2016 elections - because it's never too early

[Phillip V]

Trump also will likely win all 50 delegates, he gets 29 for winning the whole state, and 3 for each congressional district. I think there are only 2 districts where there's any question left, and he's fairly safely ahead in those as well.

It's going to be a three way race now, but the question is how long do Kasich and Carson remain? They have no path to the nomination in my opinion, but by taking anywhere from 9-12% each they both make the solid 1/3rd that Trump seems to have guaranteed enough that he's going to win more and more states like this. It's also possible that when Carson drops out, his supporters go to Trump, which could complicate things for the forces of sanity.

Kasich should try for both Bush and Christie's immediate endorsement.

Carson supporters could go to Cruz.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I think popular wisdom is if Kasich/Carson went away tonight as well, and after Super Tuesday (but before some important Winner Take All states on 3/15 and later) Cruz drops out because he realizes he can only hope to be the Santorum social conservative spoiler, but not the nominee, is that Rubio then wins the 1v1 with Trump and the nomination. I think that might be true. But as strong as Trump does among evangelicals that may not be the case, he may siphon a surprising number of them away from Cruz. What's interesting is some of the evangelicals 538 spoke to at the polls who voted for Trump said they have a lot of issues with the things he's done/said conflicting with their beliefs, but they were supporting him anyway. So their support for him isn't even logically consistent with their own fucked up worldview.

[Barrister]

Well Rubio looks to be coming in second.  So there's that.

But despite internet stumping for Rubio (since my first fav Walker dropped out months ago), I'm still on record thinking Trump has it sewn up.

[Razgovory]

I think popular wisdom is if Kasich/Carson went away tonight as well, and after Super Tuesday (but before some important Winner Take All states on 3/15 and later) Cruz drops out because he realizes he can only hope to be the Santorum social conservative spoiler, but not the nominee, is that Rubio then wins the 1v1 with Trump and the nomination. I think that might be true. But as strong as Trump does among evangelicals that may not be the case, he may siphon a surprising number of them away from Cruz. What's interesting is some of the evangelicals 538 spoke to at the polls who voted for Trump said they have a lot of issues with the things he's done/said conflicting with their beliefs, but they were supporting him anyway. So their support for him isn't even logically consistent with their own fucked up worldview.

I do not understand the evangelicals.

[Hansmeister]

Well, it looks like Rubio will be the Republican nominee. That is a result I can live with.

[LaCroix]

I think popular wisdom is if Kasich/Carson went away tonight as well, and after Super Tuesday (but before some important Winner Take All states on 3/15 and later) Cruz drops out because he realizes he can only hope to be the Santorum social conservative spoiler, but not the nominee, is that Rubio then wins the 1v1 with Trump and the nomination. I think that might be true. But as strong as Trump does among evangelicals that may not be the case, he may siphon a surprising number of them away from Cruz. What's interesting is some of the evangelicals 538 spoke to at the polls who voted for Trump said they have a lot of issues with the things he's done/said conflicting with their beliefs, but they were supporting him anyway. So their support for him isn't even logically consistent with their own fucked up worldview.

I do not understand the evangelicals.

ignorant + partisan + a splash of respectability. the latter is the one thing evangelicals have over OWS -- they're real people, not washed out lowlifes who probably wouldn't vote anyway

[Barrister]

Well, it looks like Rubio will be the Republican nominee. That is a result I can live with.

I like Marco.

But he hasn't won a single primary or caucus yet.  He was beaten quite handily by Trump by 10 points.  He barely finished ahead of Cruz.  And even if Cruz ends his campaign it's not at all clear Marco would win his voters.

[Phillip V]

Trump victory speech.  Never saw the woman on the right before.

[Razgovory]

Seems so odd that so many Republicans really want Hillary Clinton to be President.

[LaCroix]

Seems so odd that so many Republicans really want Hillary Clinton to be President.

could say the reverse about bernie supporters, though. I don't understand why they support bernie when there's a good chance he'd lose even against trump.

[Hansmeister]

Well, it looks like Rubio will be the Republican nominee. That is a result I can live with.

I like Marco.

But he hasn't won a single primary or caucus yet.  He was beaten quite handily by Trump by 10 points.  He barely finished ahead of Cruz.  And even if Cruz ends his campaign it's not at all clear Marco would win his voters.

Trump is stuck at most 33 percent. Everybody else in the GOP hates him and would never vote for him.  SC was considered Cruz' strongest state and he lost to Rubio there.  Rubio was the second choice for the bulk of the supporters of all other candidates, including cruz' supporters.  It's all but over even though it'll take a while for the other candidates to realize it.

The GOP tends to be rather predictive in choosing their nominees, unlike the Dems. The establishment has chosen Rubio now as their consensus candidate after SC and the establishment always wins in the end.

Ironic, since the the establishment hated Rubio when he challenged Charlie Crist in 2010.

[Phillip V]

Rubio owes a great deal to popular Governor Nikki Haley for giving him that last minute boost towards a 1000-vote victory over Cruz.

Cruz meanwhile has now lost his strategy for a strong SC 2nd place giving him momentum into Super Tuesday across the South.

[Berkut]

Okay, Tim what is the proper procedure the government should undertake to look at the Cell phone?

The Beeb laid out the proper procedure. As I said that's not the problem. The problem is that the government will not follow the procedure.

Okay, so government can't ever investigate because it's government?  That's a rather silly stance.

Yeah, it's silly, but it seems to be the stance of several posters here.  I don't get it.  I mean, I certainly understand the idea of not trusting the government and not wanting to give it too much power, but that's why we require search warrants in the first place.  If you take the positions some people here seem to be taking, that we can't trust law enforcement to stay within the bounds of judicial oversight, then it would seem that you should be opposed to the police ever being allowed to get a search warrant, but it wouldn't matter, because they'd just illegally search your stuff anyway.

That is not my position.

My position is that there is a long history of the state using niche reasons for why they should be allowed to do something to then leverage that into more general cases.

In this case, the state is saying "Hey, we want to be able to look at this terrorists phone! We all agree that this is fine!"

If they get the power to do so, I am completely certain, given the history, that they will then promptly follow that up with "Hey, we've established that we have the power to look at encrypted phones because that previous case established that, so looking at YOUR encrypted phone is perfectly fine as well..."

It never, ever ends with just the specifics of the case in question, and it *always* is then used as justification for broadening that power to the general case. Every. Single. Time.

[Razgovory]

So I ask again, what exactly should the government do to further their investigation? 

[dps]

Okay, Tim what is the proper procedure the government should undertake to look at the Cell phone?

The Beeb laid out the proper procedure. As I said that's not the problem. The problem is that the government will not follow the procedure.

Okay, so government can't ever investigate because it's government?  That's a rather silly stance.

Yeah, it's silly, but it seems to be the stance of several posters here.  I don't get it.  I mean, I certainly understand the idea of not trusting the government and not wanting to give it too much power, but that's why we require search warrants in the first place.  If you take the positions some people here seem to be taking, that we can't trust law enforcement to stay within the bounds of judicial oversight, then it would seem that you should be opposed to the police ever being allowed to get a search warrant, but it wouldn't matter, because they'd just illegally search your stuff anyway.

That is not my position.

My position is that there is a long history of the state using niche reasons for why they should be allowed to do something to then leverage that into more general cases.

In this case, the state is saying "Hey, we want to be able to look at this terrorists phone! We all agree that this is fine!"

If they get the power to do so, I am completely certain, given the history, that they will then promptly follow that up with "Hey, we've established that we have the power to look at encrypted phones because that previous case established that, so looking at YOUR encrypted phone is perfectly fine as well..."

It never, ever ends with just the specifics of the case in question, and it *always* is then used as justification for broadening that power to the general case. Every. Single. Time.

Ok, but did you read my other post on the matter?  I don't see that the fact that it's a terrorism case is particularly relevant.  I don't have a problem with the police looking at any individual's phone if they have a proper warrant.  I just don't see where the distinction plays a role, whether it's a terrorism case, or a security fraud case, or a rape case, or a narcotics case, etc.  As long as they're not looking at people's phones without warrants, I don't see the problem--and if they start looking at people's phones without warrants, then the problem isn't that they have the ability to look at phones, it's that they're conducting illegal searches.