2016 elections - because it's never too early

[garbon]

I don't know what to think about that, other than what a bizarre place with rules for the time of day when milkshakes can be served.

[Eddie Teach]

JEB!'s milkshake failed to bring all the voters to the poll.

[jimmy olsen]

Carson will endorse Trump on Friday

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03/10/ben-carson-plans-to-endorse-trump/

[11B4V]

  The Mushroom

Carson will endorse Trump on Friday

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03/10/ben-carson-plans-to-endorse-trump/

[Kleves]

I'm watching the debate, despite the risk to my sanity. Trump is a rambling incoherent buffoon. Cruz is coherent, but somehow worse.

[jimmy olsen]

[jimmy olsen]

For the March 15 races I'm going to predict Trump wins Illinois, North Carolina and Florida, while Kaisch wins Ohio and Cruz wins Missouri.

[Eddie Teach]

Why do people keep typing "Kaisch"? That would be a one syllable word. It's "Kasich".

[jimmy olsen]

I laughed at this

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/10/obama_approval_rating_at_three_year_high.html

Obama Approval Reaches Three-Year High as America Realizes It Could, and Will, Do So Much Worse
By Ben Mathis-Lilley


Well, this—from Politico—makes sense:

President Barack Obama's approval rating is the highest it has been since May 2013, according to the results of the latest weekly Gallup tracking poll.

Overall, 50 percent of those surveyed said they approve of the job the president is doing so far in his final 365 days in office.

I'm not a highly paid political strategist, but it seems like there is a pretty obvious reason why Obama's poll numbers would be rising right now, namely: The dawning sense of terror enveloping Americans who are realizing that they are going to have to replace him with, probably, Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. Trump would be the most-disliked non-incumbent nominee since at least 1992—and Hillary Clinton would be the second-most-disliked.

Brendan Nyhan ‎@BrendanNyhan
Trump's favorability numbers are without precedent among major pres candidates at this stage http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/first-read-where-have-all-popular-candidates-gone-n535756 ...

There are candidates this year that Americans generally like—but they're not the ones who are winning their races:




Obama's not perfect, and the United States is very far from perfect, but let's consider how things compare now to how they were eight years ago:

•The economy is growing faster.
•Unemployment is down.
•Crime is down.
•The federal deficit is down.
•More people have health insurance.
•Fewer American soldiers are dying overseas.
•Osama bin Laden is dead.
•The president generally answers questions about his policies in an honest and intelligent way.


Not bad, yeah? And the person who was around for all that is going to be replaced by Clinton—who may well continue Obama's policies but is widely perceived as dishonest and disingenuous—or Donald Trump, who is America's worst human. Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone?

[Monoriu]

I am surprised about two things.  First, how come the candidates who score high in the net favourability scores aren't winning their races?  And two, how come "The president generally answers questions about his policies in an honest and intelligent way" is considered an accomplishment?  This should be so basic that it is taken for granted.  It is like saying the cook does a good job because you won't die from eating his food.

[Martinus]

Why do people keep typing "Kaisch"? That would be a one syllable word. It's "Kasich".

I made fun of Tim making this typo over and over again earlier but I don't think he even noticed.

[Martinus]

JEB!'s milkshake failed to bring all the voters to the poll.

And Trump's like it's better than yours.

[Eddie Teach]

I am surprised about two things.  First, how come the candidates who score high in the net favourability scores aren't winning their races?  And two, how come "The president generally answers questions about his policies in an honest and intelligent way" is considered an accomplishment?  This should be so basic that it is taken for granted.  It is like saying the cook does a good job because you won't die from eating his food.

How honest are central committee members? It's basically like that. People in government obfuscate.

As for the first question, it's the same reason I don't accept high Rotten Tomatoes scores as evidence that a movie is "great". Candidates going around mouthing platitudes and hedging on issues don't give people reason to dislike them, but they don't inspire them either.

[Martinus]

I don't really buy the usual explanation that in primaries extremists get better results than in general election in case of Trump either. If this was the case, he wouldn't be doing better in open primaries. If anything, Cruz is going to do much worse than Trump in the general election.

[Martinus]

Onion makes a mildly-amusing bit about Trump:

http://www.theonion.com/article/i-suffer-severe-psychological-issues-and-i-need-he-52513

What's funniest is the Facebook comments section, which has dozens of people who claim to be mentally ill and are offended by this "ableist" satire. And they do not seem to be joking.