2016 elections - because it's never too early

[garbon]

Don't you want to win again?

You're not going to beat the New England Patriots of the world by electing the Cleveland Browns front office, no.  Not going to outcoach Vladimir Belichick that way.

Well we tried looking at his soul already, as well as pushing the reset button. Neither seemed to help much.

[11B4V]

Don't you want to win again?

You're not going to beat the New England Patriots of the world by electing the Cleveland Browns front office, no.  Not going to outcoach Vladimir Belichick that way.

front office.

[dps]

Belichick = Putin?  Can't say that I entirely agree with that.  Putin isn't that bad.

[Tonitrus]

Belichick = Putin?  Can't say that I entirely agree with that.  Putin isn't that bad.

I kinda figured it more likely that Xi = Belichick

Perhaps Putin = Pete Carroll? :hhm:

[OttoVonBismarck]

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

Eh, for me it at least it's because I've only ever been really conservative (and even then small-c conservative / "classical liberal" in a Euro context) on economics and some aspects of foreign policy, I've never been too crazy about social conservatism. I do actually agree with the Republican position on illegal immigration, I don't believe it should be at all accepted by amnesty, eventual citizenship or etc. But we're at a point now where so many Latinos have basically came in and won't ever leave that their kids are all going to make that position politically unacceptable--it's why we never should've had birth right citizenship in the first place.

So in some people's book I am a right-leaning centrist, and I think Hillary is a left-leaning centrist (Bernie supporters claim she's not even liberal, but her record and her positions don't support that claim), so when I can pick between Hillary and a slate of candidates who are proposing economically disastrous tax policies, budgetary policies, destructive foreign policies etc Hillary is an easy choice. Bernie is just way more liberal than I'd want a President to be, and his anger directed at Wall Street frankly concerns me.

No one has ever been able to coherently explain to me why "Wall Street" is the boogeyman of the 2008 global financial crisis, how it's good to not have big banks, how the easy flow of investment capital isn't a major driver of growth or how the financial sector itself isn't a major economic sector and employer in America and how it's logical to blame it for all the ills of the world and want to destroy it. Big banks are the only entities that can finance many large financial transactions that are necessary for the largest companies, little credit unions can't do that.

So what you're seeing is pretty rational to me, the GOP went full on crazy, some of the sane conservatives view Hillary as a "sane port in the storm", I don't think she'll be any " worse" than Obama on areas where liberalism conflicts with my views, and I think she may be an upgrade on foreign policy, an area where Obama has been an abject failure.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I have no problem with them looking at someones phone with a warrant, but I do have a problem with the state thinking it has the power to compel a third party to help them do so.

Why would they need a warrant when the phone's owner has turned the phone over to them, has given them permission to try and unlock it, and in fact wants them to succeed?

[Eddie Teach]

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

So what you're seeing is pretty rational to me, the GOP went full on crazy, some of the sane conservatives view Hillary as a "sane port in the storm", I don't think she'll be any " worse" than Obama on areas where liberalism conflicts with my views, and I think she may be an upgrade on foreign policy, an area where Obama has been an abject failure.

I don't think Raz is talking about Republicans supporting Hillary, but those supporting Trump and to a lesser extent, Cruz.

[CountDeMoney]

I kinda figured it more likely that Xi = Belichick

Perhaps Putin = Pete Carroll? :hhm:

Lulz, Belichink

[alfred russel]

Belichick = Putin?  Can't say that I entirely agree with that.  Putin isn't that bad.

I kinda figured it more likely that Xi = Belichick

Perhaps Putin = Pete Carroll? :hhm:

The Putin - Carroll analogy is a good one. Both have a bizarre thing with taking off their shirts:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rDe-Z_wH84

[PDH]

Which one is Tom Landry?

[dps]

Which one is Tom Landry?

Thatcher?

[jimmy olsen]

Looking at the race on Wikipedia

This is the result from the first three states

Trump 33.52% with 385,686 votes and 67 delegates
Cruz  21.70%  with 249,645  votes and 11 delegates
Rubio 20.78% with 239,141  votes and 10 delegates
Kaisch 8.65% with 104,589  votes and 5 delegates

[OttoVonBismarck]

Bush leaving makes Trump winning an outright majority less likely I think, Trump's best bet was a 4-5 man field going into the winner take all states on 3/15 and later, because his plurality would be enough to win most of those.

But without a shift in about a week's time, Trump is going to win most of the Super Tuesday states (he trails Rubio in a couple and trails Cruz in Texas), and likely remain the delegate leader, but Cruz and Rubio are likely to grab a decent number of delegates in those states as well. I think most of Bush's support will firm up behind Rubio.

Kasich's campaign is still talking about how he's so strong in the midwest, and they have no interest in stopping before then. I think Bush realized he could continue, but shouldn't, Kasich is in the opposite boat, he seems to feel like because he can continue, he should. Even if Kasich is right and he does great in the midwest, even wins some states, I still so no mechanism by which he wins the nomination. His organization is terrible, he has no ground game in most states, he's skipping campaigning in Nevada entirely, he could come in 1st/2nd throughout the Midwest and that still doesn't get him anywhere near the nomination (in fact it likely just guarantees a brokered convention.) But a more likely scenario if he stays in until 3/15 is he never breaks 3rd in any race and just continues to act as a spoiler for the "establishment lane."

Carson dropping out will be interesting because I have to think he's the one candidate who might lose a significant portion of his voters to Trump, as he's an "outsider", but he doesn't have many supporters, but it might bump Trump up over the 1/3rd mark into 36-37% territory. I think if Trump was able to move up to 40% national support and hold it, he would win an outright delegate majority because of all the WTA states 3/15 and later, and the fact neither Cruz or Rubio would bow out and neither could alone beat him. More and more I think if the GOP wants to guarantee neither a brokered convention (with a probably Trump plurality of delegates) or a possible Trump majority, either Cruz or Rubio has to drop out, if both stay in I think it's more likely than not you end up with either a brokered convention or a Trump outright delegate win.

[Eddie Teach]

I think Carson wants to sell more books.

[Razgovory]

I think Carson wants to sell more books.

I think Carson is lost and in the wrong place.  He's probably confused as to why he has to jump through all these loops just get his driver license renewed.