Official 2016 GOP thread: Is it really going to be Donald Trump?? (1 Viewer)

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

To comply with Federal "equal time" campaign laws, NBC is offering 12 minutes and 5 seconds of airtime to the other Republican candidates (to compensate for Trump's appearance on SNL, which ran for exactly 12:05).

link

Jesus, if NBC wants Huckabee to butcher an Allman brothers song, they can just ask him.

 

[General Malaise]

Trump suggesting a boycott of Starbucks.

Guy sure knows how to capture the adoration of the crazies.

He also told the crowd to be proud of celebrating the season, saying “We will all be saying Merry Christmas again” if he enters the White House, the Daily Mail reports.

 

[bagger]

I would give a lot of money for Starbucks to write happy qwanza on their cups to just watch heads explode.

 

[culdeus]

I would give a lot of money for Starbucks to write happy qwanza on their cups to just watch heads explode.

Or something doing with ramadan, even though it's in a completely different part of the year nobody will figure it out till it's too late.

 

[Amused to Death]

Might go order a coffee and tell them my name is Hanukkah Kwanzaa. Ya know, just to make them say it.

 

[timschochet]

Some depressing facts for Republicans, pointed out by Dan Pfeiffer (one of Obama's senior aides) this morning:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/10/opinions/pfeiffer-democrats-view-of-gop-candidates/index.html

1) As Dan Balz pointed out in The Washington Post a few months ago, if the Republican nominee wins the same share of the white vote in 2016 that Mitt Romney won in 2012, he or she would need to receive 30% of the non-white vote to win the White House. Romney won 17% of the non-white vote in '12, so this a tall order.

2) In 2012, President Barack Obama won 332 electoral votes to Romney's 206. The Republican nominee could flip Florida, Ohio and Virginia -- the three biggest swing states -- into the red column and would still lose to a Democrat 272-268.

The point is that the Republican nominee has to have significantly broader appeal than Romney (who was the most broadly appealing GOP candidate in '12).

Being a little better, a little defter and having a few less vulnerabilities will not be enough to return a Republican to the White House.

 

[timschochet]

That statistic (bolded above) amazes me. I always assumed that the next election, like the last few ones, would come down to Florida and Ohio. If a Dem can win even while losing both of those- forget it.

 

[RnR]

Some depressing facts for Republicans, pointed out by Dan Pfeiffer (one of Obama's senior aides) this morning:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/10/opinions/pfeiffer-democrats-view-of-gop-candidates/index.html

1) As Dan Balz pointed out in The Washington Post a few months ago, if the Republican nominee wins the same share of the white vote in 2016 that Mitt Romney won in 2012, he or she would need to receive 30% of the non-white vote to win the White House. Romney won 17% of the non-white vote in '12, so this a tall order.

2) In 2012, President Barack Obama won 332 electoral votes to Romney's 206. The Republican nominee could flip Florida, Ohio and Virginia -- the three biggest swing states -- into the red column and would still lose to a Democrat 272-268.

The point is that the Republican nominee has to have significantly broader appeal than Romney (who was the most broadly appealing GOP candidate in '12).

Being a little better, a little defter and having a few less vulnerabilities will not be enough to return a Republican to the White House.

Last I checked, this nominee won't be running against Barack Obama.

 

[timschochet]

Some depressing facts for Republicans, pointed out by Dan Pfeiffer (one of Obama's senior aides) this morning:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/10/opinions/pfeiffer-democrats-view-of-gop-candidates/index.html

1) As Dan Balz pointed out in The Washington Post a few months ago, if the Republican nominee wins the same share of the white vote in 2016 that Mitt Romney won in 2012, he or she would need to receive 30% of the non-white vote to win the White House. Romney won 17% of the non-white vote in '12, so this a tall order.

2) In 2012, President Barack Obama won 332 electoral votes to Romney's 206. The Republican nominee could flip Florida, Ohio and Virginia -- the three biggest swing states -- into the red column and would still lose to a Democrat 272-268.

The point is that the Republican nominee has to have significantly broader appeal than Romney (who was the most broadly appealing GOP candidate in '12).

Being a little better, a little defter and having a few less vulnerabilities will not be enough to return a Republican to the White House.

Last I checked, this nominee won't be running against Barack Obama.

That's true. But what states will be lost to Hillary that Obama won?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Some depressing facts for Republicans, pointed out by Dan Pfeiffer (one of Obama's senior aides) this morning:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/10/opinions/pfeiffer-democrats-view-of-gop-candidates/index.html

1) As Dan Balz pointed out in The Washington Post a few months ago, if the Republican nominee wins the same share of the white vote in 2016 that Mitt Romney won in 2012, he or she would need to receive 30% of the non-white vote to win the White House. Romney won 17% of the non-white vote in '12, so this a tall order.

2) In 2012, President Barack Obama won 332 electoral votes to Romney's 206. The Republican nominee could flip Florida, Ohio and Virginia -- the three biggest swing states -- into the red column and would still lose to a Democrat 272-268.

The point is that the Republican nominee has to have significantly broader appeal than Romney (who was the most broadly appealing GOP candidate in '12).

Being a little better, a little defter and having a few less vulnerabilities will not be enough to return a Republican to the White House.

Last I checked, this nominee won't be running against Barack Obama.

That's true. But what states will be lost to Hillary that Obama won?

It's an interesting point and one I hadn't really thought about too much because it's way too far way.

Here's the ones Obama won by less than 10 points, other than the three you list:

Nevada

Colorado

New Mexico

Minnesota

Iowa

Wisconsin

Pennsylvania

New Hampshire

Presumably the "blame the Mexicans" primary battle will leave them too bloodied to go after the Western states and their large Hispanic populations. Best strategy is probably to throw resources into Pennsylvania and Iowa, both of which were won by less than 6 points.

 

[timschochet]

Some depressing facts for Republicans, pointed out by Dan Pfeiffer (one of Obama's senior aides) this morning:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/10/opinions/pfeiffer-democrats-view-of-gop-candidates/index.html

1) As Dan Balz pointed out in The Washington Post a few months ago, if the Republican nominee wins the same share of the white vote in 2016 that Mitt Romney won in 2012, he or she would need to receive 30% of the non-white vote to win the White House. Romney won 17% of the non-white vote in '12, so this a tall order.

2) In 2012, President Barack Obama won 332 electoral votes to Romney's 206. The Republican nominee could flip Florida, Ohio and Virginia -- the three biggest swing states -- into the red column and would still lose to a Democrat 272-268.

The point is that the Republican nominee has to have significantly broader appeal than Romney (who was the most broadly appealing GOP candidate in '12).

Being a little better, a little defter and having a few less vulnerabilities will not be enough to return a Republican to the White House.

Last I checked, this nominee won't be running against Barack Obama.

That's true. But what states will be lost to Hillary that Obama won?

It's an interesting point and one I hadn't really thought about too much because it's way too far way.

Here's the ones Obama won by less than 10 points, other than the three you list:

Nevada

Colorado

New Mexico

Minnesota

Iowa

Wisconsin

Pennsylvania

New Hampshire

Presumably the "blame the Mexicans" primary battle will leave them too bloodied to go after the Western states and their large Hispanic populations. Best strategy is probably to throw resources into Pennsylvania and Iowa, both of which were won by less than 6 points.

But for that to work the Republican has to win Pennsylvania, Iowa, Wisconsin OR Virginia, AND Ohio, AND Florida. That's a really tall order.

 

[RnR]

Some depressing facts for Republicans, pointed out by Dan Pfeiffer (one of Obama's senior aides) this morning:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/10/opinions/pfeiffer-democrats-view-of-gop-candidates/index.html

1) As Dan Balz pointed out in The Washington Post a few months ago, if the Republican nominee wins the same share of the white vote in 2016 that Mitt Romney won in 2012, he or she would need to receive 30% of the non-white vote to win the White House. Romney won 17% of the non-white vote in '12, so this a tall order.

2) In 2012, President Barack Obama won 332 electoral votes to Romney's 206. The Republican nominee could flip Florida, Ohio and Virginia -- the three biggest swing states -- into the red column and would still lose to a Democrat 272-268.

The point is that the Republican nominee has to have significantly broader appeal than Romney (who was the most broadly appealing GOP candidate in '12).

Being a little better, a little defter and having a few less vulnerabilities will not be enough to return a Republican to the White House.

Last I checked, this nominee won't be running against Barack Obama.

That's true. But what states will be lost to Hillary that Obama won?

It's an interesting point and one I hadn't really thought about too much because it's way too far way.

Here's the ones Obama won by less than 10 points, other than the three you list:

Nevada

Colorado

New Mexico

Minnesota

Iowa

Wisconsin

Pennsylvania

New Hampshire

Presumably the "blame the Mexicans" primary battle will leave them too bloodied to go after the Western states and their large Hispanic populations. Best strategy is probably to throw resources into Pennsylvania and Iowa, both of which were won by less than 6 points.

But for that to work the Republican has to win Pennsylvania, Iowa, Wisconsin OR Virginia, AND Ohio, AND Florida. That's a really tall order.

Again, you're assuming that the folks that turned out to vote for Barack will be the same that will show up to vote for Hillary. I just don't think we're looking at the same game with two new faces involved.

 

[timschochet]

I think it's a reasonable assumption that Hillary will do less well with blacks, and better with Hispanics. But all things being equal that's actually better for her in terms of impacting swing states.

 

[timschochet]

I should add she is likely to do better with women than Obama did.

 

[RnR]

I don't have the numbers in front of me, so I may be speaking out of turn here, but didn't Obama do a phenomenal job of drawing votes from folks that typically don't vote? Seems to me that you can run the numbers on demographics until you're blue in the face, but Hillary still has to convince those typical non-voters that it is worth their time to visit the polls. I don't think she has that charisma.

 

[The Commish]

and are we talking about 2008 or 2012?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Some depressing facts for Republicans, pointed out by Dan Pfeiffer (one of Obama's senior aides) this morning:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/10/opinions/pfeiffer-democrats-view-of-gop-candidates/index.html

1) As Dan Balz pointed out in The Washington Post a few months ago, if the Republican nominee wins the same share of the white vote in 2016 that Mitt Romney won in 2012, he or she would need to receive 30% of the non-white vote to win the White House. Romney won 17% of the non-white vote in '12, so this a tall order.

2) In 2012, President Barack Obama won 332 electoral votes to Romney's 206. The Republican nominee could flip Florida, Ohio and Virginia -- the three biggest swing states -- into the red column and would still lose to a Democrat 272-268.

The point is that the Republican nominee has to have significantly broader appeal than Romney (who was the most broadly appealing GOP candidate in '12).

Being a little better, a little defter and having a few less vulnerabilities will not be enough to return a Republican to the White House.

Last I checked, this nominee won't be running against Barack Obama.

That's true. But what states will be lost to Hillary that Obama won?

It's an interesting point and one I hadn't really thought about too much because it's way too far way.

Here's the ones Obama won by less than 10 points, other than the three you list:

Nevada

Colorado

New Mexico

Minnesota

Iowa

Wisconsin

Pennsylvania

New Hampshire

Presumably the "blame the Mexicans" primary battle will leave them too bloodied to go after the Western states and their large Hispanic populations. Best strategy is probably to throw resources into Pennsylvania and Iowa, both of which were won by less than 6 points.

But for that to work the Republican has to win Pennsylvania, Iowa, Wisconsin OR Virginia, AND Ohio, AND Florida. That's a really tall order.

I'm not sure it's that tall an order. Virginia, Ohio and Florida both were under the national polling numbers for Dems in the runup to the election, right? Obama was leading by 4-5 points and those states went to Obama by only a point or two. So one would assume that if the GOP candidate is tied or winning the national numbers they should pick up all three. Of course each candidate's mileage would vary- Trump would probably struggle with Hispanics in Florida, Cruz would get killed by the federal workers in Northern Virginia, etc.- but generally it seems like a fairly reasonable path, assuming the national numbers are close to even. If not, they're screwed.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I don't have the numbers in front of me, so I may be speaking out of turn here, but didn't Obama do a phenomenal job of drawing votes from folks that typically don't vote? Seems to me that you can run the numbers on demographics until you're blue in the face, but Hillary still has to convince those typical non-voters that it is worth their time to visit the polls. I don't think she has that charisma.

Meh. This was the argument about how 2012 would be different than 2008 too, and it didn't pan out that way. Also if the candidate is someone like Cruz, Carson or Trump you're not going to have a problem energizing opposition voters. Only Rubio might be able to throw a wet blanket on turnout, IMO.

 

[RnR]

I don't have the numbers in front of me, so I may be speaking out of turn here, but didn't Obama do a phenomenal job of drawing votes from folks that typically don't vote? Seems to me that you can run the numbers on demographics until you're blue in the face, but Hillary still has to convince those typical non-voters that it is worth their time to visit the polls. I don't think she has that charisma.

Meh. This was the argument about how 2012 would be different than 2008 too, and it didn't pan out that way. Also if the candidate is someone like Cruz, Carson or Trump you're not going to have a problem energizing opposition voters. Only Rubio might be able to throw a wet blanket on turnout, IMO.

I know 2008 is probably the outlier, but I still think 2012 Obama energized non-voters more than 2016 Hillary will. You have a fair point on Trump, though I do think there's a chance he actually does well with the "pop culture" voter that is clueless on the issues (Obama owned this previously, IMO). I'm not sure the person that isn't paying attention really cares enough to vote against Carson or Cruz.

 

[culdeus]

I think it's a reasonable assumption that Hillary will do less well with blacks, and better with Hispanics. But all things being equal that's actually better for her in terms of impacting swing states.

And this is why you bet Hillary up and down. Short of something really bad coming out it's a foregone with the demographics.

 

[timschochet]

Kiddie table debate in 40 minutes

Christie

Huckabee

Jindal

Santorum

Lindsay Graham couldn't even make it to the kids table. Embarrassing for Christie and Huck to be there, like getting kicked out of the English Premier League. Jindals actually got a little momentum going in Iowa.

As for Santorum, why is he still around?

 

[Dickies]

Kiddie table debate in 40 minutes

Christie

Huckabee

Jindal

Santorum

Lindsay Graham couldn't even make it to the kids table. Embarrassing for Christie and Huck to be there, like getting kicked out of the English Premier League. Jindals actually got a little momentum going in Iowa.

As for Santorum, why is he still around?

Why are any of these jokers still around?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

First debate is a snooze.

 

[Eephus]

Kiddie table debate in 40 minutes

Christie

Huckabee

Jindal

Santorum

Lindsay Graham couldn't even make it to the kids table. Embarrassing for Christie and Huck to be there, like getting kicked out of the English Premier League. Jindals actually got a little momentum going in Iowa.

As for Santorum, why is he still around?

I've been told it's hard to get Santorum off of things

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Kiddie table debate in 40 minutes

Christie

Huckabee

Jindal

Santorum

Lindsay Graham couldn't even make it to the kids table. Embarrassing for Christie and Huck to be there, like getting kicked out of the English Premier League. Jindals actually got a little momentum going in Iowa.

As for Santorum, why is he still around?

Why are any of these jokers still around?

What else are they going to do?

 

[Amused to Death]

So, that was it for infrastructure.

:(

 

[RBM]

Christie has been one of the top guys at the last couple of debates. He will be missed tonight.

 

[RnR]

Santorum just hulked out.

 

[Amused to Death]

Christie has been one of the top guys at the last couple of debates. He will be missed tonight.

He may provide some good sound bites, but you can't trust him. He's a #####. Worst governor NJ has ever had. And we lived through John Corzine and Jim McGreevy. Even the Republicans in the state can't wait till he's gone.

 

[Amused to Death]

Funny how Christie says he would have the police officers' back when he won't negotiate their pension. Actually he did, then reneged.

 

[timschochet]

Jindal just attacked the moderators. Fox Business must be part of the liberal media. You tell em Bobby!

 

[Fennis]

I hope the GOP hasn't scared the Fox Business Channel into making this a boring debate. I suspect they have.

 

[3C's]

Kiddie table debate in 40 minutes

Christie

Huckabee

Jindal

Santorum

Lindsay Graham couldn't even make it to the kids table. Embarrassing for Christie and Huck to be there, like getting kicked out of the English Premier League. Jindals actually got a little momentum going in Iowa.

As for Santorum, why is he still around?

Why the #### do they even do this? Should be one GOP debate per week/month/whatever and should only include X number (top 6 or whatever) of people. Rest of them can suck it. No one cares about Sanatorium, jindal, huckster, etc.

 

[NutterButter]

Kiddie table debate in 40 minutes

Christie

Huckabee

Jindal

Santorum

Lindsay Graham couldn't even make it to the kids table. Embarrassing for Christie and Huck to be there, like getting kicked out of the English Premier League. Jindals actually got a little momentum going in Iowa.

As for Santorum, why is he still around?

Why the #### do they even do this? Should be one GOP debate per week/month/whatever and should only include X number (top 6 or whatever) of people. Rest of them can suck it. No one cares about Sanatorium, jindal, huckster, etc.

I don't remember this ever happening before but to be honest I usually do pay that close of attention this early. Is this the first year where there's a gazillion candidates?

 

[Dickies]

Kiddie table debate in 40 minutes

Christie

Huckabee

Jindal

Santorum

Lindsay Graham couldn't even make it to the kids table. Embarrassing for Christie and Huck to be there, like getting kicked out of the English Premier League. Jindals actually got a little momentum going in Iowa.

As for Santorum, why is he still around?

Why the #### do they even do this? Should be one GOP debate per week/month/whatever and should only include X number (top 6 or whatever) of people. Rest of them can suck it. No one cares about Sanatorium, jindal, huckster, etc.

Political welfare

 

[3C's]

Citizens United is the answer we're probably looking for.

 

[The General]

They have a gameshow bell if you babble too much

 

[Doctor Detroit]

What's the drinking game for tonight?

 

[Dickies]

They have a gameshow bell if you babble too much

Would be better if they went Family Feud on them

X

 

[The General]

Carson: teenagers paid too much right now.

 

[timschochet]

Is Carson correct that every time you raise the minimum wage, it decreases the amount of jobs?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Is Carson correct that every time you raise the minimum wage, it decreases the amount of jobs?

#### no.

 

[The General]

Rubio: #### those ### #### philosophers.

 

[ffldrew]

Rubio is like a See-and-Say if you ask a question its the same pat answer

My parents blah blah blah

My dad was a bartender blah blah blah

American Dream blah blah blah

I grew up a poor black child blah blah blah

 

[The General]

Can't wait to hear Jeb's sad story about his upbringing.

 

[Fennis]

John Kasich comes out in favor of increasing minimum wage.

 

[timschochet]

John Kasich comes out in favor of increasing minimum wage.

But he's not answering the question. Where would he cut spending? Let's see if any of them answer it.

 

[ffldrew]

Can't wait to hear Jeb's sad story about his upbringing.

My brother would bring me coke and weed but would always take a cut that's where I learned about free markets

 

[Fennis]

Thrice

 

[eoMMan]

Kasich is a doofus. Good job answering the question, tard.