Red vs Blue: [Republican Primary] Make D&D Great Again Edition

Qanamil

ElJeffe wrote: »

Hey hey hey! We are ditching the one-thread-per-candidate thing and consolidating the primary threads into two flavors!

This is the Republican flavor - it tastes of gunpowder and liberty and hair product. Talk about Trump, or Carson, or Rubio, or those other guys who are hanging around the debate halls for some reason.

(Note that we will still have separate threads whenever a debate rolls around.)

Discuss!

Straight lift of the OP of the previous thread. Just creating it so there's a place to discuss the (for the most part) other side of the aisle.

1/13/16: 538 has started their primary forecast apparatus.
How We’re Forecasting The Primaries*
*And why we might be totally wrong.

Qanamil

And to start the talk:

Trump doesn't understand that women go to the bathroom as well.

Sanders is courting Trump supporters and that feels like playing with particularly crazy fire.

Latest (I think?) poll from CNN on 12/23: Bush falls below Paul, while Trump (39) increases lead after the last debate, followed by Cruz (18), Carson (10), Rubio (10), Christie(5), Paul (4), Bush (3), Huckabee (2), Kasich (2), Fiorina (1), rest <1. (438R LV)

I guess we're still chugging along towards a brokered convention for, uh, Cruz? WHO KNOWS.

a nu start

Fucking Bush.

On the one hand, I want Trump to have the nomination, because I think it would be hilarious to see him in the General. On the other hand, I'm just the slightest bit afraid he could actually win in the General.

skyknyt

The entire succession of tweets that lead to this one are pretty amazing, but I love this one the most:

https://twitter.com/SeanMcElwee/status/681287358717816832

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yg03q100E4g

milski

Qanamil wrote: »

And to start the talk:

Trump doesn't understand that women go to the bathroom as well.

Sanders is courting Trump supporters and that feels like playing with particularly crazy fire.

Latest (I think?) poll from CNN on 12/23: Bush falls below Paul, while Trump (39) increases lead after the last debate, followed by Cruz (18), Carson (10), Rubio (10), Christie(5), Paul (4), Bush (3), Huckabee (2), Kasich (2), Fiorina (1), rest <1. (438R LV)

I guess we're still chugging along towards a brokered convention for, uh, Cruz? WHO KNOWS.

So what exactly is Sanders doing to court Trump supporters? I'd find it unsurprising but also not very noteworthy if he's just going after that anti-establishment cred.

Qanamil

Don't really have much info on it beyond that he said as much in a pre-taped interview for Face the Nation. From CNN:

In a taped interview with CBS' "Face the Nation" on Sunday, the Vermont senator -- a self-proclaimed democratic-socialist -- made an overture to "angry" Americans frustrated by financial woes and concerned by foreign terrorism.

"What I'm suggesting is that what Trump has done with some success has taken that anger, taken those fears -- which are legitimate -- and converted them into anger against Mexicans, anger against Muslims," Sanders said.

But while he made the case that both candidates had tapped into a similar frustration, Sanders was careful to underline the different approach he offered -- a sharp contrast to Trump's often controversial or demeaning rhetorical spasms.

"For his working class and middle class support," Sanders said, "we can make the case that if we really want to address the issues that people are concerned about...we need policies that bring us together, that take on the greed of Wall Street the greed of corporate America and create a middle class that works for all of us rather than an economy that works just for a few."

So yeah, definitely seems like a focus on that anti-establishment fervor that is shared between supporters of each candidate.

TryCatcher

So, the GOP in Virginia is making voters sign a pledge of allegiance* and Trump is blasting them for it:

Donald Trump slammed the Republican Party of Virginia via Twitter on Sunday for its plan to require that 2016 primary voters sign a statement confirming they are Republicans.

Trump and others say the requirement could discourage independent and first-time voters from casting primary ballots in Virginia, where primaries are open to all registered voters.

According to some experts, the voter pledge has the potential to hurt Trump in particular, because his un­or­tho­dox candidacy has attracted voters disenchanted with traditional party politics.

“It begins, Republican Party of Virginia, controlled by the RNC, is working hard to disallow independent, unaffiliated and new voters. BAD!” Trump said in one of five tweets sent over several hours Sunday.

The Virginia GOP declined to respond and referred questions to a statement issued by party executive director John Findlay on Dec. 17, after the executive committee voted to require the nine-word pledge in the state’s March 1 primary. The pledge reads: “My signature below indicates that I am a Republican.”

Findlay called the requirement “a reasonable threshold” that was not intended to target a specific candidate or group of voters and was approved “with a simple goal: to ensure Republican voters select our Republican nominee in 2016.”

Hmmm. Is almost as if they don't want new voters that could decide that they want an anti-establishment candidate. Also, making VOTERS sign a pledge of allegiance is a disgusting display of hubris.

Ardol

skyknyt wrote: »

The entire succession of tweets that lead to this one are pretty amazing, but I love this one the most:

https://twitter.com/SeanMcElwee/status/681287358717816832

snip

https://twitter.com/SeanMcElwee/status/680787079014576128

These are incredible. What a tremendous asshole.

TryCatcher

Qanamil wrote: »

Don't really have much info on it beyond that he said as much in a pre-taped interview for Face the Nation. From CNN:

In a taped interview with CBS' "Face the Nation" on Sunday, the Vermont senator -- a self-proclaimed democratic-socialist -- made an overture to "angry" Americans frustrated by financial woes and concerned by foreign terrorism.

"What I'm suggesting is that what Trump has done with some success has taken that anger, taken those fears -- which are legitimate -- and converted them into anger against Mexicans, anger against Muslims," Sanders said.

But while he made the case that both candidates had tapped into a similar frustration, Sanders was careful to underline the different approach he offered -- a sharp contrast to Trump's often controversial or demeaning rhetorical spasms.

"For his working class and middle class support," Sanders said, "we can make the case that if we really want to address the issues that people are concerned about...we need policies that bring us together, that take on the greed of Wall Street the greed of corporate America and create a middle class that works for all of us rather than an economy that works just for a few."

So yeah, definitely seems like a focus on that anti-establishment fervor that is shared between supporters of each candidate.

And the working-class vote. After all, "It's the economy, stupid!". Letting Trump frame the entire discussion about jobs and the rest of the economy as he wishes is letting him walk unopposed to the White House.

Captain Marcus

TryCatcher wrote: »

And the working-class vote. After all, "It's the economy, stupid!". Letting Trump frame the entire discussion about jobs and the rest of the economy as he wishes is letting him walk unopposed to the White House.

And how is that possible, hmmm? How is the presumptive Democratic candidate* not be as good for the common man as Trump?

*we're not talking about Bernie, here. Also I'll be offline for 12 hours tomorrow but I'll get back to this, you betcha

milski

Captain Marcus wrote: »

TryCatcher wrote: »

And the working-class vote. After all, "It's the economy, stupid!". Letting Trump frame the entire discussion about jobs and the rest of the economy as he wishes is letting him walk unopposed to the White House.

And how is that possible, hmmm? How is the presumptive Democratic candidate* not be as good for the common man as Trump?

*we're not talking about Bernie, here. Also I'll be offline for 12 hours tomorrow but I'll get back to this, you betcha

I don't think he's saying that and I don't think anybody agrees with that statement. I think what he's saying is that letting Trump go unchallenged on his particular brand of rhetoric is a good way to let him walk to the White House, since angry-but-awful still gets votes.

TryCatcher

Captain Marcus wrote: »

TryCatcher wrote: »

And the working-class vote. After all, "It's the economy, stupid!". Letting Trump frame the entire discussion about jobs and the rest of the economy as he wishes is letting him walk unopposed to the White House.

And how is that possible, hmmm? How is the presumptive Democratic candidate* not be as good for the common man as Trump?

*we're not talking about Bernie, here. Also I'll be offline for 12 hours tomorrow but I'll get back to this, you betcha

One thing is facts and the other how the discussion is framed. But then a massive complain about this Primary is that it has been basically rotating around Trump. Bernie was right when he blasted the media for that.

Readed some of that Twitter chain, and it pretty much puts the gory details on the obvious: Jeb!'s only merit is his last name. The specifics are that he used his father's political connections to buy favors and slither his way to the top.

Mill

Qanamil wrote: »

And to start the talk:

Trump doesn't understand that women go to the bathroom as well.

Sanders is courting Trump supporters and that feels like playing with particularly crazy fire.

Latest (I think?) poll from CNN on 12/23: Bush falls below Paul, while Trump (39) increases lead after the last debate, followed by Cruz (18), Carson (10), Rubio (10), Christie(5), Paul (4), Bush (3), Huckabee (2), Kasich (2), Fiorina (1), rest <1. (438R LV)

I guess we're still chugging along towards a brokered convention for, uh, Cruz? WHO KNOWS.

The bolded are what would be considered the "insurgent" candidates (note, I didn't bold Huckebee's name because I don't think he is considered one). If I was the GOP establishment, I wouldn't just be worried about Trump polling at 39%. I'd be worried that over 70% of the people polled, prefer a non-established candidate.

Also worth might as well mention that Graham has dropped from the race. So I guess all three of his supporters can now go vote for someone else.

The pledge by the VA GOP is pretty vile. I don't know how badly that hurts Trump. I mean the people that have pushed for the vile thing, have mostly been teapers. Granted, IIRC most of the scum that have benefited from doing conventions, have been endorsing Rubio. So it might help Rubio, assuming it doesn't get shot down by the courts. Last I heard, the more sane members of the party didn't want to go with a pledge because not only did they feel it could hurt the party brand, but they were also concerned that it might not survive a legal challenge (the primaries are paid for by the state).

Polaritie

TryCatcher wrote: »

So, the GOP in Virginia is making voters sign a pledge of allegiance* and Trump is blasting them for it:

Donald Trump slammed the Republican Party of Virginia via Twitter on Sunday for its plan to require that 2016 primary voters sign a statement confirming they are Republicans.

Trump and others say the requirement could discourage independent and first-time voters from casting primary ballots in Virginia, where primaries are open to all registered voters.

According to some experts, the voter pledge has the potential to hurt Trump in particular, because his un­or­tho­dox candidacy has attracted voters disenchanted with traditional party politics.

“It begins, Republican Party of Virginia, controlled by the RNC, is working hard to disallow independent, unaffiliated and new voters. BAD!” Trump said in one of five tweets sent over several hours Sunday.

The Virginia GOP declined to respond and referred questions to a statement issued by party executive director John Findlay on Dec. 17, after the executive committee voted to require the nine-word pledge in the state’s March 1 primary. The pledge reads: “My signature below indicates that I am a Republican.”

Findlay called the requirement “a reasonable threshold” that was not intended to target a specific candidate or group of voters and was approved “with a simple goal: to ensure Republican voters select our Republican nominee in 2016.”

Hmmm. Is almost as if they don't want new voters that could decide that they want an anti-establishment candidate. Also, making VOTERS sign a pledge of allegiance is a disgusting display of hubris.

I think there's a certain amount of... I forget the term/idiom for it to this. It's not so fun to do subtle vote suppression when it might hurt you is it?

Rhesus Positive

Polaritie wrote: »

TryCatcher wrote: »

So, the GOP in Virginia is making voters sign a pledge of allegiance* and Trump is blasting them for it:

Donald Trump slammed the Republican Party of Virginia via Twitter on Sunday for its plan to require that 2016 primary voters sign a statement confirming they are Republicans.

Trump and others say the requirement could discourage independent and first-time voters from casting primary ballots in Virginia, where primaries are open to all registered voters.

According to some experts, the voter pledge has the potential to hurt Trump in particular, because his un­or­tho­dox candidacy has attracted voters disenchanted with traditional party politics.

“It begins, Republican Party of Virginia, controlled by the RNC, is working hard to disallow independent, unaffiliated and new voters. BAD!” Trump said in one of five tweets sent over several hours Sunday.

The Virginia GOP declined to respond and referred questions to a statement issued by party executive director John Findlay on Dec. 17, after the executive committee voted to require the nine-word pledge in the state’s March 1 primary. The pledge reads: “My signature below indicates that I am a Republican.”

Findlay called the requirement “a reasonable threshold” that was not intended to target a specific candidate or group of voters and was approved “with a simple goal: to ensure Republican voters select our Republican nominee in 2016.”

Hmmm. Is almost as if they don't want new voters that could decide that they want an anti-establishment candidate. Also, making VOTERS sign a pledge of allegiance is a disgusting display of hubris.

I think there's a certain amount of... I forget the term/idiom for it to this. It's not so fun to do subtle vote suppression when it might hurt you is it?

Hoist by his own petard?

Although I'm not sure how much Trump has been banging the "electoral fraud is bad so let's make it harder for poor people" drum. It may have been drowned out by everything else he's saying, of course.

Quid

How does Trump not understand women going to the bathroom? I demand explanations.

Absalon

Jim Webb is exactly what I expect a fossil fuel-"democrat" to be.

DevoutlyApathetic

Quid wrote: »

How does Trump not understand women going to the bathroom? I demand explanations.

Oh it's not just women, he's never used a bathroom, he's way too classy for that.

Ardol wrote: »

skyknyt wrote: »

The entire succession of tweets that lead to this one are pretty amazing, but I love this one the most:
https: //twitter.com/SeanMcElwee/status/681287358717816832
snip

https: //twitter.com/SeanMcElwee/status/680787079014576128

These are incredible. What a tremendous asshole.

Woa, hold on there. Jindal was the in touch one? What the fuck.

Viskod

Well if by "in touch" you mean capable of realizing an obvious photo op when he sees one.

OptimusZed

Quid wrote: »

How does Trump not understand women going to the bathroom? I demand explanations.

I'm not sure if this is what you mean, but Trump did some stump riffing about Clinton's bathroom break during the debate. He called it "disgusting" and said a bunch of stuff that was demonstrably untrue. So, par for the course.

milski

OptimusZed wrote: »

Quid wrote: »

How does Trump not understand women going to the bathroom? I demand explanations.

I'm not sure if this is what you mean, but Trump did some stump riffing about Clinton's bathroom break during the debate. He called it "disgusting" and said a bunch of stuff that was demonstrably untrue. So, par for the course.

Yeah, I think that's what Quid was talking about. I think it's just general sexism plus immaturity, since there are a surprising number of people who simply cannot handle any implication of bodily functions stronger than in a PG movie.

Variable

I don't have the exact quote in front of me but was there anything sexist about it?

it's an entirely ludicrous statement but I don't recall him only taking issue because she's a woman. the 'schlonged' comment was later I believe

idk, he's sexist and gross, I don't want to sound like I'm defending him at all, it's just that saying that going to the bathroom is disgusting doesn't sound inherently sexist.

Mr Khan

It's a baffling choice for "potential avenue of attack" though. Next he'll complain that Hillary has the audacity to eat.

belligerent

maybe that everyone goes to the bathroom and the only person he talked about was a woman?

I don't have factual proof but I have to imagine that she wasn't literally the only one who went to the bathroom during the debate.

milski

Variable wrote: »

I don't have the exact quote in front of me but was there anything sexist about it?

it's an entirely ludicrous statement but I don't recall him only taking issue because she's a woman. the 'schlonged' comment was later I believe

idk, he's sexist and gross, I don't want to sound like I'm defending him at all, it's just that saying that going to the bathroom is disgusting doesn't sound inherently sexist.

Nothing explicit but saying it's disgusting a woman had to use the bathroom (and took longer to do so) is pretty bad. Kind of like the "blood coming out of her wherever" line, it's just neutral enough to not be explicitly sexist while still pretty clearly implying a common sexist statement ("girls don't poop" or "she's just on her period"l.

Variable

she was the only one who got back late on live tv I'm quite sure

sorry this is a super pedantic tangent honestly. I don't disagree that he's sexist and that things he said later that night were particularly such and that the whole thing is incredibly dumb. my minor gripe is not really important.

OptimusZed

Mr Khan wrote: »

It's a baffling choice for "potential avenue of attack" though. Next he'll complain that Hillary has the audacity to eat.

It's not when you consider his audience.

It's definitely a fart jokes crowd.

TryCatcher

Trump is feeling the heat after Sanders's criticisms, so he's changing his tune:

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump has appeared to take a new position on US wages.

After previously saying wages were "too high," Trump instead stressed Monday that they were actually "too low."

In the Monday-morning tweet, Trump also said that good jobs were "too few" and that people had "lost faith in our leaders."

The apparent shift came after Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), a Democratic presidential candidate, said in a Sunday interview that his message would resonate among Trump's working-class supporters.

TryCatcher

Mr Khan wrote: »

It's a baffling choice for "potential avenue of attack" though. Next he'll complain that Hillary has the audacity to eat.

Is the same line of his health report: Trump is healthy and in shape, Hillary is old, fragile and sick.

Is extremely childish, but hey, that hasn't mattered so far :rotate:

OptimusZed

TryCatcher wrote: »

Mr Khan wrote: »

It's a baffling choice for "potential avenue of attack" though. Next he'll complain that Hillary has the audacity to eat.

Is the same line of his health report: Trump is healthy and in shape, Hillary is old, fragile and sick.

Is extremely childish, but hey, that hasn't mattered so far :rotate:

It also has the added bonus if playing into the misogynist idea that old women are weaker than old men.

Panda4You

TryCatcher wrote: »

Trump is feeling the heat after Sanders's criticisms, so he's changing his tune:

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump has appeared to take a new position on US wages.

After previously saying wages were "too high," Trump instead stressed Monday that they were actually "too low."

In the Monday-morning tweet, Trump also said that good jobs were "too few" and that people had "lost faith in our leaders."

The apparent shift came after Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), a Democratic presidential candidate, said in a Sunday interview that his message would resonate among Trump's working-class supporters.

Still the best the GOP has had to offer for the last ~20 years.

Shorty

new thread seems like a good time for current Vegas odds:

at the top we have Rubio with 3/2

then Trump>Cruz>Carson>Christie>Bush>Kasich>Fiorina>Paul>buncha jokers

in the past month or so, we've seen Carson and Bush drop, Fiorina move up slightly to replace some other longshot, and Rubio move up a few pegs

interestingly, I bet most of you could have ventured a guess that's pretty close to this order--their models are pretty close to just polling data, though obviously they're bullish on Trump

expect things to change once the actual primaries start

and, as usual, fuck this stupid country for having yearlong presidential elections

Preacher

I can't see Rubio at all. He's just so bad at everything. Like if Bush wasn't such a failure Rubio being the John Edwards of this campaign would get the ink.

Shorty

I think this is a pretty good example of succeeding only because your competition is so terrible

the reason everyone said Rubio was such a longshot back in June was because Bush was in the race

nobody could have predicted his campaign would be such a trash fire

so now he's the most competent establishment candidate and is therefore in the lead more by default than for any special competence on his part

Preacher

But he's not even that competent. Anytime he becomes the focal point he fucks up, he's sparred with Cruz and come out the worse of it and Cruz is an idiot pedigrees not withstanding.

V1m

Panda4You wrote: »

TryCatcher wrote: »

Trump is feeling the heat after Sanders's criticisms, so he's changing his tune:

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump has appeared to take a new position on US wages.

After previously saying wages were "too high," Trump instead stressed Monday that they were actually "too low."

In the Monday-morning tweet, Trump also said that good jobs were "too few" and that people had "lost faith in our leaders."

The apparent shift came after Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), a Democratic presidential candidate, said in a Sunday interview that his message would resonate among Trump's working-class supporters.

Still the best the GOP has had to offer for the last ~20 years.

"Most accidentally honest"

Viskod

Well he did have that surprisingly clever sabotage to the ACA. But publicly, he always does come off as pretty bumbling. I just can't see him without remembering him clumsily reaching off screen during his response to the state of the union to grab a bottle of water, and the leaning to it to quickly take a sip like leaning to the side of the camera somehow made it more stealthy.

Shorty

Preacher wrote: »

But he's not even that competent. Anytime he becomes the focal point he fucks up, he's sparred with Cruz and come out the worse of it and Cruz is an idiot pedigrees not withstanding.

yeah, and because of that, some might make the argument that he's just the latest flavor of not-trump

but we shall see

Preacher

Who Rubio or Cruz? Cruz actually has some evangical support. Rubio has establishment people wishing he was trying more in Iowa or New Hampshire instead of his current strat of letting serious people declare him the real winner of the current pissing contests.

Shorty

Rubio

Cruz has a loyal base of supporters all his own, yeah, but that hasn't worked out well for Santorum and I'd say Cruz manages to be even more unlikable

Lanz

TryCatcher wrote: »

Trump is feeling the heat after Sanders's criticisms, so he's changing his tune:

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump has appeared to take a new position on US wages.

After previously saying wages were "too high," Trump instead stressed Monday that they were actually "too low."

In the Monday-morning tweet, Trump also said that good jobs were "too few" and that people had "lost faith in our leaders."

The apparent shift came after Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), a Democratic presidential candidate, said in a Sunday interview that his message would resonate among Trump's working-class supporters.

Apparently he also couched it behind more minimum wage bashing too, so it's not exactly that strong a change.

Sanders should take this moment to point out that Trump's early on advice for revitalizing the automobile manufacturing sector was to move them out of states with strong unions to break labor and drive industry wages down, then bring them back once the union members are desperate for work:

Trump disclosed in an interview with The Detroit News Wednesday that Ford CEO Mark Fields wrote to him explaining the automaker’s planned $2.5 billion investment in Mexico after Trump criticized Ford in June. And Trump suggested one way to stop automakers’ expansion to Mexico is by moving some production out of Michigan to lower-wage states.

“I don’t like what’s happening,” Trump said in the 15-minute telephone interview. “We’re losing our jobs. We’re losing our wealth. We’re losing our country ... Why can’t we do it in this country? It’s an incredible thing that we’re not allowed to make our product.”

...

Many automakers have decided they can’t build small cars profitably in the United States. Auto workers in Mexico make as little as $9 an hour. In addition, Mexico has dozens of free trade agreements around the world, free or nearly free land on which to build, and fewer regulatory hurdles.

Trump dismissed the lower-wages argument.

He said U.S. automakers could shift production away from Michigan to communities where autoworkers would make less. “You can go to different parts of the United States and then ultimately you’d do full-circle — you’ll come back to Michigan because those guys are going to want their jobs back even if it is less,” Trump said. “We can do the rotation in the United States — it doesn’t have to be in Mexico.”

He said that after Michigan “loses a couple of plants — all of sudden you’ll make good deals in your own area.”

Although wages are lower at non-union U.S. plants owned by foreign automakers, hourly employees for Detroit’s Big Three are paid the same no matter what state they’re in, under the terms of United Auto Workers contracts.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/2015/08/12/trump-autos/31589899/

Real strong defender of the working class there, that Trump