Red Mosquito

Green Habit wrote:It'll be interesting to see how closely this map comes to the final results.

God I hate Cape Cod.

The Argonaut wrote:

turned2black wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:Christie backing Trump. Hoping for a VP offer?

No way. Cabinet post at best.

Why no way? It makes good sense to me? Who better might he pick?

I think he'll pick an African-American or a woman. That'll be his weak spot against Hilldog. Nikki Haley and Tim Scott would be my No. 1 and No. 2.

Also, Christie kinda lost his shine a while ago nationally. He carries no buzz. If he was gonna go "white guy", he'd be way better off going with Rick Scott.

All this election race needs is Micheal Bloomberg to lay his dick on the table then we'll be all set.

Republicans like Nicki Haley or Tim Scott, meaning Republicans with a future, are going to stay as far away from Trump as they can. Christie might be the biggest name he can get. Plus, their styles match and Trump said a couple days ago he wants to pick an "insider" as a VP.

These kinds of opportunities don't come around too often for minorities in the GOP. J.C. Watts ended up a burnt out shell of a congressman after being hailed as a GOP "kingmaker" like Tim Scott. I'm guessing he and Haley would gladly accept a VP nod.

Also, nobody gives a shit about "styles" matching. It's about strategy, demographics and strengthening a candidate's perceived weaknesses. Christie does very little for Trump in that regard.

Are there numbers out there that tend to suggest VP candidates can sway an election one way or the other? I know that the textbook example is Kennedy picking LBJ in order to lock up Southern Democrats, but I've never actually seen polling that clearly shows that people chose one candidate over another based on VP (maybe exit polling?).

Apparently that big study out of Amherst from a few weeks ago that proved Bernie's economic plans would work is based on someone not actually understanding how economic plans work. Or macroeconomics in general. Well, rather someone who simply disagrees with how macroeconomics work.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/27/upsho ... -plan.html



Side note: here's a tool (no, not that youtube asshole from the cultural Libertarianism thread) that shows where the money from the 2012 election is going in 2016:

http://time.com/4083253/political-donor ... d=tcoshare


Side, side note: Firefox doesn't think "Libertarianism" is a word


Side, side, side note: Malbec from Argentina is amazing after a 24 hour fast.

This "Is Ted Cruz the Zodiac killer?" stuff is really great.

Man I sure hope people who reference direct measurement studies (causal or otherwise) but have only actually read media reports about such start to die off soon.

Simple Torture wrote:Are there numbers out there that tend to suggest VP candidates can sway an election one way or the other? I know that the textbook example is Kennedy picking LBJ in order to lock up Southern Democrats, but I've never actually seen polling that clearly shows that people chose one candidate over another based on VP (maybe exit polling?).

I could see it helping winning a battleground state if you pick a popular politician from there, but I doubt it's as big of a factor as it was when there was the Dixiecrat/Yankee split in the Democratic party.

McParadigm wrote:Man I sure hope people who reference direct measurement studies (causal or otherwise) but have only actually read media reports about such start to die off soon.

Nah, we are immortal.

Given both Clinton's and Trump's huge "dislike" numbers, VP picks will matter more than they usually do.

I really don't understand how Christie still has a political career. If that bridge scandal can't end someone as a politician, our society is seriously fucked in the head.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:I really don't understand how Christie still has a political career. If that bridge scandal can't end someone as a politician, our society is seriously fucked in the head.

New Jersey gonna New Jersey

Hey stip, you have any thoughts to this article?

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2 ... trump-love

This is something I have yet to take a side on, largely because your argument about Trump is interesting.

Finding the correct words for a response to shit like this is difficult for me. How in the world is this guy, in this country, land of the free, yadda yadda, the front runner?

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/art ... -reporters

Strat wrote:Finding the correct words for a response to shit like this is difficult for me. How in the world is this guy, in this country, land of the free, yadda yadda, the front runner?

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/art ... -reporters

This is ironic in a way since i find the media in the US to be relatively soft on politicians.

Strat wrote:Finding the correct words for a response to shit like this is difficult for me. How in the world is this guy, in this country, land of the free, yadda yadda, the front runner?

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/art ... -reporters

Don't worry, it's just more bombastic yet unrealistic Trumpspeak. As the article suggested, the current Supreme Court would run him over 8-0 on this, and 9-0 if Scalia was still alive. I guess he could somehow swing it to a meaningless 8-1 if he somehow became president.

Not for nothing, but I would love to see the sort of person Trump would nominate for the SCOTUS.

Simple Torture wrote:Not for nothing, but I would love to see the sort of person Trump would nominate for the SCOTUS.

My feeling is that he'd go beyond full Harry Truman and try to appoint people that have completely sucked up to him.