Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Poverty is a money thing. When you have not only the necessities of life, but luxuries, you are not poor. Grow up.

Use spellcheck -- please!

People once middle-class but now poor due to economic insecurity often have some old luxuries. A DINK couple (double-income, no kids) might have a ten-year-old Mercedes Benz or Cadillac. Or she might have a twenty-year-old mink stole or pearls. One might have a large collection of classical music CDs that signal that one is well educated (an inverse of Jeff Foxworthy's "You Might Be a Redneck" shtick: if the titles of much of your music have the name of the composer, then you are not a redneck". There might be a suburban house, a white elephant, from a failed marriage. Accoutrements of a middle-class past may remain, but the income is largely gone.

Food insecurity is the definitive sign of poverty in America. It is more commonplace than it used to be.

Of course, the ruling elites believe, often as a perverse sense of entitlement, that the rest of humanity exists to suffer for the indulgence of the elites. Because of this America has a huge problem -- the poverty of morality and compassion among the elites of ownership and bureaucratic power. Can we afford to pay people extravagantly for treating the common man badly? Not even America is rich enough to get away with that.

Tax the Hell out of them and see who cares.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Use spellcheck -- please!

People once middle-class but now poor due to economic insecurity often have some old luxuries. A DINK couple (double-income, no kids) might have a ten-year-old Mercedes Benz or Cadillac. Or she might have a twenty-year-old mink stole or pearls. One might have a large collection of classical music CDs that signal that one is well educated (an inverse of Jeff Foxworthy's "You Might Be a Redneck" shtick: if the titles of much of your music has the name of the composer, then you are not a redneck". There might be a suburban house, a white elephant, from a failed marriage. Accoutrements of a middle-class past may remain, but the income is largely gone.

Food insecurity is the definitive sign of poverty in America. It is more commonplace than it used to be.

Of course, the ruling elites believe, often as a perverse sense of entitlement, that the rest of humanity exists to suffer for the indulgence of the elites. Because of this America has a huge problem -- the poverty of morality and compassion among the elites of ownership and bureaucratic power. Can we afford to pay people extravagantly for treating the common man badly? Not even America is rich enough to get away with that.

Tax the Hell out of them and see who cares.

Here, let me correct that: Of course, the ruling elites believe, often as a perverse sense of entitlement, that the rest of humanity exists to buy crap they probably don't really need from companies in which the elites are large shareholders, using credit they cannot really afford.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Use spellcheck -- please!

People once middle-class but now poor due to economic insecurity often have some old luxuries. A DINK couple (double-income, no kids) might have a ten-year-old Mercedes Benz or Cadillac. Or she might have a twenty-year-old mink stole or pearls. One might have a large collection of classical music CDs that signal that one is well educated (an inverse of Jeff Foxworthy's "You Might Be a Redneck" shtick: if the titles of much of your music has the name of the composer, then you are not a redneck". There might be a suburban house, a white elephant, from a failed marriage. Accoutrements of a middle-class past may remain, but the income is largely gone.

Food insecurity is the definitive sign of poverty in America. It is more commonplace than it used to be.

Of course, the ruling elites believe, often as a perverse sense of entitlement, that the rest of humanity exists to suffer for the indulgence of the elites. Because of this America has a huge problem -- the poverty of morality and compassion among the elites of ownership and bureaucratic power. Can we afford to pay people extravagantly for treating the common man badly? Not even America is rich enough to get away with that.

Tax the Hell out of them and see who cares.

Whining about sp[elkling is a key indicator that you know you have no argunent.

Please get it through your head: Poverty is abiout being able to afford stuff. If yoy have lots of luxuries, impoverished does not describe you.

Your ruling elites paragraph seems to be based on the zero-sum fallacy. If they have money, it means someone else has less. You fail ECON 101 again.

Tax them? Watch the drop in prodcutivity and incentives. No thanks.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Here, let me correct that: Of course, the ruling elites believe, often as a perverse sense of entitlement, that the rest of humanity exists to buy crap they probably don't really need from companies in which the elites are large shareholders, using credit they cannot really afford.

That's how it is now done. I miss the day when people were more likely to have union cards than credit cards. Maybe that would be a good pattern to which to return. Oh, so people aren't buying enough? Maybe they're not being paid enough, or what you are selling is junk.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Please get it through your head: Poverty is abiout being able to afford stuff. If yoy have lots of luxuries, impoverished does not describe you.

Again, please use spell-check. Misspellings irritate my educated sensibilities. Even I recognize my need for it for catching run-on words, typos, foreign words, and coinages.

...It is having gross need unduly difficult or impossible to meet that makes one poor. Being able to live within ones means at the time is not poverty. Spending 9K on a nursing home on a 2K-per-month income and draining one's retirement savings until one is out of them is poverty. Having expensive stuff from an earlier time (like a 10-year-old high-end marque of automobile or 20-year-old compact discs) that one can't sell easily but suddenly having a poverty-level income is poverty.

So far as I can tell the American economic elites want German efficiency on Indian wages, which is possible so long as America drops one thing that both Germany and India have in common: democracy. It is easy to sweat a high level of material production out of people while starving them and putting them in barracks. That's how the Nazis ran their economy. The people that you admire want a command economy with the sort of economic inequality characteristic of the antebellum South, as in Gone With the Wind.

The antebellum South was no democracy, but that was gentle in contrast to fascist orders that compel working people to give up all on behalf of the well-connected ruling elites. Getting people to do that requires torture chambers and concentration camps.

Your ruling elites paragraph seems to be based on the zero-sum fallacy. If they have money, it means someone else has less. You fail ECON 101 again.

I got an A in Econ 101.

The northern US became an economic powerhouse on small business -- not upon monopolistic behemoths. Obviously the railroads, oil industry, utilities, and automotive industries had to start as giant entities.

Extreme inequality creates imbalances between production and consumption. Wages failed to keep pace with productivity in the 1920s -- and real wages actually fell during the Double-Zero Decade. In both times one of the nastiest meltdowns in the economy took place.

Tax them? Watch the drop in prodcutivity and incentives. No thanks.

The 1950s, when marginal rates on 'unearned' income were extremely high, were the heyday of small business. Those were good times, really, at least in economics. In fact the effect was to push Big Business to reinvest in job-creating plant and equipment.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Again, please use spell-check. Misspellings irritate my educated sensibilities. Even I recognize my need for it for catching run-on words, typos, foreign words, and coinages.

I'm as bugged as you are about spelling errors (being a nitpicky type of person), but I understand that when people are posting from smartphones or tablets, it's not always very easy to get your grammar correct. I certainly don't think that spelling errors are any reflection on intelligence.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I'm as bugged as you are about spelling errors (being a nitpicky type of person), but I understand that when people are posting from smartphones or tablets, it's not always very easy to get your grammar correct. I certainly don't think that spelling errors are any reflection on intelligence.

Smartphones, sure. I don't have one. 7" tablets? I have one solely for connecting to music from YouTube, and it is connected to the stereo as if a CD player. I've tried typing on one, and it just does not work well beyond two or three words (like "Brahms clarinet quintet") -- and I would never capitalize "Brahms" on a search engine. I have an 11" tablet with a keyboard for other such uses.

If he is using a smartphone -- my sympathy. I use a 'dumb' cellphone and a Kindle-like reader for portability. Wi-fi is everywhere.

The antebellum South was no democracy, but that was gentle in contrast to fascist orders that compel working people to give up all on behalf of the well-connected ruling elites. Getting people to do that requires torture chambers and concentration camps.

The antebellum South was not gentle at all if you were black, worse if you were a slave, but bad enough if you were a free black person. It was a terrorist state for those people.

Originally Posted by annla899

The antebellum South was not gentle at all if you were black, worse if you were a slave, but bad enough if you were a free black person. It was a terrorist state for those people.

Let's not forget the Fugitive Slave Law that ensured that blacks were not really safe until they got to Canada or Mexico.

New York primary poll averages, April 12-13
(real clear politics)

Clinton 51.5
Sanders 39.75

Trump 53.6
Kasich 22.4
Cruz 17.8

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I'm as bugged as you are about spelling errors (being a nitpicky type of person), but I understand that when people are posting from smartphones or tablets, it's not always very easy to get your grammar correct. I certainly don't think that spelling errors are any reflection on intelligence.

So called smart phones are dumb computers that slowly nudge the people using them to be even dumber.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

New York primary poll averages, April 12-13
(real clear politics)

Clinton 51.5
Sanders 39.75

Trump 53.6
Kasich 22.4
Cruz 17.8

New York State used to have reasonably well educated people. Looks like that's in the past now. Sad to see. Of course, to understand this, one need only view the urban prairies of Rochester, Buffalo, etc.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

New York State used to have reasonably well educated people. Looks like that's in the past now. Sad to see. Of course, to understand this, one need only view the urban prairies of Rochester, Buffalo, etc.

I dunno. I'd take some comfort in that the NYS GOP voters have Kasich in second.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

So called smart phones are dumb computers that slowly nudge the people using them to be even dumber.

That's why I have a reader and a 'dumb' phone. I like to keep the two separate.

Assuming that neither Kasich nor Sanders gets the nomination. I find it hard to believe that Hillary Clinton can win Georgia... until I recognize that some polls have her leading Trump in Missouri (a state that leans about as R as does Georgia, likely now the closest parallel) and North Carolina and within the margin of error in both Arizona and Texas for Trump. Georgia was the second-closest loss for Obama in both 2008 and 2012, so a slight improvement from Obama 2008 can flip Georgia. Polls for Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, and Ohio are old. Polls in New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin may reflect the voters likely to participate in primaries, which are not good samples.


Hillary Clinton(D) vs. Ted Cruz (R)




Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump



30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

White -- tie or someone leading with less than 40%.

The case for Kasich


HUFFPOST

John Kasich Will Be the Republican Nominee for President
04/07/2016 08:21 pm ET

Seth Abramson
Assistant Professor of English at University of New Hampshire; Series Co-Editor, Best American Experimental Writing

The writing’s on the wall in the Republican Party: John Kasich will be the Party’s nominee in 2016, with Marco Rubio as his running mate. Only the media’s delight at continued Trumpian drama is keeping politicos and pundits from coast to coast from stating the obvious.

So as not to belabor the point, here are eight single-sentence reasons Kasich/Rubio is now almost certain to be the Republican ticket in 2016:

Donald Trump needs 1,237 delegates to win on the first ballot at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, and not only will he not get to that figure prior to the Convention — he’d need to win well over 50 percent of the remaining delegates to do so, and even during his current run as front-runner he’s only won 46 percent of delegates — he won’t even get close enough to that mark to pass it via uncommitted delegates at the Convention.

Ted Cruz and John Kasich staying in the race through Cleveland not only will ensure that Trump can’t get close to 1,237 delegates via primary and caucus votes, it will also ensure that both men have a reasonable delegate total by the time they arrive at the Convention — more than enough to keep both of them in the picture in the view of Convention delegates.

Republican Party elders have more than enough clout to make sure that “Rule 40(b)” gets changed prior to or at the Convention, thereby enabling Republicans like John Kasich who haven’t won a majority of delegates in eight states to nevertheless be considered for the nomination.

After the first ballot in Cleveland — during which no candidate will have the require delegates for nomination — most of the delegates will be free to vote for whomever they wish, and while Ted Cruz has craftily planted his supporters in many delegations, it’s not nearly enough to get him to 1,237 delegates on the second ballot.

Whereas Ted Cruz is loathed by the Republican Party elite, has lost to Hillary Clinton in head-to-head polls 55 percent of the time since November 2015, and has no actual accomplishments in government to point to, John Kasich hasn’t lost a single head-to-head poll to Hillary Clinton in 2016, is broadly if imperfectly acceptable to both Party elites and movement conservatives, and is far and away the most accomplished Republican primary candidate left.

Marco Rubio has deliberately held onto his 172 delegates so that he can create a unity ticket with John Kasich in Cleveland — a ticket that will begin with somewhere between 350 and 600 delegates on the first ballot at the Convention, depending upon how many delegates John Kasich wins going forward.

Rubio is certain not to give his delegates away for free, nor to give them to his arch-enemies Cruz or Trump, nor to — as some suppose — merely fade into the background when he was and remains among the most ambitious politicians in the Republican Party.

A Kasich/Rubio ticket would appeal to both mainstream Republicans (Kasich) and Tea Partiers (Rubio), to both white and Latino voters, to younger voters who want to see someone relatively young on the ticket, to those looking for a ticket whose members run the gamut from executive to legislative experience at both the state and federal levels, and to those who believe all members of a presidential ticket should hail from a major battleground state.

If all of the above occurs, as the conventional wisdom seems to now suggest it will, and the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton, she’ll begin the general election campaign down by double-digits to a man she hasn’t polled well against for eight months or more — basically since the beginning of the 2016 race.

The Republican Party is more than smart enough to see that Cruz’s horrifying unfavorables — somehow, incredibly, worse than Clinton’s historically bad ones — will sink his candidacy, especially when coupled with terrible head-to-head polling against Clinton or (per usual, much more dramatically) Sanders.

Meanwhile, Kasich’s continued domination of Clinton in polling will convince Convention delegates — who value electability above all else — to put Kasich at the top of the ticket, and a known, reliable quantity like Rubio beside him.

Of course Bernie Sanders defeats Kasich by double-digits in the most recent polling, but Kasich and Rubio are both banking on the assumption that Democrats will, against all reason and hard evidence, nominate their least electable candidate.

And if they’re wrong — if Bernie’s the nominee come Cleveland — well, Bernie beats all the Republican candidates head-to-head, so at least (the Kasich argument will run) the Ohio Governor loses to Sanders by less than all the others.

Seth Abramson is the Series Editor for Best American Experimental Writing (Wesleyan University) and the author, most recently, of DATA (BlazeVOX, 2016).

Follow Seth Abramson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/sethabramson

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The case for Kasich


HUFFPOST

John Kasich Will Be the Republican Nominee for President
04/07/2016 08:21 pm ET

Seth Abramson
Assistant Professor of English at University of New Hampshire; Series Co-Editor, Best American Experimental Writing

The writing’s on the wall in the Republican Party: John Kasich will be the Party’s nominee in 2016, with Marco Rubio as his running mate. Only the media’s delight at continued Trumpian drama is keeping politicos and pundits from coast to coast from stating the obvious.

So as not to belabor the point, here are eight single-sentence reasons Kasich/Rubio is now almost certain to be the Republican ticket in 2016:

Donald Trump needs 1,237 delegates to win on the first ballot at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, and not only will he not get to that figure prior to the Convention — he’d need to win well over 50 percent of the remaining delegates to do so, and even during his current run as front-runner he’s only won 46 percent of delegates — he won’t even get close enough to that mark to pass it via uncommitted delegates at the Convention.

Ted Cruz and John Kasich staying in the race through Cleveland not only will ensure that Trump can’t get close to 1,237 delegates via primary and caucus votes, it will also ensure that both men have a reasonable delegate total by the time they arrive at the Convention — more than enough to keep both of them in the picture in the view of Convention delegates.

Republican Party elders have more than enough clout to make sure that “Rule 40(b)” gets changed prior to or at the Convention, thereby enabling Republicans like John Kasich who haven’t won a majority of delegates in eight states to nevertheless be considered for the nomination.

After the first ballot in Cleveland — during which no candidate will have the require delegates for nomination — most of the delegates will be free to vote for whomever they wish, and while Ted Cruz has craftily planted his supporters in many delegations, it’s not nearly enough to get him to 1,237 delegates on the second ballot.

Whereas Ted Cruz is loathed by the Republican Party elite, has lost to Hillary Clinton in head-to-head polls 55 percent of the time since November 2015, and has no actual accomplishments in government to point to, John Kasich hasn’t lost a single head-to-head poll to Hillary Clinton in 2016, is broadly if imperfectly acceptable to both Party elites and movement conservatives, and is far and away the most accomplished Republican primary candidate left.

Marco Rubio has deliberately held onto his 172 delegates so that he can create a unity ticket with John Kasich in Cleveland — a ticket that will begin with somewhere between 350 and 600 delegates on the first ballot at the Convention, depending upon how many delegates John Kasich wins going forward.

Rubio is certain not to give his delegates away for free, nor to give them to his arch-enemies Cruz or Trump, nor to — as some suppose — merely fade into the background when he was and remains among the most ambitious politicians in the Republican Party.

A Kasich/Rubio ticket would appeal to both mainstream Republicans (Kasich) and Tea Partiers (Rubio), to both white and Latino voters, to younger voters who want to see someone relatively young on the ticket, to those looking for a ticket whose members run the gamut from executive to legislative experience at both the state and federal levels, and to those who believe all members of a presidential ticket should hail from a major battleground state.

If all of the above occurs, as the conventional wisdom seems to now suggest it will, and the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton, she’ll begin the general election campaign down by double-digits to a man she hasn’t polled well against for eight months or more — basically since the beginning of the 2016 race.

The Republican Party is more than smart enough to see that Cruz’s horrifying unfavorables — somehow, incredibly, worse than Clinton’s historically bad ones — will sink his candidacy, especially when coupled with terrible head-to-head polling against Clinton or (per usual, much more dramatically) Sanders.

Meanwhile, Kasich’s continued domination of Clinton in polling will convince Convention delegates — who value electability above all else — to put Kasich at the top of the ticket, and a known, reliable quantity like Rubio beside him.

Of course Bernie Sanders defeats Kasich by double-digits in the most recent polling, but Kasich and Rubio are both banking on the assumption that Democrats will, against all reason and hard evidence, nominate their least electable candidate.

And if they’re wrong — if Bernie’s the nominee come Cleveland — well, Bernie beats all the Republican candidates head-to-head, so at least (the Kasich argument will run) the Ohio Governor loses to Sanders by less than all the others.

Seth Abramson is the Series Editor for Best American Experimental Writing (Wesleyan University) and the author, most recently, of DATA (BlazeVOX, 2016).

Follow Seth Abramson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/sethabramson

If they deny Trump, he'll form a third party, Hillary will be in the White House, but the GOP will be back in 2020 trying to correct their "mistake."

If they deny BOTH Trump and Cruz, they'll form a third party ticket, Hillary will be in the White House, BUT the GOP will not be around for the 2020 election.

Oh, and if it is the latter, I suggest taking refuge in a Blue state or a Blue city of a Red state, and avoid the collateral damage - it's gonna get butt ugly. Stock up on the popcorn.

Guess who is now backing Donald Trump?

Karl Rogue.

Karl Rove has publicly blasted Donald Trump as “a petty man consumed by resentment and bitterness” with little gravitas and almost no chance of beating Hillary Clinton.

But privately, the super PAC conceived by Rove is suggesting to its donors that it can help Trump win the White House and save Republican senators whose reelection bids could be jeopardized by having Trump at the top of the ticket.

The apparent warming of the American Crossroads super PAC and its sister groups to Trump has become evident in its recent communications with donors, including a Tuesday afternoon “investor conference call,” according to multiple sources familiar with the outreach.

The phone call — which featured Rove, Crossroads officials and a pollster — laid out swing state polling and electoral map analysis done by the group showing circumstances in which Trump could beat Clinton, the Democratic presidential front-runner, in a general election, according to three sources briefed on the call.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...#ixzz45qoLcbpf

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The case for Kasich


HUFFPOST

John Kasich Will Be the Republican Nominee for President
04/07/2016 08:21 pm ET

Seth Abramson
Assistant Professor of English at University of New Hampshire; Series Co-Editor, Best American Experimental Writing

The writing’s on the wall in the Republican Party: John Kasich will be the Party’s nominee in 2016, with Marco Rubio as his running mate. Only the media’s delight at continued Trumpian drama is keeping politicos and pundits from coast to coast from stating the obvious.

So as not to belabor the point, here are eight single-sentence reasons Kasich/Rubio is now almost certain to be the Republican ticket in 2016:

Donald Trump needs 1,237 delegates to win on the first ballot at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, and not only will he not get to that figure prior to the Convention — he’d need to win well over 50 percent of the remaining delegates to do so, and even during his current run as front-runner he’s only won 46 percent of delegates — he won’t even get close enough to that mark to pass it via uncommitted delegates at the Convention.

Ted Cruz and John Kasich staying in the race through Cleveland not only will ensure that Trump can’t get close to 1,237 delegates via primary and caucus votes, it will also ensure that both men have a reasonable delegate total by the time they arrive at the Convention — more than enough to keep both of them in the picture in the view of Convention delegates.

Republican Party elders have more than enough clout to make sure that “Rule 40(b)” gets changed prior to or at the Convention, thereby enabling Republicans like John Kasich who haven’t won a majority of delegates in eight states to nevertheless be considered for the nomination.

After the first ballot in Cleveland — during which no candidate will have the require delegates for nomination — most of the delegates will be free to vote for whomever they wish, and while Ted Cruz has craftily planted his supporters in many delegations, it’s not nearly enough to get him to 1,237 delegates on the second ballot.

Whereas Ted Cruz is loathed by the Republican Party elite, has lost to Hillary Clinton in head-to-head polls 55 percent of the time since November 2015, and has no actual accomplishments in government to point to, John Kasich hasn’t lost a single head-to-head poll to Hillary Clinton in 2016, is broadly if imperfectly acceptable to both Party elites and movement conservatives, and is far and away the most accomplished Republican primary candidate left.

Marco Rubio has deliberately held onto his 172 delegates so that he can create a unity ticket with John Kasich in Cleveland — a ticket that will begin with somewhere between 350 and 600 delegates on the first ballot at the Convention, depending upon how many delegates John Kasich wins going forward.

Rubio is certain not to give his delegates away for free, nor to give them to his arch-enemies Cruz or Trump, nor to — as some suppose — merely fade into the background when he was and remains among the most ambitious politicians in the Republican Party.

A Kasich/Rubio ticket would appeal to both mainstream Republicans (Kasich) and Tea Partiers (Rubio), to both white and Latino voters, to younger voters who want to see someone relatively young on the ticket, to those looking for a ticket whose members run the gamut from executive to legislative experience at both the state and federal levels, and to those who believe all members of a presidential ticket should hail from a major battleground state.

If all of the above occurs, as the conventional wisdom seems to now suggest it will, and the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton, she’ll begin the general election campaign down by double-digits to a man she hasn’t polled well against for eight months or more — basically since the beginning of the 2016 race.

The Republican Party is more than smart enough to see that Cruz’s horrifying unfavorables — somehow, incredibly, worse than Clinton’s historically bad ones — will sink his candidacy, especially when coupled with terrible head-to-head polling against Clinton or (per usual, much more dramatically) Sanders.

Meanwhile, Kasich’s continued domination of Clinton in polling will convince Convention delegates — who value electability above all else — to put Kasich at the top of the ticket, and a known, reliable quantity like Rubio beside him.

Of course Bernie Sanders defeats Kasich by double-digits in the most recent polling, but Kasich and Rubio are both banking on the assumption that Democrats will, against all reason and hard evidence, nominate their least electable candidate.

And if they’re wrong — if Bernie’s the nominee come Cleveland — well, Bernie beats all the Republican candidates head-to-head, so at least (the Kasich argument will run) the Ohio Governor loses to Sanders by less than all the others.

Seth Abramson is the Series Editor for Best American Experimental Writing (Wesleyan University) and the author, most recently, of DATA (BlazeVOX, 2016).

Follow Seth Abramson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/sethabramson

A GOP move to make Kasich their nominee is plausible , if they actually think they could win in Nov. If GOP decides that the race is lost, I could see them just letting Trump have it so that when he crashes, they can say 'you did not listen to us'. Then, the GOP power brokers would focus on the 2020 election.
I have no confidence in any of the current insider power brokers.

Does anyone have any question of why the political money goes as it goes?

A small core of super-rich individuals is responsible for the record sums cascading into the coffers of super PACs for the 2016 elections, a dynamic that harks back to the financing of presidential campaigns in the Gilded Age.

Close to half of the money — 41 percent — raised by the groups by the end of February came from just 50 mega-donors and their relatives, according to a Washington Post analysis of federal campaign finance reports. Thirty-six of those are Republican supporters who have invested millions trying to shape the GOP nomination contest — accounting for more than 70 percent of the money from the top 50.

In all, donors this cycle have given more than $607 million to 2,300 super PACs, which can accept unlimited contributions from individuals and corporations. That means super PAC money is on track to surpass the $828 million that the Center for Responsive Politics found was raised by such groups for the 2012 elections.

The staggering amounts reflect how super PACs are fundraising powerhouses just six years after they came on the scene. The concentration of fundraising power carries echoes of the end of the 19th century, when wealthy interests spent millions helping put former Ohio governor William McKinley in the White House.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...mepage%2Fstory

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The case for Kasich


HUFFPOST

John Kasich Will Be the Republican Nominee for President
04/07/2016 08:21 pm ET

Seth Abramson
Assistant Professor of English at University of New Hampshire; Series Co-Editor, Best American Experimental Writing

The writing’s on the wall in the Republican Party: John Kasich will be the Party’s nominee in 2016, with Marco Rubio as his running mate. Only the media’s delight at continued Trumpian drama is keeping politicos and pundits from coast to coast from stating the obvious.

So as not to belabor the point, here are eight single-sentence reasons Kasich/Rubio is now almost certain to be the Republican ticket in 2016:

Donald Trump needs 1,237 delegates to win on the first ballot at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, and not only will he not get to that figure prior to the Convention — he’d need to win well over 50 percent of the remaining delegates to do so, and even during his current run as front-runner he’s only won 46 percent of delegates — he won’t even get close enough to that mark to pass it via uncommitted delegates at the Convention.

Ted Cruz and John Kasich staying in the race through Cleveland not only will ensure that Trump can’t get close to 1,237 delegates via primary and caucus votes, it will also ensure that both men have a reasonable delegate total by the time they arrive at the Convention — more than enough to keep both of them in the picture in the view of Convention delegates.

Republican Party elders have more than enough clout to make sure that “Rule 40(b)” gets changed prior to or at the Convention, thereby enabling Republicans like John Kasich who haven’t won a majority of delegates in eight states to nevertheless be considered for the nomination.

After the first ballot in Cleveland — during which no candidate will have the require delegates for nomination — most of the delegates will be free to vote for whomever they wish, and while Ted Cruz has craftily planted his supporters in many delegations, it’s not nearly enough to get him to 1,237 delegates on the second ballot.

Whereas Ted Cruz is loathed by the Republican Party elite, has lost to Hillary Clinton in head-to-head polls 55 percent of the time since November 2015, and has no actual accomplishments in government to point to, John Kasich hasn’t lost a single head-to-head poll to Hillary Clinton in 2016, is broadly if imperfectly acceptable to both Party elites and movement conservatives, and is far and away the most accomplished Republican primary candidate left.

Marco Rubio has deliberately held onto his 172 delegates so that he can create a unity ticket with John Kasich in Cleveland — a ticket that will begin with somewhere between 350 and 600 delegates on the first ballot at the Convention, depending upon how many delegates John Kasich wins going forward.

Rubio is certain not to give his delegates away for free, nor to give them to his arch-enemies Cruz or Trump, nor to — as some suppose — merely fade into the background when he was and remains among the most ambitious politicians in the Republican Party.

A Kasich/Rubio ticket would appeal to both mainstream Republicans (Kasich) and Tea Partiers (Rubio), to both white and Latino voters, to younger voters who want to see someone relatively young on the ticket, to those looking for a ticket whose members run the gamut from executive to legislative experience at both the state and federal levels, and to those who believe all members of a presidential ticket should hail from a major battleground state.

If all of the above occurs, as the conventional wisdom seems to now suggest it will, and the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton, she’ll begin the general election campaign down by double-digits to a man she hasn’t polled well against for eight months or more — basically since the beginning of the 2016 race.

The Republican Party is more than smart enough to see that Cruz’s horrifying unfavorables — somehow, incredibly, worse than Clinton’s historically bad ones — will sink his candidacy, especially when coupled with terrible head-to-head polling against Clinton or (per usual, much more dramatically) Sanders.

Meanwhile, Kasich’s continued domination of Clinton in polling will convince Convention delegates — who value electability above all else — to put Kasich at the top of the ticket, and a known, reliable quantity like Rubio beside him.

Of course Bernie Sanders defeats Kasich by double-digits in the most recent polling, but Kasich and Rubio are both banking on the assumption that Democrats will, against all reason and hard evidence, nominate their least electable candidate.

And if they’re wrong — if Bernie’s the nominee come Cleveland — well, Bernie beats all the Republican candidates head-to-head, so at least (the Kasich argument will run) the Ohio Governor loses to Sanders by less than all the others.

Seth Abramson is the Series Editor for Best American Experimental Writing (Wesleyan University) and the author, most recently, of DATA (BlazeVOX, 2016).

Follow Seth Abramson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/sethabramson

I have always wondered about an election where Trump is not on the Republican ticket. Now that Trump isn't getting the delegates he needs to clinch the nomination, an RNC without a clinch could possibly result in delegates actually voting, likely resulting in Cruz or Kasich (even though I thought it would more likely be Cruz). That would be interesting, especially if Kasich actually gets the nomination.

Personally I see Hillary in the White House no matter what, so it doesn't quite matter who gets the Republican nomination in that sense, but I think whoever wins out of the Republicans will be the ultimate fall of the Republican party:
* Trump would receive so much backlash from Bernie and Hillary voters that he would lose the election and ultimately will be the downfall of the Republican party.
* Cruz might have a better chance at winning, but I don't think many people would like him.
* Kasich might have the best chance at winning, but many, more right-leaning Republicans might not like him.

If Trump runs for a third-party that would be even worse for the Republicans, because many voters would vote for him, taking away votes for the Republican candidate (likely Cruz). This would be an example of the Spoiler Effect.

I hope to see the RNC and watch what happens come November.

Originally Posted by millst98

I have always wondered about an election where Trump is not on the Republican ticket. Now that Trump isn't getting the delegates he needs to clinch the nomination, an RNC without a clinch could possibly result in delegates actually voting, likely resulting in Cruz or Kasich (even though I thought it would more likely be Cruz). That would be interesting, especially if Kasich actually gets the nomination.

Personally I see Hillary in the White House no matter what, so it doesn't quite matter who gets the Republican nomination in that sense, but I think whoever wins out of the Republicans will be the ultimate fall of the Republican party:
* Trump would receive so much backlash from Bernie and Hillary voters that he would lose the election and ultimately will be the downfall of the Republican party.
* Cruz might have a better chance at winning, but I don't think many people would like him.
* Kasich might have the best chance at winning, but many, more right-leaning Republicans might not like him.

If Trump runs for a third-party that would be even worse for the Republicans, because many voters would vote for him, taking away votes for the Republican candidate (likely Cruz). This would be an example of the Spoiler Effect.

I hope to see the RNC and watch what happens come November.

I agree that Clinton is most likely to win in Nov no matter what the GOP does. I don't see much way for the GOP to survive as a viable major party. I am ready for both parties to be gone and to have a fresh start, but I expect the GOP to go away first , followed by decades of Democratic domination.
The best chance for the GOP elites to preserve their personal power may be to go with Trump with expectation of a Clinton landside, then plan their strategy for 2020. All the other possibilities seem to lead to a GOP split up.

This article provides a perspective on the Trump ‘movement’ that I doubt many will agree with. I do relate to the anger because I think that the power elites in both parties have more in common with each other than with the average citizen. One of my concerns is that too many discussions devolve into a form of ‘religious’ arguments where one side is right and the other side is guilty of heresy.
I am in favor of more dialogue to advance understanding.

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/04/16733/
Aristotle Explains the Trump Phenomenon
… "There are two obvious ways in which Trump’s followers view his candidacy as a tool by which they can vindicate their self-respect or avenge and rectify a certain humiliation. The first relates to the discussion of economic interests above. Trump’s supporters believed for a long time that the leadership of the Republican Party—and perhaps of both political parties—was seeking to advance the economic interests of working people. Now that they no longer believe this, they feel that they have been not only disadvantaged but also misled and manipulated. They are reacting, understandably, with anger.
The second way relates to the way Trump launched his candidacy last summer: as an unrepentant opponent of “political correctness.” Many Americans experience the reign of political correctness as a form of dishonor or humiliation. It is not necessary to go into detail here, because almost everyone knows how this works. Suffice it to say that the purpose of political correctness is to inform, or rather to warn, certain Americans that their opinions are not respectable. They had better keep them to themselves, and if they should venture to express them, they had better be very careful about how they do so.”…
… “It is necessary not merely to deplore the effects but to address the causes, the underlying inequalities of profit and honor that generated the factional conflict in the first place.” …

Originally Posted by millst98

I have always wondered about an election where Trump is not on the Republican ticket. Now that Trump isn't getting the delegates he needs to clinch the nomination, an RNC without a clinch could possibly result in delegates actually voting, likely resulting in Cruz or Kasich (even though I thought it would more likely be Cruz). That would be interesting, especially if Kasich actually gets the nomination.

Personally I see Hillary in the White House no matter what, so it doesn't quite matter who gets the Republican nomination in that sense, but I think whoever wins out of the Republicans will be the ultimate fall of the Republican party:
* Trump would receive so much backlash from Bernie and Hillary voters that he would lose the election and ultimately will be the downfall of the Republican party.
* Cruz might have a better chance at winning, but I don't think many people would like him.
* Kasich might have the best chance at winning, but many, more right-leaning Republicans might not like him.

If Trump runs for a third-party that would be even worse for the Republicans, because many voters would vote for him, taking away votes for the Republican candidate (likely Cruz). This would be an example of the Spoiler Effect.

I hope to see the RNC and watch what happens come November.

1. Downfall of the Republican Party? If it could survive four horrible landslide losses in the 1930s and 1940s it could survive much worse. Many people predicted its demise in the wake of the 2008 election... and recognized its resurgence after the Tea Party election. The Republican Party has the most powerful asset that any political clique could have -- the well-funded support of at least four of the five elite classes in American life -- big landowners, financiers and industrialists, business executives, and intellectual hucksters (including televangelists). The other well-heeled elite? Organized crime, whose politics are murky at best. Don't fool yourself: mobsters have more political power than Big Labor. With all the Big Money behind them, it is surprising that the Republicans ever lose a majority of power, and it may be the 2006 and 2008 elections that were the freak elections possible only in the wake of malfeasance in economics and war by the Republican President and Congress.

In 2010 people were talking about the downfall of the Democratic Party as America resolutely voted in favor of God and Corporate America. So which way is the wind blowing?

2. Ted Cruz looks like Barry Goldwater without the charm. Four years after Barry Goldwater lost the popular vote 61-38 and the electoral vote 486-52, the Richard Nixon won the Presidency against a rifted Democratic Party. Four years after the 49-state landslide by Richard Nixon in 1972, one of the politically-weakest challengers (Jimmy Carter) to a Republican administration that could not shake off the Watergate scandal got elected.

Let the Democrats end up with a coalition of incompatible interests (like Southern racists and urban blacks) as the result of a 2016 blowout, and the Democrats lose big in 2020. If I am a Republican operative I would let the Democrats get their Pyrrhic victory this time and use the 2020 election to transform the Democratic Party into a Party so weak that it would depend upon 'our' willingness to allow it to have a few rare shows of success while 'we' transform America into a Christian and Corporate State. The Democrats can wallow in political success but administrative failure in desperately-poor giant cities like Hartford, Buffalo, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Birmingham, Milwaukee, St. Louis, Albuquerque, and El Paso; they will have the votes to stay in power and win a few Congressional seats but be completely ineffective. With unions outlawed or eviscerated, American elites can enjoy the great wealth that seventy-hour workweeks for starvation wages under brutal management can create. It's a new peonage, a mirror image of Marxism in which the Marxist stereotype of capitalism is in existence but people are expected to go along -- or else. Comply, emigrate, or die, as in Franco's Spain or Pinochet's Chile.

Pardon my cynicism about the nature of our economic elites! Do they deserve our trust?

3. John Kasich is still very much a right-winger, and he looks moderate only by comparison to the right-wing demagogue Donald Trump and the reactionary Ted Cruz. Whether he is an orthodox Reaganite or a Tea Party extremist who has lopped off the cultural nonsense is much in doubt. He looks better than other Republicans because he claims a statewide miracle as Governor and he avoids saying the crazy stuff that Trump and Cruz say. The more that his beliefs are shown as right-wing, especially if he must cut deals with Trump or Cruz, the worse he will look. He could easily appear as the right-wing mirror image of Mike Dukakis in 1988, who ended up winning mostly the states that voted Democratic except in 49-state blowouts. 426-111.

The "third party concept" for Trump?? Are not just the mechanics of that impossible? Don't you have to have some things in place just to get on the ballot, like petition signatures and stuff? A write-in campaign seems totally fruitless ...