The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[Topper]

Let's just concede this election to Hillary now and get it over with. Sigh...

No concessions ever. Let's damage her so she can't govern.

Why do we want more legislation to pass, unless we want lawyers to make more money? I would be fine with a gridlocked Congress, but her Supreme Court nominees will be abominable.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

The GOP is apparently preparing for a brokered convention. I think that's more likely than Donald Trump getting the nomination outright before then. I just don't think the other 65-70% of the primary voters will coalesce around him. The candidates with 1 to 2% support need to start dropping out now. After Iowa and New Hampshire, guys like Bush, Christie and Kasich need to get out ASAP if Trump is still around -- and really, why won't he be?

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/12/1...ed-convention/

As the blogger points out, in order to get yourself considered at the convention, you have to have won a majority of the delegates in at least 8 states. All the primaries before March 15 are proportional, and then there's a bunch of winner take all. Given the Trump factor, this might be the unusual year where these later primaries are more important. Trump can win all those early primaries with 35% and meanwhile everyone drops out except for Rubio, Cruz and Trump (and maybe Bush or Christie). If it's a 3 way fight between Trump, Cruz and Rubio around March 15, that might favor Rubio because he would be, by far, the most acceptable candidate to establishment, moderate, and moderately conservative primary voters. I would hope Trump maxes out at 35%, then Cruz takes 20% and Rubio takes the remainder at 40-45%.

[imanihonjin]

Primaries are such a solid way to get candidates, I can't wait for Oregon's in late May. My voting voice will really be heard!

Yeah, but you owe it to your country to cast a vote that doesn't matter!

[Northwestcoug]

Yeah, but you owe it to your country to cast a vote that doesn't matter!

Enlightened people understand the futility of this, and refrain from participating in a pointless exercise, amiright?

[BlueK]

I agree with this conclusion, although I am not sure he is actually building a campaign. I wouldn't be surprised if he has already maxed out his support in depth if not in breadth. I suspect you're right about him running as an independent. It will give the election to Clinton. Depressing.

He loses to Clinton either way. He doesn't have the votes to beat Clinton in the general election if he were to be nominated as a Republican. The demographics just don't work for him in a general election.

[Topper]

The GOP is apparently preparing for a brokered convention. I think that's more likely than Donald Trump getting the nomination outright before then. I just don't think the other 65-70% of the primary voters will coalesce around him. The candidates with 1 to 2% support need to start dropping out now. After Iowa and New Hampshire, guys like Bush, Christie and Kasich need to get out ASAP if Trump is still around -- and really, why won't he be?

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/12/1...ed-convention/



As the blogger points out, in order to get yourself considered at the convention, you have to have won a majority of the delegates in at least 8 states. All the primaries before March 15 are proportional, and then there's a bunch of winner take all. Given the Trump factor, this might be the unusual year where these later primaries are more important. Trump can win all those early primaries with 35% and meanwhile everyone drops out except for Rubio, Cruz and Trump (and maybe Bush or Christie). If it's a 3 way fight between Trump, Cruz and Rubio around March 15, that might favor Rubio because he would be, by far, the most acceptable candidate to establishment, moderate, and moderately conservative primary voters. I would hope Trump maxes out at 35%, then Cruz takes 20% and Rubio takes the remainder at 40-45%.

Nobody has been particularly accurate at these sort of prognostications, but your hope is shared.

[BlueK]

This is what I'm talking about.

A reporter asks him a question "should we". He responds with "we should look at it" and it's reported as "he's going to".

I don't agree with what he's saying. I have no intent to vote for the guy. But I also think that he's being misrepresented. And the reason that bothers me, isn't because I like the guy. It's because is it is galvanizing his supporters to not even consider alternatives. Because the stories/reporters/blogs/etc. are lying about what he said, so they must be lying about everything else they say about him too.

The banning muslim thing wasn't a question from a reporter. He volunteered it in a speech. The video is there for you to enjoy. It's not a question of being misrepsented. The words he used didn't leave a lot of room for interpretation. What you should be arguing perhaps is that he doesn't really mean all the things he says.

[Jeff Lebowski]

McKay Coppins exposes a secret plan. Now that the constitution is hanging by a thread, Mitt is going to come riding in on a white horse and save the day.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins...ion#.mkr8nV7Go

With Donald Trump’s ruinous domination of the Republican primary polls showing no signs of abating, top leaders in the GOP are reportedly now preparing for the possibility of a contentious brokered convention next year in Cleveland.

If that happens, a small group of wealthy donors and die-hard loyalists close to Mitt Romney will be ready with a strategy to win him the nomination from the convention floor.

[Topper]

The banning muslim thing wasn't a question from a reporter. He volunteered it in a speech. The video is there for you to enjoy. It's not a question of being misrepsented. The words he used didn't leave a lot of room for interpretation. What you should be arguing perhaps is that he doesn't really mean all the things he says.

You can't hold Trump to his words, they're just words. He can say whatever he likes and mean what he wants.

[Omaha 680]

The banning muslim thing wasn't a question from a reporter. He volunteered it in a speech. The video is there for you to enjoy. It's not a question of being misrepsented. The words he used didn't leave a lot of room for interpretation. What you should be arguing perhaps is that he doesn't really mean all the things he says.

I think it's pretty obvious he doesn't mean what he says. That of course doesn't mean his statements shouldn't disqualify him.

What Trump is doing is tapping into the anger of a specific faction and trying to ride it to the nomination. The problem is that faction isn't nearly large enough to carry a general election. The other problem is general election campaigns based on anger don't success in this country. Can someone point out one that did in the modern era? 2004 and 2008 are good examples. Kerry runs solely on disgust with the incumbent and loses despite people not being too happy with GWB. In 2008 Obama had a similar message (and the same or less substance) but presented it in a positive, hopeful light and ran away with the election.

The thing I don't get is Trump surely knows all this so what is his endgame?

[BlueK]

I agree. It's just that his defenders are annoying when they try to blame "the media" whenever someone says anything negative about Trump. It's not the 1950s anymore when most people would have been dependent on what was written in the paper or a magazine. It's 2015 when all I have to do is turn on the TV and hear Trump himself saying crazy crap completely unfiltered. It reminds me of once when Charles Barkley said one of his many stupid things in front of a camera and then claimed to have been "misquoted."

[BlueK]

I think it's pretty obvious he doesn't mean what he says. That of course doesn't mean his statements shouldn't disqualify him.

What Trump is doing is tapping into the anger of a specific faction and trying to ride it to the nomination. The problem is that faction isn't nearly large enough to carry a general election. The other problem is general election campaigns based on anger don't success in this country. Can someone point out one that did in the modern era? 2004 and 2008 are good examples. Kerry runs solely on disgust with the incumbent and loses despite people not being too happy with GWB. In 2008 Obama had a similar message (and the same or less substance) but presented it in a positive, hopeful light and ran away with the election.

The thing I don't get is Trump surely knows all this so what is his endgame?

I'm not totally sure Trump necessarily "knows" this.

[Northwestcoug]

I think it's pretty obvious he doesn't mean what he says. That of course doesn't mean his statements shouldn't disqualify him.

What Trump is doing is tapping into the anger of a specific faction and trying to ride it to the nomination. The problem is that faction isn't nearly large enough to carry a general election. The other problem is general election campaigns based on anger don't success in this country. Can someone point out one that did in the modern era? 2004 and 2008 are good examples. Kerry runs solely on disgust with the incumbent and loses despite people not being too happy with GWB. In 2008 Obama had a similar message (and the same or less substance) but presented it in a positive, hopeful light and ran away with the election.

The thing I don't get is Trump surely knows all this so what is his endgame?

A cush ambassadorship in a Clinton administration!

[Topper]

A cush ambassadorship in a Clinton administration!

Some government contracts which will triple his net worth. And she will buy him off to shut him up.

[Moliere]

McKay Coppins exposes a secret plan. Now that the constitution is hanging by a thread, Mitt is going to come riding in on a white horse and save the day.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins...ion#.mkr8nV7Go

Maybe this time the uber conservatives and evangelicals will come out and vote for him