It's not real clear, no official announcement yet, but Ben Carson will not attend the debate tomorrow. John Kasich said during an event that Carson told him he's out... and I believe him. So I'm saying, Ben Carson is out of the race. I don't see how this affects anyone else.

Carson's out. His not going to the debate announcement was basically a suspension. He said he cant see a politically feasible way for him to win.

Interesting article on the BBC - It ranks candidates based on their stances on a number or things from moderate to extreme, and in this regard Trump is only really radical on immigration.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-35703300

Interesting article on the BBC - It ranks candidates based on their stances on a number or things from moderate to extreme, and in this regard Trump is only really radical on immigration.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-35703300

That's what I've been trying to tell everyone. He's not a Conservative, and that's the reason why the establishment Republicans are trying so hard to destroy him. Trump will deal with the illegal immigration problem, and do what Congress has never been able to do... immigration reform. How will he do it?... by enforcing the immigration laws that are on the books that have been horribly ignored for decades. If Congress doesn't like the enforcement of our laws... then they will be very motivated to change them. Just think like Trump, and you can see the method behind his madness... or is it genius?

 

The law to build the wall was signed by George W. Bush in 2006... it was never built because they didn't fund it. So he doesn't need to pass a new law to build the wall, he only needs to fund it and enforce the current law. They are trying so hard to get Trump to talk specifics, but he's too smart to show his hand. I really want to know what things would be like if we didn't have a politician in charge.

They used to call this the "silly" season... I'm renaming it... it's now called the "insane" season.

 

I'm so confused about how much is happening, I don't really know how to begin to explain it. The Republicans began this election process with the strongest field of candidates in history. They are now left with the people's choice... an eccentric billionaire that has a knack for saying anything that comes into his head.

 

The Republican establishment are so desperate to stop Trump, that they are talking about taking the nomination from him through a brokered convention, or letting him have the Republican nomination, and running a third party Conservative candidate. If they follow through with either of these options, the party blows up, and Hillary Clinton will be President, unless of course she's forced out because she's a criminal. Then we will have whoever they want.

 

The smart thing to do is to put lipstick on your pig and take it to the pageant... but politicians are an unusual bunch of idiots. They are so full of themselves, and believe they know so much better than everyone else, that it is their civic duty to deny the people of their choice, and accept failure in glorious, spectacular, splendor. There is still time, and great hope, that they will pull their heads from their over-sized rectums and just do what needs to be done... but these morons allowed Obama a second term, and there is nothing they are capable of that will surprise me.

 

Ben Carson spoke at CPAC yesterday, and is officially out. They are calling this Super Saturday... 4 states for Republicans. Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Maine will decide on what to do... support Donald Trump, or try to block his nomination. That's pretty much the choice that is left, and it's causing so much infighting in the party, more than I have ever seen. If they didn't want Trump, they should have never allowed him to run. We shall see...

Could they have stopped him from running? Probalby they could have technically, but could they have just come out and say "no"?

 

And offcourse Trump isn't conservative, he is radical, there is a difference

Could they have stopped him from running? Probalby they could have technically, but could they have just come out and say "no"?

 

And offcourse Trump isn't conservative, he is radical, there is a difference

The RNC could have easily not recognized his Republican status and refused him a place on the debate stage. In the early stages, when he was widely viewed as an undesirable candidate, they would have received little backlash from the rank and file. They allowed him the time to prove to the people he was serious about running for President.

 

Donald Trump is not radical. The only issue you can say he is taking a radical position on is illegal immigration... and that is only if you view enforcement of current US law as radical. Everything else is a moderate position, or laying out an opening position on negotiations. This is why Conservatives are going nuts, moderate Democrats are liking him, and Socialist Progressives despise him.

Current Delegate Count

 

Donald Trump - 336

Ted Cruz - 234

Marco Rubio - 113

 

Needed to win - 1,237

There are several sources for this scoreboard... all are slightly different. I'll use CNN.

The Republican Party's problems go far far deeper than Trump. 

 

1. Their candidates are all crap. I know they got up on stage together and praised each others strengths but when you get down to it, they are all crap. Soundbite Rubio, the Pyramids are grain silos Carson, I don't need swing voters Cruz, I am the very definition of toxic branding Bush, bridgegate Christie and some other people. Trump is not doing well because he is a good candidate, but because there is no electable, ideologically sound and competent opposition.

 

2. The media are not accurately reporting the race. Trump is super popular! Trump is running away with it! Trump is crushing all opponents! False. I remember this time period in the 2012 race when the media were reporting it as still wide open at a time when Romney had a higher voter share than Trump has to date, had actually won majorities in states and was considered acceptable by a far larger proportion of the party. Trump has yet to win a majority in a single state. When asked if they would be satisfied with Trump as a nominee, over half of Republican voters in exit polls say no. If the media are going to paint him as a run away winner no matter what the facts say, its hard for another person to get traction. 

 

3. Tied into point 1, only Rubio has over 50% of exit poll voters saying that they will be satisfied with him as a candidate, which is 53%. Trump has less than 50%. No candidate has won a majority in any state. Bernie Sanders, a 74 year old self-declared socialist is more popular than any Republican candidate, if you compare vote shares in their respective primaries. If your leading candidate can barely get over 1/3rd of the vote, and no more than half your party can even tolerate any candidate, it does not say much for party unity or strength. 

 

I think a contested convention is inevitable at this point. There is no unifying candidate in the party, and there is no good candidate in the party. Trump will be blocked because the Republican party does not want him to be their face. He will run 3rd party. He won't do very well because the only group he is less popular with than the Republican party is your average American voter. But he will do well enough to draw away Republican voters deprive the Republican Party of oxygen. And Clinton will smile all the way to the White house. 

 

Could they have stopped him from running? Probalby they could have technically, but could they have just come out and say "no"?

 

And offcourse Trump isn't conservative, he is radical, there is a difference

The RNC could have easily not recognized his Republican status and refused him a place on the debate stage. In the early stages, when he was widely viewed as an undesirable candidate, they would have received little backlash from the rank and file. They allowed him the time to prove to the people he was serious about running for President.

 

Donald Trump is not radical. The only issue you can say he is taking a radical position on is illegal immigration... and that is only if you view enforcement of current US law as radical. Everything else is a moderate position, or laying out an opening position on negotiations. This is why Conservatives are going nuts, moderate Democrats are liking him, and Socialist Progressives despise him.

 

Well i think halfly they already saw the thunderclouds hanging overhead (duth expression, dunno if it translates well ) but they basically had to allow him to run and hope any other candidates out-preformed him. Otherwise he would definatly have gone 3rd party and you wouldn't even be seeing a race now.

 

Yes he is radical, his "opening position on negotations" are almost all radical, you don't "bid high and go down later" with policies concerning your nation! Know that "radical" doesn't mean "non-presently adhered to", I just mean that he comes off as a complete radical cause he is. He is the epitomy of the highschool bully so many of them US sitcoms show.

 

Heck most like him either for the "not a establishment person" (which is a excuse to just say he aint GOP approved, the guy himself IS establishment like the rich guy he is >_>) or for his highly alienating views (look, I didn't say any "PC" words )

If that is your definition of "radical"... it's exactly what my country needs right now. My definition of radical is just about every European leader over there, so I think we're about even on the radical score. The USA is what matters to me, and I actually have a vote. I don't know a thing about any of your leaders, and I don't really care.

Just a quick summary of what needs to happen for a wildcard brokered convention scenario:

A) Republican National Commitee needs to propose to change Rule 40 to lower the Pre-Req for recieving open delegates Delegates must approve rule change day 1 C) No canidate reaches majority(Seems likely) D) Delegates either 1) Work out a deal among current contenders and swap in a way that moves someone to be the nominee 2) They choose a wildcard like Romney. 

Now onto the election anaylsis:

The RNC is posed to end trump just like Romney ended Newt in florida. They have the cash to send him to the ground and when they do exercise that power even if Trump manages to stay afloat we cant let him be the nominee we already did hillarys job for him.

Now to respond to this:

 

 

 

Could they have stopped him from running? Probalby they could have technically, but could they have just come out and say "no"?

 

And offcourse Trump isn't conservative, he is radical, there is a difference

The RNC could have easily not recognized his Republican status and refused him a place on the debate stage. In the early stages, when he was widely viewed as an undesirable candidate, they would have received little backlash from the rank and file. They allowed him the time to prove to the people he was serious about running for President.

 

Donald Trump is not radical. The only issue you can say he is taking a radical position on is illegal immigration... and that is only if you view enforcement of current US law as radical. Everything else is a moderate position, or laying out an opening position on negotiations. This is why Conservatives are going nuts, moderate Democrats are liking him, and Socialist Progressives despise him.

 

Well i think halfly they already saw the thunderclouds hanging overhead (duth expression, dunno if it translates well ) but they basically had to allow him to run and hope any other candidates out-preformed him. Otherwise he would definatly have gone 3rd party and you wouldn't even be seeing a race now.

 

Yes he is radical, his "opening position on negotations" are almost all radical, you don't "bid high and go down later" with policies concerning your nation! Know that "radical" doesn't mean "non-presently adhered to", I just mean that he comes off as a complete radical cause he is. He is the epitomy of the highschool bully so many of them US sitcoms show.

 

Heck most like him either for the "not a establishment person" (which is a excuse to just say he aint GOP approved, the guy himself IS establishment like the rich guy he is >_>) or for his highly alienating views (look, I didn't say any "PC" words )

 

First Trump is not radical in any position he holds except immigration from terms of conservative ideology. The rhetoric he uses may seem radical because the way he describes policies that are mainstream conservative principles are intended to sound revolutionary. Second: He's not a bully, he is a guy who is forced to be vicious in reply to attacks. Trump is allowed to be painted as representative of all that is stupid, he is subjected to ridicule about his hair, his policies, and assumptions about his personality. He is attacked by the RNC and laughed at by the media. For some reason when liberals and his opposition BULLY HIM its fine but when he strikes back oh god he is so bad.

Trump got up on stage and mocked a person for being disabled. He is a bully. A pathetic schoolyard bully.

If that is your definition of "radical"... it's exactly what my country needs right now. My definition of radical is just about every European leader over there, so I think we're about even on the radical score. The USA is what matters to me, and I actually have a vote. I don't know a thing about any of your leaders, and I don't really care.

 My definition of radical involves invoking a black&white responce to issues. Nuance is lost on nearly all your presidentional candidates and I see that as an issue yes.

 

We got radicals in Europe aswell, but for some reason they get far less attention to spout such black&white standpoints then the politicians who involke nuance towards issues.

 

And I said it before, you are free to care about national or EU level policies, as they can affect you directly. Its the same as I only really care about US federal elections, as those impact nearly the whole world.

 

 

Well i think halfly they already saw the thunderclouds hanging overhead (duth expression, dunno if it translates well ) but they basically had to allow him to run and hope any other candidates out-preformed him. Otherwise he would definatly have gone 3rd party and you wouldn't even be seeing a race now.

 

Yes he is radical, his "opening position on negotations" are almost all radical, you don't "bid high and go down later" with policies concerning your nation! Know that "radical" doesn't mean "non-presently adhered to", I just mean that he comes off as a complete radical cause he is. He is the epitomy of the highschool bully so many of them US sitcoms show.

 

Heck most like him either for the "not a establishment person" (which is a excuse to just say he aint GOP approved, the guy himself IS establishment like the rich guy he is >_>) or for his highly alienating views (look, I didn't say any "PC" words )

First Trump is not radical in any position he holds except immigration from terms of conservative ideology. The rhetoric he uses may seem radical because the way he describes policies that are mainstream conservative principles are intended to sound revolutionary. Second: He's not a bully, he is a guy who is forced to be vicious in reply to attacks. Trump is allowed to be painted as representative of all that is stupid, he is subjected to ridicule about his hair, his policies, and assumptions about his personality. He is attacked by the RNC and laughed at by the media. For some reason when liberals and his opposition BULLY HIM its fine but when he strikes back oh god he is so bad.

 

.

Sure some "attacks" aimed at him are outright the same vitriol he spouts, but generally he started the vitriol delivery in the first place (yes I am going for a "but he started first!" rhetoric).

 

He is probably a nice person in private, more the likely a brilliant businessmen for himself and his investors. But a politician? A person meant to represent his voters, and by definition of presidency the whole of the US, sorry, not seeing it.

My definition of radical involves invoking a black&white responce to issues. Nuance is lost on nearly all your presidentional candidates and I see that as an issue yes.

I'd say that 's populist, but not radical

As I predicted somewhere on these forums in last fe w weeks, Rubio is taking the hit for allying with the establishment. It's defacto now, its going to be Trump or Cruz. Both, loathed by establishment. I'm loving the drama.

 

Tbh, I'd prefer Trump over Cruz for the simple reason that Trump isn't a masked religious fundamentalist like Cruz.

radicals can be populist (but usually aren't cause of their extreme standpoint), but populists don't have to be radicals (as some people know someone in their sphere of friends that would benefit from a nuanced standpoint).

 

populist is just parroting the loudest voices heard in a crowd, it can be that its also held by the majority of the populace but doesn't has to be.

As I predicted somewhere on these forums in last fe w weeks, Rubio is taking the hit for allying with the establishment. It's defacto now, its going to be Trump or Cruz. Both, loathed by establishment. I'm loving the drama.

Tbh, I'd prefer Trump over Cruz for the simple reason that Trump isn't a masked religious fundamentalist like Cruz.

Agreed. Cruz is just...ugh

Edited March 6, 201610 yr by ccabal86

On the surface, Super Saturday looks to be a tie. Donald Trump took 2 states and Ted Cruz took 2 states.

 

BUT! That's a big but because Trump LOST yesterday. I was totally expecting Trump to take all 4, with a chance he could possibly lose Kansas due to the Oklahoma effect... there are just an overwhelming amount of pure Conservatives in Kansas. The loss comes from the fact that even though they split states, Ted Cruz won more delegates than Trump.

 

This is proof positive that the Romney-Establishment, scorched earth blitzkrieg on Donald Trump, has had some effect. The troubling thing about it is... it was supposed to help their chosen golden boy, Marco Rubio. Instead it's Ted, that received all the support.

 

The establishment views Trump as Frankenstein, a party made monster, created by the angry masses due to broken promises, and not standing up to the criminal Obama cartel. If Trump is Frankenstein... Ted Cruz is the Mummy. Ted Cruz was the one man in this race that actually did keep his promises, and actually did stand up to the criminal Obama cartel. Establishment doesn't want Ted either... Cruz makes the establishment look weak... so they have a bit of a dilemma.

 

Current Delegate Count

 

Donald Trump - 389

Ted Cruz - 302

Marco Rubio - 126

 

Needed to win - 1,237

 

If they really want to stop Trump, Rubio and Kasich should drop out immediately, and let Cruz do his best to beat him... but that's not gonna happen. Trump actually challenged them to do it last night, which pretty much seals up any chance of that happening because they never want to look like Donald is getting everything he wants.

 

Their hope is to deny him sufficient delegates to win the nomination, and by some miracle, they steal it from Trump and give it to someone else at the convention... and they all want to be the one. Wishful thinking. Rubio will be forced out when he loses Florida to Trump, and the same with Kasich in Ohio. It would be strange to me for Ohio to vote for Kasich, even though he's their Governor, because you are voting for someone who has no chance to win, but there has been a lot of protest voting this season, and they may very well give it to John in Ohio.

 

Puerto Rico has some say today, and will certainly cast their votes for Rubio. Trump is still on target to win the nomination, and it will take much more to keep him from it, but they did beat him on Saturday March 5. We shall see...

I think Rubio will try to stay in, and I think the establishment will try to keep him in. The simple reason is that at the moment, there is still no state (I think) that has given a 50% vote share to one candidate. If the contest ended today then there would be no person who can claim a mandate in this race. By keeping the vote split, it makes it easier to have a contested convention and to present Rubio as a compromise candidate that can unify the party. 

 

On the other hand, I think this could be the end of the GOP. There are very clearly 2 separate camps both of which are not willing to tolerate each others candidates anymore. Fear of democrat power may keep them together for a while, but can you really see the party sticking together much longer? 

On the other hand, I think this could be the end of the GOP. There are very clearly 2 separate camps both of which are not willing to tolerate each others candidates anymore. Fear of democrat power may keep them together for a while, but can you really see the party sticking together much longer? 

 

This rather lengthy Vox piece on authoritarianism elaborates on this point.  I've copied some of the relevant text:

Authoritarians generally and Trump voters specifically, we found, were highly likely to support five policies:

1. Using military force over diplomacy against countries that threaten the United States
2. Changing the Constitution to bar citizenship for children of illegal immigrants
3. Imposing extra airport checks on passengers who appear to be of Middle Eastern descent in order to curb terrorism
4. Requiring all citizens to carry a national ID card at all times to show to a police officer on request, to curb terrorism
5. Allowing the federal government to scan all phone calls for calls to any number linked to terrorism

What these policies share in common is an outsize fear of threats, physical and social, and, more than that, a desire to meet those threats with severe government action — with policies that are authoritarian not just in style but in actuality. The scale of the desired response is, in some ways, what most distinguishes authoritarians from the rest of the GOP.

 

"Many Republicans seem to be threatened by terrorism, violence, and cultural diversity, but that's not unique to Trump supporters," Feldman told me.

 

"It seems to be the action side of authoritarianism — the willingness to use government power to eliminate the threats — that is most clear among Trump supporters," he added.

 

This helps explain why the GOP has had such a hard time co-opting Trump's supporters, even though those supporters' immediate policy concerns, such as limiting immigration or protecting national security, line up with party orthodoxy. The real divide is over how far to go in responding. And the party establishment is simply unwilling to call for such explicitly authoritarian policies.

 

...

 

But while the party may try to match Trump's authoritarian rhetoric, and its candidates may grudgingly embrace some of his harsher policies toward immigrants or Muslims, in the end a mainstream political party cannot fully commit to extreme authoritarian action the way Trump can.

 

That will be a problem for the party. Just look at where the Tea Party has left the Republican establishment. The Tea Party delivered the House to the GOP in 2010, but ultimately left the party in an unresolved civil war. Tea Party candidates have challenged moderates and centrists, leaving the GOP caucus divided and chaotic.

 

Now a similar divide is playing out at the presidential level, with results that are even more destructive for the Republican Party. Authoritarians may be a slight majority within the GOP, and thus able to force their will within the party, but they are too few and their views too unpopular to win a national election on their own.

 

And so the rise of authoritarianism as a force within American politics means we may now have a de facto three-party system: the Democrats, the GOP establishment, and the GOP authoritarians.

 

And although the latter two groups are presently forced into an awkward coalition, the GOP establishment has demonstrated a complete inability to regain control over the renegade authoritarians, and the authoritarians are actively opposed to the establishment's centrist goals and uninterested in its economic platform.

On the other point, Marco Rubio's win in Puerto Rico today was the first time any Republican candidate received more than 50% of the vote in any contest this cycle.

As expected, Maco Rubio "cruzed" to an easy win in Puerto Rico, scoring a badly needed 23 delegates. Unfortunately, I believe it will be his last victory in this contest. His only hope to remain a viable candidate, is to win his home state of Florida on March 15th, where Donald Trump currently has a very strong lead in all polls.

 

I have been a strong supporter of Marco since his Senate run in 2010, and I knew he would run for President. At 44, he still has a lot of years ahead, and there is always more time for him in the future. He will no longer have his seat in the Senate, and I don't really think he enjoyed his time there.

 

He should pull out now if he really wanted to stop Trump. He just prevented Trump from the 23 in Puerto Rico... it would be a great time for him to exit while winning, but these guys all think the wind is at their backs, God is on their side, their destiny in sight. I will miss Marco Rubio, he deserved better than this, as well as many others that ran for this office in 2016. Very soon I will not be including him on these lists.

 

Current Delegate Count

 

Donald Trump - 389

Ted Cruz - 302

Marco Rubio - 149

 

Needed to win - 1,237

 

That is the last time we will hear from Puerto Rico... they are not a State, and have no other say in this election. Tuesday, March 8, we will have Idaho, Michigan, and Mississippi. I predict 2 Trump victories, and 1 for Cruz. We shall see...

On the surface, Super Saturday looks to be a tie. Donald Trump took 2 states and Ted Cruz took 2 states.

 

BUT! That's a big but because Trump LOST yesterday. I was totally expecting Trump to take all 4, with a chance he could possibly lose Kansas due to the Oklahoma effect... there are just an overwhelming amount of pure Conservatives in Kansas. The loss comes from the fact that even though they split states, Ted Cruz won more delegates than Trump.

 

This is proof positive that the Romney-Establishment, scorched earth blitzkrieg on Donald Trump, has had some effect. The troubling thing about it is... it was supposed to help their chosen golden boy, Marco Rubio. Instead it's Ted, that received all the support.

 

The establishment views Trump as Frankenstein, a party made monster, created by the angry masses due to broken promises, and not standing up to the criminal Obama cartel. If Trump is Frankenstein... Ted Cruz is the Mummy. Ted Cruz was the one man in this race that actually did keep his promises, and actually did stand up to the criminal Obama cartel. Establishment doesn't want Ted either... Cruz makes the establishment look weak... so they have a bit of a dilemma.

 

Current Delegate Count

 

Donald Trump - 389

Ted Cruz - 302

Marco Rubio - 126

 

Needed to win - 1,237

 

If they really want to stop Trump, Rubio and Kasich should drop out immediately, and let Cruz do his best to beat him... but that's not gonna happen. Trump actually challenged them to do it last night, which pretty much seals up any chance of that happening because they never want to look like Donald is getting everything he wants.

 

Their hope is to deny him sufficient delegates to win the nomination, and by some miracle, they steal it from Trump and give it to someone else at the convention... and they all want to be the one. Wishful thinking. Rubio will be forced out when he loses Florida to Trump, and the same with Kasich in Ohio. It would be strange to me for Ohio to vote for Kasich, even though he's their Governor, because you are voting for someone who has no chance to win, but there has been a lot of protest voting this season, and they may very well give it to John in Ohio.

 

Puerto Rico has some say today, and will certainly cast their votes for Rubio. Trump is still on target to win the nomination, and it will take much more to keep him from it, but they did beat him on Saturday March 5. We shall see...

Puerto Rico!!! My parents are from there. Rubio won there, so Florida should be influenced some there. He got twenty three delegates there, so the count is now (according to CNN)

 

Trump - 389

 

Cruz - 302

 

Rubio - 149

 

Kaisch - 37

 

Well, that should help Rubio gain some traction in Florida, as millions of Puerto Ricans and their descendants live there.

 

Edit: Whoops! Didn't notice you had posted before me. Started this post 15 minutes ago lol.

Does Florida have primary voting or Caucus? Trump seems to falter when it comes to caucuses. 

 

I would'nt be surprised if what Polls say in Florida and actual result have a surprise mismatch. 

Does Florida have primary voting or Caucus? Trump seems to falter when it comes to caucuses. 

 

I would'nt be surprised if what Polls say in Florida and actual result have a surprise mismatch. 

Florida is a winner take all closed primary. The only thing that works against Trump is they have to be a registered Republican to vote in the primary.

Do you think caucus is an archaic concept in this day and age? Why do some states have advanced and simple, user-friendly voting systems in place and why some states are in older system? Is there no central neutral body? like Election commission or something?