Jump to content

US Elections: Super Tuesday Edition, It's Over 9000!


Fez

Recommended Posts

The final results out of Nevada are: Trump: 45.9%, Rubio 23.9%, Cruz, 21.4%, Carson 4.8%, and Kasich 3.6%.

So Trump did in fact end up doubling up on Rubio and Cruz combined. Just a dominating victory. So much so, that it seems like a fair number of pundits haven't been able to spin this as a victory for Rubio the way they clearly wanted. Next up are the 12 Super Tuesday states next week. There's a couple Cruz may win, like Texas, but I'm not sure Rubio wins any of them. And honestly the map the rest of the way looks pretty terrible for him too. There hasn't been polling of Florida in over a month, but when there was it showed Trump winning big there too (whereas recent Texas polling does give Cruz the lead). If Rubio hasn't won anything through March 8, I wonder if he stays through the indignity of losing his home state? And if he does stay, but still loses Florida I think he drops out soon after. At this rate, there's not going to be anything close to a brokered convention; so there's no use in trying to compile whatever delegates he can.

As for debate near the end of the last thread, about primary turnout and correlation with general election turnout. I think it is somewhat worrisome this year how the large the disparity is. But the flipside of course is that any time there's an incumbent president there's almost no voters who show up to the primaries for the party, but most incumbent presidents still win. In 2012, as one can imagine, turnout for the Democratic primaries was basically nonexistent, Obama still won re-election. So if its the case that most Democrats just don't care about Clinton v. Sanders, or aren't following the news and just assume Clinton is already the nominee, but are still planning on voting in November, then its not a huge deal. At the same time though, its impossible to know yet whether that's the case, so I do worry for now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how Trump loses the nomination at this point. There's apparently no gaffe that can sink him, and in a week he will probably run the table on Super Tuesday, with the exception of Texas, and he might even win there depending on how the rest of the field divides the vote.

Also, why the hell is Ben Carson still running?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As of today I personally am getting depressed about the prospect of Donald Trump actually winning the presidency. It's difficult to see how he does NOT win the Republican nomination at the moment, given that 35% of the primary and caucus vote nationally would surely give him over 50% of the convention delegates. After he would win the nomination, I expect him to emphasize his less "conservative" populist views and even to change some of his positions in order to attract independents and blue collar Democrats, and I don't think that will erode his support among the Republican voters who now support him, because their support really isn't ideological but based on his image as a "strong man" who appeals to authoritarians. Authoritarians historically have been quite willing to go along with their leaders changing positions as their trust is in the person, not the policy. I think he'd even keep a lot of his supporters if he changed his tune on immigration -- most of his voters would be willing to accept that from him when they wouldn't accept it in any other Republican. 

Meanwhile I think Hillary Clinton is just not a candidate that's going to excite a lot of the voters the Democrats need to mobilize in November. I think older women are the only demographic group that will be really thrilled with her candidacy -- and almost all of them would have voted, anyway. I am worried that several recent polls show Sanders actually beating any Republican candidate more soundly in a general election than Clinton -- primarily because Sanders would do better with blue collar men and with younger votes -- which seems to me to point up just what Clinton's problems would be in the general election. 

Trump would mobilize a lot of Hispanic voters and college-educated Independents (and even some college-educated Republicans) to vote against him in the general election. But would they really be enough to offset Trump's huge appeal to blue collar men, and my expectation that a lot more younger voters and African-American voters simply wouldn't show up at the polls compared to Obama's two elections? I'm getting scared that Trump's ability to say contradictory things and get away with it would let him be "all things to enough people" that he will actually be the next President. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Do you think that there will be a Trump nominee boost to democratic turnout?  If Clinton is the nominee, I also think there are a fair number of independents that would swing that direction.  Trump/Sanders is a much, much, much harder call.

Too many variables to know for sure right now. Trump is deeply unpopular with the overall electorate right now, but if anyone could swing that around in just a few months, its probably him. It helps that it turns out he's actually the Republican 2008 Obama. He's the one that has supporters projecting all their different ideas and beliefs on, and is primarily running on an emotional appeal (albeit anger, rather than hope). I don't think he'll make inroads with minorities, but maybe he can convince enough of the remaining white working class Democrats that he's the one with their best interests at heart. If so, maybe he wins a close election with a map like this

On the other hand, that is a very tall order. And I think there will some people motivated to vote specifically to keep Trump out. And if Clinton is the nominee, she's likely to get some quasi-independent establishment support that she wouldn't against the other Republican candidates. If Sanders is the nominee, who the hell knows?

9 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

Also, why the hell is Ben Carson still running?

The combination of overwhelming, religious-based belief in oneself, a massive grudge against another candidate (Cruz), and the ability to keep making money, is a very powerful one. Plus, he does not care at all what the pundits or political class says. So long as his campaign stays out of debt, he has no incentive to quit running.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Ormond said:

As of today I personally am getting depressed about the prospect of Donald Trump actually winning the presidency.

Meanwhile I think Hillary Clinton is just not a candidate that's going to excite a lot of the voters the Democrats need to mobilize in November. I think older women are the only demographic group that will be really thrilled with her candidacy -- and almost all of them would have voted, anyway. I am worried that several recent polls show Sanders actually beating any Republican candidate more soundly in a general election than Clinton -- primarily because Sanders would do better with blue collar men and with younger votes -- which seems to me to point up just what Clinton's problems would be in the general election. 

Trump would mobilize a lot of Hispanic voters and college-educated Independents (and even some college-educated Republicans) to vote against him in the general election. But would they really be enough to offset Trump's huge appeal to blue collar men, and my expectation that a lot more younger voters and African-American voters simply wouldn't show up at the polls compared to Obama's two elections? I'm getting scared that Trump's ability to say contradictory things and get away with it would let him be "all things to enough people" that he will actually be the next President.

I am likewise very frightened of a Trump Presidency and what his support says about the country.  I think that any hope of a non-Trump winning the nomination went out the window last night.  He'll win at least 10 (if not more) of the 12 states on Super Tuesday, and it will be over. 

For the General, I still think that Sanders is fools gold.  The reason he polls well against republicans is because the republican attack machine hasn't been aimed at him, they're still clawing at Hilary like they have been since 1992.  I hope the Clinton campaign can find a message that works.  It seems like she was a stronger candidate in 2008, which is really disappointing.  Nonetheless, I'll be voting for her (and quite possibly volunteering too, which is hard to believe considering how unenthusiastic I am about her). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

Also, why the hell is Ben Carson still running?

OAR,

You know exactly why. That sweet, sweet book money. Republican presidential politics has turned into a giant money maker for BS candidates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I am likewise very frightened of a Trump Presidency and what his support says about the country.  I think that any hope of a non-Trump winning the nomination went out the window last night.  He'll win at least 10 (if not more) of the 12 states on Super Tuesday, and it will be over.

For the General, I still think that Sanders is fools gold.  The reason he polls well against republicans is because the republican attack machine hasn't been aimed at him, they're still clawing at Hilary like they have been since 1992.  I hope the Clinton campaign can find a message that works.  It seems like she was a stronger candidate in 2008, which is really disappointing.  Nonetheless, I'll be voting for her (and quite possibly volunteering too, which is hard to believe considering how unenthusiastic I am about her).

Hell, HRC was looking like a slam dunk 2 years ago. Looks like all this Benghazi nonsense sunk her.

Regarding Sanders and fool's gold, my fear with Sanders is that he'll be George McGovern 2.0, in which his policy proposals will be very popular yet he gets crushed in the general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump just got his first endorsement from a sitting member of Congress. Somewhat surprisingly, its Chris Collins from New York. Collins has a long history of scumbag behavior, particularly when he was still a county executive, but he's one of the most moderate remaining Republicans in Congress and had previously endorsed Jeb!; i.e. he's exactly the sort of person that Rubio needs to be getting endorsements from.

It isn't going to help Trump at all, his supporters clearly don't care about this sort of thing, but it will be interesting to see if this is the first of many as more members realize which way the wind is blowing.

ETA: And now Trump has a second one, Donald Hunter. The name's familiar, but I don't know much about him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"President Trump"

"President Donald Trump"

"President Donald J. Trump"

You may need to start practicing that.

 

I'll go back to my comment about seeing an interview with Anne Coulter, where she said Trump should choose Romney as a running mate, so Trump can concentrate on the stuff he does best and Romney can do the boring stuff. 

Maybe if Trump spends his time just being a public bombast machine and Romney actually runs things, it might not be that bad?  Or is this an impossible idea, because Romney is obviously part of that Republican elite Trump can't be seen with?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

OAR,

You know exactly why. That sweet, sweet book money. Republican presidential politics has turned into a giant money maker for BS candidates.

Very true. Relatedly, I read today that Carson thinks his own campaign may have been essentially running a scam under his nose.

1 hour ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Duh.  He wants to be the first black president and it's a scam.

:lol:

I hadn't clicked your links before I linked the above article to Tywin. Needless to say, I think you make a good point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Romney running things would also suck quite a bit. He's a more competent version of trump with similar views on destroying companies in order to profit.

I've been thinking about what a trump presidency would look like, and my conclusion is that it would probably not be hideous. Certainly not as bad as Cruz or Rubio. Trump has largely been against adventuring and warmongering. He would repeal the ACA, and that sucks. His other idiotic ideas wouldn't pass any Congress - the wall idea wouldn't work. The Muslim immigrant database probably couldn't work. His torture ideas would get him impeached.

Mostly I suspect that Congress of any flavor wouldn't cooperate with him. Republicans losing to him would likely turn their obstructionist tactics against him, hard. Democrats might go with him on a few things but would also likely obstruct. While he'd be able to do a fair amount via executive order I doubt he would do more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Other directing as many federal contracts as possible towards Trump-owned businesses, I don't think Trump has any interest in changing much at all as President. I have no idea who his VP would be, but I think most of his cabinet and advisors would be various establishment types that will essentially keep the status quo going. Although he will make various doomed grand gestures at changes that any Congress would block, designed to keep his personnel appeal up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

Romney running things would also suck quite a bit. He's a more competent version of trump with similar views on destroying companies in order to profit.

I've been thinking about what a trump presidency would look like, and my conclusion is that it would probably not be hideous. Certainly not as bad as Cruz or Rubio. Trump has largely been against adventuring and warmongering. He would repeal the ACA, and that sucks. His other idiotic ideas wouldn't pass any Congress - the wall idea wouldn't work. The Muslim immigrant database probably couldn't work. His torture ideas would get him impeached.

Mostly I suspect that Congress of any flavor wouldn't cooperate with him. Republicans losing to him would likely turn their obstructionist tactics against him, hard. Democrats might go with him on a few things but would also likely obstruct. While he'd be able to do a fair amount via executive order I doubt he would do more.

So the damage would be limited to Cabinet positions and appointees and policies for federal agencies. Which is hardly comforting. But maybe a horrifying ignorant authoritarian President is just the kind of shock the American system needs to rebalance the branches and get Congress to do their jobs instead of squatting on their seats and letting the executive accrue power due to their inaction.

Nah, who am I kidding, we're a nation of overprivileged trust fund babies who shat in our own nests and due for a bumpy ride down the slope of imperial decline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

Very true. Relatedly, I read today that Carson thinks his own campaign may have been essentially running a scam under his nose.

:lol:

I hadn't clicked your links before I linked the above article to Tywin. Needless to say, I think you make a good point.

As far as I can tell, it's 100% legal to run for president, have an "independent" super PAC, write a book, then have your super PAC buy 50,000 copies of said book. Easy money baby.

Also, Carson is so in on the scam. He promoted some BS medicine that "cured" his cancer, yet he still had the operation to be a role model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

Also, why the hell is Ben Carson still running?

Gotta keep the grift going. His campaign from a financial point of view has largely looked like a direct mailing operation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...