(02-02-2016 08:30 AM)JOwl Wrote:  To your last sentence, I think that's long been the case. In my time, with the team under Hatfield, the football coaches in particular seemed conservative relative to the rest of campus. Which isn't at all surprising to me.

So have Ric students traded apathy for political engagement?

No - it is still very apathetic as a whole.

I think people are reaching in the classification of Rice students as very anything. The only thing they are "very" about is being self-absorbed (not necessarily in a bad way, since this mostly manifests itself in the pursuit of academics).

I think the truth is though, that the students who are visibly politically active are generally on the left end of the political spectrum. It's true that you do not see a lot of campaigns trumpeting right-wing values (e.g. allowing concealed carry on campus vs. disallowing it), but you do have a very libertarian bent to how most students what to be policed by the university.

Well, looks like there's at least a chance Republicans will try and win this election after all. As a Democrat, Rubio is the Republican I least want to face after Kasich. I also think this means Clinton will get the nomination. Dems who might prefer Sanders and had convinced themselves he can win if he's up against Cruz or Trump are going to have to rethink that if it looks like it might be Rubio.

If Rubio gets second in NH, or possibly even third if the two ahead of him are Cruz and Trump, I think he has a good shot at the nomination. But if Bush or Kasich or another mainstream/establishment/sane/RINO/[insert preferred term] finish ahead of Rubio, I think it's still Cruz or Trump.

I'm feeling at this point that a brokered convention is the most likely outcome for the GOP.

But then again, my gut is still telling me that the Republican party as a whole isn't crazy enough to really go for Trump/Cruz, and that Rubio ends up with it outright.

(02-02-2016 12:53 PM)JOwl Wrote:  I'm feeling at this point that a brokered convention is the most likely outcome for the GOP.

Poli Sci people and political journalists get excited about a brokered convention every 4 years, but we are always disappointed in the end. But we can hope....

I'm not sure where Clinton can be happy after Iowa. She had a 50 point lead there not too long ago. I can't recall the exact exit poll numbers but it was something like only 15 pct of voters under 30 voted for her instead of Sanders. That's shocking. And she didn't dominate the women's vote either - getting like 55 pct of that vote? Sanders will give her a real run for her money.

On the Republican side, New Hampshire will make or break the three governors (Bush, Kasich, Christie) who are the only real opposition to Rubio at this point. It could be Rubio vs. Cruz or Trump for the bulk of the spring, but I still think it's too early to say that for sure. When Trump/Cruz/Carson got 60 pct of the vote in Iowa (even though the Evangelical base is strong there), that's a strong indication that the anti-establishment faction will not give up an easy path for a safer candidate like Rubio to get the nomination. We won't have a brokered convention is my guess, but we could have a very ugly Feb. and March, possibly with Rubio pitted vs Cruz in a vicious UFC battle until one of them taps out.

(02-01-2016 11:09 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-01-2016 10:52 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I'm still thinking it's possible Trump wins Iowa and NH, seems a lock for the nomination, and then realizes being President is actually a hard job and drops out.

I think that is entirely possible, along with a bunch of other really crazy scenarios. This is shaping up to be an astounding election if any of a number of very possible developments takes place.

Right now, I don't think there's a clear candidate on either side, and I personally have little or no positive feelings about any of the leading possibilities on either side.

What feelings I do have are that I'd favor Hillary over Bernie, I'd favor all republicans over Bernie, I'd favor most republicans (except maybe the really hard line Evangelicals) over Hillary, I'd favor virtually any of others in the republican field over Trump or Cruz, neither of whom I care for.

I'm pretty sure I'm voting libertarian, unless Rand Paul somehow gets the republican nomination. If by the Texas primary it's down to Trump, Cruz, Hillary, and Bernie, I'll register as a democrat to vote against Bernie. But that is probably the strongest feeling I have about this election at this point.

What about the potential run of Michael Bloomberg?

(02-02-2016 07:10 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I'm not sure where Clinton can be happy after Iowa. She had a 50 point lead there not too long ago. I can't recall the exact exit poll numbers but it was something like only 15 pct of voters under 30 voted for her instead of Sanders. That's shocking. And she didn't dominate the women's vote either - getting like 55 pct of that vote? Sanders will give her a real run for her money.

On the Republican side, New Hampshire will make or break the three governors (Bush, Kasich, Christie) who are the only real opposition to Rubio at this point. It could be Rubio vs. Cruz or Trump for the bulk of the spring, but I still think it's too early to say that for sure. When Trump/Cruz/Carson got 60 pct of the vote in Iowa (even though the Evangelical base is strong there), that's a strong indication that the anti-establishment faction will not give up an easy path for a safer candidate like Rubio to get the nomination. We won't have a brokered convention is my guess, but we could have a very ugly Feb. and March, possibly with Rubio pitted vs Cruz in a vicious UFC battle until one of them taps out.

Yes, for the most part you are correct on the figures for HRC's voting data. When a reporter asked Bill Clinton why his wife is not popular with younger voters, he said it was because Sanders is promising to go after big banks and provide free college to everyone. (his assessment, not mine)

As far as Rubio, his campaign staff has said they are taking a "3-2-1" approach to the first round of elections - goal of 3rd in Iowa, 2nd in New Hampshire and 1st in South Carolina (they are banking on Tim Scott's endorsement*). If Rubio can finish these first 3 elections like this, some feel he could win the nomination.

* With respect to the South Carolina endorsement game, it's hard to judge the overall "pull". Cruz has Charlie Condon and Jeff Duncan, aka "the most coveted SC endorsement". Trump has the endorsement of the Lt. Gov. Nikki Haley has yet to publicly endorse a candidate, although, many in her close circle are backing Rubio. With the potential for Haley to be a serious contender for the VP role, she will have to play her cards very carefully ...

(02-03-2016 12:27 AM)CrabCake Wrote:  

(02-01-2016 11:09 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-01-2016 10:52 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I'm still thinking it's possible Trump wins Iowa and NH, seems a lock for the nomination, and then realizes being President is actually a hard job and drops out.

I think that is entirely possible, along with a bunch of other really crazy scenarios. This is shaping up to be an astounding election if any of a number of very possible developments takes place.

Right now, I don't think there's a clear candidate on either side, and I personally have little or no positive feelings about any of the leading possibilities on either side.

What feelings I do have are that I'd favor Hillary over Bernie, I'd favor all republicans over Bernie, I'd favor most republicans (except maybe the really hard line Evangelicals) over Hillary, I'd favor virtually any of others in the republican field over Trump or Cruz, neither of whom I care for.

I'm pretty sure I'm voting libertarian, unless Rand Paul somehow gets the republican nomination. If by the Texas primary it's down to Trump, Cruz, Hillary, and Bernie, I'll register as a democrat to vote against Bernie. But that is probably the strongest feeling I have about this election at this point.

What about the potential run of Michael Bloomberg?

I don't think he runs unless Sanders gets the Dem nomination. And even then I think he'll think better of it. Maybe if it's Sanders v Cruz it would actually be plausible.

Too good to make up and not to share!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...Prize.html

(02-03-2016 02:16 PM)CrabCake Wrote:  Too good to make up and not to share!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...Prize.html

The article goes on to quote some Norwegian professional peacenik as staying that that most likely winners, in order, are:
(1) wanted criminal Edward Snowden,
(2) The US and Iranian bureaucrats who had some role in the ill-conceived nuclear deal, and
(3) The Colombian president and the FARC guerilla leader who have had an intermittent truces in the long-running civil war.

We know the Norwegian Nobel Committee has made inexplicable decisions in recent memory. But if this guy really does have the pulse of the committee, then the fact that a drug-dealing terrorist might have a share of this once-eminent prize, or that candidates (1) and (2) are on the list at all, are pretty damning indictments. Poor Norway!

(02-03-2016 12:51 AM)CrabCake Wrote:  As far as Rubio, his campaign staff has said they are taking a "3-2-1" approach to the first round of elections - goal of 3rd in Iowa, 2nd in New Hampshire and 1st in South Carolina (they are banking on Tim Scott's endorsement*). If Rubio can finish these first 3 elections like this, some feel he could win the nomination.

Well the 2 in New Hampshire is looking more like a 5. What a difference a week makes.

(02-09-2016 11:31 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 12:51 AM)CrabCake Wrote:  As far as Rubio, his campaign staff has said they are taking a "3-2-1" approach to the first round of elections - goal of 3rd in Iowa, 2nd in New Hampshire and 1st in South Carolina (they are banking on Tim Scott's endorsement*). If Rubio can finish these first 3 elections like this, some feel he could win the nomination.

Well the 2 in New Hampshire is looking more like a 5. What a difference a week makes.

Bad timing for the Rubio crew to forget to full charge the candidate.

(02-10-2016 12:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-09-2016 11:31 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 12:51 AM)CrabCake Wrote:  As far as Rubio, his campaign staff has said they are taking a "3-2-1" approach to the first round of elections - goal of 3rd in Iowa, 2nd in New Hampshire and 1st in South Carolina (they are banking on Tim Scott's endorsement*). If Rubio can finish these first 3 elections like this, some feel he could win the nomination.

Well the 2 in New Hampshire is looking more like a 5. What a difference a week makes.

Bad timing for the Rubio crew to forget to full charge the candidate.

Agree. I don't think they were prepared to be hit by Christie as they were in the last debate. What's interesting is Christie's punch to Rubio didn't seem to elevate his campaign - in fact, we may see Christie drop out of the race this week. He put so much stock into New Hampshire (at the expense of South Carolina) and finished poorly - with less than 10% of the votes he doesn't earn any delegates and he fails to make the main stage at the next GOP debate ahead of the South Carolina vote.

(12-05-2015 02:25 AM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  At this point, it's going to be either Carson, Cruz, Rubio, or Trump.

With the results from New Hampshire now in, Carson is losing contact with this group and likely will be out of the race soon. By the time the Super Tuesday primaries roll around, expect to see only Bush, Cruz, Kasich, Rubio, and Trump still left on the Republican side, with as before only Cruz, Rubio and Trump having a serious chance to win. What's more important now is not who's leading the polls, but rather where the supporters of the candidates who drop out will go. While Trump is leading the national polls so far, among the supporters of candidates who will be dropping out over the next month he might very well be the least favorite candidate of them all, so Cruz and Rubio will close the gap with him. Whether either or which one can pass Trump I don't know (my brother the political science professor thinks Cruz will win out in the end, for what it's worth).

Sanders won the Democratic primary in New Hampshire, but I see Clinton winning a healthy majority of delegates on Super Tuesday and
using that margin to ease into the nomination. The fact that she's even in this position against an opponent who is, well, a crackpot shows just what a weak candidate she is.

(02-10-2016 02:11 AM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  

(12-05-2015 02:25 AM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  At this point, it's going to be either Carson, Cruz, Rubio, or Trump.

With the results from New Hampshire now in, Carson is losing contact with this group and likely will be out of the race soon. By the time the Super Tuesday primaries roll around, expect to see only Bush, Cruz, Kasich, Rubio, and Trump still left on the Republican side, with as before only Cruz, Rubio and Trump having a serious chance to win. What's more important now is not who's leading the polls, but rather where the supporters of the candidates who drop out will go. While Trump is leading the national polls so far, among the supporters of candidates who will be dropping out over the next month he might very well be the least favorite candidate of them all, so Cruz and Rubio will close the gap with him. Whether either or which one can pass Trump I don't know (my brother the political science professor thinks Cruz will win out in the end, for what it's worth).

Sanders won the Democratic primary in New Hampshire, but I see Clinton winning a healthy majority of delegates on Super Tuesday and
using that margin to ease into the nomination. The fact that she's even in this position against an opponent who is, well, a crackpot shows just what a weak candidate she is.

Don't count out Kasich quite yet. If Christie throws his support that direction, that would help him. Kasich has no ground game in most of the Super Tuesday primaries but it wouldn't be hard for him to make a significant impact in a few of those states (like Michigan).

(02-10-2016 08:41 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 02:11 AM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  

(12-05-2015 02:25 AM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  At this point, it's going to be either Carson, Cruz, Rubio, or Trump.

With the results from New Hampshire now in, Carson is losing contact with this group and likely will be out of the race soon. By the time the Super Tuesday primaries roll around, expect to see only Bush, Cruz, Kasich, Rubio, and Trump still left on the Republican side, with as before only Cruz, Rubio and Trump having a serious chance to win. What's more important now is not who's leading the polls, but rather where the supporters of the candidates who drop out will go. While Trump is leading the national polls so far, among the supporters of candidates who will be dropping out over the next month he might very well be the least favorite candidate of them all, so Cruz and Rubio will close the gap with him. Whether either or which one can pass Trump I don't know (my brother the political science professor thinks Cruz will win out in the end, for what it's worth).

Sanders won the Democratic primary in New Hampshire, but I see Clinton winning a healthy majority of delegates on Super Tuesday and
using that margin to ease into the nomination. The fact that she's even in this position against an opponent who is, well, a crackpot shows just what a weak candidate she is.

Don't count out Kasich quite yet. If Christie throws his support that direction, that would help him. Kasich has no ground game in most of the Super Tuesday primaries but it wouldn't be hard for him to make a significant impact in a few of those states (like Michigan).

Agreed on Kasich.

Rubio-bot is toast - I used to think he had a chance but I think the last two slips of him being a robot have done him in, he just seems so unqualified at the moment and hasn't latched on to a key Republican group (the way Cruz has with evangelicals). Jeb! hasn't been able to garner any momentum yet. Christie can hit hard in debates, but hasn't seemed to been able to connect with voters on his issues. And after that, you've got to really stretch to make an argument for another candidate outside of Trump or Cruz making some noise.

(02-10-2016 09:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 08:41 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 02:11 AM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  

(12-05-2015 02:25 AM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  At this point, it's going to be either Carson, Cruz, Rubio, or Trump.

With the results from New Hampshire now in, Carson is losing contact with this group and likely will be out of the race soon. By the time the Super Tuesday primaries roll around, expect to see only Bush, Cruz, Kasich, Rubio, and Trump still left on the Republican side, with as before only Cruz, Rubio and Trump having a serious chance to win. What's more important now is not who's leading the polls, but rather where the supporters of the candidates who drop out will go. While Trump is leading the national polls so far, among the supporters of candidates who will be dropping out over the next month he might very well be the least favorite candidate of them all, so Cruz and Rubio will close the gap with him. Whether either or which one can pass Trump I don't know (my brother the political science professor thinks Cruz will win out in the end, for what it's worth).

Sanders won the Democratic primary in New Hampshire, but I see Clinton winning a healthy majority of delegates on Super Tuesday and
using that margin to ease into the nomination. The fact that she's even in this position against an opponent who is, well, a crackpot shows just what a weak candidate she is.

Don't count out Kasich quite yet. If Christie throws his support that direction, that would help him. Kasich has no ground game in most of the Super Tuesday primaries but it wouldn't be hard for him to make a significant impact in a few of those states (like Michigan).

Agreed on Kasich.

Rubio-bot is toast - I used to think he had a chance but I think the last two slips of him being a robot have done him in, he just seems so unqualified at the moment and hasn't latched on to a key Republican group (the way Cruz has with evangelicals). Jeb! hasn't been able to garner any momentum yet. Christie can hit hard in debates, but hasn't seemed to been able to connect with voters on his issues. And after that, you've got to really stretch to make an argument for another candidate outside of Trump or Cruz making some noise.

My favorite line from the political media was Politico's "Rubio is not the droid you are looking for..."

I'm still having a hard time accepting that Cruz or Trump could actually win the nomination of a major party. But we really could end up with Trump v Clinton. Still not convinced Sanders has a shot.

Kasich is the Republicans best general election candidate, I think, but I'm not sure he hates non-Republicans enough to win the nomination. Of course, that's why he's a good general election candidate.

(02-10-2016 11:58 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 09:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 08:41 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 02:11 AM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  

(12-05-2015 02:25 AM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  At this point, it's going to be either Carson, Cruz, Rubio, or Trump.

With the results from New Hampshire now in, Carson is losing contact with this group and likely will be out of the race soon. By the time the Super Tuesday primaries roll around, expect to see only Bush, Cruz, Kasich, Rubio, and Trump still left on the Republican side, with as before only Cruz, Rubio and Trump having a serious chance to win. What's more important now is not who's leading the polls, but rather where the supporters of the candidates who drop out will go. While Trump is leading the national polls so far, among the supporters of candidates who will be dropping out over the next month he might very well be the least favorite candidate of them all, so Cruz and Rubio will close the gap with him. Whether either or which one can pass Trump I don't know (my brother the political science professor thinks Cruz will win out in the end, for what it's worth).

Sanders won the Democratic primary in New Hampshire, but I see Clinton winning a healthy majority of delegates on Super Tuesday and
using that margin to ease into the nomination. The fact that she's even in this position against an opponent who is, well, a crackpot shows just what a weak candidate she is.

Don't count out Kasich quite yet. If Christie throws his support that direction, that would help him. Kasich has no ground game in most of the Super Tuesday primaries but it wouldn't be hard for him to make a significant impact in a few of those states (like Michigan).

Agreed on Kasich.

Rubio-bot is toast - I used to think he had a chance but I think the last two slips of him being a robot have done him in, he just seems so unqualified at the moment and hasn't latched on to a key Republican group (the way Cruz has with evangelicals). Jeb! hasn't been able to garner any momentum yet. Christie can hit hard in debates, but hasn't seemed to been able to connect with voters on his issues. And after that, you've got to really stretch to make an argument for another candidate outside of Trump or Cruz making some noise.

My favorite line from the political media was Politico's "Rubio is not the droid you are looking for..."

I'm still having a hard time accepting that Cruz or Trump could actually win the nomination of a major party. But we really could end up with Trump v Clinton. Still not convinced Sanders has a shot.

Kasich is the Republicans best general election candidate, I think, but I'm not sure he hates non-Republicans enough to win the nomination. Of course, that's why he's a good general election candidate.

Kasich is probably the only candidate on that side of the spectrum that could get true independents or right-leaning liberals to vote Republican. Cruz and Trump definitely can't, and I think Rubio, et al would have a hard time too (except maybe Christie).

$200,000+: The only income group Hillary Clinton won last night. Clinton lost by double digits in every other income group.

Here Are The Two Multi-Million Dollar Mansions Hillary Says She “Struggled” To Pay Mortgage On

In an interview with Diane Sawyer, Hillary Clinton claimed that after the White House their family “struggled..to piece together the resources for mortgages, for houses.” The “we struggled to get by” defense from a multi-millionaire might be tough to swallow for Americans actually struggling to pay their mortgage. Hillary, after-all, left the White House having spent 20 years living in gratis government mansions in Little Rock and Washington D.C. Additionally, lets not forget that Bill Clinton’s annual salary was $200,000/year as President and he was able to cash-in on a $50,000 expense account. The Clintons made roughly FOUR times what the average American made and “struggled to get by.”

After leaving the White House, the Clintons bought two multi-million dollar mansions. They bought this $1.7 million mansion in Chappaqua, NY so Hillary could claim residence in the state ahead of her 2000 Senate campaign.



Then they purchased this $2.85 million mansion on Embassy Row in Washington D.C. The home has 5 bedrooms and 6 baths:




Hillary Clinton needed a strong showing in the New Hampshire primary after the virtual tie with Bernie Sanders in Iowa. Instead, Clinton was blown out, losing almost all demographics, regions, and income groups. Here are some of the key numbers from Clinton’s embarrassing New Hampshire primary loss:

34%: The percentage who said the quality most important to them was that a candidate was honest and trustworthy. Among those voters Clinton lost 5% to 91% to Sanders.

17%: The percentage of people who voted for Clinton after saying the top quality they were looking for in a candidate was that they “care about people like me.” Sanders won 82% of those voters.

67%: Senator Sanders’ margin among 18-29 year old voters

$200,000: The only income group Hillary Clinton won last night. Clinton lost by double digits in every other income group.

21,670: The number of fewer votes Clinton got in this year’s New Hampshire primary versus her performance in 2008.

72% to 27%: Bernie Sanders’ margin over Hillary Clinton among independent voters.

41%: The number of points Clinton lost by among voters who put income inequality as their number one issue.

19%: Bernie Sanders margin over Clinton among moderate voters.

11%: Number of points Clinton lost female voters by.

9%: The number of points Clinton lost by among voters who put health care as their number one issue.

It looks like Fiorina's out.