Apparently the FBI has asked Apple to
create software that will unlock the iPhone of the San Bernardino
shooter, as they seem to think there may be information on the phone
that may prove useful in further investigations. Despite a court
order Apple has refused, saying this would set a dangerous precedent.
I have to admit that I am struggling
with this. I do not see the difference between unlocking a phone,
which has private information on it, from unlocking a home, which has
private information in it. Obviously a court has the power to issue
a search warrant, allowing law enforcement to enter and search a
private home. Apple's argument that code is speech, and thus
protected under the First Amendment, would seem to me, in this case,
to take second place to law enforcement's right to pursue their
investigation of criminal activity.
I have to wonder if Apple is really
concerned more about the First Amendment or more about the possible
loss of future sales due to people being upset with the possibility
of someone having access to their phone?
I also have to wonder how difficult it is to unlock an iPhone, as there seem to be any number of videos on YouTube on how to do it?
164 comments:
I think if I was a Republican voter, I'd be voting for Trump. Cruz and Rubio are so scary and inept, respectively. Rubio looks like a schoolkid, completely out of his depth. And Cruz ...? well, I think American Evangelicalism jumped the shark a while back, and is now a denizen of conspiracy loons and obscurantists. Also, the primaries are such a farcical circus anyway, why not keep Trump in the race. He's the most entertaining by far.
Then, when it comes to the real election, there's no real contest. Even if you're one of those establishment Republicans tempted to vote for Hillary to keep the loons out, you have to remember that 1) there are supreme court justices to be nominated, and 2) it's Hillary, for god sake!
"I have to wonder if Apple is really concerned more about the First
Amendment or more about the possible loss of future sales…"
No doubt in my mind but that Apple's supposed First Amendment interests have been invoked in support of their financial interests and that they'd be on the other side of the argument if they thought the money was on the other side.
But, Apple is a commercial entity; this is entirely appropriate and it doesn't make the First Amendment argument any less legitimate (nor any more legitimate for that matter, but more on this later).
"I do not see the difference between unlocking a phone, which has
private information on it, from unlocking a home, which has private
information in it."
Well, the feds have the iPhone; they're entitled to unlock it if they please (they do have a warrant for that I presume). This is slightly different though; they're asserting the right to force somebody else to create them a key. I'm a little more dubious of that proposition than I am of the proposition that they have the right, with a warrant, to search the contents of the iPhone.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"I think American Evangelicalism jumped the shark a while back, and
is now a denizen [sic] of conspiracy loons and obscurantists."
That's a fairly natural consequence of them throwing their lot in with Glenn Hannibaugh and the Supply Siders.
Rubio looks like a schoolkid, completely out of his depth.
But he's a cute schoolkid. lol! He might do better with a little seasoning. I don't see him as President, but maybe VP. I know, I know, the VP is second in line, but the odds are slim.
He's the most entertaining by far.
He is that! Maybe it is time to shake up the political establishment. But not with Trump. We tried that with Jesse, and it didn't work out so well.
This is slightly different though; they're asserting the right to force somebody else to create them a key.
Is this any different than requiring a landlord to produce a key to open an apartment, or a locksmith to create a key to enter a locked room?
My second thought was, they're the FBI for God's sake! Don't they have expert techie type people who can hack a phone?
"Is this any different than requiring a landlord to produce a key to open
an apartment…"
Suppose the landlord doesn't have the key? That would be the current situation.
Back from my holiday. At least now the days are a bit longer and it's not so damn dark all the time even if it's still quite cold. February is IMO really the time to escape Sweden and I have been doing so every year for over a decade. Funny thing, the price of the plane ticket is less today than 10 years ago.
Anyway, here's some reading material I found interesting. A long piece but thoughtworthy:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/02/rfk-jr-why-arabs-dont-trust-america-213601?o=0
"President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers—CIA Director Allen
Dulles and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles—rebuffed Soviet
treaty proposals to leave the Middle East a neutral zone in the Cold
War and let Arabs rule Arabia."
R.F. Kennedy Jr.
Those ‘Soviet treaty proposals’ were even less sincere than Russia's ‘Syrian peace proposals’ of today.
From "…Tim Clemente, who chaired the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task
Force from 2004 to 2008 and served as liaison in Iraq between the
FBI, the Iraqi National Police and the U.S. military. ‘We made the same
mistake when we trained the mujahideen in Afghanistan. The moment
the Russians left, our supposed friends started smashing antiquities,
enslaving women, severing body parts and shooting at us."
ditto
And yet RFK Jr. happily recites the faerie tale notion that back in the '50's and '60s these same Arab nations were happily electing peaceful and pluralistic ‘democratic’ governments, full of promise and potential, but for the meddling of the Evil Merkins.
Yeah, right.
Suppose the landlord doesn't have the key?
Ahh...but suppose that the landlord is also an expert locksmith? :)
Well, the feds have the iPhone; they're entitled to unlock it if they please...
Exactly. The phone is now the property of the US government. If they want in they should be able to get in.
Funny thing, the price of the plane ticket is less today than 10 years ago.
Cheaper fuel costs, maybe?
February is IMO really the time to escape Sweden...
February can be unpleasant here in Minnesota too. But today was actually beautiful with temps in the mid 50's F. It felt like spring. I went to see a movie with a friend. Sometimes a Saturday matinee is very relaxing. Not so many people at the theater.
"Ahh...but suppose that the landlord is also an expert locksmith?"
Suppose he is…are they entitled to impress him, force him to work for them? That's the question to be answered; and under what circumstances? There's dozens of police departments across the country with locked cell phones they'd like to get into--murders, gambling, prostitutes, all kinds of stuff. Can the government force you to work for them to help them solve a crime? I understand that they can impress people under some circumstances--the military draft comes to mind. But this ain't quite the same thing. And yet maybe it's somewhat similar…
I genuinely think The Donald could be your next Preznit. The establishment GOP and their backers are already in cold sweats about it, and are reportedly looking to run an independent against him when he inevitably wins the nomination. That would be ironic given the haranguing of Trump during the debates about whether he would run as an independent himself if he lost. (Matt Taibbi has a lengthy article about how America made Donald Trump unstoppable).
Hillary will take the Democratic nomination. But plenty of people hate her. And she must be worried about failing to attract both young people and women in New Hampshire. The buzz in the primaries is all about dissing the political establishment and the privileged elites. And Hillary is the perfect embodiment of both.
"Cheaper fuel costs, maybe?"
Extensive government subsidies.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"I genuinely think The Donald could be your next Preznit."
I rather think not. Hillary wouldn't stand much of a shot I don't think were it not for competition she faces, which George Will described as ‘the most impressive since 1980, and perhaps the most talent-rich since the party first had a presidential nominee, in 1856,’ (WaPo), and that's not even including The Donald, who is, of course, currently trouncing this supposedly impressive and talent-rich field.
But, Trump's negatives with the broader population are way too high. To get the Republican nomination he only has to win a plurality of the approximately 5% of the people who'll participate in the Republican primaries. Among this small slice of the American population the percentage of pissed-off, fantasy fans is rather higher than it is among the population at large. Trump's got no shot in a general election.
Of course, he's managed to surprise me already.
"At a meeting of Republican governors the next morning, [Feb. 20th]
Paul R. LePage of Maine called for action. Seated at a long boardroom
table at the Willard Hotel, he erupted in frustration over the state of the
2016 race, saying Mr. Trump’s nomination would deeply wound the
Republican Party. Mr. LePage urged the governors to draft an open
letter ‘to the people,’ disavowing Mr. Trump and his divisive brand of
politics.
"The suggestion was not taken up.
***
"On Friday, a few hours after Mr. Christie endorsed him, Mr. Trump
collected support from a second governor, who in a radio interview
said Mr. Trump could be ‘one of the greatest presidents.’
That governor was Paul LePage."
Inside the Republican Party’s Desperate Mission to Stop Donald Trump―NYT
Reuters says ‘moderates’ are making gains in Iran's elections for the Assembly of Experts, the body which picks the next Supreme Leader from among the mullahs. Doesn't say they're gonna get a majority over the ‘hardliners’ nor certainly that the ‘hardliner‘ majority won't mount a solid and effective backlash against the ‘moderates'. But, it does say they've made electoral gains.
One thing I've never understood is how Trump got to run on the Republican ticket in the first place, if the party establishment detests him so much. Can anyone just turn up and announce that they are putting themselves forward for nomination? Over here anyone can run for the presidency (a relatively unimportant office), but the political parties advance their own particular candidates, usually chosen (I think) by their parliament members.
...are they entitled to impress him, force him to work for them?
Is he entitled to create a Frankenstein monster that could endanger a large amount of people? I understand people don't want big brother watching or able to lightly rifle through their belongings. I also understand people's concern about criminals having access to personal information. But I think this question has been asked and answered by the requirement of a court order to allow government access. The iPhone was Apple's creation. If it is used for nefarious purposes it is also their responsibility to find a way to mitigate the consequences.
After 9/11 the government got a lot of flak because they hadn't stopped the attacks. How would the public feel about Apple if it came to light that there was data on this phone that pertains to a future attack that occurs and is successful?
And Hillary is the perfect embodiment of both.
She is, yes. But in his way so is Trump. Oh he may not be old money or political family, but he is wealthy and able to basically do as he wants. In that sense he is a member of the elite.
I have a desire to go vote on Super Tuesday for Kasich. It will be my protest vote against Trump. Assuming he doesn't drop out before than, of course.
*sigh*
That last "than" should read "then"
Can anyone just turn up and announce that they are putting themselves forward for nomination?
Pretty much. Usually it helps if one has money to finance a campaign and get your name out there via ads and commercials. Although Trump is getting his name out there with his off the wall, and extreme, antics. He also is taking advantage of people within the Republican party who are pissed off at the establishment.
We can also write in candidates as well. Donald Duck has probably gotten quite a few votes lately. ;)
P.S.
There are certain basic requirements to run for President, of course. Age and citizenship being two.
"Can anyone just turn up and announce that they are putting
themselves forward for nomination?"
Theoretically, yes. The various state party apparatuses have sign-up sheets as it were. The state party can refuse to sign one up, but there's always a fairly loose appeal process so that any even semi-serious candidate can get a few signatures together and get on the primary ballot. (Several people get on the presidential primary ballot in their own state but nowhere else--they never get any air time on the media though.) Getting on the general election ballot is another matter. One generally has to submit a petition signed by a significant number of registered voters (usually any political party that pulled down a certain percentage of the vote in the last general election is allowed to put their own slate of candidates on the ballot--1% or even half of 1% is a common threshold, so many states have registered "Independent" parties, or "Conservative" parties or "Libertarian" parties that will get 1% or more for some of their state-wide office holders and keep them on the ballot for next time.)
To run as a true independent, no party affiliation at all, one would have to go ‘round getting enough signatures in each individual state to get on the ballot there. This is a significant hurdle, and the deadlines start passing tomorrow--1 March of the election year in Texas for instance, and soon coming up in other states.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"Is he entitled to create a Frankenstein monster that could endanger
a large amount of people?"
Like a tobacco company perhaps? Or a fossil fuels company?
"How would the public feel about Apple if it came to light that
there was data on this phone that pertains to a future attack that
occurs and is successful?"
Don't know; but, I don't think how the public would feel is actually relevant to whether or not the government has the constitutional authority to force Apple to create something for the government here. Pretty sure that'll never get cited in a Supreme Court opinion on the subject.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"I have a desire to go vote on Super Tuesday for Kasich."
I'm gonna vote in the Republican primary in my state too (first time in a long time), but not for Kasich, although he'd be my pick of the bunch; he doesn't stand a chance of winning here, and I'm lookin’ to vote for whomever looks most like beating Trump.
[Marcus]: " At least now the days are a bit longer and it's not so damn dark all the time even if it's still quite cold. February is IMO really the time to escape Sweden...
Ditto. Sunset in a few minutes time is the first one after 6pm since before the clocks went back, 127 days ago! Your first one is still 10 days away. Interestingly, Lynnette's is tomorrow, but that's due to being easterly in her time zone. The big difference is her days never got much shorter than 9 hours in mid-winter, whereas mine were 7.5 and yours were barely 7.
"Like a tobacco company perhaps? Or a fossil fuels company?"
And then, of course, there are the gun manufacturers…
Getting on the general election ballot is another matter. One generally has to submit a petition signed by a significant number of registered voters...
I checked, it's 2,000. For a write in candidate the person just needs to file a request with the secretary of State (at least in Minnesota).
_______________________________
Like a tobacco company perhaps?
Warning labels on cigarette packages and restricting sales to those over 18 are examples of government intervention.
Or a fossil fuels company?
Anti-pollution laws have placed restrictions on emissions of coal plants.
gun manufacturers
Got me there. They're still pretty free to do as they please.
_________________________________
I'm gonna vote in the Republican primary in my state too...
We actually have a caucus system here. I don't know if I will make it or not. A simple primary voting would be easier. A quick in and out. Oh well.
Sunset in a few minutes time is the first one after 6pm since before the clocks went back...
I love it when the days start getting longer. We've had some very lovely spring weather here recently too. :)
[Lynnette]: "We've had some very lovely spring weather here recently too. :)"
You mean cannibalism has reduced to a trickle? :) :) :)
Re: Trump, I understand that he only has to attract a small fraction of voters to win the nomination, and that people think he will still be unelectable in the general election. But presumably his message is going to change for that campaign. I mean, nobody thinks Cruz would be pandering so much to the religious right once he gained the nomination. It's one of the quirks of your system that candidates have to differentiate themselves to a partisan electorate first, before homogenising the message for a general audience. I presume Trump is savvy enough to realise this, and will lighten up on banning Muslims and building his wall, and go heavy on a better deal for blue collar workers. That latter point is going to appeal to quite a few traditional Democratic voters. Apparently there's already been some dissension among union members who want to support Trump but whose unions have officially endorsed Hillary. Could Trump sell himself to the broader electorate. Let's face it, it's not like anyone thinks he's too ideologically wedded to anything he spouts about.
"I mean, nobody thinks Cruz would be pandering so much to the
religious right once he gained the nomination."
In point of fact, most people think that he'd be doing exactly that. Cruz held the peculiar opinion that he could win the Presidency by bringing a "hidden conservative majority" to the polls. He claimed, and appeared to truly believe, that there were millions of ultra-conservative voters who just didn't ever bother to vote because the Republican candidate had always done exactly what you suggest. (Statisticians widely agree that he's way wrong ‘bout that, but he seemed to believe it anyway.). It's this belief that got him so widely despised by his Republican cohorts in the Senate. They keep telling him his tactics could never win, and he kept refusing to believe them.
He's not a particularly good example for your otherwise general truism.
"I checked, it's 2,000."
Particularly low threshold there in Minnesota. Wiki on ballot access.
"Warning labels on cigarette packages and restricting sales to those
over 18 are examples of government intervention.
***
"Anti-pollution laws have placed restrictions on emissions of coal plants.
And, in the absence of those laws the FBI can require what of the cigarette makers and coal plants? Presumably, the federal government can make it illegal to sell cell phones capable of such strong encryption, but they have conspicuously not done so to date.
"TEHRAN, Iran — Iranian reformists and relative moderates who
support last year's nuclear deal won the most seats in parliament and a
clerical body charged with selecting the next supreme leader in a major
setback for hard-liners who opposed the agreement, official election
results showed Monday.
"Final results released by the Interior Ministry and broadcast on state
TV show that reformists, who favor expanded social freedoms and
engagement with the West, and other backers of President Hassan
Rouhani, won at least 85 seats. Moderate conservatives -- who split
with the hard-line camp and support the nuclear deal -- won 73, giving
the two camps together a majority over hard-liners in the 290-seat
assembly."
AP via NYT
The Weekly Standard, right-wing print bastion of Steven Hayes and William Krystal, has just torn Chris Christie a new one for supporting Donald Trump.
If those quotes are all correct that was rather a beautiful takedown of Christie, I thought.
If Trump doesn't get the nomination, Christie has pretty much burned his own bridges with the rest of the Republican establishment. He's gonna be yesterday's news forever.
[PS]: You mean cannibalism has reduced to a trickle? :) :) :)
It's cold again this morning, so...:)
[PS]: But presumably his message is going to change for that campaign.
[PS]: I presume Trump is savvy...
I think he is. In one of those video clips I posted about the election (I think it was in Iowa) one woman who was interviewed, and spoke to Trump, said that he knows he can't ban all Muslims from the US. While he may rant about political correctness he is adept at the politicians trick of telling the voters what he thinks they want to hear.
But there is a reason that political correctness came into being. When people vote in the general election, if Trump is the Republican nominee, they will not only being voting issues but also on whether or not they can put up with Trump's boorishness for four years.
Of course, he would be great fodder for the comedy circuit. :)
Particularly low threshold there in Minnesota.
I see that! 41,012 in Alabama and 20,000 in Arizona. Hmmm...even with the low number we have we haven't had a large number of people on the ballot. Possibly not too many people want the job...
Gotta run and get some work done...
Presumably, the federal government can make it illegal to sell cell phones capable of such strong encryption, but they have conspicuously not done so to date.
Perhaps that is what this situation will ultimately lead to, or not, I don't know.
It looks like a judge in New York has ruled that as the law stands now the Feds do not have the right to force Apple to unlock a phone (although that was a different case).
Daesh has executed 3 "Dutch" members, them imprisoned 75 and executed 8 more:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/29/isis-kills-eight-dutch-members-for-desertion
First time I'm rooting for the Caliphate. Here's hoping they execute the remaining 67 "Dutch" terrorists so we don't get them back into Europe in the future.
I'm reminded of Secretary Kissinger's comment on hoping they all lose.
Paul Krugman on climate change and the possibilities of this election.
The guy's an economist, not an energy tech. So one may want to take his declarations of what's technologically possible with a grain of salt, but his argument is worth considering nonetheless.
"In the good old days, when financial markets had some understanding
of economics, lower oil prices would have also boosted expectations
for growth and pushed up share prices. In today’s world of economic
illiteracy…this is no longer true. Globally, falling oil prices are now seen
as bad news for stock markets."
TheGuardian.com
(Just proves that the stock markets are independent of the underlying economies in today's world; the 0.01% live in a different economic world than the rest of us now.) He does have some correct observations though.
Daesh has executed 3 "Dutch" members, them imprisoned 75 and executed 8 more:
It was inevitable that there would be dissension in the ranks. The only question is who will be next?
It's also bad PR (for Daesh) for future recruits.
...his argument is worth considering nonetheless.
Yes. This election is far too important for voters to throw their votes away on a snake oil salesman. I hope they realize that in the end and vote accordingly. Sometimes the establishment is the wisest course in the end.
[Lee]: "He does have some correct observations though."
I agree. In particular this:
But what should really occupy your thoughts is the geopolitics of oil. The price wars have contributed to poor relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Apart from any other consideration, this makes any agreement over ending the war in Syria distant, with potentially devastating consequences for the stability of the region.
To find an earlier period of such instability in the Middle East you need to go back to 1918 – the end of the first world war and the collapse of the Ottoman empire. To be somewhat parochial, what this might mean for the flow of desperate refugees and migrants to Europe beggars belief. Furthermore, a consequence of many oil producers facing serious economic problems is that countries as diverse as Venezuela, Nigeria, Angola and Algeria, to name but a few, will face serious internal political dissent as their governments, short of revenue, find they no longer have the funds to buy off their populations.
One more comment on Apple vs The FBI. One other person weighed in with an opinion on this. He basically agreed with Lee. He did make another point, which was that a lot of information can be retrieved through the ISP and/or cell towers without hacking into the phone.
By the way, the State Department released another 3,000 Hillary e-mails today. Nobody said much of anything. That's ‘cause, once again, there's nothin’ in there to bear mentioning. They're almost done now, and nobody's much carrying on about what great secrets Hillary disclosed (or put at risk), on account of there's nothin’ much there. And the Republicans got bigger fish to fry than this shadow of a minnow. (There are some ‘top secret’ mentions of newspaper articles and of items much discussed in the press--top secret because they mention the newspaper articles and the discussion in the press of stuff the CIA wishes had never gotten out there in the first place, but it's gonna be kinda hard to hang a campaign on that. The stuff was out there whether the CIA liked it or not. Classifying Hillary's mention of the news as a top secret matter doesn't do anything to protect the secrets that have already made the news.)
They are projecting Cruz and Hillary taking Texas. In total so far six states for Hillary and two for Bernie. Trump has five so far and Cruz one. Although Texas is big, delegate wise.
I listened to a bit of Hillary's recent speech. It was good. Although the talking heads on the news are now saying she stole Bernie's speech. lol!
Marco Rubio was speaking here in Minnesota. He played the Jesse Ventura card. As in, we were embarrassed once in the past, do we want to go down that road again? I am very curious to see how my home state votes. I haven't even an inkling of the voter feeling here. Most people I know don't like Trump. But...
Hmmm...they just projected Oklahoma for Cruz.
Finally we have returns which don't force me to have to refigure the odds.
"In order…
1. Trump wins the nomination before the convention.
1. Nobody wins and they have to sort it out in Cleveland at the
convention.
(tie for first place there; once it gets on the convention floor it's
anybody's guess where they go)
3. Cruz wins the nomination before the convention.
4. Rubio wins the nomination before the convention."
Lee C. @ Wed Feb 24, 08:49:00 am
Oh God, it's even worse than I thought. I have listened to Trump and now Cruz. If either one of those wingnuts gets in we're in real trouble. With all due respect to our friends who may actually like them.
"If either one of those wingnuts gets in…"
I don't think either one of them can win a general election absent Hillary gets indicted, which I consider highly improbable (and not because the FBI will be afraid to recommend an indictment for her, but because she's not done anything indictable, however dumb a move that home-grown server has turned out to be).
But, I am hoping that Cruz gets the nomination on account of the right-winger crazies have been saying for years that the reason the Republicans can't win a Presidential election is because the Republicans never nominate a true-believer. Cruz is a true-believer and him gettin’ his ass whipped will take the wind outta their sails to a large extent.
Wooo Whooo Minnesota went for Rubio! If nothing else at least we stayed away from Wingnutville. Maybe we did learn something from that Jesse Ventura debacle. I had heard that Sanders was polling well here, but hadn't talked to anyone who was supporting him actively.
Woohoo. Sanders took Minnesota ... 60 - 40 too. Doesn't quite make up for you folks giving Rubio the Republican primary. I watched post-results speeches by Hillary, Cruz, Trump and Rubio. Car crash TV all round. Do people really think Hillary is a more serious politician than the other nutters? I suppose the only saving grace about the sheer pantomime of it all is that you don't believe for one second that these people are sincere. In other circumstances that would be a bad thing, but not when listening to Hillary's folksy "America needs more love and affection", Trump's "we're gonna make America great" and Cruz's request for "prayerful reflection" (from the other candidates who he says should back him). You really hope these people aren't quite so moronic in real life. I don't remember anything Rubio said, but he's unlistenable since the GOP told him to go all attack dog on Trump. Now he just sounds stupid and boorish.
Also, that donutting that goes on ... if they're going to engage in that transparently phoney practice, they seriously need to pick more photogenic people to stand behind the candidate. Cruz looked like he was surrounded by the Adams family (and someone already wrote the other day that he himself looks like he's wearing a badly stitched Ronald Reagan mask). Rubio was standing with his coralled and sour looking family, several of whom are much too young to be trained to smile on demand. Hillary had the usual Democrat-standard mix, mostly young black people, with a hijab-wearing girl thrown in for good measure. The problem is, half of them are listless gum-chewers who look like they are only there for their fifteen minutes of fame, but have an attention span much shorter than that.
By the way, our own government election just finished here, so I know what it's like to have such a dismal choice of candidates that you have to consider who you're trying to keep out much more than who you want in.
"…and someone already wrote the other day that he himself looks
like he's wearing a badly stitched Ronald Reagan mask…"
Cruz looks more like Grandpa Munster than he does like Reagan. Except he looks a little bit creepier and has his hair parted on the side.
Real Clear Politics calculates that Trump has 285 delegates won; that's more than half of the 566 delegates to the Republican Convention allocated to date. And, they're now coming up on the winner-take-all contests. New calculation:
In order…
1. Trump wins the nomination before the convention.
2. Nobody wins and they have to sort it out in Cleveland at the convention.
3. Cruz wins the nomination before the convention.
4. Rubio wins the nomination before the convention."
Contrary reports claim the story ‘bout Da’esh executing Dutch members for desertion is a faked story; never happened. I don't know.
Pete: "By the way, our own government election just finished here, so I know what it's like to have such a dismal choice of candidates that you have to consider who you're trying to keep out much more than who you want in."
Sounds familiar to me. I haven't voted FOR something since 2006 and back then "my" party won only to seriously dissapoint me in the coming years.
Lee: "Contrary reports claim the story ‘bout Da’esh executing Dutch members for desertion is a faked story; never happened. I don't know"
I really don't care one way or the other and my previous post on the matter wasn't reallly about me wishing death on Jihadi-tourists, it was about me feeling it's better they die there than return here.
If someone who is a European citizen goes to fight for something as awful as Daesh or Al-Nusra I would much rather have them die than return to Europe.
I'm sure you'd feel the same if it was American Jihadists ans if their possible return to the US was as easy as their possible return into Europe is.
About the Republican primaries. I'm sure the GOP is hysterical due to Trump's success so far. Will they go all out and try to stop him at ANY cost or at what point will they try to wash away their previous reluctance and rally behind him (if he keeps scoring successes) and then maybe try to get a grip on him instead of villifying him?
I mean - if Trump continues so well in the primaries, wouldn't it be kind of suicide for the GOP to oppose him no matter what?
Advice from FoxNews:
"My last advice is this: Mr. Trump, if you’re going to reward Governor
Christie for his endorsement by letting him introduce you, get him off
the stage once he's done.
"No one seemed more unhappy than Christie watching you speak in
Florida Tuesday night and frowning throughout your press conference.
"A gracious loser he's not!"
" mean - if Trump continues so well in the primaries, wouldn't it be
kind of suicide for the GOP to oppose him no matter what?"
You've read my opinion on this more than once. The Republican Party cannot continue on its present course. It's gonna either come apart, fall to pieces and cease to exist as a national party, or it's gonna shrink back to its regional base, become a regional party powerful across the Old South, no longer able to mount a national campaign for the Presidency.
I think this is the first fracture. Call it suicide to oppose him if you will--getting behind Trump will likewise be fatal for them. There is no way out for them.
Doesn't quite make up for you folks giving Rubio the Republican primary.
Hey, he was the least of three evils! I'm just so relieved it wasn't Trump! Sad to say my district went slightly more for Cruz over Rubio, but can't win 'em all.
Woohoo. Sanders took Minnesota ... 60 - 40 too.
Yup, we lean very left at times.
Cruz looks more like Grandpa Munster than he does like Reagan.
Oh my God, you're right!!! He's even got the smile down. lol!!!
By the way, if Cruz were to win the nomination the Republican Party might survive this round (to fall apart later); an ass-kickin’ for Cruz would humble the right-wing crazies, allowing more moderate voices to prevail for awhile, but they'd then lose out to the tax-cuts-for-the-rich donor class eventually, and it'd all come tumbling down anyway--eventually.
Lee: "The Republican Party cannot continue on its present course. It's gonna either come apart, fall to pieces and cease to exist as a national party, or it's gonna shrink back to its regional base, become a regional party powerful across the Old South, no longer able to mount a national campaign for the Presidency.
I think this is the first fracture. Call it suicide to oppose him if you will--getting behind Trump will likewise be fatal for them. There is no way out for them"
OK, but then what would happen? If in a long time two-party system one part disintegrates, then what?
The Democratic Party may disintegrate soon after. At the very least there will be a substantial realignment. Last time this happened here (and not the only time it's happened here) the Whig Party came clear apart in the space of only a couple of years and the Republican Party arose out of the ashes almost immediately; winning the Presidency on only it's second try with Abraham Lincoln as the candidate. Keep in mind that Abraham Lincoln's Republican Party was mostly aligned with constituencies that would be recognized as members of today's Democratic Party coalition. And the Democrats were the party of the Old South back then.
The disintegration of the Republican Party will substantially affect the composition of the Democratic Party as well, as many Democrats will look to align with freed-up "RHINOs" and the more left-wing Democrats will resist the infusion of ‘moderate’ voters and moderately conservative tendencies into the Democratic Party. They may split off too, and form up a true Socialist Party, which we haven't seen here since before WWII. It will be too small to win nationally, but may have some marginal successes.
In the end, the wing-nuts will be driven back into the wings (on both sides) and the Republic shall be saved.
Here's the current deal:
Republican politicians are required to learn both an entire faerie tale history for the past thirty-odd years and to learn the current faerie tales which this fantasy history supports.
The story begins with the tale of how the evil Liberals ‘lost’ the Viet-Nam War after Richard Nixon had won it for the Republicans. Never mind that Nixon ran on a campaign of getting us out of the war (slogan "Peace with Honor"), and then managed to screw that up.
It includes all sorts of reimaginings of the presidency of Ronald Reagan--too many faerie tales there for me to even get into it, but I'll hit the highlighs…
1. "Supply-side" economics works; the benefits offered to the "suppliers" eventually "trickle down" to the population at large. (Demonstably, this is a fantasy; it doesn't work; it's never worked; it's never gonna work.)
2. Tax cuts for the rich pay for themselves in increased economic activity which is then taxed. (This is also demonstrably a fantasy; it doesn't work; it's never worked; it's never gonna work.)
3. The "Welfare State" is bankrupting the (white) American middle class via transfer payments (welfare) to ‘those people’ who don't deserve it. (This is also demonstrably false; the American welfare system devotes most of its transfer payments to propping up the American middle class via Social Security and Medicare; reining in spending on "entitlements" means mostly taking money away from white people and lot's of them older white people, Republicans, ‘cause that's where most of the money's going out.)
4. All we gotta do is make fierce and our enemies will flee in terror, or, at worst, we can just bomb ‘em into compliance; real warfare involving sacrifice by the population (or taxes to pay for it) will be unnecessary. And the fact that our enemies haven't fleed in terror here lately just proves that Obama is ‘feckless’ (Obama in particular; Democrats in general) and we just need to demonstrate more and bigger feck. (Kinda speaks for itself there don't it?)
5. Toss in that global warming isn't real; it's an anti-American plot by the liberals intended to be used as some sort weapon against American capitalism and global dominance.
The Republican Party has managed to create a voter base which believes these faerie tales. They keep demanding that the pols they put in office implement these policies and, more importantly, that they make them work as promised. This can't happen. It's all fantasy. It doesn't work; it's never worked in the past; it's never gonna work.
But ‘the base’ still believes; and when it doesn't work they blame their own politicians for doing it wrong, or not doing it at all, in any event; they think their politicians have betrayed them.
Enter Donald Trump!
But, it'll all come tumbling down eventually; they can't keep the faerie tales going much longer.
ain't gonna bother with correcting teh typos…
[Lee]: "Cruz looks more like Grandpa Munster than he does like Reagan. Except he looks a little bit creepier and has his hair parted on the side."
I'll see your Grandpa Munster and raise you ... Ian Paisley. Perhaps not well known to you Yanks, but there is a connection -- he had an honorary doctorate from, and was on the board of trustees of, Bob Jones University. He was also a political and religious scourge on Northern Ireland for forty years.
Just in terms of who's generating interest in the primaries -- MSNBC flashed up an infographic claiming the Republican turnout on Super Tuesday went from five million in 2008 to eight million yesterday. The Democrat turnout went from eight million to five million. I still think Trump's gonna be your Preznit :)
"…raise you ... Ian Paisley."
Chin and jowls work. Eyes and nose don't.
If we're doing pictures and charts…
Some interesting pictures and charts from Real Clear Politics
"…the Republican turnout on Super Tuesday went from five million
in 2008 to eight million yesterday. The Democrat turnout went from
eight million to five million. I still think Trump's gonna be your Preznit :)"
Both I and Lynnette are participants in the Republican primary this year (assuming she went ahead with her stated intent to participate). Neither of us intend to ever vote for Trump. I'll have to vote for Hillary (unless she's clearly not going to win my state, and then I'll write in somebody I would prefer).
You might consider that when you assess the import of those numbers.
Interesting point. However, if all of the Republican increase was made up of anti-Trumps turning out just to downvote him, he wouldn't be winning so many states. (I think it ended up at seven?).
"However, if all of the Republican increase was made up of anti-
Trumps turning out just to downvote him, he wouldn't be winning so
many states."
Yeah, that occurred to me too. I'm still trying to assess the import of those numbers. I haven't quite got a fully formed theory yet that accounts for all the available evidence.
I haven't quite got a fully formed theory yet that accounts for all the available evidence.
I think you might have hit the nail on the head earlier when you said the Republican party was at risk of becoming extinct. When people are afraid of losing something they have a tendency to become more active than they would normally want. For the Republicans it is more important to try to make their voices heard at this time.
(assuming she went ahead with her stated intent to participate).
I ended up not going. With the caucus system it is far more time consuming to participate. If it had been a straight up voting process I would have done so. My vote probably would have been meaningless anyway as I would have voted for Kasich.
However, if all of the Republican increase was made up of anti-Trumps turning out just to downvote him, he wouldn't be winning so many states. (I think it ended up at seven?).
Oh I think there is a struggle within the Republican party as to its future (if there is one). The number of states is less important than the number of delegates, and he does have quite a number of those.
I still think Trump's gonna be your Preznit :)
You know what they say, it ain't over until the fat lady sings. ;)
It will be up to the swing voters, I think, to decide this, unless there are enough Republicans out there who hate Trump enough to vote Democrat. Probably the biggest danger is of a strong third party candidate, like Bloomberg, throwing his hat in the ring. It is said that he would draw more normally Democratic voters, hurting that party's chance to defeat a Trump candidacy.
I think Hillary's main hope will be if enough Dems dislike Trump more than they dislike her. Or if the GOP field a spoiler candidate to kill off Trump. One way or another I'd say it's going to be a horribly nasty campaign.
Such evidence as it is… Trump lost to Cruz in Oklahoma, which is the only one of the Super Tuesday primaries that has a strictly enforced ‘closed’ primary (meaning one had to be a previously registered Republican voter to participate). This would suggest that Trump is perhaps gathering in votes from some people who are, at best, occasional voters.
Lee: "Yeah, that occurred to me too. I'm still trying to assess the import of those numbers. I haven't quite got a fully formed theory yet that accounts for all the available evidence."
Here in Sweden in our MSM the consensus seems to be that quite a large portion of Americans are so fed up with the "establishment" they are supportig Trump as sort of a protest vote. The idea is that Trump is such an outrageous candidate not even dumb americans* would vote for him based on his politics, but they are doing so anyway to give a fat middle finger to the established Washington insiders whom they are pissed off at.
Myself I don't believe it's quite that simple, but I do believe it could be a contributing factor.
*In our MSM americans are often portrayed as ignorant or dumb and the more right/conservative/republican they are the dumber they must be.
It also appears that Rupert Murdock, the media mogul who effectively owns FoxNews, has decided to back Trump (assuming Trump wins the nomination), and that Roger Ailes (the strongman Chairman and CEO of FoxNews) has soured on Marco Rubio, who was FoxNews' prior darling in this contest.
"Myself I don't believe it's quite that simple, but I do believe it
could be a contributing factor."
Contributing factor is probably correct; there is quite a bit of that going around.
I've been looking further into the breakdowns of Trump's support. It appears he's drawing a bunch of independents, occasional voters and even the fabled ‘Regan Democrats’ into the Republican primaries.
But, that's only a portion of the independents and even only a portion of the ‘Regan Democrats’. The swing voters and occasional voters who oppose Trump are, in general, waiting to oppose him in the general election. Or, so it looks to me.
Reagan with two "a's".
Lee: "But, that's only a portion of the independents and even only a portion of the ‘Regan Democrats’. The swing voters and occasional voters who oppose Trump are, in general, waiting to oppose him in the general election. Or, so it looks to me."
That would be where I stand aside and confess I have no real knowledge about any of the groups you mention.
I can say the US election this time around is one where I feel I have very little insight. I would have guessed Hillary will come out on top eventually, but that's basically based on what I read in most newspapers, not based on any insight I myself have.
Obama was different. You could sort of feel the energy that would take him to the White House at this point in time in 2008. I never really doubted he would be president once it was clear he had Hillary beat for the Dem nomination.
This time I can't get a real feeling for the outcome at all, other than that Hillary for sure will be the Democrat candidate (unless some insane thing comes along with those e-mails that disqualifies her - but I see that as a close to zero risk/chance).
Of course, even in 2008 I got my gut feeling based on MSM reporting and not based on any insight into the various american voter groups, which I do not have. But this time around it just feels so much more uncertain.
Here's one thing that's certain. Trump's negatives (perception with the voters) are higher than anybody's who's ever run for President since they began tracking such data back in the Kennedy/Nixon years. That's across the board; Republicans, Democrats, independents alike. They're much higher than even Hillary's negatives. I think Hillary will win because the alternative is Donald Trump (or possibly Ted Cruz, who's my guess to pull it out if there's a contested convention, and who's negatives are second only to Trump's).
"Seventy-four percent of Russians would vote to re-elect Putin as
president, according to a poll by VTsIOM.
"Putin dominates state media in Russia and is widely expected to
contest the next presidential election in 2018."
Reuters
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Stratfor hypothesizes alliances and inclinations in a post-EU Europe. (open article)
I think Hillary's main hope will be if enough Dems dislike Trump more than they dislike her.
Oh, I think I'd be safe to guess that most do.
Or if the GOP field a spoiler candidate to kill off Trump.
Almost too late for that. The best bet for them is probably Cruz. But I can say here too that I'd guess most Democrats don't like him. I'd also guess the same for many swing voters.
One way or another I'd say it's going to be a horribly nasty campaign.
It already is. :( :( :(
Trump lost to Cruz in Oklahoma, which is the only one of the Super Tuesday primaries that has a strictly enforced ‘closed’ primary (meaning one had to be a previously registered Republican voter to participate).
While we don't technically have a closed primary, those who caucus are expected to register and basically affirm they are in general agreement with the platform of the party they are caucusing with. So I'm guessing that it was the true blue Republican supporters who turned out here. That might explain why Trump lost. In my district it was Cruz by a nose over Rubio.
So perhaps what we are seeing are people who are, for whatever reason, enamored with the Trump personna, without too much concern with his policies or how he'd enact them.
The swing voters and occasional voters who oppose Trump are, in general, waiting to oppose him in the general election.
Yup.
"I think you might have hit the nail on the head earlier when you said
the Republican party was at risk of becoming extinct."
How long ago did I first tell you that it was coming?
I've been looking for this to happen since Radio-Right-Wing got a station close enough and powerful enough to broadcast out this far. However, I was expecting it to happen when a candidate like Cruz came along, unapologetically trying to implement the right-wing crazies' agenda with no dissembling blather ‘bout ‘working across the aisle’ or other feints at a moderation he had no intention of displaying once in office.
I figured the right-wingers would run a third-party candidate claiming to be the "True Republican" in case this true-believer candidate was denied the nomination. Or, if he got the nomination, he'd get his ass kicked and the resulting infighting would end with the right-wingers driven back into the wings, and the moderates losing out to the Wall Street wing of the party--which might delay the schism a few years more, but not for long. Then it'd be a full schism when it happened; the Old South would reject the Republican Party wholesale, along with the "Supply Side" economic theory and go full populist on us, leaving the Wall Street Masters of the Universe without their loyal voting base.
I hadn't figured on Trump coming along and pulling the populist rebellion instead of the right-wing crazies' agenda.
More evidence of who's supporting Trump in the primaries:
"A poll in September showed that two-thirds of Trump's supporters
believe Obama is a Muslim…."
WaPo
I think the percentage among Republicans is more like 40-50% (more like 40% if my memory serves me). This suggests that Trump is bringing in wing-nuts of all professed denominations to the Republican primaries.
Do they really believe Obama is a muslim or do they just say so because they deem it suspicious or damning? I just can't see what they would base such a belief on. I mean if it was 5% or so I could get it because there are always a couple of fanatics out there, but 40-50% of close to half the voting base seems unreal.
Do they base those beliefs on this "birther" conspiracy theory of do they point to policies that they somehow see as Obama advancing Islam?
Of course Obama's a Muslim. That's why God had to kill Justice Antonin Scalia to wake the American people up to his anointment of Ted Cruz's candidacy. Who knew! Well, apparently Glen Beck did.
Cruz is a lot scarier than Trump. Trump is merely populist and conceited. But Cruz is gonna lead America through the rapture. One can only hope that a President Cruz wouldn't work too hard to bring it about prematurely. I mean, Obama failed to get much done even though he's a Socialist robot from the future, but I suppose God musta held him back.
I suppose also that God is telling Cruz not to be too horrible about Trump, and let his acolyte Rubio do all the dirty work. I guess that's why Cruz took a back seat last night while Rubio and Trump confronted each other about their genitalia.
But isn't Cruz more or less dead in the waters now? I mean Trump has him beat and will most likely continue to beat him in the coming primaries.
I would have guessed that the GOP has three options now:
1. Reluctantly go with Trump.
2. Find an altogether new candidate to run with if Trump cannot win outright before that party congress they will have.
3. Field a third candidate in the generals to oppose both Trump and Hillary and thus virtually guarantee a Hillary victory.
That Cruz can be brought forward as their one candidate based on a win in the primaries seems almost imposssible, doesn't it?
"Do they really believe Obama is a muslim…"
Hard to say for sure. There's some suspicion that a fair number of older folks claim to dislike him on account of being a Muslim because their grandkids frown down on them for saying they don't like the fact that he's black. That's just a suspicion that goes ‘round though; I don't know of any research data to support it. Don't know how one would gather it either.
Take them out of the equation and it's still a fairly high number.
I suspect a lot of them believe it because they want to. They've been trained for over three decades now by the Republican Party, and now by FoxNews and Glenn Hannibaugh in addition, that acceptance of reality is optional, and not the preferred option at that.
"But isn't Cruz more or less dead in the waters now…"
Not quite. Getting close; he's got two weeks for the gang to take down Trump, and then he'll be dead in the water if Trump keeps rolling along at his current rate. But the gang's mobilized now, and they're coming up to a couple of places where, if it works out just right for them, they can put a crimp in his gait.
Cruz is, by a wide margin, the second choice of Trump supporters (not much surprise in that). That gives him a card to play at the convention if they can keep Trump from racking up a winning margin going in. That's why I think Cruz will win out over Rubio at a contested convention.
Here is an interesting analysis of the positions of the Republican candidates with regard to current number of delegates and what is possible in the future.
[Lee]: "I suspect a lot of them believe it because they want to. They've been trained for over three decades now by the Republican Party, and now by FoxNews and Glenn Hannibaugh in addition, that acceptance of reality is optional, and not the preferred option at that."
I liked the term used by one American commentator on the BBC about US elections in the modern era: that they are post-factual. Even though there are fact-checkers crawling out of the woodwork, candidates are prepared to say whatever it takes to get nominated/elected. He wasn't just talking about GOP candidates either.
"He wasn't just talking about GOP candidates either."
Yeah, the major difference is that Democratic candidates still pay a price when they're caught at it.
At the very least they have to go to all the trouble of changing their story after they're caught.
Poking through the numbers and I think I see a bit of a pattern emerging. ‘Late Deciders’ as the pollsters call them, are not breaking for Trump. He may already have most of his eventual support, and he's been winning pluralities, not majorities, among the Republican primary crowd. It's possible he may have found his ceiling. And that ceiling may prove to be high enough to get him the Republican nomination. But, it's still on the edge; it'll fall one way or the other in the next couple of weeks.
I think it's always dangerous to tell an electorate that they made the wrong choice. They're not likely to thank you for it. We had it here with the Nice and Lisbon Treaty referenda on the expansion of EU powers, which were rerun until the electorate came up with the "right" answer. It seems to me the GOP establishment is doing that with Trump's supporters. Romney famously wrote off 47% of the electorate as freeloaders who would never vote for him.
It now seems to me he's written off a good fraction of the rest. One gets the impression that frat boy Romney thinks anyone who supports Trump -- who he has labelled a phony and fraud -- are the white trash versions of the welfare recipients that he thinks elected Obama. Is it normal for the primaries to involve such muck raking, and still manage to get the electorate out to vote in the general election for such odious candidates? I don't remember the 2008 election being quite so rancorous on either the GOP or Dem side. I do remember Romney being a thoroughly dislikeable character in 2012. Maybe he's just jealous of Trump ;-)
More likely, I think, is that the GOP establishment see no point in nominally winning a Presidential election (even if that were likely) without benefitting from holding the reigns of power. It's naked greed and ambition, and an indictment of the current state of politics. The Clinton dynasty doesn't strike me as any different.
"Is it normal for the primaries to involve such muck raking…"
No. Decidedly not normal for the intra-party primaries, at least on the presidential level. It aas occasionally occurred at the Representative or Senatorial level.
Looks like Cruz is splitting the take with Trump in today's primaries. Cruz is getting Kansas and Maine; Trump is winning in Kentucky; Louisiana is giving spotty returns so far, but the ones coming in make Louisiana look good for Trump.
AP has called Louisiana for Trump; looks like Kentucky has tightened up some, still up in the air, but Trump still ahead at last count. Cruz has been called as the winner in Kansas and Maine.
And, now it's officially ‘called’ by media sources; Trump takes Kentucky, to make two ‘gin two for the evening. Rubio takes nothin’.
Here is an article with a nice neat little map showing the number of delegates at stake in each state and how they are allocated (proportional or winner take all, for example).
In the voting today Louisiana is the state with one of the highest number of delegates at stake for Republicans, and Kentucky is the other, with a proportional split in both. Trump taking both is looking more like he is still on track to take the Republican nomination.
More likely, I think, is that the GOP establishment see no point in nominally winning a Presidential election (even if that were likely) without benefitting from holding the reigns of power.
It's possible, but I think it more likely that there is panic by the more mainstream Republicans and they just don't know what to do to stop Trump. All in all I think their best hope was Kasich. I know, I know, I am biased, but he was a somewhat more moderate voice in their party that could have appealed to swing voters in the general election. That might have given them a man in the White House who could have worked with Congress (assuming the Republicans still kept control). Now it is looking more and more like they will field a candidate that has made himself odious to many average Americans, including a lot of those in the Republican party. They are chancing losing control of everything because of the disgust of the electorate.
"…but I think it more likely that there is panic by the more mainstream
Republicans and they just don't know what to do to stop Trump."
How to stop Trump without getting Cruz is their current question. (Or, it better be; perhaps even better they should worry can they stop Trump at all.)
The Wall Street Republicans didn't see this coming. If they saw anything coming it would have been another of the periodic right-winger ideologue assaults on their citadel. That Trump would come along and skip that part, and go directly to the populist rebellion against the both of their camps never crossed their minds. (For that matter, neither did it occur to me that the right-wingers wouldn't betray their joint conspiracy first and thereby incite the populist rebellion to come later.)
"Cruz scored huge upsets, easily taking Kansas with 48.2 percent
of the vote to Trump’s 23.3 percent and Maine, notching 45.8 percent
to Trump’s 32.6 percent.
"Trump eked out narrow wins in Kentucky -- 35 percent to 31 percent –
and in Louisiana, with about 42 percent to Cruz’s 37 percent."
Politico.com
[Lee]: "How to stop Trump without getting Cruz is their current question."
Exactly. Seems to me they dislike Cruz almost as much as Trump. Rubio was supposed to be the golden-haired boy. Not sure why, seeing as he's a moron. Or mebbe that was part of the plan. Anyhow, Rubio looks pretty lame now, claiming that there's still a reason for him to stay in race, when he got hammered in all four of yesterday's primaries and didn't even manage third place in Maine. I don't claim to be well up on the primaries process, but his assertion that the winner-take-all states will suit him better rings a bit hollow when he's barely picking up one delegate in ten in the proportional ones. Perhaps the cavalry will ride over the hill for him yet, but it better not turn out to be Mitt Romney again with his laughable little diatribes against Trump.
Question: what happens to a candidate's existing delegates when he or she withdraws?
Cruz suffers from the common Evangelical confusion about the distinction between the Israeli gubmint and the Jews.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyCnwTFGnvM
"Question: what happens to a candidate's existing delegates when
he or she withdraws?"
She's not gonna withdraw.
But, to answer the question… It varies a little by state, the election laws being governed by state law. Generally, the ‘electors’, as they're named, are still bound to vote for that candidate on the first round. Sometimes for the first two rounds. Then they're free to vote for whom they please. But, the candidate can ‘release’ them from bondage, even on the first round.
In most states, while they're ‘bound’ to a candidate, he can explicitly direct them to vote for another candidate if he chooses. (A couple of states don't allow this to be enforce, but in practice they generally go along anyway and vote for whomever their candidate says to vote for.) So, some states he can explicitly direct their vote; some others it's just custom and practice.
After the first round, they're free to vote as they choose (some states, first two rounds).
So, Kasich stays in until his home state of Ohio and wins (winner take all)… He gets 66 delegates to assign as he pleases, at least on the first round. Makes him a person to be reckoned with at the convention. Most of them will do as he asks even on the second round, custom and practice. After that, they kinda go their own way. Which is why it's important that Cruz is second choice for most Trump voters--they pick ‘Trump inclined’ delegates--easier for the Cruz people to snatch up on subsequent rounds.
Trump is saying, in public, that he's eager to get to a one-on-one with Cruz. Probably not a good idea; too early yet. He's not put this away yet.
I got a little ahead of myself there. ‘Electors’ go to the Electoral College; that's the general election. In the primaries they're still delegates.
(Needs more coffee.)
Delegate count:
Trump has 378 and Cruz has 295. Rubio has 123 delegates and Kasich has 34.
It takes 1,237 delegates to win the Republican nomination for president.
Including superdelegates, Clinton now has at least 1,121 delegates. Sanders has at least 479. It takes 2,383 delegates to win.
Superdelegate
Governments shouldn't represent religions, it's bad for the government and it's bad for the religion. From Petes' video clip.
No truer words have been said.
The unfortunate results of Angela Merkel's invitation to immigrants. Bit of a sob story; should appeal to Lynnette.
I decided to look at something… Rubio can still drop out of the Presidential contest and run for reelection as a Senator from Florida. The filing deadline isn't until 6 May 2016. The main problem with that is Rubio wasn't havin’ any fun in the Senate; he just didn't like the job, and most everybody knows that.
But, ya never know; his other options seem to be fading before our eyes.
The Baltimore Sun (not known as a bastion of liberalism) reruns a Miami Herald (somewhat less conservative, if not a bastion of liberalism either) op-ed suggesting that the Republican ‘establishment’ made Trump an acceptable to choice. The primary voters perceive that Trump will deliver what the ‘establishment’ only promised, but never really intended to deliver.
Preznit Trump, first 100 days.
Bit of a sob story; should appeal to Lynnette.
*sigh*
I found it profoundly sad.
Woohoo! Rubio takes Puerto Rico. Another 23 delegates in the bag! ;-)
America's Choice 2016.
Woohoo! Rubio takes Puerto Rico.
But he didn't make SNL. :(
"If the ultimate beneficiary of anti-Trump efforts is Ted Cruz, the effort
itself is probably not worthwhile.
self-described "Top Republican Strategist" declining to be quoted by name
"If the ultimate beneficiary of anti-Trump efforts is Ted Cruz, the effort
itself is probably not worthwhile.
I'd agree. If they really wanted a good shot at the general election they needed to dig up someone who would appeal to swing voters and Hillary haters. Cruz ain't it. And Petes is probably right, Rubio wouldn't do it either. But they won't vote for Kasich.
"But they won't vote for Kasich."
Oh, hell no. Kasich is sane; he's got no shot in this Republican Party. He may be a little conservative to suit me, but I think I'd give him a good hard look before I voted for Hillary.
(I am hoping that Cruz pulls it away from Trump though. He'll get his ass kicked in the general, and that'll discourage the right-wing crazies for a time.)
Lynnette, that SNL clip is funny :-)
Bloomberg won't run for President
The former New York City mayor reached his decision, he said Monday, after concluding that a three-way race would benefit Donald Trump and therefore threaten the domestic stability and national security of the United States.
(I am hoping that Cruz pulls it away from Trump though. He'll get his ass kicked in the general, and that'll discourage the right-wing crazies for a time.)
One can only hope.
Lynnette, that SNL clip is funny :-)
I loved the Hillary part. lol!
"…concluding that a three-way race would benefit Donald Trump"
Shoulda checked with us; we coulda told him that months ago.
On another front; looks like Rubio is fading fast.
Lee:
"(I am hoping that Cruz pulls it away from Trump though. He'll get his ass kicked in the general, and that'll discourage the right-wing crazies for a time.) One can only hope.
Sounds like you might like, and even agree, with this piece:
http://www.dallasobserver.com/news/letter-from-texas-listen-america-trump-is-just-embarrassing-cruz-is-scary-8095715
which concludes with:
"An orange-faced, thin-skinned, narcissistic, blow-hard clown versus a truly scary, malevolent alien from the dark side. Oh, and before I forget, gee, thanks for the choice. But I gotta go with the clown. I have examined the clown pretty closely, too, and I think I can outrun him. The other guy, I’m not so sure."
OK, so you saw it kinda the other way around. That you'd rather see Cruz coming out on top instead of Trump based on a certainty that Cruz would fail miserably in the general election. But you might still agree with the underlying assessment of the two in that piece. As PeteS seems to do.
Jimmie Carter makes sort of the same analysis:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jimmy-carter-i-would-choose-donald-trump-over-ted-cruz/
I have to confess I know very little about Cruz myself. I haven't seen a single speach. But if he really is a climate-change-evolution denying gay-hater I sure as s*it wouldn't vote for him.
I don't really feel good about ANY of the main candidates this time around.
"…based on a certainty that Cruz would fail miserably in the general
election."
They'll both fail miserably in the general election. But, if it's Trump the right-wing crazies will convince themselves that it the Republicans had just nominated their man (Cruz) then they'd have won. They will not be humbled. If it's Cruz gets the nomination I get a twofer. The Wall Street Republicans are bright enough to be humbled by the mere fact that Trump came so close to bustin’ through, and the right-win crazies got nothing to hide behind and, while humble ain't in ‘em, it'll at least discourage them for awhile, shut their self-assured ranting for a time while they come up with another faerie tale to explain away why they blew it with Cruz.
Lee:
"They'll both fail miserably in the general election. But, if it's Trump the right-wing crazies will convince themselves that it the Republicans had just nominated their man (Cruz) then they'd have won. They will not be humbled. If it's Cruz gets the nomination I get a twofer""
But let's for arguments sake say one of them would actually win the general election and become president, who would you prefer?
And here I'm not looking at a speech on how improbalbe such an outcome migght be or what a plaugue versus cholera choice it would be but just a plain answer: who of those two would you prefer if you HAD to pick one?
I'm not sure which would be the bigger disaster. Don't see any good way to choose ‘tween the plague and the cholera.
[Lynnette]: "I loved the Hillary part [of SNL]"
Me too, although it was funny because it was so true to life. I presumed I wasn't the only person who noted the ridiculous PC-ness of her backing group, including the token hijab-wearing Muslim.
Here's another one you may like -- the simple ones being the best... ;-)
trumpdonald.org
Holy schmoley! Trump has won both Michigan and Mississippi. The former was perhaps more important but I would have thought the latter more surprising. Not exactly his demographic? I'm even more convinced he's gonna be Preznit. Rubio got smashed -- fourth in both states. I really hope he hangs on long enough to get trounced in his home state next week though ;-)
On the Dem side, the Bern took Michigan, but Hillary got Mississippi.
Yeah, Trump appears to be back on stride after a bit of a stumble last week. He also got Hawaii; but not Idaho, which went to Cruz. Rubio is rapidly becoming ‘poor little Marco’.
Question: I presume it is not a coincidence that some states hold Democratic and Republican primaries or caucuses on the same date. On the other hand, not all do, so there is clearly no general requirement to (nor can I think of any reason why there should be). So, why do those that do so, do so?
My question: might the republican primaries be decided next Tuesday? I see there are a lot of electorate votes in play and that three states, Florida, Illinois and Ohio have large number of votes and are "all votes to the winner"-states.
If Trump takes Florida I assume it would crush any Rubio still holds. And if he should take one or even both of the other states mantioned as well he would seem to be almost unbeatable. I guess the only thing then for the GOP would be to hope for him not to reach 1237 votes all together.
Do you think it will be decided next tuesday or will the uncertainty drag on?
I collected a few stats from here. There are 11 states and 6 non-state territories that have D and R contests on different dates. The 11 states are Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Maine, Nebraska, Nevada, N.Dakota, S.Carolina, Washington and Wyoming. I don't know if it's relevant that all but one of those 11+6 have a caucus for at least one of the parties.
The 39 states in the lower 48 that go on the same date hold 35 primaries and 4 caucuses, if I counted right.
Lots more questions spring to mind, but here's one: those states that have 'open' primaries allow voters to vote in either R or D primaries, but not both. Who enforces that and how is it done?
I don't know about other states, Petes, but in Minnesota the R & D caucuses are held at the same time and entail not just voting but a registration and discussion process that would make it very tough to actually attend and vote in both.
I would presume that a primary voting system, that is held like a general election, would use the same methods that the general election does to avoid double voting. That is, you sign in when you vote.
Marcus' comments yesterday about Cruz made me browse YouTube to look for some interviews with him. The one I happened across wasn't the wing-nutty kind Marcus described but was interesting in what Cruz was saying about the Republican party and the voters. He described voters who were seriously pissed off about the Republicans not being able to repeal ObamaCare despite a majority in the Congress and the lack of resolution on the immigration issue. He basically was appealing to those people with some of his comments. It reminded me of what someone I talked to recently said, it was the same thing. So while Cruz, and Trump, probably do have the wing nut following, they are also appealing to voters who wanted change (from Obama's policies) and didn't get it in the last election.
Do you think it will be decided next tuesday or will the uncertainty drag on?
All comes down to the number of delegates. I don't know the counts in those states off hand.
Here's the current count.
The link I put up a few days ago had a map in it of the delegates per state. That would tell if it is possible.
Gotta run and get some work done...
"I would presume that a primary voting system, that is held like a
general election, would use the same methods that the general election
does to avoid double voting. That is, you sign in when you vote."
That's it. They ask you when you sign in whether you want a Republican or Democratic primary ballot (or maybe even Libertarian, or Conservative, or Constitutional Party in my state, if those minor parties have a primary contest; maybe even a couple more possibilities; but those minor parties have trouble filling the ballot, usually don't, it's seldom they have primary contests)
In strict closed primary states the registering for party affiliation is usually done at the official register's office to avoid people registering with both parties, so they have you on the list as qualifying for that primary or not. They got ya on the one list but not the other.
If Trump wins both Ohio and Florida he's pretty much too far ahead for anybody to ever catch him; he won't yet have the 1237 he needs for a first ballot win, but he'll be so close that it's unlikely they can prevent it. He loses either one of those big ones, they still got a chance of denying him the 1237 for a first ballot win, but it's not lookin’ good. If he loses both, it's still a contest, but he's still ahead.
Ah, ok. You sign in at a single location, where they presumably have a copy of the electoral register. For some reason I imagined the primaries as private affairs for each party, with the whole election mechanism managed by them. I was basing that on the notion that the parties could decide on any sort of contest they wanted: a triathlon or a game of chess if they were so inclined. But I read (here and here) that the state legislature sets the form of the contest, even though there may be some leeway to vary it within the rules.
I also found this on what potentially happens in the case of Trump not getting his 1,237 delegates. One presumes there is centuries of historical context that went into making the whole system so Byzantine!
Here's another one on Hillary.
Byzantine!
Yup, that's the word. lol!
Any chance SNL is a tiny bit partisan? ;-)
Republican ‘debate’ tonight. Trump is on a roll, Cruz's on the rise; Rubio is on the ropes. Kasich got not shot.
Gotta wonder what the debate will be about this time.
Sooooooo Cruz wants to abolish the IRS? Bwahahahahahaha! Good luck with that.
Any chance SNL is a tiny bit partisan? ;-)
Well, I think they did give Trump some time as well. :)
Gotta wonder what the debate will be about this time.
I think they were trying to show they could actually behave and speak civilly.
More likely Trump just has them buffaloed. Rubio took a dive in his support numbers after going after Trump in the last couple of debates.
Post a Comment