Another day in the Universe
https://www.onthenatureofthings.net/forum/
https://www.onthenatureofthings.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3435
It's just being informed. Are you saying you didn't know that Cruz and Rubio are ahead of Clinton.Typhoon wrote:How Panglossian.Mr. Perfect wrote:I was actually worked up about it. Very interesting results. Both Cruz and Rubio are up over Clinton in RCP. If the choices are now between Rubio/Cruz/Trump that is a good thing for me.
We always said, point of Trump is to take out Bush, mission accomplished.Heracleum Persicum wrote:
Hmmm .. interesting
Seems, Wall Street crooks and Neocons thought better put all chips on Rubio
Sanders, Gooooooooo
.
Mr. Perfect wrote:This is what is important about Iowa...That's about it.
You suddenly trust my spidey-sense? That's good to hear, but it isn't free.Why don't you tell us who you endorse.
No. I'm laughing that Trump came 2nd after all the build up.Mr. Perfect wrote:It's just being informed. Are you saying you didn't know that Cruz and Rubio are ahead of Clinton.Typhoon wrote:How Panglossian.Mr. Perfect wrote:I was actually worked up about it. Very interesting results. Both Cruz and Rubio are up over Clinton in RCP. If the choices are now between Rubio/Cruz/Trump that is a good thing for me.
Don't shoot the messenger.NapLajoieonSteroids wrote: So a list of nothing. Gotcha.
I'm seeing if you can man up. Now would be the time.You suddenly trust my spidey-sense? That's good to hear, but it isn't free.
I guess it would seem like that to someone following their first election.Typhoon wrote: No. I'm laughing that Trump came 2nd after all the build up.
What build-up is that? There was a very brief window where people thought Trump would make it in Iowa: when the media peed their pants when Sarah Palin and Jerry Falwell Jr. came out for Trump before Iowa. Otherwise, it's been close and not an inevitable 'Trump' state.Typhoon wrote:No. I'm laughing that Trump came 2nd after all the build up.Mr. Perfect wrote:It's just being informed. Are you saying you didn't know that Cruz and Rubio are ahead of Clinton.Typhoon wrote:How Panglossian.Mr. Perfect wrote:I was actually worked up about it. Very interesting results. Both Cruz and Rubio are up over Clinton in RCP. If the choices are now between Rubio/Cruz/Trump that is a good thing for me.
I believed the term for what happened to Trump is that he got schlonged.Mr. Perfect wrote:I guess it would seem like that to someone following their first election.Typhoon wrote: No. I'm laughing that Trump came 2nd after all the build up.
Snooze. I've seen this game before- whenever you see a bunch of young men running up a hill, there is always some old dude at the bottom telling them how great the top of that hill is.Mr. Perfect wrote: I'm seeing if you can man up. Now would be the time.
.Mr. Perfect wrote:OK. Whatever that's about.
Rubio is the Republican version of John Kerry. There is almost zero chance I'd vote for him. Same with Clinton and Bush.In the meantime who are you pulling for.
I recall how it works, thank you.Mr. Perfect wrote:Wow. This really is your first election.
Edit: sorry, its not clear how basic we need to go here. Since 1980 the winner of Iowa has gone on to win the nomination only twice on the GOP side. And as naps mentioned Trump only had a lead there for a couple of weeks in a state where the polls are almost always wrong.
Also pleased to see Sanders tie Hillary. Not exactly the coronation some has expected."Unless I win, I would consider this a big, fat, beautiful – and, by the way, a very expensive – waste of time," Trump said this weekend, speaking to supporters during a whirlwind tour of Iowa..
Mr. Perfect wrote:You guys really don't understand how primaries work.
Speaking of legends in their own mindTyphoon wrote:Mr. Perfect wrote:You guys really don't understand how primaries work.
So says the legend in his own mind.
Well, who are you considering?Mr. Perfect wrote:Ok, but who would you consider voting for.
Living in Chicago, I learned the Chicago way:NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:Well, who are you considering?Mr. Perfect wrote:Ok, but who would you consider voting for.
So far, you've claimed every candidate near the top of the polls.
I may be fuzzy with my maths but, when you go in to vote you can only choose one.
Which one is it for you?
Or is this a case of "multiple candidates for me but not for thee"?
Vote early, vote often, vote Daley.
Sounds like he campaign strategy requires a major revision:Nonc Hilaire wrote:Dirty tricks and bellyaching about opponent's use of same is part of American politics. The fact that Cruz picked such crude ones and played them so early in such a trivial primary smacks of desperation.
Trump will adjust.
So NH is next.For months, Donald Trump’s allies urged him to invest in the technology necessary to identify and mobilize his supporters, sources close to Trump’s campaign told POLITICO, but the billionaire barely budged, apparently believing his star power would provide a new way to mobilize voters.
By the time his campaign began investing in voter data and targeting analytics, his rivals for the GOP nomination — particularly Iowa winner Ted Cruz and third-place finisher Marco Rubio — had spent millions building sophisticated voter-targeting machines.
Remains to be seen whether the populist school of campaigning still works.Still, the advantages of the superior data operations of Cruz and Rubio will be tested in next week’s New Hampshire primary. Polls taken before Iowa showed Trump with a commanding 20-point lead. And the state’s primary rules, which allow independents to participate, can be a major wild card, as is the turnout, which is far greater than for Iowa’s caucuses ― a potential advantage for Trump — but also a source of volatility.