smitty wrote:

drsmooth wrote:drumpf now opining that an open convention subverts the "will of the people", underscoring that he has absolutely zero understanding of what primaries represent, how they work, what their earthly purpose is - or that anyone who knows anything about anything would buy this particular glob of his bullshit. He is an appallingly dim individual.

Last brokered convention was 1952 with Adlai Stephenson winning the Dem nomination. That was back in the days primaries didn't mean much.

1968 dems?

Whole Foods plug

MoBettle wrote:Make America Whole again doesn't really make sense.

Maybe she means Make America Hole again. That doesn't make sense either.

Ben Ginsburg basically hinted last night that there are rules in place for the Republicans to choose their nominee. This is going to be interesting to watch. Trump and his supporters will not go quietly.

MoBettle wrote:

smitty wrote:

drsmooth wrote:drumpf now opining that an open convention subverts the "will of the people", underscoring that he has absolutely zero understanding of what primaries represent, how they work, what their earthly purpose is - or that anyone who knows anything about anything would buy this particular glob of his bullshit. He is an appallingly dim individual.

Last brokered convention was 1952 with Adlai Stephenson winning the Dem nomination. That was back in the days primaries didn't mean much.

1968 dems?

brokERed, not brokEN

I'm not a fan of Make America Whole as a slogan, but as a sentiment it makes great sense, particularly in the face of the "I hate everybody, especially All Those Losers" bile spewing from drumpf's pigface.

pig-ignorant as he is, drumpf is already squealing about how he's a uniter - the greatest uniter ever, of course. I want to bury my foot in his nostrils.

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:Whole Foods plug

Is that like a locally sourced sex toy?

MoBettle wrote:

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:Whole Foods plug

Is that like a locally sourced sex toy?

bpa free even

While I get that Trump won 7 states last night, didn't he significantly underperform the polls? He was polling at +13 in Virginia and won by +2. He was polling at +11 in Oklahoma and lost the state, the list goes on. Not saying he won't be the nominee but it seems like there's a fair amount of leakage in his polling numbers and his vote totals.

Late deciders are not going for trump.

Soren wrote:

Brantt wrote:

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:Brantt answer these 4 easy questions for us



Please tell me which one you think is more important for a child to have: independence or respect for elders?
Please tell me which one you think is more important for a child to have: obedience or self-reliance?
Please tell me which one you think is more important for a child to have: to be considerate or to be well-behaved?
Please tell me which one you think is more important for a child to have: curiosity or good manners?

I try not to deal in absolutes.

I can't get over this. You're gunning for the guy who ONLY deals in absolutes.

I apologize. I thought the question was directed at me personally. Obviously I can't answer for Donald Trump.

MoBettle wrote:Late deciders are not going for trump.

And early deciders who make up the majority of the electorate are going big for him.

Squire wrote:While I get that Trump won 7 states last night, didn't he significantly underperform the polls? He was polling at +13 in Virginia and won by +2. He was polling at +11 in Oklahoma and lost the state, the list goes on. Not saying he won't be the nominee but it seems like there's a fair amount of leakage in his polling numbers and his vote totals.

I expected him to win 9 or 10 states last night, and with some of the national polls that came out last week I was terrified he was gonna regularly be in the low to mid 40s across states.

He's finally about to receive sustained paid media attacks. And he got 34.5% of the vote last night after getting 34.5% of the vote in the first four states. This isn't some runaway train. The muddled nature of the GOP field might make his deeply flawed nature irrelevant in the end, but there's finally some resistance being offered. We'll see if the attacks can work and if Rubio/Cruz/Kasich/Carson can figure out some way to either narrow the field or target various states or something, but I feel better about Trump's vulnerability today than I did yesterday.

Trending on Twitter: #TwoWordTrump

best one I saw: "Ignorance Provider"

If you wanted to bet against Drumpf getting the nomination, how would you do it?

I'm smelling some easy money here

TomatoPie wrote:If you wanted to bet against Drumpf getting the nomination, how would you do it?

I'm smelling some easy money here

PM 702

Brantt wrote:

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:Brantt answer these 4 easy questions for us



Please tell me which one you think is more important for a child to have: independence or respect for elders?
Please tell me which one you think is more important for a child to have: obedience or self-reliance?
Please tell me which one you think is more important for a child to have: to be considerate or to be well-behaved?
Please tell me which one you think is more important for a child to have: curiosity or good manners?

I try not to deal in absolutes.

This exchange was the highlight of my (sad) week thus far

TomatoPie wrote:If you wanted to bet against Drumpf getting the nomination, how would you do it?

I'm smelling some easy money here

Field as GOP nominee is +335 on my online book. Trump is a yuge favorite.

MoBettle wrote:Late deciders are not going for trump.

"Can I actually do this shit?"

Republicans will back Trump if he's their nominee. They're going to use him as much as he's using them. Let's be real here. They give him some whistles. Their voters will forget their previous declarations. All the Cruz voters will realize he's not any different than Cruz; same with Rubio. It'll be another tight race for the president. Clinton will win, but it won't be a landslide, I don't think. It'll be a landslide like Obama-McCain but not affect down ballot near as much.