Donald Trump for president?

[Lihu]

4 hours ago, GolfLug said:

Why look at only one side of the coin? I don't understand how would Trump (or anybody, for that matter) bring efficiency by 'eliminating' waste? The 'waste' here is people. So you eliminate 75% of workforce, from the IRS or military, and then what turn around and give them food stamps? Then we will complain about how high unemployment is. 

Either way, we will pay for the displaced. Wasteful overemployment by government is just backdoor socialism. At least it is a hidden ruse. 

The nuts and bolts are much harder than the grandiose one liners.   

Allowing private companies to hire more people through better tax credits is a starting point. . .

[Dave2512]

Trump just said it is important to keep the establishment GOP senators and congressmen in office during his victory speech. 

Also said Doral is a major championship so maybe he is confused or thinking aloud. 

[Lihu]

22 minutes ago, Dave2512 said:

Trump just said it is important to keep the establishment GOP senators and congressmen in office during his victory speech. 

Also said Doral is a major championship so maybe he is confused or thinking aloud. 

Are you trying to cast doubt with the "He's getting old and confused" strategy?

 

[Dave2512]

32 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Are you trying to cast doubt with the "He's getting old and confused" strategy?

 

No he just kind of rambles. In serious mode he reminds me of Mr. Mackey mkay. 

[RandallT]

Trouble for Democrats in Michigan. Republican turnout up 50% from 2012. Democrats down by 35% or so.

Plus, Sanders had a Trump-like message on trade (according to CNN). And Sanders is unexpectedly VERY competitive with Clinton tonight. Here were the predictions:

 

But here is the actual votes so far (Clinton could still pull this out, but doubt the predictions above will be correct- surprising for 538 to be off so much):

 

If Sanders' message on trade is similar to the Republicans for the general election (and turnout is similar to this primary), Trump could flip this to a Republican win. Obama won 54-45. You guys still sure Clinton will crush Trump?

On the downside for Trump, the exit polls asked about head to head matchups and Cruz would've beaten Trump 46-37, according to 538: http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/michigan-mississippi-idaho-hawaii-primaries-presidential-election-2016/?#livepress-update-15698667

 

[Dave2512]

Pretty sure the only person saying Clinton will crush Trump is TrusTed. 

[jamo]

4 minutes ago, RandallT said:

Trouble for Democrats in Michigan. Republican turnout up 50% from 2012. Democrats down by 35% or so.

Down by 35% to when? The Democrats essentially had no primary in 2012. Down compared to 2008?

[RandallT]

14 minutes ago, jamo said:

Down by 35% to when? The Democrats essentially had no primary in 2012. Down compared to 2008?

Good question, that's what some talking head guy said. I just checked 538 site, and the CNN guy was likely off (my apologies for passing it along unchallenged):

http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/michigan-mississippi-idaho-hawaii-primaries-presidential-election-2016/?#livepress-update-12403656

Quote

Is Bernie Sanders being boosted by high Democratic turnout in Michigan? It’s hard to say, because we don’t have a great reference point. In 2008, about 600,000 Democrats voted in the state’s primary. By contrast, about 600,000 have already voted this year with only half of precincts reporting. So that’s a huge turnout, right? Not so fast. In 2008, turnout was depressed in Michigan because Barack Obama’s and John Edwards’s names did not appear on the ballot — instead, Hillary Clinton ran against “uncommitted” after a dispute about Michigan having jumped too far ahead in the primary calendar. Meanwhile, Michigan Democrats held caucuses in 2000 and 2004. They did have a primary in 1992, again with about 600,000 Democrats participating, although that came fairly late in the primary calendar, after Bill Clinton was relatively assured of the nomination.

 

EDIT: I think the CNN guy might've meant that he projects the Dem turnout this primary will be 35% less than Republicans this primary. Just a guess. The numbers are ballpark, but too early to tell, of course. 

[saevel25]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/when-political-parties-splinter/

Bit of a historical look at party splits and trying to peg down what is happening in the GOP. 

Quote

The emerging fight within the Republican Party doesn’t look exactly like any of the major party splits of the past. There’s not a clear issue difference at the center of it. Trump is coming in from outside the party; he’s not a former president like Theodore Roosevelt. And party organizations have changed to place more emphasis on voter input — one of Roosevelt’s chief goals — even as elites play a significant role in managing conflict among factions. That role may become even more important as we head into the later primaries and the convention.

If the GOP does split, it may be for only one or two election cycles, with Trump playing the role of Roosevelt. It’s also possible, however, that the rise of Trumpism within the Republican Party will alienate the Plains states and interior West. How those states vote during the GOP primary could provide some clues (few have voted so far, but Trump has underperformed in Kansas and Oklahoma). Or maybe if Trump wins the nomination, the #NeverTrumps will sleep on the couch for a couple of months but all will be forgiven by the time the general election rolls around.

Regardless, the mere fact that a party splitting seems so plausible is pretty amazing — it doesn’t happen often.

This battle might get tighter as things move towards the Plains were Trump does not have the traction he has in the east. He lost Oklahoma and struggled in Kansas. 

Ohio could be a big loss for Trump if Kasich wins his home state. That is a winner take all State. It could give Kasich momentum. If Rubio drops out it could be interesting to see where that support goes. 

 

[RandallT]

26 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/when-political-parties-splinter/

Bit of a historical look at party splits and trying to peg down what is happening in the GOP. 

This battle might get tighter as things move towards the Plains were Trump does not have the traction he has in the east. He lost Oklahoma and struggled in Kansas. 

Ohio could be a big loss for Trump if Kasich wins his home state. That is a winner take all State. It could give Kasich momentum. If Rubio drops out it could be interesting to see where that support goes. 

 

538 is a great source. They have "targets" for each candidate to most likely reach the total needed to win the nomination (based on each candidate) here: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/

The green shaded states are where he exceeded the target they set for him. Pinkish shades of states show where he fell below 538's target for Trump.

Trump is just ahead of schedule (slight green shading above the line shown below), and tonight I think he'll continue to be ahead of their expectation to win the nomination. March 15th will be key (the next big step in the chart below), most definitely. With Rubio looking lame, I think that helps Trump in Florida, big time.

Quote

 

[boogielicious]

8 hours ago, jamo said:

Down by 35% to when? The Democrats essentially had no primary in 2012. Down compared to 2008?

I heard and interview with some Mass voters who are Democrats. They said they "purposely switched parties for the primary to vote for Trump to stick it to the Republicans because of their obstructionist performance over the last seven years." (their words not mine) They intend to then vote for the Democratic nominee in the fall.

This was the first I heard of this, but I've now heard other reports as well. Interesting.

[saevel25]

8 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

I heard and interview with some Mass voters who are Democrats. They said they "purposely switched parties for the primary to vote for Trump to stick it to the Republicans because of their obstructionist performance over the last seven years." (their words not mine) They intend to then vote for the Democratic nominee in the fall.

This was the first I heard of this, but I've now heard other reports as well. Interesting.

I think the odds of this happening in any significant amount through out the whole country is low. If this is true then just another reason to get rid of primaries and the party system.

I always hate how both sides things the other obstructs and their own party doesn't. No one knows the definition of compromise ;)

 

[jamo]

10 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

I heard and interview with some Mass voters who are Democrats. They said they "purposely switched parties for the primary to vote for Trump to stick it to the Republicans because of their obstructionist performance over the last seven years." (their words not mine) They intend to then vote for the Democratic nominee in the fall.

This was the first I heard of this, but I've now heard other reports as well. Interesting.

I too know at least a few people who have done that. The Boston Globe argued for a month before the primary that people should.

It's tough to measure the impact of that, though, because then you're saying Trump would actually be winning by MORE if that hadn't been happening, and he crushed it in MA.

[nevets88]

34 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

I think the odds of this happening in any significant amount through out the whole country is low. If this is true then just another reason to get rid of primaries and the party system.

I always hate how both sides things the other obstructs and their own party doesn't. No one knows the definition of compromise ;)

 

Whatever you call this, an obstruction/protest vote, I would guess it's such a minuscule number that it might probably be offset by upset Republicans who switched parties to vote for Clinton or Sanders. I've heard people say they thought of switching over to vote against Trump. You won't have to do that in an open primary though, yes?

[boogielicious]

7 minutes ago, nevets88 said:

Whatever you call this, an obstruction/protest vote, I would guess it's such a minuscule number that it might probably be offset by upset Republicans who switched parties to vote for Clinton or Sanders. I've heard people say they thought of switching over to vote against Trump. You won't have to do that in an open primary though, yes?

Not sure about other states, but in MA you have to enroll in the party to vote in the primary. It is a temporary enrollment and void after the vote. I'm an independent, so I don't have to un-enroll like the guy I quoted.

[nevets88]

8 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

Not sure about other states, but in MA you have to enroll in the party to vote in the primary. It is a temporary enrollment and void after the vote. I'm an independent, so I don't have to un-enroll like the guy I quoted.

Below is a list from Wikipedia, so not attesting to absolute accuracy here. Of the analyses I've been reading, I don't recall any mentioning the effect open primaries have on Trump's and in turn, the Republican nomination. I would guess open primaries favor Trump?

Update: Nevermind, should have done a LMGTFY to myself.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/03/02/so-far-trump-wins-open-primaries-and-cruz-wins-closed-and-the-calendar-is-starting-to-change-toward-more-closed-primaries/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/07/trump-doing-better-in-open-primaries-cruz-sees-success-in-gop-only-contests.html

States with an open presidential primary[edit]

• Alabama
• Arkansas
• Georgia
• Illinois
• Indiana
• Massachusetts (All races' primaries open for "unenrolled"/unaffiliated voters only)
• Minnesota
• Mississippi
• Missouri
• New Hampshire
• North Carolina
• North Dakota
• Ohio
• Oklahoma (Only Democratic primary is open to Independent voters as of November 2015) ^[11]
• South Carolina
• Tennessee
• Texas
• Vermont
• Virginia
• Wisconsin^[12]

[RussUK]

I have to admit, even though im an outsider to all this, i find it pretty fascinating and at the same time a little worrying. in regards to Trump, on he one hand you have a very strong willed person who probably will get things done, but on the other hand, to me, he tends to come accross as a bit of a megalomaniac so while he'll get things done....at what cost.

Last thing the world needs is that famous finger pressing the nuclear missile button and saying "you're fired" (sorry, couldnt help myself)

But seriously, with all the tensions with NOrth Korrea (however small), does Trump have the mental capability to step back and consider the options or would he just be a bull in a china shop?

[Braivo]

17 hours ago, GolfLug said:

  The man can't lose even if he loses.

He has said this over and over throughout his life, he captures it well in his books. He doesn't take dumb risks. People think he is a "loose cannon" but he is far from. He is meticulous and pragmatic when choosing which endeavors to pursue, including a run for President. 

16 hours ago, GolfLug said:

Why look at only one side of the coin? I don't understand how would Trump (or anybody, for that matter) bring efficiency by 'eliminating' waste? The 'waste' here is people. So you eliminate 75% of workforce, from the IRS or military, and then what turn around and give them food stamps? Then we will complain about how high unemployment is. 

There will be short-term pain involved with any measure that is going to turn around this sinking ship. If he can pull more manufacturing back into the US via better trade deals it will offset any loss in government payroll.

11 hours ago, Dave2512 said:

Trump just said it is important to keep the establishment GOP senators and congressmen in office during his victory speech. 

Also said Doral is a major championship so maybe he is confused or thinking aloud. 

Trump is working his way toward solidarity with the establishment, he won't get anything done without their cooperation and he knows it. There isn't a wave of "Trump party" candidates lining up in congress, he has to work with them. 

Heh, he didn't call it a "Major" championship in the strict sense, but rather that it was a big tournament. 

10 hours ago, RandallT said:

Trouble for Democrats in Michigan. Republican turnout up 50% from 2012. Democrats down by 35% or so.

Plus, Sanders had a Trump-like message on trade (according to CNN). And Sanders is unexpectedly VERY competitive with Clinton tonight. Here were the predictions:

If Sanders' message on trade is similar to the Republicans for the general election (and turnout is similar to this primary), Trump could flip this to a Republican win. Obama won 54-45. You guys still sure Clinton will crush Trump?

Michigan could very likely go red for Trump, first time since 1988. Many of those Bernie supporters may go Trump in the GE because 1) he is anti-establishment and 2) he is signalling some toughness on trade. The working class in MI is fed up with Democrats, they will vote for a man who promises closed borders and better trade deals. 

10 hours ago, saevel25 said:

This battle might get tighter as things move towards the Plains were Trump does not have the traction he has in the east. He lost Oklahoma and struggled in Kansas. 

Ohio could be a big loss for Trump if Kasich wins his home state. That is a winner take all State. It could give Kasich momentum. If Rubio drops out it could be interesting to see where that support goes. 

Don't forget there are still huge contests left on the coasts, where Trump will likely dominate. Cruz does well with evangelicals, but that's about it. 

If Trump takes OH and FL next week it's all but over. 

1 hour ago, RussUK said:

But seriously, with all the tensions with NOrth Korrea (however small), does Trump have the mental capability to step back and consider the options or would he just be a bull in a china shop?

Again, lots of people think Trump is a wild loose cannon, but his track record shows just the opposite. He doesn't just shoot first and ask questions later, he is pragmatic and chooses the battles that will make the most impact.