PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: JeffDG on February 01, 2016, 08:23:42 PM
-
Looks like Cruz, with Rubio almost overtaking Trump for #2.
Perhaps people think before voting for a Cult of Personality after all.
Hillary and Bernie are almost dead even.
-
Three man race. Now to see how it goes next week in New Hampshire.
Question is when will we see folks start to drop out?
-
O'Malley is out, so is Huckabee
-
And Huckabee is out.
And Jeff beat me to it 8)
-
Interesting...the winner of the 2012 caucuses, Rick Santorum, gets 1%.
-
Interesting...the winner of the 2012 caucuses, Rick Santorum, gets 1%.
I think folks learned in 2012.
Big turnout also.
Recent history says the Caucus winner is not the eventual nominee.
-
Big winner for the night, Rubio. Nobody expected him to be close, and he's less that 1% behind Trump for #2
Big loser: Trump. Lost a race he was ahead in the polls, very close to ending #3.
-
Bush comes in 6th with 3%
-
Bush comes in 6th with 3%
Momma Bush is not gonna be happy with the voters treating her son this way.
Good night!!
-
Looks like Cruz, with Rubio almost overtaking Trump for #2.
Perhaps people think before voting for a Cult of Personality after all.
Hillary and Bernie are almost dead.
FTFY. Ironic that the dems have the white geriatrics while the repubs have two YOUNG Hispanics and a black man in the top four.
-
FTFY. Ironic that the dems have the white geriatrics while the repubs have two YOUNG Hispanics and a black man in the top four.
It's only ironic if you believe the Democrats with Bylines spin on politics and minirities.
-
Big winner for the night, Rubio. Nobody expected him to be close, and he's less that 1% behind Trump for #2
Big loser: Trump. Lost a race he was ahead in the polls, very close to ending #3.
;D ;D ;D
-
Unless Rubio makes up another 2000, can we just call Trump The Biggest Loser?
-
Wow, 2nd place finish = finished....
From the Miller Center http://millercenter.org/president/biography/reagan-campaigns-and-elections (emphasis mine):
"The Republican Primaries
Although he did not formally declare his candidacy until November 1979, Reagan made it clear to his inner circle from the moment of the 1976 convention that he intended to again seek the presidency. He was the choice of rank-and-file Republican voters in public opinion polls although many establishment GOP politicians thought he was too conservative and perhaps too old to win the White House. Six other Republicans sought the nomination in 1980: Senate minority leader Howard Baker of Tennessee, former Texas governor John Connally, Senator Robert Dole of Kansas, Representative Phillip Crane of Illinois, former CIA director George H.W. Bush, and Representative John Anderson of Illinois.
None of these men had Reagan's combination of political stature and communication skills, although Bush, who had represented the United States at the United Nations and in China, and had served in the House and as Republican national chairman, had broader experience. Moreover, conservatives were the dominant force within the Republican Party, and Reagan was their champion. Moderate Republicans worried that Reagan would be too confrontational toward the Soviet Union. Then, at a time when Reagan had virtually been anointed the Republican nominee, Bush upset him in the first primary test, the Iowa caucuses. Reagan's campaigning in Iowa had been lackadaisical, and Bush and others questioned whether Reagan could simultaneously carry out his promises to lower taxes, increase military spending, and balance the federal budget. John Anderson said Reagan could do all this only "with mirrors." Bush derisively called Reagan's fiscal plans "voodoo economics."
Bush's victory in Iowa touched off a power struggle within the Reagan campaign and motivated the candidate. Members of Reagan's old California political team, encouraged by Nancy Reagan, knew that their candidate was at his best when voters saw him in person, where they could hear his often inspiring oratory and sense his personal warmth. Reagan campaigned nearly uninterrupted for twenty-one days in New Hampshire, a display of stamina that quieted concerns about his age. And when he faced off against his rivals in two February debates, Reagan proved a superior candidate.
In an incident that has become legendary in American political history, the moderator of the second debate ordered Reagan's microphone turned off as the candidates and their advisers argued about the debate's format. Reagan, paraphrasing a line from an old Spencer Tracy movie, defiantly responded, "I paid for this microphone." He soared in the polls and routed all his opponents in the primary. With New Hampshire as his springboard, Reagan rolled to the nomination, winning twenty-nine of the thirty-three primaries in which he and Bush competed. (Bush won the other four plus a primary that Reagan did not enter.) At the Republican national convention in Detroit, Michigan, Reagan then reached out to the moderate wing of the party by choosing Bush as his vice presidential running mate."
Again, not saying Trump is Reagan or even remotely the same especially in terms of the ability to effectively communicate a truly conservative message, Reagan did not win Iowa in 1980, was felt to be a dangerous candidate, was derided in the press, etc. - the seeming inability to observe and learn from history is interesting.
'Gimp
-
Wow!
http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/iowa-caucus-presidential-election-2016/?#livepress-update-20810507
According to this estimate, Jeb! SuperPAC Right to Rise spent $25,000 for every vote he got in Iowa.
This is Exhibit #1 for the proggies who say that we need to get money out of politics. Money <> Votes.
-
Wow!
http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/iowa-caucus-presidential-election-2016/?#livepress-update-20810507
According to this estimate, Jeb! SuperPAC Right to Rise spent $25,000 for every vote he got in Iowa.
This is Exhibit #1 for the proggies who say that we need to get money out of politics. Money <> Votes.
We can only hope that this helps dry up his support cashflow and gracefully bows out soon. Not expecting that by the way.
'Gimp
-
Funniest thing I've seen tonight about the caucuses:
(http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=292.0;attach=58)
-
Wow!
http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/iowa-caucus-presidential-election-2016/?#livepress-update-20810507
According to this estimate, Jeb! SuperPAC Right to Rise spent $25,000 for every vote he got in Iowa.
This is Exhibit #1 for the proggies who say that we need to get money out of politics. Money <> Votes.
Nice site!
-
Nice site!
I'm a "data geek" and I've been a follower of 538 for a long time.
Nate's a liberal, but unlike most liberals, he concedes that data defines reality, not narrative.
-
One thing that is worthy of note.
Cruz won the Iowa caucuses after coming out AGAINST ethanol subsidies, something that analysts thought impossible.
-
Trump in 2013:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CaLrAXSWIAEgyNT.jpg)
-
O'Malley is out
(http://cdn.pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Screen-Shot-2016-02-01-at-10.09.27-PM.png)
-
Biden is going to have to be drafted after Hillary is indicted.
The Dems will never allow a socialist to carry their banner. Oh, wait...
-
Big winner for the night, Rubio. Nobody expected him to be close, and he's less that 1% behind Trump for #2
Big loser: Trump. Lost a race he was ahead in the polls, very close to ending #3.
Good. It means people are getting serious. They have decided it's time to look beyond emotionally charged sound bites.
-
I liked Rubio's speech better than Cruz' speech. Marco has a gift there.
-
I liked Rubio's speech better than Cruz' speech. Marco has a gift there.
Concur.
-
Rubio's Iowa Speech:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/marco-rubios-full-post-iowa-caucus-speech-36655002 (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/marco-rubios-full-post-iowa-caucus-speech-36655002)
-
Cruz Iowa Victory Speech:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/cruz-victory-speech-projected-iowa-caucus-win-36656632 (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/cruz-victory-speech-projected-iowa-caucus-win-36656632)
-
If history shows us anything, Bye Bye Ted.
-
Starting to think a Cruz/Rubio ticket would be pretty nice.
-
If history shows us anything, Bye Bye Ted.
I don't think history means shit in this year's bizarre primary.
-
Trump Iowa Speech:
http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/02/02/donald-trump-iowa-caucus-post-result-entire-speech-sot.cnn/video/playlists/atv-road-to-the-white-house-automated/ (http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/02/02/donald-trump-iowa-caucus-post-result-entire-speech-sot.cnn/video/playlists/atv-road-to-the-white-house-automated/)
-
Big loser: Trump. Lost a race he was ahead in the polls, very close to ending #3.
Unless this is part of a larger strategy, concocted with Bill Clinton. One which definitely did NOT include winning the presidency.
Which is still my working hypothesis.
-
Apparently Jeb couldn't buy enough votes.
-
For all the hype surrounding Iowa, in reality it doesn't mean much. History has proven that time and again. The real race happens Super Tuesday, and by then we'll have a better idea of the actual players.
-
I think Trump will start to recede, and Cruz, and maybe Rubio rise. These are the three R candidates.
-
A little Clinton chicanery?
FIRST VOTE: 215 Sanders 210 Clinton 26 O'Malley 8 Undecided 459 TOTAL And this is the SECOND Vote: 232 Clinton 224 Sanders 456 Total So somehow they lost 3 people but Clinton's vote went up by 14.
http://www.conservativeoutfitters.com/blogs/news/85864001-clinton-caucus-caught-on-camera-committing-voter-fraud-in-iowa (http://www.conservativeoutfitters.com/blogs/news/85864001-clinton-caucus-caught-on-camera-committing-voter-fraud-in-iowa)
So even the article has it wrong. There were 34 votes originally not for Clinton or Sander (includes the 8 undecideds) Clinton gained 22 from 210 to 232 and Sanders gained 9 from 215 to 224 total change of 31 which seems to equal the second total given.
-
A little Clinton chicanery?
http://www.conservativeoutfitters.com/blogs/news/85864001-clinton-caucus-caught-on-camera-committing-voter-fraud-in-iowa
not a shred of evidence of any wrongdoing...
-
It is interesting that the supposedly racist GOP voters in Iowa gave over 60% of the votes to two Cubans and a black guy, while 100% of supposedly tolerant democrat votes went to old white people.
Now that O'Malley is out, and the average democrat candidate is 71 years old, who will get all 14 of his voters?
-
What difference, at this point, does it make??
-
Cruz tactics in Iowa are despicable as now being related, inexcusable and disqualifying in my mind.
'Gimp
-
Cruz tactics in Iowa are despicable as now being related, inexcusable and disqualifying in my mind.
'Gimp
But...but...but he's a pure conservative. Just can't be true!
-
Check this link out:
http://loser.com
(Safe for work, I promise...at least today)
-
Cruz tactics in Iowa are despicable as now being related, inexcusable and disqualifying in my mind.
'Gimp
His explanation is more credible than Trumps claims of conservatism.
-
His explanation is more credible than Trumps claims of conservatism.
'Gimp
-
Yep, that's about my reaction when the Trumpins tell me he's a conservative.
He's the Democrat in the Republican Primary.
Did Trump go to the Ladies Room for his trophy?
-
His explanation is more credible than Trumps claims of conservatism.
Cruz commits campaign fraud and that's the best you can come up with?
-
You mean when Cruz sent a CNN story to his volunteers? That campaign fraud?
-
Cruz commits campaign fraud and that's the best you can come up with?
He did?
-
You mean when Cruz sent a CNN story to his volunteers? That campaign fraud?
I'll save you the trouble, I already know you'll discredit the source, but do a little reading, it's out there in several news outlets.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/ted-cruzs-iowa-mailers-are-more-fraudulent-than-everyone-thinks
After seeing the mailers, Iowa’s secretary of state, Paul Pate, issued a statement condemning Cruz’s tactic:
“Today I was shown a piece of literature from the Cruz for President campaign that misrepresents the role of my office, and worse, misrepresents Iowa election law. Accusing citizens of Iowa of a “voting violation” based on Iowa Caucus participation, or lack thereof, is false representation of an official act. There is no such thing as an election violation related to frequency of voting. Any insinuation or statement to the contrary is wrong and I believe it is not in keeping in the spirit of the Iowa Caucuses.
Additionally, the Iowa Secretary of State’s Office never “grades” voters. Nor does the Secretary of State maintain records related to Iowa Caucus participation. Caucuses are organized and directed by the state political parties, not the Secretary of State, nor local elections officials. Also, the Iowa Secretary of State does not “distribute” voter records. They are available for purchase for political purposes only, under Iowa Code.”
-
Rand Paul is out
-
I'll save you the trouble, I already know you'll discredit the source, but do a little reading, it's out there in several news outlets.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/ted-cruzs-iowa-mailers-are-more-fraudulent-than-everyone-thinks (http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/ted-cruzs-iowa-mailers-are-more-fraudulent-than-everyone-thinks)
After seeing the mailers, Iowa’s secretary of state, Paul Pate, issued a statement condemning Cruz’s tactic:
“Today I was shown a piece of literature from the Cruz for President campaign that misrepresents the role of my office, and worse, misrepresents Iowa election law. Accusing citizens of Iowa of a “voting violation” based on Iowa Caucus participation, or lack thereof, is false representation of an official act. There is no such thing as an election violation related to frequency of voting. Any insinuation or statement to the contrary is wrong and I believe it is not in keeping in the spirit of the Iowa Caucuses.
Additionally, the Iowa Secretary of State’s Office never “grades” voters. Nor does the Secretary of State maintain records related to Iowa Caucus participation. Caucuses are organized and directed by the state political parties, not the Secretary of State, nor local elections officials. Also, the Iowa Secretary of State does not “distribute” voter records. They are available for purchase for political purposes only, under Iowa Code.”
So, let me get this straight.
The Cruz campaingn sent something out that the Iowa SecState's office never does, using records the office doesn't keep, yet he's being accused of misrepresenting it as coming from there?
-
So, let me get this straight.
The Cruz campaingn sent something out that the Iowa SecState's office never does, using records the office doesn't keep, yet he's being accused of misrepresenting it as coming from there?
All the while the democrat party actually engages in, and has voter fraud documented on video..... The lack of proportion is truly remarkable.
-
Didn't Trump once say "Losers cry, winners win."?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CaS0hPDUkAQ1IPh.jpg:large)
-
Didn't Trump once say "Losers cry, winners win."?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CaS0hPDUkAQ1IPh.jpg:large)
For all of the Trump supporters who think that he's so tough, Trump is proving to be as thin skinned as Obama, or worse.
-
For all of the Trump supporters who think that he's so tough, Trump is proving to be as thin skinned as Obama, or worse.
After the official looking 'Voting Violation' document, his outright refusal to apologize for it - and his campaigns move with respect to the CNN story about Carson then no, Trump isn't whining he is pointing out dirty tricks.
I don't like nor trust Cruz, he sets off all my warning bells and I can't put my finger on why even though he says many of the right things.
He has definitely had position flops that are substantive and troubling for someone claiming to be a 'consistent' conservative - at this point unless the shenanigans in Iowa prove to be totally inaccurate (unlikely since he has already acknowledged and apologized to Carson for what actually happened, and refused to apologize for the Voting Fraud thing) I simply can't vote for him.
'Gimp
Edited to clarify on Voter Document
-
You'd prefer Rubio who was part of the Gang of Eight and has done everything he can to make it look like Cruz was in favor of the bill instead of trying to kill it?
-
You'd prefer Rubio who was part of the Gang of Eight and has done everything he can to make it look like Cruz was in favor of the bill instead of trying to kill it?
Not me, Rubio is a no go and has been since that specific event. Like Jane Fonda, there are certain things you simply can't ever apologize enough for to overcome the damage done.
Marco is far more likable IMO and like Cruz has a great story but no, I do not prefer him.
Frankly, it's like the South Park episode about voting, Giant Douche or Turd Sandwich.
'Gimp
-
You'd prefer Rubio who was part of the Gang of Eight and has done everything he can to make it look like Cruz was in favor of the bill instead of trying to kill it?
Not me, Rubio is a no go and has been since that specific event. Like Jane Fonda, there are certain things you simply can't ever apologize enough for to overcome the damage done.
Marco is far more likable IMO and like Cruz has a great story but no, I do not prefer him.
Frankly, it's like the South Park episode about voting, Giant Douche or Turd Sandwich.
'Gimp
Rubio admits that the Gang of Eight was a mistake. No candidate survives a conservative purity test in this race.
Rubio's not my top choice, but he's a very, very strong second choice, for two main reasons:
1). He's the most articulate and well spoken of our candidates, and does the best job espousing conservative ideals and projecting an optimistic outlook for the country. I therefore think he has the best chance of beating Hitlery.
2). He endorses an Article V Convention of the States to create a Constitutional Balanced Budget Amendment and an Amendment for term limits of Congress and the Supremes.
-
After the official looking 'Voting Violation' document, his outright refusal to apologize for it - and his campaigns move with respect to the CNN story about Carson then no, Trump isn't whining he is pointing out dirty tricks.
I don't like nor trust Cruz, he sets off all my warning bells and I can't put my finger on why even though he says many of the right things.
He has definitely had position flops that are substantive and troubling for someone claiming to be a 'consistent' conservative - at this point unless the shenanigans in Iowa prove to be totally inaccurate (unlikely since he has already acknowledged and apologized to Carson for what actually happened, and refused to apologize for the Voting Fraud thing) I simply can't vote for him.
'Gimp
Edited to clarify on Voter Document
Exactly. Just imagine if Trump had played the dirty games Cruz had in Iowa, certain people would be foaming at the mouth right now.
Iowa has confirmed my feelings about Cruz.
-
Rubio admits that the Gang of Eight was a mistake. No candidate survives a conservative purity test in this race.
Rubio's not my top choice, but he's a very, very strong second choice, for two main reasons:
1). He's the most articulate and well spoken of our candidates, and does the best job espousing conservative ideals and projecting an optimistic outlook for the country. I therefore think he has the best chance of beating Hitlery.
2). He endorses an Article V Convention of the States to create a Constitutional Balanced Budget Amendment and an Amendment for term limits of Congress and the Supremes.
He can endorse an Article V convention all he wants, problem is it's meaningless. The state's have to call and vote for the convention, which is not going to happen. And term limits for Congress? Nice try getting that through.
Sorry, I'm a realist. The facts just don't back any of this up.
-
Iowa has confirmed my feelings about Cruz.
^^ This.
I like someone who is committed to winning don't get me wrong, but it has to be done on and with principles.
I know I sound like a Trump supporter, and I may end up being one, but consider his performance in Iowa with essentially no ground game and an unconventional approach, and contrast that with the shenanigans from Cruz to eke out a win in a still very crowded field (before Huckster and Paul dropped out anyway).
Iowa confirmed it for me as well, thanks for the right word - Cruz is not someone I can support.
'Gimp
-
Exactly. Just imagine if Trump had played the dirty games Cruz had in Iowa, certain people would be foaming at the mouth right now.
Iowa has confirmed my feelings about Cruz.
You mean dirty games like the birther or loan lies that Trump used to hammer Cruz before the Iowa caucuses?
-
You mean dirty games like the birther or loan lies that Trump used to hammer Cruz before the Iowa caucuses?
So Cruz wasn't born in Canada, and there has never, ever been any question on what a natural born citizen means? And no one has talked about filing lawsuits about it?
And Cruz never took out loans and never disclosed them?
Really?
-
You mean dirty games like the birther or loan lies that Trump used to hammer Cruz before the Iowa caucuses?
No, that is standard campaigning, it is annoying crap but normal - if it is good for the goose (re Obama and the Birth Certificate) then it is good for the gander and I do think it is a question Cruz would need to address and I am not the only one.
The loan thing was crap but it is not even remotely like sending out official looking documents with Voting Violation in big red letters across the top, or stealing votes from Dr. Carson by misrepresenting a CNN story that misrepresented the situation and then choosing not to correct that as soon as the truth was known.
Apples and oranges, at least to me.
'Gimp
-
So Cruz wasn't born in Canada, and there has never, ever been any question on what a natural born citizen means? And no one has talked about filing lawsuits about it?
And Cruz never took out loans and never disclosed them?
Really?
Asked, and answered. He was born to an American mother. The loans were disclosed in his legal Senate disclosures, just not separately with the FEC.
-
Didn't Trump once say "Losers cry, winners win."?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CaS0hPDUkAQ1IPh.jpg:large)
Kinda sounds like Al Gore right there. Hmmmm...
-
I don't like nor trust Cruz, he sets off all my warning bells and I can't put my finger on why even though he says many of the right things.
And Trump doesn't??!! I think they are both terrible.
-
Kinda sounds like Al Gore right there. Hmmmm...
Since there is no lawsuit or demand for a recount or hanging chads, and since Cruz has ADMITTED to the Voting Violation stunt and refused to apologize for it, and ADMITTED to the Carson shenanigans and apologized for it, no - it doesn't sound anything like AlGore.
'Gimp
-
Asked, and answered. He was born to an American mother. The loans were disclosed in his legal Senate disclosures, just not separately with the FEC.
Quit playing naive. You know that several people in the DNC was proposing lawsuits to answer the natural born citizen question, and that legal scholars admitted its never been taken to the high courts, which could potentially jeopardize his campaign.
As for the loans? Sorry, if you are running for president, no excuse for not disclosing.
-
As for the loans? Sorry, if you are running for president, no excuse for not disclosing.
Well, except for the fact that he DID disclose, just on the wrong form.
-
And Trump doesn't??!! I think they are both terrible.
Actually no, I have a pretty good grasp on Trump insofar as what he says and what he does and he does not set off warning bells. He is not a rock-ribbed conservative and I am OK with that.
I am not actively supporting anybody yet, but I have started to make my mind up about who I won't support, Bush, Christie, Kasich, Cruz and Rubio.
And as I have said elsewhere, I am only voting if I can vote FOR somebody, the Republican party no longer gets a 'vote against' from me, they don't deserve it since they never follow through.
'Gimp
-
Actually no, I have a pretty good grasp on Trump insofar as what he says and what he does and he does not set off warning bells. He is not a rock-ribbed any kind of conservative and I am OK with that.
I am not actively supporting anybody yet, but I have started to make my mind up about who I won't support, Bush, Christie, Kasich, Cruz and Rubio.
And as I have said elsewhere, I am only voting if I can vote FOR somebody, the Republican party no longer gets a 'vote against' from me, they don't deserve it since they never follow through.
'Gimp
There, fixed it for you.
-
Well, except for the fact that he DID disclose, just on the wrong form.
Oh no!!! Please! Please! Make it stop!,,,
LOL!
-
There, fixed it for you.
If it makes you feel better... ::)
'Gimp