US General Election 2016

Nothing would make me happier than to see Ted Cruz caught in a good and honest sex scandal. But first he has to get enough primary votes to deny Trump a majority so the Republicans have leave to tussle over who they really want to nominate. So far it seems the only reason people aren't considering John Kasich is that he's not a proper jackass.

It is kind of weird that people aren't considering John Kasich more. Part of the reason is probably that he's been portraying himself as a moderate during this campaign and is that's clearly not what the electorate wants. However, I think his biggest weekend is simply that he's already been mathematically eliminated from even possibly winning a majority of delegates. There just aren't enough left for him to get 1237. Kasich has publicly pinned his hopes on a contested election, but I think most of the party elites realize how disastrous it would be if Trump wins a plurality of delegates but is denied the nomination (he would probably make good on his threat to run third party and it'd be kinda hard to blame him). So now Cruz is the only candidate other than Trump with a chance at winning an outright majority, even though it's a very slim chance.

I think most republicans would still prefer the fallout of a contested election to the chance of Trump being nominated.

I think Kasich knows he has to stay in or there's no chance of a contested election. Just like Lindsey Graham knew he had to support Cruz to get Trump below 50%. People are doing drastic things at this point because they can't stand the thought of either of the two front runners becoming the nominee.

There's also the chance of Cruz and Kasich cannibalizing each other in states where a plurality win is sufficient to take home all or most of the delegates, which is true of an increasing number of states left in the calendar. So far Cruz and Kasich have been about as willing to coordinate together as Cruz and Rubio (or Kasich and Rubio) were. That said, while I've been surprised at the number of establishment figures backing Cruz, I suspect you're right that there are still plenty who can't stomach him.

It was pretty clear from Graham's stint on the Daily Show that he was playing a purely manipulative game. I'm sure he backed Cruz to get a brokered convention, not to get Cruz as the nominee.

I didn't see his Daily Show appearance (though I did notice you'd posted some links), but that makes sense. It's a dangerous game, though. What if Cruz does better than expected and effectively dies Trump or even wins a narrow plurality?

I know some former candidates have said they think that a contested convention would result in a nominee who's not among the last few running, but I see that going over even worse with voters.

at the Bill and Ted shop.

Little uncomfortable with the continuing Hillary as dog thing though.

Washington State: Bernie 75% Hillary 25% with 7% of precincts reporting so far.

"Thousands call for guns at US Republican convention" https://news.yahoo.com/thousands-call-guns-us-republican-convention-180751629.html

More than 22,000 people have signed a petition calling for Americans to be allowed to carry firearms at the Republican National Convention -- because the ban puts lives at risk.

22,000 people with guns, watching Trump and Cruz shout insults. Now THAT sounds like a party!

Alaska: Bernie 82% Hillary 18% with 15% of precincts reporting

Bernie may end up doing a Trump! Is he a chance? Actually, I'm warming to the thought if this no-chance being a chance. I think it was the bird... Cute!

Bernie's still the underdog but he's had a very impressive night. Glad to see him winning in your backyard, Dave.

Fingers crossed for the Hawaii results when they come in (it's still only like 5 PM there, I think).

That was impressive to watch! One of the constituencies that Bernie is courting is Native Americans, and he's speaking very effectively. I don't remember another candidate ever being willing to take on some of these issues. And if you don't look at the superdelegates he's pulled now pulled to with 230 of Hillary with still more coming once they count the counties.

Wisconsin's gonna be tougher, but I think Bernie's on a roll now. I'm thinking he's still got a gambler's chance at this.

He did very impressively in Hawaii too, helping to put the brakes on the "Bernie only wins with white people" narrative in the process.

I'm not worried about the superdelegates one way or another. They'll support whoever wins the pledged delegate battle. That's Bernie's biggest challenge, though, given that he still has a lot of catching up to do in order to negate Clinton's early strengths (the South, better name recognition).

Eldorion wrote: at the Bill and Ted shop.

Little uncomfortable with the continuing Hillary as dog thing though.

Why? People are constantly calling Trump a "racist" and "Hitler". This is completely fair game. Clinton and Soros sling mud all the time. It's time someone gave them a taste of their own medicine.

I'll agree that it's fair game for radio talk-show shock-jocks, but what isn't anymore?
There's plenty of poo being slung from all sides towards all sides at this point.  It's a full-on poo party right now, and I don't think there's anybody who doesn't "taste" it at this point.

But I just never thought that's what most people wanted from their president, whatever other credentials they might have.  For me, this kind of low insulting would be a complete non-starter
{{{ if I were voting for a major party candidate at all, which of course I'm not. So let the poo fly, I guess... }}}

bungobaggins wrote:

I think we should put a halt to all people between the ages of 19 and 25 from entering the country, since they are the source of most violent crime, and frankly, the lowest employment rate.

(Or maybe just keep them from leaving the house.)

halfwise wrote:
(Or maybe just keep them from leaving the house.)

I can guarantee support from the video game lobby

bungobaggins wrote:Why? People are constantly calling Trump a "racist" and "Hitler". This is completely fair game. Clinton and Soros sling mud all the time. It's time someone gave them a taste of their own medicine.

The Hitler thing is stupid but it's based on a kernel of a valid observation, and the racism thing I think is a fairly legitimate criticism given Trump's habit of retweeting white supremacist garbage and making sweeping negative generalizations about minorities. The Clinton dog bit is on the same level as "Trump has a tiny dick", which people roundly criticized Rubio for saying (though, to be fair, it did get a fair bit of traction in certain anti-Trump circles, which is not something I applaud either).

Regarding that video, Trump is right that a lack of assimilation among Muslim immigrants is part of the problem, though my concern is that we shouldn't lay the blame for that solely at the feet of immigrants and their descendants*, given that most European governments have encouraged immigrant populations of various origins to remain separate through the doctrine of multiculturalism. (We were discussing this just the other day but I don't remember if it was in this thread or not.) This is not to absolve the immigrant communities of all responsibility, especially not Islamist preachers, and extra-especially not the violent ones, but a big part of the problem is institutional.

*Trump's statement is non-specific enough that I can't say for sure that's what he was implying. Like a lot of what he says, it can be validly interpreted according to various different listener biases without explicitly contradicting itself.

Eldorion wrote:

bungobaggins wrote:Why? People are constantly calling Trump a "racist" and "Hitler". This is completely fair game. Clinton and Soros sling mud all the time. It's time someone gave them a taste of their own medicine.

The Hitler thing is stupid but it's based on a kernel of a valid observation, and the racism thing I think is a fairly legitimate criticism given Trump's habit of retweeting white supremacist garbage and making sweeping negative generalizations about minorities. The Clinton dog bit is on the same level as "Trump has a tiny dick", which people roundly criticized Rubio for saying (though, to be fair, it did get a fair bit of traction in certain anti-Trump circles, which is not something I applaud either).

So Trump is supposed to vet every profile that he retweets from? I looked this up and found this: http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/02/donald-trump-white-supremacist-retweet-219915

And looking at those tweets I can tell you that probably retweeted them 1) because he liked the picture of Jeb and 2) "Donors control the other candidates!" this is something a lot of people supporting Trump mention when asked why. And it's something Trump likes to remind everyone himself.

As for validating the Hitler comparison: I can't believe this place. I'm out of here.

"As for validating the Hitler comparison"- Bungo

{{{Not sure Eldo saying 'The Hitler thing is stupid' can be taken as any sort of validation of it Bungo.   To point out that there is a kernel of observation in it is simply evidently true- the rhetoric Trump uses and the thrust of his arguments do share very broad similarities to the rhetoric of past dictators in the making- though Mussolini is a closer comparison than Hitler in that regard.
The weird thing is, whilst Trump being racist and sexist seems up for debate in the US, I don't know anyone here who doesn't think Trump is self evidently racist and sexist, just as I don't know anyone who doesn't think that the way Obama has been treated in office by the GOP is also clearly based on racism. To folks looking in from the outside these things seem self evident. That's why the PM of Great Britain even called Trump out on what he has said in Parliament, its why every Scottish leader of all parties say they want nothing to do with him, its why there has already been a petition which received enough votes to force a Commons hearing on banning a presidential candidate, and potentially the President of one of our largest allies, from entering the UK on hate speech grounds.

And the US public would be wise to consider its allies and who they might need to help them out in the future, and who will help out Trump I wonder? Today you have  Kerry saying that foreign leaders are questioning, with Trump talking of the US pulling out of NATO and using a phrase closely associated with an isolationist policy, if America is still 'reliable'- that's a serious and dangerous question for your allies to be asking of you. And whether you think its unfair, not justified ect doesn't really matter in the end- as perception is more important than truth in most cases. And the perception of Trump outside of the US, is not good at all.

ps its never worth falling out over politics, politicians and their promises come and go, now falling out over something serious like a TV show, that's sensible   }}}