Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, February 22, 2016

OTP - 2016 February 22: Cigar-maker Geiselman played baseball, politics in early Hibbing

Outside of playing ball, Bobby dabbles in politics and has been a winner. For two years he served as village trustee and in the last campaign he was elected village treasurer. He is a prominent member of the Saint Louis County Agricultural society and is a prominent member of the Elks.
He is a left hand thrower and as an indoor baseball player has few equals. He is married and is engaged in the cigar manufacturing business.

Another week another thread.

Bitter Mouse, Space Tyrant Posted: February 22, 2016 at 08:05 AM | 2799 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 28 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›
   1. Der-K should've known better than to fly on AA. Posted: February 22, 2016 at 01:45 PM (#5161231)
bump
   2. Bitter Mouse, Space Tyrant Posted: February 22, 2016 at 01:56 PM (#5161248)
There are other reasons, but two biggies are: Because he's not a hard-core conservative and because Americans have already shown that they're comfortable with him in their living rooms. I guess you can add that he's charismatic and likable and comes across as a natural leader.


"Likable"? That word doesn't mean what you think it means.

Trump Favorable Polls

Pollster Trend
Unfavorable 57.0%
Favorable 36.4%
Undecided 6.0%

Look at the graph. It is VERY stable.
   3. BurlyBuehrle Posted: February 22, 2016 at 01:57 PM (#5161253)
Okay, Mouse. But weren't you arguing that he has a "higher upside?"

If it isn't likeability that drives your conclusion, then what is it?
   4. Bitter Mouse, Space Tyrant Posted: February 22, 2016 at 01:58 PM (#5161254)
They want Trump to win the nomination. They would be fools to waste time and energy attacking him now.


Which is why they ... attacked him in the first place?


Being attacked by Clinton is the best way to become popular in the GOP, well maybe being bugged by Obama is worse. Maybe.
   5. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 22, 2016 at 02:10 PM (#5161268)
Hulk Hogan: "I want to be Donald Trump's running mate!"

Trump learning at the knee of the master. Trump is going full carny on the rubes and they'll keep swinging the hammer until they're broke, never knowing how the high-striker is gimmicked.
   6. Ron J Posted: February 22, 2016 at 02:12 PM (#5161270)
#3 Nobody has a clue as to how a GE with Trump as the Republican nominee will play out. But it is reasonably clear to me that anybody else on the Republican side starts with a demographic issue. (and yeah we've been over that) Not an insuperable problem but one that to my mind makes Hilary the favorite.

Trump? He might appeal to the economic populists who generally vote Democrat (while more or less holding the traditional Republican voters). If that were to happen (to be clear I don't think it's at all likely) he'd win in a walk.

Far more likely that he'll motivate the Democratic base while shedding a fair number of people who normally vote Republican.
   7. BDC Posted: February 22, 2016 at 02:17 PM (#5161276)
I think you've got the most likely scenarios there in #6, Ron, at least as we can foresee them in February.
   8. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: February 22, 2016 at 02:22 PM (#5161280)
He's already outlasted serious candidates: Walker, Christie, Paul, Bush.
So has Ben Carson.
   9. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 22, 2016 at 02:25 PM (#5161282)
Erick Erickson isn't from South Carolina but he's the latest prominent conservative to say NFW to Trump.


Yes, we get it: conservatives don't like him and claim they'll never vote for him and are sounding more and more desperate each day. This isn't exactly breaking news.

   10. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 22, 2016 at 02:26 PM (#5161283)


They want Trump to win the nomination.


I'm not so sure they do, actually.



I think they'd prefer Cruz - he's simply easiest to run against with the standard D playbook...



Right, which is why I think Trump throws a monkey wrench into the normal calculus. He's a wildcard. It's hard to plan against a wildcard. And if Trump does win the nomination then it's clear that the standard playbook of calling him a bigot/idiot/clown/Hitler with no real plans isn't guaranteed to work -- in fact it would have already failed once, in that case. So then what does she do? More of the same, but again that's not guaranteed to work.
   11. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: February 22, 2016 at 02:28 PM (#5161288)
#3 Nobody has a clue as to how a GE with Trump as the Republican nominee will play out. But it is reasonably clear to me that anybody else on the Republican side starts with a demographic issue. (and yeah we've been over that) Not an insuperable problem but one that to my mind makes Hilary the favorite.

Trump? He might appeal to the economic populists who generally vote Democrat (while more or less holding the traditional Republican voters). If that were to happen (to be clear I don't think it's at all likely) he'd win in a walk.

Far more likely that he'll motivate the Democratic base while shedding a fair number of people who normally vote Republican.


People like Jason and David, just to name two. And I'm talking about Nieporent, not just Brooks.

And assuming that those economic populists spend more than 10 seconds listening to how Trump and Clinton propose to address their concerns, they might not be so inclined to vote for Trump, either.
   12. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 22, 2016 at 02:28 PM (#5161289)
He's already outlasted serious candidates: Walker, Christie, Paul, Bush.

So has Ben Carson.


Not really; Carson refuses to fold his hand, which is not the same thing.

I wouldn't exactly say that holding 7-3 offsuit and yet staying in anyway means that you've outlasted the others who had the same crap hand that you have and so folded.
   13. The Good Face Posted: February 22, 2016 at 02:29 PM (#5161290)
And if Trump does win the nomination then it's clear that the standard playbook of calling him a bigot/idiot/clown/Hitler with no real plans isn't guaranteed to work -- in fact it would have already failed once, in that case. So then what does she do? More of the same, but again that's not guaranteed to work.


Well, the Dems ARE generally smarter than the GOP, who spent, literally, 6 months spluttering, "but, but... he's not a conservative!" repeatedly while watching Trump omnomnom their anointed candidates like so many bar snacks. But it will be interesting to see how they try to adapt if Trump is the candidate.
   14. Lassus Posted: February 22, 2016 at 02:29 PM (#5161291)
He's already outlasted serious candidates: Walker, Christie, Paul, Bush.

The very serious George Pataki sheds yet another tear.
   15. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 22, 2016 at 02:30 PM (#5161293)
Also, the claim that Rubio vs. Clinton is 50/50 is far fetched.

Really? Since Thanksgiving, Marco Rubio has led Hillary Clinton in 12 of 14 head-to-head match-up polls. The two polls with Hillary ahead, the most recent of which was early January, only gave her a 1% edge, and Rubio now leads in the RCP poll average by ~5%. Most candidates would be quite happy to be in such a "far fetched" position. Add John Kasivh to a Marco Rubio led ticket, and you have the Democrats' worst nightmare.
   16. Lassus Posted: February 22, 2016 at 02:31 PM (#5161295)
Let's say Rubio wins the nomination. No, I'm not getting into how likely or unlikely, that's just the future history speculative starting point.

Does he become ballsy enough to tap Trump for VP? Is it a good idea, great idea, or terrible idea? (I'm sorry if this has already come up and I missed it.)
   17. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 22, 2016 at 02:31 PM (#5161296)
The threat from conservatives never to vote for him has thus far not moved the needle.

I actually doubt that most of them would vote for Hillary over him.
   18. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: February 22, 2016 at 02:32 PM (#5161297)
"likable"? That word doesn't mean what you think it means.

It doesn't mean "favorable opinion." You're getting into human definitions again.
It means able to be liked. And people having a favorable opinion of you is evidence that you're likable. People having an unfavorable opinion of you is evidence that you're unlikable.
Trump is highly likable. Any claims to the contrary are wishful thinking. I'm quite confident in that prediction.
Speaking of not understanding English, a "prediction" is a statement about what will happen in the future. "Trump is highly likable" is not a prediction at all; it is a statement about present conditions. It's also an insane one, but that's a separate point. Calling Trump "likable" is actually something of an insult to him, since he actively cultivates the opposite image.
   19. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: February 22, 2016 at 02:32 PM (#5161298)
Trump throws a monkey wrench into the normal calculus. He's a wildcard. It's hard to plan against a wildcard. And if Trump does win the nomination then it's clear that the standard playbook of calling him a bigot/idiot/clown/Hitler with no real plans isn't guaranteed to work -- in fact it would have already failed once, in that case. So then what does she do? More of the same, but again that's not guaranteed to work.

All she'd have to do to prove Trump a bigot would be to keep replaying his speeches on Telemundo and Univision, and let nature take its course. Trump could then spend three months telling us how some of his best friends are Mexicans and Muslims.

And proving Trump is a sexist will be about as hard as proving him a bigot. If there's any candidate guaranteed to ensure that Clinton wins over women by FDR and LBJ margins, it's Trump.
   20. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: February 22, 2016 at 02:34 PM (#5161302)
Far more likely that he'll motivate the Democratic base while shedding a fair number of people who normally vote Republican.

People like Jason and David, just to name two. And I'm talking about Nieporent, not just Brooks.
I don't normally vote Republican.
   21. Renegade JE (((Jason))) Posted: February 22, 2016 at 02:37 PM (#5161303)
Dear Gonfalon,

Minority Turnout Determined the 2012 Election:
While it may seem like the 2012 presidential election has been analyzed to death, the recent release of the Census Bureau’s November election survey points out the key role that minority voter turnout, especially for blacks, played in determining the outcome.

What were you citing as evidence for your claim, Gonfalon?
   22. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 22, 2016 at 02:40 PM (#5161310)
Could not help but think of this scene:

President Camacho

Life imitating fiction.


Brought to you by Carl's Jr.
   23. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: February 22, 2016 at 02:40 PM (#5161312)
Even if it were not incredibly misleading to say that Trump won, given that he got less than 1/3 of the vote,

It's not incredibly misleading, or misleading at all. It's English. They had a contest. He finished with the most votes in the contest. Thus, he won. If you want to argue that his win was not as significant as people think, that's fine. But arguing that it's incredibly misleading to say he won is nonsensical.
I do argue that, but I also want to argue that "finishing with the most votes in the contest" is not "winning the contest." Since you brought up poker a minute ago: suppose you go over to a friend's house for a poker night. A whole bunch of people play. Many of them walk away with nothing. One person walks away with 32% of the total money; a couple of others walk away with 22%. Would one say that the first guy "won poker night"? No, that's silly; that's just not the way one uses the term. Yes, this first guy had the best night of anyone; it's fair to say that. But he didn't "win" the night, because there's really no such thing as winning the night. You would just say that he took home more money than anyone else.
   24. Renegade JE (((Jason))) Posted: February 22, 2016 at 02:41 PM (#5161314)
Erick Erickson:
When I wrote in National Review that I was against Donald Trump, I said and have maintained since his entry into the race that if Donald Trump is the Republican nominee, I would support him. No longer. ...

Already we are seeing pastors and religious leaders compromising their integrity to vote for Donald Trump. Jerry Falwell, Jr. has joined the whores of Moloch, defending Trump’s Planned Parenthood statement on Twitter. Falwell presides over an institution that expels students who have abortions, but is willing to give positive lip service to Trump saying there are good things Planned Parenthood does.
   25. Srul Itza Posted: February 22, 2016 at 02:41 PM (#5161315)
As soon as Trump came back at her and Bill they shut up


Because they will vote for a man who defines the elitist 1%.
   26. BDC Posted: February 22, 2016 at 02:42 PM (#5161317)
The threat from conservatives never to vote for him has thus far not moved the needle.

I actually doubt that most of them would vote for Hillary over him


Of course in the general election they just have to stay home in order to help Hillary. The Erickson piece is interesting because it offers such an impassioned case that there ain't a dime's worth of difference between Trump and the Democrats on the core issues.

I really don't see how Trump is going to move into some fourth political dimension to gain lots of votes if conservatives and liberals and moderates all dislike him :)

And the belligerence, the xenophobia, the crassness … OK, I get it, that is better than Viagra to some guys. But it does seem to set Trump up for some kind of "Have you no sense of decency" moment. It could come from somebody like George W Bush or Dick Cheney. (And might not be a moment so much as a tidal withdrawal of support from a Trump-led ticket.) As much ordnance as Bush and Cheney exploded in the Middle East, they, like most establishment Republicans, have a long history of alliances with Arab Muslim and other Muslim governments and business leaders. I don't think it's just the leftish sentimentalists like myself who are bothered by Trump's rhetoric.
   27. Renegade JE (((Jason))) Posted: February 22, 2016 at 02:43 PM (#5161319)
Listen to Uncle Joe, everybody:
In which C-SPAN archivists drop a 20-megaton political warhead directly on Obama and the Democrats. The best part? Biden actually goes a little further than Republicans have gone this month in opposing an election-year replacement for Scalia. Not only doesn’t he want a vacancy filled, not only doesn’t he want the Judiciary Committee to even hold hearings on a nomination, he wants the president to decline making a nomination altogether. The current GOP line is that Obama has every right as president to offer a nomination, just as the Senate has every right to withhold its advice and consent. Biden 1992 wanted Bush 41 to keep any nominations in his pocket. Amazing. ...

Update: If you’re keeping score, this means that the current president, current vice president, current Senate minority leader, and incoming Senate minority leader have all gone on record in the past in favor of obstructing a Supreme Court nominee.
   28. Srul Itza Posted: February 22, 2016 at 02:43 PM (#5161320)
You would just say that he took home more money than anyone else.


That's what winning looks like.
   29. Bitter Mouse, Space Tyrant Posted: February 22, 2016 at 02:43 PM (#5161321)
Okay, Mouse. But weren't you arguing that he has a "higher upside?"

If it isn't likeability that drives your conclusion, then what is it?


Already talked about, but Trump's upside is as follows. He is not likable, but neither is Clinton. Since he is not Truth Encumbered he can say whatever and has a chance to catch lighting in a bottle and peel off a bunch of moderate Democrats, that combined with all the conservatives who have nowhere else to go and Trump wins.

Now I don't think that is in the slightest likely. In fact I think on average Trump loses more often and worse than Rubio does. But his ceiling is higher.

And yes Rubio/Kasich is probably the worst match-up with Clinton/<some dude>, assuming Trump plays nice and doesn't go all "Treated unfairly" on the bit. I still like Clinton's chances, but that is the worst match-up. Doesn't seem super likely though.

Say Rubio has a 40% of winning the nomination, and a 95% of picking Kasich. Let's give Trump a 20% of running a 3rd party bid (just guessing here).

That gives .4 x .95 x .8 = 30.4% Obviously just picking out numbers, but less than a third of the time facing the "nightmare"? OK.
   30. Empathy, I Promise You (SBB) Posted: February 22, 2016 at 02:43 PM (#5161322)
Calling Trump "likable" is actually something of an insult to him, since he actively cultivates the opposite image.

And yet somehow winds up being actually very likable.

Go figure.
   31. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: February 22, 2016 at 02:44 PM (#5161324)
Even a stopped GPS is right twice a day, which is twice as often as Frank Rich:

February 22, 2016, 11:35 am: The GOP Is Still in Denial About Donald Trump — and Ted Cruz, Too:
Obviously more than a few Republican hands have their own doubts about Rubio’s supposed path to victory, which is why Rudy Giuliani, Bob Dole, and the like have been toying with embracing Trump.
February 22, 2016, 2:29 pm: Exclusive: Bob Dole Endorses Marco Rubio in 2016 Race :
Former Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole is throwing his support behind Marco Rubio in the 2016 presidential contest after his early favorite – former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush – dropped out of the race on Saturday.

“Now that my good friend Jeb Bush is no longer running, I’m supporting Rubio,” Dole told ABC’s Jonathan Karl and Rick Klein in an interview for their new podcast “Political Powerhouse” on Monday.
   32. Empathy, I Promise You (SBB) Posted: February 22, 2016 at 02:45 PM (#5161325)
I really don't see how Trump is going to move into some fourth political dimension to gain lots of votes if conservatives and liberals and moderates all dislike him :)

They don't. Which is why he's winning a bunch of primaries with a wide cross-section of varying demographics.
   33. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: February 22, 2016 at 02:46 PM (#5161327)
And yet somehow winds up being actually very likable.
That word still doesn't mean what you think it means.
   34. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: February 22, 2016 at 02:47 PM (#5161328)
They don't. Which is why he's winning a bunch of primaries with a wide cross-section of varying demographics.
Now "two" is "a bunch." Must be the human definition. And getting 1/3 of the vote is winning. That's the Ray definition, which is even worse.
   35. Bitter Mouse, Space Tyrant Posted: February 22, 2016 at 02:47 PM (#5161330)
They don't. Which is why he's winning a bunch of primaries with a wide cross-section of varying demographics.


GOP Primaries with a ceiling thus far around 35%. Feel the Trumpmentum for the GE.
   36. Empathy, I Promise You (SBB) Posted: February 22, 2016 at 02:47 PM (#5161332)
But it does seem to set Trump up for some kind of "Have you no sense of decency" moment.

He's already had at least five. Mexican rapists; blood out of various Megyn Kelly orifi; John McCain, "war hero"; no Muslim travelers entering US; can you imagine someone with Carly's face being President. Connoisseurs can likely come up with many more.
   37. Empathy, I Promise You (SBB) Posted: February 22, 2016 at 02:49 PM (#5161334)
Now "two" is "a bunch." Must be the human definition.

It'll be quite a bit more than "two" in a mere "eight" days.
   38. Lassus Posted: February 22, 2016 at 02:49 PM (#5161335)
And yet somehow winds up being actually very likable.
Go figure.


Your definition of "likable" is incredibly suspect.


He's already had at least five. Mexican rapists; blood out of various Megyn Kelly orifi; John McCain, "war hero"; no Muslim travelers entering US; can you imagine someone with Carly's face being President. Connoisseurs can likely come up with many more.

He's very likable in the jerk store.
   39. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 22, 2016 at 02:52 PM (#5161339)
I love treating Hillary as though she was Obama and then putting the burden on the other side to figure out where Rubio will do better than Romney. Turn it around: in what states is Hillary likely to do as well as Obama?

The Obama coalition has never turned out for any candidate other than Barack Obama. Assuming Hillary starts from Obama's 2012 vote may be a grave mistake, especially with regards to the black vote. Why wouldn't Bill Clinton's share of the black vote & turnout be a better starting point? If Hillary does only as well as recent non-Obama Democratic nominees, half of Obama's 2012 margin is gone. A GOP candidate who does a bit better than Romney with Hispanics & Asians pretty much eliminates the other half of Obama's margin.

There's plenty of evidence that folks aren't enthusiastic about voting for Hillary. She has her hands full against an elderly, ineffectual socialist just for the nomination. Will the 2016 Democratic primary turnout even equal that of 2008 in any state? Doesn't seem likely, and that says something about the probable November turnout.
   40. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: February 22, 2016 at 02:53 PM (#5161342)
Far more likely that he'll motivate the Democratic base while shedding a fair number of people who normally vote Republican.


People like Jason and David, just to name two. And I'm talking about Nieporent, not just Brooks.

I don't normally vote Republican.


But you have in the past, and the chances are that you will again, if a candidate more to your liking than Trump comes along either this year or at some future point. And as you show by your statement that you'd vote for Hillary over Trump, this is not a year where "normally" applies.
   41. The Good Face Posted: February 22, 2016 at 02:55 PM (#5161343)
But it does seem to set Trump up for some kind of "Have you no sense of decency" moment.

He's already had at least five. Mexican rapists; blood out of various Megyn Kelly orifi; John McCain, "war hero"; no Muslim travelers entering US; can you imagine someone with Carly's face being President. Connoisseurs can likely come up with many more.


17th time's a charm!
   42. Renegade JE (((Jason))) Posted: February 22, 2016 at 02:55 PM (#5161346)
The Obama coalition has never turned out for any candidate other than Barack Obama. Assuming Hillary starts from Obama's 2012 vote may be a grave mistake, especially with regards to the black vote. Why wouldn't Bill Clinton's share of the black vote & turnout be a better starting point? If Hillary does only as well as recent non-Obama Democratic nominees, half of Obama's 2012 margin is gone. A GOP candidate who does a bit better than Romney with Hispanics & Asians pretty much eliminates the other half of Obama's margin.

There's plenty of evidence that folks aren't enthusiastic about voting for Hillary. She has her hands full against an elderly, ineffectual socialist just for the nomination. Will the 2016 Democratic primary turnout even equal that of 2008 in any state? Doesn't seem likely, and that says something about the probable November turnout.

Because if you spent more than a nanosecond the other night watching Marco Rubio on stage with Nikki Haley and Tim Scott, it would be blatantly obvious that the GOP is more racist and sexist than EVAH.
   43. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: February 22, 2016 at 02:58 PM (#5161348)
I don't normally vote Republican.

But you have in the past, and the chances are that you will again, if a candidate more to your liking than Trump comes along either this year or at some future point. And as you show by your statement that you'd vote for Hillary over Trump, this is not a year where "normally" applies.
No. I've voted for two Republicans for state office in all my years of voting. (Which, admittedly, are not as many as yours; I never voted for William Jennings Bryan. But it is a quarter century.) I've never voted for a GOP presidential candidate. I would have if Rand Paul had been the nominee. But since that isn't happening, it seems very unlikely I will at any future point, either.
   44. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: February 22, 2016 at 03:00 PM (#5161350)
But it does seem to set Trump up for some kind of "Have you no sense of decency" moment.

He's already had at least five. Mexican rapists; blood out of various Megyn Kelly orifi; John McCain, "war hero"; no Muslim travelers entering US; can you imagine someone with Carly's face being President. Connoisseurs can likely come up with many more.
I have to agree on this point; that attack only works on someone who does. Trump actually doesn't, so you can't shame him into backing down.

What is needed is not that, but for someone to say to his face, "Donald, you're an #######. STFU." (Actually, I don't know that it would accomplish anything either, but it would sure be cathartic.)
   45. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: February 22, 2016 at 03:00 PM (#5161351)
There's plenty of evidence that folks aren't enthusiastic about voting for Hillary. She has her hands full against an elderly, ineffectual socialist just for the nomination.

Funny that for all your love of head-to-head polls in February, you seem strangely reticent about citing head-to-head matchups between that "elderly, ineffectual socialist" and any Republican, the latest of which is a FOX News poll that shows Sanders beating Trump by 15 points.
   46. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: February 22, 2016 at 03:00 PM (#5161352)
Because if you spent more than a nanosecond the other night watching Marco Rubio on stage with Nikki Haley and Tim Scott, it would be blatantly obvious that the GOP is more racist and sexist than EVAH.
Ann Coulter wants them all to go back where they came from.
   47. Brian C Posted: February 22, 2016 at 03:01 PM (#5161354)
I do argue that, but I also want to argue that "finishing with the most votes in the contest" is not "winning the contest." Since you brought up poker a minute ago: suppose you go over to a friend's house for a poker night. A whole bunch of people play. Many of them walk away with nothing. One person walks away with 32% of the total money; a couple of others walk away with 22%. Would one say that the first guy "won poker night"? No, that's silly; that's just not the way one uses the term. Yes, this first guy had the best night of anyone; it's fair to say that. But he didn't "win" the night, because there's really no such thing as winning the night. You would just say that he took home more money than anyone else.

This isn't what happened in SC, though. What actually happened is that 50 delegates were at stake and Trump got every one of them. That actually is winning. Votes are not the relevant measure here.
   48. BDC Posted: February 22, 2016 at 03:02 PM (#5161355)
He's already had at least five

And I think that each one has cost Trump some support, not in terms of a needle swinging temporarily, but in terms of "I'll never vote for the guy." That's why I can see the tide simply going out from under his wave of success with the belligerent-####### demographic.

I guess I'm not envisioning a McCarthy moment, because y'all are right, if that was going to happen to Trump it would have happened (though who knows what he'll say next). But more like a string of Romney 47% moments. That revelation didn't cause Romney to disappear, and he won a lot of electoral votes. But I think the 47% thing was a distinct tideline, to stay with my metaphor: it was for some voters like, OK, I get this guy: he is not a uniter, he' s not ever going to speak for me.

Of course, winning candidates have such moments too, like Obama and his clinging to God and guns; it's just that they don't have so many or offend so many with any given one.
   49. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: February 22, 2016 at 03:03 PM (#5161357)
I don't normally vote Republican.

But you have in the past, and the chances are that you will again, if a candidate more to your liking than Trump comes along either this year or at some future point. And as you show by your statement that you'd vote for Hillary over Trump, this is not a year where "normally" applies.

No. I've voted for two Republicans for state office in all my years of voting. (Which, admittedly, are not as many as yours; I never voted for William Jennings Bryan. But it is a quarter century.) I've never voted for a GOP presidential candidate. I would have if Rand Paul had been the nominee. But since that isn't happening, it seems very unlikely I will at any future point, either.


David, much as you rag on me, I always enjoy your comments for a variety of reasons, and here I have to sympathize with you. It's almost as if on some days you're like a man without a country. Thank God for all of us that politics isn't all there is to life.
   50. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: February 22, 2016 at 03:05 PM (#5161360)
And I think that each one has cost Trump some support, not in terms of a needle swinging temporarily, but in terms of "I'll never vote for the guy." That's why I can see the tide simply going out from under his wave of success with the belligerent-####### demographic.

I guess I'm not envisioning a McCarthy moment, because y'all are right, if that was going to happen to Trump it would have happened (though who knows what he'll say next). But more like a string of Romney 47% moments. That revelation didn't cause Romney to disappear, and he won a lot of electoral votes. But I think the 47% thing was a distinct tideline, to stay with my metaphor: it was for some voters like, OK, I get this guy: he is not a uniter, he' s not ever going to speak for me.

Of course, winning candidates have such moments too, like Obama and his clinging to God and guns; it's just that they don't have so many or offend so many with any given one.


And if you add up all the members of the groups that Trump has offended, it comes out to a lot more than 47% of the population.
   51. Brian C Posted: February 22, 2016 at 03:08 PM (#5161362)
She has her hands full against an elderly, ineffectual socialist just for the nomination.

But she's going to win something like 40 states in this primary, possibly more. I think it's overstating to say that "she has her hands full" - Bernie's been a little feistier than expected but she's still going to end up winning fairly easily. And honestly, it'll probably end up being good for her; she'll come out of it looking a little more moderate for having dispatched the socialist and all his dirty hippie followers.

   52. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 22, 2016 at 03:21 PM (#5161374)
The electoral math is just so hard for the GOP in national elections right now. Which states, specifically, is Rubio going to flip from Blue to Red?

There may be some states that don't follow their recent patterns this year, but the most obvious GOP Electoral College path is certainly no secret. They start by holding the Romney states. That's quite likely since only North Carolina (2%) was close, and the GOP has done very well in NC since then. Romney won all his other states by ~8% or more, suggesting that they won't be in play this year, unless it is a very poor GOP year. The GOP was close in Florida (<1%), Ohio (<3%) & Virginia (<4%). Pick up those, and any additional state puts them over the top, with the likely possibilities being Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire & Pennsylvania, all of which were in the ~5% margin in 2012. If Dems want something to worry about, Pennsylvania seems to be moving closer to Ohio in recent years. Very difficult for Hillary to win without Pennsylvania.

As I have previously noted, the GOP has a couple of options that would make their ticket more appealing in Florida & Ohio, too.
   53. bunyon Posted: February 22, 2016 at 03:22 PM (#5161377)
Already we are seeing pastors and religious leaders compromising their integrity to vote for Donald Trump. Jerry Falwell, Jr. has joined the whores of Moloch, defending Trump’s Planned Parenthood statement on Twitter. Falwell presides over an institution that expels students who have abortions, but is willing to give positive lip service to Trump saying there are good things Planned Parenthood does.

Trump will have the same needle to thread that any Republican has: can he appeal to the very socially conservative religious folks without alienating the independents in the middle who lean fiscally, but not socially, conservative; and vice versa.

It's just different groups he'll be trying to reconcile: bigoted racists and voters tired of the same old same old. That is, if you're a voter who is sick of the establishment and looking to poke them in the eye, can Trump be civil enough you can hold your nose and vote for him without turning off the voters that just want to see someone, anyone, thrown to the lions. It's a tough trick but he has marketing skills in abundance.
   54. Empathy, I Promise You (SBB) Posted: February 22, 2016 at 03:23 PM (#5161379)
And I think that each one has cost Trump some support, not in terms of a needle swinging temporarily, but in terms of "I'll never vote for the guy." That's why I can see the tide simply going out from under his wave of success with the belligerent-####### demographic.

I guess I'm not envisioning a McCarthy moment, because y'all are right, if that was going to happen to Trump it would have happened (though who knows what he'll say next). But more like a string of Romney 47% moments. That revelation didn't cause Romney to disappear, and he won a lot of electoral votes. But I think the 47% thing was a distinct tideline, to stay with my metaphor: it was for some voters like, OK, I get this guy: he is not a uniter, he' s not ever going to speak for me.

Of course, winning candidates have such moments too, like Obama and his clinging to God and guns; it's just that they don't have so many or offend so many with any given one.


This is like talking about the grass that died as the fire from the Hindenburg bellowed down.

Trump is running the way he is based almost entirely on substantive reasons. It's not that people particularly like what you call the "have you no sense of decency" moments, it's more that, given his substantive philosophies (*), they don't care. If things like adultery and perjury and breaking the nation's laws on classified information by politicians can be overlooked in lieu of more important purported substance, well then, so can something like Carly's face or the purportedly heroic circumstances of some geezer getting shot down in Vietnam 50 years ago.

(*) Discussed herein at length, no need for a snark in the "What are they?" vein.
   55. The permanently sour Dolorous Eddo Posted: February 22, 2016 at 03:29 PM (#5161380)
Trump will have the same needle to thread that any Republican has: can he appeal to the very socially conservative religious folks without alienating the independents in the middle who lean fiscally, but not socially, conservative; and vice versa.

I can see Trump - having won the nomination - dropping all the far-right socially-conservative rhetoric and trying to start to win some left-leaning voters away from Clinton/Sanders. We know that (a) his historical policies and leanings have been awfully fluid because (b) he wants to win.
   56. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 22, 2016 at 03:31 PM (#5161384)
Bernie's been a little feistier than expected but she's still going to end up winning fairly easily. And honestly, it'll probably end up being good for her; she'll come out of it looking a little more moderate for having dispatched the socialist and all his dirty hippie followers.

I don't see how Hillary moving steadily to the left to blunt the Sanders challenge helps her in the general election. I'm also not as convinced as some that all those Sanders supporters lustily booing Hillary when she appears on TV every election night will be back in the fold in November. Hillary needs to win Iowa & New Hampshire in the general election; her primary/caucus performance doesn't indicate that's going to be easy.
   57. Gaelan Posted: February 22, 2016 at 03:34 PM (#5161386)
Trump is running the way he is based almost entirely on substantive reasons. It's not that people particularly like what you call the "have you no sense of decency" moments, it's more that, given his substantive philosophies (*), they don't care. If things like adultery and perjury and breaking the nation's laws on classified information by politicians can be overlooked in lieu of more important purported substance, well then, so can something like Carly's face or the purportedly heroic circumstances of some geezer getting shot down in Vietnam 50 years ago.

(*) Discussed herein at length, no need for a snark in the "What are they?" vein.


You know that I have some sympathy with your decline talk. However, hitching your wagon to the Trump train is bizarre. He's not a solution to the problem. If he wins it's evidence that you are more right than you know.

One of the chief symptoms of "decline" is the conflation of image and reality, in which citizens no longer have the vocabulary sufficient to distinguish between what is real and what is not. Well, this describes Trump exactly. If he triumphs it won't be because of his substantive policies, it will be because reality is no longer an obstacle to power. That's not a good thing.
   58. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 22, 2016 at 03:37 PM (#5161387)
If he triumphs it won't be because of his substantive policies, it will be because reality is no longer an obstacle to power. That's not a good thing.

If he wins it'll because the opposing candidate was so corrupt as to make Mayor Daley blush.
   59. Empathy, I Promise You (SBB) Posted: February 22, 2016 at 03:40 PM (#5161389)
You know that I have some sympathy with your decline talk. However, hitching your wagon to the Trump train is bizarre. He's not a solution to the problem. If he wins it's evidence that you are more right than you know.

One of the chief symptoms of "decline" is the conflation of image and reality, in which citizens no longer have the vocabulary sufficient to distinguish between what is real and what is not. Well, this describes Trump exactly. If he triumphs it won't be because of his substantive policies, it will be because reality is no longer an obstacle to power. That's not a good thing.


I agree with all this. My analysis and clear-mindedness about Trump and Trumpism shouldn't be confused with support for the man or his candidacy. There's certainly a bigger overlap between him and some of the economic nationalist ideas we need at this point in history, and I like how he tweaks modern liberals and modern liberalism and the absurd premises behind it. There's little to nothing beyond that.



   60. The Good Face Posted: February 22, 2016 at 03:41 PM (#5161392)
I can see Trump - having won the nomination - dropping all the far-right socially-conservative rhetoric and trying to start to win some left-leaning voters away from Clinton/Sanders. We know that (a) his historical policies and leanings have been awfully fluid because (b) he wants to win.


He's already started the process by savaging the Bushes on the Iraq war and the Dubya-kept-us-safe meme.

From the perspective of many Dems, there's a lot to like about Trump. He's promised to not touch Social Security/Medicare. He's not in thrall to the neocon idiot parade. He almost certainly doesn't really care about gay marriage and that bundle of issues. Ditto abortion. He's not inherently hostile to some form of universal healthcare. And while his proposed tax plan wouldn't actually raise taxes on anybody, he's at least receptive to the idea of raising taxes on the richest Americans.

Of course, the elephant in the room is immigration. That's the linchpin holding up the entire left wing strategic edifice; for years now the goal has been population replacement via massive 3rd world immigration, through which the Dems will obtain a permanent majority. But that stuff isn't necessarily important to the rank and file Dem voter.
   61. Morty Causa Posted: February 22, 2016 at 03:42 PM (#5161393)
But she's going to win something like 40 states in this primary, possibly more. I think it's overstating to say that "she has her hands full" - Bernie's been a little feistier than expected but she's still going to end up winning fairly easily. And honestly, it'll probably end up being good for her; she'll come out of it looking a little more moderate for having dispatched the socialist and all his dirty hippie followers.

The importance of Bernie isn't that he can win. It's that he has shown that as a candidate for she is not invulnerable by any means. This has implication for the general election. Most of us now are not viewing a Hillary presidency as the inevitable thing we once did. Moreover, the holes in support have been exposed. And that has to do with the main demographic that she appeals to, women. Not to mention that those who would rather bathe a leper with their tongue than vote for her has expanded and dug in their heels. Many just don't want to relive the Clinton thing.
   62. Brian C Posted: February 22, 2016 at 03:43 PM (#5161395)
Hillary needs to win Iowa & New Hampshire in the general election; her primary/caucus performance doesn't indicate that's going to be easy.

Fun fact: Hillary got a higher vote percentage in the New Hampshire primary this year than Obama got in 2008.
   63. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 22, 2016 at 03:44 PM (#5161396)
Also, the claim that Rubio vs. Clinton is 50/50 is far fetched.

Really? Since Thanksgiving, Marco Rubio has led Hillary Clinton in 12 of 14 head-to-head match-up polls.


Those polls don't mean anything anymore, now that they show Hillary trailing, which is why Andy stopped feverishly citing them.

   64. zonk Posted: February 22, 2016 at 03:44 PM (#5161397)
I think if I WERE a Republican... I'm not so sure that reversing course and just giving Cruz the "establishment" seal of approval isn't the smarter play if you're among those who think Trump would be an unmitigated party and even national disaster.

Even if we're now - basically - down to three, I'm not sure "great coalescing" around Rubio has happened quickly enough and will happen in the necessary relative numbers.

Dividing the GOP electorate into thirds...

Trump has the low-info, or mid-info but really really angry (plus the folks - and yeah, maybe they're only 2-5-whatever percent) who are just flat out well... you know.

Rubio has the nominal "insider" or elites... hell, I'll even give him the moderates.

Cruz has the "serious true believers"... the 'intellectual' base of the base.

Figure Rubio - now that he gets "not Cruz/not Trump" can finally get into the 40s. Figure Trump tops out at 35. Rubio probably still needs that 20-25% who are Cruz till the end.... and Cruz seems completely unwilling to hand them over to Marco.

Obviously, Cruz has shown plenty before that he's quite willing to "burn down the village to save the village"....

Rubio probably cannot overtake Trump with Cruz's support and Cruz simply knows this, has shown that he's quite willing to burn it all...

Cruz kind of has the GOP over a barrel as much as anyone - there's almost certainly no concession, no agreement, no anything that he trades to toss his support to Rubio.

My mind will probably change tomorrow... but if the GOPe wants to stop Trump above all else, I'm thinking that it's Cruz, not Rubio who is the best bet. Cruz isn't the guy to play chicken with.
   65. Delorians Posted: February 22, 2016 at 03:46 PM (#5161400)
Listen to Uncle Joe, everybody:

Spoken four months later in the election cycle, for a hypothetical vacancy (due to resignation, not death) that ended up not occurring.

Apples and oranges.
   66. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 22, 2016 at 03:48 PM (#5161401)
Trump throws a monkey wrench into the normal calculus. He's a wildcard. It's hard to plan against a wildcard. And if Trump does win the nomination then it's clear that the standard playbook of calling him a bigot/idiot/clown/Hitler with no real plans isn't guaranteed to work -- in fact it would have already failed once, in that case. So then what does she do? More of the same, but again that's not guaranteed to work.

All she'd have to do to prove Trump a bigot would be to keep replaying his speeches on Telemundo and Univision, and let nature take its course. Trump could then spend three months telling us how some of his best friends are Mexicans and Muslims.


You do realize that illegals aren't Democratic voters yet.

Anyway, you're missing my point: It might be seen as a working strategy NOW to do that (and to bang on him for being sexist). But if he wins the nomination those tactics have already failed. So then what? More of the same?
   67. The Good Face Posted: February 22, 2016 at 03:52 PM (#5161403)
Anyway, you're missing my point: It might be seen as a working strategy NOW to do that (and to bang on him for being sexist). But if he wins the nomination those tactics have already failed. So then what? More of the same?


You don't understand Ray, he's not a real conservative!
   68. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 22, 2016 at 03:53 PM (#5161404)
I do argue that, but I also want to argue that "finishing with the most votes in the contest" is not "winning the contest." Since you brought up poker a minute ago: suppose you go over to a friend's house for a poker night. A whole bunch of people play. Many of them walk away with nothing. One person walks away with 32% of the total money; a couple of others walk away with 22%. Would one say that the first guy "won poker night"? No, that's silly; that's just not the way one uses the term. Yes, this first guy had the best night of anyone; it's fair to say that. But he didn't "win" the night, because there's really no such thing as winning the night. You would just say that he took home more money than anyone else.


Do you also say that the person who finished first in the 100-meter dash didn't really win the race because others finished sort of close also?

   69. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 22, 2016 at 03:58 PM (#5161405)
One of the chief symptoms of "decline" is the conflation of image and reality, in which citizens no longer have the vocabulary sufficient to distinguish between what is real and what is not. Well, this describes Trump exactly. If he triumphs it won't be because of his substantive policies, it will be because reality is no longer an obstacle to power. That's not a good thing.


It never was.
   70. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: February 22, 2016 at 04:02 PM (#5161406)
And getting 1/3 of the vote is winning.


Does getting all of the delegates count as winning?
   71. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: February 22, 2016 at 04:03 PM (#5161407)
Spoken four months later in the election cycle, for a hypothetical vacancy (due to resignation, not death) that ended up not occurring.

Apples and oranges.
Sorry, not seeing the oranges. What difference does it make whether he said "We should do this if the opportunity arises" and "We should do this now that the opportunity has arisen?" Or between doing it in February and June? (If it were too late for the normal process to play out, that's a different story. But that wasn't the argument. And June was plenty of time.) Biden said that (a) the president shouldn’t nominate anyone, and (b) if he did, that the Senate shouldn't even schedule hearings. His argument was, expressly, that it's not fair to consider a nomination during the election season.
   72. zonk Posted: February 22, 2016 at 04:06 PM (#5161408)
From the perspective of many Dems, there's a lot to like about Trump. He's promised to not touch Social Security/Medicare. He's not in thrall to the neocon idiot parade. He almost certainly doesn't really care about gay marriage and that bundle of issues. Ditto abortion. He's not inherently hostile to some form of universal healthcare. And while his proposed tax plan wouldn't actually raise taxes on anybody, he's at least receptive to the idea of raising taxes on the richest Americans.

Of course, the elephant in the room is immigration. That's the linchpin holding up the entire left wing strategic edifice; for years now the goal has been population replacement via massive 3rd world immigration, through which the Dems will obtain a permanent majority. But that stuff isn't necessarily important to the rank and file Dem voter.


It's more than immigration... I mean, even big chunks of the Republican primary blanched at his "ban muslims, close all the mosques, and maybe we need a muslim national registry" schtick.

Hey - as I've said before, I actually agree that from a Democratic punchlist... there are some things to like about Trump.

The problem is that the things are NOT on the punchlist are so draconian, so extreme, that I don't care... I mean, for all the stupidity of Jonah Goldberg... sure, I'll stipulate that the Nazis were totes cool with massive public works projects and certainly other punchlist items for left-leaning voters... So were all the other center-left alternatives and more than a few right-center alternatives.

There are some lines I won't cross... and something as fundamental as Trump's rejection of basic, core American principles (however we may have been in violation of those principles in the past... Trump doesn't even have the "excuse" of something like a Civil War or World War II).
   73. Renegade JE (((Jason))) Posted: February 22, 2016 at 04:06 PM (#5161409)
Spoken four months later in the election cycle, for a hypothetical vacancy (due to resignation, not death) that ended up not occurring.

Apples and oranges.

A distinction without a difference, particularly since other Democrats, from Obama to Schumer, have made similar comments and the former even went so far as to try to filibuster the Alito nomination.

EDIT: Coke Zero to David.
   74. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 22, 2016 at 04:08 PM (#5161410)
And getting 1/3 of the vote is winning. That's the Ray definition, which is even worse.


You've gone around the bend on this one. You can't even concede that he won a state. Why? In admitting that he won a state you wouldn't be admitting anything beyond that -- not that he was going to win the nomination, not that he's in the driver's seat -- just the simple fact that he won SC. It's curious why you can't just admit that. As others have noted, he won all the delegates in the state, which is why your poker analogy fails; he took home all the chips.
   75. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 22, 2016 at 04:09 PM (#5161413)

Of course, the elephant in the room is immigration. That's the linchpin holding up the entire left wing strategic edifice; for years now the goal has been population replacement via massive 3rd world immigration, through which the Dems will obtain a permanent majority. But that stuff isn't necessarily important to the rank and file Dem voter.


Or to quote the Klansman who used to scream from his soapbox neat Holly Springs, Mississippi, "The Jew uses the ###### and the spic the way a carpenter uses a hammer and a nail, all to undermine the white man!"
   76. Renegade JE (((Jason))) Posted: February 22, 2016 at 04:10 PM (#5161414)
Cruz found his scapegoat:
LAS VEGAS — Ted Cruz has asked for the resignation of his communications director Rick Tyler after Tyler shared a false report about Marco Rubio, Cruz told reporters on Monday.

“I’ve spent this morning investigating what happened,” Cruz said. “And this morning I asked for Rick Tyler’s resignation. I have made clear in this campaign that we will conduct this campaign with the very highest standards of integrity. That has been how we’ve conducted it from day one.”
   77. Bitter Mouse, Space Tyrant Posted: February 22, 2016 at 04:10 PM (#5161416)
Distinction without a difference, particularly since other Democrats, from Obama to Schumer, have made similar comments and the former even went so far as to try to filibuster the Alito nomination.


I think it is absolutely correct for the GOP to leverage these comments and actions against the Democrats, just like it is correct for Team Blue to leverage this ... Toomey, Portman Hurt By Supreme Court Stance

-Strong majorities of voters- 58/35 in Ohio and 57/40 in Pennsylvania- think that the vacant seat on the Supreme Court should be filled this year. What’s particularly noteworthy about those numbers- and concerning for Portman and Toomey- is how emphatic the support for approving a replacement is among independent voters. In Ohio they think a new Justice should be named this year 70/24 and in Pennsylvania it’s 60/37. Those independent voters are going to make the difference in these tight Senate races, and they have no tolerance for obstructionism on the vacancy.

-Voters are particularly angry about Senators taking the stance that they’re not going to approve anyone before even knowing who President Obama decides to put forward. By a 76/20 spread in Pennsylvania and a 74/18 one in Ohio, voters think the Senate should wait to see who is nominated to the Court before deciding whether or not to confirm that person. Toomey and Portman are out of line even with their own party base on that one- Republicans in Pennsylvania think 67/27 and in Ohio think 63/32 that the Senate should at least give President Obama’s choice a chance before deciding whether or not to confirm them.


Good thing neither Ohio nor Pennsylvania is important to GOP chances to take the White House ... oops. Maybe, just maybe this will come up not only in the Senatorial races in these critical swing states, but it might (just possibly, <shrug> who knows) come up in the Presidential contest.
   78. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 22, 2016 at 04:12 PM (#5161417)
Does getting all of the delegates count as winning?


To the extent we can poll the BBTF readers, you can say that the BBTF jury voted on the Pope-hypocrisy dustup and that I lost. However, the BBTF jury seems to for the most part be with me on whether he won South Carolina.

   79. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 22, 2016 at 04:16 PM (#5161419)
"Pope is the anti-Christ, do your homework."

"I was actually referencing the papacy. And what I wrote after that 'do your research,' if you read the Geneva Bible, which is the Bible I use when we study, the commentary is—actually by the founders of the United States actually, the Protestant Church—their commentary references the papacy as the anti-Christ," DeLemus said. "And I think actually in one part of it, and I don't remember who it was that wrote it, there was one of the popes that they had referenced as the anti-Christ. So that's all I was referring to, the papacy, not particularly that one particular pope because the papacy is a seat. It's not just one person."


Has Trumpmentum scraped off the ecumenical patina from the GOP's religious base? Will we see a vicious schism between Papists and the Snake-Handler Right, or as I like to frame it, Popery vs Dopery?
   80. Renegade JE (((Jason))) Posted: February 22, 2016 at 04:17 PM (#5161420)
I think it is absolutely correct for the GOP to leverage these comments and actions against the Democrats, just like it is correct for Team Blue to leverage this ... Toomey, Portman Hurt By Supreme Court Stance

PPP says what, Mouse?

Look, it was Scalia's passing hurt Toomey and Portman, not their subsequent decision to back McConnell. And bucking the Majority Leader on such a conseequential position would have been even worse, as it wouldn't have mattered a lick to Democrats -- if anything, the senators would have been attacked as lacking any clout within the party -- but infuriated the GOP base.
   81. zonk Posted: February 22, 2016 at 04:18 PM (#5161421)
Cruz found his scapegoat:


I don't know... like I said, my opinion may change tomorrow - but today, I'm thinking maybe you GOPe'ers ought to seriously consider that Cruz is the only viable way to stop Trump.

You can still have a "not Trump" nominee... but Cruz has set himself up pretty well as the "my way or go to hell" guy - and while he might well become the plurality leader, Rubio needs Cruz's people to wrest it away from Trump.

Doesn't matter that Cruz actually needs the "bigger" Rubio group to do the same -- Cruz has made it pretty clear he'll take his 20% and go home, even if it means setting the whole thing on fire in the process.

Even if Rubio does consolidate, it seems like he's likely to be into March still trailing Trump... and still coming up short with 1/3 of the primary in the books.

Hey - free advice, take it or leave it... but I'd do some serious soul-searching about whether the party would be better off just 'accepting' Cruz as the nominee rather than fighting over the right to be the best hope alternative to Trump. Sometimes you just gotta give in to the hostage taker and pay the ransom.
   82. Bitter Mouse, Space Tyrant Posted: February 22, 2016 at 04:18 PM (#5161422)
To the extent we can poll the BBTF readers, you can say that the BBTF jury voted on the Pope-hypocrisy dustup and that I lost. However, the BBTF jury seems to for the most part be with me on whether he won South Carolina.


I don't often agree with Ray (except regarding steroids), but yeah. Trump won SC and is likely to win the GOP nomination. It is not a done deal, but there you have it.

Trump has really split the GOP though, as evidenced on this very thread. Long time fellow travelers are very much split, more so than I remember Team Blue even in 2008. If he wins we will see how split the GOP ends up, or if it closes ranks.

It is strange to have the Democrats more united than the Republicans. Strange and wrong somehow, like they are stealing our bit or something.
   83. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: February 22, 2016 at 04:20 PM (#5161423)
Those polls don't mean anything anymore, now that they show Hillary trailing, which is why Andy stopped feverishly citing them.

And yet as soon as I mention that my even money wager offer is still good against Rubio, you'll be insisting that I give any takers big odds. I wonder why.

Not to mention that my 2-to-1 offer for anyone who wants Trump or Cruz in November is still on, with no loss if Rubio or Kasich gets the nomination. Any more takers on that one other than SugarBear? He's already manned up his $500.

All she'd have to do to prove Trump a bigot would be to keep replaying his speeches on Telemundo and Univision, and let nature take its course. Trump could then spend three months telling us how some of his best friends are Mexicans and Muslims.

You do realize that illegals aren't Democratic voters yet.


And you realize that Latinos were the one group in Nevada who caucused in greater percentages than in 2008. The idea that they wouldn't come out to vote against an outspoken nativist like Trump (or a Rubio, given his anti-illegal rhetoric) is a dream I hope you keep on dreaming.

Anyway, you're missing my point: It might be seen as a working strategy NOW to do that (and to bang on him for being sexist). But if he wins the nomination those tactics have already failed. So then what? More of the same?

WTF are you talking about? What good would picking a fight with Trump do NOW, when she's not running against him? And as I said, put her against Trump in the general election and she'd hardly have to lift a finger against him, beyond posting and re-posting his sexist comments. Sexist comments that are ignored by Republican dittoheads in the primaries aren't going to be ignored by Democrats and moderate women of all parties in the general election, much as you'd like to dream otherwise.
   84. Bitter Mouse, Space Tyrant Posted: February 22, 2016 at 04:21 PM (#5161424)
PPP says what, Mouse?


Hey if you think that long empty SC seat won't matter in November well I linked to some evidence that it will, and in two states pretty important to GOP hopes. Scalia might just have insured a Democratic Senate Majority and helped seal a Blue White House by passing away when he did. Probably not what he would have wanted.

Unless you think this issue is a winner for the GOP in swing states? If so, show your work.
   85. Renegade JE (((Jason))) Posted: February 22, 2016 at 04:23 PM (#5161425)
I don't know... like I said, my opinion may change tomorrow - but today, I'm thinking maybe you GOPe'ers ought to seriously consider that Cruz is the only viable way to stop Trump.

To quote our resident Cruz fanboy, "LOL."
   86. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 22, 2016 at 04:24 PM (#5161426)
I think if I WERE a Republican... I'm not so sure that reversing course and just giving Cruz the "establishment" seal of approval isn't the smarter play if you're among those who think Trump would be an unmitigated party and even national disaster. Even if we're now - basically - down to three, I'm not sure "great coalescing" around Rubio has happened quickly enough and will happen in the necessary relative numbers.

The bulk of Cruz & Rubio supporters would back whichever one was the last man standing over Trump. Both beat him ~57%-40% in a head-to-head match-up. Getting there is the problem, since Cruz & Rubio are running close enough that neither has a compelling case that they're the superior option. Rubio seems to have the better shot at outlasting Cruz, but that will likely take until at least March 15. Rubio getting out now would be a bit silly, given his position, and would probably help Kasich as much as Cruz. It certainly is possible that race doesn't winnow fast enough to halt Trump, but that seems like a risk that can't be avoided at this point, although one should remember that much of the April-May-June winner-take-all primary schedule would favor whoever can get into a one-on-one with Trump.

Now, I do think there may be some states in which anti-Trump voters may want to cast their votes strategically, somewhat similar to the ABC coalition (Anyone But Carter) that emerged late in the 1976 primaries. Jerry Brown & Frank Church took on Jimmy, each in selected states, running against Carter, not each other, and did pretty well, although it ended up too late to deny Carter the nomination. Should BDC back Cruz in Texas to stop Trump getting delegates if Rubio and/or Kasich are concentrating their efforts in other states? Folks should probably be thinking about such tactics.
   87. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: February 22, 2016 at 04:24 PM (#5161427)

A distinction without a difference, particularly since other Democrats, from Obama to Schumer, have made similar comments and the former even went so far as to try to filibuster the Alito nomination.


I don't know why filibustering one nominee means one is against any nominees.

And Schumer didn't make a similar comment; claiming he did is evidence one is repeating talking points without bothering to look at the evidence.
   88. Greg K Posted: February 22, 2016 at 04:25 PM (#5161428)
"I was actually referencing the papacy. And what I wrote after that 'do your research,' if you read the Geneva Bible, which is the Bible I use when we study, the commentary is—actually by the founders of the United States actually, the Protestant Church—their commentary references the papacy as the anti-Christ," DeLemus said. "And I think actually in one part of it, and I don't remember who it was that wrote it, there was one of the popes that they had referenced as the anti-Christ. So that's all I was referring to, the papacy, not particularly that one particular pope because the papacy is a seat. It's not just one person."

For a while there the Protestants weren't a particular fan of any Pope, never mind just one of them. But I'm not sure 17th century Calvinism is a great guiding principle for...any aspect of 21st century governance really.

EDIT: This is also a bit jumbled, he seems to be saying that the Bible refers to one of the popes as the anti-Christ. I think what he's saying is that 16th and 17th century Protestant theologians interpreted scripture as foretelling the anti-Christ in the form of their present day papacy.
   89. Renegade JE (((Jason))) Posted: February 22, 2016 at 04:26 PM (#5161429)
Hey if you think that long empty SC seat won't matter in November well I linked to some evidence that it will, and in two states pretty important to GOP hopes. Scalia might just have insured a Democratic Senate Majority and helped seal a Blue White House by passing away when he did. Probably not what he would have wanted.

Unless you think this issue is a winner for the GOP in swing states? If so, show your work.

Congrats to the pollsters. Without hearings and votes, how exactly are the Democrats going to make the vacancy a potent campaign issue, particularly when the record shows they're full of crap?

The issue is neither a big winner nor big loser. It's a net meh.
   90. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: February 22, 2016 at 04:28 PM (#5161430)
You've gone around the bend on this one. You can't even concede that he won a state. Why?
Because it's misleading. I have no quarrel with "He came in first." or "He got more votes than any other candidate" or ""He was killed by a rabid hyena."
   91. Empathy, I Promise You (SBB) Posted: February 22, 2016 at 04:28 PM (#5161431)
Trump doesn't even have the "excuse" of something like a Civil War or World War II).

Huh? The "excuse" (*) is the Islamist declaration and prosecution of war against the US and the West. The fact that modern liberals have chosen to embrace Islam rather than reality on the matter doesn't change the fact that most Americans are quite sober and rational about the matter.

(*) Scare quotes optional, at best.
   92. The Good Face Posted: February 22, 2016 at 04:37 PM (#5161432)
Huh? The "excuse" (*) is the Islamist declaration and prosecution of war against the US and the West. The fact that modern liberals have chosen to embrace Islam rather than reality on the matter doesn't change the fact that most Americans are quite sober and rational about the matter.


Virtue signaling. Getting all worked up over imaginary incidences of "Islamophobia" shows how good, noble and enlightened you are. And the more you care about and favor the far over the near, the better a person you are!
   93. Greg K Posted: February 22, 2016 at 04:38 PM (#5161433)
Huh? The "excuse" (*) is the Islamist declaration and prosecution of war against the US and the West. The fact that modern liberals have chosen to embrace Islam rather than reality on the matter doesn't change the fact that most Americans are quite sober and rational about the matter.

(*) Scare quotes optional, at best.

Setting aside the question of whether Trump actually is proposing an abandonment of American values, (or whether said American values are worthwhile) I would hope a nation would require more of an existential threat than that to abandon what it considers its core principles. I've been pretty open in the past about not being overly concerned with principles if pragmatism calls for their violation. But even I have a bit higher bar for resorting to "desperate times/desperate measures".
   94. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 22, 2016 at 04:38 PM (#5161435)
Anyway, you're missing my point: It might be seen as a working strategy NOW to do that (and to bang on him for being sexist). But if he wins the nomination those tactics have already failed. So then what? More of the same?

WTF are you talking about? What good would picking a fight with Trump do NOW, when she's not running against him?


You're still missing my point: I'm not saying she should pick a fight with him now; I'm just pointing out that while it might be reasonable to think your strategy will work now, once you get to November and he's still standing then that being the winning strategy looks a bit more suspect, given that it's already failed once.

And as I said, put her against Trump in the general election and she'd hardly have to lift a finger against him, beyond posting and re-posting his sexist comments. Sexist comments that are ignored by Republican dittoheads in the primaries aren't going to be ignored by Democrats and moderate women of all parties in the general election, much as you'd like to dream otherwise.


I guess this is your reason why the strategy would work for Democrats when it wouldn't for Republicans, but it seems an article of faith on your part.

(And that's even setting aside the fact that Hillary is not well positioned to make the sexist attack, given that she provided Bill with safe harbor for so many years.)
   95. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: February 22, 2016 at 04:45 PM (#5161438)
Jason's #2491 from the previous week's thread, and repeated in #21 on this one:
The larger point from #2406 that you didn't rebut is that everything in 2012 DIDN'T "hinge on turnout, particularly in the African-American community." The black turnout was not a wrinkle that reversed the outcome of the election. It probably didn't even flip a state.

Minority Turnout Determined the 2012 Election:
While it may seem like the 2012 presidential election has been analyzed to death, the recent release of the Census Bureau’s November election survey points out the key role that minority voter turnout, especially for blacks, played in determining the outcome.



Yes, I'd already seen that Brookings link while looking up election numbers. Did you read it? Read it. It compares the 2012 result to Kerry/Bush in 2004, eight years earlier, not to the elevated 2008 base that accompanied Obama's first run. Brookings is also working somewhat different territory than you were; they combined black voters with Hispanics and Asians as a minority bloc, which your self-cited premise from October 2012 (quoted above) did/does not.



What were you citing as evidence for your claim, Gonfalon?


I posted loads of state-by-state percentages and raw numbers on this page in #2406, the post you replied to regarding universal "fatigue." The changes in the African-American vote totals from 2008 to 2012 weren't responsible for those state wins-- don't forget, Obama's raw total of black votes was down from 2008. The more substantial changes in the black vote from 2004 to 2012 wouldn't cover the margins, either. No 2012 state flips on black ballots, let alone the entire 2012 election.
   96. BDC Posted: February 22, 2016 at 04:49 PM (#5161442)
I don't see how Hillary moving steadily to the left to blunt the Sanders challenge helps her in the general election

I agree. It would be my general sense (based on some notable cases in the polarized era, like the 1976 and 1992 GOP and the 1980 and 2000 Democrats) that a stiff challenge from the far wing of a party hurts more than a challenger from the center. If you lose the attention of your base – I mean, really annoy them, or worse, bore them – then the die-hard voters may conclude that there's not that famous dime's worth of difference.

The trick is to reach the center while holding that base, which both Obama and 43 were very good at. And of course is easier said than done.

I know Andy will answer that the socialist youngsters will snap into line behind Hillary, but she really is uninspiring. So you get a few people in Florida or Ohio staying home, or voting Green or writing in Bernie or Vermin Supreme, and suddenly you've lost the general election from a direction you never dreamed could hurt you.
   97. Empathy, I Promise You (SBB) Posted: February 22, 2016 at 04:49 PM (#5161443)
Stay classy, Iran.

Iranian state-run media outlets have added $600,000 to a bounty for the killing of British author Salman Rushdie imposed in 1989 over the publishing of his book "The Satanic Verses".

The leader of Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution, the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, issued a fatwa, or religious edict, that called on Muslims to the kill the author after his book was condemned as blasphemous, forcing him into years of hiding.

Iranian hardliners say Khomeini's decree is irrevocable and eternal after his death. A wealthy Iranian religious organization offered $2.7 million reward to anyone carrying out the fatwa and in 2012 it increased the amount to $3.3 million.

The semi-official Fars news agency published a list of 40 news outlets adding to the pot. Fars itself earmarked $30,000.

"These media outlets have set the $600,000 bounty on the 27th anniversary of the historical fatwa to show it is still alive," Mansour Amiri, organizer of a digital technology exhibition at which the money was announced this month, told Reuters.
   98. Empathy, I Promise You (SBB) Posted: February 22, 2016 at 04:50 PM (#5161444)
I know Andy will answer that the socialist youngsters will snap into line behind Hillary, but she really is uninspiring. So you get a few people in Florida or Ohio staying home, or voting Green or writing in Bernie or Vermin Supreme, and suddenly you've lost the general election from a direction you never dreamed could hurt you.

Yep. Not going to happen. She's lost those people, who see her for what she is, not for what her coalition of geezers, shrill aging feminists, and betas project upon her.
   99. Brian C Posted: February 22, 2016 at 04:54 PM (#5161446)
Because it's misleading. I have no quarrel with "He came in first." or "He got more votes than any other candidate" or ""He was killed by a rabid hyena."

In what way is the statement "He won because he got all the delegates" misleading in your book?

And why on earth would you double down on this absurd pedanticism?
   100. Renegade JE (((Jason))) Posted: February 22, 2016 at 04:54 PM (#5161447)
Flip.
Page 1 of 28 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Dingbat_Charlie
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP 2016 August 29: Minor-league team offers Trump, Clinton bobbleheads with real hair
(346 - 1:17pm, Aug 30)
Last: BDC

Newsblog2016 NFL thread
(30 - 1:17pm, Aug 30)
Last: Jefferson Manship (Dan Lee)

NewsblogSanchez Fastest In MLB History To 11 HRs
(63 - 1:15pm, Aug 30)
Last: There's a bustle in Misirlou's hedgerow

NewsblogOT Gaming: October 2015
(522 - 1:11pm, Aug 30)
Last: zenbitz

NewsblogOT: August 2016 Soccer Thread
(411 - 1:07pm, Aug 30)
Last: J. Sosa

NewsblogCleveland Indians come home with chance to pump up fans and stop doubts -- Terry Pluto | cleveland.com
(1 - 12:52pm, Aug 30)
Last: My name is Votto, and I love to get blotto

NewsblogCubs wear onesies on trip from Los Angeles - Chicago Tribune
(48 - 12:47pm, Aug 30)
Last: JJ1986

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 8-29-16
(359 - 12:40pm, Aug 30)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogThe four contenders in AL’s cutthroat MVP race
(12 - 12:34pm, Aug 30)
Last: bbmck

NewsblogTim Tebow to display baseball skills in tryout | MLB.com
(11 - 12:31pm, Aug 30)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

NewsblogBoston Red Sox must find solutions for struggling bullpen - Boston Red Sox Blog- ESPN
(31 - 12:16pm, Aug 30)
Last: Jose Remains The Most Absurd Thing on the Site

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 8-30-2016
(4 - 11:59am, Aug 30)
Last: Dag Nabbit at ExactlyAsOld.com

NewsblogYankees look to refinance $1B debt from new stadium | New York Post
(27 - 11:09am, Aug 30)
Last: There are no words... (Met Fan Charlie)

NewsblogHere's the secret to why Paul Goldschmidt steals so many bases - CBSSports.com
(6 - 10:33am, Aug 30)
Last: bbmck

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1996 Ballot
(5 - 10:29am, Aug 30)
Last: ThickieDon

Page rendered in 1.0718 seconds
47 querie(s) executed