Bernie and Trump look to win by double digits.  Kasich looks to finish second.   Rubio looks to finish fifth (though he's close enough to overtake Cruz and Bush). (Maybe there was something to the Marco Robot criticism other than just media forcing the story?) The Republicans are in a scrum, and I don't see many dropping out beyond Fiorina and (maybe) Carson.  I don't think Kasich will do so well in heavily evangelical states like South Carolina, where Carson could do considerably better.  There won't be clarity in either race until at least Super Tuesday.

Christie will likely drop out as well.

 

Christie will likely drop out as well.

He's all but said so. Earlier, it looked like he might be within reach of Rubio, and although he made ground (as compared to the polls), even he sees he's out.  

 

It's too bad though because it would have been fun to see him "prosecute" Trump or Cruz.

I'd agree given the results it hurt him, and from a media and momentum standpoint it's a big deal he's not in Kasich's spot in today's race right now but given Trumps 2-1 margin of victory what difference does it make.  I'm glad he slipped as it gives Cruz a solid 3rd if things hold but I think Rubio will be just fine going forward.

 

It makes a huge difference. If some of those Bush and Kasich voters had stayed on the Rubio momentum than it would have mattered a lot for future states. We'd have two clear front runners. Instead the Rubiobot thing basically killed his campaign.

Maybe we are under selling Trump. I just don't know anymore.

 

Kasich has no* chance, much too moderate to get through the nomination process. Christie has no chance. Carson and Fiorina have no chance.

 

Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Bush.....that's really it, isn't it? With Rubio and Cruz taking votes from each other, you can see a path for Trump. Which, frankly, is amazing to me. He has no credentials to be the US President, imo.

 

*I don't think, I could be wrong, but I just don't see a good path for him

Glad to see Kasich get some love, he's the kind of Republican that needs to be more front and center.

 

And yeah, it's clear Rubio suffered from those Christie attacks.

Yep and yep.

Ohio saying "we don't like women getting help legally".

 

Michigan legislature showing that they don't believe in freedom, passing a law against oral and anal sex......

 

Right, the GOP is the party of freedom. Get back to me when it is, until then, you will never get my vote again. Oh, and I'm straight and white.....but w/o freedom, what is the  point?

Edited February 10, 201610 yr by Mike Sixel

Seemed to me that Kasich and Fiorina were running for VP slots since the beginning. All the GOP has to do is win the Romney states and add Ohio and Florida. Tactically, Rubio makes the most sense, especially since he would be running against a much, much older candidate and he's from Florida.

 

Ohio saying "we don't like women getting help legally".

 

Michigan legislature showing that they don't believe in freedom, passing a law against oral and anal sex......

 

Right, the GOP is the party of freedom. Get back to me when it is, until then, you will never get my vote again. Oh, and I'm straight and white.....but w/o freedom, what is the  point?

 

I get what you are saying, but mandating all people to buy something they may or may not need/want and wanting to ban/severely restrict firearms also doesn't sound like freedom.  Both parties like to throw that freedom word around, but they both seem to have a very narrow definition of the actual word.

 

I get what you are saying, but mandating all people to buy something they may or may not need/want and wanting to ban/severely restrict firearms also doesn't sound like freedom.  Both parties like to throw that freedom word around, but they both seem to have a very narrow definition of the actual word.

 

Putting someone in jail for 15 years for sex is the same as saying "don't discriminate"? Ugh. No, no it isn't. 

 

While I don't want all guns banned, or even most.........trying to limit violence against others at least serves some public purpose, and I can live with it even if I don't agree. Imposing your* religious views on others does not.

 

*your meaning any group trying to do that

We must all feel his noodly appendage.

 

And talk like pirates.

 

We must all feel his noodly appendage.

 

And talk like pirates.

Arr

Putting someone in jail for 15 years for sex is the same as saying "don't discriminate"? Ugh. No, no it isn't.

 

While I don't want all guns banned, or even most.........trying to limit violence against others at least serves some public purpose, and I can live with it even if I don't agree. Imposing your* religious views on others does not.

 

*your meaning any group trying to do that

What violence does mandating everyone purchase health insurance stem? Or outlawing daily fantasy sports such as AG of New York. Truth is both parties talk a lot about freedom. Neither party wants it across the board.

Edited February 10, 201610 yr by USMCTwin

 

I get what you are saying, but mandating all people to buy something they may or may not need/want and wanting to ban/severely restrict firearms also doesn't sound like freedom.  Both parties like to throw that freedom word around, but they both seem to have a very narrow definition of the actual word.

I highlighted the part about firearms. Who is calling for banning or severely restricting firearms? That communist Obama isn't. Maybe Keith Ellison or some other fringe liberal is saying this, but it is not in play in the coming election. Too many conservatives really believe this.

What violence does mandating everyone purchase health insurance stem? Or outlawing daily fantasy sports such as AG of New York. Truth is both parties talk a lot about freedom. Neither party wants it across the board.

Mandating health insurance at least does a little to prevent the violence of using our tax dollars to pay for the health care of those who don't purchase it.

 

Someone is going to pay for an emergency room visit. It can be you and I, or you and I with some help from mandated insurance coverage. Insurance coverage paid for by the person getting the health care.

Mandating health insurance at least does a little to prevent the violence of using our tax dollars to pay for the health care of those who don't purchase it.

 

Someone is going to pay for an emergency room visit. It can be you and I, or you and I with some help from mandated insurance coverage. Insurance coverage paid for by the person getting the health care.

This may all be well and good even if you ignore governments resounding success with VA care, but even all that aside, it doesn't sound much like freedom to mandate all people to buy something they don't necessarily want, which was the point.

 

Maybe we are under selling Trump. I just don't know anymore.

 

Kasich has no* chance, much too moderate to get through the nomination process. Christie has no chance. Carson and Fiorina have no chance.

 

Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Bush.....that's really it, isn't it? With Rubio and Cruz taking votes from each other, you can see a path for Trump. Which, frankly, is amazing to me. He has no credentials to be the US President, imo.

 

*I don't think, I could be wrong, but I just don't see a good path for him

 

I'd bet on Bush over Kasich, but Kasich has a real chance if he can make anything more out of his second place finish.  With Christie and Fiorino gone tons of moderate votes are available.  Trump hit his poll #'s so in that sense I under sold him but he only got 10 of 23 delegates and unless he can gain 3% or more of the 11% that just dropped out he's not headed in the right direction.  Last night proved Trump isn't in any trouble, but he still has to make things happen that I don't think he can.  This race doesn't really start until 2 of the 3 remaining more moderate candidates are out.

The fun thing about freedom is deciding when my freedom limits your freedom, and vice versa. It's the main reason we have rule of law in the first place, and why citizens and governments enter into social contracts.

I get what you are saying, but mandating all people to buy something they may or may not need/want and wanting to ban/severely restrict firearms also doesn't sound like freedom.  Both parties like to throw that freedom word around, but they both seem to have a very narrow definition of the actual word.

Let's not mandate car insurance, right?

 

And it's the republicans who want the democrats to want to ban firearms. That's the closest I can come to figuring out what you're trying to say there.

 

What violence does mandating everyone purchase health insurance stem? Or outlawing daily fantasy sports such as AG of New York. Truth is both parties talk a lot about freedom. Neither party wants it across the board.

Make no mistake about it, outlawing DFS has nothing to do with freedom, and everything to do with "hey, we want our cut!"

 

 

Let's not mandate car insurance, right?

 

And it's the republicans who want the democrats to want to ban firearms. That's the closest I can come to figuring out what you're trying to say there.

Agreed, I haven't actually heard a single democrat, much less a single democrat in congress or running for the PUSA who is trying to "ban" firearms. The only thing mentioned is increased background checks so far and MAYBE just MAYBE limiting high capacity clips. Anyone who believes the Dems are trying to take away guns are the biggest part of the problem (and why Trump is leading)

Edited February 11, 201610 yr by DaveW

I don't see any benefit in limiting the amount of clips. If the recent shootings have shown us anything, it's that terrorists know how to reload. That isn't going to solve any problems. The background checks is reasonable, but shouldn't be done with an executive action.

Let's not mandate car insurance, right?

 

And it's the republicans who want the democrats to want to ban firearms. That's the closest I can come to figuring out what you're trying to say there.

Did we mandate that people must have car insurance if they have no cars? So that's like apples to hay bales.

 

 

Of course there was a "/severely restrict" there you ignored. Or perhaps you don't believe Obama would like to severely restrict firearms. Either way I feel you are incorrect on that one.

Edited February 11, 201610 yr by USMCTwin

The topic of healthcare us a great example of what American politics, greedy capitalism, and bleeding hearts can do together. What we've ended up with is a little socialism mixed with a free market that takes advantage of consumers, and a constant struggle that only makes the industry more expensive and moor complicated. I hate our healthcare system. It is a laughing stock of the developed world. We spend more per person and receive lower quality of care. I highly doubt any other possible system could be much worse.... Although, it continues to get worse.

 

The topic of healthcare us a great example of what American politics, greedy capitalism, and bleeding hearts can do together. What we've ended up with is a little socialism mixed with a free market that takes advantage of consumers, and a constant struggle that only makes the industry more expensive and moor complicated. I hate our healthcare system. It is a laughing stock of the developed world. We spend more per person and receive lower quality of care. I highly doubt any other possible system could be much worse.... Although, it continues to get worse.

 

That is 100% the issue. People like to bitch about the "forced" insurance, except that there are still thousands without insurance, especially those who are disabled, due to states opting out of Medicaid/Medicare expansions. When someone who is disabled is at least on Medicaid, he/she is given proper care, tracked through the health care system, and pharmaceuticals are tracked. Instead, we recently dealt with an issue where a disabled person without insurance was able to get 5 different prescriptions for Vicodin by going to the different clinics in town with legitimate pain. Getting cash backing from a source, the person then paid cash for each of those medications and was selling them around town for significant mark up. The same person on Medicaid would have been immediately denied the second script due to having filled the same medication on his/her record. Cutting off funding for those who are unable to afford the insurance simply creates loopholes that leads to more costs for taxpayers in additional visits to the ER (two who happen to be on taxpayer funded Medicaid so far have ended up in the ER after mixing the ill-gotten Vicodin with alcohol - which is how I ended up in contact with the situation in the first place), additional costs in jailing, and additional costs in court time/fees/attorney fees. It ends up hurting the taxpayer further to deny expanded Medicaid than to actually do the expansion.

 

Seemed to me that Kasich and Fiorina were running for VP slots since the beginning. All the GOP has to do is win the Romney states and add Ohio and Florida. Tactically, Rubio makes the most sense, especially since he would be running against a much, much older candidate and he's from Florida.

 

It can't be just Ohio and Florida, right? I think that gets to 285-253. Even adding Virginia makes it 272-266.

Outsider = Trump

Christian Right = Cruz

Governing = Bush, Rubio, Kasich

 

Kasich doesn't have money or much else going forward. S.C. could end up something like Trump 32, Cruz 28, and Rubio and Bush with 15 each.

 

I don't see any benefit in limiting the amount of clips. If the recent shootings have shown us anything, it's that terrorists know how to reload. That isn't going to solve any problems. The background checks is reasonable, but shouldn't be done with an executive action.

 

Outsider = Trump

Christian Right = Cruz

Governing = Bush, Rubio, Kasich

 

Kasich doesn't have money or much else going forward. S.C. could end up something like Trump 32, Cruz 28, and Rubio and Bush with 15 each.

 

I bet we see a poll out today.  Trump was at 38% almost a month ago, but the last two polls had him at 27 and 26.  Given the candidates that have dropped out if he's not above 30 even if he wins that's not good for him heading into a caucus state as he won't be progressing towards hitting close to 50% in any state Super Tuesday (3 caucuses 9 primaries including Ted Cruz home state).  I know there is still 3 weeks to go but the fact we aren't seeing any ads in Minnesota yet suggest most of these candidates can't afford to play all 12 states, I have to imagine that will be a problem for Trump as I can't see him spend upwards of a million dollars a state that would be required to make his supporters sick of winning.  After Super Tuesday only one of Trump and Cruz if not zero are viable, if it's still unclear which one is more viable that's a problem.  The game from the establishment standpoint is to knock Cruz out first then Trump, if it happens the other way they have a real fight on there hands.  The knock out punch on Trump is easy once the field is small enough that the candidate spending money to make it knows they will see the benefit of his downfall.

 

What violence does mandating everyone purchase health insurance stem? Or outlawing daily fantasy sports such as AG of New York. Truth is both parties talk a lot about freedom. Neither party wants it across the board.

 

Gambling is already illegal, so they are merely enforcing existing laws (that stem from imposing religion's views of right and wrong on us). I would prefer it be legal, but it isn't. Anyone that says this isn't gambling is stretching the definition pretty far.

 

Health insurance serves a public purpose, we are literally the only first world nation w/o a public healthcare system. What we should do is provide it to everyone, like we do with roads and schools, but the Republicans and most Democrats aren't willing to do that. This was a compromise (imposing almost the same system Israel uses). 

 

Did we mandate that people must have car insurance if they have no cars? So that's like apples to hay bales.


Of course there was a "/severely restrict" there you ignored. Or perhaps you don't believe Obama would like to severely restrict firearms. Either way I feel you are incorrect on that one.

It's a lot easier to not have a car than it is to not have health.

 

And I could say plenty about the "severely restrict," too, but I was talking about the "ban" part. It's my right, isn't it? I mean, isn't it kind of apples to hay bales, oranges to silos? Or, if you prefer a more or less conventional cliché, you're making a mountain out of a molehill. Or the Sahara Desert out of a grain of sand. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

It's a lot easier to not have a car than it is to not have health.

 

And I could say plenty about the "severely restrict," too, but I was talking about the "ban" part. It's my right, isn't it? I mean, isn't it kind of apples to hay bales, oranges to silos? Or, if you prefer a more or less conventional cliché, you're making a mountain out of a molehill. Or the Sahara Desert out of a grain of sand. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

You were the one that brought up cars, so I agree it's not really relevant.

 

Sure you can say most if not all liberals don't want to ban guns. Doesn't make it right. I can say most liberals/socialists want to severely restrict gun sales. Doesn't make it right. That's the beauty of freedom that some are advocating taking away.

Edited February 11, 201610 yr by USMCTwin