ChrisWeigant.com

From The Archives -- Take Jimmy Carter's Advice On The Primary Calendar

[ Posted Tuesday, March 1st, 2016 – 16:23 UTC ]

[Program Note: Happy Super Tuesday, everyone! Today I'm just going to punt writing a column, since I already posted my picks yesterday and there's not much else to say until the returns start coming in. So call this an "open thread" in the comments, to talk about the election results later. It was also a chance to run one of my earliest blog columns ever (I believe it was the seventh I ever wrote, back in 2006), since it still remains a good idea that makes so much sense that everyone has been ignoring it in the meantime. The South, at least for the past few election cycles, is kind of de facto moving in this direction already, what with today's "SEC Tuesday." If they can get their act together, the rest of the country's regions should also be able to. But letting the South go first every time isn't exactly fair, either. Which brings us right back to the idea launched by Jimmy Carter and James Baker III. Since this article was written, the change made in the 2008 cycle has become part of the traditions of primary season -- while a few states tried to challenge the "first four" (notably Michigan and Florida, for Democrats, in the 2008 cycle), these challenges were smacked down and now Nevada and South Carolina have taken their place as states which vote before all others. As predicted, this has indeed opened up the race to the voices of Latinos and African-Americans, in a big way. But once the first four finish voting, the rest of us really should have the opportunity, every once in a while, of being in the first group of states to vote. So enjoy the following dose of common sense while waiting for those returns to trickle in from American Samoa tonight.]

 

Originally Published July 26, 2006

It shouldn't surprise anyone to hear that the Democrats could have made a bold visionary change, but instead decided to tinker around the edges of a problem. While I'm glad they're attempting anything new at all, I am also once again disappointed in them for missing a golden opportunity.

This lost opportunity was the chance to fundamentally reform our presidential primary system.

It was suggested ten months ago by the bipartisan team of Jimmy Carter and James Baker III. What we got instead was a proposal to fix one tiny part of a much larger problem: the primary calendar's inherent unfairness (and even irrelevancy) to a huge majority of American voters.

This past weekend, the Democratic Party's "Rules and Bylaws Committee" endorsed a plan to bring at least some diversity to the early primary election calendar for the 2008 presidential race. The plan will add two new states - Nevada and South Carolina - to the traditional two kickoff states of Iowa and New Hampshire. Supporters of the plan are correct in saying it will give minorities greater leverage in the early primary process.

The current primary calendar puts the Iowa caucus on January 14, the New Hampshire primary on January 22, and then all other states from February 3 onwards. The new schedule would be: Iowa caucus (1/14), Nevada caucus (1/19), New Hampshire primary (1/22), South Carolina primary (1/29), and then everyone else afterwards.

It should be noted that this is not yet a done deal. The party as a whole could reject the committee's proposal, or New Hampshire could throw a hissy fit and move their primary before everyone else's.

Population numbers reveal in a stark fashion why changing the system has a lot of support. Here are the most recent figures (2004) from the US Census website for the four states, and the US as a whole (the placement of the links emphasizes the significant figures):

IA - 95% White, 91.7% White (non-Hispanic), 2.3% Black, 3.5% Hispanic/Latino

NH - 96.2% White, 94.3% White (non-Hispanic), 0.9% Black, 2.1% Hispanic/Latino

NV - 82.5% White, 61.2% White (non-Hispanic), 7.5% Black, 22.8% Hispanic/Latino

SC - 68.3% White, 65.6% White (non-Hispanic), 29.4% Black, 3.1% Hispanic/Latino

USA - 80.4% White, 67.4% White (non-Hispanic), 12.8% Black, 14.1% Hispanic/Latino

It's easy to see that adding Nevada and South Carolina would go a long way toward giving America's two biggest minorities a real voice in the nomination. This is obviously a good thing. But why not give everyone else a voice too? The wider problem is that the overwhelming majority of voters in the United States have no say whatsoever in determining their party's nominee.

I've written about this problem before in the San Jose Mercury News, from the point of view of California voters. Why should the most populous state in the Union play absolutely no part in nominating a presidential candidate? The logic boggles the mind. California (for those of you elsewhere) has bucked the trend of frontloading the primary calendar by pulling the plug on the experiment. Our past two presidential primaries were moved up to March, but two years ago politicians in both parties voted unanimously in both houses of our statehouse to move the primary back to June. This gives the politicians a shorter general election cycle (which benefits incumbents of both parties), but it also guarantees that by the time Californians vote, the nominee will already have been decided.

This problem extends beyond the Golden State's borders. Chris Cillizza recently wrote an interesting article on washingtonpost.com which explores which Democrats would be winners (and who would lose out) by adding Nevada and South Carolina to the early primary process. It's a great look at the political ramifications of such a change, and well worth reading. But there's an ominous line in it: "If, as expected, the nominee will be decided by Jan. 30, 2008...."

This is ominous for everyone who lives in the other 46 states, whose vote will essentially not count. The nomination wrapped up in January? Before anyone else has a chance to vote? So much for boosting voter turnout.

Jimmy Carter and James Baker's blue-ribbon Commission on Federal Election Reform proposed a much better idea of rotating regional primaries, which would add some fairness to the system. Keep New Hampshire and Iowa happy by allowing them to stay at the front (they suggest), but then split the rest of the country into four (unspecified) regions. Entire regions would vote on the same day, separated by a month or so from the other regions. The regional voting order would rotate, so (for instance) if the Northeast voted first in 2008, then they'd vote last in 2012 - and maybe the West or the Southeast would vote first that year. This way every region gets a chance at being the one that actually picked the nominee, but only once every four election cycles (every 16 years).

Because this idea is bipartisan and makes oodles of common sense, it has been largely ignored by both parties. Which is a shame. Because effectively disenfranchising 46 states out of 50 is a bad thing. It's bad for politics, bad for voter turnout, bad for both political parties, and bad for the country as a whole.

We can do better than this. The ideas are already out there. Letting Nevada and South Carolina participate in early primaries and caucuses is a good idea, and I hope it is given a chance to work. But I can't help feeling it's a baby step when it should have been a giant leap. And baby steps seem to be the Democrats' plan for everything these days.

Democrats should indeed be applauded for the timid steps they have proposed, especially since Republicans will most likely be forced to follow them. But it should be the kind of "polite" applause that entertainers hate - and definitely not a standing ovation.

[Carter and Baker's full report, titled "Building Confidence in U.S. Elections" is extremely comprehensive, and proposes some radical and fundamental solutions for all aspects of presidential elections. If the subject interests you, check it out, or at least scroll down to the bottom and read the summaries of their proposals for change.]

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

136 Comments on “From The Archives -- Take Jimmy Carter's Advice On The Primary Calendar”

  1. [1] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    One caveat -- these links are all pretty old, so no guarantees they'll still work.

    3 Dem races called (VA, VT, GA) and I'm 3-for-3 so far... woo hoo!

    :-)

    -CW

  2. [2] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    GA called for Trump. 4-for-4...

    :-)

    Some stations already calling VA for Trump, too...

    -CW

  3. [3] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    CW [1]

    You called easy wins for Trump in Virginia and Vermont and but it looks like he is being pushed hard by Rubio in VA and, of all people, Kasich in VT!

  4. [4] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    CW [2]

    I need to go catch up on what's happening! Good call on Virginia for Trump. Is that a winner-take-all state? If so, Rubio is going to be pissed!

  5. [5] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Republican Exit Polls:

    GA: Trump 40, Cruz 23-24, Rubio 22-23

    VA: Trump 34, Rubio 31, Cruz 16

    VT: Trump & Kasich 31-32, Rubio 20

  6. [6] 
    neilm wrote:

    Virginia is fully proportional.

  7. [7] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, five Dem states called (AL, GA, TN, VA, VT). All except VT to Hillary. 5-for-5 there.

    Looks like Massachusetts may be close...

    On the GOP side, 4 races called (AL, GA, MA, TN), all for Trump. 4-for-4 there.

    9-for-9... pretty good night so far!

    :-)

    -CW

  8. [8] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Voting has now closed in Alabama, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas.

    In Virginia, for the GOP (with 23% in) — Trump 37, Rubio 30, Cruz 18. This result so far deviates significantly from the exit poll.

  9. [9] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    CW [7]

    Going strong! That's 9 from 9 with 13 to go - you're more than a third of the way there, Chris. :-)

  10. [10] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Exit polls currently showing Sanders with small leads over Clinton in Massachusetts and Oklahoma.

    Oklahoma may be a surprise loss for Trump going by these exit polls:

    MA Trump 47, Rubio/Kasich 16-18

    OK Cruz 32, Rubio/Trump 27

    TN Trump 41, Cruz 21, Rubio 21

  11. [11] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    neilm [6]

    Thank you for that info, Neil, very much appreciated. :-)

    That makes this result all the more interesting:
    In Virginia, with 46% reporting, show Trump leading in 7 of the state’s congressional districts (some delegates are awarded by CD), and Rubio in the other 4.

  12. [12] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Have just seen this:

    Because a small part of Texas (El Paso) is in the Mountain Time zone and polls there don't close until 9 PM ET, we won’t see any exit polls (or media calls) until then. We may see some results before then, though.

    I didn't know this!

  13. [13] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Sanders is also doing well in OK and MA, but with very few votes counted, so basically meaningless.

    If Cruz wins OK, this will be a very big night for him (he also has a shot at Arkansas).

    -CW

  14. [14] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    This tweet from Dave Wasserman:

    Whoa: Donald Trump has won just SEVEN % in Liberty U.'s precinct in Lynchburg, VA? So much for Jerry Falwell, Jr.

  15. [15] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    CW [13]

    Just seeing the first batch of Arkansas exit polls now:

    Trump 34, Cruz 30, Rubio 25.

    Those are similar numbers to the ones we saw for Virginia's exit polls which showed Rubio within 3 points of Trump but the vote count shows that Trump is winning easily there now. It remains to be seen if the same happens in Arkansas.

    So far your predictions are holding!

  16. [16] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Tweet from Mark Murray:

    NBC News changes characterization of MA Dem primary from TOO EARLY to call (with Sanders leading) to TOO CLOSE to call

  17. [17] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Oklahoma could wind up as the most exciting state of the night on both sides. With about 10% reporting, it's Sanders 48, Clinton 45 for the Dems; Trump 32, Cruz 30 for the GOP.

  18. [18] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Updated list of calls:

    Dems: Clinton: AL, AR, AS, GA, TN, VA; Sanders: VT; Uncalled: CO, MA, MN, OK, TX

    GOP: Trump: AL, GA, MA, TN, VA; Uncalled: AK, AR, MN, OK, TX, VT

  19. [19] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    So far for Rubio: VA-2nd, AL-2nd, GA-3rd, MA-3rd, OK-3rd, TN-3rd, TX-3rd, VT-3rd. He should be able to spin all of those for wins; he's had plenty of practice doing exactly that in earlier primaries. :-)

  20. [20] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Tweet from guy with username "Uncle John":

    Chuck Todd drops a bombshell: ‘At least one’ GOP senator plans to endorse Hillary if Trump wins

    Story is at RawStory.com: http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/chuck-todd-drops-a-bombshell-at-least-one-gop-senator-plans-to-endorse-hillary-if-trump-wins/#.VtZAd0OtyG8.twitter

  21. [21] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Things are moving fast in OK (28% reporting), and it's a nail-biter for both sides: Cruz 33, Trump 31, Rubio 24 for the GOP and Sanders 51 equal with Clinton 51 for Dems.

    Meanwhile, Texas has just been called for Cruz and HRC - no surprises there.

  22. [22] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Mopshell [20] -

    Holy crap! Really? Which one? That would truly be stunning...

    -CW

  23. [23] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Texas goes to Cruz, so he'll fight on for another few weeks, most likely...

    -CW

  24. [24] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    CW -

    On those races called so far, you're running 14 for 14 now! Looks like I miscounted earlier as it appears there are 9 more results to come.

  25. [25] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Dang, WashPost just called OK for Cruz... my first misstep of the night...

    :-(

    -CW

  26. [26] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    CW [22] -

    Holy crap! Really? Which one? That would truly be stunning...

    Todd doesn't say which one... and what's more, when you read the Raw Story article, he's only going by rumor anyway:

    Todd said that he had heard “real speculation today from very informed people that at least one Republican Senate incumbent, if given a choice, might publicly endorse Hillary Clinton.”

    “An incumbent senator, there’s at least one that I’ve heard that could end up doing that, making that choice,” Todd continued. “Not because they want to, but because they need to send that message.”

  27. [27] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Sanders takes his second state (OK). Still perfect score on Dem side...

    :-)

    -CW

  28. [28] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    CW [25] -

    I'm also seeing that Bernie Sanders has won OK -- and by a very small margin -- so you were spot on with that result!

    Re your only miss so far, it looks like Cruz will win comfortably in OK. With 31% of the vote counted, these are the figures I'm seeing:

    35 - Cruz

    28 - Trump

    26 - Rubio

  29. [29] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Fun stat: In Oklahoma, Sanders has more votes than any of the Republicans! Turnout for Dems was pretty high.

  30. [30] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    CW -

    It hasn't been called yet but Clinton has a decent lead in Massachusetts with 30% of the vote counted so far: 52-47. She's carrying Springfield 61-38 which the pundits at DKos are saying is a big win outside Boston. It appears that they are waiting on the Boston vote tally before calling MA for Clinton.

  31. [31] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Of the two uncalled GOP primaries:

    Arkansas: (15% counted) Trump 32, Rubio 30, Cruz 25

    Vermont: (54% counted) Trump 34, Kasich 29.

    UPDATED CALLS:

    Dems: Clinton: AL, AR, AS, GA, TN, VA, TX; Sanders: OK, VT; Uncalled: CO, MA, MN

    GOP: Trump: AL, GA, MA, TN, VA; Cruz: OK, TX, Uncalled: AK, AR, MN, VT

  32. [32] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    yup, oklahoma is the wildcard tonight, going for cruz and sanders. so that's three states each for cruz (TX, OK, IA) and sanders (NH, VT, OK). not enough to seriously challenge for the lead, but neither is out of the running. rubio looks like the biggest loser of the night, only two second place finishes and not a single victory. at least kasich came close in vermont.

    JL

  33. [33] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    sanders also leading early in colorado...

  34. [34] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    The uncalled Republican races, excluding Alaska (which won't begin caucusing until 9pm PST):

    AR (GOP): 58% in, Cruz 35, Trump 28

    MN (GOP): 10% in, Rubio 36, Cruz 29

    VT (GOP): 74% in, Trump 33, Kasich 29

  35. [35] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    JL [32] -

    Rubio looks like the biggest loser of the night

    but so far in the primaries he's been celebrating 2nd and 3rd placings as WINS! From that perspective, he's won every state so far!

    Sanders is doing okay, better than I had hoped for him. :-)

  36. [36] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    The uncalled Dem races:

    MA (Dem): 59% in, Clinton 51, Sanders 47

    MN (Dem): 9% in, Sanders 61, Clinton 39

    Sanders is also reportedly leading in Colorado though I haven't seen figures yet.

  37. [37] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    minnesota is looking like another monkey-wrench state - sanders and rubio leading!

  38. [38] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    From Steve Singiser:

    In Texas, two things are forecasting a bit of doom for Marco Rubio. First off, as votes continue to be tallied, he keeps falling farther away from the 20 percent viability threshold. But, here is what’s worse: he is doing markedly worse with the walkup vote today than he did with the early vote. He has now fallen just below 18 percent (17.9).

  39. [39] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    AP now is reporting that Donald Trump is the winner for the GOP in Arkansas which is interesting... just 10 minutes ago, Cruz was reported to be leading Trump by 7 points. (see comment [34])

  40. [40] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Sanders looks good in MN... that'd be a wrong call for me, but I'm OK with that.

    Looks good in CO too, but I called that one.

    :-)

    -CW

  41. [41] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    CW [40] -

    You did well calling Colorado for sanders. :-)

    In Minnesota, as you mentioned, Sanders looks good. With a quarter of the vote counted so far, he's up 18 points on Clinton.

    But it looks like you've also called it amiss for the GOP result too. With about half of the vote tallied, Rubio leads with 37 percent of the vote, Cruz is in second (28 percent), and Donald Trump is a distant third (21 percent).

    You were tossing up whether or not to call Minnesota for Rubio too.

  42. [42] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    MN does look pretty damn strong in MN, gotta say. Surprising, but there was little to no polling...

    -CW

  43. [43] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Okay, update on Minnesota: with 70 percent reporting out of the Minnesota caucuses, Rubio on 36 comfortably leads Cruz on 29, with Trump in an unaccustomed third place on a lowly 22.

    Damn it Chris! You were so close to calling this!

  44. [44] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Any idea what's holding up the GOP result for Vermont? It's only a small state and was among the first to close so I wonder why it hasn't been called yet? With the obvious exception of Alaska, all the others have been called.

  45. [45] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    ...and a minute later Steve Singiser reports an answer to my question:

    Update out of Vermont: as has been the case all night, Ohio Gov. John Kasich has been chipping away at Donald Trump’s lead on the GOP side. With 88 percent reporting, the Trump lead is down to just three points (33-30). Kasich is closing the margin, but he’s also running out of real estate.

  46. [46] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Just called MN for Rubio... his first win! Isn't that adorable?

    Heh.

    Another loss for me, but overall my record's looking pretty good tonight...

    -CW

  47. [47] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    CO goes to Sanders, MA goes to Clinton. Gotta feel pretty good about those two...

    MA was one of the closer races of the night, too, just as I predicted...

    -CW

  48. [48] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    CW -

    In the Dem primaries, you correctly predicted 11 out of 12! That's 92% which considerably improves not only your Dem average but your average overall. Very well done, sir!

  49. [49] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    MN goes to Sanders! Bernie's having a better night than I thought he would...

    -CW

  50. [50] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Just saw a tweet saying Fox has called the Minnesota caucuses for Rubio. Since he's been celebrating 2nd and 3rd placings as wins, I wonder what he'll call his first actual 1st placement?

  51. [51] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    HuffPost says Hillary won American Samoa, but hard numbers are scarce, probably have to wait until tomorrow to see what happened.

    My ST Dem total: 11-for-12. MN only one I got wrong. Pretty good overall!

    -CW

  52. [52] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    CW -

    In fact I think I saw that Clinton had clinched American Samoa too so that's 12 out of 13 for you on Dem results. :-)

    On the GOP side, you're 7 for 9 so far with just Vermont and Alaska to go. I think you'll end up with 9 out of 11 when it's all done.

    A very good Super ChooseDay for you. :-)

  53. [53] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    From a tweet by Taniel:

    Rubio viability watch in 20% threshold states:

    GA: 23.8% (88% in)
    TN: 20.8% (96%)
    VT: 19.0% (92%)
    AL: 18.2% (82%)
    TX: 17.3% (55%)

  54. [54] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Chris {22}

    "Holy crap! Really? Which one?"

    Ben Sasse?

  55. [55] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    John [54] -

    Ben Sasse?

    That would be my guess too.

  56. [56] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    CW -

    Vermont has finally been called - it's a squeaker for Trump. So you're now 8 for 10 with only Alaska to go. :-)

  57. [57] 
    neilm wrote:

    "This was a strikingly different Donald Trump who met reporters last night. His tone was conciliatory. He was quietly spoken. He said he would be a unifier - of the Republican Party, of the nation. He didn't crow and he didn't claim to be the nominee, but he clearly thinks the primary race is effectively over." - BBC News Mar-2-2016

    Uh-huh - here we go.

    The 'reasonable' Donald. Can't wait for the angry to get angry that Drumpf isn't angry any longer. Whoot whoot!

    I give Michale 3 weeks be

  58. [58] 
    neilm wrote:

    "This was a strikingly different Donald Trump who met reporters last night. His tone was conciliatory. He was quietly spoken. He said he would be a unifier - of the Republican Party, of the nation. He didn't crow and he didn't claim to be the nominee, but he clearly thinks the primary race is effectively over." - BBC News Mar-2-2016

    Uh-huh - here we go.

    The 'reasonable' Donald. Can't wait for the angry to get angry that Drumpf isn't angry any longer. Whoot whoot!

  59. [59] 
    neilm wrote:

    I give Michale three weeks before he longs for the Drumpf of old.

  60. [60] 
    neilm wrote:

    The con man cometh. Remember con men play the upward pyramid - once they get credibility amongst the bottom feeder naive, then use them as a lever to con the much larger audience above.

  61. [61] 
    neilm wrote:

    "Were it not for the unmistakable blond hair and the family members at his side, you might have been forgiven for thinking an impostor had entered the room. But no it was Donald 2.0 that we had with us.

    The trouble though when you upload a new operating system is there are inevitably bugs and glitches. And the new OS takes a bit of getting used to. And there will be many who say what brought me to the product was the original software. So can and will the new magnanimous Donald be able to keep up this new modus operandi, and will his army of fans like what they see?"

    You gotta love the BBC!

  62. [62] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    I couldn't take my eyes off of Christie and the WTF look on his face during Drumpf's "speech". He seemed like he was having a really large time.

  63. [63] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Mopshell -

    Thanks for the kind words!

    Rubio missing 20% in TX is gonna hurt...

    JFC -

    Yeah, Christie looked fairly zombified...

    Still waiting for Alaska....

    -CW

  64. [64] 
    neilm wrote:

    Are some more people lifting the curtain and seeing the small, sad, little man underneath?

    http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/christian-leader-trump-reveals-that-progressives-were-right-about-evangelicals-all-along/

  65. [65] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    AK close, Trump up but not by much...

    Everyone else asleep? Been a big night...

    -CW

  66. [66] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Cruz up on Trump in AK now... winning a 3rd state would be huge for him, if he can pull it off...

    -CW

  67. [67] 
    neilm wrote:

    I'm still here ... Cruz is stating that he is the alternative, and Lindsay Graham is getting ready to hold his nose.

    How much do you have to hate Drumpf to think Cruz is preferable?

    Also, NY courts gave Drumpf a blow today - looks like he will be defending a lawsuit during the election.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-university-lawsuit-new-york_us_56d63437e4b0871f60ed2870

  68. [68] 
    neilm wrote:

    Alaska: "it's really anyone's guess who will win. I'm going to say that the Sarah Palin endorsement carries the day, and Trump carries the Frontier State. I'm basing that on gut feeling, though, so I could very well turn out to be wrong."

    You get it right for calling it a toss up. Give yourself at least 1/2 a point ;)

  69. [69] 
    neilm wrote:

    " ... I'm just going to go ahead and call Minnesota for Trump, instead. This is just a wild guess, of course, since he was polling third the last time data appeared. But I'm betting that his nationwide polling rise helped him enough in Minnesota to put him over the top."

    Rubio is going to play this as the start of the momentum and hold in there. What has he got to lose so long as he can convince the money men to keep paying out?

    I agreed with you on MN - I didn't think Rubio would win anything.

  70. [70] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    neilm -

    Lindsey Graham is being funny on CBS right now as I'm typing this... "I got beat like a drum..."

    Heh. Reminds me of Bob Dole after he lost...

    Trump still down in AK, but catching up...

    Someone pointed out if it's Trump v. Hillary, we could have the first election where the two candidates have pending court cases during the election....

    Rubio win in MN was a total surprise to me... you're right, this is only going to extend the viciousness in the GOP field. With Cruz winning 2 (3?) states tonight and Marco winning 1, neither one of them will drop out until they run out of money...

    Still watching AK results...

    -CW

  71. [71] 
    neilm wrote:

    The plight of the oligarchs ... keep feeding money into Anybody-but-Drumpf or try to buy off Drumpf?

    Must be hard to be a billionaire. #0.001%problems

  72. [72] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    The later it gets, the more possible it seems that Cruz might win AK. This could give him a real boost -- "I've won FOUR races against Trump!"

    Welp, we'll all see how it shakes out tomorrow....

    -CW

  73. [73] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So, did anyone hear what Christie said when he introduced Trump?

    "Zombified" doesn't tell the half of it ...

  74. [74] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I couldn't take my eyes off of Christie and the WTF look on his face during Drumpf's "speech". He seemed like he was having a really large time.

    Oh, that. That was just Christie having a vice presidential moment. Ahem.

  75. [75] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    With 81% of the (frozen) vote in, it looks like Cruz is going to win AK.

    This could change everything, although at this point, I have no idea what that really all means...

    I'm going to bed. See you all tomorrow...

    -CW

  76. [76] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    AK called for Cruz. OK, now I'm REALLY going to bed... see y'all tomorrow...

    -CW

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    I was secretly hoping that Trump would defy expectations and take TX...

    Not the perfect night that Trump had hoped for, but he did very well nonetheless...

    The BIG winner of the night was the GOP... MASSIVE turnout fueled by Trump's candidacy..

    The Democrat Party, the Party of old white people, is continuing to falter in the enthusiasm department..

    This is clearly going to be an election with an outsider anti-establishment candidate on one side and a old establishment status-quo candidate on the other...

    And guess which candidate almost 80% of Americans are clamoring for??? :D

    Hillary doesn't stand a chance..

    Michale

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    Someone pointed out if it's Trump v. Hillary, we could have the first election where the two candidates have pending court cases during the election....

    Hehehehe Troo...

    Of course, one is a bogus civil issue and the other is an indictment on several felonies..

    But other than that minor difference, yer right.. :D

    Michale

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, as I called it way back when and it is not official..

    Barring any sneak underhanded tricks by GOP so-called 'leaders', Trump is the GOP Candidate.

    Michale

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    If TURNOUT is going to be key, than the Democrats don't stand a chance in hell of prevailing in the General..

    Donald Trump drives GOP’s record turnout; Democrats lack enthusiasm
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/1/donald-trump-drives-republican-turnout-to-record-d/

    Michale

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, as I called it way back when and it is not official..

    But, as I called it way back when and it is noW official..

    Barring any sneak underhanded tricks by GOP so-called 'leaders', Trump is the GOP Candidate.

    Barring any sneakY underhanded tricks by GOP so-called 'leaders', Trump is the GOP Candidate.

    jeeze...

    Michale

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    I will say this, we have expanded the Republican party. When you look at what's happened in South Carolina and you see the kind of numbers that we got in terms of extra people coming in. They came from the Democratic party... and they were never going to switch and they all switched. They were Independents. We've expanded the party. Look at the number of votes we had in that area as an example. Four years ago they had 390,000 or so votes. We doubled it. We're almost 800,000. The Democrats went down.

    There's much less enthusiasm for the Democrats. I'm a unifier. I know people will find this hard to believe. Once we get this finished, I'm going to go after one person on the assumption she is allowed to run. I don't know if she will be allowed to run. I don't think Marco will be able to beat her. I think Ted will have a very hard time... I just tell you this, we are going to be a much finer party, a much -- we're going to be a unified party. We are going to be a much bigger you can see that happening. We're going to be a much bigger party. our party is expanding.

    All you have to do is take a look at the primary states where I've won. Much larger number. I think we'll be more inclusive and more unified. I think we'll be a much bigger party. I think we're going to win in November.
    -Donald Trump

    Can anyone deny the validity of Trump's words??

    Nope....

    And that is why Trump will win...

    Michale

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am sad to see that Rubio actually won a state..

    He, like Hillary, doesn't deserve a win albeit for different reasons..

    And ta think I actually endorsed Rubio at one time.. I feel so dirty...

    Michale

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    As long as Donald Trump still fights against oppressive political correctness and follows thru on his promise to prosecute Hillary for her crimes...

    I will vote for Trump....

    Michale

  85. [85] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Michale [77] -

    I was secretly hoping that Trump would defy expectations and take TX...

    So was I, though not secretly in my case. I was also hoping Trump would take Alaska -- I'd forgotten how much time Cruz spent there campaigning for Sullivan. He was also closely associated with Sarah Palin for a number of years, much longer than her month's-long endorsement of Trump. Unlike me, Alaskan Republicans obviously haven't forgotten any of this!

    Michale [83] -

    And ta think I actually endorsed Rubio at one time

    You also endorsed Walker early on. Took you a while but you've finally figured out the eventual winner. Third time lucky isn't so bad a record when you consider that there were seventeen of them to choose from originally.

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hmmmmmmm

    http://www.theamericanmirror.com/clinton-privilege-bernie-backers-booted-from-polling-place-while-bill-campaigns/

    Forget white privilege...

    It's CLINTON privilege that is most insidious... :D

    Michale

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mopshell,

    You also endorsed Walker early on. Took you a while but you've finally figured out the eventual winner. Third time lucky isn't so bad a record when you consider that there were seventeen of them to choose from originally.

    Yer sweet... :D

    Michale

  88. [88] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "The Blacks" love Trump (or at least they like what they're looking at).

    http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Louis-Farrakhan-Trump-Jews-Money/2016/03/01/id/716773/

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    MS,

    Do you think Rubio will press on??

    I could see him dropping out if he didn't win a single state..

    I am just curious if a single shining ray of hope is enough to keep him interested...

    Probably will. He has the backing of the Establishment who are probably whispering in Rubio's ear, "Think contested convention... Think contested convention"

    Bastards... :D

    Funniest quote..

    "We have one once, we have won twice, we have won a third time."
    -Cruz

    To which Trump can respond..

    "We have won once, we have one twice, we have won three times, we have one four times, we have one five times, we have won six times, etc etc etc"
    -Donald Trump

    :D

    Michale

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    "The Blacks" love Trump (or at least they like what they're looking at).

    Then, of course, there is the reality..

    Tavis Smiley: Black America could get on Trump train
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/03/01/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-black-voters-primary-elections-2016-column/81150932/

    A perfect example of OBJECTIVE commentary...

    Michale

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    TS,

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-02/bookmaker-pays-out-early-on-trump-winning-republican-nomination

    As our resident betting guru...

    What was Trumps odds at the beginning??

    Michale

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    Middle Ground: How Trump plotted a general election strategy from the start
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/02/middle-ground-how-trump-plotted-general-election-strategy-from-start.html

    While everyone here was saying "CLOWN", I was saying "GENIUS"...

    :D

    Michale

  93. [93] 
    neilm wrote:

    Remember, even Donald can count, and prior to super Tuesday he was averaging 33% of the vote, now he has leaped to ... drumroll ... 34% overall.

    I thought his numbers were meant to go up as more people dropped out?

    I thought he was pulling lots of new people in to the Republican primaries?

    Since the numbers voting in the primaries have gone up, but his percentage is the same, he is puling in 2 anti-Donald votes for every one for himself.

    Oops?

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes, you can cherry pick stats to prove whatever your agenda wants you to prove..

    But the facts are these..

    Trump will be the GOP nominee...

    This election is that pits the Establishment and the Status Quo against the Anti-Establishment..

    Hillary Clinton is the Establishment Status Quo candidate...

    Upwards of 80% of Americans do NOT want the Status Quo...

    These are the facts.. And they are undisputed...

    Michale

  95. [95] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Michale [89] -

    Do you think Rubio will press on??

    I could see him dropping out if he didn't win a single state..

    Now that he's won Minnesota, that will be used as the reason he's staying in the race though he would've stayed in anyway.

    The establishment has no-one else to fall back on. Jeb's gone. Christie's gone (and defected to Trump which must rile a great many establishment leaders). Walker's gone (fired by the Koch bros when they saw how much of their money he was burning through). Perry's gone (though there's some hope in one camp that he'll rise again at a brokered convention) and they can't stand Kasich.

    Robot Rubio is their last hope so they will keep him there all the way up to the convention in hopes that they can pull him like a rabbit out of a huge top hat labelled "last resort".

  96. [96] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Michale [92] -

    While everyone here was saying "CLOWN", I was saying "GENIUS"...

    You also referred to him as a clown (as in: Trump may be a clown but at least he...) It was probably back when you were still supporting Walker or had moved onto Rubio. I remember it very distinctly because it was so unexpected.

  97. [97] 
    neilm wrote:

    Upwards of 80% of Americans do NOT want the Status Quo...

    Really?

    Why does The Donald only get 34% of the primary votes then?

    Remember this is 34% of 29% = 10% of all votes.

    10% -> 80% is a bit of a leap, perhaps you can explain?

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sure I can explain..

    Add up the percentages of Bernie, Cruz and Trump..

    Bet yer a lot closer to that 80%, eh???

    Even if yer not, that can easily be explained by the fact that we're 8 months away from when that 80% really comes into play...

    Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think you are entitled to!!! :D

    heh

    Michale

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    MS,

    At the risk of being pedantic :D I didn't refer to him as a clown..

    I acknowledged the possibility that he MAY be a clown...

    This assumes that your recall of my wording is accurate...

    I don't recall saying it but it sounds like something I would say... :D

    Michale

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    Basically you and the Democrat Party are making the EXACT same mistake that the Republican Party has made..

    "Trump isn't a threat.."

    "NO ONE will vote for Trump!!"

    "It's impossible that Trump could EVER win the White House"

    History is repeating itself... Change TRUMP to REAGAN....

    Michale

  101. [101] 
    neilm wrote:

    We'll see about the Ronnie/Donnie comparison - Ronnie had run a strong campaign in 1976 before he came into power, and also was the Governor of California.

    The discrepancy between what Republican voters wanted (mostly action on social issues) and what was delivered by the Republican establishment has been a bone of contention for years - the Tea Party (the real one, not the astro-turf version manufactured by the Koch money after 2009) was the first warning that there was a section of the right wing (predominantly white, rural and older) that wanted to send a message to the Republican leadership. The progression from 'primarying' in safe seats to The Donald is not that far, but you are right, most of us expected that the establishment candidate would prevail just like in 2012. The Donald has enfranchised this 35% of the Republican primary electorate.

    Re: 10% is not 80%

    Counting even 1/2 of Bernie votes as potential Trump votes is ... optimistic to be polite. And my close friend who is an evangelical pastor can't stand Trump and is the source of anti-Trump emails, such as the link to the Drumpf episode by John Oliver that nypoet also posted here.

    Cruz+Trump = 62.3% of 29% = 18.1%
    Bernie = 38.9% of 35% = 13.6%

    Even if all Bernie supporters switch to Trump we are only at 31.7%.

    More likely only 25% of Bernie supporters at most will switch, so we are at 21.5%.

    Long way to get to 50%, let alone 80%.

    Source:

    http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/R

    Change the 'R' at the end to 'D' to get the Democratic numbers.

    One last point (to date):

    Trump votes: 3.4M
    Hillary votes: 4.0M

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    We'll see about the Ronnie/Donnie comparison - Ronnie had run a strong campaign in 1976 before he came into power, and also was the Governor of California.

    Which doesn't change the fact that EVERYTHING being said about Trump now was said about Reagan then..

    And we all know how THAT worked out..

    Counting even 1/2 of Bernie votes as potential Trump votes is ... optimistic to be polite.

    We're not counting Trump votes.. We're counting votes for the ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT ANTI-STATUS QUO candidates...

    Cruz, Sanders and Trump votes COMBINED approaches the 80% I quoted..

    But even if it doesn't... Like I said, the 80% will be reflected in the GENERAL ELECTION voting, not in the primary...

    Michale

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/02/trump-wins-laredo-texas-border-wall-city

    Stick your head in the sand all you want, Neil..

    Hillary is going to have a tough time beating Trump...

    It's that simple...

    Michale

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    Put another way, neil..

    It's entirely likely that a good portion of Bernie's voters will swing to Trump because Trump is the Anti-Establishment Anti-Status Quo candidate, just like Bernie. And Clinton is the Establishment Candidate, the Status Quo candidate..

    I know you can't see this happening..

    But you ALSO couldn't see Trump being the GOP candidate happening either...

    Soooooo.......

    Michale

  105. [105] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale [104]:

    I get your point, but I think there is an 'acceptability' factor that will have a major impact on the disaffected.

    Look at this link that explains why Illinois elected a Republican Governor in 2014. It had little to do with his message and everything to do with his 'acceptability'.

    https://goplifer.com/2015/09/17/blueprint-for-republican-reform-new-voters/

    In summary, The Donald is everything that forces disillusioned middle-ground voters to hold their nose and vote for a Democrat (overt bigotry, conspiracy theories, the Obama Birther nonsense, the support from white supremacy groups, etc.). If you can stand the smell of Illinois Democrats, Hillary is a sweet rose in comparison - email server indictment or not.

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    ‘Bernie or Bust’: Clinton can’t count on Sanders’ supporters in November

    The movement is called “Bernie or Bust,” and it means just that: If Sen. Bernard Sanders of Vermont loses the Democratic presidential nomination, a group of his supporters will either write in his name in the general election or consider casting their ballot for a Republican.

    The one thing they certainly won’t do: Vote for Hillary Clinton.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/1/hillary-clinton-cant-count-on-bernie-sanders-suppo/

    While ya'all have your stories about how there are Republicans who simply WON'T vote for Trump, there is also documented facts that show there are Democrats who simply WON'T vote for Hillary...

    Think about it.. :D

    Michale

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil

    RE 105

    The reciprocal thing can be said about Hillary...

    As explained in comment #106...

    Michale

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    What it all boils down to is ONE candidate is the Status Quo Establishment candidate...

    And one candidate is the anti-thesis of that...

    This is undeniably fact...

    And, since the wave of the current election is bending towards the Anti candidate...

    Well, that's a pretty good indication of how things are going to go...

    Michale

  109. [109] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale:

    Establishment/anti-establishment is one axis. I think you over-estimate its importance because it is one of the top axis in the Republican Primary.

    Here are some more axes that are also important:

    1. Decent vs. racist (yes, I know, but Google 'Trump racist' and you'll find out that Americans conflate bigotry with racism - most call his anti-Mexican rants 'racist' and his anti-muslim rhetoric)

    2. Access to establishment money vs. paying for the election from your piggy bank and tin-cupping it ($1B on each side is a lower boundary)

    3. Thick-skinned vs. thin-skinned reactions to insults

    4. Appealing to the white-only vote (70% of electorate) vs. the whole electorate

    5. Over vetted vs. under vetted

  110. [110] 
    neilm wrote:

    Do you think Romney is going to endorse Clinton on Thursday?

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    Establishment/anti-establishment is one axis. I think you over-estimate its importance because it is one of the top axis in the Republican Primary.

    No.. I think you UNDERESTIMATE it's importance..

    As ya'all have underestimated things since day one..

    THAT is what it all boils down to..

    1. Decent vs. racist (yes, I know, but Google 'Trump racist' and you'll find out that Americans conflate bigotry with racism - most call his anti-Mexican rants 'racist' and his anti-muslim rhetoric)

    Like I said.. Those who accuse others of RACISM without ANY facts to back it up says more about the accusers than the accused...

    I find it somewhat disheartening that you would choose to be associated with those who falsely accuse..

    2. Access to establishment money vs. paying for the election from your piggy bank and tin-cupping it ($1B on each side is a lower boundary)

    Ahhhhh So now, all of the sudden, Establishment Money is perfectly acceptable.. :D

    4. Appealing to the white-only vote (70% of electorate) vs. the whole electorate

    If 70% of the electorate choose Trump, then GAME OVER.. :D

    Do you think Romney is going to endorse Clinton on Thursday?

    Yep.. And then immediately thereafter pigs will fly and I will be named consort of Empress Hashi Sato... :D

    Michale

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    You never answered my question..

    Since you agree that MANY of Trump's policy statements serve the Democrat Party agenda....

    Would YOU vote for Trump if he had a -D have his name??? :D

    I would...

    Michale

  113. [113] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "Do you think Romney is going to endorse Clinton on Thursday?"

    Do you think she would repudiate it? Bernie could work with that.

  114. [114] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Michale [99] -

    Yeah you did say it and you said it in the context of: although Trump is a clown, at least he's not criminal like Clinton.

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    MS,

    I'll take your word for it.. :D

    Then I guess circumstances have proved us ALL wrong.. :D

    Michale

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yep.. And then immediately thereafter pigs will fly and I will be named consort of Empress Hashi Sato... :D

    Which would piss off my lovely wife of 33.... oops 34 years day after tomorrow... to NO end.. :D

    Michale

  117. [117] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Michale [100] (I love that you always break the 100!) -

    History is repeating itself... Change TRUMP to REAGAN....

    As far as I'm aware, Reagan was fully backed by the party establishment. That's the real difference here.

    Most Democrats are happy that Trump is leading the Republican nomination -- I've cheered him on for even longer than you have (and been criticized here for doing so) -- because it's sending the party establishment into a frenzy. It's the Republican Party that doesn't want Trump as its nominee, not the Democrats.

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    As far as I'm aware, Reagan was fully backed by the party establishment. That's the real difference here.

    Actually, that's not the case..

    Many in the Party Establishment said the same things about Reagan that they are now saying about Trump..

    Fears of Trump as Fascist
    Echo Similar Warnings
    Against Ronald Reagan

    http://www.nysun.com/national/fears-of-trump-as-fascist-echo-similar-warnings/89476/

    Reagan was the outsider, the Anti-Establishment candidate and the GOP elites swore up and down to oppose Reagan if he won the primary...

    Most Democrats are happy that Trump is leading the Republican nomination -- I've cheered him on for even longer than you have (and been criticized here for doing so) -- because it's sending the party establishment into a frenzy. It's the Republican Party that doesn't want Trump as its nominee, not the Democrats.

    That's because most Democrats thought that Trump would be easy pickings that Hillary could rip apart without breaking a sweat..

    The Democrat Party is slowly coming to the realization that this is not the case...

    Which is the point I am driving here...

    This is an election where the Anti-Establishment, the Anti-Status Quo candidate will win..

    And THAT candidate is clearly not Hillary Clinton, but rather Donald Trump..

    Michale

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale [100] (I love that you always break the 100!) -

    The law of averages is on my side.. :D

    Michale

  120. [120] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Mopshell,

    "I've cheered him on for even longer than you have (and been criticized here for doing so)"

    Here's what I said on June 17, 2015, the day he took that escalator ride:

    The Donald is a performance artist and I find him irresistible for that reason alone. I'm going to register (R) so that I can vote in the GOP primary and I'm going to hope that he hangs in there so that I can vote for him. No path to victory? You underestimate the appeal of a needy narcissistic game show host. Victoria Jackson as his VP would be a game changer. My fingers are crossed.

    My opinion hasn't changed. I hope he wins the nomination even though his Palin talk is discouraging. The other Republican contestants are lizard people from outer space. I don't see how he could be worse.

  121. [121] 
    neilm wrote:

    I find it somewhat disheartening that you would choose to be associated with those who falsely accuse..

    Oddly enough I agree. I'm very petty with grammar, words etc (not that I don't make mistakes, I do frequently), and racist and bigot are different.

    However, if my memory serves me we did both agree that some of the invective is bigotry, and since bigot = racist in common usage at the moment, I just put it in common terms.

    There are claims of racism in the birther nonsense and the Central Park Five case, as well, of course, as the 'earpiece' incident this week. This is the problem - there is enough smoke and The Donald's "The Blacks love me" only statements make it worse.

    As I said, it isn't going to be pretty, and it certainly isn't going to be fair, but it will happen on both sides. I happen to think the whole Bhengazi fiasco was simply a Hillary attack, and if it had been anybody else there would have been a small fraction of the fuss made. Kevin McCarthy agrees.

    (Note: I might get to meet McCarthy in a couple of months time at a social event.
    The friend taking me is one of the country's top lawyers and an ardent liberal - should be fun.)

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    "They should have stood up for the change Donald Trump is bringing now but they didn’t.

    Now, Trump has earned the nomination. He won it, fair and square and we should respect that. Donald Trump whipped the establishment and it is too late for the limp GOP establishment to ask their mommy to step in and rewrite the rules because they were humiliated for their impotence.

    If Trump is going to be our nominee, as I believe he is, it is our mission to support Trump and make him the best nominee and president possible."
    -GOP Strategist Alex Castellanos

    And THAT's it, in a nutshell...

    Donald Trump has one fair and square..

    I hope the GOP isn't going to be like the Democrats when they passed TrainWreckCare... All Backroom, by hook or by crook deal making...

    Trump played by the rules and he won...

    Time for the GOP to man up...

    Michale

  123. [123] 
    Michale wrote:

    As I said, it isn't going to be pretty, and it certainly isn't going to be fair, but it will happen on both sides. I happen to think the whole Bhengazi fiasco was simply a Hillary attack, and if it had been anybody else there would have been a small fraction of the fuss made. Kevin McCarthy agrees.

    McCarthy does NOT agree...

    McCarthy was simply illustrating the commonly know side-effect of the Benghazi hearings... He was no way no how saying that it was the intent..

    Put another way...

    Democrats opposing Bush with the CT policies helped Al Qaeda...

    Was it the INTENT of the Democrat Party to assist Al Qaeda??

    No, it just was a side-effect...

    Michale

  124. [124] 
    neilm wrote:

    Ahhhhh So now, all of the sudden, Establishment Money is perfectly acceptable.. :D

    Yup ;)

    Hillary is about as establishment as you get. I'm of the school that want my doctors to have been to medical school, my pilots to know how to fly, and my politicians to have a record I can judge them on.

    Re: 70% white voters - Nobody is going to get 100% of the 70%, and this was one of the key points raised in the RNC 2012 post-mortem that has been sadly ignored again in 2016.

    The estimates for 2016, based on the 2012 voting patterns with the 2% demographic swing from white to non-white build in is:

    White college educated: turnout: 77%, Rep %: 56%
    White non-college educated: turnout: 57%, Rep %: 62%

    If you haven't played around with the 538 tool you should try it:

    http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-swing-the-election/

    If The Donald ups the white non-college turnout from 57% to 100% it won't help him.

    But if he can swing the 57% white non-college voters who turn out to vote 69% Republican (up from 62% in 2012) he wins.

  125. [125] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale:

    Many in the Party Establishment said the same things about Reagan that they are now saying about Trump..

    http://www.nysun.com/national/fears-of-trump-as-fascist-echo-similar-warnings/89476/

    This article does not support your point. It is about the democrats who compared Reagan to a fascist, but as Mopshell [117] states, the Republican Party was very much behind Reagan when he ran in both 1976 and 1980.

  126. [126] 
    neilm wrote:

    If you think that all the effort put into Benghazi hearing would have happened if Hillary was not involved you are really delusional, Michale. McCarthy just did what you have been congratulating The Donald for over the last several months - telling it like it is.

    BTW, I want to address this 'telling it like it is' nonsense. Trump doesn't tell it like it is, he just tells it like the drunk uncle thinks it is and wants it to be.

    The Republican Primary is simply a poll on the number of drunk uncles out there. Looks like about 10% of he voting public. Probably a bit low, I'd expect 15-20% but that includes a few Democrats as well ;)

  127. [127] 
    neilm wrote:

    Would YOU vote for Trump if he had a -D have his name??? :D

    Heard of George Galloway? He makes Trump look like a beginner.

    No, I would not vote for either of them.

    Galloway lost his seat last year, in the same election another populist erse called Nigel Farage failed to win. Both are cut from the same cloth as Trump, but Galloway is far smarter and Farage way funnier (check this clip out):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5jUavMXQrs

    Tell me you would not vote for this guy instead of Trump if he was running :)

  128. [128] 
    neilm wrote:

    "Belgium - pretty much a non-country"

    Nigel Farage, 2010 talking to the European Council (see clip above)

    Trump is an amateur - here is another Politician who is a REAL clown:

    (note - this is the official by election results being read out on BBC News - this is not a comedy show):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHDrRZrAC5U

  129. [129] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Ahhh. The airport layover ... access to networks I can do social media on....

    The interesting question is will The Donald's support base continue to be so fired up for him during his general campaign once the "Nuts and Bolts" of his policies come out.

    Another "Yugge" factor that will also impact his ability to marshal the voters is his selection of VP. If we go with M's assertion that this is boiling down to a battle of establishment vs anti-establishment (which it is not, it is merely a battle for selection of corporate interest blocks that get to control the leavers of power; of which Trump has his own grouping of outside corporations that align with him), it could be argued that if he picks a solid establishment figure to be VP he risks turning off some of his base and while those people in all likelihood will not vote for the Dem they would stay at home.

    Quite frankly it is far to soon for crowing about a PT especially since we have yet to see how Trump does in key battle ground states, since the general is not one person, one vote, which the primaries are, the electoral college map will somewhat dilute his base and can make him quite vulnerable.

    Depending on how ugly the race gets and how the dems handle the Trump we could quite easily see an election decided by a very small sliver of people in a few small states. So to me it is a total crap shoot at this point.

    The only thing for certain at this point is that no matter who wins the general NOTHING is going to change in Washington. Perhaps that is the genius of these campaigns....corporations get to keep buying who they want when they want and the people get bamboozled into thinking that the all powerful POTUS of DC will fix everything in the wretched hive of scum and villainy that is Washington thus ushering in a new morning in America.

    Gotta jet....my two cents on the certitude of the election at this point. Might be a good read from CW on the current state of the EC map....

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    the Republican Party was very much behind Reagan when he ran in both 1976 and 1980.

    When he ran in 1980, sure... He was a proven leader then..

    But in 1976???

    The media, the Democrats AND the Republicans all savaged Reagan in 1976...

    • Illinois Republican Senator Charles Percy said Reagan’s candidacy was “foolhardy” and would lead to a “crushing defeat” for the Republican Party. “It could signal the beginning of the end of our party as an effective force in American political life.”

    • Former President Gerald Ford: “I hear more and more often that we don’t want, can’t afford to have a replay of 1964.” If the Republican Party nominates Ronald Reagan “it would be an impossible situation” because Reagan “is perceived as a most conservative Republican. A very conservative Republican can’t win in a national election.” Asked if that meant Ford thought Reagan can’t win, Ford replied to the New York Times: “That’s right.” The Times story went on to observe that Ford thought “Mr. Reagan would be a sure-loser in November” and that Reagan held “extreme and too-simple views.”

    • New York’s Republican Senator Jacob Javits: Reagan’s positions are “so extreme that they would alter our country’s very economic and social structure and our place in the world to such a degree as to make our country’s place at home and abroad, as we know it, a thing of the past.”

    • The Ripon Society: “The nomination of Ronald Reagan would McGovernize the Republican Party.”

    • Vice President Nelson Rockefeller dismissed Reagan as “a minority of a minority” who “has been taking some extreme positions.”

    • National Review (a conservative magazine): “Reagan’s image remains inchoate.… At the outset of his campaign, his image is largely that of the role-playing actor — pleasant on stage, but ill-equipped for the real world beyond the footlights. Reagan does not yet project the presidential image. He is not seen as a serious man.”

    • Manchester Union-Leader (a conservative New Hampshire paper): Reagan “lacks the charisma and conviction needed to win.”

    All of that sounds REAL familiar, doesn't it??

    It's nearly verbatim what the Right Wingery Establishment is saying about Trump...

    Sorry, you and Mopshell are wrong.. The GOP Establishment savaged Reagan just like they are savaging Trump..

    They were wrong then and they are wrong now..

    It's THAT simple...

    Michale

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    the Republican Party was very much behind Reagan when he ran in both 1976 and 1980.

    When he ran in 1980, sure... He was a proven leader then..

    But in 1976???

    The media, the Democrats AND the Republicans all savaged Reagan in 1976..

  132. [132] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://spectator.org/articles/63436/yes-trump-can-win

    There are many MANY quotes there from Establishment Republicans and Right Wing media saying the EXACT same things about Reagan that are being said about Trump in the here and now..

    I tried to post them all, but the NNL filters puked..

    As much as it pains me to say (which is surprisingly much.. :D) ya'all are wrong.. :D

    Establishment Republicans treated Reagan exactly as they are treating Trump now..

    They were wrong then and they are wrong now..

    Michale

  133. [133] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'll take the silence as acknowledgement.. :D

    Michale

  134. [134] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale [132],

    perhaps an acknowledgment that there's no point arguing with you when there's no conclusive proof either way. since it's all opinion and interpretation, the argument is mush before it even begins, so why bother? nobody but you believes that silence equals assent.

    JL

  135. [135] 
    Michale wrote:

    perhaps an acknowledgment that there's no point arguing with you when there's no conclusive proof either way. since it's all opinion and interpretation, the argument is mush before it even begins, so why bother? nobody but you believes that silence equals assent.

    Biga... Don't forget Biga.. :D

    The difference in my opinion and the other opinions is I provided documentation to substantiate my opinion...

    :D

    Michale

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am ALWAYS open to be convinced that my positions and opinions are wrong..

    I simply require FACTS, not cajoling, to acknowledge that I am in error....

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.