The New American Politics thread

[Harry Lime]

The Reality of Gun Ownership

30% of the population are "Bad Guys"
70% of the population are "Good Guys"

50% of the population are morons, making

15% of the "Bad Guys" likely to shoot you
35% of the "Good Guys" likely to shoot you

It's not whether the guy holding a gun is a good citizen or a criminal, it's whether he's an idiot or not. Separating people not emotionally or mentally equipped to hold a firearm, from those that are capable, isn't viable except under a wholly fascist or communist regime. No politician will raise the issue of suitability to carry a firearm, because they would be essentially saying that half of the voters are morons.

The only viable alternative is gun control.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Honestly, I just don't see them coming back to a sane candidate. Now can I see the GOP going with a brokered convention to have a sane candidate? For sure, but I truly believe the GOP base is so pissed right now they'll go for the insane-o.

You also have to remember that in the last two elections, the base had to settle for McCain and Romney, neither of whom they really liked all that much. But they were willing to go with them if it meant a win. Except as we know they went with them and lost anyways. This time around I think they aren't concerned with a "candidate who can win", because they got burned by those the last two elections. They want their brand of crazy up there.

I'd agree except that I don't believe any of the crazies can win.

Certainly not Trump, Carson, Cruz or Christie (IMO).

[octothorp]

I really can't say "here's a path to victory" for any candidate except Rubio. But if Rubio falters in the early primaries (and some people are seriously doubting his ground game, which could result in a scenario where he underperforms the polls in those early states), then really this is anyone's nomination, including the crazies. Well not anyone, but it really does open up a lot of different scenarios for other candidates.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

I'd agree except that I don't believe any of the crazies can win.

Certainly not Trump, Carson, Cruz or Christie (IMO).

In any election not involving Hillary Clinton, I would agree. But even Ted Cruz has a better net favorability rating than she does. Now at this point only Rubio and Carson (???) beat her in a theoretical national matchup, but Cruz and others are in the margin of error. Trump loses by double digits, so there's that at least.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

In any election not involving Hillary Clinton, I would agree. But even Ted Cruz has a better net favorability rating than she does. Now at this point only Rubio and Carson (???) beat her in a theoretical national matchup, but Cruz and others are in the margin of error. Trump loses by double digits, so there's that at least.

I'm no fan of Hillary, trust me, but in an election where terrorism and foreign policy are going to be key issues I think she wins a lot of people over with her experience. No one else has it.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

I'd agree except that I don't believe any of the crazies can win.

Certainly not Trump, Carson, Cruz or Christie (IMO).

Also, I think the delegate math goes against the right extreme. A big chunk of blue or bluish states have winner-take-all delegate models, and these states are generally later in the process. So they really get kingmaker status. Illinois, Connecticut, California, Maryland, Deleware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey are all rather blue states that have winner-take-all models. Illinois happens on March 15 and the rest all happen in late April or later. Those states have a huge chunk combined, as much as a fifth of all delegates, despite the fact they have very little of a visible voice in the republican party. Plus it's safe to say that Florida -- another winner-take-all -- is going to Rubio or maybe (but probably not) Bush.
I can't see blue-state republicans voting, en-masse, for anyone further right than Rubio, and they probably also highly value electability. If enough guys on the crazy right stay in, they'll split the early, southern, bible-belt vote into small enough shares that those blue state winner-take-alls become even more powerful.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by octothorp

. If enough guys on the crazy right stay in, they'll split the early, southern, bible-belt vote into small enough shares that those blue state winner-take-alls become even more powerful.

Then you end up with every non-american political junkie's wet-dream: the brokered convention!

Delegates are bound on the first ballot, but after that they are free to vote as they please, resulting in wheeling, dealing, backroom deals, surprise candidates (Romney? Dare we even dream: Palin?), acrimony, back-stabbing, political theatre of the highest order.

Really, that's a shockingly likely outcome which will simply tear the GOP apart in the most delightful way. The "GOPe" (establishment) trying to get one of the "electables" Bush, Rubio or possibly Romney through the convention process. Hard-line Tea-Party delegates screaming about "RINOs" (Republicans In Name Only) and refusing to step away from whichever of Trump, Cruz, or Carson has made it to the convention.

Eventually, of course, the GOPe candidate will be selected with the Tea Party/Uber-Right candidate as the VP, a situation no-one is happy with, both candidates having had their dirty-laundry aired for an entire weekend or longer in late July, just when people start paying attention.

God damn I'm glad I live internationally and can watch this go down from afar.

[photon]

Cool segment on the "Good guy with a gun" thing going around.

http://www.thecomedynetwork.ca/Shows...how?vid=765011

[GGG]

The path to victory for Cruz is beating Trump in Iowa but not by much and Trump winning New Hampshire. The party establishment then has to back Cruz as the establishment choice.

Rubio is just Win New Hampshire.

The most difficult path is Trump, he needs to get a majority before the convention

[driveway]

Originally Posted by GGG

The path to victory for Cruz is beating Trump in Iowa but not by much and Trump winning New Hampshire. The party establishment then has to back Cruz as the establishment choice.

Rubio is just Win New Hampshire.

The most difficult path is Trump, he needs to get a majority before the convention

The thing is that the party establishment hates Cruz. Not politically, but personally. There's a slew of articles out there about how pretty much no one who's ever worked with, or known the guy likes him at all. Most of the big-wheels in the GOP really, really dislike him.

I imagine they'd do anything in their power to avoid him becoming the 'establishment' choice.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

In any election not involving Hillary Clinton, I would agree. But even Ted Cruz has a better net favorability rating than she does. Now at this point only Rubio and Carson (???) beat her in a theoretical national matchup, but Cruz and others are in the margin of error. Trump loses by double digits, so there's that at least.

The favour ability rating is meaningless compared to the question 'who would you vote for if?', Hilary Clinton wins that match up with every single republican, hands down.
At this point the question for the GOP isn't really who could beat Hillary but who limits the senate damage.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by driveway

The thing is that the party establishment hates Cruz. Not politically, but personally. There's a slew of articles out there about how pretty much no one who's ever worked with, or known the guy likes him at all. Most of the big-wheels in the GOP really, really dislike him.

I imagine they'd do anything in their power to avoid him becoming the 'establishment' choice.

Why do people take an immediate dislike to Cruz? Saves time.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

I'm no fan of Hillary, trust me, but in an election where terrorism and foreign policy are going to be key issues I think she wins a lot of people over with her experience. No one else has it.

It's gonna be an advantage and a hindrance. Yes, she will be able to use that experience to an advantage in showing voters she understands foreign policy well. But the GOP will also be able, right or not, to link her directly to the current US foreign policy, which most Americans are not supportive of. So it both helps and hurts her.

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

The favour ability rating is meaningless compared to the question 'who would you vote for if?', Hilary Clinton wins that match up with every single republican, hands down.
At this point the question for the GOP isn't really who could beat Hillary but who limits the senate damage.

Fair or not she has to run a nearly flawless campaign, any slip ups and she's probably cooked. That's why favorability matters, Ben Carson says all kinds of stupid #### and he still beats her in a hypothetical right now. It's why the Dems want Trump or Bush so bad, because they're the only two with worse favorability ratings than Hillary.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by GGG

The path to victory for Cruz is beating Trump in Iowa but not by much and Trump winning New Hampshire. The party establishment then has to back Cruz as the establishment choice.

Rubio is just Win New Hampshire.

The most difficult path is Trump, he needs to get a majority before the convention

I think the establishment will be a lot more patient than that. Earliest they'll get into cruz's corner is after first week in March, after the SEC primary. They'll give every opportunity for an establishment guy to emerge; as long as it looks like the establishment guy can make it a three horse race, they can get it to the convention, where if they need to cut bait and run with Cruz at that point, they should be able to.

Although I can imagine a crazy apocalyptic scenario where in the late stages, Trump offers Cruz a VP post in exchange for his backing at the convention. Maybe that's Cruz's actual end-game and the reason he's been so careful not to criticize Trump.

[Senator Clay Davis]

It's funny because if the GOP really wants an establishment candidate, it needs to eliminate almost every candidate right now. Realistically we should be down to 3 anyways (Trump, Rubio, Cruz), but the longer this field is completely fractured, the more likely Trump will win. Trump gets around 40% against the whole field, but in one-on-one hypotheticals with Rubio and Cruz, he only gets to 50%. The GOP needs to go to the long/no shot candidates and get them gone and stop inviting them to debates. Who cares if they get pissed? They aren't winning anyways no matter how delusional they are.

[Nobama]

Trump is no dummy. He knows the GOP is working against him. Thats why he thought of this...

Trump/Cruz 2016

You heard it here first

[PsYcNeT]

Doot doot doodee doot doot doo doo doo

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/17/politi...a-putin-trump/

"He is a bright and talented person without any doubt," Putin said, adding that Trump is "an outstanding and talented personality."

[CroFlames]

I legit think that is Putin trolling Americans. And it's actually funny.

[Senator Clay Davis]

^ Oh yeah of course. He's trolling everyone today, saying Sepp Blatter is a great person who should win the Nobel Peace Prize. He's got a pretty good troll game.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Nobama

Trump/Cruz 2016

You heard it here first

No, you heard it two posts above yours, first.