Support NeoGAF

[Sir Abacus]

Is this before or after he uses the n word in a speech?

"It's OK I'm taking it back!"

 

[pa22word]

It's wrong.

And it's the only thing that's kept the union afloat. The house and the EC system being directly tied to population is specifically designed as a check, so please, read a history book sometime and stop bitching about something you clearly don't understand.

 

[Konka]

And it's the only thing that's kept the union afloat. The house and the EC system being directly tied to population is specifically designed as a check, so please, read a history book sometime and stop bitching about something you clearly don't understand.

It's true as well.

 

[Forkball]

I wish Hilary had a reaction video of her watching the debate.

 

[pa22word]

It's true as well.

Not really.

People thousands of miles away from a place unilaterally deciding policy for people at home is directly what started the revolution in the first place. The framers understood that if they let new york and Virgina set policy for the rest of the states, then it would only be a matter of time before people got sick of it and started shooting at people again.

Again: both the EC and the house are checks against it, so it's while it may "suck" for that poor californian who has to deal with the senate he has to understand that the farmer from oklahoma has to put up with the 55 house reps cali sends to the house. It's a system that everyone hates for one reason or another, but no one enough to take up arms against it. That's the point, and it works specifically because of it.

 

[mnbnguyen]

This can't be right. There's no way Ben Carson would be at 11% after that abysmal showing.

 

[Konka]

Not really.

People thousands of miles away from a place unilaterally deciding policy for people at home is directly what started the revolution in the first place. The framers understood that if they let new york and Virgina set policy for the rest of the states, then it would only be a matter of time before people got sick of it and started shooting at people again.

Again: both the EC and the house are checks against it, so it's while it may "suck" for that poor californian who has to deal with the senate he has to understand that the farmer from oklahoma has to put up with the 55 house reps cali sends to the house. It's a system that everyone hates for one reason or another, but no one enough to take up arms against it. That's the point, and it works specifically because of it.

You're delusional if you think the country wouldn't have descended into Civil War without equal representation in the Senate in the early years.

 

[User 463088]

That's exactly the kind of opinions that I hear all the time from right wingers I know IRL and on talk radio. They're convinced if a "real conservative" were nominated that they would win like Reagan used to. To them guys like McCain and Romney were too liberal and they want no part of candidates like Bush or Christie. They absolutely believe the mainstream is desperate for a hardline conservative candidate and can't see winning with anything less. I almost want to see someone like Cruz or Carson make it to the general election just to get crushed.

The thing is, even if they're destroyed, they will not have a come to Jesus moment. They're too far into it now. Their entire worldview would have to change for them to admit that the nation is just not that into them anymore. They'll just blame it on Cruz/Huckabee whoever. They didn't "sell" it right. They went too PC. It will never, ever be a problem with their worldview. It'll always be the liberals, the media, the war on Christians, the gays, the minorities, and women who are against the rightness of white conservative males.

That's why I find Trump so interesting. He's the embodiment of what the Right in this country has become. They have turned their entire party into nothing more than who can bitch the most. Trump is great at this. It doesn't matter what he believes in (Because, deep down, I think Trump is a conservative Democrat, in all honesty) it only matters that s/he can yell loudly.

Interestingly, we on the left have the opposite problem. We win a few elections, and we suddenly think we can grab the nation and drag it to the far left. We've also fallen into the trap of nominating ideologues to the left of the nation. It doesn't work, just as it won't work for the Republicans to keep going hard right.

I'm a proud Democrat. However, the implosion of the GOP is not good for our country. While I've never voted for a Republican in my life, I think that we Democrats need someone sane to contrast our ideas with. We've, out of necessity, become the part of "not crazy." The problem is, we need another "not crazy" party too. There used to be Republicans that I disagreed with, but I could totally see working with. They've been driven so far from the GOP that it's not even funny. I think there is a place for fiscal conservatives, even though I, myself, am not one. Compromise can make some ideas a lot better than one side having to try and do everything on its own.

 

[pa22word]

You're delusional if you think the country wouldn't have descended into Civil War without equal representation in the Senate in the early years.

Uh, that's kind of the point I was making with my post >.>

Also, there are way more points in US history where civil war would have probably erupted had it not been for the senate being set up the way it is.

 

[NeoXChaos]

The thing is, even if they're destroyed, they will not have a come to Jesus moment. They're too far into it now. Their entire worldview would have to change for them to admit that the nation is just not that into them anymore. They'll just blame it on Cruz/Huckabee whoever. They didn't "sell" it right. They went too PC. It will never, ever be a problem with their worldview. It'll always be the liberals, the media, the war on Christians, the gays, the minorities, and women who are against the rightness of white conservative males.

That's why I find Trump so interesting. He's the embodiment of what the Right in this country has become. They have turned their entire party into nothing more than who can bitch the most. Trump is great at this. It doesn't matter what he believes in (Because, deep down, I think Trump is a conservative Democrat, in all honesty) it only matters that s/he can yell loudly.

Interestingly, we on the left have the opposite problem. We win a few elections, and we suddenly think we can grab the nation and drag it to the far left. We've also fallen into the trap of nominating ideologues to the left of the nation. It doesn't work, just as it won't work for the Republicans to keep going hard right.

I'm a proud Democrat. However, the implosion of the GOP is not good for our country. While I've never voted for a Republican in my life, I think that we Democrats need someone sane to contrast our ideas with. We've, out of necessity, become the part of "not crazy." The problem is, we need another "not crazy" party too. There used to be Republicans that I disagreed with, but I could totally see working with. They've been driven so far from the GOP that it's not even funny. I think there is a place for fiscal conservatives, even though I, myself, am not one. Compromise can make some ideas a lot better than one side having to try and do everything on its own.

exactly.

 

[thepotatoman]

It'll collapse whether he has a scandal or not. The republican primaries are always a clown car early on with ridiculous people in the lead for periods of time (Herman Caine led the polls for a while in 2012). Once you get closer to the end of primary season things work themselves out and everyone falls in line behind one of the establishment type picks. I am not sure who exactly that'll be, but it could potentially be Jeb or Rubio. I just know it won't be Trump or any other extra cartoonish person. It just never is.

The main problem is Trump rise has no logic to it in the first place, making applying logic to his downfall hard to do.

It's also a little harder to apply this same logic when there is no clear second place. In 2012 people were taking the "anybody but Romney" seat before imploding under the spotlight. Right now, there's no "anybody but x" because there's was pretty much no frontrunner whatsoever until Trump came along. If anything, that spot is now the "anybody but Trump" spot.

I guess you're right that he's only been on top about as long as Cain and Gingrich was, and still has a couple of weeks before matching Perry's time on top in 2012, but he's already tripled everyone else for time on top among 2016 candidates.

The only way to make this prediction is to assume that Trump will finally say something so stupid and offensive even his voters get sick of him. Maybe the Megyn Kelly feud is what will do it. I don't know. But everytime he survives an incident like that, it gets a little harder to think his supporters would find anything he says offensive.

 

[Konka]

Uh, that's kind of the point I was making with my post >.>

Also, there are way more points in US history where civil war would have probably erupted had it not been for the senate being set up the way it is.

Oh shit, I thought you were the other guy haha. I was agreeing with you that it's "true as well" that it would have torn the country apart.

 

[thepotatoman]

Why is Donald Trump more popular now than any previous Presidential run? What is different now? His level of "I don't give a shit"?

His had incredibly weak numbers this time as well before he started running. Only difference is this time he chose to run, and apparently he had a damn good ability to turn those numbers around after he hit the campaign trail.

It also helps that everyone else in this primary is as weak as can possibly be.

 

[Link]

I think there is a place for fiscal conservatives

There is, they just don't exist within the the current Republican Party. Any cuts they make to government programs, education, etc, they just turn around and spend on tax cuts for the rich and corporations, the military, or ridiculous repeated efforts to repeal Obamacare. And let's not even get started on the government shutdown that cost us billions.

 

[User 463088]

There is, they just don't exist within the the current Republican Party. Any cuts they make to government programs, education, etc, they just turn around and spend on tax cuts for the rich and corporations, the military, or ridiculous repeated efforts to repeal Obamacare. And let's not even get started on the government shutdown that cost us billions.

Bingo.

The thing is, I don't know how they fix the GOP. I really don't. However, all Americans have an interest in them doing something. The GOP controls a ton of state legislatures. They've gerrymandered control of the House. The GOP has passed nothing of note since taking control of the House in 2010.

Something has to happen. I don't think a realistic answer is for us Dems to take control of everything (even though I might not hate the idea...). The GOP needs to purge the crazies. Yes, it's going to hurt them short term, but they're dying out anyway. I think that's their only path forward.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

How has it come to this? And more importantly, what are Americans doing about it?

What do you want Americans to do outside of voicing their support for or against Donald Trump?

 

[speculawyer]

And that is entirely by design and the whole point of the system, whether you agree with it or not. Gerrymandering for House seats is an issue of course, but the whole point of the Senate, which you seem to take the most issue with, was to ensure that each state has equal representation in the Union. The Senate isn't about representing your views, it's about representing the views of the individual states in the same way that each country of Europe has equal representation in the European Council, regardless of population.

No, it was not designed to give Montana voters so much more power than California voters. It was designed to be a particular balance of the original 13 colonies. But the weird artifacts from the original design now create inequities in the modern world 200 years later. It is just a stupid artifact of history that a few hundred thousand people in Alaska get the same number of senators as 40 million people in California. If you told that fact to one founders they would probably tell us to change it. But it is hard to get people with an unfair advantage to let go of that unfair advantage.

 

[Condom]

No, it was not designed to give Montana voters so much more power than California voters. It was designed to be a particular balance of the original 13 colonies. But the weird artifacts from the original design now create inequities in the modern world 200 years later. It is just a stupid artifact of history that a few hundred thousand people in Alaska get the same number of senators as 40 million people in California. If you told that fact to one founders they would probably tell us to change it. But it is hard to get people with an unfair advantage to let go of that unfair advantage.

To be fair, wouldn't changing it mean the most populated states hoarding the money/attention for themselves?

The balance issue still needs to be addressed in some way, even in a 'fair' system.

 

[TheOrangeKid007]

No, it was not designed to give Montana voters so much more power than California voters. It was designed to be a particular balance of the original 13 colonies. But the weird artifacts from the original design now create inequities in the modern world 200 years later. It is just a stupid artifact of history that a few hundred thousand people in Alaska get the same number of senators as 40 million people in California. If you told that fact to one founders they would probably tell us to change it. But it is hard to get people with an unfair advantage to let go of that unfair advantage.

So what is fair? Who decides "fair" ? 40 Million Californians? The world is not and has never been and will never ever be fair. We can hope all we want that it will be and we can delude ourselves into thinking our actions somehow make it more so, but there will always be inequality long after we are dead and people look back and laugh at our posts on a message forum. We have a system that admittedly was made for a country vastly different in the past but it has worked. I have not seen a better one. If we want to change the structuring of the senate then we should act. Then we are also responsible for whatever happens next (including if states wanted to leave the union)

Back on topic though. I think people just like that he pushes back. I think his special interests are just the same as every other liberal and conservative in congress. He is just taking a different route other than saying the phrases the people have been so accustomed to hearing. I think his biggest issue is that he speaks without fully thinking of the consequences of his wording. I'm guessing it comes from being rich and equating it to superior intellect.

 

[pa22word]

No, it was not designed to give Montana voters so much more power than California voters. It was designed to be a particular balance of the original 13 colonies. But the weird artifacts from the original design now create inequities in the modern world 200 years later. It is just a stupid artifact of history that a few hundred thousand people in Alaska get the same number of senators as 40 million people in California. If you told that fact to one founders they would probably tell us to change it. But it is hard to get people with an unfair advantage to let go of that unfair advantage.

That's a little silly considering that's the explicit reason why states like Delaware or Rhode Island, who were in fact one of the original 13, got the same amount of senate seats as Virginia who had roughly 10x the population in the early 1800s.

 

[The Chosen One]

Trump might have had a chance to go far into the GOP primary if he wasn't so thin skinned. Going after Megyn Kelly as hard as he did was a big miscalculation and easily preventable.

I'll wait for a real poll to show-up, instead of a poll done with Survey Monkey. :lol But from the articles I've read, it wasn't so much the Fox News hit job that has hurt him, but his overreaction to it and Megyn Kelly post-debate that has caused him to lose support to people who were on the fence about him.

I see him still pulling some decent numbers in national polls for a little bit longer, but I don't see him making it to actual state primary voting. But he can still make the GOP candidates look like a 3-ring circus for the rest of 2015. He's the gift that just keeps on giving for Democrats. He splinters the GOP base while never being a serious threat to any democrat candidate, especially with his comments on minorities and women.

 

[~Devil Trigger~]

this party man....

 

[NeoXChaos]

Bingo.

The thing is, I don't know how they fix the GOP. I really don't. However, all Americans have an interest in them doing something. The GOP controls a ton of state legislatures. They've gerrymandered control of the House. The GOP has passed nothing of note since taking control of the House in 2010.

Something has to happen. I don't think a realistic answer is for us Dems to take control of everything (even though I might not hate the idea...). The GOP needs to purge the crazies. Yes, it's going to hurt them short term, but they're dying out anyway. I think that's their only path forward.

Bingo and going forward into 2017(assuming they lose the White House again) they will still control the majority of states and probably the U.S House of Representatives. We Democrats are going have to face the reality of a far right GOP for a while whether we like it or not. Our demographics are not in big enough numbers to wipe out the GOP in two four six or even eight years from a congressional stand point with how gerrymandering and voter compactness is.

 

[speculawyer]

That's a little silly considering that's the explicit reason why states like Delaware or Rhode Island, who were in fact one of the original 13, got the same amount of senate seats as Virginia who had roughly 10x the population in the early 1800s.

10X = 100X?

It's quite a quantitative difference.

 

[pa22word]

10X = 100X?

It's quite a quantitative difference.

Yes, and it's the point of the system that it remains the same regardless how far the metric gets stretched.

If bigger states didn't want such power in Alaska then they could have blocked it from becoming a state in the first place. But guess what? They understood that Alaska's power is still checked because even though they have two seats in the senate they only send 1 rep to the house.

 

[PantherLotus]

Here's what I wonder about Trump:

1. How long can he get away with calling America 'losers'? At some point we need to see the 'morning in America' optimism and how he can lead us there, right?

2. I wonder if, somehow, he were to divide the field enough he started winning a couple primaries. When would he announce he really wasn't serious? How close will he come to driving this thing off the cliff?

3. I wonder who Trump would choose as a VP running mate. Your answer to this is the real tell, isn't it? If you're thinking Sarah Palin, you don't think he's serious. If you're thinking he could get a mainstream type with some credentials, though, who knows? I can imagine a Trump/Christie ticket.

4. Does anybody really think Trump would go 3rd party just to fuck with the GOP?

 

[speculawyer]

Yes, and it's the point of the system that it remains the same regardless how far the metric gets stretched.

If bigger states didn't want such power in Alaska then they could have blocked it from becoming a state in the first place. But guess what? They understood that Alaska's power is still checked because even though they have two seats in the senate they only send 1 rep to the house.

Do you have a time machine to go back in time with to retroactively remove a state?

And play the argument out further. What if one state ends up with 10 million times as much voting power. Does that still make sense? Of course not.

It was just a system thrown together at the time with some arbitrary hacks to get it approved. It also didn't allow women to vote and black people were property. Trying to pretend it was some perfectly planned out magic system is ludicrous.

 

[Konka]

Do you have a time machine to go back in time with to retroactively remove a state?

And play the argument out further. What if one state ends up with 10 million times as much voting power. Does that still make sense? Of course not.

It was just a system thrown together at the time with some arbitrary hacks to get it approved. It also didn't allow women to vote and black people were property. Trying to pretend it was some perfectly planned out magic system is ludicrous.

Is it perfect? Of course not. But there is absolutely zero point to debating changing something as fundamental to the system of governance as the Senate is. Short of a revolution or invasion and occupation it isn't going to happen. So we can entertain the idea on the same plane as discussing faster than light travel.

 

[pa22word]

Do you have a time machine to go back in time with to retroactively remove a state?

Not even sure what you're trying to say here.

And play the argument out further. What if one state ends up with 10 million times as much voting power. Does that still make sense? Of course not.

Reductio ad absurdum is a silly argument, but in the absurd scenario, that would never happen as said state with 10 millionx people would still be balanced because it would send vastly more people to the house, and would be immeasurably more powerful in presidential elections through the EC.

It was just a system thrown together at the time with some arbitrary hacks to get it approved. It also didn't allow women to vote and black people were property. Trying to pretend it was some perfectly planned out magic system is ludicrous.

First off, I've never called it perfect or perfectly planned out.

Secondly, to equate the checks and balances system with slavery is pretty asinine.

Lastly, the system in place is working exactly the way it was designed to work. In fact, california voted to allow Alaska in the union, so...

 

[Link]

4. Does anybody really think Trump would go 3rd party just to fuck with the GOP?

I do, actually, because I believe Trump's only loyalty is to himself.

 

[Jack Remington]

Given that so many candidates do have a bunch of money this time around, I can actually see Trump winning a bunch of early delegates if the field still contains 8 to 10 candidates in February. If he can win some of the early ones and then some super Tuesday states as well, he'll be in really good position. I think he loses if the field has been winnowed down to around five candidates by then. But with a lot of candidates still in the race, he can likely win a lot of these states with just 20 to 25 percent of the vote.

Really if you want Trump to win, you need to be rooting for people like Walker, Rubio, Kasich, and Carson to make deep runs in the primary.

 

[pgtl_10]

Is it possible Trump wins early because of a fractured field?

 

[Meus Renaissance]

What do you want Americans to do outside of voicing their support for or against Donald Trump?

Moderators should call them out on repetitive answers, answers that don't actually answer the question, soundbites and the occasional mumbling of incoherent words. Viewers should contact these news stations and journalists and make that expectation clear because right now they think the status quo is good enough.

Done.

US politics completely changed overnight.

 

[Konka]

Moderators should call them out on repetitive answers, answers that don't actually answer the question, soundbites and the occasional mumbling of incoherent words. Viewers should contact these news stations and journalists and make that expectation clear because right now they think the status quo is good enough.

Done.

US politics completely changed overnight.

People didn't tune into that debate to see an actual debate, myself included just wanted to see the Donald Trump show. Most people are fine with soundbites and the occasional mumbling, your plan doesn't fix people.

 

[Kusagari]

Moderators should call them out on repetitive answers, answers that don't actually answer the question, soundbites and the occasional mumbling of incoherent words. Viewers should contact these news stations and journalists and make that expectation clear because right now they think the status quo is good enough.

Done.

US politics completely changed overnight.

The politicians will still do the same thing, even when called out and the majority of the public won't care.

 

[Jack Remington]

Is it possible Trump wins early because of a fractured field?

Absolutely, though I think it depends to some extent on who drops out early and who their supporters migrate to.

I don't think he can outright win the nomination early, but in a field with 8-10 candidates he could win enough early primaries that those wins themselves make him stronger in the later states and maybe even cause guys like Rubio or Walker to drop out.

Let's say that after Super Tuesday, Trump has won about 50% of the delegates (averaging only 25% of the vote in the states he won), Bush has won 30%, and the rest are divided among several other candidates. I think you'd see everyone but Bush drop out quickly after that, making it a 2 horse race. But Trump would be in a very strong position because his base would be fired up and probably expanded considerably with all that momentum.

 

[Link]

Moderators should call them out on repetitive answers, answers that don't actually answer the question, soundbites and the occasional mumbling of incoherent words. Viewers should contact these news stations and journalists and make that expectation clear because right now they think the status quo is good enough.

Done.

US politics completely changed overnight.

You're talking about a voting bloc that was more angry at Candy Crowley for having the gall to correct Mitt Romney about Obama calling Benghazi an act of terror than they were at Romney for outright lying about it.

 

[speculawyer]

Not even sure what you're trying to say here.

The inequities grow over time. The situation now is not nearly the same as when Alaska was admitted.

Reductio ad absurdum is a silly argument, but in the absurd scenario, that would never happen as said state with 10 millionx people would still be balanced because it would send vastly more people to the house, and would be immeasurably more powerful in presidential elections through the EC.

No . . . it is not 'balanced out' . . . it becomes completely deadlocked. Nothing would pass.

And if fact that may be one of the reasons why our government has become some completely dysfunctional today. The GOP gerrymandered the House and can control the senate with filibusters. But they can't really pass anything because they can't win the presidency. Pretty much nothing of any significance has happened in government for the past 5 years because it is completely deadlocked. The only things that are happening is Obama using his executive authority to get shit done. But all the legislature has done is barely keep the government functioning with occasional spending bills and they've even failed at that with government shut-downs.

Balanced? No. Deadlocked.

Secondly, to equate the checks and balances system with slavery is pretty asinine.

Not at all. They are just arbitrary hacks from back in the day which don't work well now.

 

[HK-47]

This is why he'll go nowhere in the primary. It's Huntsmans disease.

Its terrible to have a temrinal illness like that.

 

[theignoramus]

Why is Donald Trump more popular now than any previous Presidential run? What is different now? His level of "I don't give a shit"?

8 years of Obama and socially progressive legislation has them angry and bitter with an appetite for abrasiveness and politically incorrect commentary.

 

[Lord Morairty007]

I can't believe this is happening. If he wins the ticket I will go insane.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

On the senate revision side-topic: I think statehood for Puerto Rico and representation for DC would go a long way toward making the senate a little more representative of the American public's desires without scrapping the two senators per state system.




Anyway, let's say Trump wins the first primary or two because the (relatively) sensible side of the GOP is split... do you think most candidates will drop out en masse and back a particular candidate just to ensure Trump doesn't get the nom? I could see a scenario where two "realistic" candidates choosing to stick it out to the end, say Rubio and Bush, eat into each other's base and end up letting Trump steal the nomination. Thoughts?

 

[Kusagari]

Trump probably is going to win Iowa and NH if things stay the same right now.

Can anyone really see guys like Cruz, Rand and Huckabee dropping out before the first primaries? There's probably going to be at least 9 or 10 candidates left and Trump will easily win a splintered vote.

 

[AlteredBeast]

You guys are absolutely batshit insane if you think Trump will even sniff the Rep Nom and even less that he goes independent. Trump only cares about one thing: himself. Even if he dumped a considerable amount of his oft-disputed wealth into an Indie run, there is no way he steals enough votes to win. And since he knows that is the only outcome, he won't waste the time or money.

A third party candidate would have to be the most charismatic aisle-reacher ever going up against two incoherent ideologues to even have an outside chance, and no matter what both sides want to believe about the other party's inevitable pick, neither will be more than a right-of-center politician who shills for special interests. Most likely Bush v Clinton II, but possibly Rubio or Kasich sneaks in there.

 

[User 463088]

On the senate revision side-topic: I think statehood for Puerto Rico and representation for DC would go a long way toward making the senate a little more representative of the American public's desires without scrapping the two senators per state system.




Anyway, let's say Trump wins the first primary or two because the (relatively) sensible side of the GOP is split... do you think most candidates will drop out en masse and back a particular candidate just to ensure Trump doesn't get the nom? I could see a scenario where two "realistic" candidates choosing to stick it out to the end, say Rubio and Bush, eat into each other's base and end up letting Trump steal the nomination. Thoughts?

As to your first point re: the Senate, there is no way in hell the GOP will allow DC or Puerto Rico to have Senators. That's four safe Dem seats plus however many delegates they'd get to the House. They'd never, ever go for it.

As to your second point, I really don't know. This field is really wide open, and they're all cannibalizing parts of the party. Bush has the establishment wing sewn up, but the base of GOP primary voters seems to really hate him. Walker's got the backing of the Koch brothers. Cruz has the Tea Party voters, but he's not well liked (at all) by the movers within the party. Christie and Rand are non-starters. They're not going to be in the race after Iowa (for Rand) and New Hampshire (for Christie), assuming they make it that far. Rubio...I'm not sure about. I can see the establishment getting behind him, if necessary. There's no way that he and Bush could broker a unity ticket, since they're both from Florida. That means one of them would have to bow out, and hope that their delegates will agree to vote for the other. I think Bush stays in this scenario.

So, what we're left is this:

Bush/Rubio=Establishment candidates, but not well loved by the primary voters (at least Bush)

Cruz=Tea Party wacko, loved by some of the base, but hated by the party as a whole.

Trump=Not aligned with anyone other than the cheap rug on his head. If/when Cruz realizes he can't get the nomination, I can see a power sharing agreement between the two.

So, if Bush and Rubio do stay in for the long haul, I do think their voters overlap. i don't see a Cruz voter switching to Bush/Rubio. If we're talking after Super Tuesday, and we have Trump/Bush/Rubio/Cruz still in the mix...and each is actually viable at that point....I have no idea where the party goes.

One possible solution is that the RNC sees where this is going to end up. All primaries after March 15th can be winner-take-all (before that it's proportional delegates). If they feel like Trump's having too much sway, they could make it winner take all the rest of the way. That means if we have a competitive four person race, Bush could end up getting all of a state's delegates while only getting 26% of the vote. If Trump is pushed out of the race this way, I think we'll definitely see backlash at the GOP Convention, and I'll bet my bottom dollar Trump will run 3rd party. The infighting in the GOP would be glorious if they only get a nominee by playing the system.

I, for one, welcome this.

You guys are absolutely batshit insane if you think Trump will even sniff the Rep Nom and even less that he goes independent. Trump only cares about one thing: himself. Even if he dumped a considerable amount of his oft-disputed wealth into an Indie run, there is no way he steals enough votes to win. And since he knows that is the only outcome, he won't waste the time or money.

A third party candidate would have to be the most charismatic aisle-reacher ever going up against two incoherent ideologues to even have an outside chance, and no matter what both sides want to believe about the other party's inevitable pick, neither will be more than a right-of-center politician who shills for special interests. Most likely Bush v Clinton II, but possibly Rubio or Kasich sneaks in there.

A 3rd party run for Trump is free publicity. I guarantee you that whomever the Dem nominee is :cough Hillary cough : will welcome Trump to take part in the debates. If the GOP candidate refuses, then we'll have the debates with just us and Trump. Trump doesn't want to win. I have no idea what he wants, but I don't think he really wants to be President. I think you're right in that he does care about himself, and he's more than willing to get any type of publicity he can. He's already lost millions in deals by running. There's an end-game for him somewhere, but I have no idea what it actually is.

There's no chance in hell that Kasich gets the nomination. Veep Slot? Sure. Nomination, no way. He appears too centrist to win the primary. He's not, but the GOP Primary Base loves rabid red meat, and he doesn't serve that.

 

[Aruarian Reflection]

Why is Donald Trump more popular now than any previous Presidential run? What is different now? His level of "I don't give a shit"?

Let's face it, as Obama's terms have shown, all politicians are basically the same and it doesn't matter which figurehead is actually the president. Obama destroyed a lot of people's hopes so people might as well get some entertainment out of this. That's where Trump's showmanship is the king

 

[Glass Joe]

You guys are absolutely batshit insane if you think Trump will even sniff the Rep Nom and even less that he goes independent. Trump only cares about one thing: himself. Even if he dumped a considerable amount of his oft-disputed wealth into an Indie run, there is no way he steals enough votes to win. And since he knows that is the only outcome, he won't waste the time or money.

A third party candidate would have to be the most charismatic aisle-reacher ever going up against two incoherent ideologues to even have an outside chance, and no matter what both sides want to believe about the other party's inevitable pick, neither will be more than a right-of-center politician who shills for special interests. Most likely Bush v Clinton II, but possibly Rubio or Kasich sneaks in there.

People said he was doomed after his campaign announcement and the immigration remarks. His numbers rose.

People said he was doomed after the McCain comment. His numbers rose.

People said the debate would expose him as clueless and doom him. His numbers rose.

So, the naysayers are certainly hoping so, but "any minute now" is getting stretched further and further.

As for him not going 3rd party because he only cares about himself... Come on now. That's exactly why he'd go 3rd party. Like a kid who realizes he's losing at checkers, flip the board over. "Now no one wins."

 

[TunaMarshmallow]

Donald Trump is obviously an extremely weird dude, a creep, and an asshole.

But as far as amoral, antisocial jerks go, he's a very shrewd one. This campaign is a protracted publicity stunt and nothing more. He realizes, fully, that he has zero chance of being on the republican ticket, and also that an independent run would be a monumentally waste of time and money. This is nothing but him using the political machine to generate attention and buzz. It's sickeningly self-interested and cynical, but setting aside the nastiness and immorality, it's prudent.

What a wacky world. America, you're a weird place.

 

[Glass Joe]

This is nothing but him using the political machine to generate attention and buzz. It's sickeningly self-interested and cynical, but setting aside the nastiness and immorality, it's prudent.

He's also exposing bullshit like media bias, the buying and selling of politicians, and making people interested in what's happening in America. He may be self-serving and is having a good time doing it, but this kind of craziness is actually good for America.

 

[Link]

Let's face it, as Obama's terms have shown, all politicians are basically the same and it doesn't matter which figurehead is actually the president. Obama destroyed a lot of people's hopes so people might as well get some entertainment out of this. That's where Trump's showmanship is the king

I don't think you've paid attention to Obama's presidency.