I'm surprised that Cruz dropped out, but I suspect that his internal polling showed him behind in Nebraska.
Sanders won Indiana. I never thought I'd compliment a commie Jew for anything, but his earnest doggedness is almost charming. If the Dems we all white he'd be winning.
Candidates only drop out because their funding dries up. What do I know, but that's what every commentator has kept saying throughout this season.And Lyin' Ted only relies on 4 mega-donors. All it took was 1, 2, 3, or 4 people do tell him that Indiana was his last stand.If he could keep getting the money, he'd be in this all the way through the Convention, make no mistake. Overweening ambition and megalomaniac -- and autistic with no sense of when he's being socially rejected.
Well of course a "commie Jew" didn't win Indiana -- a populist and non-globalist won Indiana.That's like a Dem saying that they can't believe our multi-divorced reality TV star keeps winning. It misunderstands what's driving voters, and keeps us from winning them over -- which, btw, we need to do in order to win in November.We're not going to make this the Conservative Olympics again, where we try to antagonize over half of the country in the general election just to prove how motherfucking Republican we are. (I doubt most of the Trump army consider themselves Republicans anyway.)
FATALITYCruz was broken today. He and the anti-Trump forces could not alter the popular will no matter how much time, money, and sheer hatred they poured into Indiana and really, the race in general. These snakes like to think they're the "experts", who've won many a "hard-fought" battle. Well, those were fought under the mostly agreed upon rules of elitist socialites and nerdy ideologues. Even some of the talking heads today acknowledged that Hillary is an info sponge who can recall all sorts of minutiae, yet can struggle to read people and adjust to what the circumstances require. Wasn't it the Clinton's who pioneered the modern obsession with polls and surveys? At this point we all know that these pseudo-intellectuals are full of shit. Hillary was the biggest cheerleader of the last several decades of coups/invasions/saber rattling etc. with all kinds of nations and rulers. None of this meddling and aggression has even been a positive for us, from a stricly selfish standpoint, let alone other regions and the world in general.I think the JFK and Cruz's dad thing was a well-timed kick-him-when-he's-down cheap shot. It worked; Cruz lost whatever was left of his composure. The pious martyr had no use for the usual platitudes and moralism as he descended into indignant name calling. Cruz may have had energy and ambition, but even he must've been drained and demoralized by the continuing inability to pin Trump down for a sustained period.Cruz's recent polling plummet also scared him and many of his supporters straight. The more he got exposed the more his "mask of sanity" crumbled. He's a lizard brain. It'd be funny if a poll asked "would you let this candidate babysit your child".
Put it this way: Ted Cruz is a lot like crap. The closer you get to either, the worse the smell gets.
I understand why people are voting for Bernie. What I don't see is why they're missing the obvious fact that the man has no balls. Two fat chicks ran roughshod over him while he stood meekly and watched. If by some miracle he did become president big money interests would bully him into submission instantly.
Scary thought: about 1/3 of Indianites saw fit to bless Cruz with their vote. I'm glad Trump won, but c'mon. The Israel first crowd's gotta go. At least the vast majority will go for Trump over Hillary. Hopefully.Two other things that did Cruz in. Gloating about winning voterless "elections" in the desolate West, even saying that only Trump's biggest fans were complaining, that cemented his reputation as a fixer desperately leading an effort to secure delegates instead of doing more to appeal to actual voters.Also, the inane "alliance" that was Kasich's campaign's idea. It flopped around until Cruz became desperate enough to agree to it. Again, it was another folly/obvious trick that did even more damage to Trump's enemies.
"Scary thought: about 1/3 of Indianites saw fit to bless Cruz with their vote. "Don't snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.Plus, CNN's exit polls show half of Lyin' Ted's voters choosing him as an anti-Trump choice, not because they're part of his cult. Voting Cruz at this point isn't the same as when there were tons of options and it wasn't clear who would win."What I don't see is why they're missing the obvious fact that the man has no balls."That ball-less guy aligned with them on populist and non-globalist issues, and they thought Trump was too frightening of an alternative, or they feel a gag reflex about voting Republican in a primary.They'll warm up to him by November, if we don't antagonize them. And again, they aren't just some fringe group of blue-haired SJWs -- can't win an entire state with that as the base.They're reasonable normal people who have highly similar goals as we do, but who associate the Republican Party with the stigma and baggage of the neocon heyday. As long as we can show that that era is over -- say, by defacing the legacy of the Bushies on live TV and ending their dynasty -- they can overcome their aversion to voting Republican.
"Cruz's recent polling plummet also scared him and many of his supporters straight."Although we rightly call them a cult, there's one key respect in which they aren't -- they don't meet regularly with each other, where Lyin' Ted presides as the guru.At most a Cruz supporter attends one rally, and he'll never re-visit their city.They are heavily emotionally invested in his performance, but they don't live in a compound where everyone's daily lives intersect, and where he has a hypnotic control over their every move.It's a bit more like being rabid fans of a sports team, who see their team defeated, and feeling deflated. But they aren't going to commit suicide.They would need a high level of interpersonal intimacy for that desperate feeling of "They're onto us, we have to leave, or they'll get us," a la the Jonestown cult when the politician and journalists were sent down to check on them.
Excellent musical choice.
Since I was predicting the opposite, it behooves me to say that you were right and I was wrong. I really underestimated how much support Trump could get and how much antipathy there was for Cruz in the Republican party. Nevertheless, I still predict he'll lose to Hillary in November, and those who disagree are welcome to bet against me and take my money, as could have occurred earlier.
Cheer up. The Trump army is going to Make America Great Again, and naysayers casting their hexes in prediction markets are not going to have any more effect than the tens of millions of dollars wasted in attack ads.In the real world (outside intro stats textbooks), successes and failures are correlated. What failed for the GOP Establishment will fail for the Dem Establishment. They are effectively the same opposition, so one's attack will be a barely mutated version of the other's. And those who got it backward in the primary will get it backward in the general.As bad as Bush was in the primary, Crooked Hillary will be as bad or worse in the general.More interesting bets would be -- in which states does she survive? In which ones do write-in Bernie votes outnumber Hillary votes? How big is Trump's margin of victory in Michigan? Etc.(Again, I'm not interested in robbing people blind over the internet. Just pointing out more interesting ways for the BIG DATA people to spend their time for the next six months.)
To re-iterate a point from this one on "big data being the biggest loser" in this election:http://akinokure.blogspot.com/2015/12/big-data-is-biggest-loser-in-2016.htmlNeither one of us has enough money to make the bet interesting. I would basically require you to risk $1 million, $10 million, etc. Something that would really stop and make you think.Your idea of "skin in the game" is accepting daunting odds, rather than the absolute magnitude you would lose if wrong.Not just your idea -- that's the whole approach of prediction markets, which show something like a probability bounded between 0 and 1. No mention of how much the losers stand to lose if they're wrong -- $1, $100, $10 million?If we look at people who do have a shitload of money to lay on the line, and who normally do so in primary battles -- notice how many of them sat it out. Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers stayed out entirely, and most of the early big donors declined to put any more at risk when it was just down to Cruz and Trump.Mega-donors staying out of the betting pool is a far more honest signal of how uncertain the outcome was, than whatever number of hundred-dollar or even thousand-dollar bets were being placed on the internet.I still stick by the statement that it was highly uncertain what would happen. If the process played out fairly, it was guaranteed that Trump would win -- that was clear from last fall.But what was uncertain was the lengths that any number of actors would go to in order to stop Trump from getting the nomination or the Presidency.That uncertainty is still with us, of course (assassins, etc.), although much less so than before (RNC has capitulated). That's why some of the mega-donors are willing to help Trump's general campaign now.
You MUST enter a nickname with the "Name/URL" option if you're not signed in. We can't follow who is saying what if everyone is "Anonymous."