Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Most states so far have worked this way. Only winner take all awards all the delegates to the winner. Of course even with a Cruz win Trump as well as others will walk away with some delegates.
The way Texas awards delegates, the winner with the most votes might not be the one who receives the most delegates.
This is good! Too bad no Republican in recent history has won Iowa and then the nomination. Iowa has long been nothing but a waste of time and money for Republican candidates other than putting their names out there to start the primary season.
and in recent history, if ever we haven't seen anything like this year. OK, there is a good chance will not be the nominee, but to keep using the same old example over and over isn't proving anything.
The loss in Texas won't hurt him, precisely because it's Cruz's home state.
Remember 1992, when Iowa Senator Tom Harkin won the Democratic Iowa caucuses? No one cared. No one ran around saying "Wow! Harkin got over 76% of the vote! Incredible dominance!" for precisely the reason that it was his home state.
Home states only matter if you lose, because you're expected to win.
Oh, and Harkin in 1992? Less than a month after Iowa, he dropped out. Not winning Iowa didn't hurt Jerry Brown or Paul Tsongas - or maybe someone else you've heard of, a certain guy named Bill Clinton - one bit.
Meanwhile, Nate Silver over at 538 who has correctly called Trump's first four finishes (3 firsts and 1 second) is predicting Super Tuesday as follows:
Alabama primary - Trump 78% to win
Georgia primary - Trump 64% to win
Oklahoma primary - Trump 44% to win (the highest of any single candidate)
Texas caucuses - Cruz 81% chance to win (see Iowa, 1992)
Virginia primary - Rubio 43% to win
Massachusetts primary - no prediction due to limited polling data, but the few polls in so far all show Trump with double-digit leads)
So, that's six states. Even if Rubio manages to pull off a minor upset in Oklahoma (while not getting upset in Virginia, another close state), Trump still wins 3 to Marco's 2, and gets more delegates. And Cruz? He gets no boost at all from carrying the state everyone is supposed to carry (again, see Iowa, 1992). And as for this 'invincible' label you think needs to be shattered? He's already lost - in Iowa. Nothing was shattered.
PS - I'm no Trumpette. I'm just a very bemused liberal who is thoroughly enjoying the spectacle of Republican villagers desperately trying to figure out how to deal with the Frankenstein's monster they've created!
The loss in Texas won't hurt him, precisely because it's Cruz's home state.
Remember 1992, when Iowa Senator Tom Harkin won the Democratic Iowa caucuses? No one cared. No one ran around saying "Wow! Harkin got over 76% of the vote! Incredible dominance!" for precisely the reason that it was his home state.
Home states only matter if you lose, because you're expected to win.
Oh, and Harkin in 1992? Less than a month after Iowa, he dropped out. Not winning Iowa didn't hurt Jerry Brown or Paul Tsongas - or maybe someone else you've heard of, a certain guy named Bill Clinton - one bit.
Meanwhile, Nate Silver over at 538 who has correctly called Trump's first four finishes (3 firsts and 1 second) is predicting Super Tuesday as follows:
Alabama primary - Trump 78% to win
Georgia primary - Trump 64% to win
Oklahoma primary - Trump 44% to win (the highest of any single candidate)
Texas caucuses - Cruz 81% chance to win (see Iowa, 1992)
Virginia primary - Rubio 43% to win
Massachusetts primary - no prediction due to limited polling data, but the few polls in so far all show Trump with double-digit leads)
So, that's six states. Even if Rubio manages to pull off a minor upset in Oklahoma (while not getting upset in Virginia, another close state), Trump still wins 3 to Marco's 2, and gets more delegates. And Cruz? He gets no boost at all from carrying the state everyone is supposed to carry (again, see Iowa, 1992). And as for this 'invincible' label you think needs to be shattered? He's already lost - in Iowa. Nothing was shattered.
PS - I'm no Trumpette. I'm just a very bemused liberal who is thoroughly enjoying the spectacle of Republican villagers desperately trying to figure out how to deal with the Frankenstein's monster they've created!
Well Hillary can put up a website to do that. If she plans to campaign, then she needs campaign tactics.
Hillary's does not is want to talk agenda specifics because she doesn't have any that she's willing to admit to. This because she is so beholding to Wall Street interests. So she is left with identity politics and attack her opponent on every front. Those are tactics and these are how she has always campaigned. Her recent attacks on Bernie and appeals to gender & race are evidence enough of this.
Problem is, she is failing miserably with identity politics, so that leaves going on the attack. And this is where she has huge issues doing battle with Trump because unlike other politicians, he will hit back just as hard. And Clinton, unfortunately for her, has a glass jaw. Trump has already demonstrated this which is why she's currently silent about him.
So this is what I mean where she doesn't have a campaign tactic to use against Trump. She would much rather run against someone like Rubio where her campaign can take him apart like roast chicken at Sunday dinner.
I am always wondering what I would do or say if I were campaigning for POTUS when we all know that "the details" are not what anyone wants to hear and not all that politically savvy either. I would assume people want to hear what vision you have for the future, who needs more help and why, what are the problems you would want to correct, etc., while at the same time we all know that the POTUS does not have unilateral powers to accomplish these goals. The legislative process will turn just about any politician into a "liar" by the time all is said and done in Congress.
Aside from all that, my assessment about what Hillary has done regarding Trump is quite different. I think Hillary has been trying not to dignify Trump with any real attention until he actually proves he will be the nominee for the Republican party. If/when that happens, we know the GOP has essentially fallen apart, conceding control to Trump who short-circuited the party with his millions that he does not need to get from PACs or fund-raising or all the rest of what you might call the party-establishment right of passage.
Not that I am any fan of that process, mind you, but we surely need to take note and concern ourselves when it is only a billionaire that can manage his OWN right of passage. Especially a billonaire like Trump! Concerns me anyway, a lot!
I am always wondering what I would do or say if I were campaigning for POTUS when we all know that "the details" are not what anyone wants to hear and not all that politically savvy either. I would assume people want to hear what vision you have for the future, who needs more help and why, what are the problems you would want to correct, etc., while at the same time we all know that the POTUS does not have unilateral powers to accomplish these goals. The legislative process will turn just about any politician into a "liar" by the time all is said and done in Congress.
Aside from all that, my assessment about what Hillary has done regarding Trump is quite different. I think Hillary has been trying not to dignify Trump with any real attention until he actually proves he will be the nominee for the Republican party. If/when that happens, we know the GOP has essentially fallen apart, conceding control to Trump who short-circuited the party with his millions that he does not need to get from PACs or fund-raising or all the rest of what you might call the party-establishment right of passage.
Not that I am any fan of that process, mind you, but we surely need to take note and concern ourselves when it is only a billionaire that can manage his OWN right of passage. Especially a billonaire like Trump! Concerns me anyway, a lot!
the Groupies seem to take so much pride in him using his own money to run his campaign. Are they now saying only multi millionaires have a right to run for President? If that is the case what will become of our country in 50 or so years? i
The way Texas awards delegates, the winner with the most votes might not be the one who receives the most delegates.
Oh for heavens sake, you certainly do not have to lecture me on how the system works!!!! When you have run for public office, helped run a presidential campaign and worked for top elected officials then you can explain the system to me!!!!!
the Groupies seem to take so much pride in him using his own money to run his campaign. Are they now saying only multi millionaires have a right to run for President? If that is the case what will become of our country in 50 or so years? i
I've made the same point many times.
I'm not comfortable allowing only billionaires who can self-fund their campaigns be President. Apparently the Trump fans feel that only billionaires can be President.
Trump 44% and Rubio 28% in Florida (his own state), they are trying to push Kasich and Carson out of the race, they refuse. Now Rubio in private talks today about brokered convention.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
