NEW: Trump campaign statement tonight pic.twitter.com/ycqP3IJYWn— Robert Costa (@costareports) April 6, 2016
That's the statement read to the press by a campaign spokesperson.
Cruz wants to portray the votes he got as votes that were really for him, but a lot of Wisconsinites were voting for him as a way to vote not merely for an open convention but for Paul Ryan. Trump can and should minimize the significance of these votes as votes for Cruz, but they are very real votes against Trump.
ADDED: I've said I think Trump's statement is accurate, but there are a few things I'm not vouching for. I'm not signing onto the idea that Cruz is "lyin'" or that the advertising against Trump was "false" or that he's coordinating illegally with the super PAC or totally controlled by them.
I think it's true that "party bosses" are using Cruz as their tool, but I don't consider that "steal[ing]." It's fair politics. I don't think Cruz is an inanimate object like a puppet or a wooden horse. He has his own plans and his own will, and I don't think he's in league with the people who are using him. I'm sure he understands how people trying to use him, even as he — in lawyerly fashion — characterizes the facts, making them seem to be in his favor, by claiming that he's uniting the party and that the votes cast for him represent support for him and not for another agenda.
As for that last sentence: It may be true that Trump is the only candidate who has a decent chance of getting to the majority of delegates that will secure a first-ballot victory, but there are other ways that delegates can be instrumental in getting to the nomination. As for ultimately defeating "Hillary Clinton, or whomever is the Democratic nominee" — I don't think Trump is the Republican most capable of winning in the general election and "whomever" is bad English.
पोस्ट्स
१६५ टिप्पण्या:
The part about Trump defeating his old pal Hillary? Not accurate. Certainly not accurate as far as the polls are concerned. Trump loses to her in almost every poll. In red Mississippi, Trump leads Hillary by 3 measly points. If Trump cannot secure red states, how will he secure the purple states?
Im sure lots voted against trump. But are wisconsinites so delusional as to vote with ryan in mind? Any data to back that specific assertion?
I notice today that Trump's political obituary is being written. Again.
Trump can secure enough delegates to win the nomination? That's not what most experts think. And Trump is the only candidate who can defeat Hillary Clinton? Even less plausible.
I'm not expert enough in election law to know if Cruz has done anything illegal, but I'm glad Prof. Althouse is. I wish she would elucidate this legal issue.
So that's Trump's message? "Everyone hates Ted Cruz, Ted Cruz is terrible, yet apparently a majority of voters would rather have him than me."
@AprilApple, because Hillary is a corrupt politician with very little to propel her to victory. If you honestly think Hillary will carry Mississippi, your disgust of Trump has clouded your view.
The man has difficulty losing.
Nobody cares about one's motivation for voting for candidate A. There's no explanation on the ballot.
So Trump gets to crow about winning New Hampshire, but Cruz doesn't get to crow about winning Wisconsin?
Sorry, No.
Trump gotta Trump.
So we're clear, the logic is:
1. Trump cannot beat Hilary. In fact, Trump will be crushed by Hilary.
2. Even people who despise Cruz and would never vote for him in a general election... ought to vote for him because it is vital that Trump not make it to the general election against Hilary.
Yeah, that makes perfect sense.
Trump can and should minimize the significance of these votes as votes for Cruz,
Agree.
I'm curious what the Trump handlers and spokespeople will say in the future after (if) he fails.
I was only following orders.
"@AprilApple, because Hillary is a corrupt politician with very little to propel her to victory. If you honestly think Hillary will carry Mississippi, your disgust of Trump has clouded your view."
Weak as Hillary is, I wouldn't underestimate the vast number of people who loathe Trump across the political spectrum. And saying "Trump will definitely win Mississippi" shouldn't inspire much confidence, any more than "Hillary has Maryland in the bag" should for the Dems.
The Mississippi poll (as well as the Utah one that had Hillary actually leading Trump) may be outliers, and of course an April snapshot of the polls can change a lot by November, but these are indicators that Trump is very weak in the general election. If he doesn't turn it around (and is he even capable of doing so?) we could be looking at a Goldwater level loss, carrying the mess downballot as well.
Costa and Trump are accusing Cruz of a crime here, too. Nice cherry on top of the crap cake.
Money was spent to educate people how horrid Trump is.... "No fair!"
I agree that many of the votes for Cruz were not really votes for Cruz. But they certainly weren't votes for Trump!
But what about all the Kasich votes?
Cruz would get nearly 100% of Kasich's votes if Kasich dropped out.
Trump is a whiner and a sore loser.
And that "Lyin' Ted" name is so, so inaccurate. Trump has bragged about how he created a phantom reason not to close on a golf course deal at the closing table. He did so in order to chisel millions off the price and impress his daughter who was with him at the closing. He did so because he could. Talk about a liar.
They voted with their fingers crossed in Wisconsin.
People voting for Cruz as a strategy beware.. they may dig a deeper hole for themselves. But who cares! He will lose against Hillary in the General.
If Cruz is the only anti-Trump candidate they have left, I would say the establishment is the Trojans and Cruz is the one inside the horse.
To dissect the analogy:
* The Trojan horse stands for victory against Trump
* Cruz is hidden inside the horse
* The party establishment are the Trojans
"The man has difficulty losing."
Which is odd, what with his number of bankruptcies and failed brands.
@ Madison Man - I'm pointing out a poll. I guess we are supposed to ignore any poll that suggests Trump might not be as strong as his supporters want to believe.
"I agree that many of the votes for Cruz were not really votes for Cruz. But they certainly weren't votes for Trump!"
Considering how "awful" Cruz is by Trump's argument, it really says something that so many people would choose Cruz as the lesser of two evils.
"If Cruz is the only anti-Trump candidate they have left, I would say the establishment is the Trojans and Cruz is the one inside the horse."
That may be the plan for the anti-Trump moderates (who aren't thrilled with Cruz). If Cruz wants to get the nomination at this point he needs to expand his appeal to them--it would also help his argument that he can win the general election. I can already picture Hillary's anti-Cruz ads.
" "Everyone hates Ted Cruz, Ted Cruz is terrible, yet apparently a majority of voters would rather have him than me."
$100 million in negative advertising has consequences. Especially in a society that knows nothing about history or western civilization.
It's not that "everyone hates him." It's that the people funding his campaign will drop him like a hot rock once Trump has been blocked.
Polls are not reality. Else Bernie would have lost Michigan.
I'm trying to think of the last time I voted for someone I really wanted. Maybe Reagan in 1980.
Trump didn't lose Wisconsin due to negative advertising. He lost Wisconsin because he's an idiot.
One thing that is certain (or should be, logically speaking) Wisconsin Republicans won't be coming out to vote in the huge numbers of yesterday to vote for a Trump. What will Cruz voters do if Trump is the nominee?
Not accurate even slightly. Cruz is trying to win. He's not hiding in the horse. Awful metaphor.
The metaphor fits Trump more easily. He's a Trojan horse for Hillary.
So, just to throw this out there, but even when we're talking about public figures there still exist some legal protections/remedies against someone falsely accusing you of a crime, right? For someone who's interested in "opening up" libel laws Trump sure doesn't seem hesitant to make pretty serious claims about others without bothering to produce any evidence.
Win or lose if you're on the campaign of Cruz you should save a little cash for a lawsuit against some Trumpers down the line, no?
tola'at sfarim said...
are wisconsinites so delusional as to vote with ryan in mind?
I can think of at least two who are.
Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...
I'm trying to think of the last time I voted for someone I really wanted. Maybe Reagan in 1980.
King of the Hill "To Spank With Love"
PEGGY: I am going to scare my students, exactly the way President Reagan scared hundreds of millions of Russians with his Star Wars death beam.
HANK: I miss voting for that man.
2016 Presidential Polls.
For those who dismiss polls. Either Trump or Cruz losing against Clinton or Sanders in every single one of these polls for months now. Not every single one of these polls can be an outlier. Why Republicans aren't more enthusiastic over Kasich is a mystery to me, he actually wins some of the head to heads against Clinton.
Fetchez la vache!
Sorry. It hadda be said.
tola'at sfarim said...
But are wisconsinites so delusional as to vote with ryan in mind? Any data to back that specific assertion?
Trump won Paul Ryan's congressional District. I think we know what the constituents closest to Ryan were thinking. I don't see the we want Paul Ryan movement either.
"delegates can be instrumental"
There you have it.
The "Lyin' Ted Cruz" epithet hurled recklessly by Trump rubs me the wrong way. In my experience, the one shouting "Liar!" often ends up being the devious party.
More so, Cruz has argued several times before the Supreme Court. All written submissions are made to a high degree of accuracy. Any lie either in the papers or at oral argument would be seized on by the opposing party and/or one of the 9 Justices. Lying doesn't happen at that level, indeed, honesty is at premium because the stakes and standards are so high.
This is not a casino negotiation in Atlantic City, New Jersey.
I thought Trump was savvy enough to start acting more presidential after he won a bunch of primaries, to make the necessary pivot to the General. But this post Wisconsin Tweet suggests the opposite.
"But Trump’s real problem isn’t his tone, it’s the fact that he would utterly disdain the founders’ vision of government and humanity if he knew enough about it to comment. Trump’s identity politics isn’t just ugly because of its tone, it’s ugly because it suggests that Americans have group rights rather than individual rights, and that those group rights can be exercised at the expense of other groups. Trump’s constant lying isn’t a problem because it makes us distrust politicians – it’s a problem because we already distrust politicians, and as a non-politician, Trump is therefore allowed to skate on his lies."
Ignore the polls are your peril. They can't ALL be wrong.
Trump is losing to an Un-indicted felon. *ignore*
The "Lyin' Ted Cruz" epithet hurled recklessly by Trump rubs me the wrong way. In my experience, the one shouting "Liar!" often ends up being the devious party.
Thank you.
Cruz would get nearly 100% of Kasich's votes if Kasich dropped out.
People keep saying that. It doesn't appear to be true. It certainly wasn't true when Christie, Jeb!, Carson, or Rubio dropped out. Every time someone drops out, a significant portion of their support goes to Trump.
Trump might lose to Sanders in even bigger numbers than he does to Clinton.
I laughed when Obama claimed he was qualified to be President because he ran a winning campaign. As low as that bar is, maybe he was onto something. Trump is a one-note candidate who doesn't seem to have a strategy or learn from his mistakes. Not at all what you would expect from an effective leader.
I said in last nights thread that I don't think Trump really wants to win this. He had all kinds of free publicity and early momentum but has failed to build on that. A smart, hungry candidate wouldn't have wasted this opportunity.
Did your pTb happen to get more votes than Ms.C + Mr.S combined? I don't understand why he can't be more gracious in victory or defeat, but I've negotiated with these Bronx B@stards, and they don't turn civil until after the contract is signed, irrespective of what side they come out of in "the deal." Especially if I or my friends take a poke at their wife by embarrassing their children, shaming her in public for earning a living vice being on the public dole. I'd be swimming with the fish if it were me and he wasn't such a nice guy.
"The metaphor fits Trump more easily. He's a Trojan horse for Hillary."
I don't think anyone will celebrate Trump's nomination as much as Hillary will.
"I thought Trump was savvy enough to start acting more presidential after he won a bunch of primaries, to make the necessary pivot to the General. But this post Wisconsin Tweet suggests the opposite."
Pivoting would have been the wise move, but then remember who he is. It's like the parable about the snake--his supporters knew he was a snake when they took him in. They can't expect him to change.
"I can't believe Bobby asked Tricia out instead of me, everyone knows she is a backstabbing whore who is jealous about how I look."
Amanda's poll link, which shows Trump and Cruz both losing handily to HRC, is what I've focused on for awhile now. National polls may mean next to nothing in primaries, and have their flaws even as predictors for the general, but it seems clear to me that the GOP is headed for a disaster with Trump as the candidate. If it defaults to Cruz at the convention, it winds up in the same place. So if you're a convention delegate and don't intend to vote for losing Trump, why default to Cruz? Go whole hog and pick Kasich, who can't win most any primary but polls well nationally, or maybe Ryan, whose national poll numbers I haven't seen.
But I'm figuring the GOP will pick the worst possible path, by kicking sand in the face of the Trump supporters, and nominating Cruz, the number 2 man. He still loses, and the GOP has made a name for itself as the party that doesn't care what its voters say. The sting will last at least 8 years.
Bernie is losing to an Un-indicted felon. *ignore*
Hey! It worked!
@BAG: "I thought Trump was savvy enough to start acting more presidential" Funny.
It maybe those 6% of Kasich voters went for Cruz simply because they heard the "My pop was a mailman" story once too many times.
I heard some talking heads last night saying that the Republican elite would rather lose with Cruz, than with Trump. Lose with Cruz, good campaign slogan.
" it suggests that Americans have group rights rather than individual rights, and that those group rights can be exercised at the expense of other groups."
No, the reason why Trump is still in the race is that many voters, not just Republicans, realize that group rights have dominated since 2009, if not before.
If you think Americans still have individual rights that are worth anything, I can see why you hate Trump.
Sure, Ted Cruz will beat Hillary. Especially after the videos come out with him speaking in tongues--the gibberish kind that no one can understand. Or even handling snakes. You know the videos are out there, people just have to look through their files.
" the Republican elite would rather lose with Cruz, than with Trump. Lose with Cruz, good campaign slogan."
What is more important is that they would rather lose with Cruz, although they will see that he is also taken out, than win with Trump.
Wisconsin "Republicans" around Milwaukee gave Cruz the win. The rest of the State went Trump. That bodes well for the general.
Whoever, not whomever.
"The metaphor fits Trump more easily. He's a Trojan horse for Hillary."
Okay, but we need to understand, and keep separate, the myth from the history. From Wikipedia (sort of):
The war originated from a quarrel between the goddesses Melania, and Heidi, after Trump, the god of strife and discord, gave them a golden apple, sometimes known as the Apple of Discord, marked "for the fairest". CNN sent the goddesses to Paris of Texas who judged that Melania, as the "fairest", should receive the apple. In exchange, Heidi made Teodora, the most beautiful of all women and the wife of Harley-Davidson, fall in love with Scott of Wisconsin, who took her to Wauwatosa. Koch, king of Topeka and the brother of Teodora's husband Ryan of Janes, led an expedition of Apollonian troops to the GOP convention in Troy, Ohio and besieged the city for ten years because of Paris' insult. After the deaths of many heroes, including the Apollonians Bush and Rubio, and the Trumpians Lewandowski and Palin, the city fell to the ruse of the Trumpian Horse.
"Whomever" is correct, though it sounds awful. "He will be Hillary or whomever."
That guy needs not a grammarian, but an editor. The sentence was wrong from the point of modifying "whomever".
*"beat Hillary" (no, I didn't mean that), not "be Hillary"
The Trump campaign's accusation about illegal activity between Cruz and SuperPacs is that Cruz was showing up around the state at events and rallies that were sponsored and organized by the SuperPacs.
I don't know how you do that without some type of coordination. But frankly, I don't know why coordination is illegal anyway.
EVERYONE COORDINATES WITH THIER PACS. Can we please stop pretending?
Wisconsin just suffered through John Doe II based on the Walker recall campaign coordinating with political action committees. That was all bullshit.
They probably did coordinate. Walker is a pro at it, and it drove Chisholm and the Dems crazy.
"Sure, Ted Cruz will beat Hillary. Especially after the videos come out with him speaking in tongues--the gibberish kind that no one can understand."
After the speaking in tongues videos will they run the DC Madam client list or the Anonymous lists with Cruz's name on it? Is Trump sitting on this info, waiting for a 'reputable' source to put it out there? This election has everything any TV drama would want.
Gusty Winds, right on.
So where will Bernie's "Anybody But Hillary!" voters go in the general electionif the choice is Trump? Or Cruz?
Gusty Winds said...The Trump campaign's accusation about illegal activity between Cruz and SuperPacs is that Cruz was showing up around the state at events and rallies that were sponsored and organized by the SuperPacs.
I don't know how you do that without some type of coordination.
You may just misunderstand what "coordination" means in this case, Gust. If the campaign and the PAC talk and say "you should go here, spend money on this, say this in your ad, use this slogan on your banners" then that's coordination and it's illegal. If the campaign publishes a list of places/venues where it's going to have events or releases lots of interview/speech footage of their candidate to the public (without license or restrictions on that footage's use) and a PAC uses that information themselves then it's not coordination. If Cruz has a rally scheduled for town X on day Y and the PAC knows that and tells people they should go, sends people with signs there, etc, it's not coordination.
You're allowed to use publicly available information. You're not allowed to privately confer/strategize/direct. Since the campaigns know this they purposefully make certain information public. That's not illegal. PACs can use and react to publicly available information. That's not illegal.
I read only 6% of Wisconsin republicans consider immigration to be a serious issue. If that's true you folks are really are cloistered rubes incapable of seeing the big picture. Fortunately Wisconsin is pretty inconsequential...in the big picture.
"I read only 6% of Wisconsin republicans consider immigration to be a serious issue."
Source?
HoodlumDoodlum, the large question is the one Gusty Winds raised: "Can we please stop pretending?"
The problem is not misunderstanding. It's foolishness.
Ann Althouse said... As for ultimately defeating "Hillary Clinton, or whomever is the Democratic nominee" — I don't think Trump is the Republican most capable of winning in the general election and "whomever" is bad English.
You're looking for "whoever" instead, sure...but would you have accepted "whomsoever?"
Paul said, "I read only 6% of Wisconsin republicans consider immigration to be a serious issue."
Mead asked, "Source?"
Well, I read 71.6% of Wisconsin Democrats consider sex with cows to be OK.
And I read that 71.6% of statistics are made up on the spot.
...or that he's coordinating illegally with the super PAC or totally controlled by them
I don't know the legalities of PAC coordination. But the off shore meeting of GOP power players to coordinate stop Trump efforts had to heavily rely on PAC spending.
They coordinate. Give me a break. They only two candidates that can say with a straight face that they aren't coordinating with PACs and the moment are Sanders and Trump.
If either make it to the general, that will change.
Meade;
Over at Steve Sailor's. I'll see if I can find the exit poll mentioned
"The results of the exit poll I saw indicated that only 6% of Republican voters in Wisconsin were chiefly concerned about immigration, which might explain a large portion of Trump’s relatively poor performance. About 30% said that terrorism was their chief issue, which is……..ridiculous, quite frankly (way to go FOX News – mission accomplished).:"
I love the argument that Trump only lost because of advertising. You think Hillary won't have any advertising?
Also, Trump typically underperforms his polls. The fact he got about a percent more in Wisconsin yesterday was unusual. That Mississippi poll should concern Trumpsters.
Trump has run a successful "plurality" campaign. He does not appeal to a majority of the country much less a majority of Republicans. He tosses out insults and innuendo like a child caught red-handed, but he's going to pivot to pull in the rest of the country. Good luck with that.
Bottom of page 1:
http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/wi/Rep
"Whomsoever"...hmm. That makes a lot of sense here. You're suggesting that the word takes the place of a dependent clause. "He beats Hillary like a red-haired stepchild in an Asian household, or whomsoever he wants to beat," rather than "He beats Hillary badly, making her look like the Little Mermaid after King Triton blew up her little treasure cave, or whomsoever might have beaten her in similar fashion."
It all works out that way.
I had a PR writer, very briefly, who used to emit sentences like that.
Still lousy writing, but better your way, HoodlumDoodlum.
Thanks, Paul.
Who/whomever can go either way. It is the object of "defeat" but the subject of "is." I believe my 8th grade teacher said to go with the adjacent verb.
Neither Trump nor Cruz can win a general election. They would be fortunate to maintain the states Romney won and would probably lose a few of those as well. Cruz will not win as many delegates as Trump. His argument at the convention, if it be contested, will be that Trump should not be the nominee even if he had the most delegates. That will be Kasich's argument as well. Kasich's second argument will be that he can win a general election but Trump and Cruz can't. Cruz argument will be that Kasich only one state. But that state is crucial to any GOP victory. Kasich is running a general election campaign right now. He hasn't said anything dumb that would cost him in the general election. He's using the primaries to introduce himself to the all the voters in each important state in the general election.
Cruz is extremely unlikeable, not just to the voters but to people who have to deal with him personally. At a contested convention, the only argument is who can win in the general election (and also not hurt down ticket races). What states can Cruz flip? None. There would be nothing unfair about passing over Cruz. Trump will have won the most voters, the most delegates, and the most states. He has an argument about unfairness. Cruz doesn't.
The GOP would be insane not to pick Kasich.
"Well, I read 71.6% of Wisconsin Democrats consider sex with cows to be OK."
Drill down and I think you will see the pollster's question was: "If you were a bovine, would you rather be a cow or a bull?"
Bob, I'd say there is a real difference between using public information and working together in private. I'm not a fan of most campaign finance laws but if we're going to have different rules for campaigns and independent PACs then there does need to be some way to keep them separated.
I like the idea of a PAC. They seem like a good expression of free expression and association (in 1st Amend. terms) and so I'd like to keep them as free from regulation as possible. I understand that most people strongly favor all kinds of strict regulation on campaigns/campaign spending and I would hate for those kinds of regulations to prevent people from forming their own lobbying/interest/education groups and making their voices heard.
Candidate-specific PACs are definitely a challenge to the preferences I express above. Ideally (to me) we'd have tons of long-term issue-oriented independent PACs and separate short-term candidate-specific campaign organizations.
I agree that the rules against coordination can seem silly given the close relationships between campaign workers and candidate-specific PACs. I disagree with the opinion that rules against coordination serve no purpose (or can serve no purpose) and I worry that breaking the distinction between independent PACs and campaigns will harm the ability of grassroot-types to form effective groups and counterbalance large national campaigns/party influence.
I'm not signing onto the idea that Cruz is "lyin'" or that the advertising against Trump was "false" or that he's coordinating illegally with the super PAC or totally controlled by them.
Gracious of you, Madam Professor, very gracious.
Meade, good point, but I read that the pollster's question was actually, "If you were a bovine, would you rather be in Wisconsin or Oklahoma?"
Side note: The Soundgarden song "Fell on Black Days" just popped into my head and I started humming it to myself...it took me a minute to remember that the song's lyric include the lines "whomsoever I've feared" and "whomsoever I've cured." Some part of my brain linked that up and brought the song forward but without my making the explicit connection right away.
It's weird to out think yourself! Ever wonder what's really going on in there?
HoodlumDoodlum, well said. I agree with your philosophy in general, but I think we'd be better off just ridding ourselves of campaign-finance laws. As you suggest, it's a tough area.
Old and busted: "No one likes Cruz! He doesn't have a single friend in Congress! Not one! Everyone hates him! No way could he ever get anyone to follow him!"
The New Hotness: "Cruz has the whole GOP behind him! He's a tool of the Establishment and talk radio! He's thick as thieves with the bastards!"
Time between these two narratives measured in microseconds.
" the Republican elite would rather lose with Cruz, than with Trump. Lose with Cruz, good campaign slogan."
Count me out of this. I'd rather win Cruz or Trump. Hillary is an abomination and Sanders is an ex-hippie, who never held a job.
While I'm at it: Campaigns & independent PACs? Ya Gotta Keep 'em Separated
Henry said: "to dissect the analogy of the Trojan Horse ....
* The Trojan horse stands for victory against Trump
* Cruz is hidden inside the horse
* The party establishment are the Trojans"
I see it differently.
*The Trojan Horse is Cruz
*The Establishment is hidden inside
*The atrojans are the Republican voters who the Establishment will disenfranchise
I suppose another hint as to how Ann voted.
It is maddening that Trump issues such a sore loser statement accusing Cruz of illegal conduct without evidence, and the media (and now Ann) treat it seriously and find it "accurate in many respects." What is it about Trump that causes otherwise smart people to lose their perspective? This statement is nothing more than further proof that Trump is a liar, immature and unfit to be president.
I saw the conservative judge won in Wisconsin. She got lucky there was such a huge turnout for republican primary, which appeared to determine the judge election (although it appeared that about 75,000 votes in each party did not vote for a judge candidate). It was strange that Sean Trend, a smart guy on polling, got it wrong saying at about the 50% mark in returns that it looked like the liberal would win. The liberal did not even draw closer during the rest of the vote, still losing by over 90,000 votes, which was about the spread when Trend predicted otherwise. Strange miss by a smart and objective guy.
Michael K: No, the reason why Trump is still in the race is that many voters, not just Republicans, realize that group rights have dominated since 2009, if not before.
Just how oblivious (or just plain stupid) do you have to be to buy that Trump is driving identity politics in this country?
Amazing how certain allegedly conservative Republicans so uncritically and completely swallow the lefty racism narrative.
Cruz has argued before the Supreme Court and is known as Lyin' Ted to The Donald.
Trump has argued with Chris "the Human Gatling Gun" Mathews and is known as an idiot to the rest of the world (excluding the non-Trumpeteers, of course).
Whom(so)ever parses as "[the, any, etc.] person who." The "who" case is governed by whatever function it has in its clause.
"Person" has the same form in objective or nominative.
I posted a comment in favor of "whomever," had second thoughts, deleted it, thought some more and now I'm back to say that I still think "whomever" is right. It's the object of the sentence, not the subject. You wouldn't say "Trump is the only candidate with the votes to defeat HE," you'd say he was the only candidate "with the votes to defeat HIM." So it's whom or whomever, not who or whoever.
I think it would only be "whoever" if you turned the sentence around to make the clause the subject: "Hillary Clinton, or whoever is the Democratic nominee, must have enough votes to defeat Trump." But that's not this sentence.
Anyway, it's awful writing. New sentence needed.
This is how the game is always played. People don't always vote for the best candidate. They never have. Often times thy vote for the least bad candidate.
When Romney was running, there was a new not-romney candidate just about every month. The support for those candidates was very shallow. One could tell that because the support switched so quickly every time a criticism would stick.
Cruz is the not Trump candidate at least in Wisconsin.
Maybe Kasich will be the not Trump candidate in somewhere like new York. I haven't seen the polling.
If I toss Cruz 20 bucks, will Trump have me arrested?
"So where will Bernie's "Anybody But Hillary!" voters go in the general election if the choice is Trump? Or Cruz?"
the million dollar question. I think the more moderate ones might be open to the GOP, but it's hard to picture them going with Trump. We may discover just how "never" the neverhillary crowd really is.
"I love the argument that Trump only lost because of advertising. You think Hillary won't have any advertising?"
Not to mention her oppo research teams digging up evidence of abortions Trump talked previous sex partners into having, illegal aliens he hired, or just 90% of the things he said publicly over the years. Plus, if they learned anything from Obama's GOTV efforts, their turnout model will be a lot better than the nonexistent one that Trump needs to build from scratch.
"Count me out of this. I'd rather win Cruz or Trump. Hillary is an abomination and Sanders is an ex-hippie, who never held a job."
You may just have to accept that the GOP won't win with Trump, period. To imagine otherwise is to imagine a different electorate and different candidate.
Cruz--well it would be very hard for him to win, but I'd not say impossible. There's a path for him.
Trump is in trouble. How do I know? Because I am in the process of turning against him. I have written many, many comments on many web sites defending the man ... but that is ending. I liked him for one reason only: he fought the PC ethos that is destroying the Western Hemisphere. No one else seems willing to fight it because the price is so heavy: utter ostracism.
So I overlooked his deportation idiocy, his lack of curiousity on issues in general, his childish name-calling, etc. I allowed Scott Adams to convince me it was all part of a Master Persuasion process. Maybe he will, as Scott Adams predicts, pull a rabbit out of the hat. But I'm seeing a magician whose tricks are no longer clever but instead are predictable, simplistic, and boring. And I'm sensing flop sweat.
Paul said, "I read only 6% of Wisconsin republicans consider immigration to be a serious issue."
Your citation says that 6% of Wisconsin Republicans think immigration is the most important issue. Others said the economy, terrorism, or government spending. (Probably 2% had a fill-in for "white-tailed deer", but they don't count.)
So, um, bullshit.
I read somewhere that 91% of Democrats think that Stalinism is a good form of government.
"The New Hotness: "Cruz has the whole GOP behind him! He's a tool of the Establishment and talk radio! He's thick as thieves with the bastards!" As opposed to the amnesty-promoting, entitlement-keeping, Hillary-inviting, Iraq-disparaging, libel-law-opening, steak-selling, Dem-donating anti-establishment candidate.
Professor says the statement is accurate "in many ways" and then proceeds to discuss how it is inaccurate in all but one statement (The party using Cruz to stop Trump). To be fair, she waffles on whether the last sentence is true, so maybe two statements, maybe.
Do headlines ever accurately reflect the stories any more?
Hillary Clinton is very unlikeable. Trump and Cruz are very unlikeable. Trump's policies are incoherent. Cruz policies are unpopular.
I'm beginning to think there's method in Kasich's madness. Reince Priebus said yesterday one of the three remaining candidates will get the nomination. He even mentioned Kasich by name. Perhaps there have been some winks and nods -- this being one such example -- from the establishment to John Kasich to stay the course, divide the vote, and there will be a reward at the end.
You're right. I was quoting from memory. But the fact that only 6% think it's the most important issue is insane. What cloistered lily white part of the country do you live in? I live in California and am looking at a demographic change, one the GOPe and Democrat socialists are looking to implement nationwide, that will insure a permanent socialist dictatorship at some point and probably a lot sooner than fools like you can conceive of.
Cruz is not a likeable candidate and it will take a dismal democrat or bad conditions in the country for him to win. However, an analogy could be made to Richard Nixon. He was unlikeable and a mediocre candidate, but he was crafty and focused like Cruz, and seized the opportunity presented by dismal democrats and bad times for the country to win in 1968.
Blogger M Jordan said...
Henry said: "to dissect the analogy of the Trojan Horse ....
I see it differently.
*The Trojan Horse is Cruz
*The Establishment is hidden inside
*The atrojans are the Republican voters who the Establishment will disenfranchise
I agree.
Let's throw a little Scott Adams in here. In the 3rd dimension is Trump throwing out "Trojan" imagery to reference condoms? Getting fucked? Cheating on your wife? Maybe being the DC Madam's phone book?
What if the election boild down to "Anybody But Hillary!" against "Anybody But Trump"?
"He was unlikeable and a mediocre candidate, but he was crafty and focused like Cruz, and seized the opportunity presented by dismal democrats and bad times for the country to win in 1968."
It's not 1968 anymore. Ted Cruz will never be elected president. He will do worse than any other R candidate once he's front and center and the whole nation gets to take a look and get creeped out.
2 things. cruz does appear to be coordinating with super pacs. cruz is an apparent liar or at least appears to be a liar--see carson issue in iowa (done by his campaign) and his different statements on immigration as poison pill vs ivy talk saying he wants legalization. of course, cruz was not under oath, so yes just politics.
"But the fact that only 6% think it's the most important issue is insane."
You think it's insane that some people might consider terrorism more important than immigration? Or the economy? Or the fact that our deficit is still in the several hundred billions level eight years after the last recession, when we should be in recovery?
Immigration is important, but to argue that it is THE most important issue (considering the level of illegal immigration is down by over a million since its 2007 peak) is one thing--to argue that it is "insane" not to think that way is quite another.
"Cruz is not a likeable candidate and it will take a dismal democrat or bad conditions in the country for him to win."
Likability between Cruz and Clinton would be a wash (though Trump v. Clinton, she's actually doing a lot better than him which really says something about him). The bigger issue will be trust in their competence. He can likely beat her there.
She will make a hard play for moderate votes, casting Cruz as a right wing extremist so the suburbanites say "hey, I don't trust Clinton, and am not fond of this leftist stuff, but Cruz scares me". If Cruz gets nominated, his task is to counter that sentiment.
Trump is in trouble. How do I know? Because I am in the process of turning against him.
Same boat here. I've always been a Cruz guy, but I defended Trump as well, and for the same reasons you list. I thought it was refreshing that someone finally challenged the establishment about such third rails as immigration, because I always suspected that the voters felt the parties had given up on its voters on this issue, as well as others.
Now I'm seeing a narcissistic, angry man, for whom the term "rejection" has no meaning. I'm seeing Greg Stillson running for president now.
"What if the election boild down to "Anybody But Hillary!" against "Anybody But Trump"? "
Then we get President Hillary.
It's the object of the sentence, not the subject.
The entire who-clause is the object of "defeat." "Who" is the subject of "is [the nominee]".
If likeability is a wash, then experience and the issues become important. Do independents in swing states agree more with Cruz "small" government religious approach or with Hillary's status quo with tweaks secular approach. And is Cruz' 4 years in the Senate experience enough given that he comes off as too ideological to independents. (Sanders is also too ideological to independents as well). Unlike a conservative governor like Mitch Daniels who might be able to point to beneficial accomplishments at the state level from conservative initiatives, Cruz has nothing substantive to point to as something he has accomplished in the Senate that were based on conservative initiatives. Cruz has the same problem Sanders has.
Possibly, though she may have to set up offices in Leavenworth.
But, if it is "Anyone but Cruz" against "Anyone But Hillary!" her margin of victory may be even larger.
Trump is nasty. I don't like the way Obama pits people against each other, and it would happen much more, it Trump wins. He is a narcissist, just like Obama...and is all about how great HE is, just like Obama. I didn't vote for Obama, and I won't vote for his double.
"Possibly, though she may have to set up offices in Leavenworth."
Probably, although that would be after she becomes the first President Clinton who is impeached AND convicted.
Descriptive grammar, as opposed to the familiar prescriptive grammar, is the study of why things sound wrong. Finding those rules.
"I thought it was refreshing that someone finally challenged the establishment about such third rails as immigration, because I always suspected that the voters felt the parties had given up on its voters on this issue, as well as others."
There's a template for a successful campaign that focuses on fixing the immigration problem and the economic challenges (specifically the lack of labor demand that keeps wages down and employment prospects weaker than before), as well as aggressive pushback against PC assumptions, racialism and insider cronyism of the GOP and the elite in general. The problem was, Trump just wasn't the right man for it for a host of reasons.
It's not 1968 anymore. Ted Cruz will never be elected president. He will do worse than any other R candidate once he's front and center and the whole nation gets to take a look and get creeped out.
What a load of crap. Are you thinking with your feelings? Or your brain?
The idea that the other 3 knuckleheads in this race are better than Cruz, and that a majority of people in this country think that, is completely alien to me.
"Then we get President Hillary."
Pretty much. Of the many depressing aspects of a Hillary presidency, the most annoying is the smug look on her face knowing that more than half the country is unfavorable towards her, two thirds don't trust her at all, and she lacks the most rudimentary political skills--and yet the GOP decided to go with Trump who managed to drive people to elect her anyway.
When this is over, the GOP will have won two out of the past seven presidential elections (and only once winning the popular vote) but it seems they just can't help themselves but to blow it.
Hagar: But, if it is "Anyone but Cruz" against "Anyone But Hillary!" her margin of victory may be even larger.
The Creature from the Pit of Corruption vs. the Creature from the Uncanny Valley.
(I was kinda looking forward to an almighty thunderdome of an election with Clinton vs. Trump, but this match-up could have its points of interest. Clinton vs. the brokered-convention candidate? Meh.)
Brando,
Which states could Cruz flip against Hillary?
Here's how the GOP wins back the White House:
Step 1: Repeal the Twenty-second Amendment.
Step 2: Barack Obama transitions to an Irish conservative Republican female and changes his name to Barry Reagan.
Step 3: Voila!
mccullough said...
Which states could Cruz flip against Hillary?
You need to be more specific. Flip for the Red team or the Blue team?
Just put an apostrophe in O'Bama and it would be a landslide.
"You think it's insane that some people might consider terrorism more important than immigration? Or the economy? Or the fact that our deficit is still in the several hundred billions level eight years after the last recession, when we should be in recovery?"
I didn't say that. I said it's insane that ONLY 6% think it's the most important issue, not that some people might consider terrorism, the economy, etc., more important. You need to up your reading comprehension or level of honesty.
And the reason is that demographic replacement removes the only remaining vestige of a bulwark that we have to fight for those other issues.
I would be hard pressed to be gracious with all of the republican party machinations going on in dark rooms as well.
"Which states could Cruz flip against Hillary?"
Currently? I'd say he'd get the same as Romney got (i.e., not enough). But if he ran a smart campaign and appealed to at least some moderates and Hispanics, I don't think VA, FL and OH are out of the question, or IA, CO and NV.
I realize that's a big "if" but that's the challenge the GOP faces.
"What a load of crap. Are you thinking with your feelings? Or your brain?
The idea that the other 3 knuckleheads in this race are better than Cruz, and that a majority of people in this country think that, is completely alien to me."
It may be alien to you but that is merely a reflection of your own lack of perspicacity. Most Americans react with their feelings. That should be obvious with the words President Obama.
Cruz, under the same level of scrutiny, will turn off more voters than anyone in the race on either side. He is naturally more repugnant to the average American than even Hillary Clinton.
Even if trump were worse in the general than Cruz which I disagree with, Cruz would still get creamed by the democrat. There is no way he wins the general.
"I didn't say that. I said it's insane that ONLY 6% think it's the most important issue, not that some people might consider terrorism, the economy, etc., more important."
But why is that insane? Look at how those polls break down each issue--say 30% for terrorism, probably with Belgium on their mind (I wouldn't rate terrorism above the economy, but can understand it being rated higher by some who think a major attack is imminent on this country). What would you consider a more reasonable number to rate immigration higher than anything else?
Brando said:
There's a template for a successful campaign that focuses on fixing the immigration problem and the economic challenges (specifically the lack of labor demand that keeps wages down and employment prospects weaker than before), as well as aggressive pushback against PC assumptions, racialism and insider cronyism of the GOP and the elite in general. The problem was, Trump just wasn't the right man for it for a host of reasons.
This is excellent analysis. And if you notice, his supporters are blaming other voters instead of Trump. This is their mistake. They need to hold Trump to a higher standard and force him to be a better candidate. His message does resonate but more and more people are growing tired of his third grade antics. He is faltering and his window is closing. A good candidate would adjust.
How would Cruz appeal to independents who don't like either him or Hillary? What policies does he have that differ from Hillary that appeal to independents?
I Callahan: What a load of crap. Are you thinking with your feelings? Or your brain?
Or thinking with your brain about the feelings of the millions of people who don't vote with their brains.
Dude does tend to come across as the unholy result of a teleporter malfunction involving Pee Wee Herman and an animatronic televangelist.
Jus' sayin'.
The idea that the other 3 knuckleheads in this race are better than Cruz, and that a majority of people in this country think that, is completely alien to me.
Race doesn't always go to the swiftest, etc.
Some people sure do get bent out of shape about hypotheticals.
The fact that 2016 is not 1968 is true, but I don't see the significance. The point was that an unlikeable and mediocre candidate can win if the opponent is poor and/or if the conditions in the country work against the other candidate, i.e., Hoover in 1932, Humphrey in 1968, and Bush in 1992. To a much lesser extent, McCain in 2008 - Obama was a good politician but virtually any democrat would have won in view of the recession.
It makes no difference whether the year is 2016 or 2056 or 1968.
For example, in the 1930's, while the more liberal candidates won in the U.S., in Europe generally the liberals were in power when economic upheaval came and the more conservative candidates prospered. The out of power party will win virtually every time is conditions are bad in a country. 2016 does not currently look like that type of year, so it is a matter mostly of how bad a candidate the democrats offer. Obama likely would crush Cruz. Not the other democrats.
" What would you consider a more reasonable number to rate immigration higher than anything else?"
I've tried to explain that demographic replacement finishes the American experiment. Permantly. No one has stepped up to counter this with a logical argument. Every problem we have is compounded in that scenario.
Paul: I've tried to explain that demographic replacement finishes the American experiment. Permantly. No one has stepped up to counter this with a logical argument. Every problem we have is compounded in that scenario.
Trade, terrorism, "the economy", government spending, "small government", and immigration are all interrelated, so polls presenting a list and requiring a rank ordering aren't all that informative.
That said, I think you're correct that a lot of people are pretty oblivious to the inevitable political consequences of current immigration patterns.
But Meade, ask your wife what happens if she is charged, tried, and convicted and then is elected?
That is a particularly sleazy, probably defamatory, statement from the "non-politician" shilling for Hillary - unwittingly or unwittingly.
Barring a miracle, Trump has guaranteed a Democrat presidency by reducing what looked to be a pretty good Republican lineup to a clown show. The mediaswine, always in on the joke, have promoted a Trump candidacy shamelessly to pave the way for a Democrat victory.
Given that the Dems are running the Queen of the Grifters and an aging, Marxist ignoramus, they may have needed some help. (Not that the amoral Democrats have a problem electing crooks and incompetents.) Trump was just the ticket to a future, perhaps permanent, dominance of the White House.
Paul said, "Cruz, under the same level of scrutiny, will turn off more voters than anyone in the race on either side. He is naturally more repugnant to the average American than even Hillary Clinton."
True.
He's an ugly man. His voice is ugly.
We vote for a Ken Doll or a Barbie Doll.
American voters are that shallow.
Meade: "Here's how the GOP wins back the White House:
Step 1: Repeal the Twenty-second Amendment.
Step 2: Barack Obama transitions to an Irish conservative Republican female and changes his name to Barry Reagan...."
A better path would be to repeal the 19th Amendment. But if I were you, I wouldn't say that either, no matter what I thought about it. 😄
"Given that the Dems are running the Queen of the Grifters and an aging, Marxist ignoramus, they may have needed some help. (Not that the amoral Democrats have a problem electing crooks and incompetents.) Trump was just the ticket to a future, perhaps permanent, dominance of the White House."
No one can prove that Bill Clinton talked Trump into running (though they've admitted to having a long conversation about the election just before Trump jumped in), but even assuming he did not--can anyone deny that Trump being in this race is not exactly the miracle Hillary needed?
She was running for a (rarely granted) third term for her party, following a divisive, somewhat disappointing (for his fans) and somewhat unpopular (until recently below 50% approval) incumbent. She has underwater favorables, 2/3 of the public finds her untrustworthy, and the possibility of her being indicted for exposing classified information (for reasons that could only have been corrupt--she has provided no other believable reason for the server setup) is not dismissed out of hand. Her record in politics has been poor, and she is seen as a tool of Wall Street at a time when this is as big a liability as ever. And to top it off, her political skills are terrible. The GOP had a serious chance to beat her this year.
And right now they're seriously questioning whether Trump will take the GOP congressional majorities down with him when he crashes and burns. If Bill didn't prompt this, could he and his wife have found a better stroke of luck?
I think "whomever" is correct in that sentence. But Trump and his speechwriters/memo writers are buffoons.
"whomever is nominated" is correct (i don't bother with 'whom' ever, except in 'who is doing what to whom?')
"whomever is the nominee" ... not sure. i guess wrong. syntactically there's no verb (besides the copula). semantically it's "is nominated".
"He's an ugly man. His voice is ugly"
It's beyond that though. There is something sleazy about him. It oozes. Thus the adjective oleaginous that is so often applied to him. Throw in some bible thumping and you've turned off most of America, shallow or not.
*whomsoevermaytohencefore*
Trump's favorability ratings are 30 favorable, 63 unfavorable. Cruz is 33 favorable, 54 unfavorable. Hillary is 40 favorable, 54 unfavorable.
Kasich is 43 favorable and 30 unfavorable.
Is Kasich running a general election campaign in the primaries?
Bay Area Guy said... on 4/6/16, at 8:21 AM CDT
I thought Trump was savvy enough to start acting more presidential after he won a bunch of primaries, to make the necessary pivot to the General. But this post Wisconsin Tweet suggests the opposite.
The tweet was actually by Washington Post reporter Robert Costa. It was sent via e-mail by Trump campaign spokeswoman, Hope Hicks, only to the Washington Post, and made public by the Washington Post. When other news organizations requested their own copy, it was e-mailed to them also.
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/04/05/a-quieted-donald-trump-quickly-turns-on-lyin-ted/
There was no news conference, there were no Twitter posts. There was no steak, no wine, no bottled water.
And then, on what had been perhaps the quietest primary night of Donald J. Trump’s political career, there came an email flash. Just like that, “Lyin’ Ted” and the “Trojan horse” were back.
“Campaign statement,” read the email from Mr. Trump’s spokeswoman, Hope Hicks, delivered first to The Washington Post, then to others upon request.
Hope Hicks is a 26 or 27 year old former Ralph Lauren model. (Trump hires a lot of women, like he likes to say, but they often have to be beautiful, like he doesn't like to say.)
.
Robert Silverberg wrote about the Trojan war in the current issue of Asimov's Science Fiction:
http://www.asimovs.com/current-issue/reflections/
Did mccullough just moby another thread?
Birkel,
What's the cultist take?
Whomever is right. To defeat Hillary Clinton or (to defeat) whomever... This is the right use of the objective case.
So are you working hard to spread the epithet "cult" to other mobies?
Regarding this, from our hostess, Prof. Althouse: "[E]ven as [Cruz] — in lawyerly fashion — characterizes the facts, making them seem to be in his favor, by claiming that he's uniting the party and that the votes cast for him represent support for him and not for another agenda"
Whether Sen. Cruz is "uniting the party" depends on a further criterion, doesn't it? Uniting the party as to what?
Cruz certainly united a near-majority of the Wisconsin GOP primary voters in voting for him in this primary. He thereby won 36 delegates to Trump's six. That's a pretty significant sort of unity, I respectfully submit. Indeed, for purposes of the day, it was the only sort of unification that much mattered.
Will he go on to consolidate those voters' personal allegiance, so that they become affirmative Cruz supporters and not merely #NeverTrump voters who chose Cruz as the lesser evil? That is a question for another day.
As for what votes for him "represent": They are votes for him. They represent the mechanism through which he won the delegates.
Contrary to Prof. Althouse's assertion, Cruz has never claimed that votes cast for him don't also further other agendas! That would be a silly thing to claim, and Cruz isn't silly. There's no slick lawyerly evasion or trick. For weeks and weeks, state after state, Cruz has been welcoming votes for him regardless of the voter's underlying agenda, and any suggestion to the contrary -- much less imputing that suggestion to Cruz himself -- is fantasy.
Prof. Althouse: If, as you've hinted, you voted for Sen. Cruz as a strategic vote for Paul Ryan (of whom I remain a big fan), then I'm sure that Sen. Cruz, Speaker Ryan, and I would all applaud your decision anyway. Own it however you choose.
Indeed, Speaker Ryan would readily forgive you for your (in-this-instance) misguided support of him, even though you're quite explicitly branding him as an insincere cynic, when you insist that the proof he's angling for the nomination is his insistence that he neither wants nor can win the nomination.
Ryan wants to do big things. To get them done, one needs a transformational presidency elected with a genuine mandate -- like Reagan. I have no doubt Ryan can imagine himself in that role, but it won't be this cycle, and he already has serious plans for what he's going to be doing in his current day job as Speaker of the House. You should take him at his word.
"A better path would be to repeal the 19th Amendment. But if I were you, I wouldn't say that either, no matter what I thought about it"
Good thinking, though. Of course, we would have to start teaching history and economics again.
"Ryan wants to do big things. To get them done, one needs a transformational presidency elected with a genuine mandate "
Ryan may want to do "big things" but he won't. Trump is a cipher after elected but he is the only GOP who could get elected this year, in my opinion.
The donor class has accommodated itself to Hillary. Talk and big bucks under the table is the way the country has been run since Reagan and he had a Democrat Congress so it was about the same then. That's where the deficits came from. He wanted to win the Cold War and to get the Democrats to come along, he had to let them collect their graft.
1994 was almost a paradigm shift but Gingrich decided to cash out. I think he briefly thought Trump could do it this year and was prepared to help but he is too smart not to see the fix is in now.
Cruz is a bit of a liar, at least through his campaign. I recieved a mass email from the Cruz campaign just now that says, "Confidential," "Don't forward this," and "For your eyes only."
What nonsense.
In fairness, nearly all candidates send that garbage.
Most political candidate emails seem purposed to trick delusional people into sending donations. Perhaps it is not so nice to give confused people a false sense of personal relationship as a way of taking money from them.
Paul said, "It's beyond that though. There is something sleazy about him. It oozes. Thus the adjective oleaginous that is so often applied to him. Throw in some bible thumping and you've turned off most of America, shallow or not."
Yes, it's the oleaginaity factor. He doesn't look or sound like Ken Barbie, so he must be a bad guy. And he's a Christian, so that's bad. He's probably a racist-- so white, so erudite. I have to hate him. But wait-- I'm a white guy! So I guess I have to love him.
Word on the street is Kasich is bad because he's self-centered and mean. Gee, who's ever heard of such traits in a POTUS?
I don't think Trump is the Republican most capable of winning in the general election and "whomever" is bad English.
Attack of the grammar zombies! Menacingly they lurch toward good English pronouns or any other victims whomever they may find, ignoramus in their savage ravage of the untainted, correct and, well, nice words! Tearing parts of speech from the body politic during the dark of night! They rally in the thousands, droning endlessly, “Lyin’ Ted, Lyin’ Ted, Lyin’ Ted.
I think Trump is going to destroy Cruz now. He couldn’t do this in Wisconsin with all the opposition from Right and Left and the Trump gaffes but the Wisconsin electorate is not typical. Trump is home now and should have the opportunity to brand Cruz at Trump’s leisure. The primary is on April 19th
Joe Scarborough, this AM on Morning Joe:
By the way, if Donald Trump ends up running against Hillary Clinton I will take on all bets that he will win by 10 points or more …
If Trump has the most delegates but is denied the nomination it will mean that all those votes in the primaries meant nothing. Why have the primaries at all? I’m wondering why anyone who is a Republican would believe that GOP voter apathy would be a good thing to encourage. On the other hand if you are a Democrat you should be smiling at the prospect of a brokered GOP convention.
Our current presidential primary system is a recent historical development as a reform intended to enable a more democratic process in the selection of candidates. Perhaps it is time to do away with the primaries and go back to the brokered conventions of the past where candidates were selected by party power brokers.
I love all the people pretending like politics is such a highbrow, dignified sport and Trump is soiling it by giving it exactly the amount of respect it deserves, which is very little.
These professional con artist politicians have been lying to us and screwing us for decades and some people still insist we pretend the Emperor is wearing clothes, while the GOP pursues an obvious splitter strategy, Cruz steals votes from the right, Kasich from the left, sandwiching Trump and bombing him with endless hate, and TRUMP is the bad guy? Yeah, ok. Trump is treating these worthless con artists with exactly the respect they deserve.
Personally, I think the backroom deals and endless corruption are a bigger deal than a little rhetoric, but for the status quo forever crowd, I can see how it bothers you. Because in the end you're for feels over reals.
Brando: "And right now they're seriously questioning whether Trump will take the GOP congressional majorities down with him when he crashes and burns. If Bill didn't prompt this, could he and his wife have found a better stroke of luck?"
Well said.
Lots of people (inexplicably to me) still see Trump as some sort of savior. I think he is the bull in the china closet of the GOP, and when he's done there won't be much left (and I know a lot of people think that's great too)
If Bill did orchestrate this he's the most brilliant politician of the last 100 years.
Blogger Bill Roberts said...4/7/16, 1:12 PM
If Bill did orchestrate this he's the most brilliant politician of the last 100 years.
Well, I think maybe he is. Hillary saw that in him early.
Of course, he had mentors, and was the recipient of the distilled wisdom of generations of Hot Springs, Arkansas, conmen and some political bosses, especially the one in Hot Springs, Arkansas, Owen Vincent (Owney the Killer) Madden, who was one of the main founders, if not "THE" founder, of organized crime in America, in the 1928-1931 period. According to Jimmy Breslin's biography of Damon Runyon and others books.
https://books.google.com/books?id=Mg1DCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA94&lpg=PA94&dq=maDDEN+JIMMY+BRESLIN+RUNYON&source=bl&ots=shdDx9Iq0F&sig=hRlAbeXBF8fITUg1VEd7wmV7Dkk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjNuN3W9f_LAhWCuoMKHbKBCBkQ6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&q=maDDEN%20JIMMY%20BRESLIN%20RUNYON&f=false
And not everything Bill Clinton tried worked. In fact probably more than half of what he tried didn't work. But he tried again, and came up with a new plan. His plan to avoid being drafted failed at first, and he had to change his date of birth eventually. (I think - has anyone ever seen Bill Clinton;sbirth certificate or any early record of his birthday?)
Bill Clinton probably originally wanted to succeed Senator J. William Fulbright in 1980. But Fulbright lost the primary in 1974. Then he wanted to make his position in the House of Represenatives important,and organized the House freshman class,and was set to be the leader of the freshmen, but lost his own election to the House.
Then he was elected Attorney General and Governor, but lost his bid for re-election in 1980. He refused an offer to become Chairman of the Democrartic National Committee and planned his comeback. I suspect he was responsible for murderess Mary Lee Orsini claiming she had had an affair with Jim Guy Tucker, and Tucker came in third in the primary in 1982 and didn't make the runoff. His 1982 campaign may have been financed in part by cocaine dealer Dan Lasater. We don't know because all pre-1984 campaign records on file were destroyed by 1992 and the Republican Party didn't save them.
After his comeback, he won the Democratic primary in 1984 by having his opponent be none other than Orval Faubus. Former backers of his had encouraged him. He created Super Tuesday in 1988, hoping to copy Jimmy Carter's 1976 strategy of winning almost all the delegates in the south but had to pull out of the race for president in 1987 because (I think) Al Gore insisted in running and that would spoil his plan. It wasn't because of he wanted to see more of his daughter and it wasn't the poissibility of bimbo eruptions, which still existed in 1992.
Finally though he ran in 1992 claiming he had been the only Democrat for the Iraq war and that the country was still in a recession - which it was if you used something other than the dictionary definition.
Another mistake: He exiled both Linda Tripp and Monica Lewinsky to the sameoffice in the Pentagon! And got impeached as a result.
Meet Donald Trump's delegate hunter:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/02/the_republican_insider_on_the_wrong_side_in_ukraine.html
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा