Originally Posted By Dabob2 I thought someone besides Mr. X should start a topic here... I said this in another thread, but I go back and forth between rooting for a contested convention, and not. On the one hand, I'd love to see the food fight and the GOP tear itself apart. Plus the possibility of a 3rd party run which would split the conservative vote. On the other hand, I do fear actual violence, which isn't good for anyone, and I still have the nagging feeling that MAYBE Trump's supporters are so passionate that they'll come out in droves while others stay home in November, and a contested convention that results in Trump anyway would just fire them up that much more. And I hate the idea that a contested convention could choose Cruz. So as someone who can't stand Trump OR Cruz, and who worries that it's possible they'd choose a more electable candidate like Kasich in a contested convention, I'm torn. Do I want a contested convention? Trump would probably run 3rd party if they denied him the nomination, so maybe the Kasich nomination is nothing to be afraid of anyway. I dunno. What do you think?
Originally Posted By ecdc Part of the problem though w/ the contested convention or the third-party candidate is I worry it'll deny Hillary the requisite number of electoral college votes. That throws the election to the House of Representatives and...yeah. I do worry about Hillary's negatives. I like her and I've always been a little baffled at the intense loathing and distrust people have for her. I don't think she's a great campaigner and some of her and Bill's choices drive me crazy (Goldman Sachs...really, Hillary?) So I think any chance people are given that isn't a choice between Hillary and Trump could throw a major wrench into the works.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>I've always been a little baffled at the intense loathing and distrust people have for her. ... some of her and Bill's choices drive me crazy (Goldman Sachs...really, Hillary?)<< You somewhat answered your own question here. "Some of her and Bill's choices" is quite the impressive list. Remember this? <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/10/lincoln_bedroom_guests_are_still_donating_to_hillary_clinton_many_of_bill.html">http://www.slate.com/articles/...ill.html</a> I met one of those Lincoln Bedroom donors some years ago through work. Probably the most fundamentally evil human I've ever been in the presence of. It's a long story that I'd better not go into in a public forum, but it colors my perceptions somewhat.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Part of the problem though w/ the contested convention or the third-party candidate is I worry it'll deny Hillary the requisite number of electoral college votes.> I haven't thought so... at least so far. Looking at the electoral map, I can't see a lot of reliably blue states that wouldn't go for Clinton if it was Clinton/Trump/Cruz. In fact, it probably wrecks Trump's strategy to put blue states in play, like NY and MI. I mean, Clinton's ahead of Trump by 20 points in NY right now, and while it might be closer in MI, does anyone thinks Cruz steals votes from Clinton if he's on the ballot? On the other hand, in a close state like NC, which Obama won by a hair in 2008 and lost by a hair in 2012, I think Cruz would take the evangelicals and Trump would take the nativists, leaving an easier path for Clinton to get the largest plurality. In this scenario, I see Trump and Cruz basically splitting Romney's states, but Clinton keeping Obama's; which I THINK (I could be wrong) only gets easier for her with two Republicans on the ballot.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I've long been on record of having mixed feelings for Hillary. But this might make you feel slightly better, mawnck. <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/3/15/1502044/-Five-Reasons-to-be-Enthusiastic-about-Hillary-Clinton">http://www.dailykos.com/story/...-Clinton</a> It's not the whole story, of course, but it's arguably PART of the whole (complex) story.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Trump scares me more than Cruz because he is a loose cannon where Cruz is pretty predictable. I also think Cruz would be better for the economy than Trump. On the other hand I think Hillary would have an easier time beating Trump and that Trump as the candidate would cause more House and Senate seat losses. With Cruz at the top once Tea Partiers got over being pissed about it not being Trump, I think they would realize they could have their dream come true if they just all go out and vote... Republican control of Congress combined with a hard-core conservative in the White House. So although Trump scares me more, I like the idea of him being the Republican candidate just because I think it will result in Republican losses across the board.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Remember this?<< Yup, and it's pretty much a perfect example of my own problems with the Clintons. My theory is they basically think "We're going to get attacked no matter what. If we're going to do the time we might as well do the crime." They bump right up against the line, maybe even dip a toe over it. But...the Clintons are nowhere near as awful as the right-wing smear campaign has managed to convince people, including, it would seem, a lot of lefties or progressives. Two articles that I think are good on this: <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://thedailybanter.com/2016/01/hillary-gop-smears/">http://thedailybanter.com/2016...-smears/</a> <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.vox.com/2015/7/6/8900143/hillary-clinton-reporting-rules">http://www.vox.com/2015/7/6/89...ng-rules</a> I especially like the second, which is by a reporter who's covered the Clintons for a long time. Here's his five rules for covering the Clintons for reporters: 1) Everything, no matter how ludicrous-sounding, is worthy of a full investigation by federal agencies, Congress, the "vast right-wing conspiracy," and mainstream media outlets 2) Every allegation, no matter how ludicrous, is believable until it can be proven completely and utterly false. And even then, it keeps a life of its own in the conservative media world. 3) The media assumes that Clinton is acting in bad faith until there's hard evidence otherwise. 4) Everything is newsworthy because the Clintons are the equivalent of America's royal family 5) Everything she does is fake and calculated for maximum political benefit
Originally Posted By Mr X ***I thought someone besides Mr. X should start a topic here... *** Thanks! My typing fingers are starting to cramp up!
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I haven't thought so... at least so far. Looking at the electoral map<< Good to hear. I haven't looked at the scenario closely at all. I just know that it would only take a small number of states to really throw a wrench in this thing. And Trump and Cruz appeal to such different voters that I wonder in, say, Ohio, if Trump could pull a lot of blue collar workers away from Hillary. I feel like half my posts basically boil down to "Don't get cocky, kid!" to liberals. I don't have a whole lot of faith in the American electorate.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I hear you. Believe me. I just think it gets easier for Clinton if it's a 3-way race.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I just think it gets easier for Clinton if it's a 3-way race.<< Definitely sounds like you're right. It is something else what we're seeing w/ the GOP right now. I wonder if this is a permanent shift or if it's something they'll weather and emerge as basically the same. There were plenty of "The GOP is so screwed" narratives after '08 and '12...then they made huge gains in Congress and in state races.
