Il Douché and His Discontents: The 2016 Primary Voting Thread, Part 4

hah, Juan McLame

I think there's some validity to Cruz's argument that if the other candidates drop and the party coalesces around him, he may have a slight chance to upset Trump, although it's a long shot.

Also a sizable section of the party don't want Cruz over Trump!

btw:

Total votes across Super Tuesday
Clinton —— 2.7 million
Trump —— 2.2 million
Cruz —— 1.7 million
Sanders - 1.6 million
Rubio - 1.4 million

cheering for van jones in that clip obv but i wish at some point he'd said on tv why exactly the modern democratic party is not the old one. not because of some vague "change" or "evolution" but literally because the southern racists left for the gop. i get why someone doesn't want to get sucked down the quibble hole when the issue is THE FUCKING KLAN and i get that van jones is probably using most of his psychic energy there just to maintain the appearance of unthreatening calm in the face of THE FUCKING KLAN, but this is so clear and indisputable and i have this fear that even anti-trumps across the country are thinking "yeah, get with 2016, we're much less racist now" instead of "WE KICKED OUT THE SEGREGATIONISTS AND INCIDENTALLY LOST A FEW DECADES OF EXECUTIVE POWER FOR IT AND NOW THEY'RE ALL IN YOUR FUCKING PARTY, ASSHOLE, OH AND TO THE EXTENT THAT EMBARRASSED TAX IDEOLOGUES DID MANAGE DISINGENUOUSLY TO PUT A LID ON IT IT SURE ISN'T ON THERE RIGHT NOW"

sorry. i just want to be hearing this explanation everywhere until americans actually have some kind of baseline fucking idea of where they're living and when and instead i keep hearing liars tell me how important it is to "know history"

i guess when someone is earnestly telling you on television that the klan was the militant arm of progressivism it's hard to know where to start, or why anyone's alive

Van Jones is a dreadful representative for Dems and liberals. I've cringed every time he's opened his mouth. His instinct around Beltway conservatives on cable shows is kumbaya.

Lol the cnn video way upthread that the kkk wanted to "advance the progressive agenda." How can people believe this stuff

Take the tack that many of these idiots use with "liberals are the real racists!" and it's not too far from there

see also: Margaret Sanger = PROGRESSIVE BABY KILLER & HUEG RACIST

sanders speech earlier sounded like they believed the race was over

didn't hear, but i can't believe this was intended as i've gotten 4 fundraising emails since

Applause for every word of dlh's post, including and especially the all-caps and profanity. That is something I too want broadcast far and wide.

xxpost Morbs Trump/Hillary—Quinnipiac, national favorable/unfavorable, Feb. 18

1 Sanders 51/36 [+]

2 Kasich 35/18 [+]

3 Rubio 39/37 [+]

4 Clinton 37/58 [-]

5 Trump 37/57 [-]

6 Cruz 36/45 [-]

7 Bloomberg 21/26 [-]

I think Van Jones is generally excellent.

sanders speech earlier sounded like they believed the race was over

didn't hear, but i can't believe this was intended as i've gotten 4 fundraising emails since

― we can be heroes just for about 3.6 seconds (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, March 2, 2016 11:36 AM (28 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Yeah, they are messaging hard that they are going fifty states and will attempt to leverage platform changes if they don't win.

for such a candidate, 35 percent of the vote still does not seem like it should be enough to win through to the nomination.

for such a pundit, the small space between the buttocks does not seem like it should be enough to admit the entire cranium through to the colon

there was some point maybe six years ago when online progressives were all VAN JONES VAN JONES and i figured he was some Occupy guy. Then i read a little bit of his spiel and discovered a boilerplate O-bot.

xp lol

Same reaction.

so why did Marquito win Minnesota idgi

Lesser of the three evils, maybe? Kinda surprised we didn't go for Kasich.

dll otm. I thought maybe the dude was making some esoteric point about the klan's philosophy of government but i guess he literally was just rehashing the old classic republican syllogism: democrats used to have a segregationist coalition in the south, democrats are progressives, therefore progressives are racists. They are such idiots.

May have been mentioned before, but the robust continuation of the Sanders campaign is good for democrats. They're not tearing into each other and progressives won't feel neglected so long as sanders keeps their favorite issues in the conversation. The worst thing would be for that race to stop and hillary is just waiting around, causing democrats to lose interest

really enjoying the folks who are blaming Obama for Trump over the last few days.

omg the sanders ppl i know are arguing that whole "well the black vote just went to clinton because of name recognition and the fact that bill is southern" shit gtfo

Heather Cox Richardson, a Boston College professor and the author of a new history of the Republican Party, predicts a violent rupture that cleaves the party in two: a hard-line conservatism, as embodied by Pat Buchanan, Newt Gingrich and Mr. Trump, and an old-fashioned strain of moderate Republicanism that recalls Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and Nelson Rockefeller. “It is going to be really ugly,” she said.

this... seems p wrong? wtf NYT

Douthat is such a pedantic nerd

Sorry that was xpost to will

They're not tearing into each other

Bernie's not, but his internet supporters... eh

the trump phenomenon has nothing to do with hard-line conservatism

A Berniebro triumphantly sent me a link this morning that showed that Bernie's support from black voters increased with improved name recognition but when you looked at the chart he was at 80% name recognition and only 20% support so I don't know how much more support he can wring out of those last 20% who don't know him yet.

where are all these modern-day Republicans in the mold of Eisenhower, Rockefeller and Roosevelt. Paul Ryan? Mitch McConnell? Marco Rubio?

xp

ciderpress otm, isn't that abundantly obvious given Trump's numerous heterodox statements?

where are all these modern-day Republicans in the mold of Eisenhower, Rockefeller and Roosevelt.

They're all Democrats now.

OBAMA (in b4 morbz)

xp

good morning guys, did i miss any enlightening posts about berniebros we personally know or have seen online?

an old-fashioned strain of moderate Republicanism that recalls Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and Nelson Rockefeller.

yeah honestly how many ppl like this are still GOP in 2016?

looks to me like basically the pro-entitlement, isolationist racists vs the rent-seeking plutocrats and the middle-managers who carry their water (also p racist afaict)

Liberal pundits are misinterpreting the Trump phenomenon all over the place. He doesn't fit their usual categories because in most elections the most dangerous candidate is also the most conservative one.

Teddy R's racism and Ike's bullying interventionism both seem alive and well if not "moderate"

Will otm

i just saw a 4-1/2 hr doc about the US and the Philippines (1900 and now) and Taft and Roosevelt were p close to genocial madmen.

*genocidal

BTW, what's up with the Oregon militia folks? I bet one of them would make a great VP candidate.

sure you've got your evangelicals, too. but at this point they more or less fall into the other two categories, partic the first.

you guys have to be praying for a Trump-Carson ticket i imagine

WWJD?

I thought it was gonna be Trump-Christie

Ugh, this person:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/dem-primaries/271327-clinton-to-voter-why-dont-you-go-run-for-something

haha, another funny wavering josh marshall thing which will be 1/10th prophetic no matter what happens:

No, There Won't Be a Contested Convention

Numerous Republicans and pundits are now predicting a contested GOP convention. Everybody was noting last night that ... well, sure Trump is winning most of the primaries but delegates are distributed on a proportional basis so "not Trump" has more delegates than "Trump." So open convention, baby!

No. In this election, certainly anything - truly anything - is possible. Despite my headline, I would not even say that a contested convention is impossible. But this 'contested convention' talk is just a compressed phase of denial, bargaining and anger as GOP stakeholders rush to make sense of what's happening to them.

...There are probably many Republicans who would say that both in principle and in the long term interests of the Republican party this would still be better a better outcome. That's a strong argument. But that's a separate point. A 'stealing' contested convention could happen. But it almost certainly cedes the election to the Democrats.

The best thing to come out of the republican race is 73% of new jersey agreeing that chris christie sucks

otoh the ppl who would try that thinks DT's nomination cedes the election.

no, Christie for atty general xxp

arguing that whole "well the black vote just went to clinton because of name recognition and the fact that bill is southern" shit gtfo

i'm not gonna be the one to ask "what WERE the other reasons?"

for brevity, i cut out many paragraphs of him explaining that there are also many other possibilities which he has considered, and they may be in fact be possible, but not likely, that is, if certain factors play out as expected, which, of course, can never be predicted with full certainty.