Fella here makes an analytical argument for dumping Trump as the GOP nominee. Don't know if he's got his analysis correct, but at least it's different from the usual "Trump isn't a True Conservative" argument coming from true-believer types, and the "Trump is Unstable" argument coming from everybody else.
Lee: "Fella here makes an analytical argument for dumping Trump as the GOP nominee. Don't know if he's got his analysis correct, but at least it's different from the usual "Trump isn't a True Conservative" argument coming from true-believer types, and the "Trump is Unstable" argument coming from everybody else."
I'm not sure at all about that analysis. It states:
"There are four conclusions that can be drawn:"
1. "First, he may well have momentum within the media, but he has none with the voters."
Really? I would actually have said the media, although "any media is good media" as it's sometimes said, has been against Trump. And that the voters so far have been paramount.
2: "Second, Donald Trump is not attracting an overwhelming number of new voters."
New or old, what you're looking for is a majority.
3: "Third, his success is built on a peculiar dynamic where he is facing opponents strong enough to stay in, but not strong enough to knock each other out."
Well, a few have been bumped off already and some of those have even got behind Trump once they were out. Why should it be a weakness to lead in a multi-choice race?
4. "Lastly, the Republican primary numbers show why Trump consistently performs so poorly against Hillary Clinton (and Bernie Sanders) in national polls."
That statement has to be explained to me. How can the GOP primary numbers explain how any one of their candidates would fare against a DEM opponent in the generals? And if it does, why should it apply to Trump only and not all of the would be GOP candidates?
[Marcus]: "I'm not sure at all about that analysis."
Yup, hard not to smell a rat. The author is a principal at Silent Majority Strategies, who bill themselves as "the premier Republican political consulting firm with over 18 years of experience, specializing in voter contact mail and mobile advertising".
His argument is completely illogical -- Trump isn't doing well enough to be the Republican nominee, so let's pick someone else who's doing even worse! Maybe the real problem is that Trump "has the power to disrupt the Republican Party"... and with it the author's business ;-)
Carson just endorsed Trump. Rubio will be out of the race in just over four days time. Nobody wants Cruz as the Republican nominee. I'd say Trump's looking pretty good for Preznit.
I think his point was that, as other Republicans drop out, Trump isn't picking up his proportional share of their voters. They're staying anti-Trump for the most part. His national percentages have jumped from 32% or so to only 35% or so with 13 of the original 17 dropped out.
"New or old, what you're looking for is a majority."
Trump has yet to get that majority.
"Why should it be a weakness to lead in a multi-choice race?"
I think his point was that, in prior Republican contests, it'd typically be down to two by now, Trump and one not-Trump. By now it shouldn't be multi-choice, but Trump's not doing quite well enough to discourage the competition (at least not the four still in, although word is Rubio's people are getting discourage). By this time in 2012 everybody knew it was going to be Romney (wasn't everybody happy with that, but everybody knew; right now the only ones who think they know are Trump and Petes).
"How can the GOP primary numbers explain how any one of their candidates would fare against a DEM opponent in the generals?"
That would be this section of his argument:
"When you dig into the primary numbers, it becomes obvious [that m]ost of the new voters are not Trump supporters – they likely melt away in a general election matchup. In addition, as his Republican opponents leave the race, their supporters move toward other candidates. The resolutely anti-Trump vote is far larger than the pro-Trump vote with both habitual and new voters."
Now, I see a couple of problems with the analysis that got him to this conclusion (start with the language up higher; "My estimation takes the top vote-getter in each contest in 2012…etc." through his application of this ‘proxy’ for numbers he don't got and can't get; it gets pretty shaky right ‘round there as I see things.)
By the way… I strongly suspect John Boehner is laughin’ his ass off when he's out there on the golf course listening in on this stuff on his smartphone ‘tween shots.
I thought about this one more than once before making the link. This one is long, and fairly dense. But it's worth reading to understand…The Obama Doctrine. Weekend's coming up; maybe ya'll will have the time it'll take to wade through it…
We are all aware that Mr. Gorbachev laughed at him and blew him off, are we not?
I believe the President of Mexico was equally, although not quite so amused as Gorbachev, disinclined to agree with Donald Trump on his idea that Mexico should pay for a wall between the US and Mexico.
But what I was contrasting was Reagan's use of the idea of freedom and liberty to break down barriers and Donald Trump's use of almost a racist attitude to build barriers between people. What has made America great in the past is not that kind of xenophobic attitude. So Trump's campaign slogan of "Make America Great Again" is a complete fraud.
Btw, there was supposed to be a rally for Trump this evening in Chicago. It has been called off because of violent clashes between pro-Trump and anti-Trump supporters. I think this behavior is a symptom of the negative aspect of Trump's campaign.
Rubio, in what can only be seen as a last ditch, desperation measure, has come out in public with the proposition that Ohio voters who want to stop Trump, even his supporters, should vote for Kasich as a 'favorite son' candidate. Time.com The flip-side of this is that Rubio suggests that Kasich and Cruz voters should vote for him, Rubio, in Florida. Neither Kasich nor Cruz appear to have been consulted for this decision, or, if consulted, they did not agree to reciprocate. Kasich is already making claims that Rubio's move is proof that he, Kasich, is the ‘coming thing’ in the Republican primaries, the rising star who can best take on Trump at the convention and Hillary in the fall. Cruz hasn't returned the ‘favor’ either although it doesn't apply to Cruz, on account of he already won his home state of Texas. He went ahead and made campaign appearances in Florida yesterday. (One of the Cruz affiliated Super-PACs did pull advertising for Cruz in Florida, but that decision was said to made pragmatically--spend the money where it would do more good--and not as a response to Rubio's gambit, and that the decision was made before Rubio's announcement.)
Obama's made a speech claiming that the Republicans are merely reaping the whirlwind after sowing the wind itself. Politico.com I don't always agree entirely with Obama, but I'm down with that one.
Another voting analysis, this time from FiveThirtyEight, says Cruz's still got a shot at a win on the field, (slim shot, but a shot) but only if Rubio drops out. Better if Rubio had dropped out three weeks ago. I trust Nate Silver's analyses a bit more than that last guy. Partly because Silver has a track record for accuracy (useful when speculating as Silver also does here) and he has a reputation for impartiality when it comes down to numbers.
(He agrees with the other analyst that most of the freed-up votes will continue to go to #NeverTrump as candidates drop out.)
Rubio, in what can only be seen as a last ditch, desperation measure, has come out in public with the proposition that Ohio voters who want to stop Trump, even his supporters, should vote for Kasich as a 'favorite son' candidate. Time.com The flip-side of this is that Rubio suggests that Kasich and Cruz voters should vote for him, Rubio, in Florida.
Actually I can see his reasoning. It's partly why I was so happy Rubio had won in Minnesota. If you can split the delegates enough Trump will not get his majority, leading to a brokered convention. They were just talking a little about his idea on CNN just now. So far it doesn't sound like Kasich or Cruz are on board with it.
Rubio is just now speaking on CNN about Trump's rhetoric which seems to be leading to more divisive attitudes in America. Sure, he's doing it for his political gain, but he is also right.
By the way… I strongly suspect John Boehner is laughin’ his ass off when he's out there on the golf course listening in on this stuff on his smartphone ‘tween shots.
Yes, even the wing nuts in the Republican party, who were the bane of his existence, are being backed into a corner now. And his timing is starting to look impeccable.
I've started reading the Obama Doctrine link. I can't believe it! I actually agree with Joe Biden! His caution to Obama not do draw a red line in Syria over chemical weapons was exactly right. Don't say it if you don't mean it. And Syria really was a test of Obama's resolve that people were paying close attention to. Putin being one, I'm thinking.
I do find it ironic that Angela Merkel was against intervention in Syria. Things might have turned out differently for her and her country in the long run if she had thought differently.
Oh well, back to the article...I just had to stop and comment before I forgot this point.
Yeah, the guy didn't get too far into that, but Obama's people were surprised when he made that comment. It was ill advised. I don't know what got into him there, but I suspect he got caught thinking out loud. Still, while making that comment was a mistake; backing it up would have been a bigger mistake. The congressional Republicans would now be savaging him for having gotten us into the ‘shit storm’ that is Syria, and the country wasn't ready for another adventure either and wouldn't be supporting the war if we were in it up to our boots.
"We have here an explanation of the contested convention for Marcus."
Thanks Lee, that was informative. I kinda knew the first part about how important it is to get 1237 delegates. But I had no real idea about how it would play out if a candidate gained a plurality but fell short of a majority. That was interesting to learn.
My best analysis here is that Trump, if he is to get the nomination, must get 1237 delegates or at the very least come VERY close to it and persuade some of those non-committed delegates before the "second round" when many delegates are free to vote as they wish. If it gets to the "second round" I'd expect the Party that doesn't seem that enthralled by Trump to whip the delegates to choose someone else - who I have no idea about.
To get the nomination Trump most likely must win in Florida and Ohio because they are "winner takes it all" states with many delegates. Or at the very least one of them. I'm not sure wether one could be enough or not. That would depend on the voting in upcoming state elections. But if he scores both it would look good for him, and possibly that would also make others who have so far sat on the sidelines or even opposed him rally behind him.
"Another voting analysis, this time from FiveThirtyEight, says Cruz's still got a shot at a win on the field, (slim shot, but a shot) but only if Rubio drops out."
It is interesting. But it's still "what if number crunching". For one thing if it was a two way race between Trump and Cruz the debates would have played out differently and the coverage would be different. Ergo the voters might have reacted differently too.
That said, it does seem like it would benefit non-Trump candidates (possibly Cruz is the only viable option at this point) if the field narrowed, which it probably soon will.
[Lynnette]: "But what I was contrasting was Reagan's use of the idea of freedom and liberty to break down barriers and Donald Trump's use of almost a racist attitude to build barriers between people. What has made America great in the past is not that kind of xenophobic attitude. So Trump's campaign slogan of "Make America Great Again" is a complete fraud."
I have to heartily disagree with this. Reagan was talking about a country -- Germany -- artificially divided between east and west. The German people, by and large, were in favour of reunification although it stretched them to the limit economically and politically in terms of costs (e.g. the solidarity tax), job market impacts, and voter disenchantment. They still considered themselves a single nation, which is not surprising: although the modern nation state in Europe is no older than the USA, they were formed on the basis of tribal ties that went back millennia.
Trump is talking about a solution to a very thorny illegal migration problem between two countries that don't have quite the same cultural ties. If it's xenophobic to raise any murmur against it, why was there a big security gate on the road last time I was on the Mexican border? Fling it open and let people travel unhindered!
[Lynnette]: "Btw, there was supposed to be a rally for Trump this evening in Chicago. It has been called off because of violent clashes between pro-Trump and anti-Trump supporters. I think this behavior is a symptom of the negative aspect of Trump's campaign."
There's no doubt the Trump campaign has attracted some assholes (possibly including his campaign manager). But I genuinely doubt Trump is a racist, although his opponents and the media would like to paint it that way. From everything I've heard, Trump's primary concern seems to be trade and job security, which is why you apparently have some Bernie supporters whose second preference is Trump, not Hillary.
Question on that: If Rubio loses in Florida won't he be more or less forced to drop out? And if so, do you think he will endorse any of the remaining candidates and if so who?
If it gets to the "second round" I'd expect the Party that doesn't seem that enthralled by Trump to whip the delegates to choose someone else - who I have no idea about.
I haven't had a chance to look at Lee's link, but I have read a little on how a brokered convention works. Those delegates who are "bound" to a candidate, who does not have enough delegates to win, are still his to do with as he chooses. He can instruct them to vote for whomever he wants. I would assume that means his choice can be anyone who is still in the race, not just those who have the largest number of delegates assigned to them.
If the Republican candidates running truly want a chance at the White House, and are not just looking out for their own interests, they would do well to look at who in the race at that point has the best chance of beating Hillary or Bernie. Someone who has been laying in the weeds, not diving into the mud wrestling, someone who even a Donald Trump supporter could vote for, might be a good choice.
"I thought about this one more than once before making the link. This one is long, and fairly dense. But it's worth reading to understand…The Obama Doctrine. Weekend's coming up; maybe ya'll will have the time it'll take to wade through it…"
That was long, very long, but quite interesting.
The one thing I think is that much of that piece and the analysis is based on a false premis. It takes for granted that Assad was indeed behing the chemical weapons attack in Ghouta. I believe he wasn't. I believe Obama knew this. I believe that's why he decided not to react to it other than by words.
The attack was meant precisely to force the US into the war by crossing Obama's previously stated red line. Obviously it would have been insane for Assad to cross that line. But advantageous for anyone wanting to drag the US into was against the Syrian regime. It was a false flag - and Obama knew it. He couldn't come out and say it but he wisely didn't react the way the instigators wanted him to.
Kasich I presume. I don't know enough about him to pass judgement but what I can say is that what I do know I kinda like.
Also I hope someone else than Hillary will win. I just don't plain like her. But she loos like a 60% bet at this point to me, I wouldn't bet against her unless I got good odds.
Reagan was talking about a country -- Germany -- artificially divided between east and west. The German people, by and large, were in favour of reunification...
Oh yes, I agree, the Germans wanted reunification. It was not the Germans who built the wall(not really) in the first place, and it was not the Germans that Reagan appealed to in his speech. The barriers between people were those between East and West, or more specifically, the Soviet Union and the United States. It was always the Soviet Union's xenophobia that was the stumbling point in that case.
Trump is talking about a solution to a very thorny illegal migration problem between two countries that don't have quite the same cultural ties.
I think there are many close cultural ties between Mexico and the United States. We are a melting pot and have many ties around the world. What Donald Trump has said in the past is that many Mexican immigrants are rapists and criminals. There are rapists and criminals in every country, including ours, why single out Mexico? All that does is raise animosity and walls between people. Not to mention it being false.
But I genuinely doubt Trump is a racist,...
I honestly don't know. But his words certainly seem to appeal to some who are.
Yes, I mean Kasich. I don't know everything about him either, but like you, what I have heard from him I have found to be at least reasonable.
As for Hillary, I have not voted for her in the past, but of the current front runners she is the one I would have to vote for. I have heard arguments that Bernie's, and Trump's actually, idea of spending more on infrastructure would be a good thing as rates are so low now, and what we need is more spending to create more jobs and update our infrastructure. But I am not sold yet. I still think we need some framework in place to pay for some of these things.
"If Rubio loses in Florida won't he be more or less forced to drop out?"
He will be under major pressure to drop out the next morning, from his supporters as well as from Cruz, as well as from everybody in the #NeverTrump movement. Whom he endorses is an open question; I'm gonna guess it'll be Cruz, but it could be Kasich. His politics are closer to Cruz’, for the moment, but his political instincts could drive him to Kasich as better for him, for Rubio that is, down the line.
"He can instruct them to vote for whomever he wants."
In some states that's a matter of custom, not a thing that can be enforced. But, for reasons I won't go into here; it's a strong custom.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ "…someone who even a Donald Trump supporter could vote for, might be a good choice."
Problem is, by a wide margin, Cruz is the second choice for the Trump people.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ "I believe [Assad] wasn't behind [the chem weapons attack on Ghouda]"
And the conspiracy theory flake raises his hoary head up outta Marcus' chest once again… I ain't even gonna bother…
[Lynnette]: "What Donald Trump has said in the past is that many Mexican immigrants are rapists and criminals. There are rapists and criminals in every country, including ours, why single out Mexico? All that does is raise animosity and walls between people. Not to mention it being false."
Other people claim you shouldn't extrapolate from the USA's (astonishingly huge) incarceration rates, nor should you average across the whole country. I'm not sure it matters though. It's very similar to the immigration arguments ripping through UK politics at the moment. There the argument is that immigrants are using up welfare and medical care resources, which can certainly be shown to be false. The issue that Trump is exploiting with his supporters is actually an economic one: competition for jobs. It is always the lower paid who experience that more keenly. Hillary (or Romney of the "47%" gaff) supporters have the luxury of calling Trump a racist, and appealing to the melting pot metaphor, precisely because they are less likely to have to deal with the economic consequences of immigration.
Ahh! The champions of free speech celebrating after successfully disrupting that Trump rally. Didn't I see them standing behind Hillary somewhere recently? ;-)
"I thought that in Thursday night’s debate, Cruz was a star. He is credible as a thinking person’s candidate — although my sister said he reminds her a little bit of Frank Burns from “M*A*S*H,” which is not so good." Ed Rogers in the WaPo
"From my perspective as a fervent supporter of the ruggedly honest and principled Bernie Sanders, Trump with his pragmatic real-life record is a far more palatable national figure than Ted Cruz, whose unctuous, vainglorious professions of Christian piety don’t pass the smell test. Trump is a blunt, no-crap mensch, while Cruz is a ham actor, doling out fake compassion like chopped liver. Cruz’s lugubrious, weirdly womanish face, with its prim, tight smile and mawkishly appealing puppy-dog eyebrows, is like a waxen mask, always on the verge of melting. This guy doesn’t know who the hell he is—and the White House is no place for him and us to find out."
From the same article, Camille Paglia says about Trump:
"Nevertheless, Trump’s fearless candor and brash energy feel like a great gust of fresh air, sweeping the tedious clichés and constant guilt-tripping of political correctness out to sea. Unlike Hillary Clinton, whose every word and policy statement on the campaign trail are spoon-fed to her by a giant paid staff and army of shadowy advisors, Trump is his own man, with a steely “damn the torpedoes” attitude. He has a swaggering retro machismo that will give hives to the Steinem cabal. He lives large, with the urban flash and bling of a Frank Sinatra. But Trump is a workaholic who doesn’t drink and who has an interesting penchant for sophisticated, strong-willed European women. As for a debasement of the presidency by Trump’s slanging matches about penis size, that sorry process was initiated by a Democrat, Bill Clinton, who chatted about his underwear on TV, let Hollywood pals jump up and down on the bed in the Lincoln Bedroom, and played lewd cigar games with an intern in the White House offices."
Poor Ms. Paglia is so often wrong. In this case spectacularly wrong. Cruz knows exactly who he is and exactly what he wants and he's known it for a long time. He ran for Texas Attorney General years ago with the idea of turning the office into a bullhorn for his presidential ambitions. And he's walked a mapped path ever since then. I think he made up his mind probably even before he was in college, but at least by the time he got to college.
lol! Well, I do have to admit to liking Mexican food. But we have many people here with ties to Mexico. They bring their culture with them, be it food, music, religion etc. In some regions of the country Spanish is second only to English as the spoken language. You will find many official documents printed in both English and Spanish(as well as other languages).
I haven't been able to read all of the Obama Doctrine link yet. *sigh* I was falling asleep last night and had things to do today. And now I'm out of time again...I do want to finish it though, it is very interesting. I will have to check out the other links later too.
Bombing in Anakaru, Turkey and al-Qaeda butchery on the Ivory Coast. The Turkish government has blamed the bombing on the PKK, but the targeting suggests Da'esh is perhaps responsible.
One of the possibilities, but not the most likely I don't think. Perhaps his ‘allies’ weren't being agreeable to his inclinations somehow. I do get the feeling that Putin simply informed Assad that this was how it was gonna be starting tomorrow.
"The Russian intervention is a stunning success, that is indisputable. Vladimir Putin and the Russian military ought to be particularly praised for having set goals fully commensurate with their real capabilities. The Russians went in with a small force and they achieved limited goals: the legitimate authority of the Syrian government has been stabilized and the conditions for a political compromise have been created. That is not an opinion, but the facts on the ground. Not even the worst Putin-haters can dispute that. Today’s declaration shows that the Russians are also sticking to their initial exit strategy and are now confident enough to withdraw their forces. That is nothing short of superb (when is the last time the USA did that?)."
Here's a thought; suppose they stop Trump at the convention:
"Then the final vote happens, and the TV networks following the drama announce that someone other than Donald Trump will by the 2016 Republican nominee. It isn't a stretch to imagine that Trump's most fervent supporters, some inside the hall and some gathered outside, will positively lose their minds. "These people—who have been told that the party bosses are their enemy, who have been told that the country is run by idiots, who have been told that everything is going to hell and Trump is the only one who can save them, who have been told that they should nurture their resentments and let it all flow out of them in a righteous river of rage—these people will now learn that it has been stolen from them. Will they say, 'Man, I'm really disappointed,' and head back home, heads hung low? Or will they look for somebody's head to bash? "Maybe they'll surprise us, and it will turn out to be the former. But Trump has already given them permission to do whatever they feel." American Prospect
When can we expect some results from todays primaries do you think? I'm 6 hours ahead of Eastern Standard Time so I guess I'll have to wait for the final results until tomorrow, but perhaps there will be preliminary results?
There may perhaps be exit polls, but you'll not be hearing from those until the polls close. I'm not sure when that starts happenin’, 7:00 pm Eastern Time for Florida probably.
It appears that Florida won't come in until later; the panhandle extends into the Central Time Zone, so they'll not start giving exit polls on Florida until 8:00 pm Eastern Daylight time.
No need to wait until morning. So, Kasich is the last of sane Republicans standing then. (Don't mean I'd vote for him--sane for a Republican candidate these days is, after all, a relative term. But, the alternative is Cruz or Hillary, so ya never know how that'd sort out by November. I'd give him a look over anyway.)
I'm not sure there's a dark horse left. Black Swan maybe. Possibles for the convention are Jeb! (not bloody likely); Romney (likewise not likely); maybe Paul Ryan. If I were to put money on it; I'd bet Paul Ryan, but I demand damn high odds.
232/367 = 63% of the total number of delegates for Trump.
Cruz can't count that as anything other than a disaster. Of course he's been a bit unlucky also with a very low dividend in delegates for the votes he got. He scored way lower total delegates than Kasich even though he got way higher total voter support in all 6 areas combined.
I know that's irrelevant, just pointing out Cruz was really unlucky with the allocation of the votes he actually got.
I'd say the Republicans would like someone like Paul Ryan, but could they really shoo in somebody that nobody has voted for? Cruz sounds more plausible, but a lot of people hate him. Despite Trump's popularity it does seem he might have difficulty reaching an uncontested majority. By my count he would need about 70% of about a thousand delegates remaining. Sounds like a recipe for a GOP implosion. Whoever emerges will already have lumps knocked out of 'em even before they get in the ring with Hillary. After the callibre of the Republican fight, I'm pretty sure it's not a case of "whatever doesn't kill you making you stronger".
"Whoever emerges will already have lumps knocked out of 'em even before they get in the ring with Hillary."
I believe that also includes Trump, even if he gets enough delegates for a first round win from the field. We'll real quick discover that the ‘I'm gonna support the nominee even if it's Trump’ stuff don't hold up if the nominee's actually Trump.
Pete: "Despite Trump's popularity it does seem he might have difficulty reaching an uncontested majority. By my count he would need about 70% of about a thousand delegates remaining."
By my count it looks a bit different. Officialy he's at 621 right now with 1134 remaining delegates.
But quite credible information says he'll get about 42 out of 52 delegates in Missouri (Cruz claiming 10) which would put him at 663 with 1082 remaining. That'd mean he'd need to score 574 delegates out of those 1082 which comes to 53%. Not that unfeasible.
"Officialy he's at 621 right now with 1134 remaining delegates"
Politico.com doesn't quite count as ‘officially’ within the Republican Party. There are various other counts out there as some folks estimates round one way or another. Generally, they'll all be within a couple of votes of one another, but it ain't ‘officially’ ‘til it gets to Cleveland and gets ruled on by the Credentials Committee and Chairman Paul Ryan his own self.
OK, it's not officially. But I believe the estimate that Trump needs (around) 53% of the remaining delegates is first of all a pretty close estimate, and second of all quite a big difference from PeteS 70% estimate.
Reaching 70% of the remainders I would have agreed was extremely unlikely, maybe even impossible. 53% is, while by no means a sure thing, at least doable. That's why I thought it was relevant to look more closely at the numbers.
"But, I do think Missouri is in "automatic recount" territory for both parties."
I guess if it comes down to just a fraction of a percentage point they'd want a recount.
I have to say it's a bit curious with this whole setup where some states assign delegates proportionally to the votes the candidates get, some are winner takes all and some are winner takes most. It does make it exciting and the number of different scenarios increase, but still I find it curious.
Do you have any explanation for this? I get that one factor must be that the states in the US are way more independent from the central government than regions in European countries are.
Is it that some states think their state will get a bigger say if they pool all their delegates behind one candidate?
"I get that one factor must be that the states in the US are way more independent…"
That's most of it. They made up their own rules as they thought best.
" Is it that some states think their state will get a bigger say if they pool all their delegates behind one candidate?"
And there's that too. There is also the will of the national party to consider (‘RNC’ stands for ‘Republican National Committee’; there's a DNC too). In order to have an ‘orderly’ process that develops over the course of the spring the national committees issue rules about sanctioned debates, and who can hold their primaries when. It's up to the state committees to decide whether to hold primaries or caucuses and the local rules for same (open or closed, for instance). The national committees enforce their rules by forbidding any states to move their primaries up too early on pain of losing delegates, and also hold that anybody tries to "jump the line" has to award delegates proportionally prior to a certain date (varies with the two parties)
I'd say that, with the rise of Trump, today's Republican Party has fully returned to it's true Democratic Party roots in the tradition of Andrew Jackson and Huey Long, and most recently, George Wallace.
Obama has nominated a new Supreme Court Justice to replace Scalia in the face of Republican promises that they will not give the nomination any hearing. They vow to not hold any hearings at all--stonewall it clear to the election. (The nominee is one Merrick Garland, not that it matters except to say that Mr. Garland has balls). I suspect this will play to Democrat's advantage in the general election, which Obama suspects also, else he'd not have done it.
"I'd say the Republicans would like someone like Paul Ryan, but could they really shoo in somebody that nobody has voted for?"
I don't know enough about Ryan to offer an opinion on his qualities. And I don't know how it would play to lauch a candidate to the generals who hasn't even participated in the primaries (it sounds like a long shot to me - but I could be wrong). I thought you might find this interesting:
"Politico reports that Boehner, speaking at a conference in Boca Raton, Florida, said: “If we don’t have a nominee who can win on the first ballot, I’m for none of the above. They all had a chance to win. None of them won. So I’m for none of the above. I’m for Paul Ryan to be our nominee.”"
Lee: "Trump is threatening riots if they peel the nomination away from him"
But is he wrong really? This is what he said:
""Now, if you disenfranchise those people and you say, well I'm sorry but you're 100 votes short, even though the next one is 500 votes short, I think you would have problems like you've never seen before. I think bad things would happen, I really do. I believe that. I wouldn't lead it but I think bad things would happen," he said."
I'm not sure how it works in the US. But I can guarantee you that in Europe if you had a similar situation and one candidate got a large win in the number of votes but was then shut out, there WOULD be riots. Severe riots. (even worse if it was on the left wing but also serious it was on the right)
It's plausible that this would happen in the US as well. Not at the same level as in Europe perhaps, but it could well happen. So he says that. Then he says he wouldn't lead such riots. Is that really a threat? Or is it a recognition of reality?
Come to think of it. What if Sanders in a hypothetical scenario was to win over Hillary with 50% more delegates, and the Dems had then used some shenanigans to shut him out in favour of an "establishment choice".
By the way, there is a long tradition of American political parties turning to alternative candidates as a compromise when the major front runners can't quite get to a majority. In fact, that's how Abraham Lincoln got the nomination way back when--front runners couldn't come to agreement among themselves and so after several ballots Lincoln emerged as the compromise so the delegates could finally go home. (Woodrow Wilson is an example in the early 1900's Democratic party.) These things happened generally without rioting.
Ok, so I might not be as tuned in as you are. But the fact that if a candidate has a great lead and thus a great claim to the nomination and then is just shut out - how could that not antagonise that candidates' supporters? And when we're talking of millions of people how would that not intice at least a few thousands to rioting? Then depending on the demographics voting for that candidate it would play out differently.
"how could that not antagonise that candidates' supporters?"
Perhaps it does antagonize the major candidates' supporters. But our system has the coalitions and governing alliances forming within the parties, before the nominations and the general election instead of after (as is the European custom). It's pretty much just the way it works. Wiki up Abraham Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson if ya don't believe me. Add maybe Wendall Willkie, whom you've probably never heard of, but who came the closest the Republicans ever did to beating Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Alright, I'm not going to sit here and try to defend the statments of Trump that there might be riots, because I believe such statments might incite riots. It was a stupid and reckless thing to say to begin with, by Trump.
I'm just saying I don't believe it to be false. I think it was a true prediction and the only thing Trump does wrong is that his true prediction, once publically spoke, might serve to enhance the rioting.
(That said I see leftist rioting as a far more common sight than rightist rioting - and often the bar for what's right- or wrong- rioting is very much different where leftists are given much more leeway)
It's just the way our system has worked, both parties; leftists and the others too, and without rioting, and certainly without the candidates giving rioting the nod and wink treatment.
"But our system has the coalitions and governing alliances forming within the parties, before the nominations and the general election instead of after (as is the European custom)."
Yes I'm on a learning curve right now, trying to figure out how your system works while I'm following this year's elections. I don't presume to know it all, or even much, which is why I ask soo many questions here.
Also, as I have said before, it's difficuly for us to speak about leftists and rightists and understand each other. I mean, Sanders on his actual politics might well be seen as a right wing politician in Europe, in some quarters at least. Hillary for sure would be firmly to the right over here, on most matters (though not all).
Left and right, in the USA and in Europe, are 4 different things.
So now we debate the US primaries and we should, in our debate, adhere to a US version of left VS right. I know that, but I might not always get it right.
I'm curious; how often ya'll have major rioting after a national vote of ‘no confidence’ (which is basically the equivalent of Trump can't even get a majority within his own party)
Or, perhaps it'd be more like the Sweden Democrats deciding to have riots because the Social Democrats and the Green Party decided to form up coalition without naming Jimmie Åkesson as its leader.
We don't. But we don't have a system where a majority candidate can be "overruled".
Here we have ONE vote for parliament. You vote for ONE party. And then the parties get representation in parliament based on those votes. (you have municipally and national votes)
The exception is that a party needs to gain 4% of the vote to get into parliament. This is to keep spoilers and fanatics out. They usually know they ars spoilers and fanatics and don't react much when they don't get into parliament which the never really thought they would.
So the scenario of "no confidence" wouldn't really apply here. I guess it could apply but not in the same way, and not directly conected to the election process.
"Or, perhaps it'd be more like the Sweden Democrats deciding to have riots because the Social Democrats and the Green Party decided to form up coalition without naming Jimmie Åkesson as its leader."
That is so impossible I can't really comment on it. I fear you have very little insight into those parties you mention.
"Here we have ONE vote for parliament. You vote for ONE party."
Yes, I'm aware of that.
"I fear you have very little insight into those parties you mention."
Rather, you've missed the point. How can Trumps' followers expect the Republicans to put him forward as leader of the coalition to which he does not belong?
Yes, I'm sure Trump will agree with you and will say that his people rioting is ‘their fault’ also. (Probably also agree with you that ‘liberals’ are more likely to riot even as his people are rioting and the liberals are not.)
And, just by the way, the Republican ‘establishment’ cannot be faulted for that. They have come up with a fully coherent completely integrated, and tightly coordinated ideology. It just has the unfortunate flaw of being based on a fantasy; it doesn't work in the real world--kinda like Marx's communism or luminiferous æther, or the theory of phlogiston. Happens to not work out in the real world--premises ain't true.
[Marcus]: We don't. But we don't have a system where a majority candidate can be "overruled".
Trump is far from having a majority of Republican voters backing him. He might have the most delegates in this step of the election process, but that's it. This is a selection process for each of the parties, deciding who they will run in the general election. Various states use different methods, some open voting, others a caucus system. Minnesota uses a caucus system, which limits the number of people who turn out to vote. Something I think we should change, myself. So the number of voters who may vote Republican in the general election are far higher then in this early round.
Trump may be right that there may be some people who would protest his losing a Republican nomination, as there are some rather extreme people in his ranks of supporters, but it is really the Republican party's choice as to what candidate they field. These primaries are what we refer to as "straw polls", to get a feel for the sentiment of the American public. And right now it looks very divided on the Republican side. You will see at the convention that the rounds of voting gradually free up delegates to go their separate way from the candidate who they were originally slated to vote for, if there is no clear choice in the first round. That is where you will get the back door wheeling and dealing.
I haven't finished reading the Obama Doctrine yet. I am almost done, far enough at least to include everything that the following OpEd piece covers, anyway.
I tend to agree with number 5. If you think about it, it's also the reason so many people want us to be involved in foreign affairs, not just because they want us to do all of the work. They wouldn't admit it though.
Here is a delegate count and some alternative scenarios. This article talks about California, which I had been wondering about with regard to Trump. For some reason I can't see CA voting big time for Trump. They vote in June. I am still betting on a contested convention.
"For some reason I can't see CA voting big time for Trump."
We're not considering California voting for Trump, but rather California's Republican primary voters voting for Trump. California has a strict closed Republican primary. California gave us Ronald Reagan, and Arnold Schwarzenegger as governors, so they go for celebrities; and it's the hotbed center of the John Birch Society, so they go for crazy too. Trump is currently leading by 16% among California Republican likely primary voters.
Question: can the same individual vote in both the Dem and the Rep primaries?
It would be kind of hard to do in Minnesota with a caucus system. The caucuses are held at the same time with registration and discussions prior to voting. The time allotted for the actual voting isn't very much, so it would be difficult to get from one to the other within the time allowed. As for the primary voting (held like a general election) I think you just go to your usual polling place and they give you a ballot. You must vote a straight party ticket or your vote is disallowed.
I finally finished the Obama Doctrine. I think that he thinks very much like a lawyer, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I suppose it will be history that will judge.
If you are a supporter of the president, his strategy makes eminent sense: Double down in those parts of the world where success is plausible, and limit America’s exposure to the rest. His critics believe, however, that problems like those presented by the Middle East don’t solve themselves—that, without American intervention, they metastasize.
I very much fear that in this both the President and his critics may be right.
"His critics believe, however, that problems like those presented by the Middle East don’t solve themselves…"
Unfortunately, for too many people that's the end of the thought process. They assume that there must be a solution, and so, if the problems won't solve themselves, it therefore follows that we must have the solution. This is highly fallacious reasoning. (They will solve themselves eventually--may be dead bodies all over the Middle East, and not enough live people left to bury them, but that is a solution.)
So, whaddya think of the Belgians captured Salah Abdeslam the other day? (I heard on NBC that he couldn't escape to Syria on account of Da’esh wouldn't be very forgiving of him having neglected to blow himself up with the rest of them, and this severely limited his options for escape.)
Lee: "So, whaddya think of the Belgians captured Salah Abdeslam the other day?"
That seems a very good thing. A guy like him you'd expect to try to strike again if he got the opportunity. Perhaps he'll talk and they can catch more of 'em.
"I heard on NBC that he couldn't escape to Syria on account of Da’esh wouldn't be very forgiving of him having neglected to blow himself up with the rest of them, and this severely limited his options for escape."
And now he even got took alive, what must they think of him?
(I heard on NBC that he couldn't escape to Syria on account of Da’esh wouldn't be very forgiving of him having neglected to blow himself up with the rest of them, and this severely limited his options for escape.)
Even worse, Daesh had already claimed responsibility for an attack at the location he was supposed to blow himself up at. Oops.
Perhaps he'll talk and they can catch more of 'em.
Maybe so. The French are akready saying that there were more people involved in the attack than originally thought. Perhaps he is already talking.
There is also the American from, I believe it was Virginia, who gave himself up to the Kurds. He had traveled through Syria and into Mosul to follow an Iraqi girl he had met, and presumably to join Daesh. However, Mosul wasn't quite what he was expecting, either in living conditions or in the religious leadership. Apparently he had some disagreement with their view of Islam. But I would presume that he is not home free. I suspect there may be issues with him just returning to the US and going about his life. So he may want to be forthcoming with any information on Daesh. For example, their operations, and the location of any significant people or buildings.
(They will solve themselves eventually--may be dead bodies all over the Middle East, and not enough live people left to bury them, but that is a solution.)
Somehow I don't think that will happen without it affecting other areas of the world.
Lynnette: "Maybe so. The French are akready saying that there were more people involved in the attack than originally thought. Perhaps he is already talking."
I wonder what the french iterrogators will throw at him. We've had this huge global debate over 'Merican torture, waterboarding and whatnot, but I actually doubt that french (or brittish) security services are any more squaemish.
Swedish sec services for sure would be more squaemish, and probably German too, but the french are probably a lot harder than folks might think. And the brits are tough as nails, always have been, but they're not involved in this instance.
And that's without mentioning many Eastern European countries where, in a situation like this, outright torture would be completely expected.
^And I don't say that as an advocate for torture. I hate torture above all things and one reason I was seriously pissed off at America during the "war on terror" were the many instances of state sponsored (or state turning a blind eye to) torture.
That said, 'Merica isn't the worst culprit by far in that area. Possibly there are even nations in the "developed world" that are worse. And in the rest of the world it's plain rampant, unfortunately.
Weren't all that many considering the number of captives we went through; well, was more if we include the ‘turn a blind eye thing’. Unfortunately, arguing how many is already a lost cause; wasn't supposed to be none. We're Americans; we're not supposed to do that. One of the things I cannot abide in today's political scene is that there are resurgent neo-con types who're again willing to publicly argue the old arguments in favor torture (along with the argument that torture won't be torture (not legally anyway) if we'll just let them write some new legal definitions.).
We are human with all the human failings. It is something the founding fathers understood when they wrote the Constitution like they did with all of its checks and balances. They were worried about a possible dictatorship somewhere down the road. While we would like to believe that we are above using dirty tactics in a war realistically speaking we are just as capable of doing so as others. At least we have questioned ourselves in an effort to limit such type of behavior in the future.
I wonder what the french iterrogators will throw at him.
I think he is still in Belgium? I thought I read that his lawyer was going to fight extradition? That doesn't mean that he hasn't been interviewed by French intelligence, though. But I would think the Belgians have ultimate control over his fate at the moment.
At the moment. But I seriously doubt any lawyer is going to stop the extradition to France of a french citizen behind a terrorist attack such as the ones in Paris.
Imagine if the US citizens behind the San Bernadino attacks had been caught in Canada. You don't think the US would get them and fairly quickly?
Majority support for Senate confirmation hearings for Obama's Supreme Court choice. Monmouth poll Obama's got a winning issue here with independents, but it's not going to be enough to move the Republican Senate. Merrick Garland's nomination is still going nowhere. It's a good issue with the Republican ‘base’ and that's all the McConnell's caring about just now.
Both of the remaining Democratic nominees top Trump by a wide margin in hypothetical general election matchups, Sanders over Trump by 20 points and Clinton over Trump by 12 points. Sanders fares better than Clinton against each of the three remaining Republicans, topping Cruz by 13 points and Kasich by 6. Clinton runs even with Cruz and trails Kasich by 6 points.
But it looks like most Republicans aren't listening to that. They seem to prefer Kasich drop out.
Obama's got a winning issue here with independents, but it's not going to be enough to move the Republican Senate.
I think you're right, it will be an issue for Independents. But do you think Obama was playing this card for current consumption or for the general election? If the Republicans stonewall this nomination they will again make themselves look like they are the ones who will not work with those across the aisle, encouraging Independents to think twice about voting for Republicans in November.
"But do you think Obama was playing this card for current consumption or for the general election?"
Both. When Mitch McConnell came out publicly with a ‘no more Supreme Court appointments for Obama’ edict, before Scalia's body had even cooled to room temperature, it was pretty much a no-brainer that Obama was gonna make the nomination. Only question was whether he was gonna name a known liberal judge and get the Democratic base all excited and turning out to vote, or go with a moderate to make the Republicans look bad with moderates and independents.
"Sanders over Trump by 20 points and Clinton over Trump by 12 points…"
This mostly reflects that Hillary's negatives have been much waved around already by the Republicans. They haven't started in on Sanders. If they came to it Sanders would slip as against Trump, but probably still beat him. (Of course, the Republicans didn't go after Trump either; they were afraid to do so at first. Just you wait ‘til the Clinton campaign gets done with him; they just waitin’ to uncork on the Republican ticket until it's clear whether it's gonna be Trump or Cruz. They got all kinds of ammo on both.)
Just you wait ‘til the Clinton campaign gets done with him; they just waitin’ to uncork on the Republican ticket until it's clear whether it's gonna be Trump or Cruz. They got all kinds of ammo on both.
I'll bet. I think we've only seen the tip of the iceberg for dirty laundry with those two. I know they'll have a field day with Trump.
I don't much reckon the Brussel's bombing is gonna make the Europeans much more favorably disposed to taking in Muslim migrants than they were last week.
We have Cruz and Kasich both making calls for Obama to come home from Cuba and forgo his next planned stop in Argentina. But, I don't recall a whole passel of European leader changing their schedules after the murders in San Bernardino.
I think I would be a little more concerned with those who are already in Europe than those who are in the pipeline. There is also that clause in their agreement with Turkey allowing visa free travel within Europe for Turkish citizens that I would be a little concerned about considering that the last attack in Turkey was by a Turkish national with allegiance to Daesh.
I can't think what Obama could do at home that he can't do on his trip. The President seems to always be accessible for a crisis.
Cruz seems to think that what the Europeans need most right now is for Obama to show up and immediately divert them from the matters at hand. I'm workin’ on the theory that they're probably all scramblin’ right now and ain't gonna be into settin’ aside the business they do have put the time into settin’ up security and protocol for the American Prez.
It sounds like right now the State Dept. is advising caution in travel to Europe, so I doubt the President visiting right now to show solidarity, or whatever, is something advisable.
145 comments:
"Mr. Trump, you're no Ronald Reagan."
... but you're still gonna be Preznit! ;-)
We are all aware that Mr. Gorbachev laughed at him and blew him off, are we not?
I mean―Gorbachev certainly did not tear down the wall. (A minor matter usually not much stressed by Reagan's disciples)
Fella here makes an analytical argument for dumping Trump as the GOP nominee. Don't know if he's got his analysis correct, but at least it's different from the usual "Trump isn't a True Conservative" argument coming from true-believer types, and the "Trump is Unstable" argument coming from everybody else.
Lee: "Fella here makes an analytical argument for dumping Trump as the GOP nominee. Don't know if he's got his analysis correct, but at least it's different from the usual "Trump isn't a True Conservative" argument coming from true-believer types, and the "Trump is Unstable" argument coming from everybody else."
I'm not sure at all about that analysis. It states:
"There are four conclusions that can be drawn:"
1. "First, he may well have momentum within the media, but he has none with the voters."
Really? I would actually have said the media, although "any media is good media" as it's sometimes said, has been against Trump. And that the voters so far have been paramount.
2: "Second, Donald Trump is not attracting an overwhelming number of new voters."
New or old, what you're looking for is a majority.
3: "Third, his success is built on a peculiar dynamic where he is facing opponents strong enough to stay in, but not strong enough to knock each other out."
Well, a few have been bumped off already and some of those have even got behind Trump once they were out. Why should it be a weakness to lead in a multi-choice race?
4. "Lastly, the Republican primary numbers show why Trump consistently performs so poorly against Hillary Clinton (and Bernie Sanders) in national polls."
That statement has to be explained to me. How can the GOP primary numbers explain how any one of their candidates would fare against a DEM opponent in the generals? And if it does, why should it apply to Trump only and not all of the would be GOP candidates?
[Marcus]: "I'm not sure at all about that analysis."
Yup, hard not to smell a rat. The author is a principal at Silent Majority Strategies, who bill themselves as "the premier Republican political consulting firm with over 18 years of experience, specializing in voter contact mail and mobile advertising".
His argument is completely illogical -- Trump isn't doing well enough to be the Republican nominee, so let's pick someone else who's doing even worse! Maybe the real problem is that Trump "has the power to disrupt the Republican Party"... and with it the author's business ;-)
Carson just endorsed Trump. Rubio will be out of the race in just over four days time. Nobody wants Cruz as the Republican nominee. I'd say Trump's looking pretty good for Preznit.
"And that the voters so far have been paramount."
I think his point was that, as other Republicans drop out, Trump isn't picking up his proportional share of their voters. They're staying anti-Trump for the most part. His national percentages have jumped from 32% or so to only 35% or so with 13 of the original 17 dropped out.
"New or old, what you're looking for is a majority."
Trump has yet to get that majority.
"Why should it be a weakness to lead in a multi-choice race?"
I think his point was that, in prior Republican contests, it'd typically be down to two by now, Trump and one not-Trump. By now it shouldn't be multi-choice, but Trump's not doing quite well enough to discourage the competition (at least not the four still in, although word is Rubio's people are getting discourage). By this time in 2012 everybody knew it was going to be Romney (wasn't everybody happy with that, but everybody knew; right now the only ones who think they know are Trump and Petes).
"How can the GOP primary numbers explain how any one of their
candidates would fare against a DEM opponent in the generals?"
That would be this section of his argument:
"When you dig into the primary numbers, it becomes obvious [that
m]ost of the new voters are not Trump supporters – they likely melt
away in a general election matchup. In addition, as his Republican
opponents leave the race, their supporters move toward other
candidates. The resolutely anti-Trump vote is far larger than the
pro-Trump vote with both habitual and new voters."
Now, I see a couple of problems with the analysis that got him to this conclusion (start with the language up higher; "My estimation takes the top vote-getter in each contest in 2012…etc." through his application of this ‘proxy’ for numbers he don't got and can't get; it gets pretty shaky right ‘round there as I see things.)
By the way…
I strongly suspect John Boehner is laughin’ his ass off when he's out there on the golf course listening in on this stuff on his smartphone ‘tween shots.
I thought about this one more than once before making the link. This one is long, and fairly dense. But it's worth reading to understand…The Obama Doctrine. Weekend's coming up; maybe ya'll will have the time it'll take to wade through it…
We are all aware that Mr. Gorbachev laughed at him and blew him off, are we not?
I believe the President of Mexico was equally, although not quite so amused as Gorbachev, disinclined to agree with Donald Trump on his idea that Mexico should pay for a wall between the US and Mexico.
But what I was contrasting was Reagan's use of the idea of freedom and liberty to break down barriers and Donald Trump's use of almost a racist attitude to build barriers between people. What has made America great in the past is not that kind of xenophobic attitude. So Trump's campaign slogan of "Make America Great Again" is a complete fraud.
Btw, there was supposed to be a rally for Trump this evening in Chicago. It has been called off because of violent clashes between pro-Trump and anti-Trump supporters. I think this behavior is a symptom of the negative aspect of Trump's campaign.
Tired. I'll have to catch up on the rest this weekend...
Rubio, in what can only be seen as a last ditch, desperation measure, has come out in public with the proposition that Ohio voters who want to stop Trump, even his supporters, should vote for Kasich as a 'favorite son' candidate. Time.com The flip-side of this is that Rubio suggests that Kasich and Cruz voters should vote for him, Rubio, in Florida. Neither Kasich nor Cruz appear to have been consulted for this decision, or, if consulted, they did not agree to reciprocate. Kasich is already making claims that Rubio's move is proof that he, Kasich, is the ‘coming thing’ in the Republican primaries, the rising star who can best take on Trump at the convention and Hillary in the fall.
Cruz hasn't returned the ‘favor’ either although it doesn't apply to Cruz, on account of he already won his home state of Texas. He went ahead and made campaign appearances in Florida yesterday. (One of the Cruz affiliated Super-PACs did pull advertising for Cruz in Florida, but that decision was said to made pragmatically--spend the money where it would do more good--and not as a response to Rubio's gambit, and that the decision was made before Rubio's announcement.)
Obama's made a speech claiming that the Republicans are merely reaping the whirlwind after sowing the wind itself. Politico.com I don't always agree entirely with Obama, but I'm down with that one.
Another voting analysis, this time from FiveThirtyEight, says Cruz's still got a shot at a win on the field, (slim shot, but a shot) but only if Rubio drops out. Better if Rubio had dropped out three weeks ago. I trust Nate Silver's analyses a bit more than that last guy. Partly because Silver has a track record for accuracy (useful when speculating as Silver also does here) and he has a reputation for impartiality when it comes down to numbers.
(He agrees with the other analyst that most of the freed-up votes will continue to go to #NeverTrump as candidates drop out.)
Rubio, in what can only be seen as a last ditch, desperation measure, has come out in public with the proposition that Ohio voters who want to stop Trump, even his supporters, should vote for Kasich as a 'favorite son' candidate. Time.com The flip-side of this is that Rubio suggests that Kasich and Cruz voters should vote for him, Rubio, in Florida.
Actually I can see his reasoning. It's partly why I was so happy Rubio had won in Minnesota. If you can split the delegates enough Trump will not get his majority, leading to a brokered convention. They were just talking a little about his idea on CNN just now. So far it doesn't sound like Kasich or Cruz are on board with it.
Rubio is just now speaking on CNN about Trump's rhetoric which seems to be leading to more divisive attitudes in America. Sure, he's doing it for his political gain, but he is also right.
We have here an explanation of the contested convention for Marcus.
"Rubio is just now speaking on CNN about Trump's rhetoric…"
Rubio was publicly waffling yesterday on whether he could ‘support’ Trump if Trump gets the Republican nomination.
By the way…
I strongly suspect John Boehner is laughin’ his ass off when he's out there on the golf course listening in on this stuff on his smartphone ‘tween shots.
Yes, even the wing nuts in the Republican party, who were the bane of his existence, are being backed into a corner now. And his timing is starting to look impeccable.
I've started reading the Obama Doctrine link. I can't believe it! I actually agree with Joe Biden! His caution to Obama not do draw a red line in Syria over chemical weapons was exactly right. Don't say it if you don't mean it. And Syria really was a test of Obama's resolve that people were paying close attention to. Putin being one, I'm thinking.
I do find it ironic that Angela Merkel was against intervention in Syria. Things might have turned out differently for her and her country in the long run if she had thought differently.
Oh well, back to the article...I just had to stop and comment before I forgot this point.
Yeah, the guy didn't get too far into that, but Obama's people were surprised when he made that comment. It was ill advised. I don't know what got into him there, but I suspect he got caught thinking out loud. Still, while making that comment was a mistake; backing it up would have been a bigger mistake.
The congressional Republicans would now be savaging him for having gotten us into the ‘shit storm’ that is Syria, and the country wasn't ready for another adventure either and wouldn't be supporting the war if we were in it up to our boots.
Lee:
"We have here an explanation of the contested convention for Marcus."
Thanks Lee, that was informative. I kinda knew the first part about how important it is to get 1237 delegates. But I had no real idea about how it would play out if a candidate gained a plurality but fell short of a majority. That was interesting to learn.
My best analysis here is that Trump, if he is to get the nomination, must get 1237 delegates or at the very least come VERY close to it and persuade some of those non-committed delegates before the "second round" when many delegates are free to vote as they wish. If it gets to the "second round" I'd expect the Party that doesn't seem that enthralled by Trump to whip the delegates to choose someone else - who I have no idea about.
To get the nomination Trump most likely must win in Florida and Ohio because they are "winner takes it all" states with many delegates. Or at the very least one of them. I'm not sure wether one could be enough or not. That would depend on the voting in upcoming state elections. But if he scores both it would look good for him, and possibly that would also make others who have so far sat on the sidelines or even opposed him rally behind him.
Lee:
"Another voting analysis, this time from FiveThirtyEight, says Cruz's still got a shot at a win on the field, (slim shot, but a shot) but only if Rubio drops out."
It is interesting. But it's still "what if number crunching". For one thing if it was a two way race between Trump and Cruz the debates would have played out differently and the coverage would be different. Ergo the voters might have reacted differently too.
That said, it does seem like it would benefit non-Trump candidates (possibly Cruz is the only viable option at this point) if the field narrowed, which it probably soon will.
[Lynnette]: "But what I was contrasting was Reagan's use of the idea of freedom and liberty to break down barriers and Donald Trump's use of almost a racist attitude to build barriers between people. What has made America great in the past is not that kind of xenophobic attitude. So Trump's campaign slogan of "Make America Great Again" is a complete fraud."
I have to heartily disagree with this. Reagan was talking about a country -- Germany -- artificially divided between east and west. The German people, by and large, were in favour of reunification although it stretched them to the limit economically and politically in terms of costs (e.g. the solidarity tax), job market impacts, and voter disenchantment. They still considered themselves a single nation, which is not surprising: although the modern nation state in Europe is no older than the USA, they were formed on the basis of tribal ties that went back millennia.
Trump is talking about a solution to a very thorny illegal migration problem between two countries that don't have quite the same cultural ties. If it's xenophobic to raise any murmur against it, why was there a big security gate on the road last time I was on the Mexican border? Fling it open and let people travel unhindered!
[Lynnette]: "Btw, there was supposed to be a rally for Trump this evening in Chicago. It has been called off because of violent clashes between pro-Trump and anti-Trump supporters. I think this behavior is a symptom of the negative aspect of Trump's campaign."
There's no doubt the Trump campaign has attracted some assholes (possibly including his campaign manager). But I genuinely doubt Trump is a racist, although his opponents and the media would like to paint it that way. From everything I've heard, Trump's primary concern seems to be trade and job security, which is why you apparently have some Bernie supporters whose second preference is Trump, not Hillary.
Question on that: If Rubio loses in Florida won't he be more or less forced to drop out? And if so, do you think he will endorse any of the remaining candidates and if so who?
The Trump rally according to SNL.
If it gets to the "second round" I'd expect the Party that doesn't seem that enthralled by Trump to whip the delegates to choose someone else - who I have no idea about.
I haven't had a chance to look at Lee's link, but I have read a little on how a brokered convention works. Those delegates who are "bound" to a candidate, who does not have enough delegates to win, are still his to do with as he chooses. He can instruct them to vote for whomever he wants. I would assume that means his choice can be anyone who is still in the race, not just those who have the largest number of delegates assigned to them.
If the Republican candidates running truly want a chance at the White House, and are not just looking out for their own interests, they would do well to look at who in the race at that point has the best chance of beating Hillary or Bernie. Someone who has been laying in the weeds, not diving into the mud wrestling, someone who even a Donald Trump supporter could vote for, might be a good choice.
Yeah, you know who I'm talking about...:) :) :)
Lee:
"I thought about this one more than once before making the link. This one is long, and fairly dense. But it's worth reading to understand…The Obama Doctrine. Weekend's coming up; maybe ya'll will have the time it'll take to wade through it…"
That was long, very long, but quite interesting.
The one thing I think is that much of that piece and the analysis is based on a false premis. It takes for granted that Assad was indeed behing the chemical weapons attack in Ghouta. I believe he wasn't. I believe Obama knew this. I believe that's why he decided not to react to it other than by words.
The attack was meant precisely to force the US into the war by crossing Obama's previously stated red line. Obviously it would have been insane for Assad to cross that line. But advantageous for anyone wanting to drag the US into was against the Syrian regime. It was a false flag - and Obama knew it. He couldn't come out and say it but he wisely didn't react the way the instigators wanted him to.
Lynnette:
"Yeah, you know who I'm talking about...:) :) :)"
Kasich I presume. I don't know enough about him to pass judgement but what I can say is that what I do know I kinda like.
Also I hope someone else than Hillary will win. I just don't plain like her. But she loos like a 60% bet at this point to me, I wouldn't bet against her unless I got good odds.
Reagan was talking about a country -- Germany -- artificially divided between east and west. The German people, by and large, were in favour of reunification...
Oh yes, I agree, the Germans wanted reunification. It was not the Germans who built the wall(not really) in the first place, and it was not the Germans that Reagan appealed to in his speech. The barriers between people were those between East and West, or more specifically, the Soviet Union and the United States. It was always the Soviet Union's xenophobia that was the stumbling point in that case.
Trump is talking about a solution to a very thorny illegal migration problem between two countries that don't have quite the same cultural ties.
I think there are many close cultural ties between Mexico and the United States. We are a melting pot and have many ties around the world. What Donald Trump has said in the past is that many Mexican immigrants are rapists and criminals. There are rapists and criminals in every country, including ours, why single out Mexico? All that does is raise animosity and walls between people. Not to mention it being false.
But I genuinely doubt Trump is a racist,...
I honestly don't know. But his words certainly seem to appeal to some who are.
Yes, I mean Kasich. I don't know everything about him either, but like you, what I have heard from him I have found to be at least reasonable.
As for Hillary, I have not voted for her in the past, but of the current front runners she is the one I would have to vote for. I have heard arguments that Bernie's, and Trump's actually, idea of spending more on infrastructure would be a good thing as rates are so low now, and what we need is more spending to create more jobs and update our infrastructure. But I am not sold yet. I still think we need some framework in place to pay for some of these things.
Lynette: "I think there are many close cultural ties between Mexico and the United States."
Really? Which ones? Enchiladas?
"If Rubio loses in Florida won't he be more or less forced to drop out?"
He will be under major pressure to drop out the next morning, from his supporters as well as from Cruz, as well as from everybody in the #NeverTrump movement. Whom he endorses is an open question; I'm gonna guess it'll be Cruz, but it could be Kasich. His politics are closer to Cruz’, for the moment, but his political instincts could drive him to Kasich as better for him, for Rubio that is, down the line.
"He can instruct them to vote for whomever he wants."
In some states that's a matter of custom, not a thing that can be enforced. But, for reasons I won't go into here; it's a strong custom.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"…someone who even a Donald Trump supporter could vote for,
might be a good choice."
Problem is, by a wide margin, Cruz is the second choice for the Trump people.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"I believe [Assad] wasn't behind [the chem weapons attack on Ghouda]"
And the conspiracy theory flake raises his hoary head up outta Marcus' chest once again… I ain't even gonna bother…
"But I genuinely doubt Trump is a racist…"
Whether he personally is or is not a racist happens to be irrelevant, he's running as a racist; that's enough.
[Lynnette]: "What Donald Trump has said in the past is that many Mexican immigrants are rapists and criminals. There are rapists and criminals in every country, including ours, why single out Mexico? All that does is raise animosity and walls between people. Not to mention it being false."
Other people claim you shouldn't extrapolate from the USA's (astonishingly huge) incarceration rates, nor should you average across the whole country. I'm not sure it matters though. It's very similar to the immigration arguments ripping through UK politics at the moment. There the argument is that immigrants are using up welfare and medical care resources, which can certainly be shown to be false. The issue that Trump is exploiting with his supporters is actually an economic one: competition for jobs. It is always the lower paid who experience that more keenly. Hillary (or Romney of the "47%" gaff) supporters have the luxury of calling Trump a racist, and appealing to the melting pot metaphor, precisely because they are less likely to have to deal with the economic consequences of immigration.
Ahh! The champions of free speech celebrating after successfully disrupting that Trump rally. Didn't I see them standing behind Hillary somewhere recently? ;-)
Other people's thoughts:
"I thought that in Thursday night’s debate, Cruz was a star. He is
credible as a thinking person’s candidate — although my sister said he
reminds her a little bit of Frank Burns from “M*A*S*H,” which is not so
good."
Ed Rogers in the WaPo
Frank Burns
Ted Cruz
(I'm stickin’ with Grandpa Munster as the best match to date, individual features match up, although the shape of the head doesn't.)
"Didn't I see them standing behind Hillary somewhere recently? ;-)"
Trump's been claiming they're Sanders' people. Sanders denies having anything to do with it.
And yet some other thoughts on Cruz:
"From my perspective as a fervent supporter of the ruggedly honest and principled Bernie Sanders, Trump with his pragmatic real-life record is a far more palatable national figure than Ted Cruz, whose unctuous, vainglorious professions of Christian piety don’t pass the smell test. Trump is a blunt, no-crap mensch, while Cruz is a ham actor, doling out fake compassion like chopped liver. Cruz’s lugubrious, weirdly womanish face, with its prim, tight smile and mawkishly appealing puppy-dog eyebrows, is like a waxen mask, always on the verge of melting. This guy doesn’t know who the hell he is—and the White House is no place for him and us to find out."
From the same article, Camille Paglia says about Trump:
"Nevertheless, Trump’s fearless candor and brash energy feel like a great gust of fresh air, sweeping the tedious clichés and constant guilt-tripping of political correctness out to sea. Unlike Hillary Clinton, whose every word and policy statement on the campaign trail are spoon-fed to her by a giant paid staff and army of shadowy advisors, Trump is his own man, with a steely “damn the torpedoes” attitude. He has a swaggering retro machismo that will give hives to the Steinem cabal. He lives large, with the urban flash and bling of a Frank Sinatra. But Trump is a workaholic who doesn’t drink and who has an interesting penchant for sophisticated, strong-willed European women. As for a debasement of the presidency by Trump’s slanging matches about penis size, that sorry process was initiated by a Democrat, Bill Clinton, who chatted about his underwear on TV, let Hollywood pals jump up and down on the bed in the Lincoln Bedroom, and played lewd cigar games with an intern in the White House offices."
"This guy doesn’t know who the hell he is…"
Poor Ms. Paglia is so often wrong. In this case spectacularly wrong. Cruz knows exactly who he is and exactly what he wants and he's known it for a long time. He ran for Texas Attorney General years ago with the idea of turning the office into a bullhorn for his presidential ambitions. And he's walked a mapped path ever since then. I think he made up his mind probably even before he was in college, but at least by the time he got to college.
Really? Which ones? Enchiladas?
lol! Well, I do have to admit to liking Mexican food. But we have many people here with ties to Mexico. They bring their culture with them, be it food, music, religion etc. In some regions of the country Spanish is second only to English as the spoken language. You will find many official documents printed in both English and Spanish(as well as other languages).
I haven't been able to read all of the Obama Doctrine link yet. *sigh* I was falling asleep last night and had things to do today. And now I'm out of time again...I do want to finish it though, it is very interesting. I will have to check out the other links later too.
Bombing in Anakaru, Turkey and al-Qaeda butchery on the Ivory Coast. The Turkish government has blamed the bombing on the PKK, but the targeting suggests Da'esh is perhaps responsible.
Russia starts withdrawal from Syria tomorrow, Tuesday:
https://www.rt.com/news/335554-putin-orders-syria-withdrawal/
I didn't see that one coming.
I'm not quite sure what to make of that.
Ran out of money?
One of the possibilities, but not the most likely I don't think. Perhaps his ‘allies’ weren't being agreeable to his inclinations somehow.
I do get the feeling that Putin simply informed Assad that this was how it was gonna be starting tomorrow.
The Saker has his explanation:
"The Russian intervention is a stunning success, that is indisputable. Vladimir Putin and the Russian military ought to be particularly praised for having set goals fully commensurate with their real capabilities. The Russians went in with a small force and they achieved limited goals: the legitimate authority of the Syrian government has been stabilized and the conditions for a political compromise have been created. That is not an opinion, but the facts on the ground. Not even the worst Putin-haters can dispute that. Today’s declaration shows that the Russians are also sticking to their initial exit strategy and are now confident enough to withdraw their forces. That is nothing short of superb (when is the last time the USA did that?)."
http://thesaker.is/analysis-of-the-russian-military-pullout-from-syria/
Well, he's consistent, I'll give him that.
Here's a thought; suppose they stop Trump at the convention:
"Then the final vote happens, and the TV networks following the drama
announce that someone other than Donald Trump will by the 2016
Republican nominee. It isn't a stretch to imagine that Trump's most
fervent supporters, some inside the hall and some gathered outside,
will positively lose their minds.
"These people—who have been told that the party bosses are their
enemy, who have been told that the country is run by idiots, who have
been told that everything is going to hell and Trump is the only one who
can save them, who have been told that they should nurture their
resentments and let it all flow out of them in a righteous river of
rage—these people will now learn that it has been stolen from them.
Will they say, 'Man, I'm really disappointed,' and head back home,
heads hung low? Or will they look for somebody's head to bash?
"Maybe they'll surprise us, and it will turn out to be the former. But
Trump has already given them permission to do whatever they feel."
American Prospect
And yet, "The Fix Is In ― An insider’s guide to what could be the struggle to win a contested convention."
When can we expect some results from todays primaries do you think? I'm 6 hours ahead of Eastern Standard Time so I guess I'll have to wait for the final results until tomorrow, but perhaps there will be preliminary results?
There may perhaps be exit polls, but you'll not be hearing from those until the polls close. I'm not sure when that starts happenin’, 7:00 pm Eastern Time for Florida probably.
It appears that Florida won't come in until later; the panhandle extends into the Central Time Zone, so they'll not start giving exit polls on Florida until 8:00 pm Eastern Daylight time.
It looks like Kasich has a slight lead on Trump in Ohio. But Rubio is iffy in Florida.
The Russian intervention is a stunning success, that is indisputable.
Hmmmm...I'm thinking there are Syrians out there who would not agree.
Who picks up the pieces of a broken country? Assad is still not a popular choice. Nor are any of the extremist groups on the ground.
"But Rubio is iffy in Florida."
I think you're being generous to Rubio; he's runnin’ a little short of ‘iffy’ these days.
Little Marco saying his goodbyes as a type ;-)
No need to wait until morning. So, Kasich is the last of sane Republicans standing then. (Don't mean I'd vote for him--sane for a Republican candidate these days is, after all, a relative term. But, the alternative is Cruz or Hillary, so ya never know how that'd sort out by November. I'd give him a look over anyway.)
Yup, Kasich wins Ohio and Rubio drops out.
Clinton wins Florida, North Carolina & Ohio. She leads in Illinois and Missouri.
It's going to be a hot time at the Republican National Convention...
Huh, what think you of a race between Kasich and Clinton? I might actually have to look at the Republicans again too.
Kasich's still got no shot. They're not gonna give it to him if they manage to pull it away from Trump and Cruz both.
Who's the real dark horse, then?
They're calling Illinois for Trump. Missouri is close for both the Republicans (between Trump and Cruz) and the Democrats.
"Who's the real dark horse, then?"
I'm not sure there's a dark horse left. Black Swan maybe.
Possibles for the convention are Jeb! (not bloody likely); Romney (likewise not likely); maybe Paul Ryan. If I were to put money on it; I'd bet Paul Ryan, but I demand damn high odds.
I think it'll be Cruz after a bloody floor fight.
It looks like Trump and Cruz are fighting for a tie in Missouri with 99% of the votes cast. Let nobody say that their vote doesn't matter!
I think it'll be Cruz after a bloody floor fight.
This is gonna get interesting.
Maybe we will have our first woman President. ;)
Yeah; I think she'll mop the floor with Cruz.
The Trumpinator rolls on. Hasta la vista Rubio.
I read this preliminary result this morning:
Florida - Ohio - Marianas - North Carolina - Illinois - Missouri
Trump - 99 - 0 - 9 - 30 - 52 - 42 = 232
Cruz - 0 - 0 - 0 - 27 - 9 - 10 = 46
Kasich - 0- 66 - 0 - 9 - 8 - 0 = 83
Rubio - 0 - 0 - 0 - 6 - 0 - 0 = 6
232/367 = 63% of the total number of delegates for Trump.
Cruz can't count that as anything other than a disaster. Of course he's been a bit unlucky also with a very low dividend in delegates for the votes he got. He scored way lower total delegates than Kasich even though he got way higher total voter support in all 6 areas combined.
I know that's irrelevant, just pointing out Cruz was really unlucky with the allocation of the votes he actually got.
Lee: "Yeah; I think she'll mop the floor with Cruz."
Cruz seems to me to be an almost ideal candidate for Clinton. I think he might be her first choice if she had a choice on the matter.
I'd say the Republicans would like someone like Paul Ryan, but could they really shoo in somebody that nobody has voted for? Cruz sounds more plausible, but a lot of people hate him. Despite Trump's popularity it does seem he might have difficulty reaching an uncontested majority. By my count he would need about 70% of about a thousand delegates remaining. Sounds like a recipe for a GOP implosion. Whoever emerges will already have lumps knocked out of 'em even before they get in the ring with Hillary. After the callibre of the Republican fight, I'm pretty sure it's not a case of "whatever doesn't kill you making you stronger".
"…Cruz was really unlucky with the allocation of the votes he actually got."
Well, maybe he'll get lucky next time.
"Whoever emerges will already have lumps knocked out of 'em even
before they get in the ring with Hillary."
I believe that also includes Trump, even if he gets enough delegates for a first round win from the field. We'll real quick discover that the ‘I'm gonna support the nominee even if it's Trump’ stuff don't hold up if the nominee's actually Trump.
Pete: "Despite Trump's popularity it does seem he might have difficulty reaching an uncontested majority. By my count he would need about 70% of about a thousand delegates remaining."
By my count it looks a bit different. Officialy he's at 621 right now with 1134 remaining delegates.
http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/delegate-count-tracker
But quite credible information says he'll get about 42 out of 52 delegates in Missouri (Cruz claiming 10) which would put him at 663 with 1082 remaining. That'd mean he'd need to score 574 delegates out of those 1082 which comes to 53%. Not that unfeasible.
"Officialy he's at 621 right now with 1134 remaining delegates"
Politico.com doesn't quite count as ‘officially’ within the Republican Party. There are various other counts out there as some folks estimates round one way or another. Generally, they'll all be within a couple of votes of one another, but it ain't ‘officially’ ‘til it gets to Cleveland and gets ruled on by the Credentials Committee and Chairman Paul Ryan his own self.
OK, it's not officially. But I believe the estimate that Trump needs (around) 53% of the remaining delegates is first of all a pretty close estimate, and second of all quite a big difference from PeteS 70% estimate.
Reaching 70% of the remainders I would have agreed was extremely unlikely, maybe even impossible. 53% is, while by no means a sure thing, at least doable. That's why I thought it was relevant to look more closely at the numbers.
"…first of all…etc.…and second of all…etc."
I'll concede on both points.
But, I do think Missouri is in "automatic recount" territory for both parties.
"But, I do think Missouri is in "automatic recount" territory for both parties."
I guess if it comes down to just a fraction of a percentage point they'd want a recount.
I have to say it's a bit curious with this whole setup where some states assign delegates proportionally to the votes the candidates get, some are winner takes all and some are winner takes most. It does make it exciting and the number of different scenarios increase, but still I find it curious.
Do you have any explanation for this? I get that one factor must be that the states in the US are way more independent from the central government than regions in European countries are.
Is it that some states think their state will get a bigger say if they pool all their delegates behind one candidate?
"I get that one factor must be that the states in the US are way
more independent…"
That's most of it. They made up their own rules as they thought best.
" Is it that some states think their state will get a bigger say if they
pool all their delegates behind one candidate?"
And there's that too. There is also the will of the national party to consider (‘RNC’ stands for ‘Republican National Committee’; there's a DNC too). In order to have an ‘orderly’ process that develops over the course of the spring the national committees issue rules about sanctioned debates, and who can hold their primaries when. It's up to the state committees to decide whether to hold primaries or caucuses and the local rules for same (open or closed, for instance). The national committees enforce their rules by forbidding any states to move their primaries up too early on pain of losing delegates, and also hold that anybody tries to "jump the line" has to award delegates proportionally prior to a certain date (varies with the two parties)
Trump says there've been enough debates, and he's not coming to the next one on Monday (FoxNews, Megyn Kelly again).
I'd say that, with the rise of Trump, today's Republican Party has fully returned to it's true Democratic Party roots in the tradition of Andrew Jackson and Huey Long, and most recently, George Wallace.
Obama has nominated a new Supreme Court Justice to replace Scalia in the face of Republican promises that they will not give the nomination any hearing. They vow to not hold any hearings at all--stonewall it clear to the election. (The nominee is one Merrick Garland, not that it matters except to say that Mr. Garland has balls). I suspect this will play to Democrat's advantage in the general election, which Obama suspects also, else he'd not have done it.
PeteS:
"I'd say the Republicans would like someone like Paul Ryan, but could they really shoo in somebody that nobody has voted for?"
I don't know enough about Ryan to offer an opinion on his qualities. And I don't know how it would play to lauch a candidate to the generals who hasn't even participated in the primaries (it sounds like a long shot to me - but I could be wrong). I thought you might find this interesting:
"Politico reports that Boehner, speaking at a conference in Boca Raton, Florida, said: “If we don’t have a nominee who can win on the first ballot, I’m for none of the above. They all had a chance to win. None of them won. So I’m for none of the above. I’m for Paul Ryan to be our nominee.”"
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/16/plan-b-john-boehner-endorses-paul-ryan-for-president/
Trump is threatening riots if they peel the nomination away from him, in favor of Ryan or anybody else for that matter. Politico.com
Lee: "Trump is threatening riots if they peel the nomination away from him"
But is he wrong really? This is what he said:
""Now, if you disenfranchise those people and you say, well I'm sorry but you're 100 votes short, even though the next one is 500 votes short, I think you would have problems like you've never seen before. I think bad things would happen, I really do. I believe that. I wouldn't lead it but I think bad things would happen," he said."
I'm not sure how it works in the US. But I can guarantee you that in Europe if you had a similar situation and one candidate got a large win in the number of votes but was then shut out, there WOULD be riots. Severe riots. (even worse if it was on the left wing but also serious it was on the right)
It's plausible that this would happen in the US as well. Not at the same level as in Europe perhaps, but it could well happen. So he says that. Then he says he wouldn't lead such riots. Is that really a threat? Or is it a recognition of reality?
Come to think of it. What if Sanders in a hypothetical scenario was to win over Hillary with 50% more delegates, and the Dems had then used some shenanigans to shut him out in favour of an "establishment choice".
Riots? You'd better believe it!
I will repeat an earlier reference:
"Trump has already given them permission to do whatever they
feel."
American Prospect
By the way, there is a long tradition of American political parties turning to alternative candidates as a compromise when the major front runners can't quite get to a majority. In fact, that's how Abraham Lincoln got the nomination way back when--front runners couldn't come to agreement among themselves and so after several ballots Lincoln emerged as the compromise so the delegates could finally go home. (Woodrow Wilson is an example in the early 1900's Democratic party.) These things happened generally without rioting.
Ok, so I might not be as tuned in as you are. But the fact that if a candidate has a great lead and thus a great claim to the nomination and then is just shut out - how could that not antagonise that candidates' supporters? And when we're talking of millions of people how would that not intice at least a few thousands to rioting? Then depending on the demographics voting for that candidate it would play out differently.
"how could that not antagonise that candidates' supporters?"
Perhaps it does antagonize the major candidates' supporters. But our system has the coalitions and governing alliances forming within the parties, before the nominations and the general election instead of after (as is the European custom). It's pretty much just the way it works. Wiki up Abraham Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson if ya don't believe me. Add maybe Wendall Willkie, whom you've probably never heard of, but who came the closest the Republicans ever did to beating Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Alright, I'm not going to sit here and try to defend the statments of Trump that there might be riots, because I believe such statments might incite riots. It was a stupid and reckless thing to say to begin with, by Trump.
I'm just saying I don't believe it to be false. I think it was a true prediction and the only thing Trump does wrong is that his true prediction, once publically spoke, might serve to enhance the rioting.
(That said I see leftist rioting as a far more common sight than rightist rioting - and often the bar for what's right- or wrong- rioting is very much different where leftists are given much more leeway)
It's just the way our system has worked, both parties; leftists and the others too, and without rioting, and certainly without the candidates giving rioting the nod and wink treatment.
Lee:
"But our system has the coalitions and governing alliances forming within the parties, before the nominations and the general election instead of after (as is the European custom)."
Yes I'm on a learning curve right now, trying to figure out how your system works while I'm following this year's elections. I don't presume to know it all, or even much, which is why I ask soo many questions here.
Also, as I have said before, it's difficuly for us to speak about leftists and rightists and understand each other. I mean, Sanders on his actual politics might well be seen as a right wing politician in Europe, in some quarters at least. Hillary for sure would be firmly to the right over here, on most matters (though not all).
Left and right, in the USA and in Europe, are 4 different things.
So now we debate the US primaries and we should, in our debate, adhere to a US version of left VS right. I know that, but I might not always get it right.
I'm curious; how often ya'll have major rioting after a national vote of ‘no confidence’ (which is basically the equivalent of Trump can't even get a majority within his own party)
Or, perhaps it'd be more like the Sweden Democrats deciding to have riots because the Social Democrats and the Green Party decided to form up coalition without naming Jimmie Åkesson as its leader.
We don't. But we don't have a system where a majority candidate can be "overruled".
Here we have ONE vote for parliament. You vote for ONE party. And then the parties get representation in parliament based on those votes. (you have municipally and national votes)
The exception is that a party needs to gain 4% of the vote to get into parliament. This is to keep spoilers and fanatics out. They usually know they ars spoilers and fanatics and don't react much when they don't get into parliament which the never really thought they would.
So the scenario of "no confidence" wouldn't really apply here. I guess it could apply but not in the same way, and not directly conected to the election process.
Lee:
"Or, perhaps it'd be more like the Sweden Democrats deciding to have riots because the Social Democrats and the Green Party decided to form up coalition without naming Jimmie Åkesson as its leader."
That is so impossible I can't really comment on it. I fear you have very little insight into those parties you mention.
"Here we have ONE vote for parliament. You vote for ONE party."
Yes, I'm aware of that.
"I fear you have very little insight into those parties you mention."
Rather, you've missed the point. How can Trumps' followers expect the Republicans to put him forward as leader of the coalition to which he does not belong?
Ah, but that'd be their own damn fault for not coming up with a coherent ideology and an electable choice. Leaves the field wide open for Trump.
Yes, I'm sure Trump will agree with you and will say that his people rioting is ‘their fault’ also. (Probably also agree with you that ‘liberals’ are more likely to riot even as his people are rioting and the liberals are not.)
"…for not coming up with a coherent ideology…"
And, just by the way, the Republican ‘establishment’ cannot be faulted for that. They have come up with a fully coherent completely integrated, and tightly coordinated ideology. It just has the unfortunate flaw of being based on a fantasy; it doesn't work in the real world--kinda like Marx's communism or luminiferous æther, or the theory of phlogiston. Happens to not work out in the real world--premises ain't true.
[Marcus]: We don't. But we don't have a system where a majority candidate can be "overruled".
Trump is far from having a majority of Republican voters backing him. He might have the most delegates in this step of the election process, but that's it. This is a selection process for each of the parties, deciding who they will run in the general election. Various states use different methods, some open voting, others a caucus system. Minnesota uses a caucus system, which limits the number of people who turn out to vote. Something I think we should change, myself. So the number of voters who may vote Republican in the general election are far higher then in this early round.
Trump may be right that there may be some people who would protest his losing a Republican nomination, as there are some rather extreme people in his ranks of supporters, but it is really the Republican party's choice as to what candidate they field. These primaries are what we refer to as "straw polls", to get a feel for the sentiment of the American public. And right now it looks very divided on the Republican side. You will see at the convention that the rounds of voting gradually free up delegates to go their separate way from the candidate who they were originally slated to vote for, if there is no clear choice in the first round. That is where you will get the back door wheeling and dealing.
Hrmpf...then should be than
I haven't finished reading the Obama Doctrine yet. I am almost done, far enough at least to include everything that the following OpEd piece covers, anyway.
Five thoughts on the Obama Doctrine.
I tend to agree with number 5. If you think about it, it's also the reason so many people want us to be involved in foreign affairs, not just because they want us to do all of the work. They wouldn't admit it though.
Kasich said that he wasn't going to Monday's debate either, so FoxNews canceled it.
I tend to agree with Trump on this one. There have been enough debates, at least at this stage.
It appears to me that the #NeverTrump forces within the GOP are becoming more dispirited by the day.
Here is a delegate count and some alternative scenarios. This article talks about California, which I had been wondering about with regard to Trump. For some reason I can't see CA voting big time for Trump. They vote in June. I am still betting on a contested convention.
Question: can the same individual vote in both the Dem and the Rep primaries?
"I am still betting on a contested convention."
It's still a good possibility. I'm sticking with my last set of odds (@ 10:19 pm; if it goes to a contested convention, then Cruz)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"Question: can the same individual vote in both the Dem and the
Rep primaries?"
It would be advisable to not get caught; although I think it's generally a misdemeanor charge if you only double vote the one time.
Screwed up my link just above. This would be the right one.
"For some reason I can't see CA voting big time for Trump."
We're not considering California voting for Trump, but rather California's Republican primary voters voting for Trump. California has a strict closed Republican primary. California gave us Ronald Reagan, and Arnold Schwarzenegger as governors, so they go for celebrities; and it's the hotbed center of the John Birch Society, so they go for crazy too. Trump is currently leading by 16% among California Republican likely primary voters.
California is the great granola bowl. What ain't fruits and nuts is flakes.
The Weekly Standard has done another of those ‘blame Trump on Obama’ pieces.
Question: can the same individual vote in both the Dem and the Rep primaries?
It would be kind of hard to do in Minnesota with a caucus system. The caucuses are held at the same time with registration and discussions prior to voting. The time allotted for the actual voting isn't very much, so it would be difficult to get from one to the other within the time allowed. As for the primary voting (held like a general election) I think you just go to your usual polling place and they give you a ballot. You must vote a straight party ticket or your vote is disallowed.
California is the great granola bowl. What ain't fruits and nuts is flakes.
ROFL! Well, every state has its claim to fame. :)
We're not considering California voting for Trump, but rather California's Republican primary voters voting for Trump.
Good point.
... they go for celebrities...
Well, Trump is that. At least he is a "brand name".
Actually, you gotta tell them which ballot you want; they'll give ya one, but only one (that's the way it works here anyway).
That was in response to…
"You must vote a straight party ticket or your vote is disallowed."
Ahh, that makes sense.
I finally finished the Obama Doctrine. I think that he thinks very much like a lawyer, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I suppose it will be history that will judge.
If you are a supporter of the president, his strategy makes eminent sense: Double down in those parts of the world where success is plausible, and limit America’s exposure to the rest. His critics believe, however, that problems like those presented by the Middle East don’t solve themselves—that, without American intervention, they metastasize.
I very much fear that in this both the President and his critics may be right.
"His critics believe, however, that problems like those presented by
the Middle East don’t solve themselves…"
Unfortunately, for too many people that's the end of the thought process. They assume that there must be a solution, and so, if the problems won't solve themselves, it therefore follows that we must have the solution. This is highly fallacious reasoning. (They will solve themselves eventually--may be dead bodies all over the Middle East, and not enough live people left to bury them, but that is a solution.)
So, whaddya think of the Belgians captured Salah Abdeslam the other day?
(I heard on NBC that he couldn't escape to Syria on account of Da’esh wouldn't be very forgiving of him having neglected to blow himself up with the rest of them, and this severely limited his options for escape.)
Lee: "So, whaddya think of the Belgians captured Salah Abdeslam the other day?"
That seems a very good thing. A guy like him you'd expect to try to strike again if he got the opportunity. Perhaps he'll talk and they can catch more of 'em.
"I heard on NBC that he couldn't escape to Syria on account of Da’esh wouldn't be very forgiving of him having neglected to blow himself up with the rest of them, and this severely limited his options for escape."
And now he even got took alive, what must they think of him?
(I heard on NBC that he couldn't escape to Syria on account of Da’esh wouldn't be very forgiving of him having neglected to blow himself up with the rest of them, and this severely limited his options for escape.)
Even worse, Daesh had already claimed responsibility for an attack at the location he was supposed to blow himself up at. Oops.
Perhaps he'll talk and they can catch more of 'em.
Maybe so. The French are akready saying that there were more people involved in the attack than originally thought. Perhaps he is already talking.
There is also the American from, I believe it was Virginia, who gave himself up to the Kurds. He had traveled through Syria and into Mosul to follow an Iraqi girl he had met, and presumably to join Daesh. However, Mosul wasn't quite what he was expecting, either in living conditions or in the religious leadership. Apparently he had some disagreement with their view of Islam. But I would presume that he is not home free. I suspect there may be issues with him just returning to the US and going about his life. So he may want to be forthcoming with any information on Daesh. For example, their operations, and the location of any significant people or buildings.
"I suspect there may be issues with him just returning to the US
and going about his life."
I suspect 20 to life as a guest to Uncle Sam may be in his future.
(They will solve themselves eventually--may be dead bodies all over the Middle East, and not enough live people left to bury them, but that is a solution.)
Somehow I don't think that will happen without it affecting other areas of the world.
I suspect 20 to life as a guest to Uncle Sam may be in his future.
Possibly so. But he could be valuable if he does give intelligence of substance.
Lynnette: "Maybe so. The French are akready saying that there were more people involved in the attack than originally thought. Perhaps he is already talking."
I wonder what the french iterrogators will throw at him. We've had this huge global debate over 'Merican torture, waterboarding and whatnot, but I actually doubt that french (or brittish) security services are any more squaemish.
Swedish sec services for sure would be more squaemish, and probably German too, but the french are probably a lot harder than folks might think. And the brits are tough as nails, always have been, but they're not involved in this instance.
And that's without mentioning many Eastern European countries where, in a situation like this, outright torture would be completely expected.
^And I don't say that as an advocate for torture. I hate torture above all things and one reason I was seriously pissed off at America during the "war on terror" were the many instances of state sponsored (or state turning a blind eye to) torture.
That said, 'Merica isn't the worst culprit by far in that area. Possibly there are even nations in the "developed world" that are worse. And in the rest of the world it's plain rampant, unfortunately.
"…the many instances of state sponsored…torture"
Weren't all that many considering the number of captives we went through; well, was more if we include the ‘turn a blind eye thing’. Unfortunately, arguing how many is already a lost cause; wasn't supposed to be none. We're Americans; we're not supposed to do that.
One of the things I cannot abide in today's political scene is that there are resurgent neo-con types who're again willing to publicly argue the old arguments in favor torture (along with the argument that torture won't be torture (not legally anyway) if we'll just let them write some new legal definitions.).
We're Americans; we're not supposed to do that.
We are human with all the human failings. It is something the founding fathers understood when they wrote the Constitution like they did with all of its checks and balances. They were worried about a possible dictatorship somewhere down the road. While we would like to believe that we are above using dirty tactics in a war realistically speaking we are just as capable of doing so as others. At least we have questioned ourselves in an effort to limit such type of behavior in the future.
I wonder what the french iterrogators will throw at him.
I think he is still in Belgium? I thought I read that his lawyer was going to fight extradition? That doesn't mean that he hasn't been interviewed by French intelligence, though. But I would think the Belgians have ultimate control over his fate at the moment.
At the moment. But I seriously doubt any lawyer is going to stop the extradition to France of a french citizen behind a terrorist attack such as the ones in Paris.
Imagine if the US citizens behind the San Bernadino attacks had been caught in Canada. You don't think the US would get them and fairly quickly?
Majority support for Senate confirmation hearings for Obama's Supreme Court choice. Monmouth poll Obama's got a winning issue here with independents, but it's not going to be enough to move the Republican Senate. Merrick Garland's nomination is still going nowhere. It's a good issue with the Republican ‘base’ and that's all the McConnell's caring about just now.
Latest Presidential election poll.
I found this bit interesting:
Both of the remaining Democratic nominees top Trump by a wide margin in hypothetical general election matchups, Sanders over Trump by 20 points and Clinton over Trump by 12 points. Sanders fares better than Clinton against each of the three remaining Republicans, topping Cruz by 13 points and Kasich by 6. Clinton runs even with Cruz and trails Kasich by 6 points.
But it looks like most Republicans aren't listening to that. They seem to prefer Kasich drop out.
But I seriously doubt any lawyer is going to stop the extradition to France of a french citizen behind a terrorist attack such as the ones in Paris.
Oh, I seriously doubt it too.
Obama's got a winning issue here with independents, but it's not going to be enough to move the Republican Senate.
I think you're right, it will be an issue for Independents. But do you think Obama was playing this card for current consumption or for the general election? If the Republicans stonewall this nomination they will again make themselves look like they are the ones who will not work with those across the aisle, encouraging Independents to think twice about voting for Republicans in November.
"But do you think Obama was playing this card for current consumption
or for the general election?"
Both. When Mitch McConnell came out publicly with a ‘no more Supreme Court appointments for Obama’ edict, before Scalia's body had even cooled to room temperature, it was pretty much a no-brainer that Obama was gonna make the nomination. Only question was whether he was gonna name a known liberal judge and get the Democratic base all excited and turning out to vote, or go with a moderate to make the Republicans look bad with moderates and independents.
"Sanders over Trump by 20 points and Clinton over Trump by 12 points…"
This mostly reflects that Hillary's negatives have been much waved around already by the Republicans. They haven't started in on Sanders. If they came to it Sanders would slip as against Trump, but probably still beat him. (Of course, the Republicans didn't go after Trump either; they were afraid to do so at first. Just you wait ‘til the Clinton campaign gets done with him; they just waitin’ to uncork on the Republican ticket until it's clear whether it's gonna be Trump or Cruz. They got all kinds of ammo on both.)
Just you wait ‘til the Clinton campaign gets done with him; they just waitin’ to uncork on the Republican ticket until it's clear whether it's gonna be Trump or Cruz. They got all kinds of ammo on both.
I'll bet. I think we've only seen the tip of the iceberg for dirty laundry with those two. I know they'll have a field day with Trump.
I don't much reckon the Brussel's bombing is gonna make the Europeans much more favorably disposed to taking in Muslim migrants than they were last week.
We have Cruz and Kasich both making calls for Obama to come home from Cuba and forgo his next planned stop in Argentina. But, I don't recall a whole passel of European leader changing their schedules after the murders in San Bernardino.
I think I would be a little more concerned with those who are already in Europe than those who are in the pipeline. There is also that clause in their agreement with Turkey allowing visa free travel within Europe for Turkish citizens that I would be a little concerned about considering that the last attack in Turkey was by a Turkish national with allegiance to Daesh.
I can't think what Obama could do at home that he can't do on his trip. The President seems to always be accessible for a crisis.
Cruz seems to think that what the Europeans need most right now is for Obama to show up and immediately divert them from the matters at hand. I'm workin’ on the theory that they're probably all scramblin’ right now and ain't gonna be into settin’ aside the business they do have put the time into settin’ up security and protocol for the American Prez.
It sounds like right now the State Dept. is advising caution in travel to Europe, so I doubt the President visiting right now to show solidarity, or whatever, is something advisable.
Post a Comment