2016 Election
tables of vendors selling hats and buttons
and tee shirts and memorabilia for the
candidate who's speaking at the rally. They
all agree that Trump is selling 10 times more
merchandise than any other candidate, even
Sanders. A couple of them said they sold
all the other stuff they had and only do Trump
rallies now because they were losing money
with some of the others. The last time they
saw this was with Huckabee, and he went on
to win IA that year.
Quote: EvenBobOutside of every rally in IA there are always
tables of vendors selling hats and buttons
and tee shirts and memorabilia for the
candidate who's speaking at the rally. They
all agree that Trump is selling 10 times more
merchandise than any other candidate, even
Sanders. A couple of them said they sold
all the other stuff they had and only do Trump
rallies now because they were losing money
with some of the others. The last time they
saw this was with Huckabee, and he went on
to win IA that year.
So based on this pointless anecdote we can expect Trump to win Iowa and flounder afterwards like Huckabee did?
Quote: ams288So based on this pointless anecdote we can expect Trump to win Iowa
It's hardly pointless. It's an indicator, it's just
another indicator. The press keeps repeating
the mantra that 'anything can happen', like
it did with Santorum. But according to the
woman who runs the polling for the Des Moines
Register, Santorum wasn't a surprise at all.
She saw him surging in the last two days of
the final poll. She see's nobody surging in this
years final poll, so no surprises are likely. It's
Trump or Cruz, with the advantage going to
Trump.
Quote: ams288So based on this pointless anecdote we can expect Trump to win Iowa and flounder afterwards like Huckabee did?
I feel like you are playing games here, ams288. Maybe just trying to get a rise out of EB.
Trump is NOT Huckebee. Trump has strong appeal outside of Iowa. He is leading almost every poll in all most every state I have seen. Cruz is more like a Huckebee. If Cruz can't win in Iowa, he is going to have a very hard time winning anywhere (maybe Texas).
Trump is going to do well in Iowa. Whether or not he wins or finished a strong second almost doesn't matter (except that a Trump win REALLY minimized Cruz going forward). Whether Trump wins or finishes second in Iowa, he goes on to win big in New Hampshire and South Carolina. After that it is like how and where can they stop him?
The only possible way I see that Trump doesn't win the nomination is if his ceiling is 35-40%. If that were the case, it is possible if it got down to two candidates VERY quickly, like Rubio vs Trump, Trump could lose. But That would take Cruz and JEB with his remaining 60+ million and Carson and all the others getting out VERY quickly right after New Hampshire.
Problem is I don't think Cruz and Jeb are going to get out quickly. I am not sure Christie is at this point. I think you are likely to have at least 3, maybe 4 or 5 candidates going through super Tuesday and later into March if that's the case then Trump can start piling up delegates with some winner take all states with only 35-40% of the Vote.
The other thing is I don't believe Trump has a 40% ceiling. I think if some people like Carson, Cruz and even Carly begin to drop, Trump picks up a lot of that "outsider", anti-establishment vote. This is an anti-establishment election.
Quote: kewljI feel like you are playing games here, ams288. Maybe just trying to get a rise out of EB.
Well I would never admit to that. But sometimes it is good to trust your feelings.... ;)
Trump will win Iowa and will be the nominee. There, I said it.
And I was able to come to that conclusion without EB's story about who is selling the most merch.
Trump has an unfavorable rating of 65% among voters. The highest ever recorded for any candidate. That makes for a pretty solid ceiling. Think it was a Monmouth poll, quoted this morning on one of the news shows (ABC?). Not sure, was driving, not watching tv when it came on the radio.
Trump said this morning that he would strongly support a Supreme Court nominee who would overturn nationwide same sex marriage. Not sure where/when, again, driving, but it was an interview aired this morning. I think the gist of his rationale was that he thinks it was a states' rights issue and the SC should have ruled the other way.
Quote: beachbumbabs
Trump said this morning that he would strongly support a Supreme Court nominee who would overturn nationwide same sex marriage. Not sure where/when, again, driving, but it was an interview aired this morning. I think the gist of his rationale was that he thinks it was a states' rights issue and the SC should have ruled the other way.
Trump badly wants to win Iowa
No way does he want to lose to Cruz
Trump is willing to tell the evangilicals whatever they want to hear to beat Cruz
the first 4 elections in IA, NH, SC and NV.
Bing correctly predicted over 95% of the 2014
elections. Sanders only wins one election.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3026461/data-center-cloud/microsofts-bing-just-called-the-first-four-primaries-for-donald-trump-hillary-clinton.html
Quote: beachbumbabsCouple of things.
Trump has an unfavorable rating of 65% among voters. The highest ever recorded for any candidate. That makes for a pretty solid ceiling. Think it was a Monmouth poll, quoted this morning on one of the news shows (ABC?). Not sure, was driving, not watching tv when it came on the radio.
538 concurs and goes into more detail.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-is-really-unpopular-with-general-election-voters/
be an issue. They are both unpopular.
Quote: beachbumbabs
Trump has an unfavorable rating of 65% among voters. The highest ever recorded for any candidate. That makes for a pretty solid ceiling.
That number, 64% unfavorable is among ALL voters. Among republicans Trumps favorable is 50% and unfavorable at 47%. While that is lower than some others, that is not likely to hold him down in the primary season, or even be a factor unless it very quickly gets to a two man race, which I don't believe will happen. Now in a general election, that will be something Trump will has to deal with
Quote: terapinedTrump badly wants to win Iowa
No way does he want to lose to Cruz
Trump is willing to tell the evangilicals whatever they want to hear to beat Cruz
Personally, I think finishing second to Cruz may be the best thing that happens to Trump. It keeps Cruz relevant longer. In my opinion Cruz is finished if he can't win Iowa and the field QUICKLY getting down to 2 candidates is the only way I can see Trump not winning it all. So Cruz winning Iowa prolongs that process.
Another reason, I don't believe the field won't quickly shrink is because the rules have changed. It used to be that if a candidate didn't do real well in either Iowa or New Hampshire, they were done. Money dried up instantaneously. In this era of "Sugardaddy" billionaires, a candidate with a rich supporter can stay around a lot longer.
In addition some of these people are really running for President. People like Huckebee, Ben Carson and likely Carly Fiorina, their next step is the lecture circuit as well as authoring books, so the longer they stay in the race, the better for their next "career".
Quote: kewljThat number, 64% unfavorable is among ALL voters. Among republicans Trumps favorable is 50% and unfavorable at 47%. While that is lower than some others, that is not likely to hold him down in the primary season, or even be a factor unless it very quickly gets to a two man race, which I don't believe will happen. Now in a general election, that will be something Trump will has to deal with
Personally, I think finishing second to Cruz may be the best thing that happens to Trump. It keeps Cruz relevant longer. In my opinion Cruz is finished if he can't win Iowa and the field QUICKLY getting down to 2 candidates is the only way I can see Trump not winning it all. So Cruz winning Iowa prolongs that process.
Another reason, I don't believe the field will quickly shrink is because the rules have changed. It used to be that if a candidate didn't do real well in either Iowa or New Hampshire, they were done. Money dried up instantaneously. In this era of "Sugardaddy" billionaires, a candidate with a rich supporter can stay around a lot longer.
In addition some of these people are really running for President. People like Huckebee, Ben Carson and likely Carly Fiorina, there next step is the lecture circuit as well as authoring books, so the longer they stay in the race, the better for their next "career".
I think it's relevant. I was a voter in Iowa for 2 election cycles, and it does matter if your candidate stands no chance of winning in the General; these things get discussed before people take their place in the voting. That will be a strong argument in the caucuses tomorrow night. And those numbers are a strong and unambiguous indication (though, of course, not a sure thing) that Trump is crippled by all the voters he's alienated.
I had hoped you might comment on my second note, though. Several times you've said (paraphrasing), "now that my issue is the law of the land, I'll vote for some other things I care about". Welllllll....if that's Trump's litmus test, to get the gay marriage law overturned, it might not be a done deal after all. And he might not be the best candidate for you to support. Not throwing it in your face; just food for thought, reflecting on the larger discussion.
Quote: beachbumbabs
I had hoped you might comment on my second note, though. Several times you've said (paraphrasing), "now that my issue is the law of the land, I'll vote for some other things I care about". Welllllll....if that's Trump's litmus test, to get the gay marriage law overturned, it might not be a done deal after all. And he might not be the best candidate for you to support. Not throwing it in your face; just food for thought, reflecting on the larger discussion.
Yes, it was quite apparent you were using that to try to draw me in. I am not all that bright...but even I saw that. LOL.
I am supporting Trump in the primary season, based in large part on immigration. That is my attempt to send a message to both sides to do something about this issue that both sides have continually promised to address but neither has been willing to.
When we get to the general election, I will re-evaluate who I support, including which party based on who is standing for each party and party positions on several issues that are important to me.
Gay marriage is one such issue. I am disappointed that some in the republican party, Cruz, Huckabee and Santorum which was to be expected, but others like Rubio and today Trump have indicated they want to continue to fight this battle. Hopefully some of them are just playing to the base.
I think the gay marriage fight is over. The repubs lost. It's hard to imagine that even if they won the presidency and were able to have a republican president replace a supreme court judge or two that the court would overturn that decision. Public opinion supports gay marriage and that support grows stronger each day as the older republicans die off. Even younger republicans support gay marriage. At this point overturning that decision would be invalidating millions of marriages and effecting families and children. I don't see the Supreme Court going there. Sometimes, you just need to accept that you lost and this is one such case. I think the republicans as a party would be wise to accept this an move on to other battles.
is always ask for 3 times more than you
want. I suspect he has a rule that says
promise 3 times more than you intend
to deliver when running for office. I
wouldn't worry about blocking Muslims
from entering or overturning the Gay
marriage thing. He's just pandering like
they all do.
On the republican side, it is almost like a primary. Voters go to a location and there is some discussion, but then they vote by writing the name of a candidate on a piece of paper and placing it in a box (secret ballot). All votes count. This means candidates like Santorum and Huckabee that are getting even small amounts of votes are taking votes from Ted Cruz. Advantage Trump.
The Democratic caucus process is a little different. Voters go to the location, where there is a presentation by representatives for each candidate. They then break into groups for the candidate they support. If a candidate doesn't get minimum 15% support, his supporters much choose again, either going to one of the other candidates or to the "undeclared" group. The undeclared group, not undecided but undeclared, meaning they will declare who they support at a later time, must also have minimum of 15% for it to be recorded in that precinct.
So this means that O'Malley, who is polling at 4-5% is likely not to reach that 15% threshold in most precincts and his supporters will have to choose again. Since O'Malley is a moderate, closer in ideology to Clinton than Sanders, that should mean a bump for Clinton in most precincts. Advantage Clinton.
Do I have that about right, former Iowan, BBB? :)
(always?) wears a suit and tie and Cruz
almost never does? It's one of the reasons
I don't take Cruz seriously, he looks too
casual all the time. Trump always looks
great in an expensive suit, like he's ready
for business. Most of the time Cruz has
on an Ozzie and Harriet sweater and looks
like he's going for beer at the local bar.
Quote: kewlj
I think the gay marriage fight is over. The repubs lost. It's hard to imagine that even if they won the presidency and were able to have a republican president replace a supreme court judge or two that the court would overturn that decision. Public opinion supports gay marriage and that support grows stronger each day as the older republicans die off. Even younger republicans support gay marriage. At this point overturning that decision would be invalidating millions of marriages and effecting families and children. I don't see the Supreme Court going there. Sometimes, you just need to accept that you lost and this is one such case. I think the republicans as a party would be wise to accept this an move on to other battles.
I respect your opinion, but I disagree on one point. "Public opinion supports gay marriage and that support grows stronger each day as the older republicans die off. Even younger republicans support gay marriage. "
Or is that two points?
In any event, I believe it is simply a case of the liberal media presenting data in such a way to make people believe this.
I do think that those with same-sex inclinations should indeed have every right that married people have; hospital/doctor consultations for those that can't speak for themselves, tax benefits for those that adopt, etc. - but to call it a marriage is pretty much a slap in the face to most conservative Christians. While some may disagree, that's everyone's right, but if they'd just call it a civil union, nobody would have cared one iota. (Or maybe I'm wrong)
Just my two cents, given by me to you, for free.
+1Quote: ukaserexI respect your opinion, but I disagree on one point. "Public opinion supports gay marriage and that support grows stronger each day as the older republicans die off. Even younger republicans support gay marriage. "
Or is that two points?
In any event, I believe it is simply a case of the liberal media presenting data in such a way to make people believe this.
I do think that those with same-sex inclinations should indeed have every right that married people have; hospital/doctor consultations for those that can't speak for themselves, tax benefits for those that adopt, etc. - but to call it a marriage is pretty much a slap in the face to most conservative Christians. While some may disagree, that's everyone's right, but if they'd just call it a civil union, nobody would have cared one iota. (Or maybe I'm wrong)
Just my two cents, given by me to you, for free.
I knew I should have blocked this guy, nuttin but trouble...;-)
Quote: ukaserex- but to call it a marriage is pretty much a slap in the face to most conservative Christians. While some may disagree, that's everyone's right, but if they'd just call it a civil union, nobody would have cared one iota. (Or maybe I'm wrong)
Man, even heterosexual serial killers get more respect than gays where marriage is concerned.
Quote: ukaserexI respect your opinion, but I disagree on one point. "Public opinion supports gay marriage and that support grows stronger each day as the older republicans die off. Even younger republicans support gay marriage. "
Or is that two points?
In any event, I believe it is simply a case of the liberal media presenting data in such a way to make people believe this.
I do think that those with same-sex inclinations should indeed have every right that married people have; hospital/doctor consultations for those that can't speak for themselves, tax benefits for those that adopt, etc. - but to call it a marriage is pretty much a slap in the face to most conservative Christians. While some may disagree, that's everyone's right, but if they'd just call it a civil union, nobody would have cared one iota. (Or maybe I'm wrong)
Just my two cents, given by me to you, for free.
LOL
The sum of the post is the whole country is conservative and against gay marriage and its all the media's fault
Foxnews brainwashed?
Yes, that pesky liberal media with their sneaky bias towards actual facts.Quote: ukaserexIn any event, I believe it is simply a case of the liberal media presenting data in such a way to make people believe this.
I mean, the Wall Street Journal is practically socialist.
"Support for Gay Marriage Hits All-Time High" -- Wall Street Journal
Quote: ukaserexbut to call it a marriage is pretty much a slap in the face to most conservative Christians.
I can understand this if your local conservative Christian church performed, or was compelled to perform the ceremonies.
I don't understand otherwise. In a pluralistic society, I needn't follow the rules of a religion I don't belong to. Two people practicing another set of beliefs doesn't have anything to do with your church or its members.
It's like saying that it is a slap in the face of Chicago Bears fans for people in Green Bay to wear Packers jerseys to home games.
Or, it is a slap in the face of vegetarians for you to go to a steakhouse.
That's why I support gay marriage. ;)
Quote: kewljI am surprised at the wall to wall coverage on the news channels today. I thought that would occur tomorrow, but not today. But I did learn some things about the Iowa caucus process.
On the republican side, it is almost like a primary. Voters go to a location and there is some discussion, but then they vote by writing the name of a candidate on a piece of paper and placing it in a box (secret ballot). All votes count. This means candidates like Santorum and Huckabee that are getting even small amounts of votes are taking votes from Ted Cruz. Advantage Trump.
The Democratic caucus process is a little different. Voters go to the location, where there is a presentation by representatives for each candidate. They then break into groups for the candidate they support. If a candidate doesn't get minimum 15% support, his supporters much choose again, either going to one of the other candidates or to the "undeclared" group. The undeclared group, not undecided but undeclared, meaning they will declare who they support at a later time, must also have minimum of 15% for it to be recorded in that precinct.
So this means that O'Malley, who is polling at 4-5% is likely not to reach that 15% threshold in most precincts and his supporters will have to choose again. Since O'Malley is a moderate, closer in ideology to Clinton than Sanders, that should mean a bump for Clinton in most precincts. Advantage Clinton.
Do I have that about right, former Iowan, BBB? :)
That is mostly what I recall from the Republican side of it; never attended a Democratic caucus. I was registered there for 1976 and 1980, and we had the 15% rule to the best of my memory; everybody talked about who they were voting for and why (if they were willing to talk), and then people went to corners of the room by candidate (there weren't a dozen or so back then, 3-4 at most). If you didn't have enough people in your corner (15% sticks in my mind for some reason, might've been 10%), you had to move to another candidate, until the minimums were met. Lots of persuasion and joking involved.
So from what you're saying, looks like they've changed it a little bit since (and why not, in 40 years) to credit the low-running people with something.
Quote: ukaserex- but to call it a marriage is pretty much a slap in the face to most conservative Christians. While some may disagree, that's everyone's right, but if they'd just call it a civil union, nobody would have cared one iota. (Or maybe I'm wrong)
Just my two cents, given by me to you, for free.
But if a gay couple is banned from saying they are married it would be a slap in the face to freedom of speech laws. Likewise those same laws protect you if you want to call their relationship a civil union instead.
The real question is if you feel so violated by it, why aren't you simply calling it a "civil union?"
As a gay man married in the last 2 years, I personally would have been ok with a different term, like Civil Union. My main goal was to protect the rights and assets of my partner and I, some of which I was able to do before we even got married, but some not. My partner felt a little differently. For him it was more about being treated equally.
But the problem with "civil unions" is they were not the same as marriage in some places. They did not allow for all the same benefits as marriage they were designed to. And THAT creates a second class citizen with second class rights, which is illegal under our constitution.
It was almost the same thing back with the fight to desegregate schools. Opponents came up with a "separate but equal" proposal, but despite the name, the black school were NOT equal. Not equal funding. Not equal teacher quality. And subsequently, the black students did not get the same education opportunities.
Good one Babs. Drew us all back into the gay marriage fight. Lol.
of getting married should be provided
with 3 months of free counselling to
try and make them come to their senses.
Quote: EvenBobI think anybody of any sex thinking
of getting married should be provided
with 3 months of free counselling to
try and make them come to their senses.
Why so anti-marriage?
I thought you were thrilled with your unusual marriage arrangement.
Quote: EvenBobNate Silver has Trump winning every primary
that's coming up where there is enough recent
polling. 3 months ago he said Trump had zero
chance of winning any. He called him things
like 'Sideshow Don' and said he had a 5% chance
of winning anything. It's only been recently
that he's changed his tune.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/texas-republican/
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/01/nate_silver_said_donald_trump_had_no_shot_where_did_he_go_wrong.html
Never understood why people think this guy s the God of predictions. The crazies over at Huff Post love him.
Quote: BozNever understood why people think this guy s the God of predictions. The crazies over at Huff Post love him.
Because he's always right.
Just ask EvenBob. He doubted Nate Silver in 2012, and we all know how that turned out....
Quote: kewljWhy so anti-marriage?
I thought you were thrilled with your unusual marriage arrangement.
I see my wife a couple times a month. What's
not to like.
Quote: kewlj
But the problem with "civil unions" is they were not the same as marriage in some places. They did not allow for all the same benefits as marriage they were designed to. And THAT creates a second class citizen with second class rights, which is illegal under our constitution.
This, I was not aware of. And for that reason, I can certainly understand and respect your position.
I would enjoy playing devil's advocate and ask for more details,(about the differences between marriage and civil union) but I don't think that's ultimately good for anyone. Certainly not very much fun to read.
Gee, they went out on a limb on that one. Lol.
Quote: ams288
Just ask EvenBob. He doubted Nate Silver in 2012....
Nice try, I wasn't even on this forum till
2013..
Quote: EvenBobNice try, I wasn't even on this forum till
2013..
?
EvenBob's grasp of reality is tenuous. As we've seen.
Quote: ams288?
Alzheimer's is setting in for him.
Brilliant!
Quote: EvenBobNice try, I wasn't even on this forum till
2013..
Stop! So you aren't the same person named "EvenBob" who left for a good amount of time after the last election?
Is there someone else with that name?
Obviously, you are joking...
A quote from back then...
Quote: EvenBobA non partison George Washington U battleground election
model has R 52% O 47%. They blame the Obama loss
on a poor Dem turnout compared to 08. The enthusiasm is
all for Romney this time. Its being reported Romney's crowds
are consistently bigger than Obama had in 08.
October 29th, 2012 at 11:12:32 AM
Quote: BozHorrible dishonestly by all 3 cable networks showing 69% of the Dem vote in when actual numbers are less than 1000 votes are in. Be honest and say these are small minor places and the large city gatherings are still going.
LOL
Do some research before you make a post like this.
The Republican and Democratic caucuses are completely different. Democrats don't have a raw vote count.
Quote: ams288LOL
Do some research before you make a post like this.
The Republican and Democratic caucuses are completely different. Democrats don't have a raw vote count.
So why is MSNBC showing 451 to 432 to 5 for OMalley? Is this delegates?
And I'm glad I gave you a laugh.
Quote: BozAnd I'm glad I gave you a laugh.
I just think it's funny - you see something that doesn't look right to you and instead of researching it, you instantly jump to the conclusion: "the media is being dishonest again!"
When in reality, you simply just have no idea what you're talking about.
Same EB, The tell tale fingerprint, only a few words a line instead of using a whole line like most of us. :-)
Quote: EvenBobNovember 5th, 2012 at 1:28:59 PM
CNN seems to have an almost fatalistic attitude the
last few days, they won't be surprised when Romney
wins. MSNBC will be suicidal.
Quote: EvenBobNovember 5th, 2012 at 11:25:08 AM
Undecideds will fall a min of 75% to
Romney. Even CNN is scratching
their pointy heads and reporting that
Republicans are on fire in places like
OH and PA to vote for Romney. Not
against Obama, but actually for Romney.
They can give 10 reasons for this, and
the average Obama voter will say they're
voting against Romney, rather than voting
for Obama.
This is never a good sign for an incumbent..
Quote: EvenBobNovember 3rd, 2012 at 7:42:22 PM
Suffolk Univ Political Research Center is an extremely
well respected polling organization that has a 96%
accuracy record. If they pulled out of FL, NC and VA
3 weeks ago saying Obama has no chance of winning
there, you can pretty much bank on it.
Quote: EvenBobNovember 2nd, 2012 at 8:33:23 PM
Everybody I talk to feels stronger about this
election than any of my lifetime. I don't know
anybody thats not taking this very seriously.
Thank god we live in a country where we can
correct mistakes every four years. Obama
fooled us once, he won't get a second chance.
Quote: EvenBobNovember 2nd, 2012 at 11:38:37 AM
Some are, some aren't. Its not 50/50 anyway,
the majority of pollsters are using the 2008
turnout for their model and thats a fantasy.
They weight far too heavily on the Dem side
and if you adjust for reality, Romney wins by
4-5 points.
.
Quote: ams288I just think it's funny - you see something that doesn't look right to you and instead of researching it, you instantly jump to the conclusion: "the media is being dishonest again!"
When in reality, you simply just have no idea what you're talking about.
Again glad I made you laugh, just like I laugh at most liberal voters. And I think it's funny that they are always looking for "fairness" instead of working harder to improve themselves. So many chances to move up in this country, but most don't. I wonder what choices made you such a liberal? I wonder if I would find it funny or sad?
Or perhaps you an elitist liberal. You know the ones who are living a good life, making good money, yet think they are special and most just are not capable of repeating what they did. And those people need them to take care of hem because they just are not smart enough or dedicated enough to succeed. You know, the base of liberal voters who you count on every 4 years with promises of something for nothing.
