Doc Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 I don't think he's a racist. I think he's an idiot, but not a racist. I'm writing in my puppy for president. I wouldn't call him an idiot either. Childish self-promoting windbag? Sure.
B-Man Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 So far, Trump wins open primaries and Cruz wins closed … and the calendar is starting to change toward more closed primaries By Todd Zywicki March 2 at 8:30 AM Following the South Carolina primary, an interesting article by Michael Harrington went around Facebook that speculated that Donald Trump’s victory in the South Carolina primary was attributable to Democrats voting in the Republican (open) primary. One of the good things about Harrington’s article is that he put out a testable hypothesis — that turnout in the Democratic primary a few days later would be less than 390,000. In fact, it was 367,000. Harrington concludes that had South Carolina had a closed primary, Ted Cruz would have won the primary there. I don’t know him and the author seems to be anti-Trump based on other things he has written — but the fact that his prediction was borne out adds some independent verification to his thesis. So that got me to thinking. If true, why does this matter? Because so far the primary calendar has been heavily tilted toward open primaries. But there have been four closed elections: the Iowa caucus, the Nevada caucus, and Super Tuesday’s Oklahoma primary and Alaska caucus. Ted Cruz won three of those four closed elections. So here’s where it potentially gets interesting. Although the media are looking forward to March 15, this Saturday (March 5) there are four Republican primaries/caucuses: Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana and Maine. All are closed. Then, once the winner-takes-all states begin, a large number of those are closed primaries and caucuses as well (including Florida, for what it’s worth). That suggests at least two things. First, the fact that South Carolina and most of the SEC primaries were open primaries may very well explain why those states did not turn out to be Ted Cruz’s firewall or launch states as he had predicted. Oklahoma did perform as expected, being a fairly comfortable win for Cruz. The timeless Pauline Kael quote that has been back in circulation lately may not necessarily be incorrect among actual Republicans. Second, the four closed primaries and caucuses this Saturday could be very interesting to watch, particularly to see whether Trump can maintain his momentum in closed primary states where he will have to appeal to the traditional Republican base. I haven’t gone through the remainder of the states to calculate in detail how many delegates will be selected through this series of closed primaries and whether those are enough to win. Trump also might start winning closed primaries and caucuses. But this has been his Achilles heel so far. As I read the headlines today, I have seen no discussion of this bimodal phenomenon that has held so far. The Wall Street Journal’s front page, for example, doesn’t mention it. This suggests that although the media are focusing on Florida and Ohio, there is another story here that is being overlooked as to whether Trump can consistently establish himself with the traditional Republican base. More at the link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/03/02/so-far-trump-wins-open-primaries-and-cruz-wins-closed-and-the-calendar-is-starting-to-change-toward-more-closed-primaries/
Tiberius Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 B-man shoveling more crap. No buddy, the Trump supporters are old ignorant Republicans
Dante Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 The racists sure like him Go home!!! What defines a racist to you? Someone who wants actual borders so we can have a actual nation?
Deranged Rhino Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 (edited) What defines a racist to you? Someone who wants actual borders so we can have a actual nation? You're giving him too much credit. Racists, to Gatortard, are defined by which political party they vote for. Otherwise, why would he be on here supporting a woman who called the former head of the KKK "noble" and her "mentor"? Gator doesn't care about race issues. His full blown support of a candidate who has supported racist sentencing and mass incarceration of "super predators" is proof of his hypocrisy. He's a fraud. Edited March 2, 2016 by Deranged Rhino
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 The racists sure like him Go home!!! Racists like obama, racists like Hillary. Whatd your point? What defines a racist to you? Someone who wants actual borders so we can have a actual nation? Stop being evil and wanting a respected soverign border.
Deranged Rhino Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 Racists like obama, racists like Hillary. Whatd your point? That he's a giant asshat. Per usual.
keepthefaith Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 What defines a racist to you? Someone who wants actual borders so we can have a actual nation? Balanced budget = racist Secure the border = racist Send illegals home = racist Defeat ISIS = racist Not on board with man made climate change = racist Tax reform = racist Get tough on China = racist (say it with me: Chi-nah) No refugees until we can verify their identity and intentions = racist Take care of our vets = racist More jobs for people who want to work = racist Make America great again = racist. It's code for white supremacy.
B-Man Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 You're giving him too much credit. Racists, to Gatortard, are defined by which political party they vote for. Otherwise, why would he be on here supporting a woman who called the former head of the KKK "noble" and her "mentor"? Gator doesn't care about race issues. His full blown support of a candidate who has supported racist sentencing and mass incarceration of "super predators". He's a fraud. I like how yesterday he misinterpreted the "Donald Trump phenomenon is like the Obama one in 2008" stories as, Obama is responsible for Trump...............................and he went scrambling to find an article to counter it Oh well, it keeps him busy til dinnertime at least poor comprehension.....imagine that...... .
Tiberius Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 So that's why Clinton didn't win the black vote, lol
Deranged Rhino Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 So that's why Clinton didn't win the black vote, lol That's it? That's your response? No condemnation? You must be SOOOOO racist. "I shall never fight in the armed forces with a negro by my side ... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds." The noble mentor of Hillary Clinton.
Chef Jim Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 How come when they show the results of the Democrat elections they break it down by race (white, black, latino) but not the Republicans? At least that's what I've seen.
Tiberius Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 How come when they show the results of the Democrat elections they break it down by race (white, black, latino) but not the Republicans? At least that's what I've seen. Good point! Guess its too boring to say it 99% white lol Yes, exaggerated so sit on it What defines a racist to you? Someone who wants actual borders so we can have a actual nation? We do have actual borders
Chef Jim Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 Good point! Guess its too boring to say it 99% white lol Interesting that you felt it necessary to mention why the Republicans don't (even in jest) but not comment on why the Democrats do. I noticed it on MSNBC when I was watching it at the gym this past weekend and it's on CNN's homepage today.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 Good point! Guess its too boring to say it 99% white lol Yes, exaggerated so sit on it We do have actual borders sure looks like it doesnt it?
Deranged Rhino Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 Interesting that you felt it necessary to mention why the Republicans don't (even in jest) but not comment on why the Democrats do. I noticed it on MSNBC when I was watching it at the gym this past weekend and it's on CNN's homepage today. Intellectual honesty is not his bag.
Tiberius Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 Interesting that you felt it necessary to mention why the Republicans don't (even in jest) but not comment on why the Democrats do. I noticed it on MSNBC when I was watching it at the gym this past weekend and it's on CNN's homepage today. You think its a media conspiracy?
DC Tom Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 Ha ha, poor Donald already having trouble with Checks and balances http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/donald-trump-paul-ryan-super-tuesday-220095?lo=ap_e1 He's just following Obama's lead...
Recommended Posts