DescentBB

...so sayeth Donald Trump, and I'll bet he's telling the truth. However, the key takeaways from Nevada(and the states leading to that point) seem to be:
Carson ought to drop out now, he's merely clearing the path a wee bit for Trump. Cruz and Kasich seem incapable of drawing much past a fringe group, in Cruz' case ultra-conservatives, in Kasich's case the dwindling moderates. I'm not sure how the GOP strategizes from here, but they are looking at a national version of Christine O'Donnell sweeping into the Delaware Senate race a few years back. That race, of and by itself, rendered the Republican brand unelectable in Delaware.

don't know about Ms O'Donnell? Here's her book....notice anything about the title that jumps out at you?
http://www.amazon.com/Troublemaker-Take ... 0312643055

callmeslick wrote:...so sayeth Donald Trump, and I'll bet he's telling the truth. However, the key takeaways from Nevada(and the states leading to that point) seem to be:
Carson ought to drop out now, he's merely clearing the path a wee bit for Trump. Cruz and Kasich seem incapable of drawing much past a fringe group, in Cruz' case ultra-conservatives, in Kasich's case the dwindling moderates. I'm not sure how the GOP strategizes from here, but they are looking at a national version of Christine O'Donnell sweeping into the Delaware Senate race a few years back. That race, of and by itself, rendered the Republican brand unelectable in Delaware.

Still desperately fishing for reasons why Trump won't win?

he clearly will not win the General, Woody. Which is all I've ever claimed. Still not taking my bet, I note.

Trump is still not the nominee, nor is Hillary. Speaking of which, if the FBI brings charges against Hillary and even tho Lynch doesn't pursue a indictment, would Hillary still be able to run as POTUS with the charges by the FBI filed?

woodchip wrote:Trump is still not the nominee, nor is Hillary. Speaking of which, if the FBI brings charges against Hillary and even tho Lynch doesn't pursue a indictment, would Hillary still be able to run as POTUS with the charges by the FBI filed?

you still don't quite grasp how this works. The FBI doesn't 'file charges' on ANYONE. They refer findings to the Dept of Justice, who choses to prosecute or not, or to take it to a Grand Jury.

callmeslick wrote:he clearly will not win the General, Woody. Which is all I've ever claimed. Still not taking my bet, I note.

Don't count on it slick. Even Hillary beating Trump in the general election is not a sure thing right now. I wouldn't even place bets on Hillary winning if I wanted to keep my money.

By the way, I want a conservative to tell me what they mean by "To make American great again". I see nothing that most conservatives are presently offering up that will make this nation any better than it is now, and in all likely will probably make things worse than it is now if implemented. The ONLY thing I see that I see, especially among tea partiers, is a veiled resentment that we'll magically solve all our problems if we just get rid of that lowly black man as president and that we'd surely be better off if any white guy around was president.

For me personally to make this country great again would entail controlling the debt, so we can begin to do great public works again, like say…a cross country mag-lev transportation system, or some of the water projects we are going to need.(just two examples)

Also a government sponsored public education program explaining the relationship between consumer habits and the job market, so we can start to rebuild that middle class, using a little “keeping it in the family” so to speak.

Having an honest public discussion on race issues would also be awesome.

Those would be a good start IMHO, but of course I could also go into why those things are not going to happen, but that wasn’t part of that indictment disguised as a question.

If the Trumptards prevail, we're going to have Hillary as the next president.

Spidey wrote:Having an honest public discussion on race issues would also be awesome.

having an honest public debate about the role of government would be really nice, too.

So I heard Kasich is looking for a VP position with Trump. Perhaps one of the reasons Kasich hasn't been bad mouthing Trump. If true could generate interesting dynamics. Might even see slick voting for Trump.

the same exact guess was floated about Rubio, as well. Neither would come anywhere close to agreement with the Wall Around Mexico, so I think that may be hot air. Some are saying Trump was giving a shout out to the former governor of VA, but he's likely to be one of the first victims of a 4-4 SCOTUS, and be reporting to jail real soon.

woodchip wrote: Might even see slick voting for Trump.

as much as I have some trust issues with Hillary, I have more for Trump. Plus, with Trump I have severe COMPETENCE issues which I don't with Clinton. Still rooting for Bernie to win the nod, for the Dems, as he would mop the floor with Trump. Hillary, I do see as potentially vulnerable, although I suspect she'd prevail, due to all the baggage. Given Trump's style of campaigning. She'd be fending off one goofy attack after another, while fighting for any positive traction, due to her past and her personality. Bernie would likely ignore the BS and plow forward with his vision and all, and utterly destroy Trump with the same issues that destroyed Romney(he's not like 'us').

We've already seen a few longtime GOP heavies suggesting that voting for Hillary is better than voting for Trump in the general. You will not hear that on the Dem side, from anyone, suggesting the opposite.

And to counter your prediction:

A political science professor who claims his statistical model has correctly predicted the results of every election in the last 104 years has forecast that the odds of Donald Trump becoming America’s next president currently range from 97 percent to 99 percent.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/24/polit ... z41C8PUgcm

well, as I cited a few weeks back, that college in Illinois, which has called every election since Carter correctly(that was the first election they
were running their model), says it's President Sanders. Time will tell, the bet still stands, but I will close the window by March 15.

I suspect that if you have enough people predicting elections, one of them is bound to get the last N right even if everyone is just guessing wildly, but that doesn't mean that their predictions necessarily have any real predictive power for the next election.

Also, with the professor who predicted every election in the last 104 years, obviously not all of those were before the fact. If I read the article correctly, he's only predicted the Clinton, Bush, and Obama victories before the fact. But it's easy to make a model that predicts things that have already happened by just overfitting to the data.