Maybe we should just elect Trump president

Julian, wrote:

Sidehatch wrote:

jaded wrote:
And the American people.

nice and couldn't agree more…that's been my hope since Trump showed up day one
He certainty could pull a lot of people to vote for him as a 3rd party, but not enough to win

Hey, a wackadoo 3rd party candidate helped us get a Clinton in office the first time; why mess with success?

man an my inlaws wanted that wackadoo sooo bad as well as this current wackadoo

Must say Willy's lasting contribution to liberal ideology is waning over time
look at the impact of NAFTA, Welfare reform, lack of action on the drug war, 3 Strikes, freedom of marriage
as well as some of the seeds for the Mortgage crisis

I love slick willy, but he was a moderate who leaned a little further right than I would have preferred,

but ultimately he had to compromise to get stuff passed, just really didn't like some of the stuff that actually got passed

He balanced the budget and presided over the longest period of economic prosperity in two generations.

Sidehatch wrote:

Julian, wrote:

Sidehatch wrote:

jaded wrote:
And the American people.

nice and couldn't agree more…that's been my hope since Trump showed up day one
He certainty could pull a lot of people to vote for him as a 3rd party, but not enough to win

Hey, a wackadoo 3rd party candidate helped us get a Clinton in office the first time; why mess with success?

man an my inlaws wanted that wackadoo sooo bad as well as this current wackadoo

Must say Willy's lasting contribution to liberal ideology is waning over time
look at the impact of NAFTA, Welfare reform, lack of action on the drug war, 3 Strikes, freedom of marriage
as well as some of the seeds for the Mortgage crisis

I love slick willy, but he was a moderate who leaned a little further right than I would have preferred,

but ultimately he had to compromise to get stuff passed, just really didn't like some of the stuff that actually got passed

this is some of the dumbest shit i have read.. incomes grew.. people were doing well… that is the most important thing… i guess you forgot how the late 90s were… it was a golden age.. I remember being at parties at Tim's and everyone was talking about how great things were going.. don't you remember? unemployment going down down down.. stock market going up up up?

of course bill wasn't a left wing liberal.. how could he be? don't you remember how he got creamed in 94 by gingrich??? he had to tack to the center. .that is what the American people wanted.. that is how he got reelected..that is how he worked with congress to balance the budget and get things done..he worked within the context of what was possible!

now all of a sudden in 2016 we are going to judge the 1990s as a failure? 

hutch wrote:

Sidehatch wrote:

Julian, wrote:

Sidehatch wrote:

jaded wrote:
And the American people.

nice and couldn't agree more…that's been my hope since Trump showed up day one
He certainty could pull a lot of people to vote for him as a 3rd party, but not enough to win

Hey, a wackadoo 3rd party candidate helped us get a Clinton in office the first time; why mess with success?

man an my inlaws wanted that wackadoo sooo bad as well as this current wackadoo

Must say Willy's lasting contribution to liberal ideology is waning over time
look at the impact of NAFTA, Welfare reform, lack of action on the drug war, 3 Strikes, freedom of marriage
as well as some of the seeds for the Mortgage crisis

I love slick willy, but he was a moderate who leaned a little further right than I would have preferred,

but ultimately he had to compromise to get stuff passed, just really didn't like some of the stuff that actually got passed

this is some of the dumbest shit i have read.. incomes grew.. people were doing well… that is the most important thing… i guess you forgot how the late 90s were… it was a golden age.. I remember being at parties at Tim's and everyone was talking about how great things were going.. don't you remember? unemployment going down down down.. stock market going up up up?

of course bill wasn't a left wing liberal.. how could he be? don't you remember how he got creamed in 94 by gingrich??? he had to tack to the center. .that is what the American people wanted.. that is how he got reelected..that is how he worked with congress to balance the budget and get things done..he worked within the context of what was possible!

now all of a sudden in 2016 we are going to judge the 1990s as a failure? 

Is everyone having problems reading, I never said there wasn't prosperity…can't really say he takes all the credit for that either…as jules said "he presided'
And yes us and all our white middle class friends did great in the 90's….so not a really good example

I said I like bill, but he was a contributor to things that today have really snowballed
even he admitted that he wished he didn't sign the 3 strikes

with 3 strikes, NAFTA and Welfare reform…do you think African American or poor minorities are better off

So we can't discuss these things?
These are important to me and I think their impact should be talked about

Sidehatch wrote:

hutch wrote:

Sidehatch wrote:

Julian, wrote:

Sidehatch wrote:

jaded wrote:
And the American people.

nice and couldn't agree more…that's been my hope since Trump showed up day one
He certainty could pull a lot of people to vote for him as a 3rd party, but not enough to win

Hey, a wackadoo 3rd party candidate helped us get a Clinton in office the first time; why mess with success?

man an my inlaws wanted that wackadoo sooo bad as well as this current wackadoo

Must say Willy's lasting contribution to liberal ideology is waning over time
look at the impact of NAFTA, Welfare reform, lack of action on the drug war, 3 Strikes, freedom of marriage
as well as some of the seeds for the Mortgage crisis

I love slick willy, but he was a moderate who leaned a little further right than I would have preferred,

but ultimately he had to compromise to get stuff passed, just really didn't like some of the stuff that actually got passed

this is some of the dumbest shit i have read.. incomes grew.. people were doing well… that is the most important thing… i guess you forgot how the late 90s were… it was a golden age.. I remember being at parties at Tim's and everyone was talking about how great things were going.. don't you remember? unemployment going down down down.. stock market going up up up?

of course bill wasn't a left wing liberal.. how could he be? don't you remember how he got creamed in 94 by gingrich??? he had to tack to the center. .that is what the American people wanted.. that is how he got reelected..that is how he worked with congress to balance the budget and get things done..he worked within the context of what was possible!

now all of a sudden in 2016 we are going to judge the 1990s as a failure? 

Is everyone having problems reading, I never said there wasn't prosperity…can't really say he takes all the credit for that either…as jules said "he presided'
And yes us and all our white middle class friends did great in the 90's….so not a really good example

I said I like bill, but he was a contributor to things that today have really snowballed
even he admitted that he wished he didn't sign the 3 strikes

with 3 strikes, NAFTA and Welfare reform…do you think African American or poor minorities are better off

So we can't discuss these things?
These are important to me and I think their impact should be talked about

your argument seems to be that prosperity only benefited white people? is that your position? low unemployment and increased incomes were limited to white people?

I support free trade…I supported NAFTA and still support free trade agreements…. I don't see a point to producing shirts in South Carolina when they can make them far cheaper in Bangladesh…of course it tends to create economic dislocation…. the answer is not to keep making expensive shirts in South Carolina though..

jaded wrote:
Trump has said that if he's booted in a contested convention, he'd run as independent.  Which works for me, since he'd split the republican vote, and either H or S would win.  And the liberal supreme court. And the American people.

Some people forget that in order to win the Presidential election, one candidate has to get 270 votes in the Electoral College.

In absence of one candidate getting 270 Electoral College votes, the House of Representatives elects the next President of the United States.

If a third party candidate does moderately well enough to prohibit the largest vote getter from becoming President, is this the Congress you want electing the next President?

Believe me, Michael Bloomberg knows this all too well.

debatable whether Trump could win a state….  likeliest scenario is he will be the Republican nominee .. barring that he will run as independent and make it harder on the republican than the democratic party candidate…in that scenario I think a democratic candidate would be assured of picking up states like Ohio and Florida with a plurality… Trump could get serious votes in FL and OH but more than the democratic party candidate? I don't see it.

vansmack wrote:In absence of one candidate getting 270 Electoral College votes, the House of Representatives elects the next President of the United States.

If a third party candidate does moderately well enough to prohibit the largest vote getter from becoming President, is this the Congress you want electing the next President?

I think that is the scariest scenario I've ever heard
good flying spaghetti monster, please do not let that happen

Great 2 min vid by Robert Reich
4 Reasons Ted Cruz is Even More Dangerous than Donald Trump
good stuff

I have no idea.. don't even know how the caucus works…noticeable lack of polling on this one…


NV-R

Trump 43
Rubio 25
Cruz 22
Kasich 5
Carson 4

NV-R
Trump 38
Cruz 28
Rubio 25
Kasich 3
Deez Nuts 2
Carson 1


Edit…just found out that Deez Nuts has endorsed Kasich

Sidehatch wrote:

Edit…just found out that Deez Nuts has endorsed Kasich

I thought Deace nuts endorsed Cruz. If Cruz loses, no more Deace nuts!

Trump 37.4
Rubio 27.7
Cruz 21.7
Kasich 7.4
Carson 5.7

Sidehatch wrote:
NV-R
Trump 38
Cruz 28
Rubio 25
Kasich 3
Deez Nuts 2
Carson 1

Quoted for posterity before he attempts to change it when he realizes his numbers only add up to 97%.

hutch wrote:
Trump 42
Rubio 26
Cruz 22
Kasich 7
Carson 5

Quoted for posterity before he attempts to change it when he realizes his numbers add up to 102%.

Ironically, they could both still beat you.

The SideHutch combo poll average which comes reasonably close to 100%:

Trump 40
Rubio 25.5
Cruz 25
Kasich 5
Carson 3
Deez Nuts 1

jaded wrote:
Ironically, they could both still beat you.

Yes, they very well could. And there would be no shame in losing to the SideHutch Combo Poll Average. None at all.

listen Julian, you got zero cred as its pretty plain you are just rehashing nate silver's polls plus numbers…


i may revisit my numbers as i'm disheartened by how close to yours and sidehatch they are….