Pretty sure I just heard on Chris Hayes's show a fellow named Rick WIlson, billed as a Republican media consultant, allow as to how the profile of the typical Turnip supporter is a "single white male who masturbates to animé".

This is Wilson. I picture him driving a van. You know what kind

drsmooth wrote:Faded reactionary bimbo Palin endorses Turnip

I'm beginning to have some doubts about her personal integrity.

drsmooth wrote:Faded reactionary bimbo Palin endorses Turnip and dipshits like Mark Halperin & Chuck Todd are calling the nomination - not merely Iowa - for Turnip.

Sure, it appears for all the world like the R party is dissolving like an oatmealy dump under an urgent piss, but there are still plenty of people who count themselves Rs who have a smidge of intelligence and/or self-respect

ffssmdhggsa

remember when Palin was an embarrassing liability? Heck, I pine for the days when Quayle spelled it potatoe

drsmooth wrote:Faded reactionary bimbo Palin endorses Turnip and #$!&@ like Mark Halperin & Chuck Todd are calling the nomination - not merely Iowa - for Turnip.

Sure, it appears for all the world like the R party is dissolving like an oatmealy dump under an urgent piss, but there are still plenty of people who count themselves Rs who have a smidge of intelligence and/or self-respect

ffssmdhggsa

she is a terrible human being. john mccain looked like an idiot for years defending her dumb ass only to see her endorse the guy that said mccain isnt a war hero because 'i like people that dont get captured'.

i attempted to listen to the endorsement; i lasted two minutes. i dont understand how a conservative could listen to her rambling on; she seems legit stupid.

so i'm still anxiously awaiting the notice that people should take turnip seriously

was supposed to fade by auld lang syne time but no dropoff evident

ive taken him seriously for quite a while now :D

Brantt was right all along.

I still think it'll be Rubio but I'm curious how the momentum thing works out.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bew ... -and-cruz/

The GOP calendar is heavily front loaded to states sympathetic with Trump/Cruz (see NH, Iowa, the south).

2. Beware an early, modest lead for Trump or Cruz. Our estimates show that Cruz would need 555 delegates heading into the March 15 primaries to keep pace for the nomination, and Trump would need 469. However, Rubio would need only 371. In other words, the GOP calendar is front-loaded with insurgent-friendly states. Although Rubio can’t afford to get clobbered early by missing thresholds in SEC states (see No. 3 below), he merely needs to stay within striking distance.

slugsrbad wrote:Brantt was right all along.

Well, obviously in terms of Trump, er, "Turnip", that is correct.

Then again, anyone who closely follows politics and has a brain could see this coming from a mile away.

Palin is a certifiable nut job but may, just may be able to steal enough Cruz support to get Trump, er, "Turnip" over the top in Iowa. If Trump, er, "Turnip" wins in Iowa it is over. He will run the table in NH and the south and win the nomination before Hillary.

I still think Hillary is going to have major issues with the email stuff. 50/50 she faces an indictment. She's also one of the most unlikable human beings on the planet. Bernie in contrast is surging and even if you don't agree with his views (which many don't) he is a likable, genuine guy who believes in what he is saying. Rooting for him as he's my solid #2.

To quote Steve Schmidt................"only Hillary Clinton could turn a 74 year old career politician and self admitted socialist into a revolutionary figure."

JUburton wrote:I still think it'll be Rubio but I'm curious how the momentum thing works out.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bew ... -and-cruz/

The GOP calendar is heavily front loaded to states sympathetic with Trump/Cruz (see NH, Iowa, the south).

2. Beware an early, modest lead for Trump or Cruz. Our estimates show that Cruz would need 555 delegates heading into the March 15 primaries to keep pace for the nomination, and Trump would need 469. However, Rubio would need only 371. In other words, the GOP calendar is front-loaded with insurgent-friendly states. Although Rubio can’t afford to get clobbered early by missing thresholds in SEC states (see No. 3 below), he merely needs to stay within striking distance.

Rubio is starting to tank for some reason. The establishment vote is getting more and more spread out evenly between Rubio, Jeb, Dough boy and Kasich.

Once Trump and/or Cruz start winning early, the momentum will snowball and the others will be afterthoughts.

As a democrat, this is great news as I think Trump has zero chance in a general against Hillary and Cruz has about a 5%.

JUburton wrote:As a democrat, this is great news as I think Trump has zero chance in a general against Hillary and Cruz has about a 5%.

Maybe, but not so sure.

The big thing she would have going for her obviously are demographics which is huge.

That said, and as I predicted months ago, I think you will see a huge number of Democrats (like me) voting for Trump in the general. Maybe up to 25%. Chris Matthews has been all over this.....calls them the "Reagan Democrats." Points to the Philadelphia suburbs as the population he's talking about.

Plus you will have months of Trump character assassinations against the Clintons. Hillary is a candidate who people will look for any reason not to vote for. She's awful.

Will be the most entertaining stuff we've seen in years, maybe ever.

Brantt wrote:If Trump, er, "Turnip" wins in Iowa it is over. He will run the table in NH and the south and win the nomination before Hillary.

Bookmarked. will laugh at again later.

Brantt wrote:

JUburton wrote:As a democrat, this is great news as I think Trump has zero chance in a general against Hillary and Cruz has about a 5%.

Maybe, but not so sure.

The big thing she would have going for her obviously are demographics which is huge.

That said, and as I predicted months ago, I think you will see a huge number of Democrats (like me) voting for Trump in the general. Maybe up to 25%. Chris Matthews has been all over this.....calls them the "Reagan Democrats." Points to the Philadelphia suburbs as the population he's talking about.

Plus you will have months of Trump character assassinations against the Clintons. Hillary is a candidate who people will look for any reason not to vote for. She's awful.

Will be the most entertaining stuff we've seen in years, maybe ever.

25%!? My word...

JUburton wrote:

Brantt wrote:

JUburton wrote:As a democrat, this is great news as I think Trump has zero chance in a general against Hillary and Cruz has about a 5%.

Maybe, but not so sure.

The big thing she would have going for her obviously are demographics which is huge.

That said, and as I predicted months ago, I think you will see a huge number of Democrats (like me) voting for Trump in the general. Maybe up to 25%. Chris Matthews has been all over this.....calls them the "Reagan Democrats." Points to the Philadelphia suburbs as the population he's talking about.

Plus you will have months of Trump character assassinations against the Clintons. Hillary is a candidate who people will look for any reason not to vote for. She's awful.

Will be the most entertaining stuff we've seen in years, maybe ever.

25%!? My word...

Quote me.........

He's polling at 20% right now in some polls.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/ ... ry-clinton

Brantt wrote:Will be the most entertaining stuff we've seen in years, maybe ever.

I might agree if we were not talking about the election of the leader of the free world. I get that people despise Hillary, I certainly do not like her, but to vote for Trump as a protest against her is just mind-boggling. The guy is nothing but a reality TV star turned social experiment. It makes me want to vomit thinking about the damage Trump backed by a GOP legislative majority could do to our country. I really wish Biden had decided to run because he gives you, IMHO, the experience of Clinton PLUS the likability of Sanders. Assuming he didn't torpedo his own campaign with something stupid, which was always 50/50 at best, I think he would have won in a walk.

politics is not supposed to be entertaining.

he'll get confused idiots and/or racists


if you make the leap from bernie to trump or vice-versa, you really need to reevaluate how you look at things

Brantt wrote:

JUburton wrote:

Brantt wrote:

JUburton wrote:As a democrat, this is great news as I think Trump has zero chance in a general against Hillary and Cruz has about a 5%.

Maybe, but not so sure.

The big thing she would have going for her obviously are demographics which is huge.

That said, and as I predicted months ago, I think you will see a huge number of Democrats (like me) voting for Trump in the general. Maybe up to 25%. Chris Matthews has been all over this.....calls them the "Reagan Democrats." Points to the Philadelphia suburbs as the population he's talking about.

Plus you will have months of Trump character assassinations against the Clintons. Hillary is a candidate who people will look for any reason not to vote for. She's awful.

Will be the most entertaining stuff we've seen in years, maybe ever.

25%!? My word...

Quote me.........

He's polling at 20% right now in some polls.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/ ... ry-clinton

I've never even heard of Mercury Analytics and 538 doesn't have them on their pollster rankings at all. They're a business that supplies survey and research tools. Poll is nothing more than an advertisement.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives ... r-ratings/

traderdave wrote:

Brantt wrote:Will be the most entertaining stuff we've seen in years, maybe ever.

I might agree if we were not talking about the election of the leader of the free world. I get that people despise Hillary, I certainly do not like her, but to vote for Trump as a protest against her is just mind-boggling. The guy is nothing but a reality TV star turned social experiment. It makes me want to vomit thinking about the damage Trump backed by a GOP legislative majority could do to our country. I really wish Biden had decided to run because he gives you, IMHO, the experience of Clinton PLUS the likability of Sanders. Assuming he didn't torpedo his own campaign with something stupid, which was always 50/50 at best, I think he would have won in a walk.

"yeah but he keeps it real and doesnt adhere to all this PC madness, which is clearly the biggest problem in the history of the nation!" - Trump supporters

Youseff wrote:

traderdave wrote:

Brantt wrote:Will be the most entertaining stuff we've seen in years, maybe ever.

I might agree if we were not talking about the election of the leader of the free world. I get that people despise Hillary, I certainly do not like her, but to vote for Trump as a protest against her is just mind-boggling. The guy is nothing but a reality TV star turned social experiment. It makes me want to vomit thinking about the damage Trump backed by a GOP legislative majority could do to our country. I really wish Biden had decided to run because he gives you, IMHO, the experience of Clinton PLUS the likability of Sanders. Assuming he didn't torpedo his own campaign with something stupid, which was always 50/50 at best, I think he would have won in a walk.

"yeah but he keeps it real and doesnt adhere to all this PC madness, which is clearly the biggest problem in the history of the nation!" - Trump supporters

Trump could run a completely dirty campaign and I don't think it would hurt him one bit. The public opinion of people who don't like him is already zero and the base will lap up the pictures he paints of Hillary or Sanders.