I also live in a very Republican area of Houston, but I got a Bernie call yesterday. I haven't checked my call log recently to see if Hillary called also. Thank you caller ID even if it is killing polling

Trump is making the career of one of my old grad school buddies who studies 'authoritarian' attitudes... ("psychological profile of individual voters that is characterized by a desire for order and a fear of outsiders")

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/tru...itarianism

Rubio is going all out in my part of Virginia. I've gotten robocalls this morning from Tim Scott and Nikki Haley urging support for Rubi.

And tons of calls from the NRA over the last week-plus where they don't even leave a message. Usually, they at least leave a message, so I have no idea what line they're pushing here.

(03-01-2016 09:47 AM)Owl75 Wrote:  I also live in a very Republican area of Houston, but I got a Bernie call yesterday. I haven't checked my call log recently to see if Hillary called also. Thank you caller ID even if it is killing polling

Thank you cell phones for not being subject to that spam.

I killed my landline a couple years ago because I couldn't stand it anymore. Almost equally annoying was that AT&T wouldn't go any cheaper than $30/month for something I just wanted for the rarest of emergencies, and had literally not used in years (unless you count incoming marketing calls).

If you get rid of your lan line and designate your cell phone as your home phone, you'll get the robo calls.

Did you see that Ted Cruz is holding his victory party at the Redneck Country Club in Stafford (Michael Berry's honky tonk?). Has anyone here been there before? That place seems awfully small to be holding a victory party.

(03-01-2016 07:44 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  If you get rid of your lan line and designate your cell phone as your home phone, you'll get the robo calls.

Did you see that Ted Cruz is holding his victory party at the Redneck Country Club in Stafford (Michael Berry's honky tonk?). Has anyone here been there before? That place seems awfully small to be holding a victory party.

I have, for a Pat Green concert. It's a pretty big space, with an ample outdoor area and kind of a open space design. From memory, I'd say you could get at least several hundred in there, if not 1,000 plus. Too bad Ted Cruz had to show up.

Trying to think of another time where a party's previous nominee scheduled a big speech to attack the current front-runner as a "phony" and a "fraud".

(And is Trump paying him to do it? Probably only going to help him...)

(03-03-2016 11:19 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Trying to think of another time where a party's previous nominee scheduled a big speech to attack the current front-runner as a "phony" and a "fraud".

(And is Trump paying him to do it? Probably only going to help him...)

1912 - Roosevelt vs. Taft.

"In his speeches, Roosevelt criticized Taft bitterly. In a voice shaking with hatred, he said Taft was controlled by conservative politicians. He said Taft stood in the way of progress. He said Taft was disloyal.

Taft had to answer. In one speech, he said: "This tears my soul. I am here to answer an old and true friend who has made many charges. I deny all those charges. I do not want to fight Theodore Roosevelt. But I am going to fight him."

After the speech, a reporter looked for the president. He found him sitting alone, his head in his hands. His eyes were filled with tears. "Roosevelt was my closest friend," Taft said."

(03-03-2016 12:03 PM)JSA Wrote:  

(03-03-2016 11:19 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Trying to think of another time where a party's previous nominee scheduled a big speech to attack the current front-runner as a "phony" and a "fraud".

(And is Trump paying him to do it? Probably only going to help him...)

1912 - Roosevelt vs. Taft.

"In his speeches, Roosevelt criticized Taft bitterly. In a voice shaking with hatred, he said Taft was controlled by conservative politicians. He said Taft stood in the way of progress. He said Taft was disloyal.

Taft had to answer. In one speech, he said: "This tears my soul. I am here to answer an old and true friend who has made many charges. I deny all those charges. I do not want to fight Theodore Roosevelt. But I am going to fight him."

After the speech, a reporter looked for the president. He found him sitting alone, his head in his hands. His eyes were filled with tears. "Roosevelt was my closest friend," Taft said."

Was that before or after Teddy had launched a third party bid? I guess it's possible we'll see a third party Trump or conservative bid this year.

"Given the current delegate selection process, that means that I'd vote for Marco Rubio in Florida, for John Kasich in Ohio, and for Ted Cruz or whichever one of the other two contenders has the best chance of beating Mr. Trump in a given state."

So Romney basically explicitly said that no one else can actually *win* the nomination at this point, but maybe we can force a brokered convention and steal it from Trump.

What a crazy situation. Who would want the nomination in that situation? You'd be guaranteed to lose the general, just about.

Edit: And if we do end up with Clinton v Trump in the general, will she even need to cut any of her own ads? She can just run clips from Romney's and other Republican's speeches...

(03-03-2016 01:40 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(03-03-2016 12:03 PM)JSA Wrote:  

(03-03-2016 11:19 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Trying to think of another time where a party's previous nominee scheduled a big speech to attack the current front-runner as a "phony" and a "fraud".

(And is Trump paying him to do it? Probably only going to help him...)

1912 - Roosevelt vs. Taft.

"In his speeches, Roosevelt criticized Taft bitterly. In a voice shaking with hatred, he said Taft was controlled by conservative politicians. He said Taft stood in the way of progress. He said Taft was disloyal.

Taft had to answer. In one speech, he said: "This tears my soul. I am here to answer an old and true friend who has made many charges. I deny all those charges. I do not want to fight Theodore Roosevelt. But I am going to fight him."

After the speech, a reporter looked for the president. He found him sitting alone, his head in his hands. His eyes were filled with tears. "Roosevelt was my closest friend," Taft said."

Was that before or after Teddy had launched a third party bid? I guess it's possible we'll see a third party Trump or conservative bid this year.

Apparently, this was after, but it had started long before.
For Roosevelt, Taft's biggest sin was not being Roosevelt.

But Taft still controlled enough of the party to secure the nomination.

TR tore into Wilson later for being too soft on Germany.

Bull Moose Romney?

Anyone else watching the Trump infomercial?

(02-26-2016 12:34 AM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  The Democratic race has become fairly simple. Barring a major disaster (like being caught in bed with a dead woman), Hillary Clinton will be the nominee. While Bernie Sanders will eventually pile up a significant number of delegates, thanks to Clinton's likely huge edge in superdelegates (established by the Democratic Party precisely to keep someone like Sanders from the nomination) and Sanders's relative weakness outside the Northeast and Midwest, it's unlikely he'll overcome Clinton's current delegate lead.

Thanks to super delegates, the Democratic race is over. Sanders got a nice victory in Michigan, but Clinton keeps winning states outside of the Northeast and Midwest by huge margins and now has over the half the delegates needed to win the nomination. Sanders would have to win states by far larger margins than he's been doing in order to prevail now.

Quote:The Republican race is clarifying. Right now, Donald Trump is in the best position, having the delegate and being competitive, if not leading, in many of the remaining states. He still isn't getting a majority of the vote, but he's been getting enough of a plurality to continue putting distance between himself and the only two candidates who can catch him, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. Jeb Bush's suspension of his campaign probably helps Rubio the most, but the question at this point is whether that can be enough to overhaul Trump's lead. John Kasich and Ben Carson are dead men walking and are in this race now only to be spoilers or kingmakers. I suspect some of their support will drain away as some of their supporters decide they'll vote for candidates who actually have a chance to win. The erosion of support for Kasich will probably help Rubio the most, and Carson's support likely will drift to Cruz. Therefore, expect to see Cruz and Rubio close in on Trump. However, Trump's lead may be such at this point that, unless Cruz and/or Rubio can make significant inroads in the delegate count of the March 1 primaries, by mid-March the race may be effectively over.

Things have gotten interesting in the Republican race. Trump won the most delegates in the Super Tuesday primaries, but Cruz didn't trail by much (Trump won 42% of available delegates to Cruz's 37%), and then Cruz actually won a majority of the delegates in the March 5th vote. Could this be an inflection point in the race? After the results from March 8 (excluding the all-important Hawai'i primary, which is ending too late for me to include it), Trump gained a little on Cruz, but not much. From the numbers I'm looking at now, Trump has about 44% of the apportioned delegates, Cruz has 34%, and all of the rest have 22% combined.

This presents an interesting dilemma for the so-called GOP "establishment". It seems to want either Rubio or Kasich to be the party standard-bearer in the election, but with each cycle of primaries those two candidates keep falling farther and farther behind in the delegate count. Next week, each of them has their home-state primaries, and while Kasich is doing well in the Ohio primary, Rubio may not even win Florida. It's really hard to argue that the party should coalesce around Rubio if he can't win his home state. Kasich could win his home state, but otherwise his delegate count is even lower than Rubio's, which hardly makes him a compelling candidate. Given their performances so far, it's looking increasingly likely that each will run afoul of Rule 40 (which states that candidates put forth for nomination to the office of President must have won a majority of delegates in at least eight states). Trump and Cruz may be the only ones now who can qualify under that rule.

Ted Cruz has run about as good a campaign as one can given the unusual challenge of Donald Trump. Cruz has managed to position himself as the only viable anti-Trump alternative left (unless something very unusual happens). What this means, though, is that the two remaining viable candidates are perhaps the two least-attractive ones to the establishment. Will it hold its nose and go all-in for Cruz, and if so, will it do so in time? Trump's been bloviating about how he's been winning all these primaries, but a lot of them have been close, so even with the wins at this point he's still barely a third of the way to the total needed for nomination. There's plenty of time for him to be stopped if the remainder of the Republicans so desire, but the longer they wait, the greater the chance for ultimate victory by Trump. The Republicans will have a lot of decisions to make after the March 15th primaries.

(03-09-2016 01:54 AM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 12:34 AM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  The Democratic race has become fairly simple. Barring a major disaster (like being caught in bed with a dead woman), Hillary Clinton will be the nominee. While Bernie Sanders will eventually pile up a significant number of delegates, thanks to Clinton's likely huge edge in superdelegates (established by the Democratic Party precisely to keep someone like Sanders from the nomination) and Sanders's relative weakness outside the Northeast and Midwest, it's unlikely he'll overcome Clinton's current delegate lead.

Thanks to super delegates, the Democratic race is over. Sanders got a nice victory in Michigan, but Clinton keeps winning states outside of the Northeast and Midwest by huge margins and now has over the half the delegates needed to win the nomination. Sanders would have to win states by far larger margins than he's been doing in order to prevail now.

Quote:The Republican race is clarifying. Right now, Donald Trump is in the best position, having the delegate and being competitive, if not leading, in many of the remaining states. He still isn't getting a majority of the vote, but he's been getting enough of a plurality to continue putting distance between himself and the only two candidates who can catch him, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. Jeb Bush's suspension of his campaign probably helps Rubio the most, but the question at this point is whether that can be enough to overhaul Trump's lead. John Kasich and Ben Carson are dead men walking and are in this race now only to be spoilers or kingmakers. I suspect some of their support will drain away as some of their supporters decide they'll vote for candidates who actually have a chance to win. The erosion of support for Kasich will probably help Rubio the most, and Carson's support likely will drift to Cruz. Therefore, expect to see Cruz and Rubio close in on Trump. However, Trump's lead may be such at this point that, unless Cruz and/or Rubio can make significant inroads in the delegate count of the March 1 primaries, by mid-March the race may be effectively over.

Things have gotten interesting in the Republican race. Trump won the most delegates in the Super Tuesday primaries, but Cruz didn't trail by much (Trump won 42% of available delegates to Cruz's 37%), and then Cruz actually won a majority of the delegates in the March 5th vote. Could this be an inflection point in the race? After the results from March 8 (excluding the all-important Hawai'i primary, which is ending too late for me to include it), Trump gained a little on Cruz, but not much. From the numbers I'm looking at now, Trump has about 44% of the apportioned delegates, Cruz has 34%, and all of the rest have 22% combined.

This presents an interesting dilemma for the so-called GOP "establishment". It seems to want either Rubio or Kasich to be the party standard-bearer in the election, but with each cycle of primaries those two candidates keep falling farther and farther behind in the delegate count. Next week, each of them has their home-state primaries, and while Kasich is doing well in the Ohio primary, Rubio may not even win Florida. It's really hard to argue that the party should coalesce around Rubio if he can't win his home state. Kasich could win his home state, but otherwise his delegate count is even lower than Rubio's, which hardly makes him a compelling candidate. Given their performances so far, it's looking increasingly likely that each will run afoul of Rule 40 (which states that candidates put forth for nomination to the office of President must have won a majority of delegates in at least eight states). Trump and Cruz may be the only ones now who can qualify under that rule.

Ted Cruz has run about as good a campaign as one can given the unusual challenge of Donald Trump. Cruz has managed to position himself as the only viable anti-Trump alternative left (unless something very unusual happens). What this means, though, is that the two remaining viable candidates are perhaps the two least-attractive ones to the establishment. Will it hold its nose and go all-in for Cruz, and if so, will it do so in time? Trump's been bloviating about how he's been winning all these primaries, but a lot of them have been close, so even with the wins at this point he's still barely a third of the way to the total needed for nomination. There's plenty of time for him to be stopped if the remainder of the Republicans so desire, but the longer they wait, the greater the chance for ultimate victory by Trump. The Republicans will have a lot of decisions to make after the March 15th primaries.

Kasich and Rubio will have to drop out next Tuesday night/Wednesday morning, if not before, as I don't think either will win their respective home states. Frankly, I believe Kasich when he said he'll drop out if he doesn't win Ohio (although he said back in New Hampshire that he had to win Michigan, and we saw how that turned out last night). Kasich's next/last political hope is probably a 2020 presidential campaign, since he'll leave office as Ohio governor in 2018; basically, he doesn't have a ton left to accomplish in his political career other than the presidency. I think it's actually more imperative for Rubio to drop out now, as he is only 44, and presumably would like to have a political career that includes being a long-term senator / governor / president, rather than getting run over in his home state presidential primary, which could damage his still-young political career.


Interesting wording around Fiorina's endorsement of Cruz...basically sounded like she is only supporting him because she hates the idea of a Trump/Clinton presidency, not necessarily affirming Cruz's ideology/policies.

This Republican primary really seems to be one for the ages. If you had told me even 4 years ago that, by the end of the next primary you would have Ted Cruz and Donal Trump squaring off over the nomination I would have thought you were crazy. Some over-tanned "businessman" who hosted his own reality TV show and has forcibly shaved Vince McMahon's head at a Wrestlemanie versus a sycophantic, pompous, jack*** who has made enemies, rather than friends, everywhere he went.

What a time to be alive!

I'm excited to see what next surprise we are in for.

(03-09-2016 02:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  This Republican primary really seems to be one for the ages. If you had told me even 4 years ago that, by the end of the next primary you would have Ted Cruz and Donal Trump squaring off over the nomination I would have thought you were crazy. Some over-tanned "businessman" who hosted his own reality TV show and has forcibly shaved Vince McMahon's head at a Wrestlemanie versus a sycophantic, pompous, jack*** who has made enemies, rather than friends, everywhere he went.

What a time to be alive!

I'm excited to see what next surprise we are in for.

I'm not sure who the Clinton campaign would rather run against - Trump or Cruz, but I'm sure they can't believe their luck that it looks to be one of those two. I suspect they'd pick Cruz - Trump is an unknown and might make some inroads in the upper midwest, whereas Cruz is a profoundly unlikable right wing ideologue.

I think if they run Cruz and lose, they might be more open to running someone like Kasich in '20, whereas if they run Trump and he loses they might nominate a Cruz like candidate in '20 thinking they lost because Trump wasn't a real conservative.

But I've been wrong about everything this election, so feel free to ignore me.

Here's an interesting statistical analysis on the Democratic primary results so far, considering a couple of factors (non-white share of voters, and region (south vs. non-south) that seem to have been decently predictive of results to date. And poll strength is not the factor.

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystal...primaries/

The concluding paragraph should make you go - hmm.

Quote:Leaving these important caveats aside, our results suggest that Bernie Sanders is likely to present a strong challenge to Hillary Clinton in the remaining Democratic primaries. Clinton has had a big advantage in the nomination race thus far because so many of the contests have been in the South. After next Tuesday, however, there will be no more primaries in the South. Based on the results presented here, she will be favored over Sanders only in non-southern states in which the nonwhite share of the Democratic primary electorate is at least 40 percent. The key question may be whether the huge delegate lead she has built up by winning southern primaries by landslide margins will be enough to sustain her through the rest of the primary season.

And for those in the #nevertrump camp: http://reason.com/archives/2016/03/09/th...rty-option

I'm not sure he totally makes the sale, but definitely something to consider.

I have to say, Hilary's comments about Nancy Reagan and AIDS have to be her most mind-boggling unforced error to date. I was 10 when Reagan was elected and yet I have clear memory of the Reagans steadfastly refusing to acknowledge the disease. Just crazy, what was she thinking?

Maybe she got it confused with Alzheimer's? Or an aid did and she read it without thinking? There really is no explanation that makes sense.

As an aside, I had forgotten about the infamous Larry Speakes press conference:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/..._aids.html

It's not just him, though, it's the reporters. Just seems shockingly hateful from the perspective of 2016. Thousands of people are dying. But they're GAY!!! So it's hilarious!