turkeyfoot Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Those of us who believe in limited government seek deadly compromise with Trump and for that matter any candidate who doesn't align with your highest values. This election is said to have lasting consequences (like none previously) to halt forward progress towards the financial cliff. Vote Republican AGAIN. The thinking goes, Im for the person who has the best chance not for the best person. My thinking goes to the long game. 3rd party candidates are picked apart for nuanced differences they pose (foreign policy). If for example, support was given to the Libertarian Party (or in the future American Capitalist) the Rep/Dem ticket would feel the loss. To say its a losing proposition is to not grasp the long term consequences of how support grows into a competing alternative. Proponents of limited government advance the idea of selecting Trump but look at what is accomplished when selecting a candidate who has mixed premises, one of them being national health care. Its clear Libertarians dont want that. As a measure of group think the view of the least harm for the most gain is a defeatist strategy in the long run just as voting for Clinton/Sanders would be seen as an immediate capitulation of values. The crowd likes to draw a line in the sand over Libertarian views. If they looked hard enough, a vote for Trump "might" staunch the bleeding by saving the patient but the long term goal of quality of life is abandoned again for the middle of the road candidate. So all this hoopla over a Republican of a particular stripe is nonsense to me. I liken it to two teams competing on the playing field. Most people choose, I think, a sentimental favorite, a calculus over stats or the color of a uniform. I want a fair game. But I personally have no skin in the game, I want to come out ahead no matter the results. And I would have rather had my team in the finals. In other words go with the team who closest represents my values even if there is not a chance of winning presently. Will the conversation turn to criticism of ones selection when theres a failure to follow through? Cant wait for the monday morning quarterbacking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Another election myth dies... The Donald's lead increase after Bush left race according to Rasmussen... A.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 13 hours ago, Marc said: This thread will soon turn to a chorus of Yeah , but Trump would have won if . Here's a secret, everyone. Marc doesn't like crow. He really doesn't like crow. I mean he really really doesn't like crow. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 This is exactly how Trump is going to beat Hillary if they both get the nomination. Just like with this lady, he knows her dirt. I hear the Rickets family, who own the Chicago Cubs, are secretly spending $'s against me. They better be careful, they have a lot to hide!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 22, 2016 Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 What were Trump's ideas, again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Trump 61 percent? Naw, Michael. I am getting some awesome email now. Much better than the old notification. Tanks loads for the Rasmussen poll, Adam. A newer poll is out tomorrow but here is the RealClearPolitics’s national average as of today: Trump 34.2 Cruz 20.6 Rubio 16.0 Kasich 8.6 Carson 6.6 Bush 5.4. Here is my argument against an inevitable Trump win of the GOP nomination. Bush is out so who will garner his Floridian, moderate, and RINO 5.4 percent of the vote? Marco Rubio. If Kasich drops out who will gather the lion’s share of that 8.6? Marco Rubio. That could be an additional 14 percent. 14 plus 16 equals 30 percent for Marco. Carson’s 6.6? It is partially conservative, evangelical, untraditional, and a vote for the minority candidate. I think it could be an equal share to Cruz, and Rubio because Cruz and Rubio are minority candidates. Hmmm. Get the picture? Rubio 33 to Trump’s 34 percent. And if his fellow Cuban American, Cruz drops out that might mean another 15 or so percent for Marco. Marco 52 to Trump’s 48 percent in a two man race. Marco. Marco. Marco. Signed. Pierre Nostradamus who might be shown to be a loonytick by tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 27 minutes ago, Peter said: ...Tanks loads for the Rasmussen poll, Adam. ........................................................................................ Here is my argument against an inevitable Trump win of the GOP nomination. Bush is out so who will garner his Floridian, moderate, and RINO 5.4 percent of the vote? Marco Rubio. If Kasich drops out who will gather the lion’s share of that 8.6? Marco Rubio. That could be an additional 14 percent. 14 plus 16 equals 30 percent for Marco. Carson’s 6.6? It is partially conservative, evangelical, untraditional, and a vote for the minority candidate. I think it could be an equal share to Cruz, and Rubio because Cruz and Rubio are minority candidates. Hmmm. Get the picture? Rubio 33 to Trump’s 34 percent. And if his fellow Cuban American, Cruz drops out that might mean another 15 or so percent for Marco. Marco 52 to Trump’s 48 percent in a two man race. Marco. Marco. Marco. Signed. Pierre Nostradamus who might be shown to be a loonytick by tomorrow. I only showed that one because it attempted to explain vote spills. They did not do a good job. Apparently, your argument dismissed the Rasmussen argument? A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 There was a guy on an airplane and he was mighty feared of flying. He noticed the name tag on the stewardess. Her name was Hope. Every time she passed by, he asked her if the plane started crashing, would she come hold his hand? And every time she looked quizzically at him, but said yes. Finally, it got to her and she asked, "Why do you want me to hold your hand?" He said, "It's only if the plane starts crashing." She said, "OK, if the plane starts crashing, why do you want me to hold your hand?" He said, "Because Hope is the last thing that dies." Suck it up, anti-Trumpers! Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 On a scale of 1-10, that story gets a 1.7 2.7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 10 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said: On a scale of 1-10, that story gets a 1.7. Brant, You mean like the attempts to deny the inevitable of the anti-Trumpers? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 7 hours ago, Selene said: Another election myth dies... The Donald's lead increase after Bush left race according to Rasmussen... I don't get which myth is dead. If you mean a mythic tale of all the Jeb! support moving on over only to Marco or Rafael -- yeah. Anyone who thinks all the support from Departed Candidates goes everywhere but Trump is not paying attention. Of course some if not most will bleed down Trump Avenue. Today's 36% national numbers are very nice for the Trump campaign, comfortably above Magic 33. That said, I add a link to the Rasmussen report that contained the graphic above: Trump’s Lead Grows with Jeb Out of the Race With Jeb Bush out, Donald Trump has widened his lead in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Republican Voters finds Trump with 36% support, giving him a 15-point lead over Senator Marco Rubio who earns 21% of the vote. Senator Ted Cruz is in third place with 17%. <> For Trump, that’s a five-point gain in support from the beginning of this month just after the Iowa caucus and right before the New Hampshire primary when it was Trump 31%, Rubio 21% and Cruz 20% among likely GOP voters. Rubio’s support has held steady, while support for Cruz has fallen slightly. In mid-December, Trump led with 29% Republican support, with Cruz in second with 18% and Rubio at 15%. [...] In the latest survey taken on the two nights immediately following Trump’s big win in the South Carolina primary, Ohio Governor John Kasich picks up 12% of the GOP vote, up from six percent (6%) three weeks ago, while Dr. Ben Carson runs last with eight percent (8%) support. Carson has gained three points from earlier this month. Three percent (3%) like some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.) Bush had four percent (4%) support in the previous survey, but it’s unclear which candidate has gained most from his departure from the race since both Trump and Kasich have experienced similar jumps in support. Seventy-one percent (71%) of Republican voters now favor building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, and among these voters Trump holds a commanding 43% lead, with Rubio end Cruz earning 18% and 19% of that vote respectively. 4 hours ago, Brant Gaede said: What were Trump's ideas, again? There are five main ideas, Brant, and double-handfuls of subsidiaries proposals -- off the top of my head, and not consulting his policy pages: Build an ~8 billion dollar, thirty-foot-tall on the USA-Mexico border (and make Mexico pay via border taxes/tariffs if necessary) Temporary ban on all Muslim entry to the United States (until Trump figures out why 'they' hate 'us') Merry Christmas will be heard in Department Stores Obamacare will be repealed and replaced (the interstate barriers to insurance carriers will be removed by acts of Congress) American will renegotiate or tear-up crypto-treaties (the P5+1 deal with Iran, TPP, etc) In Iraq/Syria, the USA will bomb the oil and take the oil (and prevent an Iranian takeover, and make a safe space for refugees inside their own countries) On taxes and the economy, Trump will 'bring home' money 'diverted abroad' by American multinational corporations Unilateral tariffs may be applied to products that 'win' in America unfairly (ie, 25-40% tariff on Chines goods and services, shock taxes against factory-exporting companies) America will speak toughly and act toughly, with 'allies' up for inspection (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey) He will solve the North Korean problem by 'inviting' the Chinese to change the DPRK There is more. You can always put yourself through a viewing of a Trump rally to pick up the nuances. His speeches are almost always chock-ful of riffs on all his major policy proposals. I just consulted the inside of my eyelids, so I will have missed or muffed a few. One clunky thought is that -- as as least one person here believes (MSK) -- the Trump policies may not all survive the campaign in their present form. I am on the fence over this: surely his main policies will not be changed during a putative Clinton-Trump contest. I can't see him nuancing his immigration proposals, or his general air of menace to non-friends. My main grounds of apprehension have to do with trade and border/frontier issues. My amydala keeps sending network messages of disquiet to the organism. This issue is of zero interest here so far, and no wonder. 4 hours ago, Peter said: Here is my argument against an inevitable Trump win of the GOP nomination. Bush is out so who will garner his Floridian, moderate, and RINO 5.4 percent of the vote? Marco Rubio. If Kasich drops out who will gather the lion’s share of that 8.6? Marco Rubio. That could be an additional 14 percent. 14 plus 16 equals 30 percent for Marco. Carson’s 6.6? It is partially conservative, evangelical, untraditional, and a vote for the minority candidate. I think it could be an equal share to Cruz, and Rubio because Cruz and Rubio are minority candidates. Hmmm. Get the picture? Rubio 33 to Trump’s 34 percent. And if his fellow Cuban American, Cruz drops out that might mean another 15 or so percent for Marco. Marco 52 to Trump’s 48 percent in a two man race. Well, your prospectus will be tested ... according to this schedule: -- it could go like this, Peter: There will have to be another candidacide to dislodge Trump from Winning. The arithmetic of delegates on consistent slope of 33% means Mr Trump will become the nominee-in-numbers in the space of a week. Like I have said, save some TrumpGasms for The Night of 15 March. That night the hair will be torn from the scalps of The Elite and You People, and People Like You. And Michael will have every reason to crow, as his personality merges into The Movement, and Trump inhabits his flesh. There is really no way to 'kill' the Donald but by cold hard arithmetic and electoral suicide. Surely both Cruzbio and Rafaelmarco each know one of them must die that the other can live ... on the ballot. If one of them does not self-candidacide by the first week of March ... if ... if ... if ... Regents of the GOP to Cruzbio: "One of you must die now, so that The Monster can be defeated. One must die now. If one of you does not die now, in the next six hours, both of you will die later. Choose. Choose wisely Rafamarcoel." (for my prognosis map above, I added up major possible Trump delegate wins, generally in the 90-100% zone. This was of course a guess, and not an excuse to catch another crow.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 1 hour ago, william.scherk said: Temporary ban on all Muslim entry to the United States (until Trump figures out why 'they' hate 'us') See this is where you lose people, when you put those comments in after such a good start. So basically, I will now skip down to your conclusion and decide whether I want to invest my time reading and understanding your post. 1 hour ago, william.scherk said: Unilateral tariffs may be applied to products that 'win' in America unfairly (ie, 25-40% tariff on Chines goods and services, shock taxes against factory-exporting companies) I think that for anyone to throw tariffs as an issue to The Donald will be picking their teeth off the floor. Shall we expose the "sugar tariff?" Shall I go on? A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Sheesh Adam. You too? I had the car radio playing a while ago and Sean came on lambasting an article in Politico that essentially was my argument that Rubio would benefit from candidates dropping out. Ouch. Yet I still think Rubio could benefit if Jeb out is out I see the Nevada Carcuses, the Demoncrat town hall, and the Republican debate are all tonight. Oh oh. now I can't insert text. if I try it deletes what I just typed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 46 minutes ago, Peter said: Yet I still think Rubio could benefit if Jeb out is out I see the Nevada Carcuses, the Demoncrat town hall, and the Republican debate are all tonight. Hey Peter, next Republican debate is Feb 25th on CNN... Not a Ru Ru Rubio fan as once he got into office in Florida, he did something very different from what he campaigned on--though current polls show much of Bush's supporters are going to Trump, Bush's donors are going to Rubio: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/23/former-bush-donors-rally-around-rubio-in-bid-to-take-on-trump.html?intcmp=hpbt1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 24 minutes ago, Selene said: 1 hour ago, william.scherk said: Build an ~8 billion dollar, thirty-foot-tall on the USA-Mexico border (and make Mexico pay via border taxes/tariffs if necessary) Temporary ban on all Muslim entry to the United States (until Trump figures out why 'they' hate 'us') Merry Christmas will be heard in Department Stores Obamacare will be repealed and replaced (the interstate barriers to insurance carriers will be removed by acts of Congress) American will renegotiate or tear-up crypto-treaties (the P5+1 deal with Iran, TPP, etc) In Iraq/Syria, the USA will bomb the oil and take the oil (and prevent an Iranian takeover, and make a safe space for refugees inside their own countries) On taxes and the economy, Trump will 'bring home' money 'diverted abroad' by American multinational corporations Unilateral tariffs may be applied to products that 'win' in America unfairly (ie, 25-40% tariff on Chines goods and services, shock taxes against factory-exporting companies) America will speak toughly and act toughly, with 'allies' up for inspection (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey) He will solve the North Korean problem by 'inviting' the Chinese to change the DPRK See this is where you lose people, when you put those comments in after such a good start. Well, what is a better-bracketed phrase to Number Two? What are you asking or hoping I should do with that remark? You are just telling me you get mad and don't read beyond the thing that triggered you or offended you. Why should I care -- if you don't detail the disagreement I do not benefit. And you lose a chance to make a better argument, building on what you do find congenial to reason. I don't know what criteria you use when you dismiss WSS, see. It might help discussion if we dealt with an impasse over this infelicity: 2. Temporary ban on all Muslim entry to the United States (until Trump figures out why 'they' hate 'us') -- if the parenthetical remarks on number two, for Brant's edification. are faulty, is there an alternative -- taken from Mr Trump's own words? I don't think Mr Trump has figured out what he wants to figure out, but he has spoken often about the figuring out period. Much more interesting from my point of view is not the figuring (which will eventually, if not quickly, lead to a resumption of Muslim entry), but the machinery. What are you going to do with the Truck Drivers I mentioned? What happens to the regular wash back and forth across boundaries by sea, road, rail and air. What problems will we witness? Which classes of humans are to be excluded from the ban? As I have gathered from Trump rally speeches and quotes and information he gave in the immediate aftermath of this ban call was that there would be obvious exceptions: diplomats, national sport teams, and perhaps entertainers. I may have paraphrased offensively, Adam, but the essence of the ban is its temporary nature, and the secondary aspect is its purpose -- the figuring out of Muslim animus for the USA. If the USA cannot figure out who is who and who hates who and why and who is allied with who to what ends,, the figuring will never end, and the ban will become permanent. 24 minutes ago, Selene said: I will now skip down to your conclusion and decide whether I want to invest my time reading and understanding your post. And? Are you going to tell us your own conclusion? We have a readership here, Adam. I think of them. I think of what I can offer them. Problems in communication such that you do not bother to read and respond other than in detail-free disappointment -- this offers readers a vista of tumbleweeds and dry gulches. As two old-timers, we can advance discussion or hobble it, even extinguish it I would rather continue, with as reasonable an agenda as can be arranged. 24 minutes ago, Selene said: I think that for anyone to throw tariffs as an issue to The Donald will be picking their teeth off the floor. Shall we expose the "sugar tariff?" Yes, I would like to explore what kind of things might happen with tariffs threatened. If you want a discussion there, I will try to re-educate myself in the 'out-clauses' and such-like in NAFTA and subsidiary (sometimes executive) procedures In the context of global trade, and global trade barriers, and global trade agreements (what was once known as GATT). I know next to nothing about the mysterious TPP. My mention of tariff retaliation is meant to open up the discussion to how it will be3 enabled. In the case of China, I don't even know what is in a president's power to impose tariffs. Perhaps there is an executive action 'kick-in' element in the various treaties garbing commerce. My frame for understanding is the enormous trade between our two nations, but I can indeed imagine punitive or 'warning' action against China. A tariff against China might bring back the bad old days of trade wars, which the GATT and its successors meant to curb. So, a question mark on the table How would Trump impose a tariff on Chinese goods, in the US system? A secondary line of questions would sketch out the effects and results that are intrinsic. I will go dig for the aspects of punitive tariffs directly under the thumb of an American executive. I don't mean Executive Order, but a delegated power (which might amount to the same thing procedurally) of the office. The trade impacts of a Trump administration concern me. If there is a way to get the Chinese to bring their currency toward the light of free exchange, more power to him, but I don't see it yet. 24 minutes ago, Selene said: Shall I go on? No. You should shut the fuck up. I mean, i would actually like you to offer more for the mix of debate and discussion of the raised points, but my wanting that might prevent such an occasion, so why don't you shut the fuck up on trade, tariffs, and 'figuring' out Muslim propensity to harm the USA? I get the feeling you are in the Trump Zone, and those not in the zone are all retards or corrupt to the bone. Or self-blinded. You People anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 14 minutes ago, william.scherk said: You are just telling me you get mad and don't read beyond the thing that triggered you or offended you. Perfect example, thanks. Is the word "mad" in my post? No. Is the word "offended" in my post? No. Why I skip down had zero to do with your statement in your post, which was: 1 hour ago, Selene said: So basically, I will now skip down to your conclusion and decide whether I want to invest my time reading and understanding your post. This has been a device that I have been using and have mentioned in prior posts on OL. Especially with long technical articles. I have found it easier to work from the conclusion to the opening and it gives me a significantly different "view" of the argument. You should try it. A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 (edited) 37 minutes ago, Selene said: I have found it easier to work from the conclusion to the opening and it gives me a significantly different "view" of the argument. You should try it. You still have written nothing to detail any point of disagreement, nor brought forward an argument to contrast against your appreciation of my conclusion, negative or positive. Whether mad, offended, ticked-off, irritated, some emotion or disagreeable perception made you react. You have passions and you have fuses, and you have disappointments, and there is nothing wrong with that. By long practical experience I know you get ticked off at some things in my kit. Usually you just get over it and then we resume normal operations later on. . I have still little knowledge of what you want in a discussion framework, or what possible useful points we could still explore from the list presented to Brant. My errors in communication, however, have contributed. File under Lurning. If Selene does not appreciate certain aspects of WSS's comments, oh well, what do do about that? Ask for clarification, expansion, recursion? Maybe not this time. But just in case, from my conclusion, which I am sure is entirely agreed with: Regents of the GOP to Cruzbio: "One of you must die now, so that The Monster can be defeated. One must die now. If one of you does not die now, in the next six hours, both of you will die later. Choose. Choose wisely Rafamarcoel." Onward. Onward to talk of Trump Tariffs! Sugar tariffs. China. Trump. Tariffs. Trade. Whatever . I think that for anyone to throw tariffs as an issue to The Donald will be picking their teeth off the floor. Shall we expose the "sugar tariff?" Shall I go on? Onward. Edited February 24, 2016 by william.scherk Grammar, added sugared salt to wound, added forks in the road onward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 1 hour ago, william.scherk said: Whether mad, offended, ticked-off, irritated, some emotion or disagreeable perception made you react. You have passions and you have fuses, and you have disappointments, and there is nothing wrong with that. By long practical experience I know you get ticked off at some things in my kit. Usually you just get over it and then we resume normal operations later on. This is a remarkable statement. It is based on a completely irrational assumption that William can state with certitude that he knows what does not exist in my mind. Best of luck with that world view. A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Interesting map: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 1 hour ago, Selene said: This is a remarkable statement. It is based on a completely irrational assumption that William can state with certitude that he knows what does not exist in my mind. Best of luck with that world view. A... We know you're a computer. The result of The Singularity. All that's needed is to back engineer your programming. --Brant brave new world Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 4 hours ago, william.scherk said: This was of course a guess, and not an excuse to catch another crow. I have my eye on you, William. You're making the crows nervous. (But please keep doing it.) Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 9 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Here's a secret, everyone. Marc doesn't like crow. He really doesn't like crow. I mean he really really doesn't like crow. Michael As much as you are correct that I do not like crow , 2 weeks in March decides it all . Beware The Ides Of March , dear Caesar Trump , beware the Ides of March Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Come on guys , lets get serious and vote Marco !!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Gerald Ford? Utah Senator Orren "Quisling" Hatch? http://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/ I would rather get Saudi Arabia's endorsement. As more of these Corporatist's gravitate to his campaign the more problems he generates in the general election. This will kill the current Republican Party if they pull off this Corporatist Coup, Watch out for Kasich Marc because when Marco runs into more trouble, Johnny boy will be a very marketable candidate for the Corporatists. Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin come into play quickly with Kasitch. A Kasitch - Rubio ticket makes more sense and it gives the kid a chance to learn and work the room for at least four (4) years. A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, Selene said: 4 hours ago, william.scherk said: You still have written nothing to detail any point of disagreement, nor brought forward an argument to contrast against your appreciation of my conclusion, negative or positive. Whether mad, offended, ticked-off, irritated, some emotion or disagreeable perception made you react. You have passions and you have fuses, and you have disappointments, and there is nothing wrong with that. By long practical experience I know you get ticked off at some things in my kit. Usually you just get over it and then we resume normal operations later on. This is a remarkable statement. It is based on a completely irrational assumption that William can state with certitude that he knows what does not exist in my mind. Best of luck with that world view. Oh, fuck me. What is the problem here onside, Adam? That I cannot tempt you into discussion of Trump policies and arguable impact? In which case, poor unconvincing me. I am going to assume that the problem rests with me on various levels, that I cannot enhance or improve exchange if I do not strive to improve my communicative game. As to a fair-minded discussant whose mind resists reading tripe, I should then give you the floor, first uttering remarks that need not be viewed as 'forcing' applied to resistant quarters, insert simile to a hot brand on a young mule's buttocks ... I am suggesting we are in broad general agreement on the post-mortem for SC, and on expectations of Trump success between now and then I suggest you agree with my 33% thesis and are going to be watching for similar signs as me in the next two weeks. With that kind of tacit agreement, I am happy. 3 hours ago, Selene said: Interesting map: Thank you -- it goes well with the other graphic at Friends and Foes, GOP Delegate Races and Heats, graphically, and appeared earlier in the thread last December. I filched my image on F&F from the FrontloadingHQ blog of Josh Putnam, the very informative: 2016 GOP delegate allocation rules. Putnam is a wonk/lecturer in political science, but has an even keel; his post-morten is good reading for boneworms -- A South Carolina Delegate Post. It makes a couple of good points related to the plurality=majority fine print in South Carolina and more generally The linked page I filched my blog an thread images from has some fine, informative additional tables of the state heats, and has also this perspective-enhancer for the premature knish-nobblers among us: There is still time to plan your TrumpGasms. I am slated to explode like the Chicken Lady of SCTV infamy right around the ides of March. I will revisit this chart just before the expected explosion. Edited February 24, 2016 by william.scherk Spelking, grammar, infelicities; added link to earlier mention in thread of Josh Putnam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now