2016 Election
Quote: kewljStunning Trump and Bush numbers in CNN poll today.
Trump 36
Cruz 16
Carson 14
Rubio 12
Bush is at 3 percent! He trails Chris Christie (4%) and is barely ahead of Huckebee (2%) for gosh sakes.
I don't know which is more surprising Trump's continuing to open up an even bigger lead or Bush's fall to almost nothing.
2 months to voting begins.
Bush's poor performance is the most shocking to me.
Prior to the primary process actually beginning, I thought he would end up being the nominee for sure. And frankly as a Dem, I feared for Hillary's chances against him.
I do not fear for Hillary's chances against Trump.
Quote: ams288Bush's poor performance is the most shocking to me.
Prior to the primary process actually beginning, I thought he would end up being the nominee for sure. And frankly as a Dem, I feared for Hillary's chances against him.
I do not fear for Hillary's chances against Trump.
I too, thought he would waltz to the nomination with that huge war chest of funds and name recognition.
But even before Trump got into the race, I commented several times about how stiff and unhappy Bush looked on the campaign Trail. He just looked like he really didn't want to be there. He was and still is so stiff (literally) that I wonder if he wears a back brace of some kind.
I still believe Bush gives the Democrats the most problems. Traditionally, the Bushes have higher numbers with Latinos that other republicans and with Jeb having children that are half Latino, he would likely feature them in general election ads. He should also put the truest of toss-up states Florida in the republican column.
I guess Rubio would also present a Florida challenge for Democrats but am not sure as strong. Cruz and Rubio are both Cuban, but there seems to be a divide among Cuban voters and other Latino voters so it remains to be seen how that plays out.
These polls could be true. However, they could be unbelievably wrong, easily, and have proven to be in the past.
They are polling via one of two methods:
Either via websites/emails collected from heavily biased sources, (the problem there is self-evident) or:
Via calls (most likely) to voter registration lists or public phone books. This method is seriously flawed these days (outdated), because so many people under 50 no longer have a landline phone, and hardly anyone under 35 ever had one (their parents had them; they're on cells). It oversamples the elderly, the non-working public, and depends on people being willing to answer their phone when caller ID tells them it's a marketer (third party pollster) or even a number they don't recognize.
Part of the reason so few have dropped out yet is the professional political people know this among themselves, but don't discuss it much publicly. There's a lot of money to be made pushing polls.
I think we're in for a much tougher Republican race in NH than people would have you believe. And I expect all but about the top 5 to drop out immediately after that. 1 or 2 may drop out after IA, or even before, but IA caucus process is not predictive or inclusive.
I think the survivors, in some order, will be: Christie, Kasich, Bush, Trump, Rubio. Wild cards: Fiorino, Carson. DOA: the rest.
JMHO. YMMV.
Quote: beachbumbabsKeep something in mind:
These polls could be true. However, they could be unbelievably wrong, easily, and have proven to be in the past.
What I don't think the polls are wrong about is that there is a large block of the republican electorate that is fed up traditional Washington establishment type candidates. This large block of the electorate sat by or sat out in 2008 and 2012, while the republicans nominated moderate, insider, establishment type candidates in McCain and Romney and I don't think they are going to stand for that again without a fight.
I lump Trump, Carson and Cruz together as those outsider candidates supported by the "angry as hell" block of the republican electorate. As a sitting senator Cruz technically is not an outsider, but his actions as a sitting senator allow him to be firmly planted in that group.
So the thing is, if one of these candidates starts to fade, as Carson has recently, that support will go to the other remaining outsider candidates. As Carson has faded in the last month, his support has gone to Cruz, not one of the 'establishment' candidates.
So if the establishment runs 10's of millions of dollars in ads against a Donald Trump, and manages to knock some of that support down, it will go right to Cruz. The traditional republican establishment feels Trump and Cruz are by far the worst case scenario for them as nominees, but I don't see how they avoid one of those two. If one starts to fade, the other will benefit and will 55-60% of the republican electorate appearing to support these outsiders, one guy getting all that support is the easy winner.
The only real chance the establishment has in this cycle is to hope that Trump and Cruz and to a lesser extend Dr Carson all stay relatively strong, dividing that anti-establishment vote and that the establishment can quickly get behind a single candidate, like Rubio. (Bush, Kasich and Christie look too far gone in my opinion to be that establishment candidate).
Quote: HowManykewlj- As always, excellent political analysis. I think you need your own tv show. And I'm serious, too.
Oh my! Well thank you....I think. I Just have an opinion and you know what they say about opinions....lol.
But I'll tell ya, as a political junkie this has been a fun election cycle to watch so far and I don't see that changing any time soon. These guys using previous models saying this always happens or that always happens, I don't think get that this is a unique cycle unlike others with a pissed off electorate and things like social media playing a far stronger role than before. The guy with the most experience and/or the most campaign money, running the most commercials isn't winning over voters. :/
Trump tweeted his response “Obama said in his speech that Muslims are our sports heroes. What sport is he talking about, and who?”
Does Trump follow sports?
The Muslim sports legends are so legendary and famous, they are often referred by one name
ALI
KAREEM
SHAQ
cmon Trump, what an absurd tweet.
Quote: terapined
ALI
KAREEM
SHAQ
ALI is a great man. I've read much about him.
KAREEM is a very strange dude. That's as nice as I can be.
SHAQ is he really a muslim? Seriously? That doesn't seem to fit. But what the hell do I know.
Any what about Mike Tyson- he's a muslim isn't he? I like Tyson- his autobiography is one of the best books I ever read. He is very misunderstood. He has many problems, but I think he is a decent human being.
Quote: HowManyALI is a great man. I've read much about him.
KAREEM is a very strange dude. That's as nice as I can be.
SHAQ is he really a muslim? Seriously? That doesn't seem to fit. But what the hell do I know.
Any what about Mike Tyson- he's a muslim isn't he? I like Tyson- his autobiography is one of the best books I ever read. He is very misunderstood. He has many problems, but I think he is a decent human being.
Here are a few more famous Americans that are not in sports but are Muslims
Dr Oz
Ellen Burstyn (The Exorcist)
Dave Chappelle
Quote: terapinedHere are a few more famous Americans that are not in sports but are Muslims
Dr Oz
Ellen Burstyn (The Exorcist)
Dave Chappelle
Does that beg a list of famous Americans who were not Muslims? I think not.
I think Lincoln, and to save space, and I really hadn't even started yet, I end my list.
No, we don't need a bunch of idiotic statements about how Christians did really bad stuff way back when...not because they didn't, but because that removes the focus from where it needs to be right now--on the Terrorists using their religion as a reason for their actions. Those are the folks from ISIS/ISIL and the rest of them. They don't want you the liberal, you the conservative, you the atheist, you the Christian, you the female, you the gay, etc. etc. to live.
There have been great Muslims. That is not the point at all. Nothing less than a full attack on Muslim extremist terrorists is acceptable. All the other stuff is window dressing. No registries, no lists based on religion alone...just destruction of the enemy.
Not exactly a new doctrine.
If we can just survive another generation or two, most of us will be fine.
Big if..
WTF
Quote: ams288Trump wants to ban all Muslims from entering the U.S.
WTF
Its absurd
How can you tell if someone is a Muslim, you generally cant.
Some are obvious due to dress, most are not.
Quote: terapinedIts absurd
How can you tell if someone is a Muslim, you generally cant.
Some are obvious due to dress, most are not.
Make them swear on a Bible that they are not Muslim. That's what Trump tweeted me when I asked.
I hope he talks about this insane proposal, and I hope it gets some massive applause from the crowd...
....give the Dems some good footage to use in the general.
The man is deranged.
It's as simple as that.
He did that thing where he blamed the victims in Paris for not having guns.
What a scumbag.
Quote: terapinedHere are a few more famous Americans that are not in sports but are Muslims
Dr Oz
Ellen Burstyn (The Exorcist)
Dave Chappelle
And per the misinformed, brainwashed, angry and radicalized citizens of this great nation, another famous Muslim is the current POTUS, President Obama.
Quote: ams288I'm watching this Trump rally.
The man is deranged.
It's as simple as that.
He did that thing where he blamed the victims in Paris for not having guns.
What a scumbag.
I think he is blaming, that the victims were unable to have guns. Look at what the partisans in WWII were able to do when they had guns. What is the level of gun violence in USA in gun free zones versus open cary and relaxed concealed carry zones?
Quote: mason2386I think he is blaming, that the victims were unable to have guns. Look at what the partisans in WWII were able to do when they had guns. What is the level of gun violence in USA in gun free zones versus open cary and relaxed concealed carry zones?
He said if maybe 5 of the Paris victims had guns, they could have taken out the terrorists.
Which is, of course, pure B.S.
But the crowd ate it up.
Quote: terapinedIts absurd
How can you tell if someone is a Muslim, you generally cant.
Some are obvious due to dress, most are not.
Ask them if they want half rack, or full rack, of baby back ribs?
If they hesitate, no, don't shoot them. Just don't let them in...;-)
Which part was BS, just to clarify?Quote: ams288He said if maybe 5 of the Paris victims had guns, they could have taken out the terrorists.
Which is, of course, pure B.S.
But the crowd ate it up.
A - He Said
B - If 5 of the Paris victims had guns
C - they could have taken out the terrorists
D - of course, pure B.S.
E - all of the above
F - crowd was full of bigots
Quote: TwoFeathersATLWhich part was BS, just to clarify?
A - He Said
B - If 5 of the Paris victims had guns
C - they could have taken out the terrorists
D - of course, pure B.S.
E - all of the above
F - crowd was full of bigots
B & C
Which part was BS, just to clarify?
A - He Said
B - If 5 of the Paris victims had guns
C - they could have taken out the terrorists
D - of course, pure B.S.
E - all of the above
F - crowd was full of bigots
You may be correct. 5 at each location would have given them a much better chance.Quote: ams288B & C
Quote: 777And per the misinformed, brainwashed, angry and radicalized citizens of this great nation, another famous Muslim is the current POTUS, President Obama.
Why do you disrespect the Black Christian Church?
Are Black members of a Black Christian Church are not Christians?
Quote: terapinedWhy do you disrespect the Black Christian Church?
Are Black members of a Black Christian Church are not Christians?
I read 777 as being in support of BHO, you read otherwise?
<Edit> And how did 'Black' get into the conversation?
BHO is half white, half black, the best of both.
Quote: TwoFeathersATLI read 777 as being in support of BHO, you read otherwise?
You are right, sorry 777
Gets to heated in here. Got to step away and get some air :-)
Quote: TwoFeathersATLQuote: TwoFeathersATL
Which part was BS, just to clarify?
A - He Said
B - If 5 of the Paris victims had guns
C - they could have taken out the terrorists
D - of course, pure B.S.
E - all of the above
F - crowd was full of bigots
You may be correct. 5 at each location would have given them a much better chance.
Possibly. I just have a hard time seeing how someone's concealed handgun is going to do much good against several terrorists with big ass assault rifles.
Same thing with San Bernadino. I see many on the right saying things would have been different if California didn't have strict gun control.... As in, some of the victims could have been armed. Except I fail to see how the victims theoretical concealed weapons would have done much good against the terrorists' body armor and much more powerful weapons.
Quote: ams288Possibly. I just have a hard time seeing how someone's concealed handgun is going to do much good against several terrorists with big ass assault rifles.
Same thing with San Bernadino. I see many on the right saying things would have been different if California didn't have strict gun control.... As in, some of the victims could have been armed. Except I fail to see how the victims theoretical concealed weapons would have done much good against the terrorists' body armor and much more powerful weapons.
First, the San Bernardino terrorists were NOT wearing body armor from "head to toe" as was earlier claimed.
"Burguan said the preliminary investigation determined that the suspects fired 65 to 75 rounds in the room. The couple wore black clothing and combat-style vests, but were not wearing body armor as had been earlier thought."
http://www.foxla.com/news/local-news/55238652-story
What would concealed weapons have done? A lot more than people want to give them credit for in these cases. Yes, guns are dangerous in the hands of the wrong person. Yes, in an "active shooter" situation, there is always the opportunity for someone to be shot in some potential crossfire. Those are negatives to having concealed, or open-carry, weapons.
In this situation, two armed terrorists shot 60-75 rounds at people who were unarmed. Around 30 people ended up dead or injured. If even one person had a gun to fire back, the terrorists would have had to turn their attention to that person and away from the others--those precious seconds, even if no bullets hit the terrorists, could easily save lives or prevent some of the injuries.
Bullets are powerful. Even getting hit in body armor hurts--kind of like getting hit VERY hard:
"Among the accounts from those who have experienced being shot while wearing a bulletproof vest (and lived to talk about it), there is one consistent analogy to describe the feeling: being hit with a baseball bat."
http://www.ponderweasel.com/shot-wearing-a-bulletproof-vest/
So now ONE well placed shot, into a terrorist who looks like he/she has a vest on, would at the very least stun them. Now you have one stunned and one trying to kill the guy with the gun. Again, more escapes from the situation become possible.
That terrorist, who in that case does not have a vest on even though it appeared so, instead has a gaping bullet wound. Have you killed anything with a bullet? I have--a decent sized bullet causes a massive amount of damage in relationship to the size of the object being fired. A tiny entrance wound and the mushrooming of the bullet make it a bad situation for anyone hit by one. Yes, some get off easy...but most are injured fairly severely.
So...you can say an armed citizenry comes with some dangers but you can't say that the same armed citizenry would do no good in this situation. It is pretty easy to conclude that a few armed folks can change the equation on the attackers if it is an attack with guns.
Quote: RonCFirst, the San Bernardino terrorists were NOT wearing body armor from "head to toe" as was earlier claimed.
"Burguan said the preliminary investigation determined that the suspects fired 65 to 75 rounds in the room. The couple wore black clothing and combat-style vests, but were not wearing body armor as had been earlier thought."
http://www.foxla.com/news/local-news/55238652-story
What would concealed weapons have done? A lot more than people want to give them credit for in these cases. Yes, guns are dangerous in the hands of the wrong person. Yes, in an "active shooter" situation, there is always the opportunity for someone to be shot in some potential crossfire. Those are negatives to having concealed, or open-carry, weapons.
In this situation, two armed terrorists shot 60-75 rounds at people who were unarmed. Around 30 people ended up dead or injured. If even one person had a gun to fire back, the terrorists would have had to turn their attention to that person and away from the others--those precious seconds, even if no bullets hit the terrorists, could easily save lives or prevent some of the injuries.
Bullets are powerful. Even getting hit in body armor hurts--kind of like getting hit VERY hard:
"Among the accounts from those who have experienced being shot while wearing a bulletproof vest (and lived to talk about it), there is one consistent analogy to describe the feeling: being hit with a baseball bat."
http://www.ponderweasel.com/shot-wearing-a-bulletproof-vest/
So now ONE well placed shot, into a terrorist who looks like he/she has a vest on, would at the very least stun them. Now you have one stunned and one trying to kill the guy with the gun. Again, more escapes from the situation become possible.
That terrorist, who in that case does not have a vest on even though it appeared so, instead has a gaping bullet wound. Have you killed anything with a bullet? I have--a decent sized bullet causes a massive amount of damage in relationship to the size of the object being fired. A tiny entrance wound and the mushrooming of the bullet make it a bad situation for anyone hit by one. Yes, some get off easy...but most are injured fairly severely.
So...you can say an armed citizenry comes with some dangers but you can't say that the same armed citizenry would do no good in this situation. It is pretty easy to conclude that a few armed folks can change the equation on the attackers if it is an attack with guns.
To me, this post reads like fan fiction.
It is absolutely possible that a good guy with a gun could have changed the situation.
It is equally just as possible that the good guy with a gun could have gotten their head blown off by terrorist #2 while he was in a gun fight with terrorist #1.
I think what would have been different is that they would have chosen a different location where their victims would definitely not be armed. It's like a school yard bully: he's not going to pick on a kid who might hit back if there is another who definitely won't.Quote: ams288I see many on the right saying things would have been different if California didn't have strict gun control.... As in, some of the victims could have been armed. Except I fail to see how the victims theoretical concealed weapons would have done much good against the terrorists' body armor and much more powerful weapons.
Now, if conceal/carry were allowed everywhere, then we could have meaningful discussions about tactics.
Quote: ams288To me, this post reads like fan fiction.
That is very nice of you to say. That you so much!
Quote: ams288It is absolutely possible that a good guy with a gun could have changed the situation.
Absolutely.
Quote: ams288It is equally just as possible that the good guy with a gun could have gotten their head blown off by terrorist #2 while he was in a gun fight with terrorist #1.
I accounted for this--the shift of fire towards the person with the gun delays the killing/maiming of others and offers the possibility of more escapes. Yes, the "good guy" with the gun could end up dead. At least he had half a chance to do something about it--all the unarmed people just got killed or maimed with nary a thing they could do about it.
The thing is that the bad guys don't know the good guy has a concealed gun (if that is the case) until it in some way distracts them from what they set out to do. Seconds count and they just lost a few of them.
Quote: JoemanI think what would have been different is that they would have chosen a different location where their victims would definitely not be armed. It's like a school yard bully: he's not going to pick on a kid who might hit back if there is another who definitely won't.
Now, if conceal/carry were allowed everywhere, then we could have meaningful discussions about tactics.
I agree--targets are chosen so as to avoid ones that are in any way "hardened" to the type of attack. Certain types of attacks (I am not going to outline them here) aren't as susceptible to being stopped with gunfire, so they would work better on targets where people are armed. This type of attack--with guns--works very well when the possibility of someone actually shooting back is low or non-existent.
These terrorists did not last very long once they faced others with guns.
I do disagree about discussions of tactics--it is a useful exercise to show how some differences could have been made had weapons been available to the lambs being slaughtered. There is an enemy out there that wants all of us dead...I have no problem with thinking about ways to make them dead.
Quote: RonCThat is very nice of you to say. That you so much!
Err.... Clearly you aren't very familiar with most fan fiction or you would realize that isn't a compliment. lol
Quote: ams288Err.... Clearly you aren't very familiar with most fan fiction or you would realize that isn't a compliment. lol
I couldn't think of anything nice to say about your comment, so I lied.
LOL...
Finally someone asked him the simple question of "How will this be enforced?" And he didn't really have an answer.
Eventually he said he'd have customs agents ask people coming into this country "Are you Muslim?" and if they say yes, they wouldn't be allowed in.
I hope that makes his supporters feel safer! Terrorists are willing to die for their cause, but everyone knows they are not willing to lie to customs agents! /sarcasm
I wonder if that answer was satisfying to the deranged people who gave him a standing ovation last night when he discussed this proposal at his rally. Do they really think that would work?
Quote: ams288Anyway, Trump called into Morning Joe this morning to discuss his insane new "no Muslims allowed" proposal that will never be enacted and is destined to lose the general election for Republicans.
Finally someone asked him the simple question of "How will this be enforced?" And he didn't really have an answer.
Eventually he said he'd have customs agents ask people coming into this country "Are you Muslim?" and if they say yes, they wouldn't be allowed in.
I hope that makes his supporters feel safer! Terrorists are willing to die for their cause, but everyone knows they are not willing to lie to customs agents! /sarcasm
I wonder if that answer was satisfying to the deranged people who gave him a standing ovation last night when he discussed this proposal at his rally. Do they really think that would work?
Eventually this guy says enough stuff that is way too wild for a larger and larger percentage of potential supporters and he is left with a relatively few very loyal supporters who attend his rallies but so few compared to the number needed to get nominated that he just fades away.
The deranged on either side like the "far out" candidates but rarely possess enough power to actually get them the nomination...
Quote: RonCThe deranged on either side like the "far out" candidates but rarely possess enough power to actually get them the nomination...
Except he's your side's frontrunner.
Quote: ams288Except he's your side's frontrunner.
There has not been a single ballot cast for the nomination. Hillary was the front runner in December 2007; she is a much less polarizing candidate within her own party and look what happened to her...
"The Dec. 14-16, 2007, poll shows that Clinton continues to have a large lead over her competitors, with 45% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents saying they support her for the nomination. Twenty-seven percent of Democrats support Obama and 15% support Edwards. Sen. Joe Biden (3%), Gov. Bill Richardson (2%), and Rep. Dennis Kucinich (2%) are well behind in what has pretty much been a three-person race the entire campaign."
http://www.gallup.com/poll/103351/clinton-maintains-large-lead-over-obama-nationally.aspx
I'm really more concerned about him deciding something is unfair and that he wants to run as an independent once it becomes evident he won't be the Republican nominee than I am about him actually being the nominee. I just don't think it will happen.
Of course, he's held support longer than I expected and I am not going to call the election and disappear like a famous poster once did on a forum...
But even if Cruz were to beat him, that isn't much better. The only people who hate Cruz more than liberals are the conservative establishment.
IMO, a Trump or a Cruz as the nominee leads to President Hillary Clinton.
Voter registration by party. Democrats 35%, Independents 33%, Republicans 28%. (republicans turnout is slightly higher and more independents vote republicans in general elections is why republicans are still competitive)
So 28% of electorate is ELIGIBLE for most primaries and caucuses (a few are open to other party registations).
In primary elections voter turn out is usually around 30-33%. So somewhere between 8-10% of registered electorate are voting and generally it is the far right, ultra conservatives that Trump is pandering to that are the most enthusiastic voters.
So if a candidate has really solid enthusiasum from 40% of that 10% of registered republican voters, or 4% of the total voters, he will probably win the nomination in this year of too many candidates. That's 4%. That's all he needs....4% of the far right and he wins the nomination. THAT is who he is pandering to at the moment.
Now general election is a different beast. Trump and many candidates feel like if the get the nomination, they can pivot and target other groups in that election, which is usually difficult because your views and statements from just months prior during the primaries come back to haunt you. But Trump isn't worried about that at the moment. At the moment he is going for that hardcore 4-5% that will win him the nomination. THOSE are the people you saw standing and cheering in South Carolina last night.
Quote: kewljAt the moment he is going for that hardcore 4-5% that will win him the nomination. THOSE are the people you saw standing and cheering in South Carolina last night.
If Romney can't get away with the 47% remark, you think we won't notice Trump's outlandish pivoting to the middle, when or if it happens?
The other part of this is that it all doesn't happen in one day. If he loses Iowa (he has been behind to both Cruz and Carson in polls there at different times), how will he react? He is way too lose of a cannon to just absorb the loss...heck, he will probably demand that Iowa be ejected from the United States since they are not following the rest of the polls that have him leading.
Seriously...I don't want this man to be President. I don't know if I don't want him to be President bad enough to not vote or to vote for Hillary, but I think his becoming President would cost the Republicans their majority in his first term. I don't think he will do a good job at actually getting things done or at rallying the whole country. Every President comes with an ego; this one is so large I am not sure they can get it through the entrances to the White House.
Quote: rxwineIf Romney can't get away with the 47% remark, you think we won't notice Trump's outlandish pivoting to the middle, when or if it happens?
I don't know....we will see. :/ They ALL pivot to some extend from primary to general election. The good talkers like Obama and Bill Clinton and George W do well. Rubio seems cast in that mold should he get the nomination. Trump not quite as good a talker but he is one hell of a salesman, so he brings a different dynamic.
Romney on the other hand wasn't a good talker or salesman, often saying weird things like putting the dog on top of the car for vacation or talking about wife Ann's multiple Cadillacs. Things that people couldn't relate to and were left scratching their heads. Seeing how it plays out is half the fun of it. :)
Quote: RonCI don't disagree with your analysis that Trump is playing to the percentage that can get him the nomination but I do think that he will lose the advantage of "too many candidates" at some point in the not too distant future. If everyone stays in, then his chances grow...but I think they will shrink as support gravitates to other candidates from those dropping out. I just think he will pick up less of those supporters than the other candidates will.
That is part of the equation. How quickly will the field shrink. Obviously it will shrink from 15 fairly quickly, but I don't think it will get down to the 2 or 3 that most cycles have nearly as quickly as past cycles. Trump, Rubio and Cruz definitely aren't going anywhere. Bush and Carson are probably the key 2. The longer they stay in, the smaller percent Trump needs to dominate.
I'd be surprised if Bush gets out early, even with such low polls numbers. The establishment folks especially the numbers guru's like Carl Rove just are having a real hard time seeing this election as different from past cycles. They still believe Bush's money will eventually win over the electorate.
And I am more convinced than ever that Dr Carson isn't really running for president. He is running for name/brand recognition to be able to continue to sell his books and speaking engagements, so he probably stays in longer than he should. Someone like Carly is probably running for vice president, so she stays in for at least a while to be heard.
Quote: RonCSeriously...I don't want this man to be President. I don't know if I don't want him to be President bad enough to not vote or to vote for Hillary, but I think his becoming President would cost the Republicans their majority in his first term.
I think the general consensus is that Republicans will have a very hard time holding the Senate in 2016, no matter who their candidate is.
But Trump would exacerbate things. Just ask Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio. He's facing a tough campaign against former governor Ted Strickland next year. You can bet money that he wants Trump's name nowhere on those ballots.
The RCP averages have Trump back below his standard 30 percent cap. And the only reason he's even close to that is because of the clearly screwball CNN outlier.Quote: ams288There was a poll that had Cruz beating Trump in Iowa yesterday. But other than that, he leads in just about every state and national poll. It's getting harder and harder to see him not become the nominee.
True conservatives, meaning non-establishment, do not have a problem with Trump, as his rock solid 25 percent has amply shown since he announced his candidacy. The Republican establishment has a problem with Cruz because he has so frequently given them the middle finger in response to their rolling over and playing dead.Quote: ams288But even if Cruz were to beat him, that isn't much better. The only people who hate Cruz more than liberals are the conservative establishment.
Quote: SanchoPanzaTrue conservatives, meaning non-establishment, do not have a problem with Trump, as his rock solid 25 percent has amply shown since he announced his candidacy.
What is the difference between a "true conservative" and the conservative establishment?
RonC seems like a true conservative to me, and he has a problem with Trump. Where does he fit in on the SanchoPanza scale of conservatism?
