This thread was marked as Locked by Blinking Spirit.
Quote from Highroller »
He's also losing votes, which is why he's acting out more.
Quote from TomCat26 »civil war in the Republican party
Quote from TomCat26 »true face of the Republican party
Quote from Highroller »
I would add a third question, which is when are most candidates going to have the good sense to drop out?
Quote from Hackworth »Also if the USA actually taxed rich people and corporations for a fair share, most of the population wouldn't notice a tax increase.
Quote from Tiax »
Is he? According to this he's near his all-time high:
Quote from ElricJC »But life is too short for cheap beer.
Quote from Hackworth »Trump: Probably Not A White Supremacist, just Number 1 with Stormfront and the KKK
Quote from Highroller »I'm wondering how Trump's numbers are going to be affected given that he's basically said he's refusing to bow out even if he loses the primary, given that this was an issue earlier.
Quote from tomsloger »
plus our fearless moderator ******* loves no lynching. i'd believe he designed the game to make it the right choice.
nicely done ashley
Quote from Blinking Spirit »I'm not defending Trump -- dude is definitely pandering to racism -- but the premise here is flawed. In any election, as a matter of mathematical necessity, somebody is always going to be number one with Stormfront and the KKK.
Quote from Wildfire393 »I'm not certain that's definitely true. If no candidate is spouting blatantly racist, nationalistic, and xenophobic remarks, the base of those groups likely either doesn't vote or splits their vote among the various white men Republican candidates.
Quote from Blinking Spirit »I'm not sure you quite understood the point. If they split 40-30-30, the candidate with 40 is number one. If they split 30-20-20-20-10, the candidate with 30 is number one. If they split 51-49, the candidate with 51 is number one. Barring the extremely unlikely possibilities that they split dead evenly or not a single one votes, somebody is always going to be number one. You could have a field of perfectly decent, freedom-loving candidates, and one of them would still be number one. This accident of math does not necessarily speak any less of him or her. An article saying "So-and-so is number one among Stormfront and the KKK" would be fallacious and defamatory in implication, even if correct in bare fact. Just look at all the creationist arguments that hinge on "The Nazis loved Charles Darwin".
This logic, "He's popular among bad guys, therefore he's a bad guy", is what I'm objecting to. What you're saying is the reverse: "He's a bad guy, therefore he's popular among bad guys". And that's much more reasonable. It's because it's reasonable that the other one sounds reasonable too. It's what articles like this hope you'll assume. But in fact these subtle reversals can completely change the value of an argument. It's the difference between "All men are mortals" and "All mortals are men".
Quote from Tiax »http://www.scribd.com/doc/292796480/Bloomberg-Politics-Purple-Strategies-Trump-poll
51% of likely Republican primary voters "strongly favor" Trump's proposal to prevent Muslims from entering the country. An additional 14% "Not so strongly favor" it. Only 22% "strongly oppose" or "not so strongly oppose".
The thing is that there is no xenophobia ceiling that will make Trump unpalatable to the Republican base. The Republican establishment will try to hammer him on whatever unconscionable thing he says, and then they'll realize that most of their voters actually agree with him, and will come crawling back to apologize.
Quote from slave »You can tell a lot of world leaders are being very careful about what they say about Trump. That tells us that most think he's a chance to win.
Quote from Blinking Spirit »Quote from slave »You can tell a lot of world leaders are being very careful about what they say about Trump. That tells us that most think he's a chance to win.What? World leaders are calling Trump out for his vile rhetoric with unprecedented frankness, and he has zero chance of winning.
Quote from DJK3654 »Zero is a bit of an exaggeration don't you think? Unlikely? Sure. But zero?
Quote from Programmer_112 »Not all of them. Putin is a prime, and rather obvious, counterexample.
Quote from Blinking Spirit »Quote from Programmer_112 »Not all of them. Putin is a prime, and rather obvious, counterexample.Of course not all of them. But would you describe the general attitude as "being very careful what they say about Trump"? Because I sure wouldn't. Even Putin in his praise is not being "careful". What slave said was simply wrong, and Putin does not prove him right.
Quote from Blinking Spirit »Okay, it's nonzero in the strict Bayesian epistemological sense that nothing logically possible has probability zero. But practically? No, I'm not exaggerating. His entire strategy is to fire up a particular demographic, disillusioned working-class whites without college educations, and he'll continue to increase his base only as long as he can win over more of this demographic from his rivals. Just count the number of Americans who fit this demographic -- there is a hard ceiling on the number of votes he can get here, and it's not enough to win the general election. Normally candidates seek to break such ceilings by broadening their appeal to other demographics, but Trump has been systematically alienating everybody else as the price of his pernicious populism. He will not win. That's not what I'm worried about. I'm worried about the damage he'll do as a recruiting tool for ISIS before he loses.
(And also that it's never good to hand the other party such an easy victory. Clinton will be a better president if she has to run against a serious Republican opponent.)
Quote from Surging Chaos »This just came out today. If the general election was Clinton vs. Trump and held right now, it would be very close.