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

[Maurile Tremblay]

I don't always like Scott Adams, but this is pretty good:A Voter's Guide to Thinking

1. If you are comparing Plan A to Plan B, you might be doing a good job of thinking. But if you are comparing Plan A to an imaginary situation in which there are no tradeoffs in life, you are not thinking.

2. If you see quotes taken out of context, and you form an opinion anyway, that's probably not thinking. If you believe you need no further context because there is only one imaginable explanation for the meaning of the quotes, you might have a poor imagination. Sometimes a poor imagination feels a lot like knowledge, but it's closer to the opposite.

3. If a debate lends itself to estimates of cost (in money or human suffering) and you aren't willing to offer an estimate in support of your opinion, you don't yet have an opinion.

4. If you are sure you know how a leader performed during his or her tenure, and you don't know how someone else would have performed in the same situation, you don't actually know anything. It just feels like you do.

5. If something reminds you of something else (such as Hitler, to pick one example) that doesn't mean you are thinking. That just means something reminded you of something. A strong association of that type can prevent you from thinking, but it is not itself a component of reason.

6. Analogies are not an element of reason. Analogies are good for explaining things to people who are new to a topic. If I am busy as a beaver, that does not imply that I also build dams by gnawing on wood. It just means I'm busy.

7. If you think your well-informed and reasoned opinions as a voter are bringing up the average, let me introduce you to the 100% of other voters who believe they are bringing up the average as well.

8. If your opinion is based on your innate ability to predict the future, you might be employing more magical thinking than reason. The exceptions would be the people who use data to predict the future, such as Nate Silver. That stuff is credible albeit imperfect by nature. Your imagination is less reliable.

Re number 4: how can we ever evaluate how somebody else would do the same situation? Situations are fluid.

It's often very hard to know how someone else would have done in the same situation. If we can't be confident that we know how Al Gore would have responded to 9/11 and the Iraq WMD situation, then we shouldn't be confident that Bush handled things very poorly if we're grading on a curve (which, I think, is the right way to grade for most purposes). That said, "often very hard" doesn't mean "always impossible." As with most things in life, we piece together the evidence and make reasonable inferences from it the best we can, and come to whatever conclusion we believe is justified. But the confidence we place in our conclusions should be limited by the difficulty of doing all of those things correctly -- and most people are way overconfident in that regard, especially when it comes to politics. (In study after study, when people predict something with 95% confidence, they end up being right about 60% of the time. There's no reason to think people's calibration is any better when it comes to counterfactual propositions than it is regarding factually verifiable propositions.)

 

[timschochet]

The most intriguing result from that PPP poll (for me): in the preferred choice for President, with Trump and Cruz dominating with a combined over 50%, undecided was at 2%.

That seems to contradict the theory we keep hearing from some pundits that they haven't made up their minds yet. It sure sounds like they have.

 

[tom22406]

The most intriguing result from that PPP poll (for me): in the preferred choice for President, with Trump and Cruz dominating with a combined over 50%, undecided was at 2%.

That seems to contradict the theory we keep hearing from some pundits that they haven't made up their minds yet. It sure sounds like they have.

Once Iowa goes down and a few more drop out we will get a better picture of where this is headed but from the looks of it Trump is in it for the long haul.I'm more interested to see the polls if/when Cruz wins Iowa.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

PublicPolicyPolling ‏@ppppolls 5m5 minutes ago

30% of Republican primary voters nationally say they support bombing Agrabah. Agrabah is the country from Aladdin.

ETA: Poll is here. Q38.

It's hard to support a poll that throws in a question from an old Jay Leno segment. I'd bet I could get 3 out of 10 Democratic voters to praise the pro-liberty stance of Senator Bail Organa.

I was a bit surprised that other than on terrorism issues (where it seems to me that appeals to fear are resonating far more than with Republicans) the answers were somewhat moderate. More supported raising the minimum wage than I would have suspected. They were overwhelmingly in favor of background checks for firearm purchases.

 

[Steve Tasker]

Here's a pretty good hot take on the current state of the GOP that I stumbled onto today....just read the Twitter responses to Paul Ryan's tweet this morning about passing a spending bill. What a ####### ####show this party is.....

https://twitter.com/SpeakerRyan/status/677863634069020672?lang=en

 

[Fennis]

Now that I know what it is, I am 100% in favor bombing Agrabah.

 

[Fennis]

Here's a pretty good hot take on the current state of the GOP that I stumbled onto today....just read the Twitter responses to Paul Ryan's tweet this morning about passing a spending bill. What a ####### ####show this party is.....

https://twitter.com/SpeakerRyan/status/677863634069020672?lang=en

This, along with the Trump nonsense, makes me think there is some non-zero chance the GOP splits in two after the elections next year.

I hope it happens. Let the nuts go to the Constitution Party.

 

[saintfool]

The most intriguing result from that PPP poll (for me): in the preferred choice for President, with Trump and Cruz dominating with a combined over 50%, undecided was at 2%.

That seems to contradict the theory we keep hearing from some pundits that they haven't made up their minds yet. It sure sounds like they have.

Once Iowa goes down and a few more drop out we will get a better picture of where this is headed but from the looks of it Trump is in it for the long haul.I'm more interested to see the polls if/when Cruz wins Iowa.

Honestly, when a candidate as conservative as Rubio is on most of the issues is the "establishment" candidate, all bets are off.

 

[CBusAlex]

The most intriguing result from that PPP poll (for me): in the preferred choice for President, with Trump and Cruz dominating with a combined over 50%, undecided was at 2%.

That seems to contradict the theory we keep hearing from some pundits that they haven't made up their minds yet. It sure sounds like they have.

I also noticed that Trump won every single head-to-head poll where he was included, including over 50% against Rubio. If that's accurate, it doesn't bode well for the narrative that he'll end up fading as guys drop out and the non-Trump vote coalesces around fewer and fewer candidates.

 

[culdeus]

So what would the two parties split to?

And how would that affect states like Texas that already have a kook as a Senator and Democrats have no hope of getting a seat for the next few decades?

Is it possible to have a political party specifically setup to run for president only, is there a precedent at all for such a thing?

 

[B-Deep]

Here's a pretty good hot take on the current state of the GOP that I stumbled onto today....just read the Twitter responses to Paul Ryan's tweet this morning about passing a spending bill. What a ####### ####show this party is.....

https://twitter.com/SpeakerRyan/status/677863634069020672?lang=en

you see, this bill was a compromise. Compromise is a long tradition in America. It is not a bad thing. It takes a little from side a and a little fro side b and comes to someplace both sides can live with

Anymore people expect everything to be exactly the way they want it, and anything short of 100% is a failure.

Compromise is a bad word...

it is sad

 

[HellToupee]

Watched about 30 minutes of the Rep debate and pains me to say that Donald sounded like he has really been practicing, toned down his crazy stuff and tightened up some of his lines.

All the other dudes are playing for second.

Rand also sounded good. I can't believe hasn't gotten more traction with his fiscal conservative schtick.

Bush seriously can't put a line together without stammering or misspeaking, really hard to watch him - you can also see some of W's odd mannerisms when he talks.

Carly makes Hillary seem warm, cudly, and fun to hang with.

Kasich is a total goob. Liked him in interviews and on topics but his debate style has been no bueno.

Rubio, Christie I didn't see much. What I did was the same stuff from before. Rubio is very car sales guy to me but I don't agree with much that he says. If you like his message he is the best speaker out of all of them.

You watched the debate and Trump impressed you? That means you supported him all along. No way in hell a level headed human came away from that impressed by Trump.

Settle down, man. He said Trump looked sounded like he has been practicing and had tightened up the crazy stuff a bit, not that Trump impressed him. Totally different.

From what I remember about The General I seriously doubt he supports or is impressed by Trump.

I hope you're right. All I noticed was horrible, juvenile facial expressions and body language. He really needs coaching on how to act like an adult. He's running for President for crying out loud.

JFC I liked Slick Willy but he was getting blow jobs in the Oval Office and the one giving him BJs saved a load stained dress . Relax and if General does like him it's his choice. Cripes how intolerant

 

[Don Quixote]

So what would the two parties split to?

And how would that affect states like Texas that already have a kook as a Senator and Democrats have no hope of getting a seat for the next few decades?

Is it possible to have a political party specifically setup to run for president only, is there a precedent at all for such a thing?

The Republican Party and the Freedom/Tea/Trump party would be my guess. I don't know how much the Trump supporters and Tea Party overlap but they seem to come from the same strain of anti-establishment/no compromise ideology.

As far as future elections, all bets are off as to what the Republicans/Trump Party could win. I think the conventional thinking is that it would be a disaster for the GOP as it would split the vote. For example, some are speculating that if Trump wins the nomination that the Democrats would win back the Senate as many "conventional" republicans would stay home and the Democratic base would be energized and all the down-ticket races would be affected. Right now newly-elected Speaker Ryan is taking a lot of heat for compromising with Obama on the latest spending bill from his own party. It is conceivable that a significant amount of current House Republicans would relish the opportunity to join with a new party but who knows how successful they would be if they were running on their own and not the Republican brand.

I would think that the Republican establishment types are going to do everything in their power to maintain the unity of their party as a split has a high likelihood of unmitigated disaster. But a lot of that hinges on somehow getting Trump out of the race and we see how that is going.

Ross Perot's Reform Party is the obvious answer to your third question but I'm sure there are more examples in U.S. history. It wasn't always Republicans vs. Democrats.

Reform Party did have some down ballot candidates too. Jesse Ventura was elected as Governor from the Reform Party.

I think the Dixiecrats were President only, but I could be wrong.

 

[Joe Summer]

So what would the two parties split to?

And how would that affect states like Texas that already have a kook as a Senator and Democrats have no hope of getting a seat for the next few decades?

Is it possible to have a political party specifically setup to run for president only, is there a precedent at all for such a thing?

The Republican Party and the Freedom/Tea/Trump party would be my guess. I don't know how much the Trump supporters and Tea Party overlap but they seem to come from the same strain of anti-establishment/no compromise ideology.As far as future elections, all bets are off as to what the Republicans/Trump Party could win. I think the conventional thinking is that it would be a disaster for the GOP as it would split the vote. For example, some are speculating that if Trump wins the nomination that the Democrats would win back the Senate as many "conventional" republicans would stay home and the Democratic base would be energized and all the down-ticket races would be affected. Right now newly-elected Speaker Ryan is taking a lot of heat for compromising with Obama on the latest spending bill from his own party. It is conceivable that a significant amount of current House Republicans would relish the opportunity to join with a new party but who knows how successful they would be if they were running on their own and not the Republican brand.

I would think that the Republican establishment types are going to do everything in their power to maintain the unity of their party as a split has a high likelihood of unmitigated disaster. But a lot of that hinges on somehow getting Trump out of the race and we see how that is going.

Ross Perot's Reform Party is the obvious answer to your third question but I'm sure there are more examples in U.S. history. It wasn't always Republicans vs. Democrats.

Reform Party did have some down ballot candidates too. Jesse Ventura was elected as Governor from the Reform Party.

I think the Dixiecrats were President only, but I could be wrong.

The Dixiecrats (officially The States' Rights Democratic Party) only existed for 4 months and only had 1 candidate -- Strom Thurmond. After the 1948 presidential election, the party dissolved and its members mostly joined the Republican party.Here is their 1948 party platform.

We believe that the Constitution of the United States is the greatest charter of human liberty ever conceived by the mind of man.

We oppose all efforts to invade or destroy the rights guaranteed by it to every citizen of this republic.

We stand for social and economic justice

followed by...

We stand for the segregation of the races

We oppose the elimination of segregation, the repeal of miscegenation statutes

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I don't always like Scott Adams, but this is pretty good:A Voter's Guide to Thinking

1. If you are comparing Plan A to Plan B, you might be doing a good job of thinking. But if you are comparing Plan A to an imaginary situation in which there are no tradeoffs in life, you are not thinking.

2. If you see quotes taken out of context, and you form an opinion anyway, that's probably not thinking. If you believe you need no further context because there is only one imaginable explanation for the meaning of the quotes, you might have a poor imagination. Sometimes a poor imagination feels a lot like knowledge, but it's closer to the opposite.

3. If a debate lends itself to estimates of cost (in money or human suffering) and you aren't willing to offer an estimate in support of your opinion, you don't yet have an opinion.

4. If you are sure you know how a leader performed during his or her tenure, and you don't know how someone else would have performed in the same situation, you don't actually know anything. It just feels like you do.

5. If something reminds you of something else (such as Hitler, to pick one example) that doesn't mean you are thinking. That just means something reminded you of something. A strong association of that type can prevent you from thinking, but it is not itself a component of reason.

6. Analogies are not an element of reason. Analogies are good for explaining things to people who are new to a topic. If I am busy as a beaver, that does not imply that I also build dams by gnawing on wood. It just means I'm busy.

7. If you think your well-informed and reasoned opinions as a voter are bringing up the average, let me introduce you to the 100% of other voters who believe they are bringing up the average as well.

8. If your opinion is based on your innate ability to predict the future, you might be employing more magical thinking than reason. The exceptions would be the people who use data to predict the future, such as Nate Silver. That stuff is credible albeit imperfect by nature. Your imagination is less reliable.

Re number 4: how can we ever evaluate how somebody else would do the same situation? Situations are fluid.

It's often very hard to know how someone else would have done in the same situation. If we can't be confident that we know how Al Gore would have responded to 9/11 and the Iraq WMD situation, then we shouldn't be confident that Bush handled things very poorly if we're grading on a curve (which, I think, is the right way to grade for most purposes). That said, "often very hard" doesn't mean "always impossible."

Getting back to this, I do think we have a decent idea of how Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton would have responded in those situations -- because they pretty much told us from the Senate floor at the time. (As I recall, Hillary was pretty much on board with Bush's response, while Sanders wasn't.)

 

[saintfool]

here's the thing for me: there are supporters and there are voters. Trump has his supporters, obviously, but it's inconceivable to think those are actual voters. And yet....?

he's perhaps the man for the moment (and movement) moreso than any other candidate in the field. what it also suggests - to me, at least - is how completely out of step the GOP is with their presumed constituency. that Trump, Carson, Cruz, and even Rubio are all enjoying favor now with sizable voting bloc is astonishing. this is especially the case when the messaging after 2008 was how they needed to soften the rhetoric, be more inclusive, etc.

i would not expect Trump to carry Iowa but he needs to show well to project that aura of invincibility. he needs to win NH and show well in SC.

 

[Dickies]

I don't always like Scott Adams, but this is pretty good:A Voter's Guide to Thinking

1. If you are comparing Plan A to Plan B, you might be doing a good job of thinking. But if you are comparing Plan A to an imaginary situation in which there are no tradeoffs in life, you are not thinking.

2. If you see quotes taken out of context, and you form an opinion anyway, that's probably not thinking. If you believe you need no further context because there is only one imaginable explanation for the meaning of the quotes, you might have a poor imagination. Sometimes a poor imagination feels a lot like knowledge, but it's closer to the opposite.

3. If a debate lends itself to estimates of cost (in money or human suffering) and you aren't willing to offer an estimate in support of your opinion, you don't yet have an opinion.

4. If you are sure you know how a leader performed during his or her tenure, and you don't know how someone else would have performed in the same situation, you don't actually know anything. It just feels like you do.

5. If something reminds you of something else (such as Hitler, to pick one example) that doesn't mean you are thinking. That just means something reminded you of something. A strong association of that type can prevent you from thinking, but it is not itself a component of reason.

6. Analogies are not an element of reason. Analogies are good for explaining things to people who are new to a topic. If I am busy as a beaver, that does not imply that I also build dams by gnawing on wood. It just means I'm busy.

7. If you think your well-informed and reasoned opinions as a voter are bringing up the average, let me introduce you to the 100% of other voters who believe they are bringing up the average as well.

8. If your opinion is based on your innate ability to predict the future, you might be employing more magical thinking than reason. The exceptions would be the people who use data to predict the future, such as Nate Silver. That stuff is credible albeit imperfect by nature. Your imagination is less reliable.

Re number 4: how can we ever evaluate how somebody else would do the same situation? Situations are fluid.

It's often very hard to know how someone else would have done in the same situation. If we can't be confident that we know how Al Gore would have responded to 9/11 and the Iraq WMD situation, then we shouldn't be confident that Bush handled things very poorly if we're grading on a curve (which, I think, is the right way to grade for most purposes). That said, "often very hard" doesn't mean "always impossible."

Getting back to this, I do think we have a decent idea of how Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton would have responded in those situations -- because they pretty much told us from the Senate floor at the time. (As I recall, Hillary was pretty much on board with Bush's response, while Sanders wasn't.)

Keep in mind that Clinton is just supporting someone else's (Bush's) proposal. We do not know if she would have come up with the idea to invade Iraq if she were president. Clearly Sanders would not have invaded Iraq. Also worth noting is that even if we know they would have responded differently we do not know if the results would be better or worse.

 

[SIDA!]

PublicPolicyPolling ‏@ppppolls 5m5 minutes ago

30% of Republican primary voters nationally say they support bombing Agrabah. Agrabah is the country from Aladdin.

ETA: Poll is here. Q38.

I am sure many Democrats are yukking this one up on social media today...which is interesting since so many of them basically support the idea of automatic voter registration and wish "everyone" would vote because apathy is such a bad thing.

 

[SIDA!]

For disclosure purposes, are any of you registered GOP voters?

 

[saintfool]

For disclosure purposes, are any of you registered GOP voters?

Registered? Nope but I have voted for GOP candidates in the past. I pretty much stopped that practice after 2000.

 

[culdeus]

For disclosure purposes, are any of you registered GOP voters?

How many states even have a registry anymore? Texas doesn't.

 

[AnonymousBob]

Would it be such a bad thing is Republicans splintered into two groups? I can envision a scenario when the main Republican base would actually grow in size with voters knowing the extremists no longer share the same base camp.

 

[SIDA!]

For disclosure purposes, are any of you registered GOP voters?

How many states even have a registry anymore? Texas doesn't.

I believe most states still have a rule that you need to be a member of that party to vote in their primary.

Are you going to vote in the GOP primary?

 

[culdeus]

For disclosure purposes, are any of you registered GOP voters?

How many states even have a registry anymore? Texas doesn't.

I believe most states still have a rule that you need to be a member of that party to vote in their primary. Are you going to vote in the GOP primary?

Texas absolutely doesn't and I probably will.

 

[Fennis]

primaries are for #######. ill be caucusing.

 

[Righetti]

I'm not sure where to put this, but PFTCommenter wearing a Glen Rice jersey to a pre-debate event with Sarah Palin, and getting his picture taken with her, deserves to be put somewhere: http://www.sbnation.com/2015/12/16/10135234/is-donald-trump-trying-to-ruin-the-internet-vegas-gop-debate

Reporter tweet during the event

ETA: Back story, for those who don't know.

 

[shadrap]

So what would the two parties split to?

And how would that affect states like Texas that already have a kook as a Senator and Democrats have no hope of getting a seat for the next few decades?

Is it possible to have a political party specifically setup to run for president only, is there a precedent at all for such a thing?

The Republican Party and the Freedom/Tea/Trump party would be my guess. I don't know how much the Trump supporters and Tea Party overlap but they seem to come from the same strain of anti-establishment/no compromise ideology.

As far as future elections, all bets are off as to what the Republicans/Trump Party could win. I think the conventional thinking is that it would be a disaster for the GOP as it would split the vote. For example, some are speculating that if Trump wins the nomination that the Democrats would win back the Senate as many "conventional" republicans would stay home and the Democratic base would be energized and all the down-ticket races would be affected. Right now newly-elected Speaker Ryan is taking a lot of heat for compromising with Obama on the latest spending bill from his own party. It is conceivable that a significant amount of current House Republicans would relish the opportunity to join with a new party but who knows how successful they would be if they were running on their own and not the Republican brand.

I would think that the Republican establishment types are going to do everything in their power to maintain the unity of their party as a split has a high likelihood of unmitigated disaster. But a lot of that hinges on somehow getting Trump out of the race and we see how that is going.

Ross Perot's Reform Party is the obvious answer to your third question but I'm sure there are more examples in U.S. history. It wasn't always Republicans vs. Democrats.

nice thoughtful post.

 

[Riversco]

Would it be such a bad thing is Republicans splintered into two groups? I can envision a scenario when the main Republican base would actually grow in size with voters knowing the extremists no longer share the same base camp.

It could work for the republicans.

The biggest problem with splintering and having 3 major presidential candidates is that no one may win a majority of electoral votes. If that happens, the House votes for president and the Senate votes for Vice President. Since congress is controlled by republicans, the republicans win everything in that scenario.

It would have to be a scenario where Hillary loses California. Like maybe Rubio is the GOP nominee and wins a high percentage of latinos that would have voted Hillary otherwise, then Trump draws heavy turnout with white voters and Hillary narrows loses a three way race in California to either of them. Without those electoral votes she might not reach a majority and then no one does.

 

[John Bender]

Would it be such a bad thing is Republicans splintered into two groups? I can envision a scenario when the main Republican base would actually grow in size with voters knowing the extremists no longer share the same base camp.

One can only hope. Someones gotta right this ship soon.

 

[Riversco]

The republicans just need a latino third party to grab a massive share of latino votes in California to split the democrat vote and flip the state red. Just that alone almost wins Romney the 2012 election. Just a three way race in California only, not the entire nation.

 

[Trey]

Rubio is getting absolutely slammed by the conservative right this weekend. Picking a fight with Cruz doesn't seem to be working out.

 

[MaxThreshold]

What the Republicans really need to do is figure out a way to reverse the demographic shift that has happened so they have more than 10% of the vote after a bunch of old white people die in the next 20 years.

Yeah, they've only got control of most of the State governor/legislatures and Congress. They better figure it out fast.

 

[RnR]

Rubio is getting absolutely slammed by the conservative right this weekend. Picking a fight with Cruz doesn't seem to be working out.

I think this is a situation where Rubio is the best candidate for winning the general election, but he's not crazy enough to satisfy the crazies on the far side of the party to secure the nomination. That's unfortunate, because Cruz loses the general in a landslide.

 

[saintfool]

What the Republicans really need to do is figure out a way to reverse the demographic shift that has happened so they have more than 10% of the vote after a bunch of old white people die in the next 20 years.

Yeah, they've only got control of most of the State governor/legislatures and Congress. They better figure it out fast.

gerrymandering only works for so long, guy.

 

[timschochet]

What's more likely at this point: Donald Trump is the Republican nominee, or Carolina wins the SB?

 

[MaxThreshold]

What the Republicans really need to do is figure out a way to reverse the demographic shift that has happened so they have more than 10% of the vote after a bunch of old white people die in the next 20 years.

Yeah, they've only got control of most of the State governor/legislatures and Congress. They better figure it out fast.

gerrymandering only works for so long, guy.

yeah, right. It's all about gerrymandering. And even if that was the case (which it's not), Democrats are only upset because what they've been doing for 60+ years was finally used against them.

Sounds like we have some sore losers.

 

[[scooter]]

What the Republicans really need to do is figure out a way to reverse the demographic shift that has happened so they have more than 10% of the vote after a bunch of old white people die in the next 20 years.

Yeah, they've only got control of most of the State governor/legislatures and Congress. They better figure it out fast.

gerrymandering only works for so long, guy.

yeah, right. It's all about gerrymandering. And even if that was the case (which it's not), Democrats are only upset because what they've been doing for 60+ years was finally used against them.

Sounds like we have some sore losers.

The country is 48% Democrat and 39% Republican

Those demographics aren't changing anytime soon.

 

[Soonerman]

What the Republicans really need to do is figure out a way to reverse the demographic shift that has happened so they have more than 10% of the vote after a bunch of old white people die in the next 20 years.

Yeah, they've only got control of most of the State governor/legislatures and Congress. They better figure it out fast.

gerrymandering only works for so long, guy.

How did they gerrymander governorships and Senate seats?

 

[MaxThreshold]

What the Republicans really need to do is figure out a way to reverse the demographic shift that has happened so they have more than 10% of the vote after a bunch of old white people die in the next 20 years.

Yeah, they've only got control of most of the State governor/legislatures and Congress. They better figure it out fast.

gerrymandering only works for so long, guy.

How did they gerrymander governorships and Senate seats?

Exactly.

 

[RBM]

What the Republicans really need to do is figure out a way to reverse the demographic shift that has happened so they have more than 10% of the vote after a bunch of old white people die in the next 20 years.

Yeah, they've only got control of most of the State governor/legislatures and Congress. They better figure it out fast.

 

[RBM]

Rubio is getting absolutely slammed by the conservative right this weekend. Picking a fight with Cruz doesn't seem to be working out.

I think this is a situation where Rubio is the best candidate for winning the general election, but he's not crazy enough to satisfy the crazies on the far side of the party to secure the nomination. That's unfortunate, because Cruz loses the general in a landslide.

100% accurate and it's really frustrating.

 

[saintfool]

Rubio is getting absolutely slammed by the conservative right this weekend. Picking a fight with Cruz doesn't seem to be working out.

I think this is a situation where Rubio is the best candidate for winning the general election, but he's not crazy enough to satisfy the crazies on the far side of the party to secure the nomination. That's unfortunate, because Cruz loses the general in a landslide.

Rubio is a little slippery. say what you will about Cruz, he actually believes what he says. Rubio is an political opportunist and has been since he held office. he's found a space in GOP to stand out with his "message" but does anyone actually believe him?

 

[MaxThreshold]

Rubio is getting absolutely slammed by the conservative right this weekend. Picking a fight with Cruz doesn't seem to be working out.

I think this is a situation where Rubio is the best candidate for winning the general election, but he's not crazy enough to satisfy the crazies on the far side of the party to secure the nomination. That's unfortunate, because Cruz loses the general in a landslide.

Rubio is a little slippery. say what you will about Cruz, he actually believes what he says. Rubio is an political opportunist and has been since he held office. he's found a space in GOP to stand out with his "message" but does anyone actually believe him?

Huh?

You sure you don't have Rubio mixed up with Hillary Clinton? Because this makes no sense at all.

 

[QuizGuy66]

PublicPolicyPolling ‏@ppppolls 5m5 minutes ago

30% of Republican primary voters nationally say they support bombing Agrabah. Agrabah is the country from Aladdin.

ETA: Poll is here. Q38.

It's hard to support a poll that throws in a question from an old Jay Leno segment. I'd bet I could get 3 out of 10 Democratic voters to praise the pro-liberty stance of Senator Bail Organa.

I was a bit surprised that other than on terrorism issues (where it seems to me that appeals to fear are resonating far more than with Republicans) the answers were somewhat moderate. More supported raising the minimum wage than I would have suspected. They were overwhelmingly in favor of background checks for firearm purchases.

I agree that I don't like their use of stunt questions. And the fact they dropped Deez Nuts from the list of candidates that they are polling.

-QG

 

[Dickies]

Rubio is getting absolutely slammed by the conservative right this weekend. Picking a fight with Cruz doesn't seem to be working out.

I think this is a situation where Rubio is the best candidate for winning the general election, but he's not crazy enough to satisfy the crazies on the far side of the party to secure the nomination. That's unfortunate, because Cruz loses the general in a landslide.

Rubio is a little slippery. say what you will about Cruz, he actually believes what he says. Rubio is an political opportunist and has been since he held office. he's found a space in GOP to stand out with his "message" but does anyone actually believe him?

Huh?

You sure you don't have Rubio mixed up with Hillary Clinton? Because this makes no sense at all.

They both are.

 

[TobiasFunke]

What the Republicans really need to do is figure out a way to reverse the demographic shift that has happened so they have more than 10% of the vote after a bunch of old white people die in the next 20 years.

Yeah, they've only got control of most of the State governor/legislatures and Congress. They better figure it out fast.

gerrymandering only works for so long, guy.

How did they gerrymander governorships and Senate seats?

I mean it's not technically gerrymandering, but the Senate provides equal representation for right-leaning Wyoming (population 580,000) and left-leaning California (population 38,000,000). It's certainly not one man, one vote. The House is closer, but the GOP still gets about a 5% bump in representation vs the popular vote from gerrymandering.

Anyway, the larger point remains. The demographic shifts that we've seen recently and that will presumably continue for the next few decades clearly favor the Dems as the parties and their platforms are currently constructed. Everyone on both sides has admitted that. It's silly to deny it.

 

[timschochet]

Lindsay Graham drops out.

 

[3C's]

Lindsay Graham drops out.

Who gets all his supporters?!

 

[Sand]

Lindsay Graham drops out.

Who gets all his supporters?!

LIndsey will be writing himself in for President when he votes. So 0 impact.

 

[Righetti]

Lindsay Graham drops out.

how the hell is Pataki still in this??