CNN is announcing exit polls, making it look like a big — 10 point — win for Bernie, and a good win for Cruz too.
UPDATE: Cruz wins, up over 50%, with Trump under 30%. I'm listening to Cruz's victory speech, and he predicts he'll get to the 1237 majority.
५ एप्रिल, २०१६
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१९१ टिप्पण्या:
I hear Fox has called it for Bernie. I'm not sure I'm not watching.
Lets celebrate with some wine and a little irradiated ham.
Ted will Cruz to an overwhelming victory.
Wisconsin is not a Trump state.
Too many Christians and smug, well-to-do Republicans. Immigration is a big zero. Trade? who cares.
Someone wrote Wisconsin is a cross between Minnesota and Illinois. It'll vote for Hillary in November, no matter who gets (R) nominated.
I saw an airplane flying over downtown Milwaukee today trailing a banner that said "ARE YOU SERIOUS?"
Could mean a lot of different things.
Interesting that old method of communication is similar ro the texters of today, though it would have said "R U Serious?" if it was a texting yoot.
.Girl with the Pony Tail on the Treadmill:
What the Hell is a 'Super-Delgate'?
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
I mean, Bernie wins the votes but they don't mean nothing?
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
The First Person I ever truly wanted to Vote for and it's already Fucked?
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
I mean, I want to admire Hillary, but... Bitch.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
I thought that Shit was what Republicans do.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
Donald Trump ain't gonna forgive my College Debt.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
Hillary ain't gonna forgive my College Debt.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
Ted Cruz? Ew.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
I'd never let that face go down on me.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
Ewww.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
Bernie would let me get my Audi.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
I want a mocha, and I don't want to feel bad about it.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
Bernie would let me get my Audi.
I am Laslo.
A good win for Cruz will not be enough. The east coast isn't going to care about Wisconsin, and they're not going to rally around a bible thumping Texan.
Trump is their first chance to be heard on a national level, having been drowned out by blue state Dems for decades.
We'll see...
I've decided to read Twelve Who Ruled, which is the story of the Committee of Public Safety during the French Revolution.
I think it might be helpful as a prediction of our future when the #NeverTrump folks get what they want,
The period is also referred to as "The Terror."
Good luck.
Bernie is sweeping to Victory! Too bad it means absolutely zero. Hillary has already been nominated by the Super delegates.
Kascich only has 14% - maybe Wisconsin is smarter than I thought.
rcocean said...
Bernie is sweeping to Victory! Too bad it means absolutely zero. Hillary has already been nominated by the Super delegates.
4/5/16, 8:28 PM
See Laslo at 8:21.
I have Insightful.
I am Laslo.
Now the fate of the Republican party is in the hands of New York and California.
God help us all.
IT's deeply satisfying after 8 years of hearing how extremist the republicans have become, to watch the Democrats vote for an actual socialist.
Blogger Gusty Winds said...
A good win for Cruz will not be enough. The east coast isn't going to care about Wisconsin, and they're not going to rally around a bible thumping Texan.
Trump is their first chance to be heard on a national level, having been drowned out by blue state Dems for decades.
We'll see...
The drunken-asshole-vote-thing has already been done.
Sorry Laslo. Given the seriousness of the occasion, I skipped your usual humorous asides.
How wrong i was. In humor, there is often truth.
To paraphrase John Lennon, white working men are now the niggers of the world, or at least of US electoral politics. Promised the world by the Republicans they got tax cuts for the rich, trade deals that undercut local manufacturing, cheap imported labor that undercut wages and the decimation of labor unions that undercut their ability to fight back. No wonder they are fucking dying.
Does Trump get any delegates out of WI? Cruz ahead ~10% early, as predicted by polls. (nice as usual, Laslo)
Had there been voter ID in 2000,WI would easily have gone for Bush.
@ Gusty Winds, who wrote (4/5/16, 8:21 PM): "The east coast isn't going to care about Wisconsin, and they're not going to rally around a bible thumping Texan."
Which coast is Maine on, Gusty? I forget.
Oso Negro said...The drunken-asshole-vote-thing has already been done.
As a Wisconsinite I am interpreting that as a compliment.
ARM said: "To paraphrase John Lennon, white working men are now the niggers of the world, or at least of US electoral politics. Promised the world by the Republicans they got tax cuts for the rich, trade deals that undercut local manufacturing, cheap imported labor that undercut wages and the decimation of labor unions that undercut their ability to fight back. No wonder they are fucking dying."
Gee, it would appear to me the peasants on the left are less than enamored with their leadership going all-in for the Hildabeast. Maybe you've noticed some commie-pinko Bernie making some noise.
The republican strategy is to #LoseWithCruz
Charlie Sykes is going to have to tape a microphone to his penis for tomorrow's radio show.
It's going to be tough to blow himself and broadcast condescending lectures about conservative values at the same time.
Oh my God. I voted in the minority of Waukesha County for the first time. Now I know what it's like to be a Democrat.
Let's go Bradly!
AP is calling it for Cruz and Sanders.
So far it looks like Cruz has more votes than Sanders, and Trump fewer than Clinton.
On the Sean Hannity's radio show today, Newt Gingrich said that the convention rules, as set by Romney's people, would prevent any other names other than Trump and Cruz from being entered into nominations - and the only way that could change is if the majority of delegates, and 80% or so are committed to the frontrunner candidates, would permit such a change - which of course is unlikely. So why is Kay-sick hanging around and why are people like Boehner and Rove making noises about new names entered into nomination? Those Romney rules prevent anyone who has not won at least 8 states from being nominated.
So Newt says he read the rules - and if he is correct, these media TV people need to do their homework. So far tonight on Kelly, I haven' t heard a word about this.
The current count is Cruz by a wide margin.
Wisconsin has a hybrid delegate approach for the GOP. They award 3 delegates to the winner of each of its 8 congressional districts and then another 18 delegates to the winner of the state popular vote.
GOP turnout looks to be crushing the Dems in WI tonight. Might end up saving Bradley's bacon against Kloppy.
Beldar said...Which coast is Maine on, Gusty? I forget
Oh yeah, I did forget. Sorry. When we think east coast political power players, the first thing that comes to mind is Maine. What was I thinking?
I believe Maine split delegates proportionately. Trump -9, Cruz-12, and Kasich-2. Trump picked up 22 in Massachusetts. Cruz 4. I think New York will deliver the same.
In Cruz' first two minutes of his Wisconsin victory speech he already said, "I'll take that ratio".
Megyn Kelly said that Wisconsin has a 94% record in picking the final party candidates of both parties. I am proud to be an ex-resident.
tim in vermont
>>Had there been voter ID in 2000,WI would easily have gone for Bush.<<
You do know that Wisconsin has voted in favor of a Democrat for the past 7 elections, right? Why hold on to 2000? Bush won the general.
A victory speech, Gusty Winds?
But inevitable and such...
Or not?
Well given Kasich's under performance, the idea of a vote for Cruz is a vote against Trump apparently resonated with the Wisconsin electorate. Ann, as one of those voters who held their nose as they voted for Cruz, how will you feel if Cruz comes away with the Republican nomination? The choice between Trump and "a brokered convention," i.e., "someone else," may be compelling enough to vote for Cruz, but what if the choice is between Trump and Cruz? Do these voters regret their votes in that case?
Well now, Wisconsin, can you live with your choices if they actually, you know, get elected?
Cruz can enjoy his victory now. The East Coast and West Coast don't even know where Wisconsin is...and the large congested population states are on the coast, not in flyover states with horrible economies-Trump was right Wisconsin's economy is shit, compared to the coastie states. No young people want to go to Wisconsin for work-they flee Wisonsin after graduating.
There is not one person of color at Cruz victory speech in Milwaukee, just a bunch of unattractive white fattys...so much for attracting the new demographics of the country pubes.
Cruz will lose big in large states-Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and California.
Also those coastal states don't care to hear a preacher with a southern accent.
Cruz is not likable....enough.
And he will lose a general election-Trump actually has a better chance.
tits.
Don't like Cruz's speaking still. Cross between TV preacher George HW Bush.
Whisperer then exhortative.
More Titus bigotry. Sad.
It had not occurred to me until recently.. the Canadian is following the 'Kenyan's' strategy. It is 2008 all over again on the R's side and people are dumb.
Off the top of my head I can't think of many Bernie-Cruz victory States like my Wisconsin home. We are unique.
Just like our consumption disproportionate consumption of the nation's Brandy.
Titus, more tits, er.. power to you!
pm317:
You mad because Hillary keeps losing?
"Well given Kasich's under performance,"
Haha. Not really. Look at his performance in other states. He got 6% in Minnesota and 20% in Illinois.
It makes me laugh that this Canadian is seen as the true conservative and strict constitutionist. Whose constitution is it, anyway?
Sidenote: I just told my husband that I can't believe people believe this bible thumpng snake and my husband quipped, woman-thumping..
Well, we've had near two terms of a guy whose parent fled the United States for Indonesia. Maybe it's time for a guy whose parent fled a third world communist state for the U.S.
Cruz is doing so well because the MSM and GOPe are attacking Trump 24/7. Cruz isn't on their radar - yet.
Bring it on.. Cruz will lose to Hillary!
Bernie now talking. All smiles. Smile Bernie, smile, enjoy your time.
For Tomorrow you die.
Its sad when your motivation is simply to see the candidates you hate most lose. From that perspective it is a good night.
Yeah, that Bible-thumping, snake handling, Canadian-born, philanderer who shut down the government and read Green Eggs and Ham has not been attacked by the MSM.... LMMFAO...
Titus- is Cruz himself "of color"? Are there people "of Color" near Bernie?
Hey Meade...
The voter turnout for Dems and GOP in Wisconsin seems about equal at this point. Do you think Brookfield has another 7000 Bradley votes up their sleeve?
Gonna be close.
I also love the way leftists allow themselves to say they want a "revolution" after years of calling Republican rhetoric violent.
Michael K, yes, please do read some solid historical research on The Terror. Such research should convince an open mind that triumph of the NeverTrump crowd would not bring in a similar period in American history, but the election of Donald J. Trump just might. You are worrying about the wrong thing, seems to me. So do please go get some historical perspective. I'm hopeful since you are willing to look further afield than modern American history when you reference "history."
Trump Thump
Bernie talking. Picture shows a bernie bro right behind him. Looks like Pajama boy with a beard. Also two brunette nerdy college girls. And strategically placed over his left shoulder - a young blond cutie. And in the 2nd row, more Bernie Bros.
No one over 30 in camera range.
I am waiting to see how big of a victory this really is, for Ted Cruz.
Remember how Wisconsin commits its delegates. 3 per congressional district, and then 24 assigned to the overall winner. Cruz could get a large majority, or a really huge majority. Trump's 28-30% might net him a really tiny number of delegates out of Wisconsin. Tiny, like his hands.
To honor Bernie's socialistic value system, we should acknowledge that he didn't really "earn" those delegates tonight, and he should give some to Hillary, who got less tonight. Voting inequality or something.
No one over 30 in camera range.
And they all want Tiny House and free food.
Ultimately people will look back at this day and it will be said, a vote for Cruz= a vote for Hillary.
Bernie supporters seem to be very, very, white. Trying to see a person of color but none are within camera range.
Bay Area Guy.. you joke but that is what happened in 2008.. If Cruz was more attractive, that is what would have happened by now and Trump would have been history.
Turnout so far
GOP 505,600 51% reporting
Dem 458,500 50% reporting
Ah, ca ira, ca ira, ca ira,
Les aristocrates a la lanterne!
Les aristocrates on les pendra!
a vote for Cruz= a vote for Hillary.
It is an open primary. Maybe Althouse voted for Cruz after all, ;)
sane_voter said...
Turnout so far
GOP 505,600 51% reporting
Dem 458,500 50% reporting
Trump in his Wisconsin loss may have helped the GOP gain a 5-2 conservative majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court if GOP turnout helps Bradley beat Kloppenburg tonight.
Wonder if Charlie Sykes and Scott Walker will be kind enough to thank him.
Chanie said...Ann, as one of those voters who held their nose as they voted for Cruz, how will you feel if Cruz comes away with the Republican nomination?
Look, Althouse did hint that she voted for Cruz today to stop Trump, but we can't be sure. She's also on record that she pretty much dislikes Cruz -- she may have ranked him lower than Hillary as "persons she like to meet/know.
The way I see it, a Cruz vs. Hillary contest in the fall would give Althouse a perfect excuse to vote for Hillary. She's long said that Hillary is inevitable. You can look it up.
Wow, this didn't take long. Holman Jenkins in the Wall Street Journal. Because my own computer is recognized as a Journal subscriber, I often don't know if a wsj.com link will be accessible via a link here. I think this one will work:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-we-knew-ye-1459900017
Hillary Clinton and her donors are fully committed and probably have been since 2000. A presidential race is all-or-nothing. You either win or you don’t. And you don’t get your money back.
Mr. Trump has not been all-in. The most obvious way is with his unwillingness to put up the money, though many overlooked his hesitance because he was doing so well with free media coverage.
The money was significant of something larger: his unwillingness to work out the whole path to the presidency, and his lack of 100% commitment to do the things necessary to succeed. Control his mouth. Recruit credible advisers. Produce a thoughtful policy program. Though it received surprisingly little commentary, his insistence on using his primary-victory rallies to flog his golf courses, product lines and related business interests.
There were signs to be read. The smarter half of his already-committed voters were looking, after Michigan, for him to show he could expand his coalition and fill out the image of a president. He didn’t.
I'm guessing this isn't the night you would have imagined, had you contemplated it a year ago, is it, Professor Althouse?
One does wonder if Hillary will be able to avoid indictment. And even if she does, whether the leaks will kill her candidacy.
And then she would need to be not hated by the voting public.
Long... Odds... Indeed...
pm317 hardest hit...
In 2004. Wisconsin went Democratic by a very narrow margin:
Bush, 1,478,120 votes, or 49.4%
Kerry, 1,489,504 votes or 49.7%
And even that was questionable. There was some Democratic voter fraud and suppression there. Paid Democratic operatives (that is, on the payroll - they were paid several thousand dollars each - but that doesn't mean they were paid anything specifically for this) were charged on January 25, 2005 with slashing the tires of 25Republican get-out-the-vote vans in Milwakee on the morning of Election Day.
Two of the five charged were the sons of prominent Milwakee Democrats: U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore and former Acting Mayor Marvin Pratt, Chairman of the Kerry-Edwards campaign in Milwaukee.
There was also a plan discussed by individuals at the Democratic headquarters in
Milwaukee to go to the Republican campaign office and cover it with yard signs, placards and bumper stickers, which they called “Operation Elephant Takeover,” but they called it off upon learning that there were security guards at Republican campaign headquarters.
There was also a flier, from a "Milwakee Black Voters League" supposedly distributed in African American neighborhoods the week before the election, that warned voters they would ineligible if they voted earlier in the year (?) or had been convicted of any crime, even a minor one, and if they broke the law, they could get ten years in prison and have their children taken away from them. I am wondering if this flyer actually was distributed anywhere or was printed as an aid in possible litigation or to spur voter turnout after being publicized.
On top of that, there were 200 plus convicted felon voters (still on parole or on probation, at which time they were not supposed to vote, but there wasn't any system in place to remove them from the voting rolls apparently) and 100 or so double voters, and maybe thousands more ballots cast than voters recorded as having voted in the city. At dozens of wards in Milwakee, there were more votes counted than people tallied in log books!
See: Inquiry Finds Evidence Of Fraud In Election, Greg J. Borowski, MILWAUKEE JOURNAL SENTINEL, May 11, 2005.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1400928/posts
And even now, three months after the investigation, officials have not been able to close a gap of 7,000 votes, with more ballots cast than voters listed. Officials said the gap remains at 4,609.
About 277,000 people voted in Milwaukee. Kerry carried the state of Wisconsin by only 11,384 votes.
Intermediate source:
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Vote_Fraud_Intimidation_Suppression_2004_Pres_Election_v2.pdf
This was written before the case against the 5 people accused of trashing the Republican get-out-the-vote vans was resolved.
The weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth...interesting.
60k more Republicans voting in Wisconsin primaries?
Historic?
Bernie raised $44 Million in March! That's a lotta shekels.
There's a lotta homeless folks who could use a hot meal and some fresh clothes.
Couldn't Bernie shave $10 Million off his take to feed thousands of homeless people for life? He could still spend $34 Million on his campaign.
C'mon Bernie - have a heart.
Good lord, what a press release from Trump. Maybe the ugliest and most petulant concession speech in the history of Republican politics.
Doubling down on the factless assertion that Cruz coordinated with a SuperPAC. Blaming negative ads. Whining.
I cannot recall a losing Democratic candidate who ever issued a more hateful concession speech. And there has never been a front-runner who ever behaved more childishly.
Direct links to a Wall Street Journal article generally work on the first try. That's why a Google search for an article will let you look at it.
Cruz has slithered onto the stage. LOL, seen on another blog.
I bet Scott Walker can't believe Kasich is still in, but he isn't
Winik's the Great Upheaval, had short sketches of many of the key Jacobins, and compared it with our founders, and the reformists who were crushed under Catherine,
pm317:
When did Hillary! last win?
@ rcocean, who wrote (4/5/16, 9:17 PM), "Cruz is doing so well because the MSM and GOPe are attacking Trump 24/7. Cruz isn't on their radar - yet."
Two billion dollars of free a/k/a "earned" media is an odd sort of attack. The mainstream media are making money hand-over-fist this election cycle. They're multi-orgasmic over Donald Trump.
But very, very steadily, Cruz is gaining exposure. He is disciplined, consistent, and decent -- qualities not obvious at a glance. Many of those who found him offputting at first glance, though, are getting past that.
There is no perfect candidate, and now, on the GOP side, there are but two from among whom to choose. Kasich -- the nominal third-place remaining candidate still in the race -- contines to trail departed-candidate Marco Rubio in both wins and in delegate count. You can call it the GOP version of beer goggles, but Cruz is looking a lot more attractive now, to a lot more people (including in large urban coastal states) than he was this time three months ago.
Once again -- as throughout the last half-dozen years -- Wisconsin conservatives have inspired an on-looking nation. This Texan salutes and thanks you, Wisconsin: Y'all are good folks.
Bernie would let me get my Audi.
--
Donald wants to "Trump that bitch!"
Titus has the BMI voter calculus.
But yes..hard to beat that churning, "tits" sucking DC economy. How could they know?
Gadfly --
Just because the delegates are bound, on the first nomination ballot, to vote for a specific candidate doesn't mean they're actual supporters of said candidate. In most states, the delegates are chosen by the party apparatus, not by the campaign of the candidate to which they are bound.
Which is to say, we have no idea whatsoever how any procedural matter vote will come out, because the delegates neither are bound to vote any given way nor are known reliable supporters of any given candidate. There could be hundreds of bound "Trump" delegates who actually prefer Kasich, will vote to amend the rules to allow him to appear on the convention ballot, and then give him the nomination on the second or later ballots.
But that's not a problem for Trump, is it? He's the famous dealmaker, surely he can meet some people and cut deals to ensure he gets nominated even if he doesn't get enough bound delegates, right? It's not all lies and PR puffery about someone who made a few headlines in Manhattan real estate on his daddy's money during a bubble, flamed out when that bubble burst, went bankrupt, and then traded purely on celebrity status ever since?
Chances of that reptile Cruz getting the nomination in a convention fight (because he can't get it otherwise) is about as much if not lower than Bernie getting a nomination.
Steven:
Cruz is oddly, reportedly, stacking delegations. Our Beldar has reported the Texas delegation might be 155-0 in favor of Cruz.
I expect Cruz to win the second ballot convincingly.
pm317:
Google searches far enough back to find a Clinton victory.
I cannot recall a losing Democratic candidate who ever issued a more hateful concession speech. And there has never been a front-runner who ever behaved more childishly.
You know, I almost think Trump doesn't want to win. If he conducted himself as a serious candidate he might have locked this thing up already. Instead he goes into juvenile jackass mode and turns people off.
You also have to question his intelligence. Repeating DNC smears and lies against Walker in Wisconsin was not a winning strategy. If he couldn't figure it out you would think one of his advisors would clue him in.
GOP 724,000 72%
Dem 648,000 70%
Blogger R. Chatt said... "Ultimately people will look back at this day and it will be said, a vote for Cruz= a vote for Hillary."
That was their intention--at least for the D's that did it as a strategic move. Same idea is being pushed among college students in the open primary state I'm in.
The commies at Daily Kos Elections think Kloppy has been defeated. Why the long face, Joanne?
@Chuck, that appears to be a good analysis but the article is behind the Journal's paywall.
Cruz has his 8th state, and now it's down to delegate math (unless Rule 40b gets "amended"). Can Cruz get 703 more delegates before Trump gets the 500+ he needs to win the nomination on the first ballot. Althouse hates Cruz because his arguments force her to confront her own biases, and no one likes that very much. But I think Cruz, in his own way, is less extreme (i.e., closer to the political center) than the person she supported in 2008.
Steven - Although it is a bit complicated, all bound delegates are obligated to vote as they were assigned per their state's primary (understanding that only some of the states are winner-take-all). On a second ballot, something like 55% of the delegates become unbound. And on a second ballot, something like 80% become unbound.
If any appreciable number of Dems were voting for Cruz, Kloppy would be winning.
@Bushman, well Trump picked a campaign manager who couldn't figure out whether he was a manager or a security guard.
@Bay Area Guy
Lol. You're right.
Decisiondeskhq.com just called it for Bradley!
Bushman of the Kohlrabi opined:
Repeating DNC smears and lies against Walker in Wisconsin was not a winning strategy.
--
Yeah..the "Trump that bitch!" folks were not hootin' and hollerin' during that bit in Rothschild.
Good point, sane_voter.
How many times has Kloppenburg run?
Kloppenberger (sp?) appears to be losing and Democrats would have voted for her, one expects.
Kloppy is a two time loser for Supreme court
In the meantime, enjoy this fantastic interview of Scott Adams (by Cernovich, an excellent interviewer): part 1 ... part 2 (part 1 is better)
If Kasich drops out, Cruz would get 60% in Wisconsin.
Selection of each state delegation's designees to the Rules Committee and the Credentials Committee is going to be incredibly important this year. The Rules Committee, in particular, will have to decide whether to amend Rule 40(b); if they don't, Kasich's name can't be placed in nomination. (Wisconsin became another of Cruz' Rule 40(b) states tonight, of course.) The Credentials Committee will rule on any disputes regarding whether delegates selected by the state parties and state conventions may indeed be seated.
Trump seems temperamentally likely to litigate these issues, or at least to whine piteously and to threaten litigation -- on the convention floor or even at the courthouse. He also seems particularly incompetent at tending to these sorts of very important campaign details.
Could it perhaps be because he's a reality TV star pretending to be a businessman pretending to be a candidate? My Magic 8-Ball says: "Yes!"
Big Mike - I was worried about that; I am sorry.
Holman Jenkins is, in my humble opinion, the best columnist working in America today. His beat is economics and regulation, with a heavy emphasis on the automobile manufacturing and financial industries. He doesn't shy away from politics, but he is not a regular political commentator. He takes immensely complicated things and makes them understandable, readable, and compelling.
There's nothing much complicated about Trump, except perhaps for his psychological profile. Jenkins' general take on Trump all (since last summer) along has been that (a) don't believe any business about Trump being able to self-fund a presidential campaign; Trump doesn't have the money, and he wouldn't spend it if he had it, and (b) just watch Trump and see how much of his own money he does spend. That will be a tell, on how serious Trump is.
Strange there are now two Bradley's on the WI supreme court. One Liberal and one Conservative
The reason the selections to the Rules Committee are so important is that the 2012 rules continue unless and until changed. So unless changed, they'll be presented for an up-or-down vote at the beginning of the convention. Unless there's been a minority report and proposed amendment issued from the Rules Committee, no changes or amendments can be introduced from the floor. In the up-or-down majority vote on the proposed rules, there is no such thing as a "bound delegate," meaning even those delegates from, say, Texas who are nominally bound to Trump for the first ballot can nevertheless vote against Trump's wishes on whether to approve the proposed rules.
This is a procedural chokepoint of huge consequence, but the result is likely to be foreordained well before the convention, when the state delegations' designees to Rules and Credentials are made, several weeks before the convention itself.
If anti-Trump voters raised conservative voter turnout overall, that might have been the margin of Bradley's win. Cool beans!
Every time Sanders wins, the less Hillary voters will be willing to cross over for her Operation Chaos tactic. I predict Trump's numbers will continue to drop and crater near the end.
sane_voter said...
The commies at Daily Kos Elections think Kloppy has been defeated. Why the long face, Joanne?
If true, this is huge for Wisconsin politics and a result of GOP turnout for or against Trump, but certainly affected by Trump's presence in the race.
I can't find anything on the Milwaukee Journal website regarding the Wisconsin Supreme Court yet. Not surprised they are holding off reporting. They don't like Walker.
Combined with the Cruz victory this means Scott Walker was the lucky winner in Wisconsin tonight.
Interesting too that Trump and Cruz voters, however far divided, voted to defeat Kloppenburg. We might be divided, but we're not insane.
Huh, Cruz wins. Now what?
Big turnount, Cruz win, Trump loss, Bradley win, Kloppenburg loss, Clinton loss.
This is what y'all call a win-win-win-win-win-win situation.
Walker was a "lucky winner" according to Gusty Winds.
Walker sure does get lucky a lot. Almost like he is a solid conservative who has dismantled the corrupt, bull shit relations between Democrats and their union backers.
Weird.
Well done WI - feeling the Bern and stopping Trump!
Joking aside, congrats to Bradley for her win. Is that ditzy Shirley Abrahamson still on the Court? She is atrocious.
Cruz got more votes in Wisconsin than Hillary did.
I never thought I'd say that.
Also, the Republicans got about 80,000 more votes in their primary than the Democrats got in theirs.
Go Bernie! Take out the Clinton machine!
Beldar said...
If anti-Trump voters raised conservative voter turnout overall, that might have been the margin of Bradley's win. Cool beans!
Conservative truce for a minute.
The Wisconsin Trump voters voted for Bradley along with Cruz voters handing a massive 5-2 conservative majority to its Supreme Court. Obviously, Cruz and Trump voters were united in defeating a liberal. Trumps presence to the positive or negative was the factor. Walker and his State legacy the benefactor.
There are other interesting splits tonight. Hillary wins Milwaukee County, Wisconsin's only real concentration of African-American voters. Bernie took the rest of the counties. That's a bigger county landslide than Cruz over Trump.
Wisconsin just handed victories to an east coast declared socialist, and a bible thumping Texan. We are united on the Packers, Brandy, Fish Fry's, and disdain for Illinois drivers, but when it comes to left-right politics the chasm is wide.
Bernie has won the last 6 states: Idaho, Utah, Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, Wisconsin
Just sayin'
Go Bernie go!
Time to unleash the Melania bikini calendar..
Actually I'd have to say the most interesting matchup for the general would be Cruz-Sanders. True conservative vs. True socialist. That'd be way more epic than anything involving the felon or the narcissist.
Cruz is going to Trump so many Wisconsin bitches...
Not sure Cruz-Sanders would be absent a narcissist or two...
The Republicans indeed are getting more votes than the Dems.
Reason for that? Trump. Trump. Trump.
Don't let that "margin" make you too happy.
A lot of Trump's votes will stagger back to the Dems in the general election. Or stay home. Or still vote for Trump.
We've had two Presidents Bush. Next up, two Presidents Clinton.
The Future is going to see us as totally bonkers politically.
Beldar said...4/5/16, 10:27 PM
The reason the selections to the Rules Committee are so important is that the 2012 rules continue unless and until changed. So unless changed, they'll be presented for an up-or-down vote at the beginning of the convention. Unless there's been a minority report and proposed amendment issued from the Rules Committee, no changes or amendments can be introduced from the floor. In the up-or-down majority vote on the proposed rules, there is no such thing as a "bound delegate," meaning even those delegates from, say, Texas who are nominally bound to Trump for the first ballot can nevertheless vote against Trump's wishes on whether to approve the proposed rules.
This is a possible scenario:
First, bear in mind, there is the Republican National Committee’s Standing Rules Committee, which has 56 members (1 from each local Republican Party?) and meets three times each year between conventions. The memers are all chosen already – Cuz will not be able to et his partisans on to it.
They will not adopt the special rules of 2012, which may have limited for whom delegates could vote for. (although that does not reduce the number needed to win)
These will be the default rules, not he rules of 2012.
Then we have the convention-specific rules committee, with twice the members, consisting of one man and one woman from each state or territory [56 x2 = 112]
(The Democrats have 57 delegations, because they have an additional one for “Democrats Abroad. That’s where Obama got his number of 57 in 2008. All the places on the quarters from 1999 through 2009 – there were six quarters in 2009 – plus Democrats Abroad)
There may very well be a majority and minority report, and maybe even three reports.
As the northern precincts come in, the Cruz margin is falling. Not enough to reverse the decision but less than the early results.
So far:
Bradley 736,100 52.6%
Kloppenburg 662,274 47.4%
In 2011, Judge Prosser only beat Kloppenburg by 7,316 votes.
In terms of State politics this is big and completely under reported at the moment.
"Time to unleash the Melania bikini calendar"
How about the Hillary blue muumuu calendar instead?
I see both Sanders and Cruz as ideologues. I don't think narcissism allows for that. (Before anyone asks - I think Obama is a narcissist but not an ideologue at all.)
Michael K said...
As the northern precincts come in, the Cruz margin is falling.
--
The "Trump that bitch!" knit hats sold well...
(and they have pretty bad BMI up dere..)
Birkel 60k more Republicans voting in Wisconsin primaries?
Clearly, Ted Cruz is the chosen one! Not even Reagan nor even Walker garnered those numbers!
Qwinn said...I see both Sanders and Cruz as ideologues.
Me too. Both are too extreme. But that's what Wisconsin voters apparently want: extremism.
Althouse wrote: I'm listening to Cruz's victory speech, and he predicts he'll get to the 1237 majority.
What did you expect? I told you that your vote would only encourage him. He doesn't see the conditional part.
Fool
Really? Please tell me in what way Cruz has been "too extreme". Forgive me if this seems to me in the same category as "all Republican presidential candidates are Hitler".
And seriously, after 30 continuous years of Presidents ranging from extreme left to center left, someone actually right of right of center couldn't drag this country back to the center if he tried.
Ok, 28 years. Sorry.
In this scenario:
Trump may want a rule that the person with a plurality of delegates on the first ballot wins the nomination.
Cruz may want a rule that says there will be a runoff between only the two top finishers in the second ballot.
And then there will be the more historical rules. All votes are counted and any delegate can vote for anyone at all on the second and subsequent ballots except for when their pledges extend past the first ballot. They continue to vote until someone wins a majority of the votes and there are no restrictions on who delegates can vote for.
There will be a Trump package of rules, a Cruz package of rules, and a standard package of rules.
The Trump rules will be put up first, and lose, unless for strategic reasons people not for Cruz decide to vote for it. If the Trump package of rules wins, Cruz may walk out, Trump will get the nomination, and the nomination will be rejected by many state Republican parties, who will name their own candidate or hold their own convention.
Then, assuming the Trump rules lose, the Cruz rule (top two only) will be up for a vote. That will be the key vote of the convention. Everyone who plans to vote for Cruz on the second ballot will vote for it, and everyone else will vote against it - unless Trump will bite, and endorse it too.
If the Cruz package of rules wins, some mainstream Republicans may walk out. It certainly will be resented, and maybe at some later point there may be an attempt to change them if it passes only as a result of a Trump endorsement.
Then will come the standard package of rules. If the standard package of rules wins, Trump may walk out.
It gets more complicated. There may be some variation in the order the proposed rules are voted on. A lot may depend upon the order the proposed rules are voted on. If the Cruz rules come up first, Trump definitely won't endorse it. There might be some attempt to prevent them from being offered at all. In that cae, Trump might endorse them, or he may walk out - or threaten to, and prevent his plurality rule from not going to the floor.
It is actually possible that all three packages of proposed rules (including ones like previous pre-2012 conventions) will lose on the floor.The Chairman of the convention may declare some victory based on a voice vote, which may even be clearly wrong.
And also, If any rule is adopted precluding delegates from voting for anyone, an appeal might be made from the floor whe it happens, or some other attempt made to change the rules after the convention has started voting.
This might be particulary the case if no one can win a majority. Abstentions will still be possible even under the Cruz rules, and the number of votes needed to nominate will not go down. (an attempt to do that would surely lose unless he has got enough to win anyway on the second ballot)
GOP is going out poll the Dems tonight by more than 100k votes. Also the largest turnout in a WI GOP primary in history.
McCain was denounced as extreme. Bush was denounced as extreme. Romney was denounced as extreme. All of them were basically center left to center right.
If your "omg extremist!!! 11!" tactic is losing purchase, maybe you shouldn't all have deployed it against every squish that ever ran for office.
Sammy Finkleman:
Thank you for bull shifting us. I hear Kasich delegates may vote for unicorns. Now what?
"Drumpf that bigcth!"
Cruz won because he isn't Trump. Hillary (if she gets the nomination) will win in the general too because she isn't Trump. Sanders would win in a historical landslide over Trump. Bottom line, I don't see Wisconsin Republicans repeating this amazing turnout if Trump is the nominee, do you?
I can't even imagine how far down the NYT and all the other dumb-ass stupid MSM will bury this story.
When and if he wins NY state there will be fucking hell to pay.
The Kasich strategy, if he has one, would be:
1) Get the standard rules adopted, or better yet, rules that only people who ran in primaries can be voted for, but all of them can be; or get some encouragement from Paul Ryan and others for people to limit their voting to people who filed campaign finance statements.
2) While Cruz is poaching delegates from Trump, Kasich will poach delegates from Cruz. Cruz hasn't taken particular care thatis delegates should be particularly loyal to him, but only anti-Trump, because he's shooting for the 2-man runoff.
3) Have some committments but don't call them all right away, so that his vote total may appear to rise on every ballot, or stay close.
4) In the end, make a deal with Trump where Trump gets positions on the Presidential transition committee, promises that Kasich will name some people Trump proposes to some positions, and the naming of Trump to one or more presidential commissions.
Not sure Amanda..
Hil seems to have lost the vagina edge..and has niggling legal, ethical and moral issues dogging her..not that Drumpf doesn't. But clear-cut? Hmm..
@Rhythm and Balls
What story?
(I want to see that split-screen between Melania and Bill as 1st lady)
LMAO... just went over to Breitbart and witnessed Trump supporters claiming Cruz is soooo Xtremeeee!!11! that he wants to pass a constitutional amendment to ban contraception.
Who does that sound like? Does it sound like an attack from the supporters of a conservative? Or from the supporters of a whacked out far left moron? Or Hillary herself?
Sammy Finkleman:
When you imagine crazy-ass conspiracy theories, are there any you consider too asinine to visit upon us?
Asking for a friend?
What story?
The story of how everyone who's not a CEO, an investment banker, a billionaire, a grizzled Amazonian gender warrior, a lobbyist, a hardcore DINO or a media anchor wants Hillary to win. NO ONE.
The NYTimes will ignore that fact for as long as they think they can get away with it. It's disgusting and shameful. Every story they run has comments that are 10 to 1 pro-Bernie/anti-Hillary, very articulately so, and still they cover him as if he's just an oddity and a curiosity. He's not. He will save that party from the disastrously corrupt and criminal Clintons, and it's time someone in their rancid party machine and its media arms started sitting up and taking notice.
From the New York Times website:
(Wisconsin statewide)
Ted Cruz 491,467 48.5%
Donald J. Trump 353,240 34.9%
Kasich John Kasich 142,733 14.1% —
1,013,078 votes, 92% reporting.
987,440 votes for the top three finishers. Percentagewise, 2.5% for Others.
Oh, "Rhythm and Balls" is so coy! He believes the socialist is more electable than the Hillary.
Funny stuff!
...just an oddity and a curiosity.
Oh, and to add to my own comment, check out how underhanded, misguided and subtle their negative coverage of him happens to be. Every reference to him that could be neutral and objective shoehorns in some indemonstrable nonsense about a weakness that doesn't exist, a nagging attitude toward him that isn't widespread. It's these horribly condescending mini-snipes and swipes that just reek of the kind of smug idiocy that can only fester in the bubble they've created around themselves.
You all were right about the MSM. NYTimes should stick to movie reviews, cooking videos, and lifestyle stories. It's become impossible to take them seriously any more as an objective or incisive news source. Just completely impossible - especially on anything remotely political.
Again with Burpel's arrogance - pretending that he IS America.
He knows that the polls are BS. Deep down America really wants a pro-Wall Street candidate who deletes state secrets from her own private email account and he's here to convince the country of it.
He's like the rapist who knows that the woman really DID want it.
Burpel knows better. He is an encyclopedia and an auricle all in one.
Sorry, oracle.
I am not as perfect as the compendium of wisdom, knowledge and experience that goes by the name "Birkel".
So Birkel's on record as rooting for the Wall Street/Goldman Sachs candidate. Anyone else?
He seems to be saying that America wants to have a housing market so rickety that it can be short-sold. Or that America wants to be involved in as many mid-East wars as his think tanks can come up with.
That's Birkel. He doesn't know or talk to any Americans, apparently. But he feels what they feel.
Like ET and Elliot.
It's the Birkellian symbiosis between himself and the American people.
I see that Clinton won only two counties: Milwaukee and Polk. Anything special that differentiates Polk from the other rural counties?
The New York Times says Hillary won 70& of the black vote (which is not enough to win a state. For that, in a northern state, it has to be around 85%)
She also won among those over age 45.
But that doesn't mean too many people actually want her.
The New York Times writes that Sanders won among men, younger voters, independents and white voters.
Also those who said the economy was the most important issue, and about two-thirds of those who cited income inequality. And the more than four in 10 voters who said trade with other countries took away from American jobs (who favored Sanders by a large margin)
Sanders was in Wyoming for the caucuses, which Democrats will hold on Saturday.
Hillary doesn't know who or what she is. She says she's a progressive (who gets GOPe legislation "done"), she's a moderate. She was a Goldwater girl.
Apparently the American people are looking for precisely this kind of muddled lack of identity or self-definition in their leader. So saith the Burpel.
Therefore it must be true.
They love her negatives.
And they want things to be more practically expensive for them than they are for their country's elites. They hate affordable opportunities.
Burpel knows. Burpel is wisdom.
The Goldman Sachs candidate?
Goodness, no. I think Hillary Clinton will lose. Of course, the last Goldman Sachs candidate, Obama, won.
But I keep hoping against hope.
The New York Times says...
Right.
They're going to slice and dice with dozens of different kinds of esoteric and demographic analyses all kinds of BS in a feeble attempt to prove that people really do want the most dishonest candidate with the highest negatives to win.
That's how the NYTimes rolls.
But then, they're basically Wall Street's non-financial newspaper.
And people on Wall Street are often as slimy as they come.
Why should the NYT care about Hillary's complete lack of any integrity, popularity or admiration from the public? She's Wall Street's candidate and people on Wall Street don't have to worry about those things.
So neither does the NYT.
So there!
@Sammy Finkelman said...
Trump may want a rule that the person with a plurality of delegates on the first ballot wins the nomination.
Cruz may want a rule that says there will be a runoff between only the two top finishers in the second ballot.
And then there will be the more historical rules.
So Newt is still buzzing in my ear. He says that the delegates must vote to change the 2012 rules which already limit who can be nominated - period. If that is true and if 80% of the delegates are prepared to vote for Trump or Cruz, why would they vote for any rule change since they both get what they want with two nominations only.The elites may not like it but it seems to me they don't have the power to alter the rules without 2000 or so delegates revolting against their candidates.
So Burpel is against Wall Street's Democrats winning but he's pretty gung ho for Wall Street's Republican, Ted Cruz, winning.
Burpel is as confused as Hillary.
gadfly:
Quit it. The idiots will give up arguing if you persist. How rude!!
The Trump statement released on Twitter before the polls closed...
pic.twitter.com/ycqP3IJYWn 7:19 PM - 5 Apr 2016
...is unbelievably anti-Cruz and sounds like it was written in anticipation of a victory.
I think actually maybe that 7:19 time stamp is Pacific time, and also that wasn't released on Twitter, but a picture of it was linked to a Twitter post by Robert Costa. Robert Costa is a Washington Post reporter. Maybe it was released on Facebook?
It reads like it was composed before the election results were in:
Trump "withstood the onslaught"
Trump "will go on to win in New York"
Cruz is flat out accused of co-ordinating with some Super Pacs, which are also said to totally control him.
The New York Times says it was an e-mail. Apparently a Washington Post exclusive.
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/04/05/a-quieted-donald-trump-quickly-turns-on-lyin-ted/
“Campaign statement,” read the email from Mr. Trump’s spokeswoman, Hope Hicks, delivered first to The Washington Post and then to others upon request.
Good night for Kasich. Cruz win helps with the attempt to block Trump from the nomination and sets up Kasich as the convention nominee. Kasich is the only GOP who could beat Hillary. Independents would rush to him, unlike Trump or Cruz. The GOP should let independents pick their nominee since there are way more independents than Republicans. Kasich could easily flip Ohio and Florida. Then he would just need to win either Pennsylvania or win New Hampshire and Virginia or win Colorado and Iowa.
If you know the percentage of blacks and Latinos in a state and the % of white registered voters over age 45, you can predict the outcome of the Dem primaries. Sanders cleans up with white millennials and does well with whites age 30-44. Hillary cleans up among blacks and Latinos and does well with whites 45 and older. Go look at the demographics of the remaining primary states and you can see why Hillary is going to win. Not enough young whites in remaining Dem primaries for Bernie, especially California and New York, which have way more delegates than Wyoming and other white states where Bernie does well.
I am Laslo.
4/5/16, 8:21 PM
All that stuff you posted upwards of that 8:21?
Sheer crap.
---
I wouldn't take you seriously enough to hire you to pick up sticks in my yard. Enough, already, you poseur and the horse you rode in on.
"You know, I almost think Trump doesn't want to win. If he conducted himself as a serious candidate he might have locked this thing up already. Instead he goes into juvenile jackass mode and turns people off."
There's a theory out there that this was never intended to be a serious campaign, that he just wanted attention but once he started becoming the front runner he went with it to prove he could do it, but has no interest in governing. And why would he? The job is completely unsuited for a celebrity child like him.
One thing to note is if Trump were nominated he'd need the very establishment that he claims to hate--he does not have the liquid cash to fund the fall campaign himself and will need more than free media to do GOTV, oppo research, etc.--as we see, his style has its limits. And he may not want to have to cozy up to those folks. Under this theory (which I'm not totally convinced of) he would be looking for a face-saving way to drop out. In a way, being "cheated" of the nomination at the convention would suit him. He could bow out gracefully (ha!) or split the party such that he could force a November loss. Either way, he fulfills his need for attention.
I like both parties' results, as the corrupt pals Donnie and Hillary deserve a bit of humiliation, but doubt it'll mean losing their nominations. Trump almost certainly now will be short of a majority at the convention.
Cruz at this point needs to broaden his appeal to anti-Trump moderates--the suburbanites who will decide the PA, NY and CA primaries. It probably wouldn't be enough to take the delegate lead from Trump, but would strengthen his argument that he could beat Hillary in November as well as be the "consensus" candidate at the convention.
That's where you go over the top Brando, I don't see any evidence that Trump is "corrupt." There are millions of reasons a person can be a bad president even if they are not even a smidgen corrupt.
Obama's wife getting her salary doubled by the hospital in Chicago after he got the hospital a large grant as Senator? That's corruption. Trump just has some failed business ventures among many successful ones. My big problem with Trump University is that he thought got way in over his head thinking he could create something like that, taking responsibility for people's lives in that way, clearly without thinking it through. That's not corruption, it's hubris to the point of idiocy. Same as he is showing thinking running the country is no different than running a condo complex.
"I don't see any evidence that Trump is "corrupt.""
The reason I consider him corrupt is he openly brags about buying politicians to get business done--to me, the "john" is no better than the prostitute. But he has also reportedly hired illegal aliens on some of his projects, and his abuse of the eminent domain laws, while not technically illegal, demonstrate a business ethic of a man who would be dangerous in power.
He's been accused of a lot more, such as mob ties, but until those are proven I'll limit my judgment to what he's copped to or has been proven against him.
Birkel:Oh, "Rhythm and Balls" is so coy! He believes the socialist is more electable than the Hillary"
Something tells me R&B's is actually on to something here and he is not the only one.
I do not for a moment discount Hillarys massive media and instituions advantages. However, Sanders is a completely Blue Ocean type of prospect who could pull votes from all the usual suspect dem coalitions as well as energize the dem base the way Obama did.
The key Sanders "risk area" is of course the Americans of African descent bloc. Thats where he could lose it so I would fully expect him to move in that direction with his VP nominee.
Its true that Sanders could be an epically huge loser but we have reached a societal point where his "wild card" candidacy could astound us as well.
Note that nothing Ive written above goes to policy. Thats because more than ever the electorate seems to be responding emotionally across the board.
Brando: "The reason I consider him corrupt is he openly brags about buying politicians to get business done--to me, the "john" is no better than the prostitute."
To hold the business folks responsible for attempting to game a rigged political system enacted by the legislators is folly and too easily and inappropriately shifts our focus away from the root cause.
I am tempted to go full "Animal House" Otter quote (...indictment of America..)
Watching the polls, and since I am in this group, I notice it, there is about a 5% number who would vote for Sanders over Trump but Trump over Hillary. 5% is 10% of a winning total. It's not nothing.
I too don't have any problem with Trump noting that he, for instance, paid Hillary to show up at his wedding, which she did. My problems with Trump go a lot deeper, his copping to playing the game as it is now goes in the plus column for me, since he promises to change a system he knows is corrupt.
R. Chatt: Ultimately people will look back at this day and it will be said, a vote for Cruz= a vote for Hillary.
Ultimately people will look back on this day and say, "Remember all those annoying people on blogs who kept posting 'a vote for X is a vote for Hillary'"?
"To hold the business folks responsible for attempting to game a rigged political system enacted by the legislators is folly and too easily and inappropriately shifts our focus away from the root cause."
Considering how much the Trumpists have been going on about how awful the "establishment" politicians have been when they are forced to compete in the same rigged system, I don't see why people like Trump deserve a pass.
But if you need more reasons for my thinking he's corrupt, we can start with Trump University and work our way through his hocking and devaluing of his "brand" to scam customers with shoddy products (like Trump Vodka, Trump Steaks, etc.). Most of that not illegal (though Trump U. is in the courts right now) but highly corrupt. Admit it--you'd never want to do business with a man like that. Well, maybe you can't admit it openly, but deep down you know it.
"I too don't have any problem with Trump noting that he, for instance, paid Hillary to show up at his wedding, which she did."
If the only thing he got out of supporting her all those years was to get her to show up at his wedding, then he's much dumber than I assumed.
In any event, the "hey he had to do this to get by in the system!" argument suggests we should be more understanding of politicians who have to be "bought" in order to compete in that same system. Why does Trump always get a pass and no one else?
I'm not sure if I'd vote for Sanders over Trump -- it really depends on VPs that are running, as both of those Presidential Candidates are Old Old Old.
Trump over Hillary, though, no contest. Show those venal Clintons the door with a soul-crushing defeat.
Brando, when you are reduced to arguing that those poor politicians are victims for having to perform within the systems of laws the politicians have created, then you've already lost.
And whether or not Trumps tactic of expanding his name brand recognition thru diversified and highly visible side ventures vs maintenance of brand "quality" and\or reputation was successful or not has no place in a discussion about supposed corruption.
If you can't even stay focused on relevant aspects of a discussion on an online thread then are you really the one to lecture anyone else about business focus and marketing tactics?
Brando: The reason I consider him corrupt is he openly brags about buying politicians to get business done...
While I prefer my corruption sotto voce, with a genteel public face...
Considering how much the Trumpists have been going on about how awful the "establishment" politicians have been when they are forced to compete in the same rigged system, I don't see why people like Trump deserve a pass.
My dear, deciding to whom to "give a pass" is a large chunk of what voter choice (yours included) is all about. This isn't bad or irrational per se, but it is what allows most political "argument" (yours included) to become so tedious. People order their priorities, pick their candidate, and then engage in endless rounds of IKYABWAI with the people who have ordered and chosen differently.
Older extremists go for Trump
Younger extremists go for Sanders
Black extremists go for Hillary
Point being that in each case they go for someone who looks just like what they have become extreme about
Older people feel shafted by big businessmen = vote for Trump
Younger people feel unfriended by older people = vote for Sanders
Blacks feel their lives don't matter to the establishment = vote for Hillary
Me, I'm waiting for Superman.
"Brando, when you are reduced to arguing that those poor politicians are victims for having to perform within the systems of laws the politicians have created, then you've already lost."
Except I haven't--instead I've explained why I consider Trump corrupt, not that those politicians are victims.
"While I prefer my corruption sotto voce, with a genteel public face..."
My point wasn't that I prefer quiet corruption, but rather that this isn't some mere allegation.
"My dear, deciding to whom to "give a pass" is a large chunk of what voter choice (yours included) is all about. This isn't bad or irrational per se, but it is what allows most political "argument" (yours included) to become so tedious. People order their priorities, pick their candidate, and then engage in endless rounds of IKYABWAI with the people who have ordered and chosen differently."
And I'm simply defending my own preferences. Not sure why you think I'm trying for something more than that, in a blog comments section.
"MadisonMan said...
Trump over Hillary, though, no contest. Show those venal Clintons the door with a soul-crushing defeat."
I have a hard time believing that Bill actually wants Hillary to win. No way does he want to play second fiddle to the "historic Clinton" presidency.
Me, I'm happy for the Wisco Supreme Court outcome. Bradley crushed Kloppenstomper. 5-2 court now. And Nasty Shirley is 82.
Rhythm and Balls said...You all were right about the MSM.
Yeah, thanks.
Hey, has anyone complained that Hillary lost last night only because #WISoWhite yet? Can I be the first?!
Brando: And I'm simply defending my own preferences. Not sure why you think I'm trying for something more than that, in a blog comments section.
I didn't say you were "trying for something more than that". Rather the opposite, but you don't seem to understand much of what gets said to you.
"I didn't say you were "trying for something more than that". Rather the opposite, but you don't seem to understand much of what gets said to you."
That's me, unable to decipher your complex reasoning. Maybe some day.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा