Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[nenjin]

It's probably just a publicity stunt by one of his people. It's exactly the kind of thing Trump goes for. Just wait, someone will nominate him for Sainthood next.

[Shadowlord]

"Donald "Laziness is a trait in blacks" Trump, however, is not on Harpviken's shortlist, which is currently topped by Snowden and two top U.S. and Iranian nuclear negotiators. Others who were nominated but did not receive the prize include Mahatma Gandhi, Pope Francis, Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Putin."

ok then.

I have two questions, but I only want one answered.
1) If Sanders were to win, how would he attempt to lead, given that Republicans will all but certainly still hold the House?
2) Let us pretend that you are Jeb!. What to do? You want to regain the establishment support, but how to convince people that you are good at this again?

Q1: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/26/us/politics/as-mayor-bernie-sanders-was-more-pragmatic-than-socialist.html?partner=msft_msn
Q2: Quit it with the attacks on other candidates, triple down on the immigrant love, start being pro-amnesty, put all the ad money into positive ads, and hope to be saved by independents crossing over to vote in the republican primary? Sadly, many states don't allow voting in a primary without being in that party. He's probably screwed no matter what he does, but I wonder if he run mostly positive or negative ads in Iowa? I ask because of this article: "We found that positive advertising can win voters, although only when candidates air more positive ads than their opponent. Negative advertising, however, had at best no effect on vote totals and may even have hurt the candidate running negative ads."

[RedKing]

It's probably just a publicity stunt by one of his people. It's exactly the kind of thing Trump goes for. Just wait, someone will nominate him for Sainthood next.

Sainthood? Pffft...sainthood is for chumps. You have to be dead to be a saint. Trump likes Trumps that aren't dead.
Trump will run to be the next Pope. Now that's a guy who's got class. Have you seen St. Peter's? Totally classy cathedral. The best.

[scriver]

I'm not sure how drone strikes and arming rebels qualifies you for a peace prize. Unless the Nobel committee has become infiltrated by hipster Swedes and now they're just giving the award ironically.

Nah, the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by Norwegians (which is why it is a farse).

[smjjames]

@culise: DFL voter?

[Culise]

@culise: DFL voter?

Democrat-Farmer-Labor.  Basically, due to a quirk of the political party system in the US, the "national" party is at least nominally a collection of state parties that all decide to caucus together; which is the dog and which is the tail tends to vary based on era.  In the case of my home state, a particular third-party merger of two third parties (the Farmer-Labor party) became powerful during the Great Depression and preserved that power base on a local level into World War 2.  They eventually merged with the local Democrat party, which formed the DFL. 

The summation: Minnesota and North Dakota (which had the same situation with the Nonpartisan League) have weird politics.

[Rolan7]

Oh, that's cool.
I sorta assumed it was Democrat For Life >.>

[Shadowlord]

The Dinosaur Fuel Legacy party!

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Sadly, oil being from dinosaurs is only a myth.

[Bauglir]

I could swear some of it was. I mean, mostly not, obviously. Plants mostly.

[Teneb]

I could swear some of it was. I mean, mostly not, obviously. Plants mostly.

It's not impossible, very unlikely though.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

There's no meaningful contribution to the oil supply from animal bodies. An arbitrarily high amount of it is the global plant explosion of the Carboniferous Era, which contained species with much higher carbon contents than anything alive today.

[Bauglir]

There's no meaningful contribution to the oil supply from animal bodies. An arbitrarily high amount of it is the global plant explosion of the Carboniferous Era, which contained species with much higher carbon contents than anything alive today.

This was my understanding, yeah. An insignificant, but nonzero, contribution.

[mainiac]

538 has 8 polls listed for the New Hampshire primary which took place after the Iowa caucus.  It seems safe to say that Rubio picked up about 4 points or even more in the "Iowa bounce".  However Trump is still leading Rubio by 14 points.  The only way Rubio looks likely to win in New Hampshire is if Bush or Kasich dropped out and endorsed him.  But both of them have a decent shot at beating Rubio so why would they drop out?  They have to be thinking that if they can beat Rubio in New Hampshire they get to be the anointed one of the mainstream republican party.  So Trump is pretty likely to come out of New Hampshire looking like a winner.  Then comes South Carolina where Bush has been fighting tooth and nail to deny Rubio a victory for months.  At what point does Rubio actually win a race?  That needs to happen eventually for him to win a nomination.  Why is he given a 60% chance on predictwise?

[misko27]

I think Kasich or Bush need to drop out and endorse the other ASAP. The problem is neither will do it until after NH, and by then it may well be too late.

[mainiac]

I just dont see why people think it's particularly likely for Rubio to win in South Carolina.  Trump will come out of New Hampshire with a victory.  He will be true to form and giving his fans exactly what they want, mocking Rubio for having lost twice.  The idea as I understood it was that if Trump was a loser he would lose a lot of support.  But he didn't lose a lot of support and he'll probably claw back a little after winning.  So now we are back to where things were before, Trump leading Rubio by 20%.  Even if Bush endorses Rubio and Rubio gains 10% off that, it's still a big gap.  Rubio might even lose to Cruz.