2016 Presidential Primaries [ SUPER TUESDAY | 3-1-'16]

[jpx7]

The Democrats know how to circle the wagons and support.

A little over ten years ago, the same postmortem was being written for the Democrats. These things are cyclical, more often than not, saddled as we are with only two viable/relevant parties at any given time. Moreover: the Democrats certainly haven't recently shown themselves to be very good at "circling the wagons" in mid-term years or in gubernatorial elections, nor of organizing a lot down-ticket support outside of 2008.

I nonetheless do agree with Julio that folks like Boehner and Graham represent a better "path to viability" than uber-obstructionists like Ted Cruz, who'd rather blow up the government than govern. It's an act that gets old, I think, even with voters and legislators whose convictions are similar (but who can hear the word "compromise" without recoiling in abject antipathy). I'd argue that, in no small part, Trump's ascendancy is a suppuration of that fetid boil of frustration—though obviously I think a calming salve would've been a better course of treatment than Mr Drumpf's violent, polemical lance.

[CrimsonCowboy]

Is this a joke?

[weso1]

I think Graham's comments about Cruz, however impolitic, say more about Cruz than they do about Graham. Where there's smoke, there's fire. Cruz really is that bad, and is despised by his "colleagues" with good reason.

Boehner and Graham and the like may be hated by the base, but for better or worse, they represent a path to viability for their party. The Ted Cruz contingent is just a path to further marginalization.

I just couldn't disagree more. This idea that we should support Boehner and Graham because they represent a path to viability. It's such a pathetic position of weakness. I'll never support that bull****. Look, Cruz lost because he's awkward. It's that simple. He's creepy Mr. Rogers. It's just his personality. Nobody cared that certain senators and members of the house hated the guy because of his aggressive dissent. They didn't like the guy because he's socially awkward.

[The Chosen One]

Libertarian registration doubled after yesterday.

I've been saying for a while the only way the GOP would attract younger millenials is pushing towards libertarianism. How anyone thought Cruz was a libertarian boggles my mind.

If Trump loses he will split the party permanently. His followers will go for the next Trump instead of the next GOP candidate.

He's setting the bar high for the next republican nominee. They'll have to be just as crazy and say things just as outrageous in order to get where he is.

There's no way a Trump voter would ever vote for another Cruz, Romney, etc. Funny part was Cruz was the civil version of trump. People just love the Don's charisma. After watching the video of Cruz on the street with trump supporters it's clear those folks who normally would be for Cruz would ever support an establishment guy. For the first time I actually felt bad for Ted because what he was saying wasn't wrong but the Trump guys started shouting Lyin' Ted and he's a Canadian lol.

[Runnin]

Is this a joke?

It's chuckle worthy.

[57Brave]

"The decision, made by U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan, is in response to a lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group that submitted a Freedom of Information Act request seeking records concerning Abedin's employment arrangement — for a brief period in 2012, Abedin worked simultaneously for the State Department, as a consultant for the Clinton Foundation, and for a financial-advisory firm with ties to the Clintons. "

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...mail-case.html

I'm confused, is this about HRC having a private email account or her body persons employment ?
"ties to the Clintons "

Can you spell "fishing expedition" ??

[Tapate50]

Libertarian registration doubled after yesterday.

I've been saying for a while the only way the GOP would attract younger millenials is pushing towards libertarianism. How anyone thought Cruz was a libertarian boggles my mind.

If Trump loses he will split the party permanently. His followers will go for the next Trump instead of the next GOP candidate.

He's setting the bar high for the next republican nominee. They'll have to be just as crazy and say things just as outrageous in order to get where he is.

There's no way a Trump voter would ever vote for another Cruz, Romney, etc. Funny part was Cruz was the civil version of trump. People just love the Don's charisma. After watching the video of Cruz on the street with trump supporters it's clear those folks who normally would be for Cruz would ever support an establishment guy. For the first time I actually felt bad for Ted because what he was saying wasn't wrong but the Trump guys started shouting Lyin' Ted and he's a Canadian lol.

I thought along the same lines for a while, but every election is pretty much a standalone event. I don't think anyone can play the charisma\PR program like Trump has.

[50PoundHead]

A little over ten years ago, the same postmortem was being written for the Democrats. These things are cyclical, more often than not, saddled as we are with only two viable/relevant parties at any given time. Moreover: the Democrats certainly haven't recently shown themselves to be very good at "circling the wagons" in mid-term years or in gubernatorial elections, nor of organizing a lot down-ticket support outside of 2008.

I nonetheless do agree with Julio that folks like Boehner and Graham represent a better "path to viability" than uber-obstructionists like Ted Cruz, who'd rather blow up the government than govern. It's an act that gets old, I think, even with voters and legislators whose convictions are similar (but who can hear the word "compromise" without recoiling in abject antipathy). I'd argue that, in no small part, Trump's ascendancy is a suppuration of that fetid boil of frustration—though obviously I think a calming salve would've been a better course of treatment than Mr Drumpf's violent, polemical lance.

Again, I'm old and have somewhat of an historical perspective on this and I've seen more political party postmortems than the Sunday obituary pages. Republicans in 1964, 1974, 1992, and 2008. Democrats in 1968, 1980, and 2000. The press always plays this card and they are playing it now with the Republicans, which is kind of odd because Trump could win. Democrats are obviously having some of the same internal issues about the direction of the party and if Hillary (or Sanders) were to lose to Trump, the press would have to do a 180 and explain why six months later, the postmortem meme leaped to the other side of the spectrum.

The problem that has continued apace is that the vast middle in the American electorate has lost interest--nay become cynical--in and about the political process. Politics isn't a product. It's not like going to Starbucks and ordering a venti vanilla half shot latte with sprinkles. You don't go into the voting booth and say "I'm only voting for pro-choice, anti-gay, fair play for Cuba, anti-animal testing, cut the capital gains tax candidate and if he or she isn't there, I'm not voting."

The genius of Trump is that he has rejected all of that and is painting with a very broad brush. Political correctness isn't a domain of just the left. Every tribe has its definition of what is and what isn't in the accepted nomenclature and judges participants within that realm. Trump said "Eff that" and won. I think that is partially due to the Republicans' overweening laser focus on social and cultural issues. Right or wrong, I think most Americans see a majority of those issues as something to be handled within the confines of each individual household. The people Trump brought to the party are concerned about bread-and-butter issues and we can argue long and hard as whether their concerns are legitimate or unfounded, but Trump saw early that the middle class's current view of the world centers on the economy.

In a normal political year, the Republican race would have probably boiled down to Bush v. Cruz. Bush was Trump's first casualty. For not being surrounded by political insiders, Trump's instincts have been solid from the get-go. He recognized Jeb as the guy who had to go for him to have any chance to ascend. Cruz' ground game was fantastic, but it really only dealt with those already in the sphere of the party. What Obama did in 2008 was expand Democratic participation with his ground game. Cruz solidified (and I mean really solidified) what was already there in terms of Republicans that were zeroed in on social and cultural issues. What is odd is that in this era of slicing and dicing the population into pigeon-hole-sized particulates to be swayed by micro-messages, Trump's large (I mean YUGE) theme worked.

weso, first, I agree that Hillary also has a water pistol in trying to deal with the Donald. I was using an analogy that I believe was complimentary of Cruz' organizational skills, but how those skills didn't apply in a paradigm different than the one they were designed for. I could have used, "Cruz was playing checkers while the Donald was playing chess" or "Cruz brought a knife to a gunfight" or something on that order. Sorry if that offended.

As per the question of who ruined things, Cruz or those who detest him, one could argue, and I believe persuasively, that Cruz defined himself in such a way that it was bound to offend a ton of influential people and the way he went about it was going to generate blowback. For a guy who knows his Bible, I guess Cruz totally forgot the "As ye sow, so shall ye reap" verse. He should have listened to Wet Willie's "Everything that 'Cha Do (Will Come Back to You)" before hitting the campaign trail. It's kind of like this:



I don't want people to get me wrong. I'm not sanguine as November approaches. I think the country is still on the tracks (it's never really ON the right track, is it?). Challenges ahead both domestically and internationally. One can make arguments, some of them convincing, that we need major changes in how we handle a number of issues. As a committed incrementalist, I shy away from most-macro efforts. I have come to believe we are a center-right country that occasionally has center-left hiccups. I think the last thing the country needs right now is a President (and Congress) that deviates too much from that script. From the current crop, I think Jeb would have been a decent President. I had no real problem with Kasich. On the Dem side, I think Hillary will be a steady hand if elected. President Trump will run the country like a television show. The script will depend on the overnights. We have, until recently, been a country run on compromise. The Constitution itself is a compromise document. Hopefully, we can regain that spirit.

[BedellBrave]

I think Graham's comments about Cruz, however impolitic, say more about Cruz than they do about Graham. Where there's smoke, there's fire. Cruz really is that bad, and is despised by his "colleagues" with good reason.

Boehner and Graham and the like may be hated by the base, but for better or worse, they represent a path to viability for their party. The Ted Cruz contingent is just a path to further marginalization.

I actually think that neither Cruz or the Boehner/Graham/McCain crowd are viable paths. The pugilism and arrogance of Cruz (and creepiness) did him in. The Boehner/Graham/McCain crowd, while able to actually befriend someone across the aisle, are so interlocked into K-street and are so hawkish that it's clear for all to see their's is a path to their own pockets. It's actually going to take a new crowd of faces, imho. And for me now, I'm hoping it'll be outside the confines of the GOP. I have no interest in joining forces with the Trump supporters.

[BedellBrave]

Is this a joke?

Its confirmation for me.

[Julio3000]

I actually think that neither Cruz or the Boehner/Graham/McCain crowd are viable paths. The pugilism and arrogance of Cruz (and creepiness) did him in. The Boehner/Graham/McCain crowd, while able to actually befriend someone across the aisle, are so interlocked into K-street and are so hawkish that it's clear for all to see their's is a path to their own pockets. It's actually going to take a new crowd of faces, imho. And for me now, I'm hoping it'll be outside the confines of the GOP. I have no interest in joining forces with the Trump supporters.

Sure, point taken. I certainly understand why you feel that way. I was really speaking to their tactics and philosophies, rather than about the folks themselves.

I'm with 50 in preferring consensus and moderation (coupled with the willingness to actually conduct the business of government) over ideological purity. 50% of something is better than 100% of nothing.

[BedellBrave]

A libertarian's crazy dream...Link

[Oklahomahawk]

A libertarian's crazy dream...Link

Mathematically I suppose that could work, it worked in 1824 when we were a one party nation (after the collapse of the Federalists). The key is to pick someone with more stroke than most of those candidates mentioned there. You'd literally need someone who would literally take votes away from both Hilldog and Trump, not just one or the other. Then the House of Representatives could pick the next president and with Paul Ryan as speaker they could pick the least repulsive one. Let's just hope it isn't another John Q. Adams or another "corrupt bargain" for that matter.

[57Brave]

Pretty soon "we" will get in step. Anywhere from 15-20 of y'all
Can't help yourselves. Fox News says jump and "we" says how high
......

Former 'stop Trump' megadonor switches sides

By Alex Isenstadt
| 05/09/16 04:47 PM EDT


Once a big donor to the anti-Trump movement, billionaire broadcasting executive Stanley Hubbard is now backing the presumptive GOP nominee.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-g...#ixzz48CUdu8lg

[57Brave]

It will be easier if you would just stop pretending.
Wait till Trump says "Pro-Life"

cause you have to know that is the card he's holding

[cajunrevenge]

A libertarian's crazy dream...Link

I wish it was everyones dream to have a pro freedom president for once.

[57Brave]

"a pro freedom president" for once

when we get to end of the year Real Talk Awards, this is my nomination for MAP

I never knew you could fit those three words into a word salad

[BedellBrave]

Pretty soon "we" will get in step. Anywhere from 15-20 of y'all
Can't help yourselves. Fox News says jump and "we" says how high
......

Former 'stop Trump' megadonor switches sides



By Alex Isenstadt
| 05/09/16 04:47 PM EDT


Once a big donor to the anti-Trump movement, billionaire broadcasting executive Stanley Hubbard is now backing the presumptive GOP nominee.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-g...#ixzz48CUdu8lg

The be-clowning continues. Folks got to stay on the plantation you know.

[BedellBrave]

It will be easier if you would just stop pretending.
Wait till Trump says "Pro-Life"

cause you have to know that is the card he's holding

Trumpsters are already playing the SCOTUS card hot and heavy.

[57Brave]

GOP Quickly Unifies Around Trump; Clinton Still Has Modest Lead

PPP's new national poll finds that Republicans have quickly unified around Donald Trump, making the Presidential race more competitive than it has previously been perceived to be.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/m...dest-lead.html

.................................................. ................
and this:

There's been a lot of recent coverage of Donald Trump's embrace of various conspiracy theories, so we asked about a bunch of them on this poll to see which ones his supporters believe and which ones even they say are a bridge too far. Among voters with a favorable opinion of Trump:
-65% think President Obama is a Muslim, only 13% think he's a Christian.

-59% think President Obama was not born in the United States, only 23% think that he was.

-27% think vaccines cause autism, 45% don't think they do, another 29% are not sure.

-24% think Antonin Scalia was murdered, just 42% think he died naturally, another 34% are unsure.

-7% think Ted Cruz's father was involved in the assassination of JFK, 55% think he was not involved, another 38% are unsure.