US Elections: When Murder isn't Murder

[TrackerNeil]

2 hours ago, lokisnow said:

on a lighter note, Clinton just got her BEST gif of the campaign. Sanders campaign manager accused her of being too ambitious (to run for president) and her response, caught on camera, is pretty amazing.

I LOVE it. The notion that there are non-ambitious folks running for president is just as risible as Clinton thinks. 

[ThinkerX]

Of course, there is also a fair shot that Trump will win the delegate count outright.

Saw an article that claimed the Koch brothers were behind the Paul Ryan for president thing.  Ok, they're money men.  Could they legally offer each delegate a million bucks flat out in exchange for a Ryan vote?  Maybe dress up the legalese a bit so it's not quite a blatant buyout? 

[Bonesy]

I can't see a million dollars being worth more than not being seen as a loser for Trump.

[Shryke]

6 hours ago, Kalbear said:

That's certainly what Kasich wants. It's probably a crazy pipe dream at this point. There's no sign that delegates that are supporting Trump right now would go for him (in fact, there are a lot of signs that they'll go to Cruz), there's no real momentum for him - he's still only won one state - and while he's polling high against Clinton and Sanders currently that's almost certainly because no one knows who the fuck he is, and therefore he is perfect. 

He's also running a fundamentally stupid campaign at this point. There was a time when he could have worked with Cruz to maximize his value and maximize the chances of his winning, but instead he's fought Cruz at basically every single turn and competed in states that he had zero chance to win (like, say, Utah). He could have been prepping for New York instead of working in Wisconsin. He's pretty incompetent. 

Kasich's argument is going to be "I'm a generic Republican and I can win Ohio". Like, that's.it. He's a guy that's less hateable then the other two and his potential to win Ohio makes his chances better then the other two.

[Shryke]

57 minutes ago, Bonesy said:

I can't see a million dollars being worth more than not being seen as a loser for Trump.

Agreed 100%. Trump's ego rules him more then anything. If he loses in a convention fight, he won't go quietly.

[Darzin]

It seems to me Cruz getting the nomination is the best case scenario for the Republicans they've already basically lost this election, but nominating Cruz will clear the field for 2020 anything else and Cruz will be the front runner and likely nominee in 2020 and they'll have had two terrible candidates in a row. 

[Shryke]

5 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Thought it was actually a pretty good attack.

 

Yeah, it appears to have started with Conneticut Dem politicians and relatives of Sandy Hook victims in reaction to Sanders comments about his support for gun legislation and how it effects their lawsuit. They were, shall we say, less then pleased with his stances.

At some point Clinton seems to have tweeted support for one of the relatives of the victim and then I can't quite figure out the timeline from there.

But at some point Clinton starts talking about Sanders prioritizing indemnity for gun manufacturers over victims of gun violence and before or after that Sanders starts saying she should apologize for all the people who died in the Iraq War and/or lost jobs due to trade deals.

He also just called her "unqualified to be President" today so we've apparently reached the point where Sanders decides he wants to get really negative.

[lokisnow]

5 hours ago, Altherion said:

I'm not so sure. The GOP is in serious trouble regardless of the convention's outcome and I don't think Cruz being the nominee is optimal. Trump is entertaining, but he could never have risen so high had there not been a substantial fraction of the GOP base which is disaffected with its elites. If these elites select somebody who clearly came in second (I don't see how Cruz can overtake Trump), a significant fraction of the disaffected -- possibly even a majority -- may be permanently alienated from the Republican party. They won't vote for Clinton (Sanders I'm not so sure about), but even if they simply stay home this would be a disaster for the GOP. They'd lose not only the Presidency, but also House and Senate races.

To be honest, I don't think anyone knows what the outcome of a contested convention would be. As far as I can tell, the last time somebody who had won most the most primaries was prevented from being the nominee was in 1952, but back then less than 15 states held primaries in the first place so it was expected that the elites would choose the nominee. I cannot find a single instance of such a convention in the modern era (i.e. with all 50 states holding primary or caucus elections). It might be that business will continue as usual, but it also might be that the Republican party will cease to exist as a national force or that the convention will turn into something analogous to the convocation which led to the ascent of the High Sparrow.

If the democrat party can survive the civil war and the Republican Party can survive teddy Roosevelt's revolt, and both can survive the Great Depression, then I think both parties will survive and thrive by the next election or the one after it.

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/04/05/the_real_reason_trump_cant_break_the_gop_130193.html

[The Marquis de Leech]

The Republicans are still selecting their delegates. Cruz has a head-start, but he's hardly got things wrapped up, and both Trump and Kasich have belatedly figured this out.

At this point, I think you're looking at:

First Ballot - a nomination here can only be Trump.

Second Ballot - a nomination here is likely to be Cruz. But if 1237 delegates aren't in the pocket of Cruz, or if Kasich doesn't do a deal, then it's entirely possible that the delegates vote for someone they don't actually loathe, which means...

Third Ballot, and after - all bets are really off at this point. Trump is probably finished. Cruz's prior organisation probably means he's in a better position to do deals, but by this stage you could be looking at anyone.

Meanwhile, the streets of Cleveland look like a re-run of Chicago '68.

[Shryke]

3 hours ago, Darzin said:

It seems to me Cruz getting the nomination is the best case scenario for the Republicans they've already basically lost this election, but nominating Cruz will clear the field for 2020 anything else and Cruz will be the front runner and likely nominee in 2020 and they'll have had two terrible candidates in a row. 

Cruz is probably better for them because he's less likely to kill them downticket.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

14 hours ago, Myshkin said:

I expect the Rules Committee will scrap that rule. Not that I think it'll make much of a difference. If Trump doesn't win on the first vote I expect Cruz to win on the second. This might be the best outcome for the GOP anyway. I don't expect the Republicans to win this election no matter who they run, and I think realists inside the party probably feel the same, but if Trump (or someone else) gets the nomination Cruz or another "true conservative" will pretty much walk to the nomination in 2020. But if Cruz gets the nomination now and gets crushed in the general the GOP can turn to the tea baggers and say we gave you your candidate and look where it got us. Time to let the grown ups run.

Maybe, maybe not. If they change the rule that will be a signal that Cruz is not acceptable. Otherwise I agree with you. I think the GOP wants Cruz to run and lose this go around so that they can clear the path for Nikki Haley in 2020.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

15 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Thought it was actually a pretty good attack.

 

It's a good attack for the primary in NY and New England in general, but it will come back to bite her in the General. And it's a really dumb attack if you think about. It makes no sense to hold gun manufacturers accountable for what people do with their guns.

[Maithanet]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's a good attack for the primary in NY and New England in general, but it will come back to bite her in the General. And it's a really dumb attack if you think about. It makes no sense to hold gun manufacturers accountable for what people do with their guns.

Nobody who votes based on your record on gun rights is going to vote for Clinton anyway.  And that quote is reasonable sounding enough that it isn't useful as an attack ad.  I see no downside for Clinton here. 

15 hours ago, Myshkin said:

I expect the Rules Committee will scrap that rule. Not that I think it'll make much of a difference. If Trump doesn't win on the first vote I expect Cruz to win on the second.

You have to remember that the Rules committee is made up of delegates sent to the convention, IE Trump and Cruz delegates.  It strikes me as very very unlikely that they'll adopt rules that would allow be favorable to any other candidates.  As Rule 40(b) was last written, you need the written support of the majority of the delegates from eight states to be on the ballot.  By the third ballot, delegates would be free, and could unite under a new banner if they wanted to, but that is going to be difficult, and it is possible that Cruz + Trump people could work together to get Rule 40 (b) changed so that you need to have the support of the majority of delegates from eight states going into the convention (or if they prefer, they could say the majority of voters in a caucus/primary in eight states). 

I don't know what will happen, but I think it is pretty unlikely that the rules will be written in a way that is unfavorable to Trump + Cruz, because their delegates will be the ones making the rules.  I agree that it seems like the most likely outcome is Trump fails to win on the first ballot, and then Cruz wins either on the second or third ballot (remember that not all delegates are unbound after just one vote, so it might be tough for anyone to win on ballot #2).  IF Cruz doesn't win by ballot 3, a dark horse starts becoming more and more possible, but I think Cruz will pull it off somehow.

[CBeck113]

Hyperthetical question: let's say the nominations are Cruz and Clinton.  Trump will be Trump and run as an independant, unless his has already sold himself behind the scenes.  Wouldn't this be an open door for Sanders to also make a run as an independant?  His chances would probably be just as slim as Trumps since the parties control heavily influence the electoral college, but since he is an independant, what would stop him?  Since most states give all their votes to the candidate with the most popular votes, how would this pan out if there are four candidates?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

@Maithanet

There are many independents who have not decided how they will vote that will see her remarks as a step too far. Also, the idea itself is insane. And lastly her attacks on Sanders are just going to make it harder for her to win over his supporters.

[Maithanet]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

@Maithanet

There are many independents who have not decided how they will vote that will see her remarks as a step too far. Also, the idea itself is insane. And lastly her attacks on Sanders are just going to make it harder for her to win over his supporters.

I don't find the idea at all insane, I would call it reasonable.  This tweet is hardly "ban all guns!"  Any independent who's vote is primarily determined by protecting gun manufacturers from lawsuits sounds like a Republican. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 minute ago, CBeck113 said:

Hyperthetical question: let's say the nominations are Cruz and Clinton.  Trump will be Trump and run as an independant, unless his has already sold himself behind the scenes.  Wouldn't this be an open door for Sanders to also make a run as an independant?  His chances would probably be just as slim as Trumps since the parties control heavily influence the electoral college, but since he is an independant, what would stop him?  Many states split the EC votes according to the voting results in their states (not all though), but would this also happen if there are four candidates?

Sanders will not run as an Independent. 

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

@Maithanet

There are many independents who have not decided how they will vote that will see her remarks as a step too far. Also, the idea itself is insane. And lastly her attacks on Sanders are just going to make it harder for her to win over his supporters.

She retweeted it. She didn't say it.

And why is the idea insane? It was sane enough to almost win in congress. We do this with products all across the board as a matter of fact. What would be insane about, say, requiring guns to have trigger locks or requiring guns to have built in child safety measures? 

That is what this is getting at - that we have laws saying that toy guns must be obviously toys or the manufacturer can be held liable. This isn't weird at all. 

At this point I'm not sure winning over Sanders supporters is going to be possible. He just declared Clinton unqualified to be president. His campaign manager just stated she's too ambitious. It doesn't matter how nice she is or isn't at this point.

[The Marquis de Leech]

13 minutes ago, CBeck113 said:

His chances would probably be just as slim as Trumps since the parties control heavily influence the electoral college, but since he is an independant, what would stop him? 

Let's see...

1. Becoming a pariah in the Senate.

2. Potentially inflicting President Trump or President Cruz.

3. If no-one has a majority, the House chooses - which means President Cruz.

4. A permanent split in the progressive movement.

No, Bernie isn't running as an independent.

[The Marquis de Leech]

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

At this point I'm not sure winning over Sanders supporters is going to be possible. He just declared Clinton unqualified to be president. His campaign manager just stated she's too ambitious. It doesn't matter how nice she is or isn't at this point.

Storm in teacup. By the general, all this will be forgotten.