Strongman competition results thread aka politics

by **TenuredVulture** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 09:29:33

Also, if you want to "Stop Trump" Kasich I think has to stay in the race. Trump is going to end up with a plurality of delegates. You need to make sure that plurality doesn't become a majority. Cruz can't beat Trump head to head. So, to deny Trump a majority you need to give the few non-crazy Republicans a third option.

by **JUburton** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 09:30:17

man, bottom paged by like 1 second

by **pacino** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 09:34:15

TenuredVulture wrote:Senate is not going to consider Garland. They simply can't appear to fold. I don't think the Presidential situation changes their calculus at all. But Dem Sen candidates can use this, particularly in red and purple states, to bang Republican incumbents over the head with "petty obstructionism" over and over again. The Democrats are saying--ok, people decide--decide if they want to continue with Republicans who not only are going to nominate Trump as their candidate, but also won't even consider a moderate nominee for the SC. Had Obama made progressives happy with a more liberal appointee, this strategy would be less effective.

To be sure, I stand by my analysis that McConnell was a total dope with making an ultimatum that simply wasn't necessary.

Finally, if a lame duck Senate does hurriedly confim Garland after November, my understanding is that Obama does not actually have to appoint him. (The actual issue in Marbury v. Madision).

a usually politically adept Pat Toomey is out there repeating the 'let hte people decide' mantra in a presidential election year in a state with a million more registered Democrats than Republicans.

they really screwed this up. Do an up or down vote. Have hearings. At least fake it.

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 09:34:56

Bucky wrote:
td11 wrote:@natesilver538
Fairly strong possibility that Trump won't get to 1237 delegates on his own but would with Kasich's delegates. Come to your own conclusions.

There you go doc

actually, i'm confused now. At first I took it to mean that Kasich staying in is a GOOD thing for the #nevertrump movement; now i'm thinking that the conclusion we're supposed to reach is that he's angling for VEEP.

Nate is suggesting Kasich is angling for VP

by **heyeaglefn** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 09:40:21

Of course he is. In all the debates he refused to get involved with the Trump stuff, he is staying away from it so he can be VP.

by **JUburton** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 09:41:40

But it's not like Kasich can just give Trump his delegates. I don't totally get it.

by **Slowhand** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 09:41:57

CalvinBall wrote:hillary has two "ls"

Hilslsary?

by **pacino** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 09:42:07

he fell in line with Trump with the cancelled debate thing. This gives less exposure to Cruz.

jh is probably correct here. Kasich is falling in line with his new master. formerly 'tough' guys like Kasich and Christie are licking the boot of a guy with hair like that.

by **Monkeyboy** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 09:42:23

That's what I said a few pages ago, though I was repeating what others have also said. I think Nate reads the board.

It was the only reason it made sense for him to stay in unless he was working on a book deal. He's going to be the "serious" conservative that will supposedly legitimize Trump.

by **pacino** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 09:42:57

JUburton wrote:But it's not like Kasich can just give Trump his delegates. I don't totally get it.

in the 2nd round they are freed up and they can vote for Trump

i've heard this from some very smart people.

by **JUburton** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 09:44:37

pacino wrote:
JUburton wrote:But it's not like Kasich can just give Trump his delegates. I don't totally get it.

in the 2nd round they are freed up and they can vote for Trump

I know, but delegate selection isn't like Kasich choosing his friends to go vote for him. In some states, where delegates are elected directly maybe, but that's atypical.

by **CalvinBall** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 09:44:50

doc has been saying this is how it would happen since the 2014 midterms

by **Bucky** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 09:45:14

pacino wrote:
JUburton wrote:But it's not like Kasich can just give Trump his delegates. I don't totally get it.

in the 2nd round they are freed up and they can vote for Trump

i've heard this from some very smart people.

"can". but can they be compelled? Like can Kasich say "I urge all my delegates to now pledge to an unstable future for the U.S."?

by **CalvinBall** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 09:46:07

CalvinBall wrote:doc has been saying this is how it would happen since the 2014 midterms

excuse me, telling us

by **pacino** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 09:47:56

Bucky wrote:
pacino wrote:
JUburton wrote:But it's not like Kasich can just give Trump his delegates. I don't totally get it.

in the 2nd round they are freed up and they can vote for Trump

i've heard this from some very smart people.

"can". but can they be compelled? Like can Kasich say "I urge all my delegates to now pledge to an unstable future for the U.S."?

technically no, but how can you turn down a strong guy like Trump? he's a winner. he'll make them great again.

by **JUburton** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 09:49:01

Bucky wrote:
pacino wrote:
JUburton wrote:But it's not like Kasich can just give Trump his delegates. I don't totally get it.

in the 2nd round they are freed up and they can vote for Trump

i've heard this from some very smart people.

"can". but can they be compelled? Like can Kasich say "I urge all my delegates to now pledge to an unstable future for the U.S."?

Most states become legally unbound after the first ballot and they are free to vote as they please. From what I gather, each state gets 3 delegates that are the state chair or two other high positions, some are directly elected where you vote for delegates and not candidates (see Trump's racist supporters not voting for Sadiq), most are chosen or elected at the state conventions.

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 09:54:27

JUburton wrote:But it's not like Kasich can just give Trump his delegates. I don't totally get it.

In Ohio his campaign gets to select the delegates. Even if he can't deliver all of them, I'm sure he could get a bunch to support Trump. I'm not sure exactly how it works.

I don't totally buy that he's doing this, btw. I think the more likely explanation is he's a delusional fuck who actually thinks he will be chosen at the convention, thinks his being the nice guy is his ticket for doing so, and he is unaware or uncaring about the real damage he is doing to the cause of defeating Trump. But if he was blocking for Trump to be his VP, I don't know what he'd be doing differently.

by **The Crimson Cyclone** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 10:01:22

pacino wrote:Hmm, I'd have to see who said that. I could see Obama thinking that way.

Nina Totenberg (sp?)

cut to 2:10
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watc ... 6270531777

by **Stripes** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 10:02:55

pacino wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:Senate is not going to consider Garland. They simply can't appear to fold. I don't think the Presidential situation changes their calculus at all. But Dem Sen candidates can use this, particularly in red and purple states, to bang Republican incumbents over the head with "petty obstructionism" over and over again. The Democrats are saying--ok, people decide--decide if they want to continue with Republicans who not only are going to nominate Trump as their candidate, but also won't even consider a moderate nominee for the SC. Had Obama made progressives happy with a more liberal appointee, this strategy would be less effective.

To be sure, I stand by my analysis that McConnell was a total dope with making an ultimatum that simply wasn't necessary.

Finally, if a lame duck Senate does hurriedly confim Garland after November, my understanding is that Obama does not actually have to appoint him. (The actual issue in Marbury v. Madision).

a usually politically adept Pat Toomey is out there repeating the 'let hte people decide' mantra in a presidential election year in a state with a million more registered Democrats than Republicans.

they really screwed this up. Do an up or down vote. Have hearings. At least fake it.

As a Republican, this is my big fear-They just assume we're going to re-take the White House, and maintain the Senate, and then they can just put in a conservative nominee of their choice. But at this point, you can't just assume either of those things. Go thru the process, give the man a legitimate hearing, and then give him the thumbs-up or thumb-down. This whole thing could very easily end up backfiring. (Of course, the big mistake was taking a hard stance in the first place)

by **The Crimson Cyclone** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 10:09:12

I thought Christie was going to be Trump's lap dog...er I mean VP choice

Archived

Strongman competition results thread aka politics

Re: Strongman competition results thread aka politics

Re: Strongman competition results thread aka politics

Re: Strongman competition results thread aka politics

Re: Strongman competition results thread aka politics

Re: Strongman competition results thread aka politics

Re: Strongman competition results thread aka politics

Re: Strongman competition results thread aka politics

Re: Strongman competition results thread aka politics

Re: Strongman competition results thread aka politics

Re: Strongman competition results thread aka politics

Re: Strongman competition results thread aka politics

Re: Strongman competition results thread aka politics

Re: Strongman competition results thread aka politics

Re: Strongman competition results thread aka politics

Re: Strongman competition results thread aka politics

Re: Strongman competition results thread aka politics

Re: Strongman competition results thread aka politics

Re: Strongman competition results thread aka politics

Re: Strongman competition results thread aka politics

Re: Strongman competition results thread aka politics