already knows who he is, so he needs some good publicity. When you're a nobody any publicity is good publicity so you can get some face time, but at this stage? He's got the supporters he's gonna get.

I largely agree that it's hard to see Trump appealing to people beyond his current base, but I completely disagree that his ability to get his message out for free is somehow diminished because people know who he is. The message he's going to be preaching from here on in isn't about himself, it's about "Corrupt Hillary". If you don't think he can't get that negative message out for free to a greater extent than any previous campaign has done with a billion dollar spend on attack ads, then you're not paying attention. He'll be on every channel every day, and not paying a cent for the privilege, and there will still be a sizeable paid campaign on top of that, even if the Kochs and Adelsons of the world keep their hands in their pockets.

Anyway, the feeling I get is that Clinton's inevitability is pretty much accepted by everyone bar Trump at this point. Certainly the GOP establishment and DNC are treating this as a done deal with eyes on 2020 (GOP) or 2024 (DNC) as much as 2016. If I were a betting person, I'd put something on a landslide at this point, with Clinton turning some Southern states blue that have been red for decades. But in this cycle, anything really could happen from here. It's going to be a wild ride at times, especially at convention time.

I'm just not sure of the efficacy of it. Like Trump, Clinton is a known quantity. Calling her corrupt isn't new or shocking. It won't drive voters down any more than they already are. The more he talks, too, about his specific plans the worse he gets because he doesn't have any. He doesn't know shit about geopolitics or public policy and that shows. I know the American electorate is dumb and all that, but looking competent really matters, and Clinton looks competent. Corrupt too, but hey, calling a politician corrupt is just repeating yourself, right?

Trump will probably do some dumbshit thing like making a sexist comment a la Meghan Kelly and get burned bad for it in the election. He has awful support among women and minorities so all the angry white men in America won't be enough to get him the presidency no matter how much his poorly articulated message resonates with them.

Agreed.

OlivierK wrote:

Boyle wrote:

OlivierK wrote:

NineOneFour wrote:

A LOT of big donors who donated to McCain, Romney, and Jeb are not going to donate to Trump. And he has few operatives on the ground.

Not only the Koch brothers, but Sheldon Adelson, DeVos, Wilkes, etc.

It's a loss for sure, but Trump is the king of getting his message out for free.

Yeah, but his message is "I'm a dead rat covered in dog shit." Everyone already knows who he is, so he needs some good publicity. When you're a nobody any publicity is good publicity so you can get some face time, but at this stage? He's got the supporters he's gonna get.

I largely agree that it's hard to see Trump appealing to people beyond his current base, but I completely disagree that his ability to get his message out for free is somehow diminished because people know who he is. The message he's going to be preaching from here on in isn't about himself, it's about "Corrupt Hillary". If you don't think he can't get that negative message out for free to a greater extent than any previous campaign has done with a billion dollar spend on attack ads, then you're not paying attention. He'll be on every channel every day, and not paying a cent for the privilege, and there will still be a sizeable paid campaign on top of that, even if the Kochs and Adelsons of the world keep their hands in their pockets.

Anyway, the feeling I get is that Clinton's inevitability is pretty much accepted by everyone bar Trump at this point. Certainly the GOP establishment and DNC are treating this as a done deal with eyes on 2020 (GOP) or 2024 (DNC) as much as 2016. If I were a betting person, I'd put something on a landslide at this point, with Clinton turning some Southern states blue that have been red for decades. But in this cycle, anything really could happen from here. It's going to be a wild ride at times, especially at convention time.

Is that inevitability a good thing though? Won't that have a negative affect that if people think she's won and got it already, they might not bother turning up at all. I'm not sure how much excitement Clinton is generating passed her base supporters and this apathy attitude about her already winning might keep people at home for the reason that she doesn't excite anyone.

Trump on the other hand is entertaining and more interesting even though he's a complete douche. With voter turnout low as well, isn't that when the GOP do better? Sanders always said that was the case so Clinton needs to start inspiring. In the recent town hall however, she did the opposite and when asked about getting Sanders supports over to her she replied "I have 2.4 million more votes than him" - ok, so basically "fuck you I'm doing just fine" - not a great message to be saying and quite frankly, puts people off when you're a smug cunt.

Teague wrote:

OlivierK wrote:

Boyle wrote:

OlivierK wrote:
It's a loss for sure, but Trump is the king of getting his message out for free.

Yeah, but his message is "I'm a dead rat covered in dog shit." Everyone already knows who he is, so he needs some good publicity. When you're a nobody any publicity is good publicity so you can get some face time, but at this stage? He's got the supporters he's gonna get.

I largely agree that it's hard to see Trump appealing to people beyond his current base, but I completely disagree that his ability to get his message out for free is somehow diminished because people know who he is. The message he's going to be preaching from here on in isn't about himself, it's about "Corrupt Hillary". If you don't think he can't get that negative message out for free to a greater extent than any previous campaign has done with a billion dollar spend on attack ads, then you're not paying attention. He'll be on every channel every day, and not paying a cent for the privilege, and there will still be a sizeable paid campaign on top of that, even if the Kochs and Adelsons of the world keep their hands in their pockets.

Anyway, the feeling I get is that Clinton's inevitability is pretty much accepted by everyone bar Trump at this point. Certainly the GOP establishment and DNC are treating this as a done deal with eyes on 2020 (GOP) or 2024 (DNC) as much as 2016. If I were a betting person, I'd put something on a landslide at this point, with Clinton turning some Southern states blue that have been red for decades. But in this cycle, anything really could happen from here. It's going to be a wild ride at times, especially at convention time.

Is that inevitability a good thing though? Won't that have a negative affect that if people think she's won and got it already, they might not bother turning up at all. I'm not sure how much excitement Clinton is generating passed her base supporters and this apathy attitude about her already winning might keep people at home for the reason that she doesn't excite anyone.

Trump on the other hand is entertaining and more interesting even though he's a complete douche. With voter turnout low as well, isn't that when the GOP do better? Sanders always said that was the case so Clinton needs to start inspiring. In the recent town hall however, she did the opposite and when asked about getting Sanders supports over to her she replied "I have 2.4 million more votes than him" - ok, so basically "fuck you I'm doing just fine" - not a great message to be saying and quite frankly, puts people off when you're a smug cunt.

Do you ever look at polls before forming opinions?

NineOneFour wrote:

Teague wrote:

OlivierK wrote:

Boyle wrote:
Yeah, but his message is "I'm a dead rat covered in dog shit." Everyone already knows who he is, so he needs some good publicity. When you're a nobody any publicity is good publicity so you can get some face time, but at this stage? He's got the supporters he's gonna get.

I largely agree that it's hard to see Trump appealing to people beyond his current base, but I completely disagree that his ability to get his message out for free is somehow diminished because people know who he is. The message he's going to be preaching from here on in isn't about himself, it's about "Corrupt Hillary". If you don't think he can't get that negative message out for free to a greater extent than any previous campaign has done with a billion dollar spend on attack ads, then you're not paying attention. He'll be on every channel every day, and not paying a cent for the privilege, and there will still be a sizeable paid campaign on top of that, even if the Kochs and Adelsons of the world keep their hands in their pockets.

Anyway, the feeling I get is that Clinton's inevitability is pretty much accepted by everyone bar Trump at this point. Certainly the GOP establishment and DNC are treating this as a done deal with eyes on 2020 (GOP) or 2024 (DNC) as much as 2016. If I were a betting person, I'd put something on a landslide at this point, with Clinton turning some Southern states blue that have been red for decades. But in this cycle, anything really could happen from here. It's going to be a wild ride at times, especially at convention time.

Is that inevitability a good thing though? Won't that have a negative affect that if people think she's won and got it already, they might not bother turning up at all. I'm not sure how much excitement Clinton is generating passed her base supporters and this apathy attitude about her already winning might keep people at home for the reason that she doesn't excite anyone.

Trump on the other hand is entertaining and more interesting even though he's a complete douche. With voter turnout low as well, isn't that when the GOP do better? Sanders always said that was the case so Clinton needs to start inspiring. In the recent town hall however, she did the opposite and when asked about getting Sanders supports over to her she replied "I have 2.4 million more votes than him" - ok, so basically "fuck you I'm doing just fine" - not a great message to be saying and quite frankly, puts people off when you're a smug cunt.

Do you ever look at polls before forming opinions?

Do you ever read anything? I'm clearly talking about what the future might bring. Just like when polls had Trump as an idiot at the start of his campaign which were clearly wrong, weren't they. I went to find out what he was polling and came across this...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/24_opt_out_of_a_clinton_trump_race

Nearly one-in-four voters say they will stay home or vote third party if Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are the major party presidential candidates.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely U.S. Voters finds Trump and Clinton tied at 38% each. But 16% say they would vote for some other candidate if the presidential election comes down to those two, while six percent (6%) would stay home. Only two percent (2%) are undecided given those options. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Still, the picture appears to be improving for both candidates. In early March, 49% of voters told us they would definitely vote against Trump if he is the presidential nominee of the Republican Party, but nearly as many (42%) said they would definitely vote against Clinton if she is the Democratic Party’s nominee.

and then this....

http://www.politico.com/blogs/twelve-thirty-seven/2016/04/donald-trump-popular-vote-record-222510

With his five blowout wins Tuesday night, Donald Trump has passed Mitt Romney’s popular vote total from four years ago and is on a trajectory that could land him more Republican votes than any presidential candidate in modern history – by a lot.

Sanders won the record on individual contributions by a landslide so far and that's continuing. How many has Clinton got?

Now let's look at total from 19th March (for some reason google is having issues giving me a total number for her for today's numbers.

Overall vote
Republicans 20,375,925
Democrats 15,070,178

By candidate
Clinton 8,668,136
Trump 7,548,429
Sanders 6,131,951
Cruz 5,484,494
Rubio 3,394,134
Kasich 2,725,327
Carson 677,307
Bush 249,894
O'Malley 94,692

http://www.npr.org/2016/03/19/471102628 ... re-overall

Well Trump passed 10 million and is going to make history and the GOP have 5 million more votes than the dems do so I don't know, with Kasich and Cruz defeated, where will those votes go and Trump is bringing out the numbers. If it were a contest right now, Trump would be president if all voters went with their party nominee.

Found them

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_vote_count.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/republican_vote_count.html

Dems total around 21 million

Reps total around 24 million (this does include Rubio however which is almost 3.5 million)

Clinton has 12 million and Trump 10 million

Sorry, Teague, but that's a pile of steaming shit that relies for its credibility on a complete lack of understanding of the primary process. Getting more votes in your party's primary does not translate to getting more votes in the general - that's just crazy talk. Everything that follows from that assumption is guaranteed to be shit.

OlivierK wrote:Sorry, Teague, but that's a pile of steaming shit that relies for its credibility with a complete lack of understanding of the primary process. Getting more votes in your party's primary does not translate to getting more votes in the general - that's just crazy talk. Everything that follows from that assumption is guaranteed to be shit.

And your reply is a pile of steaming shit too, Oliver. Point out where I said this was a fact and try and get the point that I'm making a case for Trump here as to how he could do better in the general.

You however seem to have a crystal ball and already know the outcome. It seems pointless to continue putting forward this line of reasoning when you cannot even grasp the basic premise of it and would rather try and point out that I'm saying that he got more votes in the primary which will mean he'll win in the general where I have said nothing of the sort. I'm not explaining it further as it's already fucking simple enough to understand.

Teague wrote:

OlivierK wrote:Sorry, Teague, but that's a pile of steaming shit that relies for its credibility with a complete lack of understanding of the primary process. Getting more votes in your party's primary does not translate to getting more votes in the general - that's just crazy talk. Everything that follows from that assumption is guaranteed to be shit.

And your reply is a pile of steaming shit too, Oliver. Point out where I said this was a fact and try and get the point that I'm making a case for Trump here as to how he could do better in the general.

You however seem to have a crystal ball and already know the outcome. It seems pointless to continue putting forward this line of reasoning when you cannot even grasp the basic premise of it and would rather try and point out that I'm saying that he got more votes in the primary which will mean he'll win in the general where I have said nothing of the sort. I'm not explaining it further as it's already fucking simple enough to understand.

It's not simple, it's bullshit. Total vote numbers in the primaries for a party are determined by whether a party holds open or closed primaries, or caucuses, more than by anything else. To attach ANY meaning to the vote totals is to spectacularly misunderstand what's going on here. To compare vote totals of parties that are using different electoral rules is meaningless. The democrats will get a small bump in total votes when ND goes to the polls, because the Republilcans aren't even holding a primary there. DC has already voted for Republican delegates, but not Democratic delegates, because each party has its own timetable. You might as well pick two numbers out of a hat and talk about how the second one being bigger makes a case for Trump doing better in the general, and it would make as much sense.

Teague wrote:You however seem to have a crystal ball and already know the outcome.

More shit.

OlivierK wrote:But in this cycle, anything really could happen from here.

Seriously, quit while you're behind.

OlivierK wrote:

Teague wrote:You however seem to have a crystal ball and already know the outcome.

More shit.

OlivierK wrote:But in this cycle, anything really could happen from here.

Seriously, quit while you're behind.

LOL ok so there's no discussion to be had with you. Why the fuck did u bother replying then, just to troll?

Darwinsbulldog wrote:I hope he gets the Publican nomination-it would guarantee a Democrat President.

Which pub would nominate him?