2016 US Presidential Race

sandokhan · « **Reply #120 on:** February 02, 2016, 12:28:19 PM »

But I did with each and every message; read them again.

While all of you were busy praising Trump, I noticed several things which could not have occurred by chance (2 Corinthians, no show for the Iowa debate and many other very subtle things).

Now, we will see what happens on March 1; let us not forget that in 2012, a full 65% of the Republican voters in South Carolina said they were evangelical Christians.

Rushy · « **Reply #121 on:** February 02, 2016, 02:41:54 PM »

Quote from: sandokhan on February 02, 2016, 12:28:19 PM

But I did with each and every message; read them again.

While all of you were busy praising Trump, I noticed several things which could not have occurred by chance (2 Corinthians, no show for the Iowa debate and many other very subtle things).

Now, we will see what happens on March 1; let us not forget that in 2012, a full 65% of the Republican voters in South Carolina said they were evangelical Christians.

Ah, in other words you're keeping your messages as vague as possible to avoid making false predictions. You're doing the same thing horoscopes do and it's not going to fool anyone.

I guess I'm there only one here brave enough to actually say who I predict will win the nomination. I predict Trump.

Lord Dave · « **Reply #122 on:** February 02, 2016, 02:57:59 PM »

I predict Ted Cruz by a very suspiciously narrow margin.

sandokhan · « **Reply #123 on:** February 02, 2016, 03:43:01 PM »

You are rushying to unwarranted conclusions, as you have done several times before.

My messages speak for themselves.

Now, please do tell us how Trump is going to win the nomination: what is your analysis?

ld, let us carefully see what is going in NH.

Four years ago just 22% of the state's primary voters were evangelical (47% of the Republican voters described themselves as moderates).

However, the evangelical electorate of the Republican party was not enthusiastic at all in the past two elections; now, they do have someone they can identify with.

According to some social research organizations, there are some 300,000 people of faith who aren't voting in NH (of course, there is no guarantee that they will all vote Republican).

An expert on voting in NH estimated that "a top-notch, flawless field operation could bump up a candidate eight to 12 percentage points".

garygreen · « **Reply #124 on:** February 02, 2016, 05:00:21 PM »

Quote from: sandokhan on February 02, 2016, 03:43:01 PM

My messages speak for themselves.

i've been taking your messages to mean that putin is going to win south carolina by at least ten points after officially announcing that his running mate is a grizzly bear. am i close?

markjo · « **Reply #125 on:** February 02, 2016, 05:03:32 PM »

Quote from: sandokhan on February 02, 2016, 03:43:01 PM

Now, please do tell us how Trump is going to win the nomination: what is your analysis?

I predict that the people will come to their senses and Trump will not win the nomination.

Shane · « **Reply #126 on:** February 02, 2016, 05:06:34 PM »

Time to dump the Trump

Rushy · « **Reply #127 on:** February 02, 2016, 05:20:27 PM »

Quote from: sandokhan on February 02, 2016, 03:43:01 PM

You are rushying to unwarranted conclusions, as you have done several times before.

My messages speak for themselves.

Now, please do tell us how Trump is going to win the nomination: what is your analysis?

ld, let us carefully see what is going in NH.

Four years ago just 22% of the state's primary voters were evangelical (47% of the Republican voters described themselves as moderates).

However, the evangelical electorate of the Republican party was not enthusiastic at all in the past two elections; now, they do have someone they can identify with.

According to some social research organizations, there are some 300,000 people of faith who aren't voting in NH (of course, there is no guarantee that they will all vote Republican).

An expert on voting in NH estimated that "a top-notch, flawless field operation could bump up a candidate eight to 12 percentage points".

Do you not agree with my prediction?

garygreen · « **Reply #128 on:** February 02, 2016, 07:26:36 PM »

decent, boys.

sandokhan · « **Reply #129 on:** February 02, 2016, 07:29:47 PM »

If Trump had really wanted to run a bona fide campaign, then he would not have committed the mistakes which have contributed greatly to his first loss.

Presumably, the Republican party wants to win the White House: why then would it allow their best candidate to lose in Iowa?

Lord Dave · « **Reply #130 on:** February 02, 2016, 07:36:18 PM »

Quote from: sandokhan on February 02, 2016, 07:29:47 PM

If Trump had really wanted to run a bona fide campaign, then he would not have committed the mistakes which have contributed greatly to his first loss.

Presumably, the Republican party wants to win the White House: why then would it allow their best candidate to lose in Iowa?

Eh. His big loss is really that he's not very nice or political. It makes a lot of people jump for joy but also turns alot off. He polarizes and as such, lost. Though it was narrow.

Also, they didn't. The GOP does not want trump in thr whitehouse.

Rushy · « **Reply #131 on:** February 02, 2016, 07:45:01 PM »

Historically, if Trump had won Iowa, he would have less of a chance to win the nomination, not more of one.

sandokhan · « **Reply #132 on:** February 02, 2016, 07:54:43 PM »

His big loss is really that he's not very nice or political.

This is the impression left by his intentional behavior while on the campaign trail, not his real personality.

I repeat, Trump is not serious, at least so far, about campaigning for the GOP nomination.

Lord Dave · « **Reply #133 on:** February 02, 2016, 07:58:00 PM »

Quote from: sandokhan on February 02, 2016, 07:54:43 PM

His big loss is really that he's not very nice or political.

This is the impression left by his intentional behavior while on the campaign trail, not his real personality.

I repeat, Trump is not serious, at least so far, about campaigning for the GOP nomination.

Yeah, I've know that since he began. He's a plant to get a democrat in.

sandokhan · « **Reply #134 on:** February 02, 2016, 08:00:57 PM »

Historically, if Trump had won Iowa, he would have less of a chance to win the nomination, not more of one.

So what you are saying is that Trump intentionally lost Iowa, in order to fulfill some historical profile in which candidates which lose Iowa then go on to win the nomination.

sandokhan · « **Reply #135 on:** February 02, 2016, 08:05:22 PM »

He's a plant to get a democrat in.

No, he is not; please read my comments posted on December 13, 2015:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3243.msg82666#msg82666

markjo · « **Reply #136 on:** February 02, 2016, 08:47:19 PM »

Quote from: sandokhan on February 02, 2016, 07:29:47 PM

Presumably, the Republican party wants to win the White House: why then would it allow their best candidate to lose in Iowa?

What makes you think that the Republican party wants Trump in the White House?

Lord Dave · « **Reply #137 on:** February 02, 2016, 09:51:11 PM »

Quote from: sandokhan on February 02, 2016, 08:05:22 PM

He's a plant to get a democrat in.

No, he is not; please read my comments posted on December 13, 2015:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3243.msg82666#msg82666

Yes, Trumps role is to become popular then force people to pick someone else when he drops out unexpectedly.

Yeah, thats likely...

He hasn't droppes out yet and isn't likely to due to "complex roadblocms".
If he does anything, it'll be to run as an independant whicb will fuck the gop up so badly by splitting their base in two.

markjo · « **Reply #138 on:** February 03, 2016, 02:31:29 AM »

In the Iowa caucuses, it appears that a coin toss is a valid way to win a delegate.

Quote from: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/coin-toss-broke-6-clinton-sanders-deadlocks-in-iowa-and-hillary-won-each-time-2016-02-02

While it was hard to call a winner between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders last night, it’s easy to say who was luckier.

The race between the Democrat presidential hopefuls was so tight in the Iowa caucus Monday that in at least six precincts, the decision on awarding a county delegate came down to a coin toss. And Clinton won all six, media reports said.

Rushy · « **Reply #139 on:** February 03, 2016, 02:40:14 AM »

The chances of her winning all six is so improbable that I call bullshit.

1.5% chance of all six being in her favor. So it isn't terrible, but I still call bull.