2016 Election
If Cruz is the popular choice, I think they might swallow it. If it's Trump, they can make a pretty compelling case that he is not really a Republican and that the Republican party should therefore not chose him as the nom. Same thing with Bernie. I believe a great number of super delegates are already promised to Hillary.
This somewhat corresponds to the reality that both parties are largely businesses that trade in political influence and favors. Having Trump or Bern as a nom is like putting a vegetarian chef in charge of your steakhouse.
I'm somewhat alone in this, but I think Trump would have a better chance of beating Hillary than getting the nomination in the first place. I did see a poll that said more Dems would switch over for Trump than Reps for Hill. Bernie would also have a fine chance against Rubio. Each has a huge rhetorical advantage in being able to call out the prospective foe as a shill and each can say, with some credibility, that they will represent the interests of voters on many key issues. You'd have to be lobotomized to believe that of either Hillary or Rubio at this point.
I think Hillary would beat Rubio, and probably Cruz, who has some credibility but is ultimately a bit too goofy. I've always thought that if Christie could get his s together he would be a good candidate, but that seems unlikely.
They can push for an establishment VP candidate...but I don't think they can change the nominee if one is clearly the "winner"...
At that point, they have to put all their efforts behind the candidate and practice what they preach (something every true politician seems to have trouble with!)--ALL of our candidates are better suited to be President than yours.
Hillary Clinton may well become President. The Republicans need to do everything possible (legally, of course) to stop that from happening whether they like the nominee or not. That is the only position that they can take and maintain credibility.
Even with the winning candidate running against Hillary, it will be a tough fight.
Quote: kewljAfter South Carolina is Nevada. I haven't seen recent polls, but the last I saw Rubio wasn't running too well here. He campaigns here, calling Nevada his "childhood home". He lived in Henderson from age 8 until 11. Strange thing about that, raised Roman Catholic and still a Roman Catholic today, during their 3 years living here, Rubio's family attended the Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormon). Just a strange little side thing that hasn't been explained. But I haven't got the impression that the "childhood home" status is getting him much support here.
I haven't seen a Nevada poll either, but I think Trump will do well here. Remember that Ron Paul won the 2008 primary in Nevada. The Republicans here are the small government libertarian type. Cruz will not do well here. I could see Rubio coming in a strong second, doing well with the Mormon and Latino voters.
Do you know where and what time your caucus is?Quote: kewljAfter South Carolina is Nevada.
Quote: RigondeauxThere are caucuses and super delegates and all kinds of shenanigans. The party can even change the rules during the convention if need be. There's already talk of squeezing Paul Ryan through the backdoor.
If Cruz is the popular choice, I think they might swallow it. If it's Trump, they can make a pretty compelling case that he is not really a Republican and that the Republican party should therefore not chose him as the nom.
I am familiar with super delegates. which is basically attempts by both parties to take the vote away from the voters. The Democrats abuse the super delegate system more than the republicans with about 20% of the total delegates needed being super delegates which are party officials who are not representative of the public's vote. If that 20% block backs for one candidate, the establishment candidate, that candidate has nearly 40% of the delegates needed to win the nomination, before a single vote has been cast by the public. That is currently the situation with Hillary. She has a huge lead before a single vote has been cast and Bernie would have to win 65% of the delegates distributed by voter turnout in order to win.
On the republican side it is not quite so tilted. I forget the numbers but I think the delegates non reflective of the actual vote are only about 10% of the total delegates, which means if they voted as a block and went to an establishment candidate like Rubio, that would only give him 20% of what is needed to win. He is still going to have to win a bunch of delegates related to the vote in order to win. I guess the best chance would be a 3 way race with Trump, Cruz and an establishment candidate like Rubio going deep into the process dividing up regular delegates, then the super delegates and the republicans have a different term for some of the "at large delegates" could be the difference.
I do disagree with your idea that Cruz would be more acceptable to the republican establishment than Trump. I think you are underestimating how much Cruz is disliked among the republican establishment. This past weekend on some of the Sunday shows I heard a couple establishment type big wigs saying just the opposite.....that between Trump and Cruz, they fear Cruz the most. They feel he gets crushed and they not only lose the presidency but the senate and a longer shot would be the house as well. One guy suggested the if it came down to Trump and Cruz, with no establishment candidate in the mix, you might see establishment support (and money, including superpac money) supporting Trump, which is almost unthinkable.
Why ? Because the tax code is how politicians reward friends and punish their enemies.
Quote: RigondeauxYou need to factor in the fact that the nomination is not determined by popular vote. There are caucuses and super delegates and all kinds of shenanigans. The party can even change the rules during the convention if need be. There's already talk of squeezing Paul Ryan through the backdoor.
There aren't that many superdelegates on the Republican side - the vast majority of states have 3 or fewer. A number of states have a rule where its three committee-based delegates (one man and one woman who are RNC members, and whoever the head of the state's Republican Party organization is) have to vote for whomever wins the state.
Of course, there is still room for shenanigans; while the Democrats use the same system for all of its primaries (delegates are divided among the candidates that get at least 15% of vote; 3/4 of the delegates in a state are congressional district-based, and the other 1/4 are statewide-based), Republicans use a number of methods (e.g. the statewide winner gets all of the delegates; the winner in each congressional district gets 3 delegates, and the statewide winner gets the rest; the winner in a district gets 2 while second place gets 1, and the rest are divided proportionally based on the statewide vote among the candidates that get a certain percentage or higher).
Quote: ThatDonGuyThere aren't that many superdelegates on the Republican side - the vast majority of states have 3 or fewer. A number of states have a rule where its three committee-based delegates (one man and one woman who are RNC members, and whoever the head of the state's Republican Party organization is) have to vote for whomever wins the state.
Of course, there is still room for shenanigans; while the Democrats use the same system for all of its primaries (delegates are divided among the candidates that get at least 15% of vote; 3/4 of the delegates in a state are congressional district-based, and the other 1/4 are statewide-based), Republicans use a number of methods (e.g. the statewide winner gets all of the delegates; the winner in each congressional district gets 3 delegates, and the statewide winner gets the rest; the winner in a district gets 2 while second place gets 1, and the rest are divided proportionally based on the statewide vote among the candidates that get a certain percentage or higher).
While the republicans only officially have 153 super delegates as you described, they have another 72 'at large' type delegates who are selected by party officials that are not tied in any way to the way the voters vote. These two groups (and they call the 72 something other than super delegates) make up about 9% of the total delegates, which again is far fewer than the democratic side, but still enough that in a close election, the party could take the vote out of hands of the people.
You can bet that out of these 225 'party delegates' very few will be going to Trump or Cruz, unless of course the party decides it needs to back one of these two candidates in order to defeat the other less desirable of the two.
So that is where an establishment candidate (presumably Rubio) has an advantage initially with these 225 'at large' party type delegates, but at some point he has to start winning somewhere. After march 15 all primaries are winner takes all, so racking up seconds and thirds does you no good. I just don't see where Rubio is poised to win anywhere at the moment and that includes his home state (at least at the moment). I just don't quite see his "path". But things can change.
Her lawyers would not say which Republican congressperson invited her.
Seems like good PR for the Republican Party. /sarcasm
Quote: ams288Kim Davis, the 4-times married anti-gay marriage hag from Kentucky, will attend the State of the Union tonight.
Meanwhile, Michelle Obama will also attend the State of the Union. She'll keep herself occupied by mauling a box of DUNKAROOS during the speech.
Quote: HowManyMeanwhile, Michelle Obama will also attend the State of the Union. She'll keep herself occupied by mauling a box of DUNKAROOS during the speech.
Are you married, HowMany?
Quote: SanchoPanzaDo you know where and what time your caucus is?
Yes I do. 5pm to 9pm. Why? are you going to try to talk me out of my candidate? :)
I am looking forward to the experience and seeing how the process works.
Quote: ams288Are you married, HowMany?
Of course. Married my college sweetheart in 1994.
We've been happily married for 5 years.
Quote: HowManyOf course. Married my college sweetheart in 1994.
We've been happily married for 5 years.
WOW! I am sure she appreciates that comment. Just out of curiosity, was it the first 5 years? Or just 5 intermittently spread out of the 22?
Quote: ams288Kim Davis, the 4-times married anti-gay marriage hag from Kentucky, will attend the State of the Union tonight.
Her lawyers would not say which Republican congressperson invited her.
Seems like good PR for the Republican Party. /sarcasm
Update: it was Jim Jordan, one of the clowns that Hillary pwned during the Benghazi hearing, who invited Kim Davis.
Quote: ams288Update: it was Jim Jordan, one of the clowns that Hillary pwned during the Benghazi hearing, who invited Kim Davis.
Its another dumb republican inviting Kim Davis to a high profile event
The republican establishment know they lost on gay marriage.
Most sane republicans want to move on to other issues because the American people generally support gay marriage
To showcase Kim Davis, in an election year, just insures the coming minority status of the republican party
regardless, I wont be watching.
Maryland is playing tonight.
Quote: terapined...regardless, I wont be watching.
Me either. State of the union in one word....pisspour.
(Sometimes you have to look at the bright side of things)
Quote: ams288One thing about a Trump presidency that would actually be good: the State of the Union addresses would be entertaining.
(Sometimes you have to look at the bright side of things)
If I wanted to watch a bunch of liars on tv, I'll turn on poker.
Quote: kewlj
I do disagree with your idea that Cruz would be more acceptable to the republican establishment than Trump. I think you are underestimating how much Cruz is disliked among the republican establishment. This past weekend on some of the Sunday shows I heard a couple establishment type big wigs saying just the opposite.....that between Trump and Cruz, they fear Cruz the most. They feel he gets crushed and they not only lose the presidency but the senate and a longer shot would be the house as well. One guy suggested the if it came down to Trump and Cruz, with no establishment candidate in the mix, you might see establishment support (and money, including superpac money) supporting Trump, which is almost unthinkable.
You could be right. My thinking is that, if dumping the popular choice requires flipping the table, the justification can be that Trump is not a real Republican, many of those who voted for him are not Republicans, AND he is unqualified for the office on a basic level, having no political experience. Cruz, on the other hand, is an elected Republican and a fairly notable one, even if they don't like him. His supporters are more clearly right/conservative. Though he might be seen as more dangerous because he looks like a true believer.
Similarly, while Bernie is clearly competent, he really isn't a Dem. A lot of his supporters are not either. I am one. I voted for Obama once, but usually vote third party. If you put a gun to my head, I might chose Trump over Hillary. So maybe the Democratic party has a decent argument in saying, "FU, we're nominating a real Democrat. Go start your own party."
By Tuesday night and the republican response to the SOTU union address, it has become clear the republican establishment intends to use South Carolina as a last stand against Trump. Governor Nicki Haley will endorse and try to "prop up" either Rubio or Jeb Bush, whom ever does better in New Hampshire (presumably Rubio) as the alternative to Trump.
What could really screw up the republican establishment even further is if one of the other two establishment candidates, Kasich or Christie, finishes ahead of Rubio and Bush in New Hampshire. All 4 of those republican establishment candidates seem to be running within a 8-12 point range in New Hampshire. The establishment really needs to consolidate that establishment vote behind one candidate, quickly after New Hampshire to have any chance. I don't know if Jeb, is going to be such a good soldier and fall in line.
It is such a crapshoot at this point ( Unless you can Control the dice, but that is another story).
So, I'd include him in their last ditch effort. I still contend control is the biggest issue with Trump, and they don't want that much of a loose cannon.
With Trump way under 50%, the establishment will use that to argue that the majority of republicans are against Trump
This should be the most fascinating convention ever.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rnc-preps-for-a-contested-convention_56970d65e4b0b4eb759d3ae9
Quote: terapinedIf Trump cant get over the 50% hump, it will definitely be a split convention
With Trump way under 50%, the establishment will use that to argue that the majority of republicans are against Trump
This should be the most fascinating convention ever.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rnc-preps-for-a-contested-convention_56970d65e4b0b4eb759d3ae9
A story about...well...nothing! There was a little history included and some info about the RNC getting ready in case the convention does not have a predetermined conclusion (which most have, of course). If they didn't do their work, someone would say they were not paying attention to what "could" happen. If they do their work, someone complains about the timing or turns into a conspiracy to get rid of Trump and Cruz.
Now, of course, all of those things can happen...they could have a brokered convention and dump Trump and/or Cruz...but we are a long way from that right now. Some of the people who may lose are trying to figure out a way to win anyway, so they drop little things about how to get rid of one candidate or another. Normal stuff--most people think the candidate they support is the best for the job and they hold onto the idea that person could win way too long.
DWS is on the ropes with the Dems, too, for pushing Hillary Clinton more than supporting the process for the other candidates to be heard.
In other news...
Cruz "Any country that makes U.S. service members get on their knees like the 10 sailors whose boats were boarded and seized by the Iranian military this week "will feel the full force and fury of the United States of America"
The boat was in In Iran waters. It was settled peacefully with diplomacy. Cruz is scary
Carson on terrorists "Why should we be letting people smoke their cigars in their comfortable chairs in Raqqa?"
Isis has imposed a strict smoking ban throughout its territory in Syria and Iraq
Christie ''I never wrote a check to Planned Parenthood."
Christie quote from 1994 "I support Planned Parenthood privately with my personal contribution, and that should be the goal of any such agency, to find private donations."
Trump of course immediately claims victory after every debate, but from what I heard he actually did get the best of Ted Cruz a couple of times.
It seems like Trump is becoming unstoppable.
Quote: terapinedIf Trump cant get over the 50% hump, it will definitely be a split convention
With Trump way under 50%, the establishment will use that to argue that the majority of republicans are against Trump
This should be the most fascinating convention ever.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rnc-preps-for-a-contested-convention_56970d65e4b0b4eb759d3ae9
http://www.vox.com/2016/1/14/10772700/donald-trump-ted-cruz-poll
http://www.vox.com/2016/1/15/10774102/donald-trump-debate-winner
Trump is NOT angry, but his followers are angry. Trump is able to manipulate his angry followers by telling them what they want to hear, and the consequence of his manipulation is that his followers feel like he is with them.
The reason for Trump's manipulation success and gain in popularity is because he is not an establishment, or a part of the DO NOTHING CONGRESS of the past 12 years.
Quote: 777
Trump is NOT angry, but his followers are angry. Trump is able to manipulate his angry followers by telling them what they want to hear, and the consequence of his manipulation is that his followers feel like he is with them.
The reason for Trump's manipulation success and gain in popularity is because he is not an establishment, or a part of the DO NOTHING CONGRESS of the past 12 years.
Hold on now. I am supporting Trump and I am not angry at anyone. In fairness I should say I am supporting Trump in the primary season. When the general election rolls around I will re-evaluate based on what options are available at the time.
The reason I am supporting Trump is a single issue...immigration. And I DO want to send a message to that 'do nothing congress" both republicans and democrats on this single issue. We need to secure our borders. This is not an easy position for me to be so firm about, because America has always been a welcoming place. Everyone (or almost everyone's) ancestors are from somewhere, mine from Ireland and all came here in search of a better life. And I understand that is also what the illegal immigrants flowing across the south border are in search of. But unfortunately, it is a different time and situation and we just can't take everyone. There is a process and people waiting to go through that process and it is not fair to those that are playing by the rules.
Now if you want to talk about the angry thing. My "significant other", a far left liberal, is a bit angry at my decision to support Trump. Maybe angry isn't the right word, but definitely perturbed and in disbelief of my decision.
Quote: kewljHold on now. I am supporting Trump and I am not angry at anyone. In fairness I should say I am supporting Trump in the primary season. When the general election rolls around I will re-evaluate based on what options are available at the time.
The reason I am supporting Trump is a single issue...immigration. And I DO want to send a message to that 'do nothing congress" both republicans and democrats on this single issue. We need to secure our borders. This is not an easy position for me to be so firm about, because America has always been a welcoming place. Everyone (or almost everyone's) ancestors are from somewhere, mine from Ireland and all came here in search of a better life. And I understand that is also what the illegal immigrants flowing across the south border are in search of. But unfortunately, it is a different time and situation and we just can't take everyone. There is a process and people waiting to go through that process and it is not fair to those that are playing by the rules.
Now if you want to talk about the angry thing. My "significant other", a far left liberal, is a bit angry at my decision to support Trump. Maybe angry isn't the right word, but definitely perturbed and in disbelief of my decision.
Let me be the +1 to your SO, then. Trump is appalling; all he knows to do is say crap about other people (denying that HE thinks something, but "they" are always saying....whatever garbage he wants to spin about somebody else). He happily lies about things, makes other things up, exaggerates for effect, proliferates false factoids, spews racist and sexist garbage, has no room for any other point of view. He comes off like Adolf Hitler's and Joan Rivers' illegitimate spawn, at least to my ears. (Hitler's policies conveyed via Rivers' insult joke delivery.)
Specific to immigration; his plan is impractical at best; (build a wall that the Mexicans will pay for, like he has any control over what Mexico will pay for), unimaginable (round up all 12 million illegal immigrants at gunpoint and force them out of the country - yeah, that's what I want my taxes to pay for; an army of thuggery) and unenforceable (anchor babies, orphaned children, other citizenship issues, finding these people, keeping them out, etc.). Give him credit if you want for making it a front-and-center issue, but it's not like he can do what he claims on this.
Or on anything else that's a problem here. He can complain and hit hot-buttons like crazy, but only offers platitudes and sound bites about what to do when asked (if he even bothers to answer the question, which is hardly ever). Nothing of substance, nothing positive. What a mess.
I know it's been said before,
But why don't you tell us how you really feel...;-)
Quote: beachbumbabs
Specific to immigration; his plan is impractical at best; (build a wall that the Mexicans will pay for, like he has any control over what Mexico will pay for), unimaginable (round up all 12 million illegal immigrants at gunpoint and force them out of the country - yeah, that's what I want my taxes to pay for; an army of thuggery) and unenforceable (anchor babies, orphaned children, other citizenship issues, finding these people, keeping them out, etc.). Give him credit if you want for making it a front-and-center issue, but it's not like he can do what he claims on this.
That's all fine with me. He has brought the issue to the forefront. Immigration reform needs to get done and there is more than enough blame to go around on both sides (both parties). The Dems don't want to do what needs to be done for fear of alienating part of their bases, the Latino vote. The republicans actually ran and won on the issue in 2014, that they were going to do something and then when they took control of the Senate to go along with the house, decided they didn't want to make waves as a presidential election approaches.
I am not particularly looking to break up families and deport 12 million people at gunpoint. But you have to stop it from getting worse and discourage future immigrants from pouring across the border. THAT has to start with border security. If it is a big wall, so be it. As a country there aren't jobs and we can not afford to care for these people, plus as I said, it is not fair to the people who are currently standing in line, going through the process legally.
Once the border has been secured, both sides will need to compromise to figure out how to handle the 12 million here illegally. Maybe some kind of fine or penalty, with a work visa, with possible citizenship years down the road if they stay 'clean'. I am NOT looking to deport 12 million, including families and children, but they don't get to jump in line in front of those that are waiting in line and going through the process legally.
Quote: kewljThat's all fine with me. He has brought the issue to the forefront. Immigration reform needs to get done and there is more than enough blame to go around on both sides (both parties). The Dems don't want to do what needs to be done for fear of alienating part of their bases, the Latino vote. The republicans actually ran and won on the issue in 2014, that they were going to do something and then when they took control of the Senate to go along with the house, decided they didn't want to make waves as a presidential election approaches.
I am not particularly looking to break up families and deport 12 million people at gunpoint. But you have to stop it from getting worse and discourage future immigrants from pouring across the border. THAT has to start with border security. If it is a big wall, so be it. As a country there aren't jobs and we can not afford to care for these people, plus as I said, it is not fair to the people who are currently standing in line, going through the process legally.
Once the border has been secured, both sides will need to compromise to figure out how to handle the 12 million here illegally. Maybe some kind of fine or penalty, with a work visa, with possible citizenship years down the road if they stay 'clean'. I am NOT looking to deport 12 million, including families and children, but they don't get to jump in line in front of those that are waiting in line and going through the process legally.
I agree with everything you say. But Trump doesn't have answers for any of this that would solve the problem in a way that could be done. And he doesn't agree with your reservations on the impact of his statements, either; he just raises the level of hysteria and xenophobia on the subject. I think the reason the 2014 Repubs couldn't get anything done is that it's a complex problem with no simple solution, that people ARE trying to solve it in both parties, and to some extent pressure on them to fix it is helpful but not practical.
If this is your one-button issue, either Marco Rubio or Hillary Clinton are more likely to do something effective than DJT, IMO, though for different reasons.
Quote: beachbumbabs(build a wall that the Mexicans will pay for, like he has any control over what Mexico will pay for), .
I will make up numbers to illustrate the simple point... (Maybe PacoMartin can find us the real numbers!)
We give Mexico 10 billion dollars a year in various aid packages. The wall will cost 4 billion. We, in the year we build the wall, only give Mexico 6 billion.
Quote: beachbumbabsSpecific to immigration; his plan is impractical at best; (build a wall that the Mexicans will pay for, like he has any control over what Mexico will pay for), unimaginable (round up all 12 million illegal immigrants at gunpoint and force them out of the country -
Trump said he would round them up humanely with a deportation force, which we already have in the U.S. Immigration and Customs enforcement. (I.C.E.), and the U.S. Border Patrol.
Between them, Clinton and Bush Jr., used ICE and the Border Patrol to either deport or return 22.57 million illegals.
President Obama used ICE and the Border Patrol to return or deport even more illegals than either Clinton or Bush.
Washington Post
A wall will slow the number of illegals entering the country and more resources will be available to deport more of the illegals already living here.
It should be a lot easier, since more Mexicans are leaving the US than entering it.
Pew Research
As far as getting Mexico to pay for the wall, they will.
Increase the tariffs on Mexican goods entering the USA and use those revenues to build the wall.
You might be paying more for Nabisco cookies and G.E. stoves, but it will be worth it.
Quote: RigondeauxInstead of going after the poorest and weakest with policies that are likely to be ineffective and will ramp up our police state, why not just fine people who employ illegal aliens sufficiently so that it is a bad economic decision for them to do so?
That might work. It would, of course, raise the prices of fruit, vegetables, nuts, many other things, but that's the price for properly paid and documented workers.
Quote: RigondeauxInstead of going after the poorest and weakest with policies that are likely to be ineffective and will ramp up our police state, why not just fine people who employ illegal aliens sufficiently so that it is a bad economic decision for them to do so?
Yup, penalties work when they are stiff enough and don't work when they are not. For instance, most land based casinos in Nevada follow the law instead of losing their gaming license.
When businesses have something significant to lose, you won't see many immigrants working there. And they aren't moving targets like immigrants.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/election-2016-donald-trump-claims-credit-for-iran-release-of-americans/
Quote: RigondeauxInstead of going after the poorest and weakest with policies that are likely to be ineffective and will ramp up our police state, why not just fine people who employ illegal aliens sufficiently so that it is a bad economic decision for them to do so?
That would only work if we quit giving them free education, food subsidies, housing subsidies, and free healthcare. Otherwise we just have more people dependent on assistance.
Plus, the wall does nothing to this side of the border.
Of course, any plan also has to be realistic about the immigrants we do want. Our current system is based on wanting a lot of cheap labor with no rights so that it can be exploited, and so American workers can be undermined, along with public schools and so forth. But we probably need more immigrants than we allow on the books. They just need to compete on fair terms.
Anyway, it should be much more effective to go after the architects of the plan, so that they don't want to do it any more, rather than the people they are seeking to exploit. You don't break up an organized crime racket by arresting prostitutes and johns or people who bet with bookies.
Bonus: we don't have some sci-fi nightmare country surrounded by a giant, ultra-expensive (who ultimately pays for tariffs?) wall with a bunch of armed guards on it.
Double bonus, upping fines and enforcement is something you'd have an outside shot of getting done IRL. Stroke of a pen and a modest shifting of funds.
But anyway, there is another big concern I have with the democrats and that is their support for a $15 minimum wage. Clearly pandering to the low income portion of their base. They tell you it isn't fair to people trying to support a family on minimum wager. But you are not SUPPOSED to support a family off minimum wager jobs. Minimum wage jobs are low/no skill jobs for high school students or part time, low skill jobs. That's what they are. That is what they are worth.
The problem is that if you 'artificially' raise this minimum wage, cost of goods and services MUST also increase to offset that increase. You are creating inflation. Those who's wages aren't at the minimum wage level, like seniors citizens on a fixed social security income as well as people already making $25 or $30 thousand a year will face these steep increases in cost of goods ad services without getting that bump in raise to offset it. For these people it amounts to a huge decrease in income via spending power of their current income which will not change.
I don't know what the ultimate impact would be, but economists seem to be pretty split on it.
Seven Nobel Economists Endorse a $10.10 Minimum Wage
http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-01-14/seven-nobel-economists-endorse-10-dot-10-minimum-wage
Quote: kewljThey tell you it isn't fair to people trying to support a family on minimum wager. But you are not SUPPOSED to support a family off minimum wager jobs. Minimum wage jobs are low/no skill jobs for high school students or part time, low skill jobs. That's what they are. That is what they are worth.
Quote:No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1933
Quote:It is a serious national evil that any class of His Majesty's subjects should receive less than a living wage in return for their utmost exertions. It was formerly supposed that the working of the laws of supply and demand would naturally regulate or eliminate that evil [...and...] ultimately produce a fair price. Where... you have a powerful organisation on both sides... there you have a healthy bargaining.... But where you have what we call sweated trades, you have no organisation, no parity of bargaining, the good employer is undercut by the bad, and the bad employer is undercut by the worst.... where those conditions prevail you have not a condition of progress, but a condition of progressive degeneration."
Winston Churchill MP, Trade Boards Bill, Hansard House of Commons (28 April 1909) vol
Last year the Bush campaign (they weren't technically a campaign at that point), but the Bush brain trust, lobbied and convinced Florida to make it's primary a winner take all, assuming Bush would be the winner and could capture all of Florida's 99 delegates. That was actually before Florida's other "son", Rubio had become much of a threat.
Anyway as the polls currently stand, still a ways out from the March 15, Florida primary, Bush and Rubio are basically tied for 3rd at 12 and 13% respectively, behind Cruz 19% and Trump at 31%. If both Bush and Rubio are still in the race come March 15, Trump probably wins their home state and ALL 99 delegates as Bush and Rubio would be dividing the establishment vote.
Only way the establishment has a chance is if one of these guys has emerged as the establishment candidate and the other drops out by that point and even then, it isn't clear that they overtake Trump. Trump winning Florida would have to be quite an embarrassment as well as campaign killer for both of these guys.
I agree that, if Trump wins Florida, he's in business. But I would make him a big dog. And if he loses Florida, as planned, then he has a lot to make up elsewhere when you add that to the superdelgates.
http://abc13.com/politics/trump-receives-key-endorsement-from-sarah-palin/1165522/
Inspector General Charles I. McCullough sent a letter to lawmakers last Friday saying that several dozen additional classified emails have been found, including ones containing information from so-called "special access programs," which have a classification higher than top secret."
http://abc13.com/politics/ig-some-emails-on-clintons-server-were-beyond-top-secret/1165493/
I'm sure this is nothing at all...
