2016 elections - because it's never too early

[jimmy olsen]

I cannot believe this stupid Primary shit goes on until June 14th. Fucking four and a half months of primaries. Then we get to wait four and a half MORE months to actually elect our President. You foreigners with your six week campaigns have it so good.

There should be five ten state primaries.

Each held two weeks apart on a Saturday and begin on the first Saturday of March.

They should be held in the order of population. So the ten least populated states the first weekend, the next ten least populated two weeks from then, and so on.

Territories will vote with the set of states that they are similar to population wise. So the District of Columbia, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands would vote with Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, Alaska ,North Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming.

Two weeks after that Mississippi, Arkansas, Utah, Kansas, Nevada, New Mexico, Nebraska, West Virginia, Idaho and Hawaii would vote.

The third election would have Minnesota, Colorado, Alabama, South Carolina, Louisiana, Kentucky, Oregon, Oklahoma, Connecticut, Puerto Rico, and Iowa.

Fourth election would have Virginia, Washington, Massachusetts, Arizona, Indiana, Tennessee, Missouri, Maryland and Wisconsin.

Fifth and final election would be in the middle of May and have California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, and New Jersey up for grabs.

[jimmy olsen]

Well, there is really only two options now anyway:  Trump or Brokered Convention.

I think there is a very good shot Trump won't make the magic 1257, and if that happens, it is very likely he gets dumped in favor of Cruz or Kasich.

If Trump doesn't get the nomination at the convention, my predication is:

- Major media stir in Cleveland...because ratings
- Significant stir inside GOP itself
- GOP goes on to push their candidate, Trump goes back to his business (no third party run, but probably lots of hyperbole/obscenities)
- Lots of Trump voters stay home on election day
- President Hillary Clinton
- First Dude Bill gets caught with Angela Merkel in the Lincoln Bedroom

Depends where Trump finishes at.  If he's close to 1257 it's hard to imagine he can't pick up a handful of delegates from someone.

I think he will have far more defect after the locked-down first ballot than he will ever hope to pick up.

A lot of unbound delegates for Rubio and other candidates that he can bribe convince on that first ballot. If he just needs ten or twenty more it's doable.

[jimmy olsen]

Rise of Partisanship in the House

[The Brain]

Is this one of those 3D pictures?

[Eddie Teach]

If you stare at it long enough, you can see the future.

[Gups]

If you stare at it long enough, you can see the future.

I'm just seeing a pair of tits.

[Martinus]

For me the best possible outcome of this elections would be:

1. Trump gets the Republican nomination causing the GOP to implode
2. Trump causes SJW's heads to explode
3. Hillar wins.

[Norgy]

If you stare at it long enough, you can see the future.

I'm just seeing a pair of tits.

I see a lot of tits.

[Legbiter]

For me the best possible outcome of this elections would be:

1. Trump gets the Republican nomination causing the GOP to implode
2. Trump causes SJW's heads to explode
3. Hillar wins.

Trump will become president. The country starts winning. It starts winning so much the citizens get tired of all the winning.   

[Martinus]

For me the best possible outcome of this elections would be:

1. Trump gets the Republican nomination causing the GOP to implode
2. Trump causes SJW's heads to explode
3. Hillar wins.

Trump will become president. The country starts winning. It starts winning so much the citizens get tired of all the winning.   

Well if Trump becomes president that will be 2 out of 3 so not bad still.

[Ancient Demon]

For me the best possible outcome of this elections would be:

1. Trump gets the Republican nomination causing the GOP to implode
2. Trump causes SJW's heads to explode
3. Hillar wins.

Agreed.

[Norgy]

For me the best possible outcome of this elections would be:

1. Trump gets the Republican nomination causing the GOP to implode
2. Trump causes SJW's heads to explode
3. Hillar wins.

Trump will become president. The country starts winning. It starts winning so much the citizens get tired of all the winning.   

It's going to be GIGANTIC!
My problem with Trump winning is that everyone will have to write in all-caps.

[Jaron]

Trump sausages
Trump cigars

[viper37]

My Shared Shame: The Media Helped Make Trump

Worth a read

THOSE of us in the news media have sometimes blamed Donald Trump's rise on the Republican Party's toxic manipulation of racial resentments over the years. But we should also acknowledge another force that empowered Trump: Us.
I polled a number of journalists and scholars, and there was a broad (though not universal) view that we in the media screwed up. Our first big failing was that television in particular handed Trump the microphone without adequately fact-checking him or rigorously examining his background, in a craven symbiosis that boosted audiences for both.

"Trump is not just an instant ratings/circulation/clicks gold mine; he's the motherlode," Ann Curry, the former "Today" anchor, told me. "He stepped on to the presidential campaign stage precisely at a moment when the media is struggling against deep insecurities about its financial future. The truth is, the media has needed Trump like a crack addict needs a hit."
Curry says she's embarrassed by the unfairness to other Republican candidates, who didn't get nearly the same airtime.
An analysis by The Times found that we in the news media gave Trump $1.9 billion in free publicity in this presidential cycle. That's 190 times as much as he paid for in advertising, and it's far more than any other candidate received. As my colleague Jim Rutenberg put it, some complain that "CNN has handed its schedule over to Mr. Trump," and CNN had lots of company.
Larry Sabato, a politics professor at the University of Virginia, says television networks "have a lot to answer for."
"We all know it's about ratings, and Trump delivers," Sabato says. "You can't take your eyes off him. When Trump is on, I stop what I'm doing and wait for the car crash."
Sabato is particularly critical of Sunday morning news program hosts who have allowed Trump to "appear" by telephone, instead of in person.
Although many of us journalists have derided Trump, the truth is that he generally outsmarted us (with many exceptions, for there truly have been serious efforts to pin him down and to investigate Trump University and his various business failings). He manipulated television by offering outrageous statements that drew ever more cameras — without facing enough skeptical follow-up questions.
It's not that we shouldn't have covered Trump's craziness, but that we should have aggressively provided context in the form of fact checks and robust examination of policy proposals. A candidate claiming that his business acumen will enable him to manage America deserved much more scrutiny of his bankruptcies and mediocre investing.
All politicians spin, of course. But all in all, I've never met a national politician in the U.S. who is so ill informed, evasive, puerile and deceptive as Trump.
When the fact-check website PolitiFact was ready to choose its "lie of the year" for 2015, it found that the only real contenders were falsehoods by Trump. So it lumped them together and awarded the title to "the many campaign misstatements of Donald Trump."
That pattern of prevarication is what we in the media, especially television, didn't adequately highlight, leaving many voters with the perception that Trump is actually a straight shooter.
The reason for this passivity goes, I think, to a second failure: We wrongly treated Trump as a farce. "The media made a mistake by covering Trump's candidacy at the start as some sort of joke or media prank," notes Danielle S. Allen, a political scientist at Harvard. "The repeated use of references to 'the Donald' across all platforms structured the conversation around ironical affection for a celebrity rather than around serious conversation of character and policy."
"Trump was quite literally a laugh line," says Ralph Begleiter, a former CNN correspondent and communications professor at the University of Delaware. Begleiter notes that Sarah Palin received more serious vetting as a running mate in 2008 than Trump has as a presidential candidate.
I personally made the mistake of regarding Trump's candidacy as a stunt, scoffing at the idea that he could be the nominee. Mea culpa.
We failed to take Trump seriously because of a third media failing: We were largely oblivious to the pain among working-class Americans and thus didn't appreciate how much his message resonated. "The media has been out of touch with these Americans," Curry notes.
Media elites rightly talk about our insufficient racial, ethnic and gender diversity, but we also lack economic diversity. We inhabit a middle-class world and don't adequately cover the part of America that is struggling and seething. We spend too much time talking to senators, not enough to the jobless.
[...]
(click the link to read the rest)

[derspiess]