US General Election Megathread: Trump vs Clinton

[Collatis]

Is it my imagination or is this dude sporting the typical white supremacist haircut? It seems he's got that look about him that he would have certain sympathies for undesirable groups that foment hate and violence. Perhaps it is just my imagination.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/21/us/po ... .html?_r=0

Kind of reminds me of Forrest Gump...

[Southerly Gentleman]

Just your imagination. If he were a skinhead, it might be a different story.

There is that orange Muppet covering his skinhead.

Was referring to Lewandowski, not Trump. I do have my suspicions about Donald.

[The United Territories of Providence]

Okay Nate Silver you Nerdy Bastard, It's Now or Never

From Donald Trump's Six Stages of Doom

Stage 6: Endgame

When it happens: June through Republican National Convention, July 18-21
Potential threat to Trump: The Republican Party does everything in its power to deny him the nomination.

If Trump makes it past Stage 4, we’ll have to consider his campaign successful, up to a point. He’ll have gotten further than any similar candidate has in the past. But he’d still be a long way from winning the nomination, and the final two stages might be his hardest yet.

The Republican Party’s delegate selection rules are straightforward in some states but byzantine in others, especially in caucus states where delegates are sometimes not formally pledged to the candidate who apparently earned their support on election night. Furthermore, about 7 percent of delegates to the RNC are party leaders — what Democrats would call “superdelegates” — who are usually not bound by the results of the popular vote in their states at all.

This introduces a little bit of slack into the system. It works in favor of establishment-backed candidates, or those who have an intricate understanding of the delegate rules. And it works against candidates like Trump.

Regular FiveThirtyEight readers will be familiar with “The Party Decides” paradigm of the nomination process. It posits that the nominee represents the consensus choice of influential members of the party, and that rank-and-file voters serve mostly to vet and validate the candidates in the event of a close call.

Much of the party’s influence consists of what you might call “soft power,” the ability to influence outcomes by persuasion rather than coercion. But the party also has some “hard power”: It literally makes the rules. It can rule against candidates it doesn’t like in the event of delegate-counting disputes. It can probably even change the rules midstream. There isn’t a lot of precedent to worry about violating, since it’s been 40 years since Republicans came close to a brokered convention.

If Trump made it this far, the Republican Party would go to extraordinary lengths to avoid nominating him. In “The Party Decides” view, parties are basically looking for two things from their nominees: They want them to be reliable (meaning, they can be counted on to enact the Republican agenda once in office), and they want them to be electable (meaning, they can win in November). It’s hard to think of a candidate who does worse on those two measures than Trump. He’s exceptionally unpopular among independent voters. But he also has a checkered political past that includes once having supported abortion rights and universal health care. For the Republican Party, he’s the worst of all possible worlds.

So, how do I wind up with that 2 percent estimate of Trump’s nomination chances? It’s what you get if you assume he has a 50 percent chance of surviving each subsequent stage of the gantlet. Tonight’s debate could prove to be the beginning of the end for Trump, or he could remain a factor for months to come. But he’s almost certainly doomed, sooner or later.

[New Chalcedon]

Okay Nate Silver you Nerdy Bastard, It's Now or Never

From Donald Trump's Six Stages of Doom

Stage 6: Endgame

When it happens: June through Republican National Convention, July 18-21
Potential threat to Trump: The Republican Party does everything in its power to deny him the nomination.

If Trump makes it past Stage 4, we’ll have to consider his campaign successful, up to a point. He’ll have gotten further than any similar candidate has in the past. But he’d still be a long way from winning the nomination, and the final two stages might be his hardest yet.

The Republican Party’s delegate selection rules are straightforward in some states but byzantine in others, especially in caucus states where delegates are sometimes not formally pledged to the candidate who apparently earned their support on election night. Furthermore, about 7 percent of delegates to the RNC are party leaders — what Democrats would call “superdelegates” — who are usually not bound by the results of the popular vote in their states at all.

This introduces a little bit of slack into the system. It works in favor of establishment-backed candidates, or those who have an intricate understanding of the delegate rules. And it works against candidates like Trump.

Regular FiveThirtyEight readers will be familiar with “The Party Decides” paradigm of the nomination process. It posits that the nominee represents the consensus choice of influential members of the party, and that rank-and-file voters serve mostly to vet and validate the candidates in the event of a close call.

Much of the party’s influence consists of what you might call “soft power,” the ability to influence outcomes by persuasion rather than coercion. But the party also has some “hard power”: It literally makes the rules. It can rule against candidates it doesn’t like in the event of delegate-counting disputes. It can probably even change the rules midstream. There isn’t a lot of precedent to worry about violating, since it’s been 40 years since Republicans came close to a brokered convention.

If Trump made it this far, the Republican Party would go to extraordinary lengths to avoid nominating him. In “The Party Decides” view, parties are basically looking for two things from their nominees: They want them to be reliable (meaning, they can be counted on to enact the Republican agenda once in office), and they want them to be electable (meaning, they can win in November). It’s hard to think of a candidate who does worse on those two measures than Trump. He’s exceptionally unpopular among independent voters. But he also has a checkered political past that includes once having supported abortion rights and universal health care. For the Republican Party, he’s the worst of all possible worlds.

So, how do I wind up with that 2 percent estimate of Trump’s nomination chances? It’s what you get if you assume he has a 50 percent chance of surviving each subsequent stage of the gantlet. Tonight’s debate could prove to be the beginning of the end for Trump, or he could remain a factor for months to come. But he’s almost certainly doomed, sooner or later.

Wasn't Silver also predicting that Trump wouldn't survive past Super Tuesday? The pundits have gotten virtually every call wrong this year; from their breezy assurances that Trump didn't have a chance, to their overconfident statements that Hillary Clinton faced no serious opponents in the Democratic primary.

The GOP elite dare not do anything that might be seen as "stealing" the nomination from Trump, because - contrary to some breezy prognosticators earlier in this thread - I believe they stand to lose a helluva lot more than one election if they do. The tea partiers have demonstrated, conclusively, that they're the majority of the GOP base now - and if the GOP denies Trump the nomination, he'll bolt and they'll bolt with him.

"Sure", you say, "But that's just one election!" Well...kinda. The odds of Trump actually forming an organized political party are zero - he doesn't have the time, the temperament or the discipline to do so. But the Tea Partiers are already in the business of hounding establishment Republicans over perceived sins of purity that sometimes happened decades ago. When it comes to apostasy, they don't forgive, and they don't forget. And I can see a lot of them bolting to the Libertarian Party (and God save the Libertarians if/when they do!), or organizing State-level challengers to the GOP, or just throwing up their hands and forswearing politics altogether...and in all cases, being a monumental headache to the Republican Party's establishment.

Any Republican's path to the White House is already very narrow, given that the States won by Democrats in every election since 1988 (i.e., six elections running) come to 240+ electoral college votes already - if the Tea Partiers do any of the things I've described, it vanishes altogether. And they'll start losing Congressional and Senate elections in swing states/districts too, as fringe-Right candidates peel off desperately-needed votes. And the State legislatures, too. And Governorships, and so on - elected office at all levels, really.

Far better for them to just write 2016 off, then coerce the tea partiers back into the fold in four years, because hey, they tried it the Tea Party way and got their asses whooped. And they'll see to it that the ass-whooping happens, if they have to grit their teeth and vote for Hillary themselves to make it happen!

[Laurasia]

Okay Nate Silver you Nerdy Bastard, It's Now or Never

From Donald Trump's Six Stages of Doom

Stage 6: Endgame

When it happens: June through Republican National Convention, July 18-21
Potential threat to Trump: The Republican Party does everything in its power to deny him the nomination.

If Trump makes it past Stage 4, we’ll have to consider his campaign successful, up to a point. He’ll have gotten further than any similar candidate has in the past. But he’d still be a long way from winning the nomination, and the final two stages might be his hardest yet.

The Republican Party’s delegate selection rules are straightforward in some states but byzantine in others, especially in caucus states where delegates are sometimes not formally pledged to the candidate who apparently earned their support on election night. Furthermore, about 7 percent of delegates to the RNC are party leaders — what Democrats would call “superdelegates” — who are usually not bound by the results of the popular vote in their states at all.

This introduces a little bit of slack into the system. It works in favor of establishment-backed candidates, or those who have an intricate understanding of the delegate rules. And it works against candidates like Trump.

Regular FiveThirtyEight readers will be familiar with “The Party Decides” paradigm of the nomination process. It posits that the nominee represents the consensus choice of influential members of the party, and that rank-and-file voters serve mostly to vet and validate the candidates in the event of a close call.

Much of the party’s influence consists of what you might call “soft power,” the ability to influence outcomes by persuasion rather than coercion. But the party also has some “hard power”: It literally makes the rules. It can rule against candidates it doesn’t like in the event of delegate-counting disputes. It can probably even change the rules midstream. There isn’t a lot of precedent to worry about violating, since it’s been 40 years since Republicans came close to a brokered convention.

If Trump made it this far, the Republican Party would go to extraordinary lengths to avoid nominating him. In “The Party Decides” view, parties are basically looking for two things from their nominees: They want them to be reliable (meaning, they can be counted on to enact the Republican agenda once in office), and they want them to be electable (meaning, they can win in November). It’s hard to think of a candidate who does worse on those two measures than Trump. He’s exceptionally unpopular among independent voters. But he also has a checkered political past that includes once having supported abortion rights and universal health care. For the Republican Party, he’s the worst of all possible worlds.

So, how do I wind up with that 2 percent estimate of Trump’s nomination chances? It’s what you get if you assume he has a 50 percent chance of surviving each subsequent stage of the gantlet. Tonight’s debate could prove to be the beginning of the end for Trump, or he could remain a factor for months to come. But he’s almost certainly doomed, sooner or later.

Wasn't Silver also predicting that Trump wouldn't survive past Super Tuesday? The pundits have gotten virtually every call wrong this year; from their breezy assurances that Trump didn't have a chance, to their overconfident statements that Hillary Clinton faced no serious opponents in the Democratic primary.

The GOP elite dare not do anything that might be seen as "stealing" the nomination from Trump, because - contrary to some breezy prognosticators earlier in this thread - I believe they stand to lose a helluva lot more than one election if they do. The tea partiers have demonstrated, conclusively, that they're the majority of the GOP base now - and if the GOP denies Trump the nomination, he'll bolt and they'll bolt with him.

"Sure", you say, "But that's just one election!" Well...kinda. The odds of Trump actually forming an organized political party are zero - he doesn't have the time, the temperament or the discipline to do so. But the Tea Partiers are already in the business of hounding establishment Republicans over perceived sins of purity that sometimes happened decades ago. When it comes to apostasy, they don't forgive, and they don't forget. And I can see a lot of them bolting to the Libertarian Party (and God save the Libertarians if/when they do!), or organizing State-level challengers to the GOP, or just throwing up their hands and forswearing politics altogether...and in all cases, being a monumental headache to the Republican Party's establishment.

Any Republican's path to the White House is already very narrow, given that the States won by Democrats in every election since 1988 (i.e., six elections running) come to 240+ electoral college votes already - if the Tea Partiers do any of the things I've described, it vanishes altogether. And they'll start losing Congressional and Senate elections in swing states/districts too, as fringe-Right candidates peel off desperately-needed votes. And the State legislatures, too. And Governorships, and so on - elected office at all levels, really.

Far better for them to just write 2016 off, then coerce the tea partiers back into the fold in four years, because hey, they tried it the Tea Party way and got their asses whooped. And they'll see to it that the ass-whooping happens, if they have to grit their teeth and vote for Hillary themselves to make it happen!

My personal opinion about this whole issue is that Donald Trump is the product of the Republican Party. He is the product of the hate, fear, and ignorance which have served as major forces within their party during the course of Obama's presidency. Trump capitalized on those elements in the party that strikes against so many groups that do not fit within their definition of "an American". By attacking women, Hispanics, and Muslims, Trump has demonstrated his xenophobia and his inability to conceive of anything not similar to his own values or his own culture. I find it an absolute shame that he was able to make it this far in the first place.

Now, my own political views fall in the middle. I support things such as universal healthcare and universal college education. I believe in the sensible, reasonable enforcement of the Second Amendment. I support efforts directed against racial inequality, criminal inequality, police brutality, and economic inequality. I want for our country to remain strong, to have an effective and well-mobilized military, and a economics market with good, high-paying jobs. I dislike too much taxation, but I don't want for corporate lobbyists or other organizations to have a disproportionate influence in our affairs. I am pro-life (in all instances except for incest, etc.), and have a "neutral" view in regards to gay rights. From my perspective, neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton would fulfill these policy objectives. Both would bring the U.S. to ruin, and both would weaken our position on the world stage.

[PaNTuXIa]

Wasn't Silver also predicting that Trump wouldn't survive past Super Tuesday? The pundits have gotten virtually every call wrong this year; from their breezy assurances that Trump didn't have a chance, to their overconfident statements that Hillary Clinton faced no serious opponents in the Democratic primary.

The GOP elite dare not do anything that might be seen as "stealing" the nomination from Trump, because - contrary to some breezy prognosticators earlier in this thread - I believe they stand to lose a helluva lot more than one election if they do. The tea partiers have demonstrated, conclusively, that they're the majority of the GOP base now - and if the GOP denies Trump the nomination, he'll bolt and they'll bolt with him.

"Sure", you say, "But that's just one election!" Well...kinda. The odds of Trump actually forming an organized political party are zero - he doesn't have the time, the temperament or the discipline to do so. But the Tea Partiers are already in the business of hounding establishment Republicans over perceived sins of purity that sometimes happened decades ago. When it comes to apostasy, they don't forgive, and they don't forget. And I can see a lot of them bolting to the Libertarian Party (and God save the Libertarians if/when they do!), or organizing State-level challengers to the GOP, or just throwing up their hands and forswearing politics altogether...and in all cases, being a monumental headache to the Republican Party's establishment.

Any Republican's path to the White House is already very narrow, given that the States won by Democrats in every election since 1988 (i.e., six elections running) come to 240+ electoral college votes already - if the Tea Partiers do any of the things I've described, it vanishes altogether. And they'll start losing Congressional and Senate elections in swing states/districts too, as fringe-Right candidates peel off desperately-needed votes. And the State legislatures, too. And Governorships, and so on - elected office at all levels, really.

Far better for them to just write 2016 off, then coerce the tea partiers back into the fold in four years, because hey, they tried it the Tea Party way and got their asses whooped. And they'll see to it that the ass-whooping happens, if they have to grit their teeth and vote for Hillary themselves to make it happen!

My personal opinion about this whole issue is that Donald Trump is the product of the Republican Party. He is the product of the hate, fear, and ignorance which have served as major forces within their party during the course of Obama's presidency. Trump capitalized on those elements in the party that strikes against so many groups that do not fit within their definition of "an American". By attacking women, Hispanics, and Muslims, Trump has demonstrated his xenophobia and his inability to conceive of anything not similar to his own values or his own culture. I find it an absolute shame that he was able to make it this far in the first place.

Now, my own political views fall in the middle. I support things such as universal healthcare and universal college education. I believe in the sensible, reasonable enforcement of the Second Amendment. I support efforts directed against racial inequality, criminal inequality, police brutality, and economic inequality. I want for our country to remain strong, to have an effective and well-mobilized military, and a economics market with good, high-paying jobs. I dislike too much taxation, but I don't want for corporate lobbyists or other organizations to have a disproportionate influence in our affairs. I am pro-life (in all instances except for incest, etc.), and have a "neutral" view in regards to gay rights. From my perspective, neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton would fulfill these policy objectives. Both would bring the U.S. to ruin, and both would weaken our position on the world stage.

Right, of course Trump is. Trump is, at least in my opinion, quite clever. He managed to see that the white working class were feeling angry, and took advantage of that to increase his own power and prestige. Trump is simply a very good actor, who saw his opportunity and struck it.

[Laurasia]

My personal opinion about this whole issue is that Donald Trump is the product of the Republican Party. He is the product of the hate, fear, and ignorance which have served as major forces within their party during the course of Obama's presidency. Trump capitalized on those elements in the party that strikes against so many groups that do not fit within their definition of "an American". By attacking women, Hispanics, and Muslims, Trump has demonstrated his xenophobia and his inability to conceive of anything not similar to his own values or his own culture. I find it an absolute shame that he was able to make it this far in the first place.

Now, my own political views fall in the middle. I support things such as universal healthcare and universal college education. I believe in the sensible, reasonable enforcement of the Second Amendment. I support efforts directed against racial inequality, criminal inequality, police brutality, and economic inequality. I want for our country to remain strong, to have an effective and well-mobilized military, and a economics market with good, high-paying jobs. I dislike too much taxation, but I don't want for corporate lobbyists or other organizations to have a disproportionate influence in our affairs. I am pro-life (in all instances except for incest, etc.), and have a "neutral" view in regards to gay rights. From my perspective, neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton would fulfill these policy objectives. Both would bring the U.S. to ruin, and both would weaken our position on the world stage.

Right, of course Trump is. Trump is, at least in my opinion, quite clever. He managed to see that the white working class were feeling angry, and took advantage of that to increase his own power and prestige. Trump is simply a very good actor, who saw his opportunity and struck it.

That much is certain. From the first moment that he entered the race, he geared his message to appeal to those who would fall for it. It was deliberate, and pre-meditated on his part. If Trump had not run, and if a sensible, moderate Republican had emerged from the field, Hillary Clinton would most certainly not win in this year's general election.

[Kelinfort]

Okay Nate Silver you Nerdy Bastard, It's Now or Never

From Donald Trump's Six Stages of Doom

Stage 6: Endgame

When it happens: June through Republican National Convention, July 18-21
Potential threat to Trump: The Republican Party does everything in its power to deny him the nomination.

If Trump makes it past Stage 4, we’ll have to consider his campaign successful, up to a point. He’ll have gotten further than any similar candidate has in the past. But he’d still be a long way from winning the nomination, and the final two stages might be his hardest yet.

The Republican Party’s delegate selection rules are straightforward in some states but byzantine in others, especially in caucus states where delegates are sometimes not formally pledged to the candidate who apparently earned their support on election night. Furthermore, about 7 percent of delegates to the RNC are party leaders — what Democrats would call “superdelegates” — who are usually not bound by the results of the popular vote in their states at all.

This introduces a little bit of slack into the system. It works in favor of establishment-backed candidates, or those who have an intricate understanding of the delegate rules. And it works against candidates like Trump.

Regular FiveThirtyEight readers will be familiar with “The Party Decides” paradigm of the nomination process. It posits that the nominee represents the consensus choice of influential members of the party, and that rank-and-file voters serve mostly to vet and validate the candidates in the event of a close call.

Much of the party’s influence consists of what you might call “soft power,” the ability to influence outcomes by persuasion rather than coercion. But the party also has some “hard power”: It literally makes the rules. It can rule against candidates it doesn’t like in the event of delegate-counting disputes. It can probably even change the rules midstream. There isn’t a lot of precedent to worry about violating, since it’s been 40 years since Republicans came close to a brokered convention.

If Trump made it this far, the Republican Party would go to extraordinary lengths to avoid nominating him. In “The Party Decides” view, parties are basically looking for two things from their nominees: They want them to be reliable (meaning, they can be counted on to enact the Republican agenda once in office), and they want them to be electable (meaning, they can win in November). It’s hard to think of a candidate who does worse on those two measures than Trump. He’s exceptionally unpopular among independent voters. But he also has a checkered political past that includes once having supported abortion rights and universal health care. For the Republican Party, he’s the worst of all possible worlds.

So, how do I wind up with that 2 percent estimate of Trump’s nomination chances? It’s what you get if you assume he has a 50 percent chance of surviving each subsequent stage of the gantlet. Tonight’s debate could prove to be the beginning of the end for Trump, or he could remain a factor for months to come. But he’s almost certainly doomed, sooner or later.

Wasn't Silver also predicting that Trump wouldn't survive past Super Tuesday? The pundits have gotten virtually every call wrong this year; from their breezy assurances that Trump didn't have a chance, to their overconfident statements that Hillary Clinton faced no serious opponents in the Democratic primary.

The GOP elite dare not do anything that might be seen as "stealing" the nomination from Trump, because - contrary to some breezy prognosticators earlier in this thread - I believe they stand to lose a helluva lot more than one election if they do. The tea partiers have demonstrated, conclusively, that they're the majority of the GOP base now - and if the GOP denies Trump the nomination, he'll bolt and they'll bolt with him.

"Sure", you say, "But that's just one election!" Well...kinda. The odds of Trump actually forming an organized political party are zero - he doesn't have the time, the temperament or the discipline to do so. But the Tea Partiers are already in the business of hounding establishment Republicans over perceived sins of purity that sometimes happened decades ago. When it comes to apostasy, they don't forgive, and they don't forget. And I can see a lot of them bolting to the Libertarian Party (and God save the Libertarians if/when they do!), or organizing State-level challengers to the GOP, or just throwing up their hands and forswearing politics altogether...and in all cases, being a monumental headache to the Republican Party's establishment.

Any Republican's path to the White House is already very narrow, given that the States won by Democrats in every election since 1988 (i.e., six elections running) come to 240+ electoral college votes already - if the Tea Partiers do any of the things I've described, it vanishes altogether. And they'll start losing Congressional and Senate elections in swing states/districts too, as fringe-Right candidates peel off desperately-needed votes. And the State legislatures, too. And Governorships, and so on - elected office at all levels, really.

Far better for them to just write 2016 off, then coerce the tea partiers back into the fold in four years, because hey, they tried it the Tea Party way and got their asses whooped. And they'll see to it that the ass-whooping happens, if they have to grit their teeth and vote for Hillary themselves to make it happen!

Trump isn't a Tea Partier though. This loss will do nothing to end the divided between the mainstream and the Freedom Caucus. If anything, this election will exacerbate differences because Trump is too moderate in their minds.

If Cruz lost spectacularly this time around, then you'd be right. Trump isn't Cruz. In fact, should the Party nominate Cruz next time, Hillary will almost assuredly be a two term president. That will finally send the message after a decade plus of infighting.

[Socialist Nordia]

Wasn't Silver also predicting that Trump wouldn't survive past Super Tuesday? The pundits have gotten virtually every call wrong this year; from their breezy assurances that Trump didn't have a chance, to their overconfident statements that Hillary Clinton faced no serious opponents in the Democratic primary.

The GOP elite dare not do anything that might be seen as "stealing" the nomination from Trump, because - contrary to some breezy prognosticators earlier in this thread - I believe they stand to lose a helluva lot more than one election if they do. The tea partiers have demonstrated, conclusively, that they're the majority of the GOP base now - and if the GOP denies Trump the nomination, he'll bolt and they'll bolt with him.

"Sure", you say, "But that's just one election!" Well...kinda. The odds of Trump actually forming an organized political party are zero - he doesn't have the time, the temperament or the discipline to do so. But the Tea Partiers are already in the business of hounding establishment Republicans over perceived sins of purity that sometimes happened decades ago. When it comes to apostasy, they don't forgive, and they don't forget. And I can see a lot of them bolting to the Libertarian Party (and God save the Libertarians if/when they do!), or organizing State-level challengers to the GOP, or just throwing up their hands and forswearing politics altogether...and in all cases, being a monumental headache to the Republican Party's establishment.

Any Republican's path to the White House is already very narrow, given that the States won by Democrats in every election since 1988 (i.e., six elections running) come to 240+ electoral college votes already - if the Tea Partiers do any of the things I've described, it vanishes altogether. And they'll start losing Congressional and Senate elections in swing states/districts too, as fringe-Right candidates peel off desperately-needed votes. And the State legislatures, too. And Governorships, and so on - elected office at all levels, really.

Far better for them to just write 2016 off, then coerce the tea partiers back into the fold in four years, because hey, they tried it the Tea Party way and got their asses whooped. And they'll see to it that the ass-whooping happens, if they have to grit their teeth and vote for Hillary themselves to make it happen!

Trump isn't a Tea Partier though. This loss will do nothing to end the divided between the mainstream and the Freedom Caucus. If anything, this election will exacerbate differences because Trump is too moderate in their minds.

If Cruz lost spectacularly this time around, then you'd be right. Trump isn't Cruz. In fact, should the Party nominate Cruz next time, Hillary will almost assuredly be a two term president. That will finally send the message after a decade plus of infighting.

They're idiots if they come back in 4 years with a Cruz candidacy. If they don't nominate someone respectable next time, they don't deserve to be a major party. I hope Hillary can get another term. 16 years of Obama-Clinton will be good for America.

[Major-Tom]

I'm not a fan of Trump, but I have to disagree. Lewandowski, to my knowledge, knew how to perform damage control whenever Trump made a gaffe, and reminded Trump to just "tone it down once and a while, all while still delivering some rhetoric."

Sure seemed to work among the primary voters. My point is, Lewandowski seems like a fairly intelligent, albeit, not a very nice guy, and I don't know why Trump thought it'd be clever to fire him.

There's no point in having him. Manafort does a better job than Lewandowski.

Mark my words, if Trump doesn't get his act together now, he'll suffer major losses in Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, and Colorado, among more.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

There's no point in having him. Manafort does a better job than Lewandowski.

Mark my words, if Trump doesn't get his act together now, he'll suffer major losses in Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, and Colorado, among more.

Sad thing is, I think that this may be what it looks like when he has his act together.

[Major-Tom]

Mark my words, if Trump doesn't get his act together now, he'll suffer major losses in Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, and Colorado, among more.

Sad thing is, I think that this may be what it looks like when he has his act together.

I mean, if he moderated his positions, completely avoided gaffes, hired a hell of a lot more staffers, and spent money wisely on targeted campaign ads against a myriad of Hillary's corruption scandals, he might just pull through.

I don't see that happening. Any Republican running against Clinton of all people has a chance to really make the public turn against her like a pack of rabid wolves. Trump is 10x tamer towards Hillary than he was against Jeb fucking Bush of all people.

I mean, by June of 2012, Romney and Obama were spending equally in swing states, Trump hasn't even compared to Hillary, nor does it seem like he plans to. If he's such a billionaire, why wouldn't he go all in? It just doesn't make sense, and the hypothesis that he is a Manchurian Candidate is very unlikely, but slightly plausible.

[Zurkerx]

Trump isn't a Tea Partier though. This loss will do nothing to end the divided between the mainstream and the Freedom Caucus. If anything, this election will exacerbate differences because Trump is too moderate in their minds.

If Cruz lost spectacularly this time around, then you'd be right. Trump isn't Cruz. In fact, should the Party nominate Cruz next time, Hillary will almost assuredly be a two term president. That will finally send the message after a decade plus of infighting.

They're idiots if they come back in 4 years with a Cruz candidacy. If they don't nominate someone respectable next time, they don't deserve to be a major party. I hope Hillary can get another term. 16 years of Obama-Clinton will be good for America.

Actually, it would finally shut up the religious wing of the party and diminished their power within the party. After nominating Trump and maybe Cruz, people will finally realize that nominating religious wackos or loud mouth populists aren't the best thing for this country.

[Geilinor]

Sad thing is, I think that this may be what it looks like when he has his act together.

I mean, if he moderated his positions, completely avoided gaffes, hired a hell of a lot more staffers, and spent money wisely on targeted campaign ads against a myriad of Hillary's corruption scandals, he might just pull through.

Trump may have committed fraud. I don't think going after Hillary will help him much.

[Major-Tom]

Trump isn't a Tea Partier though. This loss will do nothing to end the divided between the mainstream and the Freedom Caucus. If anything, this election will exacerbate differences because Trump is too moderate in their minds.

If Cruz lost spectacularly this time around, then you'd be right. Trump isn't Cruz. In fact, should the Party nominate Cruz next time, Hillary will almost assuredly be a two term president. That will finally send the message after a decade plus of infighting.

They're idiots if they come back in 4 years with a Cruz candidacy. If they don't nominate someone respectable next time, they don't deserve to be a major party. I hope Hillary can get another term. 16 years of Obama-Clinton will be good for America.

Obama has been rather polarizing in his second term, and Hillary suffers from 55-60% unfavorability ratings. Logically speaking, this should be the Republican's election to win. All they had to do was nominate someone charming, transparent, experienced, and relatively moderate.

But, nah, nah, we went with Trump, and it still pisses me off. I mean, the way I think of it, if we had nominated Governor Kasich, the GOP could've done better than we did in 2004, potentially making inroads into states that just tilt blue, like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Iowa.

[Major-Tom]

I mean, if he moderated his positions, completely avoided gaffes, hired a hell of a lot more staffers, and spent money wisely on targeted campaign ads against a myriad of Hillary's corruption scandals, he might just pull through.

Trump may have committed fraud. I don't think going after Hillary will help him much.

Yes, he has had a shady career, very shady. That being said, so has Hillary, and if Trump wants to win over independents, he needs to be relentless against Hillary, all while trying to deflect attacks against himself.

Instead, he spends more time attacking Elizabeth Warren and Lindsey fucking Graham of all people. Like....what?

[Washington Resistance Army]

They're idiots if they come back in 4 years with a Cruz candidacy. If they don't nominate someone respectable next time, they don't deserve to be a major party. I hope Hillary can get another term. 16 years of Obama-Clinton will be good for America.

Obama has been rather polarizing in his second term, and Hillary suffers from 55-60% unfavorability ratings. Logically speaking, this should be the Republican's election to win. All they had to do was nominate someone charming, transparent, experienced, and relatively moderate.

But, nah, nah, we went with Trump, and it still pisses me off. I mean, the way I think of it, if we had nominated Governor Kasich, the GOP could've done better than we did in 2004, potentially making inroads into states that just tilt blue, like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Iowa.

Yep, the GOP had this in the bag and could have easily beaten Hillary but that doesn't look likely at this rate.

Either way, Johnson 2016. The only sane candidate left.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Sad thing is, I think that this may be what it looks like when he has his act together.

I mean, if he moderated his positions, completely avoided gaffes, hired a hell of a lot more staffers, and spent money wisely on targeted campaign ads against a myriad of Hillary's corruption scandals, he might just pull through.

I don't see that happening. Any Republican running against Clinton of all people has a chance to really make the public turn against her like a pack of rabid wolves. Trump is 10x tamer towards Hillary than he was against Jeb fucking Bush of all people.

I mean, by June of 2012, Romney and Obama were spending equally in swing states, Trump hasn't even compared to Hillary, nor does it seem like he plans to. If he's such a billionaire, why wouldn't he go all in? It just doesn't make sense, and the hypothesis that he is a Manchurian Candidate is very unlikely, but slightly plausible.

That's just it. I don't think that he's mentally capable of doing any of these things. He strikes me as someone who has been surrounded by "Yes" men for decades, and has no patience for anyone who doesn't see him as absolutely correct 100% of the time. I could be wrong, but does he come across as a man who has the slightest tolerance for being contradicted, or even gently corrected? I mean, this is the guy who revoked the credentials of one of the most boring, milquetoast, mainstream papers (The Washington Post) because they were doing their jobs and running stories on him that included information that didn't make him look especially good. It doesn't seem likely that he'd be happy with having someone willing to call him out in his inner circle, either.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

Trump may have committed fraud. I don't think going after Hillary will help him much.

Yes, he has had a shady career, very shady. That being said, so has Hillary, and if Trump wants to win over independents, he needs to be relentless against Hillary, all while trying to deflect attacks against himself.

Instead, he spends more time attacking Elizabeth Warren and Lindsey fucking Graham of all people. Like....what?

Looks like he's going after the people who really piss him off, I dunno.

[Major-Tom]

Obama has been rather polarizing in his second term, and Hillary suffers from 55-60% unfavorability ratings. Logically speaking, this should be the Republican's election to win. All they had to do was nominate someone charming, transparent, experienced, and relatively moderate.

But, nah, nah, we went with Trump, and it still pisses me off. I mean, the way I think of it, if we had nominated Governor Kasich, the GOP could've done better than we did in 2004, potentially making inroads into states that just tilt blue, like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Iowa.

Yep, the GOP had this in the bag and could have easily beaten Hillary but that doesn't look likely at this rate.

Either way, Johnson 2016. The only sane candidate left.

Amen, brother.

[Geilinor]

Obama has been rather polarizing in his second term

Polling shows that Obama's approval ratings have significantly improved in recent months, with improvements among independents. http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx Republicans would still have a good chance of winning if they chose someone relatively moderate and likable, of course. The problem is that the Republican base is not looking for moderation.

[Major-Tom]

Obama has been rather polarizing in his second term

Polling shows that Obama's approval ratings have significantly improved in recent months, with improvements among independents. http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx Republicans would still have a good chance of winning if they chose someone relatively moderate and likable, of course.

I know they've improved. The GOP base, however, and some independents, still really dislike him, or find him to be "meh."

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Obama has been rather polarizing in his second term, and Hillary suffers from 55-60% unfavorability ratings. Logically speaking, this should be the Republican's election to win. All they had to do was nominate someone charming, transparent, experienced, and relatively moderate.

But, nah, nah, we went with Trump, and it still pisses me off. I mean, the way I think of it, if we had nominated Governor Kasich, the GOP could've done better than we did in 2004, potentially making inroads into states that just tilt blue, like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Iowa.

Yep, the GOP had this in the bag and could have easily beaten Hillary but that doesn't look likely at this rate.

Either way, Johnson 2016. The only sane candidate left.

I'm not sure that they had this in the bag, exactly (Clinton's running on Obama's record, he's letting her do it, and whether you like or hate the man, he's currently enjoying nearly unprecedented popularity for a second-term President in his final year), but she has major weaknesses that could have been exploited by a more sophisticated candidate. Unfortunately for the GOP, the ones who actually scared me as a Democrat either stumbled out of the gate (Walker), or were simply unable to comprehend how much Trump had changed the game (Rubio).

[Major-Tom]

I mean, if he moderated his positions, completely avoided gaffes, hired a hell of a lot more staffers, and spent money wisely on targeted campaign ads against a myriad of Hillary's corruption scandals, he might just pull through.

I don't see that happening. Any Republican running against Clinton of all people has a chance to really make the public turn against her like a pack of rabid wolves. Trump is 10x tamer towards Hillary than he was against Jeb fucking Bush of all people.

I mean, by June of 2012, Romney and Obama were spending equally in swing states, Trump hasn't even compared to Hillary, nor does it seem like he plans to. If he's such a billionaire, why wouldn't he go all in? It just doesn't make sense, and the hypothesis that he is a Manchurian Candidate is very unlikely, but slightly plausible.

That's just it. I don't think that he's mentally capable of doing any of these things. He strikes me as someone who has been surrounded by "Yes" men for decades, and has no patience for anyone who doesn't see him as absolutely correct 100% of the time. I could be wrong, but does he come across as a man who has the slightest tolerance for being contradicted, or even gently corrected? I mean, this is the guy who revoked the credentials of one of the most boring, milquetoast, mainstream papers (The Washington Post) because they were doing their jobs and running stories on him that included information that didn't make him look especially good. It doesn't seem likely that he'd be happy with having someone willing to call him out in his inner circle, either.

That sounds about right, it's a bunch of yes men. I used to kind of think Trump was trying to turn the media against him, in an effort to win votes, as if he was a decent manipulator.

But, it seems that he really isn't, he might be somewhat intelligent, but hardly reasonable and intelligent in regards to the world of politics.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

That's just it. I don't think that he's mentally capable of doing any of these things. He strikes me as someone who has been surrounded by "Yes" men for decades, and has no patience for anyone who doesn't see him as absolutely correct 100% of the time. I could be wrong, but does he come across as a man who has the slightest tolerance for being contradicted, or even gently corrected? I mean, this is the guy who revoked the credentials of one of the most boring, milquetoast, mainstream papers (The Washington Post) because they were doing their jobs and running stories on him that included information that didn't make him look especially good. It doesn't seem likely that he'd be happy with having someone willing to call him out in his inner circle, either.

That sounds about right, it's a bunch of yes men. I used to kind of think Trump was trying to turn the media against him, in an effort to win votes, as if he was a decent manipulator.

But, it seems that he really isn't, he might be somewhat intelligent, but hardly reasonable and intelligent in regards to the world of politics.

There's a Texas expression that I love, and it fits Trump when it comes to politics: He's all hat, and no cattle.