Absolutely. Ethanol is a worthless scam, yet almost all of these clowns pander to the crowds about it.

(02-02-2016 10:04 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  What was learned by Iowa is Rubio is chipping away at Trump, not Cruz. A couple of minor blunders last couple of weeks by Cruz that were blown up by the media as major blunders and I thought for sure Rubio's surge was coming at Cruz's expense and Cruz would be done. I was shocked that it was all at Trump's expense and Cruz actually overperformed his poll numbers by 5-7 points. What will be interesting to see is if Kasich, Bush, and Christie supporters start to coalesce around Rubio in NH or if they hold on with their 10% each. Cruz is playing with house money in NH as nobody expects him to do well. Anywhere in the top 3 is a win.

As I thought might happen, some of them did drift to Rubio in Iowa where their candidates didn't have a chance. But it was really the Trump supporters he got that fueled his rise.

(02-02-2016 11:36 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-02-2016 10:04 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  What was learned by Iowa is Rubio is chipping away at Trump, not Cruz. A couple of minor blunders last couple of weeks by Cruz that were blown up by the media as major blunders and I thought for sure Rubio's surge was coming at Cruz's expense and Cruz would be done. I was shocked that it was all at Trump's expense and Cruz actually overperformed his poll numbers by 5-7 points. What will be interesting to see is if Kasich, Bush, and Christie supporters start to coalesce around Rubio in NH or if they hold on with their 10% each. Cruz is playing with house money in NH as nobody expects him to do well. Anywhere in the top 3 is a win.

As I thought might happen, some of them did drift to Rubio in Iowa where their candidates didn't have a chance. But it was really the Trump supporters he got that fueled his rise.

"Fueled his rise"? No pun intended?

I think Trump is going to collapse and I'm wondering how he is going to take it. Will he come to terms with it or be spiteful....:shrug:

(02-02-2016 11:41 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  I think Trump is going to collapse and I'm wondering how he is going to take it. Will he come to terms with it or be spiteful....:shrug:

Spiteful.

But I wouldn't count him out yet.

(02-02-2016 11:41 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  I think Trump is going to collapse and I'm wondering how he is going to take it. Will he come to terms with it or be spiteful....:shrug:

It seems, as many had predicted, that Trump was very popular but that those people wouldn't bother to come out and vote. Do you think this is what happened and if so, do you think Trump's fans will stay home if he doesn't win?

(02-02-2016 11:20 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-02-2016 10:51 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(02-02-2016 10:38 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  the GOP absolutely, positively, HAS to win the state of Florida in order for the electoral college math to work out (and the GOP needs to get back to the 40% share of the Latino vote that George W. Bush had in 2004 in order to win Florida).

Again, you're wrong here Frank. Odds are certainly much slimmer but your absolutist POV is flat out wrong. NC, VA, OH, CO, IA and a couple of others could be up for grabs in the general. Harder to win without Florida? No ****. Impossible? No.



Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Go to the interactive electoral college map:

http://www.270towin.com/

That map shows the reliably blue, red and swing states. Let's say that we give Florida to the Democrats. That provides the Democrats with 246 electoral college votes. If Florida goes Democratic, then that almost certainly means that Pennsylvania (with a more Democratic-leaning electorate compared to Florida and fool's gold for Republican presidential candidates over the past 2 decades) and its 20 electoral votes also go blue, which gives them 266 electoral college votes. All the Democrats need at that point is to win 4 more electoral college votes to get to 270. In contrast, in order for the Republicans to win the White House, they would have to sweep ALL of Nevada, Colorado, Wisconsin, Iowa, New Hampshire, Ohio, Virginia and North Carolina to win. Note that Nevada, Colorado, Wisconsin, Iowa, New Hampshire, Virginia and even Ohio all supported Obama MORE strongly than Florida did in 2012, so there is no real demographic basis to suggest that the Republicans losing in Florida can reasonably be made up by winning more states that have shown to be more Democratic-leaning elsewhere. Even if the Democrats win only New Hampshire (a place where freaking Bernie Sanders is ahead of Hillary Clinton by 18 points in the polls) and its minuscule 4 electoral votes out of that swing state group, they win the White House. That is all it takes.

As a result, saying that the Republicans can win without the state of Florida is like saying that the Democrats can win without the state of New York. Sure, it's technically possible, but it would require the Republicans to win a COMPLETE inside straight of states that actually have higher percentages of Democrats than the state of Florida. (As the interactive map shows, the Republicans cannot lose a SINGLE swing state if they lose Florida, and that's with a charitable definition of calling places like Nevada and Wisconsin "swing states".) That's simply not a reasonable path to victory in the general election.

Like, I said, not impossible. You know it all Frank. What else can I say? Ffs, let's just let Florida be the only place people are allowed to vote for president.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

(02-02-2016 11:20 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-02-2016 10:51 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(02-02-2016 10:38 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  the GOP absolutely, positively, HAS to win the state of Florida in order for the electoral college math to work out (and the GOP needs to get back to the 40% share of the Latino vote that George W. Bush had in 2004 in order to win Florida).

Again, you're wrong here Frank. Odds are certainly much slimmer but your absolutist POV is flat out wrong. NC, VA, OH, CO, IA and a couple of others could be up for grabs in the general. Harder to win without Florida? No ****. Impossible? No.



Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Go to the interactive electoral college map:

http://www.270towin.com/

That map shows the reliably blue, red and swing states. Let's say that we give Florida to the Democrats. That provides the Democrats with 246 electoral college votes. If Florida goes Democratic, then that almost certainly means that Pennsylvania (with a more Democratic-leaning electorate compared to Florida and fool's gold for Republican presidential candidates over the past 2 decades) and its 20 electoral votes also go blue, which gives them 266 electoral college votes. All the Democrats need at that point is to win 4 more electoral college votes to get to 270. In contrast, in order for the Republicans to win the White House, they would have to sweep ALL of Nevada, Colorado, Wisconsin, Iowa, New Hampshire, Ohio, Virginia and North Carolina to win. Note that Nevada, Colorado, Wisconsin, Iowa, New Hampshire, Virginia and even Ohio all supported Obama MORE strongly than Florida did in 2012, so there is no real demographic basis to suggest that the Republicans losing in Florida can reasonably be made up by winning more states that have shown to be more Democratic-leaning elsewhere. Even if the Democrats win only New Hampshire (a place where freaking Bernie Sanders is ahead of Hillary Clinton by 18 points in the polls) and its minuscule 4 electoral votes out of that swing state group, they win the White House. That is all it takes.

As a result, saying that the Republicans can win without the state of Florida is like saying that the Democrats can win without the state of New York. Sure, it's technically possible, but it would require the Republicans to win a COMPLETE inside straight of states that actually have higher percentages of Democrats than the state of Florida. (As the interactive map shows, the Republicans cannot lose a SINGLE swing state if they lose Florida, and that's with a charitable definition of calling places like Nevada and Wisconsin "swing states".) That's simply not a reasonable path to victory in the general election.

When the GOP loses FL AND OH, they lose the election. Frank's right on this. The state strongholds for each party is largely set - with New England, most of the Mid Atlantic and the West Coast Dem bastions for decades. IL is also Dem country. GOP tends to get the heartland and the south plus most of the southwest. What has hurt the GOP more recently is the change of VA and NC (especially NC) into swing states. PA is mostly unreliable for the GOP, but there is a smaller chance that it can go to the GOP. FL tends to go GOP more so than not, but again it swings. OH is the biggest concern. Generally, whoever wins OH, wins the election.

(02-02-2016 11:45 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-02-2016 11:41 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  I think Trump is going to collapse and I'm wondering how he is going to take it. Will he come to terms with it or be spiteful....:shrug:

It seems, as many had predicted, that Trump was very popular but that those people wouldn't bother to come out and vote. Do you think this is what happened and if so, do you think Trump's fans will stay home if he doesn't win?

I think he's been a circus that people want to see. Unfortunately for him, they don't really want to vote for him, rather just wanted to see the show.

His numbers will start tumbling in New Hampshire now.

I don't think Trump fans will necessarily stay home, I just think they're going to vote for someone else.

(02-02-2016 11:54 AM)miko33 Wrote:  When the GOP loses FL AND OH, they lose the election. Frank's right on this.

Except he never said a thing about OH initially until I challenged him on his hardline FL stance.


Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

(02-02-2016 11:34 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-02-2016 09:32 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(02-02-2016 09:30 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  There is very little to be learned from Iowa as it pertains to Republicans. Iowans vote for whoever panders to them the most, always have. It is why they have such an atrocious record of actually pointing the way for the eventual candidate.

muh ethanol

I drove to Chicago a couple of years ago. Didn't quite get to "true" corn country in Iowa, Once I left Dayton, Ohio going to Chicago and then down to St. Louis and over to Rand Paul's hometown of Bowling Green, Kentucky, I didn't see anything but corn. Even tried to drive by an old elementary school of mine and it was a cornfield now.

The ethanol mandate has really distorted the market. Its driven up food prices across the board with all the corn designated for fuel. That Iowa corn fed beef has really gone up in price.

We should use biofuels, but our current rules have a lot of negative consequences.

The flip side is the fact that there are a bunch of farmers who were likely going to lose everything a few years ago that are now actually making money because they are growing the hell out of corn. There's some farmers I'm familiar with who for years grew a mix of soybeans, cotton, and peanuts who are now strictly planting corn.

(02-02-2016 11:56 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(02-02-2016 11:54 AM)miko33 Wrote:  When the GOP loses FL AND OH, they lose the election. Frank's right on this.

Except he never said a thing about OH initially until I challenged him on his hardline FL stance.


Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

What is Cruz wins the nomination and picks Kasich? Kasich might bring Ohio and lure a bunch of moderate republicans.

(02-02-2016 11:59 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-02-2016 11:56 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(02-02-2016 11:54 AM)miko33 Wrote:  When the GOP loses FL AND OH, they lose the election. Frank's right on this.

Except he never said a thing about OH initially until I challenged him on his hardline FL stance.


Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

What is Cruz wins the nomination and picks Kasich? Kasich might bring Ohio and lure a bunch of moderate republicans.

Personally I don't care for Kasich but that would probably be a smart move. Cruz would appear slightly less far right in the general.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Huckabee and O'Malley realized it was over. Gilmore got 12 votes and is still in it. Maybe he can get 13 in New Hampshire. Santorum, who finished 11th, didn't even get the vote of one of his precinct captains:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/02/...ter-tally/

The night was so bad for the privious Iowa winner that even one of his precinct captains didn’t cast a ballot for him. MSNBC host Chris Haynes caught the admission on live television.

The Iowan, who was adorned in the classic Santorum sweater-vest, pulled out his cellphone to show Hayes the official precinct tally sheet. Hayes was quick to spot the “x” for Santorum, meaning no one caucused for him.

“Uh, Santorum, there’s an ‘X’ next to him,” Hayes pointed out to the precinct captain. “What? You didn’t vote for him?”

“As I was writing down, my pen ran out of ink, and I was like ‘I can’t just ask somebody for a new pen while I’m doing this,’” the man said.

The two then exchanged an awkward laugh about the incident.

(02-02-2016 11:35 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(02-02-2016 09:11 AM)EagleX Wrote:  that doesn't look right. there's no way that the dems had .2% turnout. the democrats don't report the votes for each candidate, they report the delegates won by each candidate. that may be where your impossibly low number is coming from.

dem turnout is hard to nail down the morning after, but the iowa dem party reported this morning that it was appx 170,000. a quick google reveals that there are something on the order of 700,000 registered dems in iowa.

now, I do suck at math, but that's not .2% turnout. sumpin' ain't right there.

You're right. The report I read was in USA Today and had the mixed method results, ie. total votes for Reps, precients won for Dems.

hey, it's not your fault that iowa is retarded.

(02-02-2016 11:56 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(02-02-2016 11:54 AM)miko33 Wrote:  When the GOP loses FL AND OH, they lose the election. Frank's right on this.

Except he never said a thing about OH initially until I challenged him on his hardline FL stance.


Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

And as I showed in the electoral college math, even if the Republicans win Ohio, they still need to win every single other swing state (all of which voted in higher numbers for Obama in 2012 than Florida) in order to compensate for the loss of Florida. So in all practical terms, the Republicans have to win Florida. You don't have to like our electoral college system (I certainly don't), but in this game, yes, basically the only people in the country that matter to the Republicans are in Florida with respect to the presidential election. The Republicans can run up huge 80-20 margins in the non-Florida South (which would make the national popular vote numbers seem close between the Republicans and Democrats) and it doesn't mean a thing if they lose Florida by 1 vote.

And to miko33's point, he's correct in the sense that winning *only* Florida isn't enough for the Republicans. Winning Florida is the BARE MINIMUM for the Republicans just to stay in the ballgame. The Republicans then need to do more than that, which generally entails winning states like Ohio and Virginia. In contrast, if the Democrats win Florida, then it's essentially game over completely for the Republicans.

(02-02-2016 12:06 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-02-2016 11:56 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(02-02-2016 11:54 AM)miko33 Wrote:  When the GOP loses FL AND OH, they lose the election. Frank's right on this.

Except he never said a thing about OH initially until I challenged him on his hardline FL stance.


Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

And as I showed in the electoral college math, even if the Republicans win Ohio, they still need to win every single other swing state (all of which voted in higher numbers for Obama in 2012 than Florida) in order to compensate for the loss of Florida. So in all practical terms, the Republicans have to win Florida. You don't have to like our electoral college system (I certainly don't), but in this game, yes, basically the only people in the country that matter to the Republicans are in Florida with respect to the presidential election. The Republicans can run up huge 80-20 margins in the non-Florida South (which would make the national popular vote numbers seem close between the Republicans and Democrats) and it doesn't mean a thing if they lose Florida by 1 vote.

Like I said originally, still possible. Look at the 2 clowns the Dims have up there. Combine those 2 with 8 years of Obama shitting all over the middle class, it wouldn't shock me in the least of we sweep the battleground states.

The republicans need to get the Reagan democrats back and pick up states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Iowa. The democrats have nothing to offer them. They support bad trade agreements and globalism. That is the opening here. Republicans aren't going to win states like Florida and Virginia by moving to the left. Those that want to go left are voting for the democrats anyway. People vote their pocketbook and Hillary Clinton vs (Insert Establishment type) offers no difference so it comes down to social issues.

Regarding turnout. Can you imagine what Iowa would have to do if they even came close to a 100% voter turnout? Or heck even a 50% one! One of the caucus rooms they showed last night was packed to the rafters with only a meager turnout.