News: TRUMP: The Official Trump thread (a.k.a. the classiest thread at BigSoccer, I promise you that)[F]

Destroyed Churchill's favourite Pizza Parlour.

 

It would so appear.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rting-to-change-toward-more-closed-primaries/

Unfortunately...

there been four closed elections: the Iowa caucus, the Nevada caucus, and Super Tuesday’s Oklahoma primary and Alaska caucus. Ted Cruz won three of those four closed elections.​

​

 

So what this is implying is that a lot of people who normally don't vote in Reep primaries are voting for Trump? Are these people just trolling, or is The Donald correct when he says everyone loves me, including Democrats? Or some of both?

 

I know a few people who voted for him out of spite, but at the polling place in my town, they had different colored ballots that they'd give people, depending on which primary they wanted to vote in. Ironically, the Dem was red and the Rep was blue. I saw a whole lot more red ballots than blue, so I don't think it's Democrat trolling.

 

Right. Because if there's one thing that distinguishes us Democrats from the Republicans, it's our ability to unify and organize and conspire.

 

You all and your conspiracy theories. Everyone knows that Trump talked to the Clintons the past summer before he started his campaign. They put him up to it.

 

Three of those four states do caucuses, so it may mean that Trump supporters are not as willing to spend so much time (compared to just voting and going home), or they are regular working guys who can't spend all day standing in the corner of a middle school gym.

 

So many people say things like this. But so many people (including many folks here in this thread) have been insisting for most of the last year that Trump had no chance at the Republican nomination.

 

I've seen a lot of women supporting Trump.

All of this makes sense to me -- there's not a bit of it that seems obviously wrong, except for (as I said) I've seen a lot of women speaking out about how much they like Trump. I'm simply saying that there were numerous perfectly logical arguments put forward in 2015 about how Trump couldn't possibly win the Republican nomination, and yet here we are.

Suppose there's chaos on the side of the Democrats if Hilary Clinton gets indicted. Suppose many of the folks turned off by Trump are unenthusiastic about Hilary Clinton, and thus do not vote at all?

I will be confident that Trump isn't going to be elected when he's not elected.

 

Probably it could be phrased bettet but they're on to something...

 

The article says so, yes. So we'll see how that works.

 

Here's the schedule along with the open and closed character.

https://ballotpedia.org/Closed_primary#Presidential_primaries_and_caucuses.2C_2016

Click to sort by date ...

 

I believe if you look at exit poll statistics Trump has actually been polling very well with Hispanics and female voters. Totally agree with you though that if he does make the general he will have a hard time finding the majority but who knows, Hillary could get in trouble from 'the damn emails' which would cause a huge swing in the Republicans favor.

EDIT: In Nevada for example trump had 45% of the Hispanic vote while Rubio 28%, Cruz 18% with Carson and crew far behind.

 

Go home and get your shinebox Christie

EDIT: There's something heartening about seeing a blowhard being told to go home after he's been put through the motions and no longer has any use. I imagine it's akin to seeing your high school tormentor getting scolded by their mother and watching him/her try not to cry

 

Using exit/entrance polls like this is totally suspect.

You're dealing with a tiny universe of Republican voting Latinos, which aren't representative in the slightest of the overall all Latino electorate.

So you've got a totally unrepresentative sample, and the sample you do have is so small and the error in it so high that you can't really say anything legitimate about it. And you should realize that the entrance and exit polls are not designed to give a representative sample in any way. Extrapolating anything from them is dubious.

What you can say is that a hell of a lot more Latinos are voting in the Dem primaries than the Republican primaries. That won't change and the idea that Trump or any of the rest of them can change that is right near ludicrous.

 

My wife and I were talking about this. She asked if Trump can win.

Some pundits argue he could win some Rust Belt states. Maybe. But he can't win Virginia. I doubt the growing Hispanic population in Georgia allows him to win Georgia. So tha makes up for a Rust Belt state right there. Would it be possible for Hillary to win Texas? The mere fact that Trump has to worry about that is a big deal.

Trump is such a unique candidate (is William Jennings Bryan the best analogy? If so, by definition, 120 year old analogies are worthless in this context.) that it's way too early to take anything off the table. Except one thing, namely, that this election won't simply come down to Florida and Ohio. For a while now, if one party swept those, they won. The other 48 states were merely about running up the score.

 

I am petrified that terrorists will carry out a significant attack before the election to get T***p elected.

 

If only the hispanic population voted in the republican caucuses....

Despite the apparently impressive result, Hispanic voters only made up 8 percent of Republican caucus-goers in Nevada. By contrast, 19 percent of caucus-goers in Saturday's Democratic contest were Hispanic.

Soooo.. No not really impressive...