Trump won't win the nomination. That was a dreadful result for him last night nearly in third place. If he fails in New Hampshire then his bubble will be quite deflated.
Interestingly if it wasn't for coin tosses Sanders would have won Iowa. There were six delegates chosen by coin toss and Clinton won all 6 thus winning by 5. Had they gone 3 each then Sanders would have won by 1.
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Whole bunch of shady counting like this one too:
http://www.c-span.org/video/?c457857...ty-iowa-caucus
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I question this narrative. Trump is not a good candidate for Iowa - GOP caucuses there typically favor evangelical conservatives with strong ground games, something Trump most emphatically is not. I know there was some hype from polling etc. that Trump might beat Cruz, but I think most seasoned observers found that doubtful. Getting second place (and only one fewer delegate) to Cruz is not surprising, albeit somewhat disappointing for his campaign. It's getting first place that would have been surprising; this is just expected.
I am still skeptical that the GOP will nominate Trump, but I don't think the Iowa result is in any way disastrous for his campaign.
"When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)
While Iowa is notoriously difficult to poll for to underperform all polls significantly (bar one) by well over the margin of error is a very poor result still. If he wins New Hampshire then of course it is game on still for him - and he is polling to win New Hampshire by over 20% which is an incredible lead. If he fails there though it is hard to imagine him remaining a credible candidate.
I guess it's whether you prefer an extremist where you know what to expect vs a loon who is completely unpredictable. And of course it depends on how strong the pm/president position is, if it's not particularly strong I'd prefer the extremist. At least you know what to expect, and checks and balances should keep must extremism out (even if Corbyn is PM, he has to pass everything through the house of commons right? Seems to me that the more extreme the law the harder it'd be to impose party discipline, they all want to be reelected after all).
Hehe. Though I think Trump might be less corrupt, but maybe that's wishful thinking. I do think he's less good at politics though.
The more I hear about primaries the more bizarre it gets.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Corruption is largely a matter of the system/group rather than the person. We certainly have our areas where corruption is a problem (construction is one of those areas) but there's an awful lot of effective scrutiny here for it to rise to that level.
And caucuses aren't primaries. The primaries are mostly straightforward.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Why not just have a primary? A caucus is ridiculous. And yes Maine has one too.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Wiggins is right. The surprise is how much help Rubio got from the surge in caucus-goers and late-deciders. Trump led polls sure but the pundits kept repeating that the Iowa caucus just doesn't poll well for a reason. As it is, second is a perfectly good result for Trump. Not what he wanted certainly but since he didn't take the traditional stump for the state and relied on new caucusers breaking his way in contravention of the wisdom that many stay undecided until late, it's actually higher than I might have thought. It's New Hampshire that will tell us if Trumps' polling numbers are off for some reason.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Sadly NH is an open primary so it may not be the best signal.
http://www.redstate.com/california_y...ered-democrat/
"Sorry Democrats. In today’s New York Times, Nate Cohn crunches the statistics on Donald Trump’s supporters and reveals that the Donald “holds his greatest strength among registered Democrats who identify as Republican leaners.” Cohn also put it this way, Trump’s “very best voters are self-identified Republicans who nonetheless are registered as Democrats.”"
Let me quote it again.
"Sorry Democrats. In today’s New York Times, Nate Cohn crunches the statistics on Donald Trump’s supporters and reveals that the Donald “holds his greatest strength among registered Democrats who identify as Republican leaners.” Cohn also put it this way, Trump’s “very best voters are self-identified Republicans who nonetheless are registered as Democrats.”"
My theory is that liberals want Trump to be the nominee so they can crush the Republicans in the general election.
Twitter Link
looks like I used the twitter tag after all, thanks wraith
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Sorry, I used the word for the entire candidate nomination process, whatever it's called. It's just weird to me
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Hehe just wait until you hear about 'super delegates.'Sorry, I used the word for the entire candidate nomination process, whatever it's called. It's just weird to me
Moral corruption is still a thing.
With the exception of Clinton I don't understand how the relevant candidates on either side think they can make their presidency work. Hasn't the Obama presidency been proof enough that holding the keys to the White House amounts to very little if you can't get the people in the Capitol to cooperate?
Congratulations America
Last time I checked a ton of things (bad things) have happened. To this day we still have continuous spending despite control of congress. I hate how American politics works. If the senate and the house say no to deficet spending and the president gets in a huff it is somehow congress's fault for 'shutting down the government.' /boggle
I agree with you on one thing: I hate how American politics "works".
You think Hillary Clinton can get a Republican congress to follow her will?
If that is the criterion then Rubio seems the best bet.
Carpet bomb ISIS,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...mb-terrorists/
Or...
Nuke Denmark,
http://www.msn.com/en-us/video/watch...ark/vi-BBp7Cde
Cruz is evil, Trump is vain ? What's your take?
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Cruz is evil for wanting to kill terrorists?
Do you think the innocent have bomb shelters or something?
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
If I were to propose a method for killing 100 terrorists that simultaneously kills 1000 civilians, would I be in the clear, morally speaking, in your eyes?
For the sake of argument let's say 1000 white civilians.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I found the bombings of Germany and Japan in WWII morally justified. Did you?
The answer your question... it depends. Like RB said if those 100 terrorists kill > than 1000 than the cost/benefits fit. *Where possible* civilian casualties should be limited however sometimes it isn't. In general if you bomb terrorists every chance you get most civilians will get the idea that maybe they shouldn't be near terrorists. The ugly not so secret is that many of the people in that region actually support what the terrorists are doing and regularly assist them.
If the 1000 civilians were in a foreign country and if there was no alternative way of stopping the terrorists and if the terrorists would have caused more than 1000 innocent deaths then yes. Collateral damage is sad but sometimes necessary.
If any of those three conditions aren't met then no.
Okay, how do you propose to determine whether or not those terrorists will cause more than 1000 civilian deaths? How many more? What does "no alternative" mean?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
and how to do you figure in the terrorists you created by killing 1000 innocents? Isn't that part of the problem we have in the middle east already?
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
And if it isn't black and white? You know, real world stuff. Where you can carpet bomb, but also target specific locations, contain, use special forces raids, track them, and stop them before they can strike here. It's never a question of either carpet bombing them to prevent x attacks and x casualties or allowing that to happen.
Lewk, do you think that the nazis bombing London, Rotterdam etc was justified?
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Nope. They Germans were the aggressor and invaded multiple countries for little reason other than they could. They murdered millions of people and attempted genocide. Now if it was England who did all that (gassed the Jews etc) than just the bombing of their citizens would have been acceptable. WWII was total war, it wasn't just about attacking military assets but also about destroying the means of production to create those military assets.
Btw, what the hell is UP with attitudes towards Muslim Americans?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
What attitudes are you on about?Btw, what the hell is UP with attitudes towards Muslim Americans?
And people's religion being ignored is a good thing. If you want to believe in some form of medieval sky pixies you should do so privately in the comfort of your own home/pixie's church. It shouldn't be a public matter.
I'm talking about Islamophobia in the US, where have you been?
Last edited by Aimless; 02-08-2016 at 06:53 PM.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote