I don't believe California is winner-take-all--but I would expect Trump to do quite well in the Orange County-type areas, where there are lots of SoCal conservatives. New York should also be a shoo-in for him.
On the other hand, I don't expect him to win Wisconsin, which is winner-take-all. Scott Walker's endorsement on Wisconsin figures to be huge, and I'd think he makes a strong effort to deliver the state to Kasich.
California is winner-take-all by congressional district, I think. So if one candidate wins every district, they get every delegate. But in a state as large and diverse as California, it seems exceedingly unlikely.
I give Kasich extremely long odds of actually winning the convention, but at the same time, I don't see any reason for him to not stay in. This is a guy who was relatively unknown within the Republican base, and now he's got three months of looking like the only sane guy in the room, and gets a serious look from Republican voters. That's great exposure for a future run, especially if Trump or Cruz have a disasterous general election. Now that he's won Ohio, it's basically all gravy for him.
The Following User Says Thank You to octothorp For This Useful Post:
Stewart's probably regretting leaving just as Trump started his campaign. Not that Noah hasn't been good, but Jon's probably been waiting for this for years.
It's a shame both he and Colbert left right as this was happening (although Colbert is still ripping politics on the Late Show). Oliver seems more interested in covering other stuff, which is fine by me personally.
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to Coach For This Useful Post:
Labor Secretary Tom Perez has been getting a lot of speculation recently about being a VP candidate. I think it makes a lot of sense, particularly against Trump: dominican latino background (for the burgeoning latino Democrat base), a background in civil rights law, respected by Warren democrats, and most importantly a really strong and respected union ally, which could serve to thwart some of the blue collar edge that Trump would bring.
Labor Secretary Tom Perez has been getting a lot of speculation recently about being a VP candidate. I think it makes a lot of sense, particularly against Trump: dominican latino background (for the burgeoning latino Democrat base), a background in civil rights law, respected by Warren democrats, and most importantly a really strong and respected union ally, which could serve to thwart some of the blue collar edge that Trump would bring.
I was thinking about potential VP's for Clinton today. Perez is certainly qualified but here's the thing...
A: He's held no major elected office so I don't know how effective a campaigner he'd be,
B: Maryland isn't a swing state,
C: If the Republican candidate is Trump electing "not Trump" is all the incentive the latino community should need.
That said he is highly qualified and does have major links to many branches of the democratic party coalition. If I had to list the top two contenders for the job I'd probably list them as Perez and Tim Kaine from Virginia. The base would probably prefer Warren or Brown but with Republican governors in their respective states they're better suited to staying in the senate for now.
The Following User Says Thank You to Parallex For This Useful Post:
Is brainwashed too harsh of a term for what has happened to hardcore conservative voters in recent years, thanks in part to the far-right press?
There’s little doubt that Trump, a bullying bigoted nativist, has emerged as the mirror image of the Obama-hating far-right press. He’s clearly won over the demagoguery wing of the Republican Party, which for years obsessed over every Fox News Benghazi report, cheered every Rush Limbaugh I.R.S. condemnation, and watched Trump’s birther campaign with great fascination.
What’s inescapable today about the mounting Trump carnage is that it’s all self-inflicted. Trump’s flourishing on the fertile playing field of bigotry and resentment that the conservative media helped cultivate for years. Anti-intellectualism became a hallmark of the conservative press under Obama. Today, that’s what is powering Trump’s run.
Look no further than Breitbart. This is from an item I wrote in 2010, cataloging the site’s already-rich history of getting everything wrong:
This, from the site that can’t read WH visitor’s logs, doesn’t understand pop culture, can’t read polling data, doesn’t know what a hate crime is, is clueless about the law, openly mocks Christmas, has trouble reading English, and launched one of the most incompetent smear campaigns in internet history.
And yet appearing on Fox News recently, Breitbart’s former publicist Kurt Bardella, who resigned in protest last week, attributed Trump’s rise to the fact that “facts no longer have their place in the political conversation and discourse in this country.” Trust me, conservative sites like Breitbart have been dismantling “facts” for many, many years.
“All movements are vulnerable to populist excesses and the self-destructive impulses of their core supporters,” wrote Conor Friedersdorf at The Atlantic, as he castigated the conservative press for Trump’s rise. “Good leaders can help to mitigate those pathologies. Bad leaders magnify them.”
Leaders of the Republican Party chose to magnify them, as they deputized the right-wing media in their pursuit of Obama. The move represented a complete abdication of leadership. But after the Obama landslide in 2008, the strategy was easy, it was cheap and it produced short-term excitement, bordering on hysteria, within a conservative movement.
So off came all the mechanical governors and the right-wing media engine was revved for seven years. Obviously, we’re now watching the colossal — and predictable — malfunction.
Stewart's probably regretting leaving just as Trump started his campaign. Not that Noah hasn't been good, but Jon's probably been waiting for this for years.
It's a shame both he and Colbert left right as this was happening (although Colbert is still ripping politics on the Late Show). Oliver seems more interested in covering other stuff, which is fine by me personally.
Don't know what's more hypocritical, and unintentionally hilarious, the state of the GOP or Salon accusing Breibart of yellow journalism.
Couldn't have said it better myself... I actually can't think of an outlet with less journalistic integrity or a more inexhaustible reservoir of intellectual dishonesty than Salon.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Couldn't have said it better myself... I actually can't think of an outlet with less journalistic integrity or a more inexhaustible reservoir of intellectual dishonesty than Salon.
If you're being intellectually honest though, the source of an argument shouldn't matter at all, merely the argument itself.
Isn't that exactly the point you yourself promulgate ad nauseum?
From what I've read, Trump is drawing his support mainly from the politically disengaged. I doubt they're big talk radio listeners. And anti-establishment, nativist populism has been a force in American politics since long before Fox and Limbaugh. Look at Barry Goldwater and George Wallace.
It's a mistake to discount this movement as a bunch of rubes exploited by a cynical politician. There really is a shockingly large number of Americans who are furious that the American dream seems to be over for them. They're going to find some outlet for that anger, regardless of what Donald Trump or Fox News do.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 03-19-2016 at 08:28 AM.
If you're being intellectually honest though, the source of an argument shouldn't matter at all, merely the argument itself.
Isn't that exactly the point you yourself promulgate ad nauseum?
First, this isn't what intellectual honesty means. But aside from the misuse of that term, you're right - if someone posts an article that happens to be from Salon but nonetheless expresses a cogent and well-considered point, the point isn't tainted somehow by virtue of the fact that it's hosted on Salon.
Nonetheless, one can't pretend to just not notice how rare those sorts of articles are from Salon, and how much more frequently they put out smear pieces and cherry-picking agenda-driven crap that panders to a particular audience and serves no other purpose. Hence, the irony remains.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
From what I've read, Trump is drawing his support mainly from the politically disengaged. I doubt they're big talk radio listeners. And anti-establishment, nativist populism has been a force in American politics since long before Fox and Limbaugh. Look at Barry Goldwater and George Wallace.
It's a mistake to discount this movement as a bunch of rubes exploited by a cynical politician. There really is a shockingly large number of Americans who are furious that the American dream seems to be over for them. They're going to find some outlet for that anger, regardless of what Donald Trump or Fox News do.
America really does need to change. Not sure Trump is the guy for that change, he may just be a 4 year stop gap until real change happens in 2020.
If a person is not happy with the last 8 years of Obama, other than Trump, what choice is there? Cruz is scarier!
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
It's a mistake to discount this movement as a bunch of rubes exploited by a cynical politician. There really is a shockingly large number of Americans who are furious that the American dream seems to be over for them. They're going to find some outlet for that anger, regardless of what Donald Trump or Fox News do.
I'm sure there are a large number of Americans who are furious that the American dream seems to be over for them. The furious Americans that rally around a silver-spoon-fed billionaire NY real estate hustler in protest of the loss of that dream -- those people are obviously rubes.
__________________
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to RougeUnderoos For This Useful Post:
