Print

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

[wierd]

I see somebody else considers a Trump vs Clinton presidential election to be the nightmare scenario as well...

[smjjames]

Cruz must be deluded if the thinks Rubio and Kasich's votes are being kept from him. The only one taking voters away from him is Trump. If Rubio and Kasich left the race, their votes would vanish before going to Cruz.

Nah, don't be so sure about that. I'm from a pretty moderate Republican family, and a lot of them are considering the Ted.

Do you really think he stands a chance against Clinton? He's not going to have the turnout Trump can generate, but then Clinton won't get the protest vote turn-out, either. He still doesn't appeal to enough Republicans. I don't think he can get enough enthusiasm from Republican voters to get them to show up at the polls. And the Hispanic vote that the party had sought from before campaigning has already evaporated. Choosing Cruz as the lesser evil is still tantamount to conceding defeat.

Cruz looks like he'd have a better chance against Clinton. Though you'd better hope he takes lessions from a master debater because while Trump is pretty dang good, Clintons style is completely different.

I see somebody else considers a Trump vs Clinton presidential election to be the nightmare scenario as well...

Wouldn't that be true for much of America anyway?

Family, not me personally. I'm...eh. I'll vote against Trump if he's the nominee. I'll vote against Clinton if she's the nominee and the Republicans choose somebody besides Trump. Besides that...eugh.

Or vote third party if available. But yeah, quite the 'prisioners dillema' type situation.

[mainiac]

It wouldn't be pretty but keep in mind these are the people who managed to shut down government 3 times and turn it into a "he says, she says" issue.  Spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt is their whole fucking raison d'etre.

You're getting your Republicans confused. That was the Tparty. It was the moderates and establishment who chewed them out in Wall Street Journal editorials for it.

Maybe I'm not getting my republicans confused and this is the FUD I was talking about?

[Uzu Bash]

Family, not me personally. I'm...eh. I'll vote against Trump if he's the nominee. I'll vote against Clinton if she's the nominee and the Republicans choose somebody besides Trump. Besides that...eugh.

Yeah, I made up my mind about that when he started shit-talking Senator McCain. And I wrote to him, warning him not to respond to him at all, because he's going to be toxic to everyone who touches him. I told him none of the candidates would have the choice not to be exposed to him, but that he did. Now the Republican party is stuck with a choice between two poison pills.

I'm positive I'm voting against Trump first and Bernie second. If it's Cruz, I'm not even going to bother. Cruz isn't getting my support and Clinton doesn't need mine against him anyway, it'll be a stroll for her.

Maybe I'm not getting my republicans confused and this is the FUD I was talking about?

Really. Please elaborate.

[smjjames]

Speaking of Tea Party, Cruz has yet to prove that he won't force the US to default on our debt the first chance he gets. What Trump would do when the time comes to raise the debt ceiling, I have no clue.

Family, not me personally. I'm...eh. I'll vote against Trump if he's the nominee. I'll vote against Clinton if she's the nominee and the Republicans choose somebody besides Trump. Besides that...eugh.

Yeah, I made up my mind about that when he started shit-talking Senator McCain. And I wrote to him, warning him not to respond to him at all, because he's going to be toxic to everyone who touches him. I told him none of the candidates would have the choice not to be exposed to him, but that he did. Now the Republican party is stuck with a choice between two poison pills.

I don't think it would have mattered if he chose not to respond to him at all.

[mainiac]

Really. Please elaborate.

Well, my argument is that they created a lot of confusion about their actions.  If this were true and they were successful, wouldn't that mean people such as ourselves would have different ideas about what they had done?

[smjjames]

Democratic debate starting soon.

[mainiac]

Apparently Sanders won 66% of the votes yesterday but only got 53% of the delegates.

[Frumple]

So the wonders of districting, or...?

[smjjames]

Apparently Sanders won 66% of the votes yesterday but only got 53% of the delegates.

Are you including or not including superdelegates in that math?

Also, this from the CNN liveblog: "Hillary Clinton essentially just reciting lines from the campaign ad she is running in Michigan"

Looks like 538 isn't covering this though, apparently.

[mainiac]

Apparently Sanders won 66% of the votes yesterday but only got 53% of the delegates.

Are you including or not including superdelegates in that math?

Pledged delegates.

So the wonders of districting, or...?

Yeah, some congressional districts had much lower turnout.

[smjjames]

Sanders is so stubborn with the wall street stuff that no wonder Clinton is calling him a one-issue candidate.

[PTTG??]

Sanders is so stubborn with the wall street stuff that no wonder Clinton is calling him a one-issue candidate.

FDR's 1940 campaign is so stubborn on this fighting nazism stuff, damn one-issue candidates.

[mainiac]

FDR's 1940 campaign is so stubborn on this fighting nazism stuff, damn one-issue candidates.

I believe the main issue of the 1940 election was the New Deal.  Race relations, in particular with regard to housing, were important and Roosevelt did not want to be involved in the war at that point.  There was a debate over the draft (which neither candidate supported yet but people were talking about) and arguments over military priorities.

[smjjames]

You know, it would be interesting if the republican debates had questions from the audience.