Buehrle>Wood

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Mar 3, 2016 -> 03:45 PM) Debate should be interesting tonight. Fox has stopped supporting Rubio according to reports. They were very complimentary of Trump on Tuesday. They absolutely destroyed Romney for what he pulled today. Are they ready to embrace Trump? Oh wow I couldn't be more wrong. Fox went all in with the campaign assasination attempt. Prepared slides, carefully clipped videos and all only for Trump. Pretty shameless. Trump handled it though and the establishment continues to embarrass itself.

Isn't Illinois winner take all? http://abc7chicago.com/politics/why-the-il...atters/1226252/ "There also may be a possibility Trump can win the popular vote in Illinois, but not the delegates. The primary here is not winner take all; Democratic and Republican delegates are chosen by congressional district." ABC says it's not. I'm pretty confindent it is. I get delegates are directly elected here but if it's winner take all it seems they'd still be bound to the winner. The only thing I can think of is it might make a difference at the brokered convention. I.E. Rubio wins district 1 but Trump wins the state. Rubios delegates have to vote for Trump at the conventionn at least the first round. Am I understandino that right? ABC still seems wrong then.

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 3, 2016 -> 03:59 PM) You are getting such strong pushback because the usage of Robert Byrd as a tactic to deflect is very common, you aren't the first to do it. That wasn't me though. I never brought him up.

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 3, 2016 -> 03:53 PM) Also, buehrle is getting the response he does, because Republicans have continuously comforted themselves with "Robert Byrd was in the KKK and he was a democrate, who are the real racists!??!" and "The south during the jim crow era were Democrats!" without any critical thinking about those items. It's a part of the longstanding tradition of only understanding racism in America as a rhetorical device. Me? Little lost here.

Debate should be interesting tonight. Fox has stopped supporting Rubio according to reports. They were very complimentary of Trump on Tuesday. They absolutely destroyed Romney for what he pulled today. Are they ready to embrace Trump?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 3, 2016 -> 03:05 PM) first post, this page: Republican thread: GOP Presidential frontrunner acting as if he doesn't know who David Duke is and that he'd have to "look into" white supremacist groups before distancing himself from them. Yes. The KKK should not be given the media attention they get. They need to go away and what extremely little relevance they have is tied to media headlines. They exist in the backwoods of backwoods states.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 3, 2016 -> 01:57 PM) Some people have noticed that Trump has only repeated "I disavow" without specifically naming or criticizing the KKK, David Duke or white supremacist organizations. (link is to MoJo, but also contains link to similar thoughts from National Review) The graspsling of all grasps at straws.

QUOTE (The Gooch @ Mar 3, 2016 -> 12:50 PM) What is the point of the GOP rallying against Trump? They made him sign an agreement the he wouldn't run 3rd party if he failed to get the nomination, but they obviously aren't playing fair. I think if they somehow succeeded, it would lead him to run 3rd party and be a guaranteed loss for the GOP. The agreement was both ways. Be fair to each other. The GOP hasn't kept up their side of the deal. If it continues, he absolutely should run 3rd party and destroy the gop.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Mar 3, 2016 -> 11:35 AM) They should though shouldn't they? He can't win the general. Isn't that the whole point? Hes the best shot they have and they know it. It just scares them that they can't control him to be a puppet. And no they shouldn't go like this if they want to stop him. This stuff just fuels trump voters. Trump is playing chess while the establishment is playing checkers.

Not sure the establishment could geat more pathetic if they tried. Nevermind, they totally will.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Mar 2, 2016 -> 07:56 PM) Greg, if Condoleezza Rice or Colin Powell were running for president this year, would you be making the same accusations towards them, since they basically did the exact same thing she's accused of? (Actually with Secretary Powell, he also---unknowingly, since he was obviously lied to---lied to the United Nations on behalf of the president, so you can add that as well.) Just for the record what they were doing was not the same as Hillary. They had their own state department emails.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 2, 2016 -> 04:45 PM) The FBI is not specifically investigating Clinton, and their ongoing investigation is not criminal. Who knows what will come of it but the investigation is definitely criminal. -Washington Post -New York Times The big news is someone was granted immunity. That person is presumably singing to investigators right now. Sounds like we'll find out in a couple months if anything will happen.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 2, 2016 -> 07:46 PM) Actually he hasn't spent all that much. The media loves him and gives him an ungodly amount of free airtime - more than basically every other candidate combined. He's making news networks and news shows money, but he's not buying ads. His total spending is so low that the smaller networks that were hoping for an ad revenue bonanza from this election are suddenly sending out official worried statements about their expected 2016 profitability. I just meant it relatively. Even the least amount spent on a presidential campaign is still a lot. He gets free airtime yes, but very rarely is that for good reasons. The old slogan no publicity...may apply though. The ad stuff is hilarious. Good article.

Some major spoilers going forward. First one involving Roman and Raw. Second on is about a WrestleMania match not yet announced.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Mar 2, 2016 -> 06:12 PM) Those numbers are absolutely appalling to me. I can't even fathom how that is truly necessary. Makes you understand why no one could possibly get into the white house without being controlled to at least some extent. The reality is it doesn't have to be that way as you should be able to leverage the media for free to get your attention. Would it be that wrong if we just switched to having extra debates, etc and a hard limit on how much each party can spend (and just outlawing super pac's)? If you have your point, make it in the debates and through free media appearances. How in the hell could something cost that much. That is just absurd. And now you see some of the appeal of Trump. He's throwing in big money himself but at least it's his own and not 10 different mega corporations telling candidates exactly what to do and say. You also see why the gop and media hate him so much. Can't control what you're not paying.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politi...ntion_wild_card So does anyone believe charges will actually be brought?

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Mar 2, 2016 -> 03:13 PM) I think if they heard a recording of him saying something like, between me and you, all the wall talk is total bs and I'm just milking these people to get in and than from there, I'll make a real difference and blah blah blah, it would irate his base. Oddly enough, it might make those who can't stand him at all, feel a little better about him (other than the fact that he'd be lying through his teeth to get elected, even more so, than the normal politician). It's probably something closer to everything being negotiable.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 2, 2016 -> 03:12 PM) Welcome to Trump Land. The man talks, but is 100% full of s***. You literally have no idea what his intentions are. Eh, this is Cruz were talking about. He's lied so much about trump that I doubt anything he says here.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/electi...legate-targets/ 538 has him 112% on track to win the nomination. Refresh if it gives you the Feb 29th version. It should be from this AM.

Trump effect one way or the other.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Mar 2, 2016 -> 11:09 AM) Cruz had a strong enough showing that he has the card that if the establishment wants to go anti trump, it has to be either him or Kasich. Rubio is toast. Crushed in his own state. He needs to walk away and realize he'll have another shot 4 years from now (because I don't see Trump winning the white house and while Cruz has a better chance, I don't see that either; Kasich or Rubio could win but that doens't appear to matter). I guess if all of them stay in, maybe it keeps the delegate count low enough that you get to a brokered convention and at that point, all bets are off (that said, by that point, the republican party will be so splintered, it would be hard to actually rally behind whomever is truly selected (and I'm sure if Trump loses he'd go independent). Can't keep the delegate counts low for long. March 15th they start being winner take all (or most). Trump ahead of Romney, McCain at same point. It's over. Don't even see a brokered convention path. Trump has absolutely no competition in the Northeast (once Kasich drops, but even then he's not losing these states) which have huge number of delegates coming and no competition in the South at this point. Rubio can compete in the Midwest (maybe) and Cruz can compete in the southwest but Trump is still solid enough there where he's close and not losing much.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 2, 2016 -> 10:31 AM) Thanks, I'll correct for the 2472. Good catch, same on the territories. Give me a few minutes to rebuild. But I believe you are incorrect on the 3 per state. Those are party delegates and are specifically unbound. The old system was that states would decide whether they were bound or not bound. Different states chose the different option. This year however the RNC said the delegates will be bound in some manner. This is from the GOP website for new rules this year: "The unbound RNC members will be bound in the same manner as the state’s at-large delegates, unless the state elects their delegates on the primary ballot, then all three RNC members will be allocated to the statewide winner." The Bustle with a clearer explantion: "The Republican Party’s unbound delegates are the 168 members of the Republican National Committee — but in 2016, they won’t be allowed to vote for whomever they want at the national convention. They normally would be given this luxury, but the RNC ruled this year that these “unbound” delegates wouldn’t, in fact, be unbound at all. They’ll have to support whomever their state supports, just like regular ol’ delegates." Of course if the GOP wanted too I'm sure they could change the rules.

Just a couple brief corrections and I'll add my two cents in a bit. The total amount of delegates possible is 2472. I think you made a typo there. The 3 per state is already included in that. It's different than democrat system. Also you forgot to include DC and the territories get these delegates as well, so it's 168n not 150. But that number is already included in the 2472. Also, remember, unlike the Democrat side where super delegates exist and can vote how they please, these 3 extra delegates are bound to a candidate. How they are bound depends on the state.

I thought the Bucks would be better than the Bulls.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Mar 1, 2016 -> 10:58 PM) I take pleasure in Minnesota being the only state today where Trump finished third. Has that happened yet at all? Nope.