[amphibian]

I just returned from a trip to the farmer's market. On the way, a pick up truck was aggressively moving through traffic and stopped in front of me. It was covered in slogan stickers. Say no to gun control, impeach Obama, Calvin in a cowboy hat peeing on the word Obama, this home defended by the second amendment etc

And a Ted Nugent for President sticker too.

The one saving virtue of this obvious racist and well armed idiot is that he's willing to double down on everything, pass up Trump, and go for Nugent.

This post has been edited by amphibian: 17 January 2016 - 05:06 PM

[worry]

For the record though, what Trump's saying isn't much (or any) different from what the other Republicans would do, he's just not doing the couched language thing. I've been seeing a lot of conservatives who dislike him trying to disown him as "not a conservative, but a populist demagogue" as if those were mutually exclusive, or as if any of the candidates were intellectuals. The "anti-PC" bloviating is what's getting people enthused -- as it is with Cruz to some degree too -- because it isn't typical. But policy-wise he's not on a different page from the RNC at large. Terez is right about the dogwhistling, but I imagine it's possible the base has been bred so civically dumb that even dogwhistling is too subtle, and that's why the straight talk is preferable -- not just a matter of dropping the usual veil, but not understanding the veil in the first place.

[Mezla PigDog]

Was just reading about the Democrat debate. Who the jeffin hell is O'Malley? I thought there were only 2 in it!

[Terez]

He's a minor candidate, the likes of which there are usually 3 or 4 in primary debates. The Republicans have so many candidates this time that their minor candidates have been shunted into a separate debate, though, and even some of their minor candidates are big names. Opposition politics does wonders for bench-building. George Pataki and Jim Gilmore fit the bill of minor candidates on their side.

[amphibian]

Mezla PigDog, on 18 January 2016 - 06:06 AM, said:

Was just reading about the Democrat debate. Who the jeffin hell is O'Malley? I thought there were only 2 in it!

If you've seen The Wire, O'Malley is the biggest source inspiration for Mayor Tommy Carcetti. The Wire's writers drew on a blend of politicians, but O'Malley was the rising star who made his name on pseudo-addressing Baltimore crime as mayor and quickly became governor of Maryland.

[Illuyankas]

If that doesn't stop him*, nothing will**






* it won't

** the general will be the very last defense but he probably will get Ides of March'd at the primary

[Gorefest]

Raging Cajun Gator King, on 19 January 2016 - 11:59 PM, said:

Palin is endorsing Trump right now as I type this.

I start to get the same feeling as I had when

Spoiler

reading about Mallick Rel and Korbolo Dom sitting next to the empress. You keep thinking that, surely, they will get their just deserts;

but fear starts setting in.

This post has been edited by Gorefest: 20 January 2016 - 01:07 AM

[Terez]

Raging Cajun Gator King, on 19 January 2016 - 11:59 PM, said:

Palin is endorsing Trump right now as I type this.

That's about as surprising as W endorsing JEB.

[worry]

GOP Consultant Rick Wilson basically called the Trump wing of primary voters Gamergaters/fedora bros to disassociate them from the party at large:



I'm not saying he's wrong, but I think he's doing a bit of wishful thinking in terms of proportion re: the "alt right" voting bloc. They're not a huge portion of the country's population, obv, but they loom disproportionately large in the GOP primary because a) they're actually being engaged & the party at large is a festering cesspool of passive bigotry already.

[Terez]

I don't think that people with "Hitler iconography in their icons" and people who "masturbate to anime" are the same people.

[worry]

You'd be surprised!

But really I think he was trying to evoke the "alt right" superset but in the process he simply conflated several subsets. There's plenty of overlap, but they're not actually concentric circles.

[HoosierDaddy]

I can think of no greater ticket than Trump - Palin.

I mean, the world would probably end, but the entertainment before hand would just be unbelievable.

[Andorion]

Sooo its either Trump or Cruz for the Republican then?

[HoosierDaddy]

The primaries shape things differently than a sheer popularity vote. We'll see. If it's either, say hello to Clinton 2016 or World War III.

[Terez]

worry, on 22 January 2016 - 12:23 AM, said:

You'd be surprised!

But really I think he was trying to evoke the "alt right" superset but in the process he simply conflated several subsets. There's plenty of overlap, but they're not actually concentric circles.

I thought about spelling out the Venn overlap but decided it probably wasn't big enough to even be worth mentioning.

Andorion, on 22 January 2016 - 03:14 AM, said:

Sooo its either Trump or Cruz for the Republican then?

It would appear that way from the polls, but like HD said, our primaries being spread out over months makes things very unpredictable. Polls are at their best in the week before election day and on election day itself (exit polls). It's not uncommon for dark horses to emerge as viable candidates in the early states, while it's still early enough to start winning delegates. That's what happened to Rick Santorum, and that's probably why he figured it was worth another go this time around, and why he hasn't dropped out yet despite having been relegated to the early debates all season so far. Also, notice on this handy primary schedule how many early-ish states Romney won in 2008. That's why he came back in 2012.

The picture will get a lot clearer after we get past South Carolina and more people start dropping out. If a candidate hasn't made a mark in either Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina (three diverse states), then they're pretty much done for, but the big dividing line is Super Tuesday, which is March 1 this year. 13 states have primaries or caucuses on that day, and it's not unheard of for the nomination to be pretty much locked up by one candidate by then. The next couple of weeks are also very busy and that usually takes care of any remaining uncertainty in both parties.

Edit: I should mention, also in reference to that handy primary schedule, that the 2008 Democratic nomination was an exceptional primary season for recent history. That race was drawn out almost to the bitter end of the season (Obama clinched it on June 3, and Hillary conceded on the 7th). That's really rare; the nomination is usually decided long before then, often by the end of March.

This post has been edited by Terez: 22 January 2016 - 05:37 AM

[Andorion]

Terez, on 22 January 2016 - 05:26 AM, said:

worry, on 22 January 2016 - 12:23 AM, said:

You'd be surprised!

But really I think he was trying to evoke the "alt right" superset but in the process he simply conflated several subsets. There's plenty of overlap, but they're not actually concentric circles.

I thought about spelling out the Venn overlap but decided it probably wasn't big enough to even be worth mentioning.

Andorion, on 22 January 2016 - 03:14 AM, said:

Sooo its either Trump or Cruz for the Republican then?

It would appear that way from the polls, but like HD said, our primaries being spread out over months makes things very unpredictable. Polls are at their best in the week before election day and on election day itself (exit polls). It's not uncommon for dark horses to emerge as viable candidates in the early states, while it's still early enough to start winning delegates. That's what happened to Rick Santorum, and that's probably why he figured it was worth another go this time around, and why he hasn't dropped out yet despite having been relegated to the early debates all season so far. Also, notice on this handy primary schedule how many early-ish states Romney won in 2008. That's why he came back in 2012.

The picture will get a lot clearer after we get past South Carolina and more people start dropping out. If a candidate hasn't made a mark in either Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina (three diverse states), then they're pretty much done for, but the big dividing line is Super Tuesday, which is March 1 this year. 13 states have primaries or caucuses on that day, and it's not unheard of for the nomination to be pretty much locked up by one candidate by then. The next couple of weeks are also very busy and that usually takes care of any remaining uncertainty in both parties.

Edit: I should mention, also in reference to that handy primary schedule, that the 2008 Democratic nomination was an exceptional primary season for recent history. That race was drawn out almost to the bitter end of the season (Obama clinched it on June 3, and Hillary conceded on the 7th). That's really rare; the nomination is usually decided long before then, often by the end of March.

I saw a Daily Beast article a few days back that seemed to say that it is going to come down to Cruz vs Trump unless Rubio rises again.

So about the primaries, I understand that only registered members of the political parties vote there? So how does that damage Cruz or Trump's chances? I mean all the people supporting them now, going to their rallies etc. will go and vote for them then, right? Or is it more complicated than that?

This election is so confusing. I remember the 2008 election. We had very bad internet then so I followed it from my library which has a huge number of American magazine subscriptions and it seemed to be basically a long and tough battle between Obama and Hillary, while the only Republican was McCain

Also could you explain what you mean when you say South Carolina is diverse? I thought it was part of the South and thus strongly Republican

This post has been edited by Andorion: 22 January 2016 - 07:28 AM

[Terez]

Andorion, on 22 January 2016 - 07:18 AM, said:

I saw a Daily Beast article a few days back that seemed to say that it is going to come down to Cruz vs Trump unless Rubio rises again.

That's the conventional wisdom, but it's not necessarily true.

Andorion, on 22 January 2016 - 07:18 AM, said:

So about the primaries, I understand that only registered members of the political parties vote there? So how does that damage Cruz or Trump's chances? I mean all the people supporting them now, going to their rallies etc. will go and vote for them then, right? Or is it more complicated than that?

It can be a lot more complicated than that. For example, some states have caucuses instead of primaries. Iowa is one of those states (see the link I gave for other caucus states). In these states, it's not just about people showing up to vote for you. They have to show up and caucus, which can take hours. It requires a lot more dedication.

Not all states register by party, but I'm pretty sure you can only vote in one primary even if you don't have to register by party. And some states have open primaries where you can vote in the GOP primary even if you're registered as a Democrat and v/v, so long as you only vote in one primary.

Andorion, on 22 January 2016 - 07:18 AM, said:

Also could you explain what you mean when you say South Carolina is diverse? I thought it was part of the South and thus strongly Republican

I meant that the first three states (Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina) are diverse, meaning that Iowa is a midwestern rural state, and New Hampshire is a small new England state, and South Carolina is a Deep South state. The next one is Nevada, a western state. That diversity is by design—if the early states are going to have this ousize importance, then it's only fair they be diverse states representing middle America in every region of the country.

That said, South Carolina itself is a diverse state in terms of race, like most states of the former Confederacy. It's definitely the most racially diverse of the early states. They're solidly Republican only because whites still outnumber blacks, but the former Confederate states have the highest African-American populations by far. (My home state, Mississippi, has the highest.) That high black population in South Carolina has a significant effect on the Democratic primary in that state, but not so much on the GOP primary. Southern whites are motivated by race politics but SC GOP voters are not substantially different from the larger GOP, not in the same way. Bill Clinton is still popular with black voters and that goes a long way to explaining Hillary's big lead in South Carolina. Meanwhile Vermont and New Hampshire are neighbors, and that goes a long way to explaining Bernie's big lead in New Hampshire, which Hillary won in 2008 (he's a senator from Vermont).

[Andorion]

Terez, on 22 January 2016 - 07:44 AM, said:

Andorion, on 22 January 2016 - 07:18 AM, said:

I saw a Daily Beast article a few days back that seemed to say that it is going to come down to Cruz vs Trump unless Rubio rises again.

That's the conventional wisdom, but it's not necessarily true.

Andorion, on 22 January 2016 - 07:18 AM, said:

So about the primaries, I understand that only registered members of the political parties vote there? So how does that damage Cruz or Trump's chances? I mean all the people supporting them now, going to their rallies etc. will go and vote for them then, right? Or is it more complicated than that?

It can be a lot more complicated than that. For example, some states have caucuses instead of primaries. Iowa is one of those states (see the link I gave for other caucus states). In these states, it's not just about people showing up to vote for you. They have to show up and caucus, which can take hours. It requires a lot more dedication.

Not all states register by party, but I'm pretty sure you can only vote in one primary even if you don't have to register by party. And some states have open primaries where you can vote in the GOP primary even if you're registered as a Democrat and v/v, so long as you only vote in one primary.

Andorion, on 22 January 2016 - 07:18 AM, said:

Also could you explain what you mean when you say South Carolina is diverse? I thought it was part of the South and thus strongly Republican

I meant that the first three states (Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina) are diverse, meaning that Iowa is a midwestern rural state, and New Hampshire is a small new England state, and South Carolina is a Deep South state. The next one is Nevada, a western state. That diversity is by design—if the early states are going to have this ousize importance, then it's only fair they be diverse states representing middle America in every region of the country.

That said, South Carolina itself is a diverse state in terms of race, like most states of the former Confederacy. It's definitely the most racially diverse of the early states. They're solidly Republican only because whites still outnumber blacks, but the former Confederate states have the highest African-American populations by far. (My home state, Mississippi, has the highest.) That high black population in South Carolina has a significant effect on the Democratic primary in that state, but not so much on the GOP primary. Southern whites are motivated by race politics but SC GOP voters are not substantially different from the larger GOP, not in the same way. Bill Clinton is still popular with black voters and that goes a long way to explaining Hillary's big lead in South Carolina. Meanwhile Vermont and New Hampshire are neighbors, and that goes a long way to explaining Bernie's big lead in New Hampshire, which Hillary won in 2008 (he's a senator from Vermont).

Ok, so its a lot more complicated. I did not know much about Caucuses. So clearly popularity is not enough, but a hardcore, dedicated, organized support base is also required

I suppose letting those 3-4 culturally and geographically diverse states have their say first helps form and change opinion in other states?

Given all these complications, do you think there is any chance for candidates like Jeb Bush, as they are of the 'establishment'?

Also what happened to Rand Paul? I thought after the hacking and privacy violation fiasco a Libertarian would be more popular.

[Cause]

Surely every non-white person in the states while part of a minority is still a large enough voting block to keep trump Out. He has alienated blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, all immigrants I would think.

[Terez]

Cause, on 22 January 2016 - 08:47 AM, said:

Surely every non-white person in the states while part of a minority is still a large enough voting block to keep trump Out. He has alienated blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, all immigrants I would think.

In the general election, probably. It probably depends on turnout; some polls show he has a chance against either Hillary or Bernie, but that can easily change as time goes on. In the primary, those people don't generally vote GOP at all, so it's entirely possible (as the right coalesces more and more around him) that he'll get the nomination. Likely? Still don't think so, though Nate Silver makes a good point that donors going for Trump over Cruz is surprising and changes the calculus. But at this point I have to wonder if it's some kind of reverse psychology and/or long-term strategy. The GOP Establishment is getting desperate.

Andorion, on 22 January 2016 - 08:07 AM, said:

Ok, so its a lot more complicated. I did not know much about Caucuses. So clearly popularity is not enough, but a hardcore, dedicated, organized support base is also required.

In caucus states, definitely. In primary states, still yes, to a lesser extent. There's a turnout hierarchy; caucuses are at the bottom and primaries higher up, but primaries still get nowhere near the turnout of presidential general elections. (PS: part of the reason why presidential primaries have low turnout in general is that there's no big Election Day where everyone in the country votes on the same day; it can be confusing, and also, lots of states in the latter half of the season are not accustomed to having any real say in the matter, and they therefore don't get motivated to find out what day they're supposed to vote.)

Andorion, on 22 January 2016 - 08:07 AM, said:

I suppose letting those 3-4 culturally and geographically diverse states have their say first helps form and change opinion in other states?

Exactly. As we've discussed previously, they're bellwether states. If a surprise candidate shows well in the Iowa caucuses, that can give them momentum going into following states. Or it can make weak candidates think they have a chance and stay in longer than they probably should. (See Santorum and also Huckabee, who still hasn't given up.) Iowa in particular is known for boosting minor candidates because the caucuses have such low turnout, and low turnout always makes things unpredictable.

Andorion, on 22 January 2016 - 08:07 AM, said:

Given all these complications, do you think there is any chance for candidates like Jeb Bush, as they are of the 'establishment'?

There is a small chance for Jeb, or he would have dropped out already, but the writing is on the wall for him in particular: the only Republicans who want another Bush are donors, and the donors are already starting to give up. The best scenario for the Establishment at this point is for Jeb and Christie to drop out early and give Rubio a boost.

Andorion, on 22 January 2016 - 08:07 AM, said:

Also what happened to Rand Paul? I thought after the hacking and privacy violation fiasco a Libertarian would be more popular.

You would think, but the Paul family and the Libertarian wing of the GOP have always been fringe. In Real America we don't really like the fringe much, and everyone knows libertarians masturbate to anime.

This post has been edited by Terez: 22 January 2016 - 09:09 AM