Nah a contested convention wouldn't be a Trump auto win. Its possible but people who are selected as delegates are often party insiders.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Printable View
Nah a contested convention wouldn't be a Trump auto win. Its possible but people who are selected as delegates are often party insiders.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
I couldn't begin to make that kind of estimate. I'd be surprised if he got less than 40% of the popular vote though. Not that that's a hard prediction to make, there have only been four elections (without extra candidates spoiling the general election) where that's happened and one of those doesn't properly count. In 1836 the Whigs ran four separate candidates (each in a different region where they were deemed likely to do better) to try and draw enough votes from incumbent van Buren to throw the election to Congress. It failed.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I guess I'll be pushing the button for Gary Johnson. I don't actually support all of his positions (particularly his stance on Iran) but maybe if enough people vote Libertarian in a protest vote over Trump we might shift the party. Meh, fools dream really, the next generation of babies want government to take care of them from cradle to grave. Very depressing election cycle.
Looks like Fiorina's merger here went as well as her last one in the private sector. But hey, not many people can claim they ran for our top office twice, and lost twice, in the same year!
But it looks like I'll get to use my sticker!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Some fun with cruz:
Twitter Link
Why is this guy so awkward?
Well, fuck.
Fuck.
Funny, a whole bunch of Cruz/Fiorina signs just appeared along the sides of a local roadway last night. I bet whoever planted them is kicking himself.
They think it's all over, it is now.
*singing*
Can't get the stink off
He's been hanging round for days
Comes like a comet
Suckered you but not your friends
One day he'll get to you
And teach you how to be a holy cow
You do it to yourself, you do
And that's what really hurts
Is that you do it to yourself
Just you and no one else
You do it to yourself
You do it to yourself
Don't get my sympathy
Hanging out the 15th floor
You've changed the locks three times
He still comes reeling through the door
One day I'll get you
And teach you how to get to purest hell
You do it to yourself, you do
And that's what really hurts
Is that you do it to yourself
Just you, you and no one else
You do it to yourself
You do it to yourself
:up:
Love that Song. Awesome Video too.
My mobile tries to correct all nouns it knows to capital.
Kasich just dropped out as well.
Barring any October surprises it doesn't seem all that likely. Even though he has a decent floor of support, he also has a ceiling. And the electoral math doesn't seem to favor him all that well. That being said, I have been surprised at the people I know who - although I would characterize them as broadly reasonable - hate Clinton enough to vote for Trump. It's hard to know how much this will translate into changes in either turnout or voting intentions, but I wouldn't count him out just yet. If I were a betting man, though, I'd definitely put it all on Clinton. She's a disciplined if unexciting campaigner with loads of establishment support, and I suspect, will end up with a pretty big lead in fundraising. Unless she has personally murdered a senator (well, most senators) I just don't see her campaign tripping up dramatically. Trump, on the other hand, is the definition of undisciplined, and his unfavorables are quite high. I just don't see it happening.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I never give money to political causes, but I'm seriously considering convincing the wife to donate to the Clinton campaign. She's hardly my ideal candidate but the contrast is truly crazy.
Misperceiving Bullshit as Profound Is Associated with Favorable Views of Cruz, Rubio, Trump and Conservatism
Peer reviewed article published in the journal PLOS ONE, using the Bullshit Receptivity scale to define "pseudo-profound bullshit"
Science is fun!
No indication what the sample size was for each candidate.
That's a huge waste of money. I've been wrong a lot this election cycle but I would be shocked if Trump doesn't do worse than either McCain or Romney.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
"Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist."Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
How about the fact they are liberals?
What?
That's not science. It's a lit-studies paper masquerading as science.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Let us say that Trump has a 10% chance of winning - that is far lower chances than I would have given to either McCain or Romney at a similar point in the campaign. Am I willing to save a few bucks in the complacent assumption that he won't win? To me, a low probability risk that has very high costs should receive just as much attention as a higher probability risk with low costs. In most recent presidential campaigns, I have not felt that the outcome of the election could dramatically damage the country, so while I voted I did not feel the need to get involved in any way. In this election, I very much feel that a Trump presidency would be ruinous, so a modest investment against that possibility seems prudent, no?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
That's how I felt at the last General Election though I didn't simply donate money, I donated time too going door-to-do delivering leaflets.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
Do you guys do that sort of thing there or is it all money? Possibly because of stringent spending caps here donating time can be worth more than donating money.
People on all sides have been canvassing v enthusiastically as well as making phone-calls etc. However, there's a greater opportunity cost to donating time :o
I live in a very blue state. Ground game is irrelevant here. I also doubt my argument in favor of Clinton is one that is likely to excite other voters. :oQuote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
McCain and Romeny, who I'm pretty sure you were convinced would win.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Pretty sure you've just jinxed the election.
Donating time is definitely something done over here and is almost certainly more effective than spending money, particularly late in the cycle as part of GOtV efforts. But I imagine Wiggin's time might be more valuable to him than his money.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
That, too. Though money is always nice. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Didn't know I had that kind of power. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
In that case let me make a new prediction. There will be nothing crazy that happens that will prevent Trump from securing the nomination.
Since you bring up percentages what do you think the % chance of your donation will impact the final results from a loss to a win. That's where your real % should be. If it is less than 1/10,000 you're being rather foolish.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
I prefer to think about this as a game theory problem with tens of millions of politically engaged Americans. We could all be free riders, theoretically, but then money will get allocated by the true partisans rather than the reasonable majority, which is a losing proposition. It's a bit of a prisoner's dilemma but since we live in society that continually repeats the 'game', there is incentive to get it right. Essentially, I would give money because I think everyone else who's reasonable should give money. Even if my individual donation (or my individual vote) won't matter, the aggregate actions of people like me do matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
There's no reason to think your actions will have any impact on those other people though.
In a single turn of the game, you're correct. But let's imagine that everyone else doesn't fund the reasonable candidate this time around, and the lack of funds leads to a narrow loss to the nutjob. The next time the game is played, people will change their behavior. In fact, because we're capable of projecting into the future, they'll change their behavior for the first game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
You still have no influence over other players, whether in this round or the next. Let's say your actions increase Clinton's margin of victory ever so slightly. That will have either no impact on other people or might even encourage them to donate less next time around because their expectation of a future nutjob's likelihood of victory will decrease.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
It's amazing that "establishment" Republicans are willing to support/endorse Trump, even after they lambasted him for almost a year. :rolleyes: Then the chairman of the RNC said it's time to rally around the presumptive nominee and unite the party....but both Bushes, McCain, and Romney are skipping the convention, and even Speaker Ryan can't bring himself to endorse Trump.
Is anyone placing bets on who he'll pick for his VP?
I think it'd be great if the GOP 'shifted'....away from its social/cultural/religious extremes and militaristic bend. That puts Johnson in a good position to pick up lots of voters, including Independents and Democrats that don't like Hillary, as well as Republican that don't like Trump. But I doubt that will change the GOP much, at least not this election cycle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
You can keep telling yourself our ruin is from lib'ruls wanting teh gummint to take care of people from cradle to grave, but that's just your blind partisanship talking. And it prevents you from seeing the ruin caused by militant neo-cons, white Christian zealots, and crony capitalists within the GOP. :bored:
The RNC really doesn't have a choice. Though good on Bush, McCain, Romney and hopefully Ryan. Trump is a colossal joke, the people who voted for him need a sharp reality check and I'm hoping Libertarian party getting 5% of the vote and Clinton taking 40 states is the message. Don't vote for crazy.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
The Libertarian convention won't get the same media coverage (ie total saturation). Assuming he wins the Libertarian nomination....he should be on the Presidential Debate stage alongside the (R) and (D) candidates. But the only way that will happen is if social media forces demand it.
It's not like "the press", let alone cable news networks, have done such a great job of introducing third party political candidates so far. :rolleyes:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...orters-believe
The new Republican Party.
Took long enough but at last the arrogant Republican Elite (aka Lewk et al) must actually look at the majority of thier constituency and admit they have been courting scumbags all along.
Courting is one thing, its the encouraging and fostering it they shouldn't have done. If you ask me, at least.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
Considering the party has about 50% support overall, Trump numbers aside I finde these statistics shockingly high:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I have to admit though, the global warming hoax figures are better than I had feared (especially after thse figures :bulb: )
