U.S. Elections: The Safe Space For People With Good Brains

[TrackerNeil]

10 hours ago, Triskan said:

Hank Paulsen, Bush's Treasury Secretary, has also said that he will not support Trump and has said that he will support Clinton saying something about how catastrophic a Trump presidency would be. 

I am not surprised, although I note that nearly all of the Republicans who have taken a stand against Trump have no elections to win, and this is why I think the Dump Trump movement is doomed. In my opinion, for Dump Trump to succeed 1) people with something to lose have to support it; and 2) there must be a credible alternative to The Donald. I see no sign of either. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

 

16 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

I am not surprised, although I note that nearly all of the Republicans who have taken a stand against Trump have no elections to win, and this is why I think the Dump Trump movement is doomed. In my opinion, for Dump Trump to succeed 1) people with something to lose have to support it; and 2) there must be a credible alternative to The Donald. I see no sign of either. 

The people who are running and have something to lose can't act against Trump. They are too scared to get slaughtered future primaries. That's why you see this ridiculous displays of non-existing convictions from people like Ryan.

"I think Trump is a racist, but I will vote for him and endorse. But I think he is terrible."

They have to play to a general election crowd without alienating the parts of their electorate that is very active in primaries. Not so long ago, Palin has directly threatened Ryan, that he will get outprimaried if he does not fall in line. 

[Fez]

So it would seem very likely that Trump's campaign was in fact lying last week about their newfound fundraising abilities.

To sum up: They claimed to have raise $3.3 million on Tuesday and another $3.4 million on Thursday through online donations. Problem is, Trump's email address list is only 1.1 million people (which is crazy small for a nominee, Ted Cruz's was three times larger than that last month), and the fundraising email sent out last week was only received by 40% of the accounts due to a spam filter problem, only 12% of accounts opened the email, and half of them deleted the email immediately after opening it. So only 6%, or 66,000 people, actually read the fundraising email. And it was just one email sent to everybody, in general political campaigns develop multiple emails tailored to different groups.

So the only way Trump raised the money he claimed is every one of those 66,000 people donated an average of $101. Its technically possible, but very unlikely. For one, no one gets everyone who reads a fundraising appeal to donate and for every one of those 66,000 who didn't, that average donation gets higher. And also, even at $101 that is an absurdly high average donation.

But we'll know for sure July 20 when the next FEC reports are due.

[Jace, Extat]

Why would you call a spam filter that gets rid of Trumpeting a 'problem'? Sounds like a success to me.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

So much for Trump the self-funder. 

In other news, did anyone else catch McConnell refusing to say Trump is qualified to be president while also saying Trump beat a lot of qualified candidates? 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senate-majority-leader-mitch-mcconnell-declines-trump-qualified/story?id=40131900 

 

[TrackerNeil]

20 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

So much for Trump the self-funder. 

In other news, did anyone else catch McConnell refusing to say Trump is qualified to be president while also saying Trump beat a lot of qualified candidates? 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senate-majority-leader-mitch-mcconnell-declines-trump-qualified/story?id=40131900 

 

Quote

A new ABC News/Washington Post poll released today shows 64 percent of Americans, a new high, say Trump is unqualified to serve as president.

I'll bet Trump receives WAY more than 36% of the popular vote, come November.

[sologdin]

15 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

I'll bet Trump receives WAY more than 36% of the popular vote, come November.

well, he is more popular than hemorrhoids and cockroaches, according to that thing last month, so if those are the opponents, we're fucked.

[Bold Barry Whitebeard]

I think it's funny that the same people who rail against citizens united and big money in politics are gleefully crowing about their candidate having big money and mocking the one candidate who doesn't.

[sologdin]

likely not inconsistent to controvert a rule but to acknowledge those moments when the rule works in one's favor?

[BloodRider]

14 minutes ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

I think it's funny that the same people who rail against citizens united and big money in politics are gleefully crowing about their candidate having big money and mocking the one candidate who doesn't.

Who here is "crowing" about such things.  It is stating facts.  It is also a fact that money is necessary (but not sufficient, so calm down there Jeb) to compete in US elections.  It's the gas in the car.  Surely you can see that through all your lacrimose Trumpologies.

[Martell Spy]

Well, this is stunning. There's a lot of signs Trump is running a poor campaign, but this is pretty big. Warren isn't even the VP yet, and may never be. If he can't handle Warren's trolling, how is he going to handle being focused on by tens of millions of Democrats?

Donald Trump, Unable To Control Self, Calls Elizabeth Warren The Real Racist
And then, just when you think this campaign can’t get any more ridiculous, enter Scott Brown.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-elizabeth-warren-racist_us_57716bf3e4b0dbb1bbbb644a?section=

[Bold Barry Whitebeard]

13 minutes ago, BloodRider said:

Who here is "crowing" about such things.  It is stating facts.  It is also a fact that money is necessary (but not sufficient, so calm down there Jeb) to compete in US elections.  It's the gas in the car.  Surely you can see that through all your lacrimose Trumpologies.

Are you calling me Jeb?  How can I be Jeb and a Trump apologist?  Also, I'm not lacrimose.  You would know that if you were here, but it's not really something you can tell through a computer screen.  Your post sounds more like histrionics than the 'facts' you claim to be stating.

[James Arryn]

5 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Well, this is stunning. There's a lot of signs Trump is running a poor campaign, but this is pretty bit. Warren isn't even the VP yet, and may never be. If he can't handle Warren's trolling, how is he going to handle being focused on by tens of millions of Democrats?

Donald Trump, Unable To Control Self, Calls Elizabeth Warren The Real Racist
And then, just when you think this campaign can’t get any more ridiculous, enter Scott Brown.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-elizabeth-warren-racist_us_57716bf3e4b0dbb1bbbb644a?section=

I can't particularly agree with the article. Getting Trump to focus on shallow ad-hom personal slights isn't throwing him off his game...that IS his game. Therefore I don't see this as him losing control, at least not any more than previously.

[MerenthaClone]

11 minutes ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

Are you calling me Jeb?  How can I be Jeb and a Trump apologist?  Also, I'm not lacrimose.  You would know that if you were here, but it's not really something you can tell through a computer screen.  Your post sounds more like histrionics than the 'facts' you claim to be stating.

He's not, he's saying that Jeb's entire campaign was premised on money being both necessary and sufficient  for the Presidency. Since it isn't sufficient, he is telling Jeb (in an aside denoted by parentheses) to calm down.  Its a joke.  

And the glee is based around Trump's campaign being so poorly run.  Its schadenfreude.  I personally do wish that money was neither necessary nor sufficient, but its also fun to watch someone repulsive and repugnant about to be thoroughly trounced on a national stage.

[BloodRider]

21 minutes ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

Are you calling me Jeb?  How can I be Jeb and a Trump apologist?  Also, I'm not lacrimose.  You would know that if you were here, but it's not really something you can tell through a computer screen.  Your post sounds more like histrionics than the 'facts' you claim to be stating.

Not at all.  I am saying you have the best reading comprehensions....  Just reading your reply here....  this is the best reading that we can do as a country...  Just the best....  And you will get alll the understanding....   The best understanding...  More understanding than everyone else....

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

19 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

I can't particularly agree with the article. Getting Trump to focus on shallow ad-hom personal slights isn't throwing him off his game...that IS his game. Therefore I don't see this as him losing control, at least not any more than previously.

Eh, I think it's fair to argue that Warren gets under his skin to a degree that no one else seems to match, and he does tend to lash out at her with more force than he does with most other people.

[Bold Barry Whitebeard]

2 minutes ago, BloodRider said:

Not at all.  I am saying you have the best reading comprehensions....  Just reading your reply here....  this is the best reading that we can do as a country...  Just the best....  And you will get alll the understanding....   The best understanding...  More understanding than everyone else....

Your use of the ellipsis is pretty flawed.  I think you should take an English grammar class.

[Jace, Extat]

1 hour ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

I think it's funny that the same people who rail against citizens united and big money in politics are gleefully crowing about their candidate having big money and mocking the one candidate who doesn't.

There is an undeniable humor factor that the self proclaimed billionaire who said he doesn't need to fundraise is looking increasingly unlike a billionaire and seems incapable of finding funds with which to run his campaign.

 

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

1 hour ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

I think it's funny that the same people who rail against citizens united and big money in politics are gleefully crowing about their candidate having big money and mocking the one candidate who doesn't.

I am misunderstanding, or are these not two separate things?

Moneys to the candidates are regulated, tracked. (what is being discussed)

Moneys in superpacs are not, and are not considered part of the candidates campaign funds. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 hours ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

I think it's funny that the same people who rail against citizens united and big money in politics are gleefully crowing about their candidate having big money and mocking the one candidate who doesn't.

The state of our election process is sad for sure. That it takes hundreds of millions of dollars (or perhaps even billions) is abhorrent. What's funny here is Trump has been selling himself as the candidate that doesn't need outside funds to run his campaign. He's not buyable. He doesn't need SuperPac funds, and this makes him a more attractive candidate who will not be beholden to lobbyists and special interests and the like. That's what is being mocked as near as I can tell.