2016 Presidential Horse Race

2016 Presidential Horse Race


  • Total voters
    183

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
8,370
Reaction score
5,771
I'm not sure companies are "forcing time off." Its a benefit to the parents (and child) for the family to be together during the early stages and take the time they need to be a family. No, the baby isn't self sufficient at 6 months, but that's not the point. The early bonding period is important. It's a huge adjustment and we as a country should want the parents to be with their new child for as long as possible before rushing back to work (while sending their kids off to daycare to be raised by someone else). In other countries, men take advantage of this too. It's not just women. Men don't use it in the U.S. because it's extremely rare to have a company offer paid paternity leave as a guaranteed benefit.

Almost every other developed country puts the US to shame when it comes to these types of benefits. I'm not sure how people can legitimately argue against it completely. The overall benefit amount can be negotiated, but having it versus not having it shouldn't be a discussion anymore.

honest questions on this that I haven't seen answered?

1) Does this apply for adoption as well?

2) What are the limitations regarding men who have multiple kids out of wedlock in a short time period?

3) Is there an anticipation of higher discrimination lawsuits in hiring?

4) For millennials, is this only going to make it harder to get coveted jobs as they are entering their child bearing years?
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,120
Who are you quoting here?



I understand it's a benefit to the child but it's an unequal benefit.

What I don't think your recognizing is the needs and wants of those who are not parents.



I think having a specific benefit that only some people qualify for should be discussed. Because it's not right.

I think all mandated time off should be equally available and regardless of circumstance. If you want to mandate that someone should have 3 months off to bond with their child...I am all for that. But I think the person who does not have children, for whatever reason, should also be afforded an equal amount of time off.

This would level the playing field for all companies as everyone would need to factor in this time into their budgets and more importantly their pricing. It would also change the culture of companies to remove the stigma of taking time off.

For example, palliative care is a huge issue in the US and it's only growing. While you feel it's important for a parent to have time off to bond with their child in the formative stages I think it's just as important for a child to have time off to bond with their parent in the late stages.

On the bolded ... Really? The birth of a child is a profound life-changing event. It's not only better for the child, but better for the parent to have time to adapt to the change. And, its probably better for the company to get an employee back to work who is not trying to manage a major life change simultaneously with the responsibilities of work.

I'm with you on palliative care, but paid family sick leave is already a thing in many companies. It's certainly available to government employees.
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
Where to begin?

1. Trump is in it for ego AND power. So there’s that. That makes him FAR worse than Hillary, as crazy as that may seem.

2. Trump has both a MASSIVE ego and a thirst for power, so anyone who votes for Trump over Hillary doesn’t understand the damage someone like him can do.

3. How can ANYONE say that Trump will be moderated? What in this political cycle, in his life (have you read any of his books and his thoughts on power, on revenge, on women, etc???) makes you think this man can be moderated at all, much less more than Hillary?

4. Trump is out for one person, and one person only – TRUMP. He has proven that time and time again. He claims to care about AMERICAN jobs, but in the next breath brags about knowing the H1-B Visa laws so well that he got away with hiring thousands of cheap foreigners instead of Americans. Why? To line his supposedly already deep pockets even further. THAT is the guy you think cares less of himself than the Clintons? Please.

5. Trump would set this country’s economy and foreign affairs so far back that we’d be effed for God knows how long. Look at any non-partisan review of his bull-shit policies – they are an outright joke. Did you see his absolutely ridiculous (and most likely illegal) “plan” to make Mexico come up with a 10 billion dollar check that they don’t have? If he gets elected, you and I and everyone else middle class and below will get absolutely hosed by his policies, because prices for everything will sky-rocket like we’ve never seen while #nevertrump tries to get all these countries to “behave” while we slap them with the highest tariffs in history. And don’t even get me started on all the crap he doesn’t know. At least Hillary has a clue when it comes to the policies and issues that are also important to our country outside of jobs and ISIS.

Hillary at worse would mean the status quo – which a lot of people don’t like (and I absolutely get why people don’t like it) but at least there are many people still thriving and the economy is stable. With Trump – holy hell, this bumbling idiot would make us the laughing stock of the world, he’d make the USA the enemy of more countries/groups than ever and make it even more a target for terrorists, he’d divide the country like we haven’t seen since the Civil War, he’d make racism acceptable again (see: any of his KKK rallies, errrrrrr, Trump rallies, or read any of NDgradstudent’s posts), and he would fuck our economy from here to China.

Crazy thing is, I actually agree with his takes on crime and SOME if his ways to get rid of terrorists. I just don’t want that idiot anywhere near the decision making process.


Where to begin...

I'd prefer Kasich over anyone...Would vote Bernie over Trump. But will not ever cast a vote for Hillary Clinton, ever...even if the choice was Putin or Hillary.

Donald Trump is an asshole...might even be some of things you accuse him of, but he indeed cares about his image, legacy, and he can point to things where he hung his ass out there and succeeded or failed. He'll absolutely moderate because he rates himself on success or failure of an endeavor.

Hillary rates herself on progress to power. Hillary's moves are not to create or protect a legacy...She has been in politics for decades now...whats her legacy? As a senator what legislation has she sponsored/written? Anything of positive note from the State department stint where you can go...thats signature Hillary...oh yea a button..how'd that play out? Is there a theme to her work besides scandal, evasiveness, ill will? When you come across someone who seems to be a climber, but seems not to have competence or greatness, or a thing, a legacy, a method, a signature something, you need to worry...the type of power they are consolidating is most assuredly ill gotten, and dangerous to the organization, and person near her. The organization in this case just happens to be our country.

So by all means...continue down the road of Hillary. I can assure you we will come to know something of her tenure in the white house that cost this nation dearly...innocents will be sacrificed, someone will take the fall for her chicanery, and she will leave in scandal yet again, having again not believed in anything, nor focused her energy on the job, but rather, the next thing. Its all a vast right wing conspiracy though...SMH.
 

ACamp1900

Counting my ‘bet against ND’ winnings
Messages
48,951
Reaction score
11,234
Where to begin...

I'd prefer Kasich over anyone...Would vote Bernie over Trump. But will not ever cast a vote for Hillary Clinton, ever...even if the choice was Putin or Hillary.

This is pretty much where I am at with this whole thing. Though if it's Sanders/Trump I may just not vote at all honestly, who knows.

To say this entire situation is depressing is putting it mildly.
 

BleedBlueGold

Well-known member
Messages
6,271
Reaction score
2,495
Who are you quoting here?

Your previous post.

Couple other thoughts....

- I think it's bull shit to force time off for something specific like having a child. There are many who can't or don't want to have children and they are being excluded.



I understand it's a benefit to the child but it's an unequal benefit.

What I don't think your recognizing is the needs and wants of those who are not parents.

I think having a specific benefit that only some people qualify for should be discussed. Because it's not right.

I think all mandated time off should be equally available and regardless of circumstance. If you want to mandate that someone should have 3 months off to bond with their child...I am all for that. But I think the person who does not have children, for whatever reason, should also be afforded an equal amount of time off.

This would level the playing field for all companies as everyone would need to factor in this time into their budgets and more importantly their pricing. It would also change the culture of companies to remove the stigma of taking time off.

For example, palliative care is a huge issue in the US and it's only growing. While you feel it's important for a parent to have time off to bond with their child in the formative stages I think it's just as important for a child to have time off to bond with their parent in the late stages.

I won't disagree with the bolded. Guaranteed paid time off for family matters can and should be a negotiated benefit. The importance of 'family' is what I'd like to be stressed. Which is why I'm a supporter of any amount of paid time off in order to be with family during important phases of life.
 

dales5050

Banned
Messages
404
Reaction score
39
Your previous post.

Got it.

I won't disagree with the bolded. Guaranteed paid time off for family matters can and should be a negotiated benefit. The importance of 'family' is what I'd like to be stressed. Which is why I'm a supporter of any amount of paid time off in order to be with family during important phases of life.

Agree 100%. I think allowing all workers the necessary time off for all family related needs is a critical thing and would help out our culture in so many ways.
 

BleedBlueGold

Well-known member
Messages
6,271
Reaction score
2,495
honest questions on this that I haven't seen answered?

1) Does this apply for adoption as well?

I believe adoption is included.

2) What are the limitations regarding men who have multiple kids out of wedlock in a short time period?

I don't know for sure. I'd assume the total time off per year is capped, regardless of the number of kids.

3) Is there an anticipation of higher discrimination lawsuits in hiring?

Worth looking into. This isn't a man vs woman issue though because it's "Parental Leave," so unless companies are asking "Do you plan on having kids" on applications, I'm not sure where there would be an increase in discrimination lawsuits.

4) For millennials, is this only going to make it harder to get coveted jobs as they are entering their child bearing years?

No. Some companies are already shifting to a more family-oriented benefit package (Facebook, Twitter, Etsy). Twitter, for example, is actually doing it in order to attract employees by giving better benefits, as well as hopefully provide more competition that leads to other companies offering better family leave benefits as well.
 

BleedBlueGold

Well-known member
Messages
6,271
Reaction score
2,495
Agree 100%. I think allowing all workers the necessary time off for all family related needs is a critical thing and would help out our culture in so many ways.

Yup but like I said in my OP, there are limits to my "Lib-ness." I think we need to start somewhere as a society and work our way up. I truly believe 5 months off is a bit much. But 4-8 weeks? Absolutely.
 
Last edited:

dales5050

Banned
Messages
404
Reaction score
39
On the bolded ... Really? The birth of a child is a profound life-changing event. It's not only better for the child, but better for the parent to have time to adapt to the change. And, its probably better for the company to get an employee back to work who is not trying to manage a major life change simultaneously with the responsibilities of work.

I'm with you on palliative care, but paid family sick leave is already a thing in many companies. It's certainly available to government employees.

Yes really.

I am not taking away from the importance of having a child. I am not taking away from the benefits of bonding and adjustment. That said, I think it's amusing that people want to stress how important the bonding experience is and needing time for that only to put their kids in day care at 3 months.

What I am just saying it's no more important than other life changing events. Paid family sick leave is not a same 'think' to this type of mandated time off FWIW.
 

IrishJayhawk

Rock Chalk
Messages
7,181
Reaction score
464
On the bolded ... Really? The birth of a child is a profound life-changing event. It's not only better for the child, but better for the parent to have time to adapt to the change. And, its probably better for the company to get an employee back to work who is not trying to manage a major life change simultaneously with the responsibilities of work.

I'm with you on palliative care, but paid family sick leave is already a thing in many companies. It's certainly available to government employees.

It's also better for the society. Early bonding and removal of stress is enormous for a child's early development.
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
This is pretty much where I am at with this whole thing. Though if it's Sanders/Trump I may just not vote at all honestly, who knows.

To say this entire situation is depressing is putting it mildly.

Amen. I just can't believe this country is so lacking for competent people to lead it. There is literally no one either party should be all that proud of.
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
I really don't understand this. Why is Mexico pro-illegal-immigration? Their official stance is that their own country is so shitty that they demand to be able to sneak into the neighboring, better country.

YUP...and people here will applaud this horseshit...which is worse yet.
 

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
I really don't understand this. Why is Mexico pro-illegal-immigration? Their official stance is that their own country is so shitty that they demand to be able to sneak into the neighboring, better country.

I don't think that they are "Pro-Immigration". They are "Pro-Mexico". They don't like a neighboring country's potential leader insulting them and threatening to make them pay for a wall to keep them out. Especially when the issues around immigration, in the minds of Mexican citizens, is an American issue. Let me expand on that.

Most Mexicans see the demand for drugs in our country as the defining reason why crime, poverty and corruption are so prevalent. They feel that America has crushed their country by fueling the gang violence. Then when those actions start to cause massive issues in our own country, we now want them to pay us to make their lives even harder.

That's not "pro-immigration". They would prefer to stay in their own country. But when they can't find jobs and are surrounded by violence, they cross the boarder. It's a problem many in Mexico sees as one we caused, one we exasperate and one we are blaming on them.
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,120
I really don't understand this. Why is Mexico pro-illegal-immigration? Their official stance is that their own country is so shitty that they demand to be able to sneak into the neighboring, better country.

The article does not talk about illegal immigration. It talks about the rising tide of animosity toward Mexican people in general, and Mexican people who live in the United States in particular. Their fear is that this trend could end up in hostilities.
 

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
The article does not talk about illegal immigration. It talks about the rising tide of animosity toward Mexican people in general, and Mexican people who live in the United States in particular. Their fear is that this trend could end up in hostilities.

He didn't read the article.
 

NDinL.A.

New member
Messages
8,121
Reaction score
1,734
deserve what they get...hmmm

I mean I know as soon as folks hitch their wagon to Trump, they are in for a smear and hate campaign...some complaints are justified, some aren't, but yea, its a predictable response. Thats different than the government getting involved with DOJ...yet I wouldn't be shocked. So to be clear are you ok with DOJ or some other government pressure being exerted on border patrol and their union...

I never said anything of the sort. Never even got into that part of it.

What I did say is that when you hitch your wagon to a racist/sexist/lying POS, you get what you deserve, and I meant from the public (to a point, of course - I am not talking about violence or hacking or anything of that sort).
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
The article does not talk about illegal immigration. It talks about the rising tide of animosity toward Mexican people in general, and Mexican people who live in the United States in particular. Their fear is that this trend could end up in hostilities.

He didn't read the article.
My comments are about the anti-Trump sentiment in Mexico generally, not just those points presented in this article. I'm talking about Vicente Fox's comments, Pope Francis at the border, etc.
 
B

Bogtrotter07

Guest
If you are going to support a racist, sexist, lying POS, well, in my mind you deserve everything you get. I'm ALL FOR securing our borders, but you can do that without being a racist asshole. Unfortunately, Trump can't.

I get a kick out of these motards that want to build a wall to secure the borders. It is analogous to my mother, god rest her soul, being confused about how to rewind CD's!

We have the ability to do all this from outer space, the air, and with line of sight services, with little monitoring supervision. With the warning viewing from above would provide, it should be easier to send smaller forces to intervene more effectively.

Remember, from outer space a one square inch target can be identified, targets can be identified by heat signatures, motion, and ground penetrating views of rather large areas can now be generated for monitoring purposes.
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,120
My comments are about the anti-Trump sentiment in Mexico generally, not just those points presented in this article. I'm talking about Vicente Fox's comments, Pope Francis at the border, etc.

You are surprised that Mexicans don't like Trump? I am surprised that you are surprised.
 

NDinL.A.

New member
Messages
8,121
Reaction score
1,734
Where to begin...

I'd prefer Kasich over anyone...Would vote Bernie over Trump. But will not ever cast a vote for Hillary Clinton, ever...even if the choice was Putin or Hillary.

Donald Trump is an asshole...might even be some of things you accuse him of, but he indeed cares about his image, legacy, and he can point to things where he hung his ass out there and succeeded or failed. He'll absolutely moderate because he rates himself on success or failure of an endeavor.

Hillary rates herself on progress to power. Hillary's moves are not to create or protect a legacy...She has been in politics for decades now...whats her legacy? As a senator what legislation has she sponsored/written? Anything of positive note from the State department stint where you can go...thats signature Hillary...oh yea a button..how'd that play out? Is there a theme to her work besides scandal, evasiveness, ill will? When you come across someone who seems to be a climber, but seems not to have competence or greatness, or a thing, a legacy, a method, a signature something, you need to worry...the type of power they are consolidating is most assuredly ill gotten, and dangerous to the organization, and person near her. The organization in this case just happens to be our country.

So by all means...continue down the road of Hillary. I can assure you we will come to know something of her tenure in the white house that cost this nation dearly...innocents will be sacrificed, someone will take the fall for her chicanery, and she will leave in scandal yet again, having again not believed in anything, nor focused her energy on the job, but rather, the next thing. Its all a vast right wing conspiracy though...SMH.

I still don't get where in the world you think Donald will "moderate". He has never moderated - it just isn't in him. Have you read any of his books? I have. His propensity for revenge is not only scary, it's kind of sickening, especially for a future president. He states time and time again that he will never back down to anyone and if they cross him they will get it 10 x's worse.

So if he is going to go down, he's going to go down his way, and he'll go down fighting and kicking and screaming, and he'll lie and blame others as we all are getting royally fucked (just as he is doing now). There is no moderating or half-way with this guy. He swings for the fences and wins big (Trump Towers, many primaries), or loses big (Trump Vodka, Trump Steaks, etc). And with America, there are no bankruptcy protection laws that will save us from our country getting screwed economically while he also divides this country between white and people of color.

As for Hillary, as I’ve stated A LOT, I am no fan at all. But if it is between her and Trump, I’ll vote for her a million times before I vote for Trump. Her floor isn’t even close to Trump’s floor.

This is pretty much where I am at with this whole thing. Though if it's Sanders/Trump I may just not vote at all honestly, who knows.

To say this entire situation is depressing is putting it mildly.

I am right there. Holy crap, I’d be beside myself if it were Sanders vs. Trump. I can’t stand Bernie, and his pie-in-the-sky policies simply don’t add up, and would screw so many people it’d be unbelievable. We’re screwed either way. Of the 5 remaining, I’d vote:
1. Kasich




2. Hillary (UGH)
3. Cruz (I consider myself conservative but this dude creeps me the hell out.
4. Sanders
5. Trump
 
Last edited:

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
8,370
Reaction score
5,771
I believe adoption is included.



I don't know for sure. I'd assume the total time off per year is capped, regardless of the number of kids.



Worth looking into. This isn't a man vs woman issue though because it's "Parental Leave," so unless companies are asking "Do you plan on having kids" on applications, I'm not sure where there would be an increase in discrimination lawsuits.



No. Some companies are already shifting to a more family-oriented benefit package (Facebook, Twitter, Etsy). Twitter, for example, is actually doing it in order to attract employees by giving better benefits, as well as hopefully provide more competition that leads to other companies offering better family leave benefits as well.

Thanks.

The discrimination would be two fold.....
1) Age. Historically the age based was to protect older employees, but this could offer an interesting wrinkle.

2) Men vs women. While it would apply equally to both, there is still a strong stigma in corporate America for men taking time for this. For example, my employer offers men 3 weeks paid that can be taken anytime within one year of adoption or birth of a child. The average time off taken by the men is 7 days. I would suspect that if this family leave applied to all employers, men would still take less time off than women, and it wouldn't be close.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
The Week's Michael Brendan Dougherty just published an article titled "Donald Trump is over this whole presidency thing":

Sometimes it looks like Donald Trump really doesn't want to be president of the United States. The unconventional nature of his campaign — dependent on free media, self-financing, and attention-grabbing — seems more and more like a kind of calculated malpractice or negligence. When he should be consolidating his hold over the party, he is instead repelling endorsements and muddying his own message. It makes you think he wants this road show to end — and soon.

Trump's campaign is designed on the premise that he never needs to buy attention that he can just take for free. And so he doesn't buy commercial time. Trump has also taken a long break from campaigning hard in the last few weeks. Meanwhile Ted Cruz's campaign is doing lots of legwork in trying to master the delegate selection process, and using organizational pressure to take delegates from Trump by any means possible. Trump's response is to threaten to sue. Or to make noise about withdrawing his pledge to support the nominee. None of these things are actually productive.

Earlier in the campaign, Trump seemed to be stumbling onto a politically coherent challenge to conservative and liberal orthodoxies: European-style nationalism. But over the past two months, he has slowly backed away from or disavowed his own policy agenda on immigration or trade. He has described his own rhetoric on these issues as a kind of opening gambit in a larger negotiation, rather than the announcement of some kind of principle. He has telegraphed over and over again that he doesn't intend to deliver, that these bold positions were merely an expediency toward standing out from a crowd of 17 candidates.

The lack of principle extends to his campaign. Trump has promoted himself as a man who isn't going to be bought by the special interests because, to this point, he has been self-funding his campaign. But that is not his strategy for the general election, according to reports in The Washington Post. Much of the money Trump has spent on staging rallies and flying around the country has been loaned to the campaign from Trump. That means if Trump begins fundraising in earnest for a general election challenge, Trump will direct donated campaign money back to himself. And yet, according to a detailed look inside the Trump campaign by Gabriel Sherman, Team Trump has barely organized a financial committee or fundraising operation. Either Trump is expecting Republicans, in desperation, to build him a fundraising apparatus from scratch or he expects that free media will be enough in the general election. Or perhaps he doesn't really anticipate being the nominee.

Trump doesn't even bother to understand the positions he takes cynically. See the mess he made of abortion. He has praised Planned Parenthood in the past. Then last week he told Chris Matthews that women should be punished for having abortions, a position most pro-lifers strenuously oppose themselves. Then he said that the laws allowing abortions should remain. Overall he took five positions in three days. He also begged off answering Maureen Dowd's question on whether he had ever been involved in an abortion himself. This level of incompetence suggests something deeper, like the way an amateur who is failing on stage at the Apollo would look to the wings, hoping that the Sandman would come out and dance him off the stage.

There is other evidence that Trump never wanted this. The former communications director for the short-lived Trump super PAC confessed that the campaign started out as a vehicle for protest, not for the White House itself:

Almost a year ago, recruited for my public relations and public policy expertise, I sat in Trump Tower being told that the goal was to get The Donald to poll in double digits and come in second in delegate count. That was it.

The Trump camp would have been satisfied to see him polling at 12 percent and taking second place to a candidate who might hold 50 percent. His candidacy was a protest candidacy. [xoJane]

Alas, if it is a protest, it has gotten to the point where Trump's campaign will almost certainly doom Republican hopes in November. He either becomes the nominee, the most broadly unpopular one in several decades, or he loses the nomination to someone that Trump's fans deem a schemer or interloper. Disaffection is the only result.

There is a lifelessness to the Trump campaign lately, a kind of refusal to stand up and do the hard work of reuniting a party that he has shattered or building an organization that can mount an effective national campaign. There is no reason to doubt that Donald Trump sincerely wanted to shake up this election. But there are now too many reasons to doubt he really wants to win it.

The Washington Examiner's Tim Carney describes how Trump has failed to gain traction in the areas with higher social cohesion here.

And lastly, the NYT's Ross Douthat just published an article titled "Mr. Cruz Goes to the Convention":

In Donald Trump’s characteristically gracious and temperate statement following his drubbing in Wisconsin, he accused Ted Cruz of being not just a “puppet” but “a Trojan horse,” a flag of convenience for “party bosses attempting to steal the nomination.”

The image of Cruz as a tool of the Republican Party’s “bosses” is not one that would have occurred to anyone before this primary season. But clearly some elite Republicans do imagine him as a stalking horse for the more congenial and electable nominee they fondly imagine might be elevated by the convention if Cruz denies Trump the nomination on the early ballots.

This is the theory driving John Kasich’s continuing campaign for president, which survives on nothing save the thin oxygen provided by polls showing him beating Hillary Clinton handily in a general election. It’s a possible explanation for why Marco Rubio hasn’t actually endorsed Cruz yet, and why Mitt Romney has endorsed him only as the best #NeverTrump choice, not outright; both men may still imagine themselves as seventh-ballot nominees. And it’s the reason that Republican insiders keep floating trial balloons about a Paul Ryan white knight candidacy, which Ryan has only tentatively batted away.

These strange scenarios, and the machinations and floor fights that might make them possible, are basically the reason that journalists pine for a contested convention. They were not actually that fanciful two months ago, when it seemed plausible that if the race was pushed to the convention, it would be an evenly matched three-way battle among Cruz, Trump and Rubio that did it.

In that scenario, or in a counterfactual in which Kasich was actually piling up as many delegates as Cruz, you could imagine a convention splitting three ways on ballot after ballot, with Trump’s support gradually shrinking but holding up well enough to deny the other two a majority. Then the convention might actually reach the point of exhaustion when a white-knight alternative would seem almost just: If none of the candidates can beat the others, then none of them should get the nod.

But if Cruz succeeds in pushing the race to the convention, we won’t have that scenario; instead we’ll have just two candidates with three-quarters of the delegates between them, and a third wheel, Kasich, who shows no signs of building the delegate-selecting juggernaut that could make him a big player on the floor.

Instead, the only candidate building such a machine is Cruz himself. His team has been working the system since Iowa, getting as many loyalists as possible chosen for delegate slates, to the point where it seems reasonable to assume that many delegates pledged to Trump will switch to Cruz at the first opportunity.

It also seems reasonable, as FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver has pointed out, to assume that many of the delegates who aren’t explicitly recruited by Team Cruz will still like him just fine. As loathed as the Texas senator might be in the Senate cloakroom, there’s no evidence that he’s similarly despised among the grass-roots activists who often become or help pick convention delegates; quite the reverse, in fact.

So play things out, and Cruz’s path to victory at a contested convention looks very clear indeed. On the first ballot, Trump wins (let’s say) 1,150 votes, while Cruz wins (say) 825. On the next two ballots, some of the Trump delegates start to jump ship, and most of them go to Cruz, since his people have spent months working on them. By the third ballot, the Texas senator is closing in on 1,237, in a hall filled with people who generally like him and definitely prefer him to Trump. What would prevent him from getting there?

The answer has to be something more than a vague desire among certain of Cruz’s delegates to vote for a figure like Ryan or Romney instead. That desire may exist: Some of Cruz’s delegates will be more moderate than he is, some of them will worry that he’s a hopeless general-election candidate, some of them will be party men or women who find his self-interested ambition off-putting, some of them will be #NeverTrump types who actually preferred Kasich or Rubio.

But these maybe-not-Cruz impulses won’t add up to anything unless the people who feel them get organized, and soon. Someone would need to start building lists, counting votes, and persuading a large number of Cruz’s delegates to peel away from him on the second or third ballot, to offset the nearly inevitable swing of many Trump delegates into his column.

So it’s not just a question of “drafting” a Ryan, a Romney or a Rubio and expecting weary delegates to swing their way. To even get that far, you would need a substantial third bloc of delegates who are already on board with the idea, who understand what needs to be done to get there, and who can be relied on to keep the nomination from both Trump and Cruz long enough to make a draft seem reasonable.

And who, exactly, is going to pull such a bloc together? Across months of campaigning, the Republican establishment, such as it is, couldn’t manage to unite around a single candidate or develop a strategy to stop Donald Trump. Cruz is the only not-Trump candidate left standing precisely because the Republicans who most dislike him couldn’t coordinate, plot effectively or successfully elevate a more electable alternative.

But now we’re supposed to believe that those same incompetents are going to magically turn into convention Machiavels, capable of running a secret-but-not-really-secret whip operation on behalf of Ryan or Rubio while Cruz and Trump just stand by helplessly and let it happen? That Karl Rove and the Koch brothers are going to rediscover the magic of the smoke-filled room just in time to somehow undo a year’s worth of collective-action failures?

That seems unlikely. Yes, not so long ago the Republican Party drafted a reluctant Paul Ryan for high office, and it worked. But it worked because the House speakership was a job that nobody else — or nobody else plausible — really wanted.

Not so the party’s presidential nomination. Ted Cruz wants it — oh, how he wants it. And if he can keep Trump from the magic number, it’s hard to see the delegates giving it to anyone but him.
 

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,627
Reaction score
2,732
I am encouraged by the last few weeks that Trump is jumping the shark, Ted Cruz won't have the traction to nail down the nomination and Kasich has a better chance of being the "none of the above" option on the table.
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,120
I am encouraged by the last few weeks that Trump is jumping the shark, Ted Cruz won't have the traction to nail down the nomination and Kasich has a better chance of being the "none of the above" option on the table.

I'm predicting Paul Ryan as the GOP candidate.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
I am encouraged by the last few weeks that Trump is jumping the shark, Ted Cruz won't have the traction to nail down the nomination and Kasich has a better chance of being the "none of the above" option on the table.

I'm predicting Paul Ryan as the GOP candidate.
I think you guys are underestimating Cruz' ground game in the delegate selection process. I think he'll go into the convention with the majority of delegates supporting him, even if a chunk of them are bound to Trump on the first ballot. I predict an easy Cruz win on the second ballot.

What I'd love to see is Rubio getting on the stage prior to the second ballot and making his "New American Century" speech. I think that speech is powerful enough to win the convention.
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
I never said anything of the sort. Never even got into that part of it.

What I did say is that when you hitch your wagon to a racist/sexist/lying POS, you get what you deserve, and I meant from the public (to a point, of course - I am not talking about violence or hacking or anything of that sort).

was asking because my original post included had that in there too...Justice department etc.
 

connor_in

Oh Yeeaah!!!
Messages
11,433
Reaction score
1,006
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Hillary Clinton attempting to get on NY subway. <a href="https://t.co/FAhpj6IpKj">https://t.co/FAhpj6IpKj</a></p>— Ashe Schow (@AsheSchow) <a href="https://twitter.com/AsheSchow/status/718090496497815555">April 7, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Top