Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!

Get Started
  • If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.

Romney Slams Candidate Trump

I'm not more worried about Trump having the football codes than anybody else - he has kids and grand kids like everybody else - and I think Republican President Trump would have as much trouble with some of the more crazy shit he talks about with the Republican Congress as Obama has had.

I just find his boorishness and lack of decorum utterly unbecoming of the stature that the steward of the office should comport himself or herself to.

Me too.

On a related subject, I did find it interesting how the debate ended, with each one calming down a bit and answering in the affirmative when asked if they would support the eventual winner of the nomination.

Both Trump for someone other than him, and the others if something happens that many are hoping doesn't, and he is nominated.

Hey maybe it will be brokered - it's just that the people I listen to and believe give an honest opinion, are saying it is pretty unlikely. I guess we can all hope for what we want, but in the meantime we need to start comparing our Johnson size.
 
Regarding the majority of Republican voters that don't want Trump, what exactly is this based on?

On votes alone that case could be made against any Republican candidate, none even come close to majority support.

Are there numbers/polling to suggest that if (insert non-Trump candidate) drops out, those voters would still not support Trump?


That's the question - how unacceptable is Trump to voters who favor someone else?

If Rubio can't win Florida and gets out, who will his people go to?

Same with Kasich and Ohio.

Trump is a very different front-runner than any we've ever seen before.
 
Okay, look - Trump does NOT have a majority of votes - the majority of votes cast so far have been split among the other candidates, and going forward, predictive polls indicate that the majority of votes will continue to be split.

This is the point - the majority of Republican voters want someone who IS NOT Donald Trump.

Is it unacceptable enough so that they'll take Romney's advise and adopt his strategy to pick a different candidate by whatever means necessary?

We'll see.

OK look, if you say it that way, then 70%+ don't want Rubio either, and a like number don't want Cruz. That still translates into a sizable, statistically significant number voting from Trump.

It is this statement which is in question: <<the majority of Republican voters want someone who IS NOT Donald Trump.>> This makes no sense. Where are you getting that number, and how is that different than what I am saying?

You have nothing concrete you can point to that proves that statement.
 
Hey maybe it will be brokered - it's just that the people I listen to and believe give an honest opinion, are saying it is pretty unlikely. I guess we can all hope for what we want, but in the meantime we need to start comparing our Johnson size.

The likelihood may have gone up with Romney's speech.

I find it curious that the talking heads are reporting how much Trump has expanded the Republican party by bring supporters into the party in one sentence, and turn around and refer to Trump supporters as the "base" in another sentence.

Which is it?

How can new members to the party represent the base?

I don't think it's just establishment Republicans like Romney and McCain who find Trump's antics unacceptable - and again, Trump is as much an establishment Republican as anyone, not to mention he's also as much an establishment Democrat as anyone, too - I think a lot of the rank and file Republicans would be embarrassed to have him as the Republican standard bearer.

Anyway we'll all find out soon, and it's going to be interesting.

I don't feel like President Trump will bring about Doomsday; I just think he'll be no more effective delivering on his promises as anybody, and his behavior is embarrassing.
 
OK look, if you say it that way, then 70%+ don't want Rubio either, and a like number don't want Cruz. That still translates into a sizable, statistically significant number voting from Trump.

It is this statement which is in question: <<the majority of Republican voters want someone who IS NOT Donald Trump.>> This makes no sense. Where are you getting that number, and how is that different than what I am saying?

You have nothing concrete you can point to that proves that statement.

I get to that by adding together the total voters for someone who isn't Trump.

Maybe I haven't made my point clear - in a normal primary cycle, folks would be rallying around someone who had the lead that Trump has; just the opposite may be happening here.

So the question again is, how unacceptable is Trump as the nominee for those who Republicans who favor someone else?

Is it enough that they'll coalesce behind the candidate in the state in which they vote who has the best chance of beating Trump there, even if that candidate isn't their first choice?

We'll see.

We'll see how disliked by Republican voters who prefer someone else Trump is.

This strategy was just called for yesterday by Romney; tomorrow is the first day there will be results that may (or may not) indicate the buy in to this is to the majority of Republicans.
 
I don't think it's just establishment Republicans like Romney and McCain who find Trump's antics unacceptable - and again, Trump is as much an establishment Republican as anyone, not to mention he's also as much an establishment Democrat as anyone, too - I think a lot of the rank and file Republicans would be embarrassed to have him as the Republican standard bearer.

This could very well be true, but if anything, it will probably expand his possible support groups to the Blue Dog democrats, and a number of others. I'm not sure there will be enough that believe that way to overcome this sad fact.

Whatever he does, it doesn't change the reason for his appeal. Call it stupidity, call it catching lightening a bottle, but I think we are seeing an evolving election process right in front of our eyes.

I just think he'll be no more effective delivering on his promises as anybody, and his behavior is embarrassing.

Who is saying otherwise? other than him that is. :*)
 
Last edited:
I get to that by adding together the total voters for someone who isn't Trump.

You have no idea how many of the voters/supporters for the other candidates are voting even mostly due to their guy not being Donald Trump.

In any case, that total you mention is a slim majority - I'm just not seeing how that case can't be made for the first 15 states in any election cycle. You say it is different because of the lead he holds, but in effect it really isn't different. If you have 5-6 candidates through 15 states, that would be the normal case.

So the question again is, how unacceptable is Trump as the nominee for those who Republicans who favor someone else?

Is it enough that they'll coalesce behind the candidate in the state in which they vote who has the best chance of beating Trump there, even if that candidate isn't their first choice?

We'll see.

Well of course we will see. I never said that wasn't true. I was just arguing that it isn't very likely there will be a big change, and further don't believe that he will get none of those people in the states that try the plan just due to that middle finger idea. He isn't going to sit still while states attempt to do that.

This strategy was just called for yesterday by Romney; tomorrow is the first day there will be results that may (or may not) indicate the buy in to this is to the majority of Republicans.

Romney will be mostly ignored. Just a desperation move. But as you say, we will see, all the way into Michigan a few days later.
 
Trump lost me last night, was very disappointed in his softening on H1B's I wanted to believe him but can no longer trust what he says on any position, it's all just his art of the deal stuff, start with a hard line position then negotiate it away IMO, by the end of the day he will let down the rightfully so mad as hell fed up crowd. I don't care what he says either, 3-4 hours of sleep a night is NOT enough! Some people think they still thrive just fine with such little sleep, but they don't, they think they do, but they don't.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/4/donald-trump-quickly-recants-new-stance-immigrant-/

Then right after the debate his switches back again, WTF trump, good lord this guy! he doesn't know WTF he believes.
 
Last edited:
The funny part about Trump is that he has NOTHING to stand on in terms of his actual plans to solve things. He just shouts really loud, and people buy into it. All he had about health care was getting rid of state lines. His method to solving the border issues is building a giant wall that somehow Mexico is going to pay for. There's very little mention of how he's going to help the small business grow again.

He just talks about how the millions of people love him, how people beg for his endorsements, and shouts the same crap ass slogan over and over again. It's truly scary he's made it this far, simply by praying on the fears of Americans and amplifying them 10 fold.

I'm not a trump supporter but getting rid of state lines is a massive part of real healthcare reform - one of three along with tort reform and automated HC records. Right now, insurers aren't able to compete openly across state lines so virtually every state has an oligopoly of insurers setting if not fixing prices at extremely high levels. And with insurers leaving states due to the ACA, many states have or will have insurers with virtual monopolies. Surprise, surprise - who would have thought we'd get that result from a law written by insurance companies?
 
I'm not a trump supporter but getting rid of state lines is a massive part of real healthcare reform - one of three along with tort reform and automated HC records.

This concept is nothing new, conservatives have been lauding it forever as a strategy to bring health care costs down.

Rubio favors this too.

Rubio's point in the debate is that the words "lines around the states" is the only thing that Donald Trump knows about conservative healthcare reform strategies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iD7tikirLs

@ 4:30, 5:40, 6:20
 
Well the Murdoch-owned WSJ affiliate Barron's has an article in this week's issue this morning on how a Clinton Presidency will be better for the stock market and broader economy. It's a bit surprising to see the typically right leaning Barron's make that case but the premise is largely that all Trump is offering is rhetoric and that when it comes to actual execution, there are glaring problems with accountability and political viability.

Or, in other words, Clinton's policies - while increasing taxes at the top end of the Brackets - is essentially a continuation of what we've had under Obama and historically when the economy is even reasonably sound, the incumbent policies will be kept over more bombastic language that fails the litmus test of true viability.
 
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...rco-rubio-and-john-kasich-were-one-candidate/

Kasich May Have Cut Off Rubio’s Path To The Nomination
By DAVID WASSERMAN

At 8 p.m. on Super Tuesday, things were looking up for Marco Rubio. In Virginia, he was winning by impressive margins in well-educated suburbs of Richmond and Washington, D.C. — much larger margins than he had achieved in places such as Charleston, South Carolina, and Des Moines, Iowa. Then his night spiraled downward in a hurry. Not only did he fall 3 percentage points short of Donald Trump in Virginia, but Rubio also just barely failed to clear 20 percent vote thresholds for winning delegates in Alabama, Texas and Vermont. With just 112 delegates, he now finds himself 124 delegates behind Ted Cruz and 226 delegates behind Donald Trump.

It’s fair to say that Rubio’s path to the 1,237 delegates required to clinch the Republican presidential nomination by June is probably shot. And although he has bigger problems ahead of him — namely finding a way to win his home state, Florida, on March 15 — nothing has cost him so dearly to date, apart from perhaps his New Hampshire debate gaffe, as the lingering candidacy of John Kasich.

Just how much has Kasich cost Rubio? The answer could be up to 91 delegates, even though Kasich has won just 27 so far and has a much less plausible path forward than Rubio.

As the two most mainstream Republicans remaining in the race, Rubio and Kasich draw similar profiles of support. Both rely heavily on well-educated Republicans in Democratic-leaning areas, and neither has performed as well in rural and working-class jurisdictions. There are important differences, too, beyond the fact that Rubio has garnered far more votes: Rubio has proven a hit with young and high-income suburbanites in the South, taking second place behind Trump in Georgia and Virginia. Kasich’s most reliable supporters have been older New England moderates, who powered him to second place behind Trump in New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Vermont. But it’s hard to deny their supporters’ overlap on the map:

wasserman-rubiokasich-1.png


But let’s pretend for a minute that Kasich’s votes went to Rubio in every primary. In this simulation, Rubio would have won three congressional districts in South Carolina (preventing a Trump sweep) and would have easily beaten Trump in Vermont and Virginia, shifting the narrative of the race. More importantly, Rubio would have easily cleared 20 percent thresholds required to win a significant number of delegates in Alabama, Texas and Vermont. Rubio would be holding 203 delegates, just five behind Cruz and 98 behind Trump — close enough for a Florida win to propel Rubio past Trump by a single delegate on March 15 (excluding other contests before and on that day).

In other words, the whole would be greater than the sum of its parts: Rubio’s 203 delegates would be 64 more than the 139 delegates Rubio and Kasich have tallied so far, even with the same overall number of votes.

What if Kasich’s votes had gone to Rubio?

(chart in link)

Of course, this is an extreme simulation, and in the real world of primaries, Kasich’s support would never transfer cleanly to Rubio. Nearly a month ago, before Jeb Bush and Ben Carson suspended their campaigns, an NBC News/SurveyMonkey poll found that Rubio was indeed the top second choice of Kasich supporters, but he was the second choice for only 24 percent of them. Another 21 percent went to Bush, 16 percent to Trump, 10 percent to Cruz and 6 percent to Carson. Now that Bush and Carson are out of the race, people who preferred one of them in the absence of Kasich would have to support a different candidate. If you redistributed those voters according to the second-choice preferences of those whose first choice was Bush or Carson, Rubio might top out at about a third of Kasich’s original supporters.

But even adding just a third of Kasich supporters would have made a huge difference for Rubio on Tuesday night: He might have won Virginia, hit the viability threshold in Vermont and beaten out Cruz for second place in far more Southern congressional districts, earning him dozens more delegates and changing the complexion of the race. Instead, Rubio is left to wonder “what if.”

Ironically, in the next crucial phase of primaries, Kasich’s relationship with Rubio may evolve from parasitic to symbiotic. After Trump’s Super Tuesday domination, Rubio’s and Cruz’s goals seem to have shifted from winning 1,237 delegates by the end of the primaries to preventing Trump from winning 1,237 delegates and forcing a contested convention in Cleveland. Kasich, who seems to be enjoying a much bigger home-state boost than Rubio relative to their national polling averages, may be the only candidate capable of preventing Trump from winning all 66 of Ohio’s winner-take-all delegates on March 15.

In short, Rubio badly needed Kasich out of the race about six weeks ago. But now, he may need him in the race more than ever.
 
Back
Top