US Elections: Children of the Revolution

[lokisnow]

10 minutes ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

Hm? The Trump bump in Arizona due to the terror attacks I can understand, but why would they make him underperform even more in Utah? I know that the Mormons there don't like him, but why would the terror attacks worsen that? 

the response to a terror attack of everyone who does not like Trump is to really make sure Trump is not elected, because nothing could possibly be worse.

[Altherion]

3 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

the response to a terror attack of everyone who does not like Trump is to really make sure Trump is not elected, because nothing could possibly be worse.

That doesn't make much sense...

In any case's here's Fortune's take on the subject:

Quote

Both Trump and Cruz have the potential to gain voters by touting their beliefs on counterterrorism and security. Trump’s anti-Muslim rhetoric, particularly his plan to put a ban on Muslim entry to the U.S., could win over even more voters than it already has. Cruz, meanwhile, has campaigned on an extremely aggressive foreign policy, with promises to “carpet bomb” ISIS. This tends to appeal to neoconservative voters who want an aggressive foreign policy pegged to the Bush Doctrine.

I would guess that there are more Republican primary voters supporting a temporary ban on Muslim entry than there are wanting a return to the Bush Doctrine.

[jarl the climber]

Well a lot of people consider Trump to be unqualified for the office including a lot of Republicans so the attack in Belgium might ram home the point that you need someone competent like Ted Cruz or at least Kasich or so the argument might go. I've seen polls that have Cruz at 55% in Utah to Trump maybe not even getting 10%, so its hard to see Trump doing much worse there.

[Myshkin]

5 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

You do understand that it is both possible that Clinton is running a better campaign than Sanders AND the DNC has tipped the scales in her favor on a number of occasions? 

At no point did I suggest otherwise. Though I will now say that I think this DNC conspiracy stuff is way overblown. It was one of the earliest excuses in a long list of excuses for why Sanders isn't winning. And yeah, Clinton came into this race with a lot of advantages, but the assumption seems to be that those advantages were either bought or simply handed to her for no good reason. The point of my last post was to show that she worked, and worked hard, for those advantages. She worked to gain the support of the party and its members; if Sanders wanted that support he should have put in the work. 

[Martell Spy]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/utah-arizona-primary-trump-cruz-kasich-221061

 

How Trump wins the West, even if he loses

Cruz and Kasich are working at cross-purposes, setting Trump up to win most of Tuesday's delegates despite big trouble in Utah.

 

[Guess who's back]

1 hour ago, lokisnow said:

the response to a terror attack of everyone who does not like Trump is to really make sure Trump is not elected, because nothing could possibly be worse.

And not a single argument was seen that day

 

12 hours ago, Shryke said:

Like, here's a good example from Elizabeth Warren:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/elizabeth-warren-donald-trump-tweetstorm

Of how easy Trump is to hit.

 

" .@RealDonaldTrump stands ready to tear apart an America that was built on values like decency, community, and concern for our neighbors. "

You must be kidding me. Is she aware of the us history?

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

24 minutes ago, Myshkin said:

At no point did I suggest otherwise. Though I will now say that I think this DNC conspiracy stuff is way overblown. It was one of the earliest excuses in a long list of excuses for why Sanders isn't winning. And yeah, Clinton came into this race with a lot of advantages, but the assumption seems to be that those advantages were either bought or simply handed to her for no good reason. The point of my last post was to show that she worked, and worked hard, for those advantages. She worked to gain the support of the party and its members; if Sanders wanted that support he should have put in the work. 

That's fair. It's just been my experience as a reluctant Clinton supporter who has no love or affinity for the candidate that many long time Clinton backers have serious blind spots about her. And one of those is, through no fault of her own, that it's a bad optic if it appears that the party is trying to rig the game for her.

[TrackerNeil]

2 hours ago, Maithanet said:

In contrast, in spite of clearly establishing himself as the frontrunner by winning NH, SC and NV, as well as the majority of Super Tuesday states, Republicans have shown a great deal of reluctance to rally around Trump.  Any normal Republican candidate that had won 10 of the first 15 contests would be running away with the nomination.  But Trump has not, because a lot of people (even a lot of Republicans) really don't like what he is selling.

Yep. This guy can't get 51% of Republicans to get behind him; I doubt he'll have better luck with the public at large.

20 minutes ago, Myshkin said:

At no point did I suggest otherwise. Though I will now say that I think this DNC conspiracy stuff is way overblown. It was one of the earliest excuses in a long list of excuses for why Sanders isn't winning. And yeah, Clinton came into this race with a lot of advantages, but the assumption seems to be that those advantages were either bought or simply handed to her for no good reason. The point of my last post was to show that she worked, and worked hard, for those advantages. She worked to gain the support of the party and its members; if Sanders wanted that support he should have put in the work. 

Yes! One of the signs of a good politician is that she can unite various wings of her party, and this Clinton has done. (If I recall correctly, the only place Bernie consistently outperforms her is with young white people.) Nobody crowned her queen, or if they did, I missed the coronation. 

It's possible, possible, that Clinton is just more popular than Sanders among Democrats.

[Kalbear]

Quote

the only place Bernie consistently outperforms her is with young white people.

It's actually worse than that - it's young white men. Young white women have been for Clinton or not depending on which state it is. 

[mormont]

I think the thing about Clinton and her advantages, real or alleged, is this: she had pretty much all of those advantages when Obama beat her handily.

Sanders has done much better than anyone could have expected, and I'm not saying that I expect him to be another Obama. I'm saying some of his supporters might. They need to recalibrate their expectations.

[Myshkin]

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It's actually worse than that - it's young white men. Young white women have been for Clinton or not depending on which state it is. 

And, as I alluded to in an earlier post, it's young white men who don't have a whole lot to lose under a Trump or Cruz presidency. They can afford to take a moral stand now, because they won't pay the price when they come up short. I'm a youngish (34) white man, and I know intellectually that a Trump or Cruz presidency would be a disaster, but I'm honest enough with myself to understand that I personally won't be adversely affected by it in nearly the same way as many of my fellow Americans. 

[lokisnow]

17 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Ted Cruz is calling for law enforcement to patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods in the wake of the Brussels attacks.

 

 

This guy scares the shit out of me. He has conspiracy theorists and anti-Muslim advocates among his foreign policy advisors, Frank Gaffney being one of them.

there are muslim neighborhoods?  I thought they just scattered all over like white people do (says protestant guy living in an extremely Jewish neighborhood)?

 

Where are the muslim neighborhoods to patrol? how many muslims does it take to make it a muslim neighborhood.

[MerenthaClone]

9 minutes ago, Myshkin said:

And, as I alluded to in an earlier post, it's young white men who don't have a whole lot to lose under a Trump or Cruz presidency. They can afford to take a moral stand now, because they won't pay the price when they come up short. I'm a youngish (34) white man, and I know intellectually that a Trump or Cruz presidency would be a disaster, but I'm honest enough with myself to understand that I personally won't be adversely affected by it in nearly the same way as many of my fellow Americans. 

There's also a contingent of white men who are currently economically disadvantaged enough to think that increased spending on welfare is beneficial to them and that the current economic system is unsustainable, while simultaneously believing that racism and sexism are over so all the other people should shut up, or at least be content with "equality".  

[Myshkin]

9 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Ted Cruz is calling for law enforcement to patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods in the wake of the Brussels attacks.

 

 

This guy scares the shit out of me. He has conspiracy theorists and anti-Muslim advocates among his foreign policy advisors, Frank Gaffney being one of them.

Cruz scares me a lot more than Trump. He's a True Believer, and there's nothing scarier than that.

[Mexal]

3 minutes ago, Myshkin said:

Cruz scares me a lot more than Trump. He's a True Believer, and there's nothing scarier than that.

They both scare me. Both can do immense amounts of damage to the US and the world though each has their different issues.

[Ormond]

5 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

there are muslim neighborhoods?  I thought they just scattered all over like white people do (says protestant guy living in an extremely Jewish neighborhood)?

 

Where are the muslim neighborhoods to patrol? how many muslims does it take to make it a muslim neighborhood.

There would be precious few predominantly Muslim neighborhoods in the USA compared to Europe. However, I bet there are some in Dearborn, Michigan, and probably a few in New York City or northern New Jersey and perhaps the Los Angeles area. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

15 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Ted Cruz is calling for law enforcement to patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods in the wake of the Brussels attacks.

 

 

This guy scares the shit out of me. He has conspiracy theorists and anti-Muslim advocates among his foreign policy advisors, Frank Gaffney being one of them.

I always find it amazing how the loudest advocates for religious freedoms almost always only care about their own freedoms and liberties and are more than happy to trample other peoples' religious freedoms.

8 minutes ago, Myshkin said:

Cruz scares me a lot more than Trump. He's a True Believer, and there's nothing scarier than that.

Same.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

37 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It's actually worse than that - it's young white men. Young white women have been for Clinton or not depending on which state it is. 

Show me some exit polls that prove this.

Sanders has won the under 30 vote in almost every state, usually overwhelmingly.

Since under 30 voter are not overwhelmingly male, this requires that he performed very well with young women.

The only two states where he lost the youth vote also have a huge portion of African American voters that he does truly terribly with, so it's less than clear that even in those states he lost among white women under 30. Probably he did not.

Exit polls also suggest Sanders won the Latino vote in Nevada and ran about even, but slightly ahead, in Illinois. Given his overwhelming strength among young voters in those states, it's safe to assume he won by sizable margins among young Latinos.

[Myshkin]

7 minutes ago, Mexal said:

They both scare me. Both can do immense amounts of damage to the US and the world though each has their different issues.

Oh they both scare the shit out of me too. It's just that Trump is a mercenary, he'll do whatever is best for Trump, and in a way that means he can be controlled. Cruz is the man of words who presages the men of action. I think a Cruz presidency will be the beginning of a movement that will have a much longer lasting affect on the country than a Trump presidency.

[Mexal]

3 minutes ago, Myshkin said:

Oh they both scare the shit out of me too. It's just that Trump is a mercenary, he'll do whatever is best for Trump, and in a way that means he can be controlled. Cruz is the man of words who presages the men of action. I think a Cruz presidency will be the beginning of a movement that will have a much longer lasting affect on the country than a Trump presidency.

Problem with a Trump presidency is his insecurity. He's capable of anything if he's slighted and he'll be slighted. But yes, I do agree with you about Cruz, especially if Republicans are in charge of Congress.