The 2016 US Election (Part II)

[jwl]

So what happens to the delegates Cruz amassed now he's dropped out? Can they vote whoever they like now?

[Lonestar]

He suspended his candidacy, not dropped out. He can horde them until the convention and try to get something out of them.

[Broomstick]

Much as I despise Trump, if anyone can screw up a campaign against him, it's Hillary Clinton, who has managed to turn a fight against a relatively unknown 74 year old Vermont Senator who calls himself a socialist in America into a relatively close race.

I don't think it's so much that Hillary screwed up as Bernie gives a voice to a side of the party that's more leftist than the mainstream Democrats.

I agree, and I think it was pretty clear that she initially expecting to be appointed without any serious opposition. Although Sanders almost certainly won't win, at least his campaign has shattered that expectation for the moment and reminded the democrat establishment that yes, you still have to work if you want to secure a nomination. Hopefully this will mean that Clinton's campaign will be more organized for the presidential election and won't make the mistake of assuming she'll win without a fight.

You mean... like what happened with Barack Obama? You'd think she'd have learned from that experience that you have to take your opposition seriously.

Kasich?

I must admit, I don't think I would have predicted that he would be the last opponent to Drumpf standing. Good for him.

It's oddly amusing that "Defund Planned Parenthood" Kasich is considered the reasonable one.

Cruz is also “defund Planned Parenthood”. If Kasich has done more towards that goal it's because he's held public offices longer.

On the upside, Kasich at least admits that climate changes exists.

While I find Kasich one of the less objectionable Republican candidates there's not a chance in hell he'll win the nomination.

[Alferd Packer]

The reason Bernie has enjoyed success is because there is a large progressive wing in the Democratic party, who Hillary, as a centrist/conservative Democrat, does not represent. Bernie was able to galvanize that progressive wing through his peculiar old man charisma and a message that was on point with their views. Martin O'Malley was an ambulatory jug of yogurt, so him being to the left of Hillary got him nothing, because Bernie was more interesting to listen to.

As for Trump, he has the same problem every Republican nominee now has: The Republican Party is the party of white people, and the country is getting less white with each passing day. As a result, there are fewer and fewer paths for the Republicans to win the general election with each passing cycle. Even if Hillary is the least popular nominee in a generation, she has many more viable ways to get to 270 electoral votes than Trump.

[Civil War Man]

Much as I despise Trump, if anyone can screw up a campaign against him, it's Hillary Clinton, who has managed to turn a fight against a relatively unknown 74 year old Vermont Senator who calls himself a socialist in America into a relatively close race.

It's not, though. Hillary's beating Bernie like a gong in basically every metric you'd care to name. He has proven to be a much tougher candidate than anticipated, and he has a hell of a fundraising base.

Bernie, as of the last 538 count, has won slightly over 45% of the pledged delegates that have been assigned. It's certainly not enough to win in a two-person race, especially once you start including superdelegates in the delegate totals, but it's hardly getting "beaten like a gong." That terminology would more be a more accurate description to what Trump's been doing to his opponents in the Republican primaries.

Considering where Sanders was at the start of the race, it's actually been a very close election, and if nothing else shows that at the very least his ideas have the support of a significant percentage of the Democratic base.

[cosmicalstorm]

Future history take:

Looking Back On How Donald Trump Beat Hillary Clinton

Ted Cruz can and should be the Republican nominee. But if the GOP decides to nominate Donald Trump, the conventional wisdom about Hillary Clinton turning this election into “Mondale II: The Orangeing” could be very, very wrong…

Looking back 25 years ago to the election of 2016, it is clear that Clinton’s campaign team was badly mistaken when it thought that the vast middle of American politics would blame the Republicans for the violence outside the convention. Every pinko, commie, and socialist freak with a cause and a Soros subsidy descended upon Cleveland, and the ensuing chaos was supposed to show that Donald Trump brought violence and disorder in his wake. The Democrat lovefest to follow was supposed to provide a stark contrast, with Hillary bringing peace and blessed calm. But Americans didn’t see it that way.

In 1968, the Democrats showed themselves incapable of maintaining order in a Democrat city with a Democrat president. This time, it was a Democrat city and a Democrat president allowing their allies to violently assault their political opponents. “The cops, I love the Cleveland cops, but the mayor, the Democrat mayor of Cleveland, a very bad mayor, is ordering them to stand down,” shouted the nominee during his extemporaneous nomination speech. “Just like Benghazi! What is it with Democrats telling our beautiful military and cops to always stand down? Sad!” Of course, Trump had no evidence of any such order, but it sounded like it might be true and that was enough.
CARTOONS | Steve Breen
View Cartoon

The crowd went wild, even those disgusted by Trump’s myriad character flaws and jumbled policy positions. The violent hordes of shrieking creeps outside, many waving Mexico’s flag and some burning America’s, had largely united the party. A few principled conservatives could never bring themselves to back the nominee, but the stark choice the left helpfully provided in Cleveland minimized the effect of the #NeverTrump movement. These patriots would sit out the presidential portion of the election, but do yeoman work on downticket races. History would show that their choice to focus on rebuilding conservatism in the wake of Trump would pay off in future election victories for true heirs of Ronald Reagan.

The media was baffled, and Clinton terrified, when Trump roared out of the convention averaging just three points back in the polls – 45 to 42. The networks’ wall-to-wall coverage of the chaos in Cleveland was supposed to bury Trump, but instead he had used that bully pulpit to show one thing she couldn’t: Toughness in the face of progressive thugs. The Democrats tried to intimidate him, and he scoffed: “Those losers outside, with their Mexican flags and their signs, their very stupid signs, those are Hillary’s people. They’re her voters!” Trump yelled. “The wall, it’s now 30 feet tall! And believe me, those bums outside, they’re going to help Mexico pay for it! Sad!”

Clinton prepared to fall back on the old Democrat playbook, getting ready to unleash her massive war chest on Trump via a tsunami of negative ads. But her savviest advisors risked her wrath by bringing up several problems. The first was that Trump’s negatives were largely baked-in already, and just like the GOP had a legislative wave election in 2014 while it was polling on par with syphilis, Trump’s unfavorables did not correlate with the number of people who might hold their noses and vote for him. Moreover, the voters were now paying attention and when they actually heard Trump talk, as opposed to hearing about his gaffes, the more they liked him – his “America First” rhetoric resonated. And worse, the map had changed – in 2012 it was easy to identify the swing states. But now with Trump, reliably blue states like Michigan and Pennsylvania were wavering, while reliably red states like Utah and Mississippi presented opportunities.

Hillary’s billion dollars were not quite so decisive when they had to be spread across 20 states instead of seven. Trump’s fundraising was a fraction of Romney’s haul, and he certainly wasn’t going to spend much of his own money on this lark, so he kept up his constant rotation of TV appearances and rallies. The mainstream media was unable to resist – Trump made news every time he went on camera, and when CBS decided to take the high road and stop booking him its competitors eagerly picked up the slack. The boycott lasted five days. Trump’s rallies likewise drew leftist thugs, whose violent antics the networks had to cover along with Trump’s stock response: “They sure hate us, those Hillary voters out there. Think of what happens if they get in charge. It’ll be a crime to fly an American flag anymore! Sad!”

Hillary tried to compete using free media, but her condescending, bitter demeanor made her a ratings albatross. And Trump bored right in: “No one’s watching her. Really, look at her. She’s like a first wife. Nag, nag, nag. No, seriously, I love my first wife, and my second, but really, no one wants to hear Hillary’s complaining. Can you imagine four years of this, of her in the White House nagging us for four years? Naggin’ Hillary! And Crooked Hillary! Naggin’, crooked Hillary! Sad!” That was in August. By then the polls were effectively tied.

Trump took advantage of his own novelty, giving the impression that his campaign was an exciting movement in contrast to the dreary trudge that was Hillary’s. He went hard for Sanders supporters, not getting many but getting a few Hillary could not afford to lose. On campus, a Trump shirt or hat became a powerful middle finger to the social justice warriors most students detested. Singers and actors came out for Trump. “We liked him because he had swagger,” Governor Justin Bieber (R-CA) recalls. Trump became a symbol of rebellion against the whiny nanny state that was America’s culture.

Trump also frustrated Clinton by using black and Hispanic celebrities to reach out to those communities. “Look, if you are a black person, Hillary is very, very bad for you,” Trump said onstage at a rally in Detroit, surrounded by black sports and rap stars. “See what the Democrats have done to this great town? She wants to do a trade deal with China, a very bad deal! Does that bring jobs back to Detroit? Does letting in millions of illegals bring jobs back to Detroit? Sad!” He then added: “Believe me, some of my very best friends are black people!” Trump would win 21% of African-American voters, which would be decisive in several races.

When the Department of Justice shocked no one by refusing to indict Hillary, Trump was on it: “I talked to many, many military people who tell me this is a scandal, a disgrace. If you or I did what Hillary did we’d be in jail so fast…but this is how it works in D.C. If you are connected like Hillary, part of the establishment, you have special rules. Sad!”

He touched a nerve. “No special treatment for bigshots! That’s not right and I’ll stop it!” he promised. It was then that Trump pulled slightly ahead, though within the margin of error.

Hillary initially refused to debate Trump. “I will not give a platform to his kind of sexist hate speech,” she intoned, and Trump pounced.

“I used to call her Crooked Hillary, which she is, and Naggin’ Hillary, and she’s still naggy, believe me, she nags us all the time! But now I call her Scared Hillary because she’s scared of me. And if she’s scared of me, how is she going to stand up to the very bad people out there and protect America? I mean, I wish she had been Scared Hillary back when she voted to invade Iraq, which was a disaster. But we can’t have our wonderful military under someone who is so scared. We need someone who’ll stand up and defend our country, which she is scared to do. Sad!”

Hillary finally agreed to a debate, and it was a disaster. She was prim, prepared, and utterly stiff while Trump was loose, limber, and lacerating. She called him sexist, and he went for the throat: “I love women, not like your husband did, which was very shameful and which you tolerated. And a lot of young people who weren’t around then don’t know about how you covered up when Bill behaved very badly to women but when they learn about it it’s going to be very bad for you because you were very bad to the women. And everyone knows if you weren’t a woman you wouldn’t even be here. Sad!”

Later, in an exchange on global warming, Trump made one of the comments that was supposed to be a campaign-ender and instead it simply slid off him: “I don’t know if there is global warming but I’ll tell you I like the idea of global warming because when it’s warmer beautiful women wear bikinis and we all enjoy that, but then some women who shouldn’t might wear them too.” He was staring at Hillary as he spoke the last clause.

But Trump’s victory was not merely a matter of him talking. The behind the scenes logistical work was key. Trump’s team inherited the GOP’s revamped data operation, and our current Chief Justice Ted Cruz turned his own crack team of number crunchers and media gurus over as well. They separately targeted and motivated pro-Trump voters, reluctant but persuadable ones, and vulnerable Democrats. They even tried to convince the #NeverTrump people they identified through datamining social media; that initiative went poorly. Over a million voters wrote in Ted Cruz.

Trump also negated the potential for internet giants like Google, Facebook, and Twitter to interfere: “Some people are saying that internet companies might be helping Hillary, and let me tell you, I have a long memory and they should stay out of this election because if they don’t stop me then I will remember and there will be a very heavy price they will have to pay if they interfere, believe me. They will be sad! Sad!”

The two October ISIS attacks on American shopping malls in Pittsburg and Alexandria pushed Trump ahead 48-43, especially after it was revealed that the machine guns that had killed 25 U.S. citizens had been smuggled in from Tijuana. This undercut Hillary’s immediate pivot to gun control – something her internal polling told her had already been weighing her down in the Rust Belt – and again Trump was at her: “Hillary, who still won’t say the words ‘Islamic terrorism,’ wants to take away your guns and leave you defenseless when these guns come from Mexico. That’s crazy! She won’t build a wall to protect you, and she won’t let you protect yourselves. But she has many, many guards with guns, you know. Instead of registering our guns, how about we register Muslims? Sad!”

The mainstream media hoped this latest gaffe would stop Trump’s momentum; his supporters merely shrugged. “Trump is just being Trump,” one young woman who had previously been for Sanders told a CNN correspondent. “What I care about is not being gunned down shopping at Nordstrom, and I don’t think Hillary will protect us.”

When Pennsylvania was called for Trump, Hillary was on her second bourbon. When Ohio went red, her consultants ran up to Bill’s suite and pulled him off an eager blonde campaign staffer to have him come downstairs and pry the bottle out of Hillary’s clutches. They hoped to keep her from completely embarrassing herself during her concession speech.

http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschl ... n-n2156600


Some people who called it.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/ ... xpert.html

They Totally Knew: The People Who Foresaw the Rise of Donald Trump
1.2k
545
871
By Leon Neyfakh
Trump
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks to a rally at Macomb Community College on March 4 in Warren, Michigan. Trump went on to win Michigan.

Scott Olson/Getty Images

There was a time, not so long ago, when reasonable people all across America believed that Donald Trump was a fake presidential candidate. The guy was a novelty act, we thought—a narcissistic dingbat who was going through the motions of running a political campaign in service of nothing more sinister or consequential than promoting his big dumb brand.
Leon Neyfakh Leon Neyfakh

Leon Neyfakh is a Slate staff writer.

That turned out to be an incorrect assessment. At some point it became clear that Trump was a narcissistic dingbat who was also possibly going to be president.

As many of us continue to grapple with the depth of how wrong we were to dismiss Trump in the opening months of his campaign, it’s worth looking back at the handful of individuals who declined to join our giddy chorus of skepticism. While the rest of us giggled like idiots, or else reasoned our way to being convinced that a Trump nomination could never happen, these commentators saw something in Trump that made them confident he had what it took.

Below is a guide to Trump’s first believers—what they said when, why, and what it feels like now that their ridiculous predictions have all but come true.
Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski

Who they are: Hosts of MSNBC’s morning show, Morning Joe

When they called it: June 16, 2015, the day Trump announced his candidacy, and pretty much every day since.

What they said: “Anything can happen.” “He’s not a fringe candidate.” “This denial of reality by the mainstream media is actually feeding into Donald Trump’s strength.”

What tipped them off: Two things, according to Scarborough: First, people he and Brzezinski knew in South Carolina told them early on that Trump was bringing out thousands of people to political events that normally drew a few hundred. Also, Scarborough has long believed that the GOP elite was out of step with the party’s populist base.

What they say about it now: “I upset Republicans and got eye rolls from Democrats,” Scarborough said in an interview Monday. “It was a little lonely out there.” In a segment that aired on March 2, Scarborough and Brzezinski boasted about their clairvoyance and ran a supercut of interviews in which they expressed their contrarian confidence in Trump.

Earlier this month, Matt Taibbi published a scathing column in Rolling Stone making fun of Scarborough and Brzezinski for claiming to have known, saying that the only thing Scarborough was early to was “[strapping] on his kneepads in exchange for access once he saw that the Trump campaign was going places.” Scarborough’s response: “First we were mocked and ridiculed for saying Trump could win, and now that it looks like he is on his way to winning the nomination, a lot of people who missed the boat are trying to turn that around on us.”
John McLaughlin

Who he is: The 88-year-old host of TV’s The McLaughlin Group

When he called it: July 10, 2015

What he said: “Do you realize this man’s achievement? Do you realize the buildings that he’s put up?”

What tipped him off: The buildings. “They’re enormous!” McLaughlin said, as his guest Mort Zuckerman shrugged.
Robert Baillieul

Who he is: Toronto-based editor in chief of investing site Profit Confidential.

When he called it: July 27, 2015

What he said: In a blog post titled, “Here’s Why Donald Trump Will Win the GOP Republican Primary,” Baillieul wrote, “How can a baboon like Trump compete against political chess players like Bush and Clinton? Because Trump is playing three-dimensional chess. Or at least, he’s flipped the table, declared himself the winner, and started throwing pieces at his opponents. Either way, it’s effective.” One section of the post appeared under the heading, “If You’re Betting Against Donald Trump, You’ll Hate Yourself Later.”

What tipped him off: “The nerd squads in Washington have to learn this every election cycle, but it’s obvious to anyone without a 202 area code. People crave a strong leader.”

What he says about it now: “The idea that anyone could have any positive things to say about Donald Trump here in Canada certainly was absurd at the time,” Baillieul told me. “I wasn’t supporting him, I was just saying that this was resonating with people. I got a little bit of flak for even suggesting that this was a possibility. Now it feels pretty good.”
Scott Adams

Who he is: Creator of Dilbert, author, blogger.

When he called it: Aug. 5, 2015

What he said: “f Hillary does not coast into the White House as I expect (and this is a prediction, not a preference) you will see a Donald Trump presidency.” Later called Trump a “clown genius.”

What tipped him off: “I certainly understand that Trump comes off as arrogant, obnoxious, and lots of other bad stuff,” Adams wrote on his blog. “But over time, and compared to the liars on stage with him, you might get hooked on hearing his honest opinions. That’s how the New York style works. At first you hate it because it seems so harsh. In time you start to appreciate the honesty. And when you realize the harshness is not a signal of real evil—just a style—you tend to get over it. He won’t win over all of his haters, but I predict that his New York style will grow on people more than you would expect. You could say his style is his biggest problem, but it might be self-solving with time and exposure. He is getting both.”

He elaborated on his reasoning in an interview over FaceTime this week: “I have a background as a trained hypnotist and I’ve been studying persuasion and influence in all its forms—everything from advertising and marketing to you name it—for decades. I’ve gone deeper than most people in the art of influence, and when I started watching Trump I realized early that what looked like the random behavior of a clown to people who were untrained, was almost pitch perfect persuasion.”

What he says about it now: Adams thinks Trump will win the general election in a “landslide.” “I no longer think it’ll be close, unless he gets assassinated or something,” he said. As for what it was like to be taking Trump seriously when no one else was: “If you imagine politics as a stick fight, all other stick fights have been won by a person with a stick. But here was Trump who said, ‘I read the rules and there’s nothing against bringing a flamethrower.’ So I’m watching Donald Trump walk up to a stick fight with a flamethrower in his hands that only I can see. It’s like an invisible flamethrower! And the only reason I can see it is I have the same tool box.”
Chris Cillizza

Who he is: Political reporter for the Washington Post’s the Fix

When he called it: Aug. 2–4, 2015

What he said: Cillizza was wrong about Trump before he saw the light. In June he wrote a blog post titled, “Why No One Should Take Donald Trump Seriously, in One Very Simple Chart.” It doesn’t matter what the chart was. On Aug. 4, Cillizza published a follow-up: “Boy, Was I Wrong About Donald Trump. Here’s Why.”

What tipped him off: In the August post, Cillizza noted that Trump’s favorability ratings had gone up significantly in just a few months—something he did not expect because, as he put it, “I had NEVER EVER seen a reversal in how people perceive a candidate who is as well known as Trump—much less a reversal in such a short period of time.” This made Cillizza realize that Trump was in uncharted waters.

What he says now: “My guiding belief with Trump has been that no political rules—or at least no conventional political rules—apply to him,” Cillizza said in an email.
Mike Cernovich

Who he is: Author of Gorilla Mindset: How to Control Your Thoughts and Emotions to Live Life on Your Terms. Masculinity expert.

When he called it: July 28, 2015

What he said:

What tipped him off: “I knew Trump would do well because I read his books and had only watched a couple of episodes of The Apprentice over 10 years ago,” Cernovich said in an email. “I didn't have the same biases on Trump that others had. I read his books and saw a man who had a strong mindset, a track record of succeeding, and who would make strong and sometimes offensive comments as a way to get media attention.“

He went on: “Culturally, people were tired of politically correct culture. We live in an age of micro aggressions where people are deemed racist or sexist of phobic for making one wrong tweet. There will always be a counter-culture, and Trump, with his take no prisoners style of commentary, is that counter-culture.”

Also: “Trump … has the ‘strong father’ masculine energy. Consider how his family members all live (opulent wealth aside) normal lives. They have families. The children and grandchildren have avoided the Kim Kardashian style drama common these days. Trump must've been an extraordinary father to have raised well-adjusted kids.”

What he says now: “I received a lot of hate and doubt when backing Trump. I'm used to that, though, as I prefer taking contrarian positions. …. It feels great to be vindicated, especially because most of Trump's doubters were snide.”
Tom Anderson

Who he is: Moderate Republican who hosts a talk radio show that’s broadcast in Alaska.

When he called it: Aug. 28, 2015

What he said: “People love Trump,” Anderson wrote in an op-ed for the Hill. “They deem him a saving grace. He's the proverbial Hercules and America's problems are the labors to pursue and slay. He is riding a wave of popularity so profound even the sharks are curbing their taste.”

What tipped him off: “If radio listener opinions are any indication of genuine support, Trump will sail to victory next year. … Polls and the trending of primary politics may matter, but don't overlook the culture of American talk radio and the obvious backdraft of resentment building behind the doors of Americans across the country. Voters are listening, and radio talk may be the clearest window through which to understand their wishes.”

What he says now: “I wasn’t Nostradamus about it,” Anderson told me by phone. “But I had faith that the public, particularly in the conservative states, would look at him and say, ‘We want a commander in chief and we’re willing to bend a little on some of his stances that may not comport with ours.’ ”
Howard Stern

Who he is: Iconic radio host and the patron saint of shock jocks.

When he called it: Aug. 24, 2015

What he said: “I’ll tell you why I think he’s going to be the nominee: He’s proven that no matter what he says, people dig him,” Stern said on his SiriusXM show. “I also think that a lot of people are of the mind that… they hate illegal immigrants but they just feel funny saying it—whether it's rational or not.” The next day Trump called into the show and Stern repeated his prediction: “You could actually be president. This is looking like a reality.”

What tipped him off: Trump has been a guest on Stern’s show many times over the years. (Sex-related comments he made during those appearances sparked a very minor controversy earlier this year.) Maybe Stern saw something in him as a result of those interviews? As he put it: “I think more or less, people are sick and tired of politicians, meaning that they like the idea of a successful businessman running the country who might actually be able to get shit done.”

What he says now: Stern’s representatives did not respond to a request for comment.

[Iroscato]

Oh piss off, Shitstorm. Honest to God, if I see another alt-future wankfest where Trump is the future prez my eyeballs are gonna roll back into their sockets and barf into my brain.

It's not. Gonna. Happen.

[Alferd Packer]

Oh piss off, Shitstorm. Honest to God, if I see another alt-future wankfest where Trump is the future prez my eyeballs are gonna roll back into their sockets and barf into my brain.

It's not. Gonna. Happen.

Correct. Thanks to changing demographics, the Democrats have 242 safe electoral votes. The Republicans have 102. The Democrats need 28 electoral votes to win. The Republicans need 168.

Oh, by the way, Florida is worth 29. The Democrats could focus only on Florida for the next six months and still win the general. They won't, of course, because there are Senate and House races to consider, but that's just one of many valid paths to victory.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Much as I despise Trump, if anyone can screw up a campaign against him, it's Hillary Clinton, who has managed to turn a fight against a relatively unknown 74 year old Vermont Senator who calls himself a socialist in America into a relatively close race.

It's not, though. Hillary's beating Bernie like a gong in basically every metric you'd care to name. He has proven to be a much tougher candidate than anticipated, and he has a hell of a fundraising base.

Bernie, as of the last 538 count, has won slightly over 45% of the pledged delegates that have been assigned. It's certainly not enough to win in a two-person race, especially once you start including superdelegates in the delegate totals, but it's hardly getting "beaten like a gong." That terminology would more be a more accurate description to what Trump's been doing to his opponents in the Republican primaries.

Considering where Sanders was at the start of the race, it's actually been a very close election, and if nothing else shows that at the very least his ideas have the support of a significant percentage of the Democratic base.

Compared to the last seriously-contested Democratic nominating contest (Clinton vs. Obama,) Clinton is not only beating Sanders "like a gong," she's venturing into beating Sanders "like a red-headed step-child" territory. Clinton leads by over 300 pledged delegates and enjoys the support of something like 520 of the super-delegates. This is a beating an order of magnitude greater than the one Obama threw Clinton back in '08. To whit, according to the AP's numbers, Clinton needs fewer than 200 delegates to cinch the nomination.

The only reason this contest is still a thing is because Sanders and his advisors aren't really operating "in the system," and have absolutely nothing to lose from trying to bleed Clinton all the way to Philadelphia. At the end of the day, Sanders has his Senate seat to go back to, which is safe enough that only retirement or death from old age are going to remove him from it. Remember that he wasn't a Democrat until it was politically expedient for him to do so. An actual card-carrying Democrat with Sanders' performance numbers would've dropped out back in March, when it was clear that the party's power structure was firmly behind Clinton and our hypothetical Democrat had proven that he or she had failed to capture the party's voting base.

Arguably, another reason this contest is still a thing ... Clinton has not made a single attack ad against Sanders, since to do so might've alienated his base. Also, since the mainstream press didn't view Sanders as credible, they didn't subject him to nearly the level of scrutiny they would've subjected a credible candidate to ... Even though his history is full of things that would've seriously called his electability into question.

[Knife]

I am so tired of this 'only a Democrat when it was convenient' bit. As long as the system is set up for only two parties (and both parties have a vested interest to keep it that way) that significant chunk of American voters who do not fall into those two factions have to participate in some fashion with those two factions to be heard. The DNC (and RNC as well) cannot have it both ways. You want my vote (and they do need it) you have to give me something I want to get it. If people in the out group get enough votes and people to support them and invest in one of the two parties because it's the only fucking way to win in this country, you can't then complain that we're just using the party.

Either accept that some part of the 30% of people who don't identify as Dem or GOP will eventually use the system that the two big dogs set up even though they don't fall into the two categories, or support the idea we need to fucking break up the two party system so people don't have to muck up your little sandbox with their unDNC views.

[Alkaloid]

You mean... like what happened with Barack Obama? You'd think she'd have learned from that experience that you have to take your opposition seriously.

I doubt it's that. I'd say the biggest issue her campaign is going to have is that she's been such a polarising figure on the US circuit for so long that she's left with very little room to actually campaign. She has, for want of a better term, already picked the hill she wants to die on and now she just has to hope it's a big enough hill. It was enough that Sanders stealing the progressive left from her wasn't enough to knock her off and might even have improved her chances in the general if anti establishment voters who might otherwise have toyed with the idea of Trump vote for her once he endorses her. Now she just has to weather the storm Trumps fanatics are going to throw at her and that if she can't then hope she'll pick up enough votes from people voting for her out of fear of a Trump presidency.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Future history take: <snip stupid bullshit>

Seriously, what the fuck is your problem? Mods have specifically warned you in other threads to stop doing this bullshit, and yet you persist. You constantly come into these threads and drive-by post opinion pieces from disreputable sources as if they were fact. You never bother responding to anything in the thread, you just vomit unsubstantiated alarmist (and often at least vaguely racist) rhetoric and then run away.

[Simon_Jester]

You mean... like what happened with Barack Obama? You'd think she'd have learned from that experience that you have to take your opposition seriously.

I doubt it's that. I'd say the biggest issue her campaign is going to have is that she's been such a polarising figure on the US circuit for so long that she's left with very little room to actually campaign. She has, for want of a better term, already picked the hill she wants to die on and now she just has to hope it's a big enough hill...

Thing is, the same would have been true of Sanders- he's picked the hill he's going to die on, and indeed it's an open question whether there are gigantic land mines buried in that hill.

In the Republican field, most of the candidates have likewise staked out their positions. Cruz, Kasich... these are not people who can avoid being typecast. Trump has a lot more flexibility because the only fixed point in his campaigning, frankly, is his own personality which he can't change and probably wouldn't even if he could.

Trump has that freedom because his political views have never been relevant in the eyes of the American public. He can stake out whatever territory he wants with minimal consequences. He could therefore throw whatever hat into the ring that he desired. Had he chosen to run as a Democrat, and to espouse positions broadly in line with the Democratic core platform, he might well be doing fairly well among Democrats today.*

Most other politicians do not have that freedom. People who try to do that, and who shift sharply from primary to general election positions or otherwise 'tack' or 'triangulate' tend not to fare well. Witness Romney and his broken "etch-a-sketch."

Now, plenty of politicians make promises and then don't keep them. They say they want X, then don't work for X. But that is not the same thing as trying to alter their reputation, or the stance of their basic political views, in the middle of an election cycle.
_______________________

*Obviously he would have to drop a lot of the casual racism and sexism... but he could have chosen to do that and no one would be the wiser.

[TimothyC]

Ohio Gov. John Kasich plans to suspend his run to be the GOP presidential nominee, multiple sources told NBC News on Wednesday.

He had previously cancelled a planned event in order to make a Wednesday night statement in Ohio.

Kasich was left the only man standing against Donald Trump in the Republican presidential primary race after Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas suspended his run on Tuesday night.



Trump won a resounding victory on Tuesday night in Indiana, taking all 57 of the state's GOP delegates, according to NBC.

In response, Cruz suspended his run, concluding that he had there was no longer a "viable path" to his becoming the Republican standard-bearer in the general election.

"From the beginning I've said that I would continue on as long as there was a viable path to victory. Tonight, I'm sorry to say, it appears that path has been foreclosed," Cruz said during a Tuesday night speech. "The voters chose another path, and so with a heavy heart, but with boundless optimism for the long-term future of our nation, we are suspending our campaign."

For its part, the Kasich campaign said in a Tuesday evening statement that the Indiana results "are not going to alter" the candidate's plan.

"Our strategy has been and continues to be one that involves winning the nomination at an open convention," the Kasich campaign said.

Cruz and Kasich had spearheaded the (now almost assuredly unsuccessful) attempts of some members of the GOP to stop Trump's roll to the nomination. But that "Never Trump" movement appeared to stall on Tuesday night after Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said the real estate magnate would be the "presumptive" nominee.

Trump, meanwhile, told The New York Times on Wednesday that he is forming his vice presidential selection committee to consider a short list — which currently doesn't include Kasich.

The plan, according to those behind the Cruz and Kasich campaigns, was to prevent Trump from winning 1,237 delegates before the GOP convention this summer, thereby preventing him from securing a first ballot victory. After that, the Cruz and Kasich campaigns said there would have been a chance for their candidates to win over the delegates and earn the nomination.

Although that path seemed nearly impossible after Trump's Indiana victory, the Kasich campaign still seemed ready for a fight after Cruz suspended his run.

During his run, Kasich was only able to amass 154 delegates, according to NBC News. That puts him under Marco Rubio's 172 delegates — and the senator from Florida had dropped out in March.

Yet despite Republican voter's apparent reluctance to vote for Kasich — he only won his home state of Ohio — his campaign had billed him as the party's best bet in the general election.

I'm going to need to change my avatar again.

Edit: For those looking back on this thread years from now, the Avatar I used from around January of 2016 through April 2016 was the "Kasich for US" red K with a red flag device.

[Elheru Aran]

Huh. Here I was thinking Kasich was hedging his bets by holding on tight till the convention and seeing if the contest would turn in his favour due to the party scorning Trump. But if both he and Cruz are *suspending* their campaigns... that's an interesting move.

EDIT: Never mind, 'suspend' is just semantics. Apparently they have to pay off their staff and some other red tape before officially *ending* the campaign. So for all intents and purposes, unless a video comes out of Trump blowing twenty gay prostitutes on crack while accepting money from Chairman Kim and Mexico, yeah, they're done.

[Raw Shark]

When Pennsylvania was called for Trump, Hillary was on her second bourbon. When Ohio went red, her consultants ran up to Bill’s suite and pulled him off an eager blonde campaign staffer to have him come downstairs and pry the bottle out of Hillary’s clutches. They hoped to keep her from completely embarrassing herself during her concession speech.

Ignoring everything else that is so completely off in this post, I did get a genuine laugh out of this one. If Bills tried to pull a bottle of bourbon out of Hil's hands with his dick wet at this point where she's just barely tolerating him because she doesn't want the stigma of divorce to harm her career, he can still help out politically sometimes, and honestly she still likes the guy a little because they've been together since they were stoned kids in the 70s (and how can't you like the guy - he's got charisma all day long), he'd get Mini Me cut off so fast it'd look like a kung fu movie.

Shitstorm.

[The Romulan Republic]

Oh piss off, Shitstorm. Honest to God, if I see another alt-future wankfest where Trump is the future prez my eyeballs are gonna roll back into their sockets and barf into my brain.

It's not. Gonna. Happen.

Correct. Thanks to changing demographics, the Democrats have 242 safe electoral votes. The Republicans have 102. The Democrats need 28 electoral votes to win. The Republicans need 168.

Oh, by the way, Florida is worth 29. The Democrats could focus only on Florida for the next six months and still win the general. They won't, of course, because there are Senate and House races to consider, but that's just one of many valid paths to victory.

I'd like to think the Democrats couldn't possibly lose. It certainly ought to be true. But I can't help but think that people have been writing Trump off for the last year, not expecting him to get this far, and that getting complacent about the general election would be a really bad idea for the Democrats.

I am so tired of this 'only a Democrat when it was convenient' bit. As long as the system is set up for only two parties (and both parties have a vested interest to keep it that way) that significant chunk of American voters who do not fall into those two factions have to participate in some fashion with those two factions to be heard. The DNC (and RNC as well) cannot have it both ways. You want my vote (and they do need it) you have to give me something I want to get it. If people in the out group get enough votes and people to support them and invest in one of the two parties because it's the only fucking way to win in this country, you can't then complain that we're just using the party.

Either accept that some part of the 30% of people who don't identify as Dem or GOP will eventually use the system that the two big dogs set up even though they don't fall into the two categories, or support the idea we need to fucking break up the two party system so people don't have to muck up your little sandbox with their unDNC views.

Sanders and his campaign have made it quite clear that he will remain a Democrat and support Clinton if he is not the nominee. The "not a real Democrat" line, at this point, is just a cheap attempt to smear Sanders' character and paint him as "not one of us", playing on partisan tribalistic sentiments.

He's not a life-long Democrat, no. But by that standard I'm not a real Democrat either, since I joined the party in 2010.

[Lord MJ]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glU1dJzT5Rk

Kyle says why we shouldn't underestimate Trump. Particularly since he can appeal to Independents and he could try to flank Hillary from the left.

* How do you get youtube embed tag to work here?

[Soontir C'boath]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glU1dJzT5Rk

Kyle says why we shouldn't underestimate Trump. Particularly since he can appeal to Independents and he could try to flank Hillary from the left.

* How do you get youtube embed tag to work here?

Remove the 's' after http and put the link in-between [youtube][/youtube]

[Simon_Jester]

It would be bluntly stupid to underestimate Trump.

The demographics are against him, in that a generic Democrat has a very good chance of winning the White House from a generic Republican in this election.

On the other hand, Trump is not a standard-issue Republican. Comparing him to the last two men standing against him in the Republican primary...

Trump may be able to secure some votes from people who don't normally vote Republican. People that would not have favored a man like Cruz. Who might have voted for Kasich... but then, I'm not sure the turnout among the Republican base would have been as good for Kasich as it would be for Trump. So Trump may win states that a generic Republican would lose.

That said, Trump is carrying some very heavy burdens into the general election. He's had a reputation as a crude, semi-fraudulent, misogynist troll of a man for about as long as the median American has been alive. He's doubled down on this reputation in recent years. He has numerous land mines buried in his hill.

Racial minorities either hate him, have excellent reason to hate him, or both. Hispanics, well, duh. And I suspect his popularity among African-Americans is low enough to actively elevate black turnout against him, although this is based on some rather amusing anecdotal observations that may themselves be heavily biased.

I'm not saying Trump can't win, but he has a lot of obstacles to overcome with the natural persuasive ability of his campaigning style.

...

That said, I don't think Trump can 'outmaneuver Clinton from the left,' if only because he isn't going to win the election without the Republican base no matter how well he campaigns. His best case scenario without them is "inferior version of Ross Perot." I don't think even Trump can retain the support of the Republican base while remaining to the left of, or even near, Hillary on the issues.

[Lord MJ]

That said, I don't think Trump can 'outmaneuver Clinton from the left,' if only because he isn't going to win the election without the Republican base no matter how well he campaigns. His best case scenario without them is "inferior version of Ross Perot." I don't think even Trump can retain the support of the Republican base while remaining to the left of, or even near, Hillary on the issues.

Trump doesn't need to go all out leftist. He just needs to support left ideas that Republicans supports (and would support overwhelmingly if presented by a "conservative").

Trump called the Iraq War a mistake, supported universal health coverage, blasted the same trade deals Bernie blasted, and attacked money in politics (not that I believe that he would do anything about money in politics). Trump could bring out all of those guns against Hillary.

Furthermore some Republicans were supporting Bernie because they agree with Bernie on most of those same things. So Trump saying the same things wouldn't alienate them.

[Simon_Jester]

Trump did all the things you say then, but I doubt he can do them now without losing more Republicans than he gains independents. If two Trump supporters are at risk of getting into a fistfight over what Trump's vision for the country is... the odds are that one or both of them will cease to be Trump supporters in short order.

Again, politicians who even try to be all things to all people tend to fail.

[Lord MJ]

Trump did all the things you say then, but I doubt he can do them now without losing more Republicans than he gains independents. If two Trump supporters are at risk of getting into a fistfight over what Trump's vision for the country is... the odds are that one or both of them will cease to be Trump supporters in short order.

Again, politicians who even try to be all things to all people tend to fail.

This wasn't stuff he said years ago, it was stuff he was saying in this very campaign. I think it's because they bought into Trump's frenzy that he could literally say anything and his supporters would say "Yeah!!" Once again bringing up that Republicans were supporting Bernie Sanders due to his opposition to the establishment.

I don't think Trump going after Hillary for her hawkishness or money in politics issues are going to alienate anyone on the right other than the Neocons and the financial industry, but those are the same "establishment" that people hate and many Neocons have already defected to the Hillary camp.

I don't think minorities will go for Trump based on this left flanking of Hillary, but what about older White Democrats (particularly blue collar ones) and Independents?

[The Romulan Republic]

I think its pretty much a given, sadly, that in a Drumpf vs. Clinton match, most of the old white male vote will go to the fascist. Not everyone, of course, but a decided majority.

And youth turnout for Clinton might not be very enthusiastic. Hell, some of them, regrettably, will be Bernie or Bust/Bernie or Trump assholes.

Which leaves Clinton basically relying on high minority/female for the core of her support. Although I hope the spectre of Drumpf and Sanders backing her will inspire more youth turnout to make Clinton's coalition more diverse if she's the nominee.

[MKSheppard]

Furthermore some Republicans were supporting Bernie because they agree with Bernie on most of those same things. So Trump saying the same things wouldn't alienate them.

Let me put it this way. I'm "feeling the Bern" a bit; because you know, he's not going full retard on firearms, unlike Hillary.