Again you think ardtho is draups :lol: . It aint him

He's the one who is more convinced he's a multi than anyone. Why would that be...

You think ardtho is draups :lol: .

What if I were all of those things, why would you have an issue?

but yet you are white?, middle age?, uneducated?, and lower class (poor)?

I live in Australia. I'm an Australian and I'm not eligible to vote for Trump,

try again 'Draupnir'

I'm happy in knowing , the people who are voting for Trump , are white, middle age, uneducated, and lower class (poor)

your life must suck dog shit

eat a big bag of dicks

both Rubio and Cruz are well below where they should be....today was a big GOP turn out, and you have to say the people voted for Tump

filed

Come July it will be far too late for him to file to run as an independent - independent candidates need to start collecting signatures for ballot access as early as April to be viable.

If the Republicans nominate someone else at a brokered convention it will be too late for Trump to get on the ballot in the vast majority of states, so the threat of an independent candidacy wouldn't exist. I doubt the RNC would be worried about Trump's supporters throwing a tantrum a) because his supporters aren't a traditional Republican constituency in the first place and b) because their focus will be on keeping the House and the Senate, and they are genuinely concerned that Trump would threaten their majorities there. Mitch McConnell has basically admitted that if Trump is the nominee then the general election is a write off - so it makes far more sense to nominate a reasonable candidate (a Romney or Ryan), likely concede the Presidency to Clinton but at least retain the House and Senate.

I expect Trump to win the nomination outright, but if it goes to a convention, there is no chance that Trump comes out as the nominee.

Van Jones the racist and liar gets owned and keeps trying to change topic every time he's nailed.

[youtube]4epuBp9ixzc[/youtube]

Thats what they want voters to believe because they want a lobbyist controlled candidate, but its not working and its not true.

You think the only reason he gets media is because of "outrageous comments"? Man you have all of this so arse backwards. :roll:

Most of the outrage regarding Trump has been manufactured by an establishment that fears losing their grip because he's done exceedingly well in polling and now with the primaries.

eg the KKK stunt was a deliberate attempt to smear Trump. It was nothing Trump did, it was nothing to do with him, but the national and world media are still running 24-7 with this bullshit.

At every step of the campaign people have been saying:

- x%? This is Trump's ceiling and he won't go any higher
- Trump just said y? Surely this must end him

When Trump gets on a stage with Hillary and lays into her about her email scandal, disastrous invasion of Libya, ties to Wall St. etc, I wouldn't put it past him to knock Hillary down a peg.

Edited by 433: 2/3/2016 04:47:25 PM

I would question that statement. Or at least argue it is an open question, and certainly an open question within the republican party.

Trump is winning primaries with generally 30-35% of the vote. He has high unlikeability ratings in polls.

The argument is that one-on-one, in a general election you need a candidate that can attract the centre. That is why Rubio has been the establishment golden boy.

The argument from this perspective is that Trump is doomed in a general election. Hillary also has poor likeability ratings, but nowhere near Trump's level.

So I think the Republican establishment is reacting so hard against him for a number of reasons:

- he is not a product of the establishment
- he does not fit the mould in terms of traditional republican policies. In fact, many of the policies are unclear
- he is perceived as unelectable in a general election contest

Now, the potential twist in the above received wisdom is two-fold:

Polling done so far of "who would you vote for between Hillary and Trump/Sanders and Trump" etc etc is notoriously unreliable this far out. People don't really think about these choices until it is clear who the 2 candidates are. If you have 2 candidates with high unfavourable (Trump & Clinton) who will people choose?

Turnout is the other question. Dems primary has had low turnouts, republicans high. But that doesn't mean anything necessarily, as competitive primaries usually have high turnouts, and the flip side is true. And primary turnout does not necessarily correlate with general election turnout.

Trump will generate high turnout as his supporters are enthusiastic. But it is reasonable to believe that he could also trigger high turnout from anti-Trump people. Clinton may win many votes for NOT being Trump.

Obviously everything above is speculation. But I am certain the Republican establishment must believe Trump has no chance in a general election, whether that ends up the case or not.

I would agree with you if it was any other candidate.

But Trump has spent the least of the republicans. He is getting free media coverage at a staggering rate. By his outrageous comments he is getting what they call "earned media" - crowding out any of the other candidates.

I think this would only amplify if he ran as an independent.

Of course, lots of Republicans have an immense dislike for Trump and I have no doubt they want to nominate their own candidate.

However, not nominating Trump (assuming he wins a plurality) will all but assure a Hillary presidency. With a Supreme Justice on the line, I don't think the Republicans are going to be willing to risk that.

Interesting to note that this day was supposed to be Cruz's "firewall" - Southern evangelicals are his bread and butter. However, Cruz has NO appeal up north, so I don't see how Cruz can win this going forward.

I don't know - I'm reading that a number of republicans have started a #NeverTrump movement, lead by Nebraska Republican Ben Sasse.

Not sure how significant he is, or how much support there will be, but if they are already pushing this, I wouldn't outright assume they wouldn't play dirty at the convention.



Well that's the thing - if Trump ends up with a plurality only, it can't be decided first round. Will the delegates for the other candidates line up behind one candidate in round 2?

Info re the current delegate allocations below:
Based on current vote counts and each state and district’s allocation rules, Trump is on track to end up with about 262 delegates, Cruz is on track to win about 215, and Rubio is on track to win about 93. That’s an even more awful result for Rubio than I thought, and it’s a lot worse for Rubio than The New York Times’s Upshot model is currently projecting. After tonight, Rubio could be more than 100 delegates behind Cruz and more than 200 delegates behind Trump.

I dont think he has the money to make that route successful. Without the party, you get no television, no debates and then you have to deal with the problems of pre-registered republican party voters and state by state bureaucracy to get on the ballot at the 11th hour.

Yeah he's said as much himself.

Love him or hate him, I don't think you can blame him for that.

Rubio just looking for excuses to stay in the race to rake in more of those lucrative campaign donations.
The guy is deluded and too bad all that smear money spent on comedians and KKK traps amounted to nothing.

If I knew the US election was this hilarious I would've started following them years ago

If Trump wins a plurality and doesn't get the nomination you can guarantee he runs as an independent.

I don't think the republican establishment is brave (or foolish) enough to nominate a candidate in a brokered convention. This would entrench the idea that it's Trump vs. establishment, and hence alienate the Trump voters which would hand Hillary the presidency.

Oh an AzzaMarch I'm 99% sure that delegates must support the candidate that they were pledged for in the first round - even the ones that Bush/Christie won will have to support Bush/Christie at the convention. After the first round its a free-for-all.

Edited by 433: 2/3/2016 04:08:47 PM

http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/super-tuesday-primaries-presidential-election-2016/?ex_cid=promo_banner

The betting markets are pretty consistent with what we’ve been saying about the Republican race: Rubio’s chance of becoming the nominee has fallen to 9 percent after returns started coming in, according to Predictwise. Cruz has risen to 5 percent, and Trump remains the heavy favorite, at 83 percent.

So I think it is safe to say Trump will get the nomination now.

Cruz and Rubio both won enough to keep in the contest, meaning that it will remain a 3 way contest.

The only alternative is if Rubio does better in the winner-take-all states coming up, but there is nothing in these results that makes this likely to happen.

The only other twist in the tail will be if Trump ends up with a plurality, but not majority, of the delegates.

In that scenario it will be interesting to see what happens. It is pretty unprecedented -

Does the nominee have to have a majority of delegates? Is a plurality enough?

Can someone drop out and pledge their delegates to another candidate at the convention?

Fascinating times ahead. And a bit scary too if you ask me.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-02-29/the-die-hard-republicans-who-say-nevertrump

Projected winners:


REPUBLICAN RACES DEMOCRATIC RACES
STATE WINNER STATE/TERRITORY WINNER
Alabama Trump Alabama Clinton
Arkansas Trump Arkansas Clinton
Georgia Trump Massachusetts Clinton
Massachusetts Trump Georgia Clinton
Tennessee Trump Tennessee Clinton
Virginia Trump Texas Clinton
Oklahoma Cruz Virginia Clinton
Texas Cruz American Samoa Clinton
Minnesota Rubio Colorado Sanders
Alaska Not called Minnesota Sanders
Vermont Not called Oklahoma Sanders
Vermont Sanders

reddit no better than twitter, only twitter is more succinct

thankfully hashtags dont translate to votes

meanwhile


probably a bunch of old people complaining


Edited by TheFactOfTheMatter: 2/3/2016 03:55:42 PM