Page 143 of 472
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Mon April 25, 2016 7:31 pm
by Simple Torture
Green Habit wrote:Simple Torture wrote:This is going to be all over the news in the morning: Cruz and Kasich have decided to officially coordinate campaign efforts in upcoming campaigns in order to leak delegates away from Trump.
The presidential campaigns of Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Ohio Gov. John Kasich announced late Sunday that they were coordinating their efforts in three upcoming primary states in an extraordinary attempt to prevent Republican front-runner Donald Trump from clinching the GOP nomination before this summer's convention.
In a pair of simultaneously released statements, the campaigns announced that Kasich would pull out of Indiana to give Cruz "a clear path" ahead of that state's winner-take-all primary May 3, while the Cruz campaign will "clear the path" for Kasich in Oregon, which votes May 17, and New Mexico, which votes June 7.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04 ... gates.html
Weird, I would think they have the states flip-flopped. Kasich's home state borders Indiana, and Cruz's home state borders New Mexico. And Cruz has done better here in the Northwest than Kasich has.
You'd think that. But there's obviously something going on where Cruz is polling much better in Indiana. I went back and tried to pick apart the results of previous Republican primaries in the state...but I stopped at 2000, since: (1) it was harder to find results before that and (2) in 2000, 2008, and 2012 (Bush was the incumbent in 2004, so that doesn't really matter) the race for the nomination was basically wrapped up by then, so the numbers are hard to read. Makes me wonder if the polling done so far there is reliable, too.
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Mon April 25, 2016 9:52 pm
by The Argonaut
I don't remember where I saw this (maybe fivethirtyeight?) but it was a whole thing about why Indiana is different from the rest of the Great Lakes area. Since 1968, Indiana has only gone for the Democrat once (Obama in '08). The article was basically about how Indiana has a very small lakefront, and for whatever reason that meant it developed less industry. Thus, less immigrants were attracted to the area, and the demographic make-up remained relatively the same despite the Industrial Revolution and the Great Migration. It ends up today being similar to what you might see in Kentucky. It's helpful to think of Indiana as more similar to Kentucky than it is to Ohio or Michigan.
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Tue April 26, 2016 12:02 am
by Green Habit
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Tue April 26, 2016 12:34 am
by Simple Torture
He also eats pizza with a knife and fork, let's not forget.
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Tue April 26, 2016 12:35 am
by Simple Torture
The Argonaut wrote:I don't remember where I saw this (maybe fivethirtyeight?) but it was a whole thing about why Indiana is different from the rest of the Great Lakes area. Since 1968, Indiana has only gone for the Democrat once (Obama in '08). The article was basically about how Indiana has a very small lakefront, and for whatever reason that meant it developed less industry. Thus, less immigrants were attracted to the area, and the demographic make-up remained relatively the same despite the Industrial Revolution and the Great Migration. It ends up today being similar to what you might see in Kentucky. It's helpful to think of Indiana as more similar to Kentucky than it is to Ohio or Michigan.
I may have read this too. I've really appreciated the way 538 has picked apart demographics in this election, from stuff like this to the warnings about considering "women" a demographic.
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Tue April 26, 2016 9:55 pm
by Green Habit
I had someone pose this scenario to me, and I'm thinking it through.
If Trumpists take over the Republican Party for good, the Democrats could end up ruling like the PRI did for decades in Mexico, a de facto one-party, centrist state. Thoughts.
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Wed April 27, 2016 2:13 am
by Green Habit
Trump says he's going to win in "Washington State" and "Ahr-uh-gone". Thanks for the double annoyance.
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Wed April 27, 2016 2:20 am
by 96583UP
Green Habit wrote:I had someone pose this scenario to me, and I'm thinking it through.
If Trumpists take over the Republican Party for good, the Democrats could end up ruling like the PRI did for decades in Mexico, a de facto one-party, centrist state. Thoughts.
doesn't matter, we'll be fighting the robot war by then
which reminds me,
we should all be preparing for the war against the robots
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Wed April 27, 2016 2:22 am
by Simple Torture
Green Habit wrote:I had someone pose this scenario to me, and I'm thinking it through.
If Trumpists take over the Republican Party for good, the Democrats could end up ruling like the PRI did for decades in Mexico, a de facto one-party, centrist state. Thoughts.
Depends on how much momentum the Sanders/Warren wing gets after this election cycle, even though it won't get the nomination.
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Wed April 27, 2016 2:27 am
by Green Habit
Simple Torture wrote:Green Habit wrote:I had someone pose this scenario to me, and I'm thinking it through.
If Trumpists take over the Republican Party for good, the Democrats could end up ruling like the PRI did for decades in Mexico, a de facto one-party, centrist state. Thoughts.
Depends on how much momentum the Sanders/Warren wing gets after this election cycle, even though it won't get the nomination.
Yeah, I'm not sure if the US system can sustain one huge centrist party with two rumps on both the left and right. But it's interesting to think about.
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Wed April 27, 2016 2:36 am
by Green Habit
Donald Trump wrote:If Hillary Clinton were a man, I don't think she'd get 5 percent of the vote.
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Wed April 27, 2016 2:36 am
by 96583UP
maybe what happens is this:
Trump hijacks the republican party, alienating corporatist old guard republicans
Hillary alienates progressive democrats who are only getting younger and more idealistic
Republican party becomes reserved for completely incoherent wackos
Democratic party becomes a combination of old guard republicans, and hillary democrats; brought together by their love of money
The progressive party evolves to capture the E. Warren/Bernie Sanders/millenial idealist-future naive enablers of robot tyranny demographic
fast forward a few years of stagnant politics to the singularity
followed roughly 7 years later by judgement day
and those humans that survive rally around their common love of potable water and daylight
led by survivorman, they retake skynet and re-program the robots to work for them and usher in a new era of human utopia
only to be upended a half-century later by the great robot revolution of 2136
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Wed April 27, 2016 3:34 am
by BurtReynolds
We need a pro-Monarchy party.
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Wed April 27, 2016 3:39 am
by Green Habit
BurtReynolds wrote:We need a pro-Monarchy party.
This guy's been beating that drum for years.
http://www.vox.com/2015/9/9/9294955/que ... l-monarchy
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Wed April 27, 2016 3:47 am
by Birds in Hell
I almost bought a framed picture of The Queen I found in a second-hand store last week; regrettably, my wife did not approve.
(I may go back for it.)
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Wed April 27, 2016 3:47 am
by LoathedVermin72
Birds in Hell wrote:
I almost bought a framed picture of The Queen I found in a second-hand store last week; regrettably, my wife did not approve.
(I may go back for it.)
why
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Wed April 27, 2016 3:50 am
by BurtReynolds
We should beg Britain to take us back.
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Wed April 27, 2016 3:51 am
by Birds in Hell
I am a resolute constitutional monarchist, LV.
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Wed April 27, 2016 3:52 am
by LoathedVermin72
Wait, really? Why?
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Wed April 27, 2016 3:53 am
by 96583UP
Britain should leave the EU and then invade Kenya with BoJo on horseback