Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Considering the large number of creative nasty phone-calls it's likely there's a semi-organised effort where her contact info etc has been provided for asshats to use as they wish. Publicly, Stormfront is feigning ignorance and only encouraging its followers to share their views on her "vicious attacks" on Empress Melania. People are just so messed up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
I don't think it's reasonable to count-out a contested convention yet. Chances are narrowing, but the truth is the convention is really oriented around a majority of delegates voting for a candidate. Trump does not have a majority of delegates, and we can't be certain he will (or even have delegate defections) until we get there.
Also I read the GQ profile of Melania Trump last night and thought it was pretty flattering, all things considered.
It's like Trump has his own version of left-wing union trolls on the Internet, except they are right wing morons and don't get paid.
Chances have REALLY narrowed. The path to stopping Trump from getting the majority looks really grim.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Dread, not going to happen when Trump is polling at 40-50% in virtually all non-caucus states.
Too little too late even if he only gets 1150 delegates (which is surely his floor now) that realistically is enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
If only he gets 1150 it can be a contested convention. The person with the most delegates doesn't win necessarily, the person who reaches the 50.00001% does. That being said the odds of him not hitting 1237 are not pretty damned low.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Can does not mean will.
Even if there is a contested nomination I have little doubt Trump will win it. Lots of people will wish it could be otherwise, including party elites and leadership, but the consequences of dumping the candidate with a large plurality lead in today's world will be dire, and not just for the Presidential race. It'll murder GOtV efforts and alienate lots of people who would otherwise be voting for more Republican candidates at the polls. It could actually turn safe seats into something potentially up for grabs. And let's not forget that unless there is a realization of the incredibly unlikely possibility of a dark horse candidate taking the nomination, the only plausible alternative is Ted Cruz, who many in the party-leadership also can't stand and think will be a terrible choice as well. The nomination is going to go to Trump unless he loses the remaining races by much higher margins than the polls are showing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
What odds would you give to Trump winning in November? He wasn't supposed to come this far yet has confounded expectations so its possible albeit unlikely.
Betfair has Clinton at 72.5% and Trump at 22.2%. That seems too generous for Trump. I'd put his probability of victory at 5-10%. Shame I don't live in the UK (can't bet on politics in the US). :o
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plu...et/1.107373419
http://www.bettingexpert.com/how-to/convert-odds (for translating decimals to percentages).
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.
