Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    08 May '16 12:303 edits
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    You obviously haven't followed the election very closely. Trump's nomination chances were still very much in the air until he swept the Northeast primaries on April 26; he had suffered a string of defeats in early April including a bad one in Wisconsin.

    Virtually every pundit I have read was saying the exact opposite of what you are claiming; Hillary ...[text shortened]... p could avoid a contested convention until Indiana. Thus, your arguments are counter to reality.
    Let's keep this one simple as well: at what point in the primaries did Donald not lead in delegates?

    I said Sanders vs. Hilary was much closer, and it was: had Bernie won NY, don't you agree the race would be much tighter than it ever was for the Republicans?
  2. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    08 May '16 16:26
    Originally posted by vivify
    Let's keep this one simple as well: at what point in the primaries did Donald not lead in delegates?

    I said Sanders vs. Hilary was much closer, and it was: had Bernie won NY, don't you agree the race would be much tighter than it ever was for the Republicans?
    Simple is how your mind works. "Leading" does not = the race being over as you asserted.

    No I don't. Because of the nature of the Democratic delegate selection which is proportional in all States, Bernie's needed not merely to win States, but to win them by large margins since Hillary shellacked him in the South. By contrast, the Republicans have a lot of winner take all States or winner take all by congressional districts meaning that a candidate behind in delegates has a much better chance of catching up IF they could win such States. So there was always more doubt in the Republican race which was reflected in expert opinion (like at 538 and RealClearPolitics) and in the various betting markets like Betfair. The latter had Rubio the Republican favorite after Iowa; Clinton has always been an overwhelming choice in the Democratic race.
  3. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    08 May '16 16:32
    Originally posted by vivify
    Let's keep this simple:

    Why has Trump won by such wide margins in the primaries if he's so unpopular with conservatives? Why does Trump currently have double the delegates of his nearest rival? Why has Trump's poll numbers been constantly higher than anyone else in the Republican race?
    Trump doesn't have twice Cruz's delegates now. After Wisconsin, the totals stood at Trump 771 Cruz 558 Rubio 166 Kasich 144 and a few others sprinkled around. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/republican_delegate_count.html

    So keeping it simple, Trump had considerably less than half the pledged delegates and led Cruz by fewer delegates than Hillary led Bernie.
  4. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    08 May '16 17:12
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Trump doesn't have twice Cruz's delegates now. After Wisconsin, the totals stood at Trump 771 Cruz 558 Rubio 166 Kasich 144 and a few others sprinkled around. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/republican_delegate_count.html

    So keeping it simple, Trump had considerably less than half the pledged delegates and led Cruz by fewer delegates than Hillary led Bernie.
    Am I missing something here? The link says Trump has 1068 delegates.
  5. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    08 May '16 17:17
    Originally posted by vivify
    Am I missing something here? The link says Trump has 1068 delegates.
    Yes you are missing a competence in arithmetic if you think Trump has double the delegates of Cruz and always has has you keep claiming.
  6. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    08 May '16 17:19
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Simple is how your mind works. "Leading" does not = the race being over as you asserted.
    Right; but if Trump lead the entire way, on what basis did the pundits you follow claim that the Republican race was "in the air"? Keep in mind that Trump's lead (for the most part) steadily grew as the primaries continued.

    Cruz making some last-minute Hail Mary's doesn't change the fact that the race was fully in Trump's grip. The final score is no indicator of how the game actually went.
  7. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    08 May '16 17:229 edits
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Yes you are missing a competence in arithmetic if you think Trump has double the delegates of Cruz and always has has you keep claiming.
    Really? That's the best you've got? Do I really need to say "roughly" double? Come on. I can't believe this is actually a point you really want to argue. Maybe it's because you're a lawyer that you get so fixated on semantics rather than the actual point?

    And half of 1068 is 534; is it really all that far off from 564, which is what Cruz has? Use your head. Obviously, I was only rounding it off as "double".
  8. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    08 May '16 18:04
    Originally posted by vivify
    Right; but if Trump lead the entire way, on what basis did the pundits you follow claim that the Republican race was "in the air"? Keep in mind that Trump's lead (for the most part) steadily grew as the primaries continued.

    Cruz making some last-minute Hail Mary's doesn't change the fact that the race was fully in Trump's grip. The final score is no indicator of how the game actually went.
    This is like talking to a stubborn child.

    The race was in the air because Trump, while having the most delegates. was not getting anywhere near half the delegates which is what is necessary to win the nomination. And because so many of the Republican primaries award delegates in a way that is heavily skewed to the winner rather than on a proportional basis like the Democrats, dramatic swings were possible. Not until Trump's Northeast sweep where he won virtually all of the 300+ delegates awarded was his nomination certain. Therefore, you are consistently incorrect in claiming that Trump had the nomination wrapped up before that.
  9. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    08 May '16 18:07
    Originally posted by vivify
    Really? That's the best you've got? Do I really need to say "roughly" double? Come on. I can't believe this is actually a point you really want to argue. Maybe it's because you're a lawyer that you get so fixated on semantics rather than the actual point?

    And half of 1068 is 534; is it really all that far off from 564, which is what Cruz has? Use your head. Obviously, I was only rounding it off as "double".
    Your statement was:

    Trump has always maintained a lead of at least twice the amount of delegates as his nearest rival.


    He doesn't have that lead now and wasn't anywhere near having such a lead after Wisconsin when he had 771 delegates to Cruz's 558 with others having over 300. So you were wrong.
  10. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    08 May '16 19:171 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Your statement was:

    Trump has always maintained a lead of at least twice the amount of delegates as his nearest rival.


    He doesn't have that lead now and wasn't anywhere near having such a lead after Wisconsin when he had 771 delegates to Cruz's 558 with others having over 300. So you were wrong.
    Okay. Forget "double" then. Trump has consistently had a large lead, in a primary with record voter turnout. Factors like the huge ratings for Republican debates, and CNN charging 40 times normal rates to advertise, indicates a craze largely due to Trump. The fact Trump has consistently had higher poll numbers than his opponents (often much higher) is further evidence that Trump is responsible for the high voter turnout.

    Are we good so far?

    During the primaries, Trump didn't squeak by; he won often, many times by wide margins; so his popularity with conservative voters is without question. For this reason, I don't think the Hispanic vote will hurt him much, since it will likely be cancelled out by the increase in Republican voters that have come out to support him.

    Adding to this, is that Trump will gain even the support of Republicans who hate him, simply because A) They will never vote Democratic, and B) Many conservatives hate Hillary.

    Lastly, as I already mentioned, George Will has already been wrong about Trump being "predictably shellacked" in running for president. There's no reason to think he's right this time. Furthermore, I don't think Will is making his case against Trump based on some objective observations; he and Trump have a grudge going back several years, where name calling ensued. Even if Will is wrong about Trump, he'll never admit it, because of his long-standing hatred for Trump.
  11. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    08 May '16 19:211 edit
    Honestly, no one can count-out Trump; he's consistently proven his critics wrong time after time. I hope to god he doesn't win; but there's no use deluding myself into believe his chances are slim.
  12. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    08 May '16 23:18
    Originally posted by vivify
    Okay. Forget "double" then. Trump has consistently had a large lead, in a primary with record voter turnout. Factors like the huge ratings for Republican debates, and CNN charging 40 times normal rates to advertise, indicates a craze largely due to Trump. The fact Trump has consistently had higher poll numbers than his opponents (often much higher) is fur ...[text shortened]... Will is wrong about Trump, he'll never admit it, because of his long-standing hatred for Trump.
    Mitt Romney got more than half the Republican primary votes (over 10 million votes in total about what Trump has gotten) and won more States than Trump. The "Romney craze" this shows did not prevent him from losing by a wide margin to Obama in 2012. Romney also got 93% of Republican votes and over 60% of white ones but that did not save him. A candidate who does not appeal to independents and who can't at least cut the Democratic advantage among Hispanics isn't going to win.

    Trump has higher poll numbers than his Republican opponents but virtually every poll for the last year shows him losing to Hillary by a substantial margin and to Sanders by an even worse one. His unfavorability rating is absolutely unprecedented for a major party candidate. And Republican registration is up by less than a half million from 2012 and it still trails Democratic registration by over 10 million voters. This fantasy of yours that there has been some huge surge in Republican support isn't based on anything tangible. Even if more Republicans are voting in the primaries, that doesn't mean or imply that more Republicans will vote in the general as your own cited article patiently explained to you.

    Sure, Will doesn't like Trump. But that ad hominem argument does not address the points Will raised in his article. They are good ones that you've done nothing to refute.
  13. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    08 May '16 23:35
    And this is on top of the structural disadvantage Republicans have developed in Presidential elections:

    Start here: Eighteen states plus the District of Columbia have voted for the Democratic presidential nominee in every election between 1992 and 2012. Add them up, and you get 242 electoral votes.

    By contrast, 13 states have voted for the Republican presidential nominee in each of the past six elections. Total them up and you get 102 electoral votes.

    There are two important takeaways from these facts: The generic Democratic nominee starts with an electoral vote lead of 140, and the Democratic nominee needs to find only 28 votes beyond that reliable base to win the presidency.

    What that means in practical terms is that if Clinton wins the 19 states that every Democratic nominee dating to her husband has won and she wins Florida (29 electoral votes), she wins the White House. It’s that simple.

    Or if she wins the 19 reliable Democratic states and Virginia (13 electoral votes) and Ohio (18). Or the 19 states plus Nevada (6), Colorado (9) and North Carolina (15).

    You get the idea. There are lots and lots and lots of ways for Clinton — or any Democratic nominee — to get to 270 electoral votes. There are very few ways for Trump — or any Republican nominee — to get there.

    It’s easy — and, for many Republicans, useful — to cast this electoral-college morass as Trump’s fault, the obvious outcome of nominating a candidate who has historically high unfavorability numbers among key groups.

    But to do so ignores recent history. Barack Obama won 365 electoral votes in 2008 and 332 in 2012. The Republican presidential nominee hasn’t crested 300 electoral votes since the 1988 election, when George H.W. Bush won 426. (George W. Bush won the White House with 271 electoral votes in 2000 and claimed a second term with 286.)

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-gops-electoral-map-problem-is-not-about-trump-its-about-demographics/2016/05/08/14cdf1fc-1523-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html
  14. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    08 May '16 23:411 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Mitt Romney got more than half the Republican primary votes (over 10 million votes in total about what Trump has gotten) and won more States than Trump. The "Romney craze" this shows did not prevent him from losing by a wide margin to Obama in 2012. Romney also got 93% of Republican votes and over 60% of white ones but that did not save him. A candidate ...[text shortened]... endents and who can't at least cut the Democratic advantage among Hispanics isn't going to win.
    That's a very good point about Romney and independents.
  15. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    08 May '16 23:531 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    And this is on top of the structural disadvantage Republicans have developed in Presidential elections:

    Start here: Eighteen states plus the District of Columbia have voted for the Democratic presidential nominee in every election between 1992 and 2012. Add them up, and you get 242 electoral votes.

    By contrast, 13 states have voted for the Republic ...[text shortened]... ot-about-trump-its-about-demographics/2016/05/08/14cdf1fc-1523-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html
    Another good point.

    I think Trump's inexplicable success can be rather blinding. He seems to defy all logic, wildly succeeding in ways that would end any normal politician's career. His almost Elvis-like ability to excite crowds and stir the media can blind a person from seeing reality.

    Your post gives some hope for the future.
Back to Top