Jump to content

LooseGoose

2016 Presidential Election - Who will the nominees be? Make your prediction here.

Recommended Posts


One thing I heard on Hugh Hewitt's show last night, is that there is now a realization that the establishment can't just defeat Trump in a brokered convention, because he represents over 30% of Republican voters. The fear is setting in that they are going to lose his voters. Hewitt's belief appears to be that they will now have to put Cruz on the ticket in either Cruz/Rubio or Rubio/Cruz... or if Kasich wins Ohio and Rubio loses Florida, then Cruz/Kasich or Kasich/Cruz.

That said, I don't see Cruz accepting 2nd fiddle to Rubio or Kasich on any ticket. No one wants to be VP, especially if he ends up with more delegates than the other two.

Further, I don't see Trump supporters being placated by the addition of Cruz to a ticket, no matter which spot he occupies. Especially if there is an opinion that Trump was robbed or treated badly in the process. But even if the process is above board and transparent, I still doubt they support one of the other three.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One thing I heard on Hugh Hewitt's show last night, is that there is now a realization that the establishment can't just defeat Trump in a brokered convention, because he represents over 30% of Republican voters. The fear is setting in that they are going to lose his voters. Hewitt's belief appears to be that they will now have to put Cruz on the ticket in either Cruz/Rubio or Rubio/Cruz... or if Kasich wins Ohio and Rubio loses Florida, then Cruz/Kasich or Kasich/Cruz.

That said, I don't see Cruz accepting 2nd fiddle to Rubio or Kasich on any ticket. No one wants to be VP, especially if he ends up with more delegates than the other two.

Further, I don't see Trump supporters being placated by the addition of Cruz to a ticket, no matter which spot he occupies. Especially if there is an opinion that Trump was robbed or treated badly in the process. But even if the process is above board and transparent, I still doubt they support one of the other three.

Cruz has said a few times he does not want a brokered convention. He knows the establishment hates him just as much as they hate Trump and they probably overlook him too. It would probably end up being Romney/Rubio or Romney/Kasich.

If it goes to a brokered convention, what are the odds Cruz would take the VP slot under Trump and those two consolidate their delegates? I think in a brokered convention the only way Trump and/or Cruz end up on any type of ticket is if they get together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That whole thing sounds so fun. If they really do basically negate the voting that happened, I think there will be hell to pay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The poll done by The Hill shows that Romney's call is working.

https://twitter.com/lachlan/status/707260358327721985

That's not really true. While he is correct that the point was probably less about getting defectors from Trump, and probably a lot more about making sure more voters don't shift into his camp. That said, measuring how many Rubio (or Cruz or Kasich) voters are more or less likely to vote for Trump, is probably not all that meaningful -- since they already polled that they are voting for Rubio, etc. The real category that is impactful is those that Don't Know which candidate that they will vote for, which was about 8.8% of the sample. Of that group 6 were more likely and 9 were less likely, so net 3 were less likely to vote for Trump.... or about 4.6% of the Don't Knows. Btw, those net 3 less likely make up 0.4% of the entire poll.

Not only is are these numbers almost certainly within the margin of error, but really show minimal effect at all.

However, I did note that Trump leads this poll 42.3% to Cruz at 23.8% to Rubio at 14.6% to Kasich at 10.7%, with Don't Know at 8.8%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cruz has said a few times he does not want a brokered convention. He knows the establishment hates him just as much as they hate Trump and they probably overlook him too. It would probably end up being Romney/Rubio or Romney/Kasich.

If it goes to a brokered convention, what are the odds Cruz would take the VP slot under Trump and those two consolidate their delegates? I think in a brokered convention the only way Trump and/or Cruz end up on any type of ticket is if they get together.

I don't think Cruz will want the VP slot. It will taint him on any future runs at the nomination. But he could make a deal with Trump to get nominated for the SCOTUS, if that appeals to him. I'm sure the Senate would be glad to be rid of him, so the confirmation probably would be easy-ish. And if Trump loses the general election, Cruz is set up to once again run in 2020, without the stigma of having lost in 2016.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's not really true. While he is correct that the point was probably less about getting defectors from Trump, and probably a lot more about making sure more voters don't shift into his camp. That said, measuring how many Rubio (or Cruz or Kasich) voters are more or less likely to vote for Trump, is probably not all that meaningful -- since they already polled that they are voting for Rubio, etc. The real category that is impactful is those that Don't Know which candidate that they will vote for, which was about 8.8% of the sample. Of that group 6 were more likely and 9 were less likely, so net 3 were less likely to vote for Trump.... or about 4.6% of the Don't Knows. Btw, those net 3 less likely make up 0.4% of the entire poll.

Not only is are these numbers almost certainly within the margin of error, but really show minimal effect at all.

However, I did note that Trump leads this poll 42.3% to Cruz at 23.8% to Rubio at 14.6% to Kasich at 10.7%, with Don't Know at 8.8%.

The other thing is whether it actually influenced anyone who was in TRUMP's camp already. I suspect quite little, but maybe it did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The other thing is whether it actually influenced anyone who was in TRUMP's camp already. I suspect quite little, but maybe it did.

5% of Trump voters said they are less likely to vote for him. Edit: that doesn't actually mean that they won't vote for him, however.

Basically if you take those 16 voters and put them in Cruz's camp (he's in 2nd place in the poll) and put the three net less likely voters from the Don't Know camp into Cruz as well, the change to the overall poll is immaterial.

Trump drops from 42.2% to 40.0% while Cruz increases from 23.8% to 26.4%.

Edited by ballmich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure it would do much of anything, if it was a close win by Sanders, since the delegates are allocated proportionally. Hillary has a 200 pledged delegate lead currently, and to lose a few in Michigan wouldn't change much of anything.
The benefit of "winning" the democratic primary is more for the narrative. It could affect future voting in other states, or a decision of a superdelegate. It could inspire more investment. These indirect benefits aren't useless, but they are probably minor overall at this point.

The significance of Bernie winning in Michigan is that it will mean he almost certainly did better with African American voters than has been the case heretofore.

The biggest reason 538 has Hilliary winning the Democratic nomination easily is because she holds a huge advantage in polling with the black community. As in an almost order of magnitude difference between her and Bernie. If that holds, it is extremely difficult for Bernie to win in any state with a significant black community or win the nomination overall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The significance of Bernie winning in Michigan is that it will mean he almost certainly did better with African American voters than has been the case heretofore.

The biggest reason 538 has Hilliary winning the Democratic nomination easily is because she holds a huge advantage in polling with the black community. As in an almost order of magnitude difference between her and Bernie. If that holds, it is extremely difficult for Bernie to win in any state with a significant black community or win the nomination overall.

The difference between the black vote in the north and south is the blue collar distinction. A lot of African-Americans were hurt by the outsourcing of good paying manufacturing jobs, because they were apart of the same unions as white voters. Amongst blue collar, African-American union workers in Detroit and Flint, I would guess that many of them share animosity and resentment towards bad trade deals like NAFTA and PNTR with China that either cost or at least accelerated the pace of job loss of manufacturing jobs. Loss of jobs that hurt their communities economically and created wage gaps that still haven't been made up yet. They are probably also none to happy with Michigan being a Right-To-Work state. I think if disenfranchised labor voters, be they black or white, show up to the polls they will side more with Bernie than Hillary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://fair.org/home/washington-post-ran-16-negative-stories-on-bernie-sanders-in-16-hours/

Holy corporate media Batman! WaPo has turned into a joke anyways. Someone in their editing room or on their executive board has it out for Bernie. I understand journalism and tough reporting, I'm all for that. But WaPo has been going after Bernie hard like this since he became a semi-serious candidate back in October.

Remember this the next time you scoff at Republicans bitching about media bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How a $300 tax deduction proves Donald Trump makes less than half a million dollars

One of the enduring mysteries of Donald Trump is just how much wealth he has. Forbes pegs his net worth at $4.5 billion, while Bloomberg News puts it at $2.9 billion. The GOP front-runner himself has said he's "really rich."

Maybe, but Trump's income is low enough to qualify for a New York state property-tax break that most high-rollers don't get.

It's called the STAR program, which stands for the New York State School Tax Relief Program and has been around since 1997. It offers an approximately $300 annual benefit for those who qualify. Hundreds of thousands of New York homeowners get it.

Here's where it gets interesting for Trump: To be eligible for STAR, a married couple must have annual income of $500,000 or less. One wouldn't think a guy as rich as Trump claims to be would qualify, but records filed with the city's Department of Finance show he received a $302 STAR benefit on his latest property-tax bill for his Trump Tower penthouse on Fifth Avenue.

That means whatever his annual income is, it's less than $500,000. (The state defines income for STAR purposes as federal adjusted gross income minus the taxable amount of total distributions from annuities or individual retirement accounts.) And Trump would have to have declared his New York apartment as his permanent residence and sent the state a copy of his federal income-tax return in order to qualify for the $302 tax break.

"It's strange that a billionaire would apply for a $302 tax benefit and, moreover, that he would take it," said Martha Stark, a property-tax expert and former New York City finance commissioner who is now a lecturer at Baruch College. A Trump spokeswoman had no immediate comment. By the way, the city finance department checks with New York state tax authorities every year to make sure applicants for the STAR benefit have income under $500,000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The difference between the black vote in the north and south is the blue collar distinction. A lot of African-Americans were hurt by the outsourcing of good paying manufacturing jobs, because they were apart of the same unions as white voters. Amongst blue collar, African-American union workers in Detroit and Flint, I would guess that many of them share animosity and resentment towards bad trade deals like NAFTA and PNTR with China that either cost or at least accelerated the pace of job loss of manufacturing jobs. Loss of jobs that hurt their communities economically and created wage gaps that still haven't been made up yet. They are probably also none to happy with Michigan being a Right-To-Work state. I think if disenfranchised labor voters, be they black or white, show up to the polls they will side more with Bernie than Hillary.

Ironically more jobs were created under Bill and Sanders voted against saving their jobs in 2008. Blacks have always liked Bill and by extension Hilary. Don't see Sanders winning the black vote anywhere over Hilary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judging from my voter number at 2:30 and my questioning of the poll worker, turnout in my precinct is running about near a presidential election - Yikes! I doubt in my neighborhood they are coming out either for or against Trump, so that means either every woman in the neighborhood is out for Hils, the Bernie's progressives are coming out for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The difference between the black vote in the north and south is the blue collar distinction. A lot of African-Americans were hurt by the outsourcing of good paying manufacturing jobs, because they were apart of the same unions as white voters. Amongst blue collar, African-American union workers in Detroit and Flint, I would guess that many of them share animosity and resentment towards bad trade deals like NAFTA and PNTR with China that either cost or at least accelerated the pace of job loss of manufacturing jobs. Loss of jobs that hurt their communities economically and created wage gaps that still haven't been made up yet. They are probably also none to happy with Michigan being a Right-To-Work state. I think if disenfranchised labor voters, be they black or white, show up to the polls they will side more with Bernie than Hillary.

The bottom line is Bernie has to do a lot better with black voters to have any chance and doing well in Michigan would help place him on that path.

Whether that happens remains to be seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Judging from my voter number at 2:30 and my questioning of the poll worker, turnout in my precinct is running about near a presidential election - Yikes! I doubt in my neighborhood they are coming out either for or against Trump, so that means either every woman in the neighborhood is out for Hils, the Bernie's progressives are coming out for him.

I have no doubt my neighborhood is going to be pro Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 things.

1. Why would he not take it?

2. I am sure he does not do his own taxes. Not that hard to imagine an accountant clicking that box by mistake or just doing it to get the credit. May have taken a return that would have been 9,965.00 and making it 10k (example...I have absolutely NO IDEA what a person who claims to be a billionaire gets back or pays at tax time)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ironically more jobs were created under Bill and Sanders voted against saving their jobs in 2008. Blacks have always liked Bill and by extension Hilary. Don't see Sanders winning the black vote anywhere over Hilary.

Clinton tripped and fell into a good economy. Rest assured, Bill Clinton had little to nothing to do (other than when his Vice President invented the internet) with the tech boom of the 1990's. Clinton got lucky that he was President during a time when a new technology was coming of age and was rapidly growing the economy and tax receipts of the federal government. Clinton's policies didn't create the economic prosperity that this country had from mid-late 1997 through early 2000, the internet did.

Furthermore, Sanders did vote for the initial auto rescue bill. The initial bailout was a stand alone bill voted down by Republicans. The second auto bailout was simply money that Bush and then Obama took from the TARP funds. Sanders voted against TARP, not the original auto bailout.

Edited by Mr.TaterSalad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Remember this the next time you scoff at Republicans bitching about media bias.

Post political writers have been in Hil's pocket from the begining. That's just the way it goes - most op-ed pages have a favorite candidate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure most people know this, but what a person is worth and what they make a year are 2 ENTIRELY different things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clinton tripped and fell into a good economy. Rest assured, Bill Clinton had little to nothing to do (other than when his Vice President invented the internet) with the tech boom of the 1990's...

Clinton was the beneficiary of GHWB being a responsible president and putting the budget back on a sound footing. The falling governent fiscal borrowing reduced the cost of capital for expanding business. But like Baseball - there is no justice in Politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clinton tripped and fell into a good economy. Rest assured, Bill Clinton had little to nothing to do (other than when his Vice President invented the internet) with the tech boom of the 1990's. Clinton got lucky that he was President during a time when a new technology was coming of age and was rapidly growing the economy and tax receipts of the federal government. Clinton's policies didn't create the economic prosperity that this country had from mid-late 1997 through early 2000, the internet did.

Furthermore, Sanders did vote for the initial auto rescue bill. The initial bailout was a stand alone bill voted down by Republicans. The second auto bailout was simply money that Bush and then Obama took from the TARP funds. Sanders voted against TARP, not the original auto bailout.

Yet even though manufacturing jobs were leaving Detroit and Flint at least 30 years before Clinton, it's all Clinton's fault and the good things that happened during Clinton is just luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clinton tripped and fell into a good economy. Rest assured, Bill Clinton had little to nothing to do (other than when his Vice President invented the internet) with the tech boom of the 1990's. Clinton got lucky that he was President during a time when a new technology was coming of age and was rapidly growing the economy and tax receipts of the federal government. Clinton's policies didn't create the economic prosperity that this country had from mid-late 1997 through early 2000, the internet did.

Furthermore, Sanders did vote for the initial auto rescue bill. The initial bailout was a stand alone bill voted down by Republicans. The second auto bailout was simply money that Bush and then Obama took from the TARP funds. Sanders voted against TARP, not the original auto bailout.

Even if this is all true, I don't think the typical voter sees it that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...