Ten oz

Consider the fact the the GOP has lost the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 general elections I think it makes a "yuge" difference. The GOP cannot afford to lose even 1% of support in the general. Graham, Romney, McCain, Bush, etc are not attending the convention and the Republican speaker of the house refuses to endorse Trump. If that impacts turn out by even a couple points it is "yuge".

Community organization and law is what the gov't does. Not sure why you would consider being a professor of Constitutional Law and a community organizer "no accomplishment"? Obama was elected to the IL Senate is 96' and held statewide office until being elected to the U.S. Senate in 04' where he served 4yrs before becoming POTUS in 08'. In total Obama held elected office for 12yrs prior to becoming POTUS. Trump has never held elected office.

The people have spoken? Trump has received 40% of the votes in the GOP primary. That means 60% of GOP voters have voted for somone else. In the last cycle Romney got 52% of the primary vote and went on to lose. Amongst GOP candidates who won: In 00' Bush 43 got 62%, in 88' Bush 41 got 67%, and in 80' Reagan got 60% of the primary vote. Trump's support is clearly more energized than anyone elses. Trump's 40% want him more than the 60% who voted for someone else seem want anyone. It is still an overstatement, in my opnion, when people argue that "the people" have spoken or that if the 60% of Republicans who voted for someone else united behind someone else it would be a rigged system taking what belongs to Trump. 40% of the vote isn't strong. The numbers of candidates isn't the issue either. In 12' Santorum was in till April, Gingrich didn't drop out until May (same as Cruz) and Ron Paul stayed in till the convention. In 12' their were as many candidates on the ballot from Feb-Jun. Romney got 52%. Careful speeches and airbushed slogans at least show thought and consideration for how people interpret what you do or say. It there were to be a party that truly represented everyone fully we would need a couple hundred parties. Instead we have two. So each needs to be accommodated to large groups of people. To accomplish that politicians need partnerships. They need the support of unions, industry, artists, action groups, and etc. Being beholden to numerous groups and organizations is a good thing. Forces compromise and bridge building. Be beholden to only oneself or a singular group/orginization is what's dangerous. This is why international we have so many treaties. Obviously what is best for any individual country in isolation is different but to safeguard against future conflict countrries come together and make various compromised agreements. Countries who refuse treaties and are beholden to nothing and no one are dangers to the free world.

That is based on regoin specific mutations in ones genes originated from. This thread is ask a larger question than are there differences amongst human populations base on region. While humans are related to other species we are our own species. Within our own species we are all related. We are all intermixed. Blacks and whites are not subspecies. Bi-racial people are not infertile. So say "All subspecies/Races of all plants and animals descended from a single species/tribe/stock" doesn't address anything.

Of course people should turn out. No place have I implied otherwise.

@ Taxonomy26, assuming you believe in evolution you must realize that mitochondrial DNA and the chain of Y-chromosome show all humans alive today are related. Not only did we all originate from a single tribe but over time have migrated to and from different regions intermixing over and over again. If race were a thing how do you determine the base line for each race? What are the races and who(m) is puely asingular race in today's world?

People stopped saying he couldn't win the primary in Feb.. Winning a primary and winning the general are 2 different thing. Trump has only received 40% of the popular amongst partisan primary voters how does that expand into over 50% of the popular vote amongst nonpartisan general election voters? I quanitified how poorly Trump is doing. Supported with real numbers. Quantify for how good he is doing? Simply saying he beat expectations for himself in the primary isn't a definitative thing we can use to compare general election success against.

The Media began treating Trump as the front runner to win back in Feb. It is not accurate to claim Trump was some huge underdog this whole time. March in particular was a huge month for Trump where the media repeated insisted he was unstoppable. It is an expectations game. Because Trump did better than initially expected (back when he announced) people are projecting that he has accomplished more than he has. Every primary is won by someone and that doesn't equal a general election win in itself. Ultimately How does Trumps win stack up to previous winners? Going all the way by to the 1960's every GOP primary winner that went on to win the White House won at least 42 or more states and at least 59% or more of the popular vote in the primary. Trump has done significantly worse than that. So while Trump may have beaten individual expectations for himself he has not met basic expectations of a competitive general election candidate. Media is consumed al la carte. We click on what we want to read and then software populates our searches with more of the same. Most media narratives are self reinforcing headlines. Aside from incredible amounts of media attention when you say Trump has carried the game in exactly which areas do you feel he has been successful as or more successful than other general election candidates that actually went on to win in the general: Both Democratic candidates comfortable beat Trump in head to head polling -http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president /us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html State by state polling has Clinton with a huge electoral vote advantage (more than needed to win) over Trump - http://www.270towin.com/maps/bMcf Trump has highest unfavorbilty ever recorded for a national candidate - http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/188936/trump-negative-image.aspx The Republican party has grown less favorable - http://www.people-press.org/2016/04/28/gops-favorability-rating-edges-lower/ Quantify for me how Trump in leading the game or has any type of measurable advantage towards the general? I know Trump is leading the hype game and gets more press but his actually position in historically weak. Not only is he doing poorly in head to head polling, his party doing poorly in polling, but diversity within his base support is worse than Romney or McCain had (they lost) and the 2016 general will have the most diverse voting pool ever.

Trump has won 39% of the popular vote and 27 states in the GOP primary. For some perspective the last 3 GOP presidential candidates(Reagan, Bush, and Bush) that went on to win the general all won at least 60% of the popular and 42 states in their primaries. Trump is the weakest GOP front runner in modern history.

I have heard this argument a number of times and believe it to be flawed. All primaries start with multiple candidates and shrink as the parties coalesce around candidates. In 2012 there were 13 GOP candidates, 4 candidates won various states and delegates, yet Romney still won 52% of the vote. Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul were all still in through April, Gingich stayed in till May and Paul till the convention. Romney still managed 52% of the vote even in a 4 way finishing with 1575 delegates. Trump is simply doing worse. The number of candidates doesn't explain it. I don't believe I am underestimating Trump; I believe most are overestimating him. It is all an expectations game. People say he has done better than expected in the primary so he may do the same in the general but that isn't how it works. No candidate since Nixon in 1968 has won the general with as low a percentage of the popular vote as Trump has. And in 1968 RFK was murdered and Wallace ran as a third ticket. It is also important to consider who is voting for Trump. His support has been over 90% white and over 60% male. Can't even compete in the general with demographics like that. There simply is no area where Trumps performs well to cause concern.

This message does not require Sanders to win the primary. As for Obama; he did as much as is possible considering the record level of partisan obstruction. Powerful as hope and change or any another message is people still often vote their hatred and fears. Parts of this country will always (forseeeable future) elect conservatives. As a result there will always be multiple levels of government working against itself. Right now I am sure many feel this same way on the right. That various leaders have let them down by not being conservative enough. That if they could just elect Trump he would be so successful and we'd finally get a wall, and kill all terrorists, and etc. It is not realistic. Trump would not be able to do any of the stuff he campaigns on. Congress, courts, and states would shut him down. For us to get further left (or right) we need it to start locally and move up. It won't work from the top down. A President is always confined to the common ground that exist when they come into office.

Obama won the primary. Getting people to rallies is not the measure of success in an election. Downticket is what really matters. Imagine what Obama my have done with 10 people akin to Sanders in the senate? I am glad young people are taking an interest but the white house should not be the fixation. We have so many Governors, Senators, and Congress members who are terrible it is beyond belief. Hyper fixation he white house alone is what allows them to get into office. Palin was the Governor of a state!!!! How did that happen?

I like that. In Trump the GOP basically do have a reality star on the level of a Kardashian.

@ MigL, I think to an extend people are so caught up in how much they dislike Trump and Cruz and the media over exposure of the GOP primary that they over estimate the likelihood of either actually winning in the general election. Never mind their polling numbers vs Clinton or Sanders; historically failure of a candidate to capture the needed delegates to win a primary has lead to defeat. It happened to the Democrats in 1968 and the GOP in 1976. On top of that more people in the U.S. identify as Democrat. http://www.pewresearch.org/data-trend/political-attitudes/party-identification/ Unpopular GOP candidates that even conservatives are rejecting, at a time when most in the country indentify as the opposing party (Democrat), and coming off a successful 8yr Democratic President with positive job approval numbers equals the GOP at a huge disadvantage this year. More over the GOP has not done one thing to grow their base this election season. Rather Cruz and Trump have shrunken the base. To have a shot at the 2018 mid-terms and the 2020 general the GOP need to ensure they don't do any permanent damage. As a demographic Blacks vote Demiocrat over at about 90%. The GOP lost them with the Southern Stategy trading them away for George Wallace supporters. In the last 20yrs Latinos have gone from around 55% to now 70% Democrat. Too many GOP candidates are trading latino support away by complaining about immigrants and Mexico. The GOP can not afford to completely lose any shot at Latinos (fastest grow demographic) the way they have blacks and expect to win any future elections. In my opinion whomever their nominee is this year need to back pedal hard and basically campaign of a reform platform of steering the GOP in a new direction. Lose on a positive message rather than crash and burn on hatred and anger. @ Willie71, I do not disagree with anything you said (perhap the bit about 2020). However I think it is importatnt to manange expectations. The President is not all powerful. With the best intentions in the world there are very real limits on what can be done. Some progressives feel let down by Obama yet Obama faced the most partisan and uncooperate Congress in the history of this country. Our system is set up where Congress writes law and control spending. Many of the things people want on both side (left and right) fall in the wheel house of Congress and their state leadership. I think we (society in general) are too fixated on the President. We owe it to our conscious and beliefs to support the right people at every level rather than expect a messiah who can come along and deliver us massive change all at once. I like Sanders and would happily vote for him. However I do not believe his ability to accomplish a progessive agenda will fair any more successful than Clinton. Politics is a team sport and ultimately everyone puts there hands on the ball: Congress, Senate, Supreme Court, Governors, Mayors, circuit courts, and etc. There is a finite amount of change that can happen. Abondoning Clinton out of fustration would be to cut off one's nose to spite their face. You can't fire a cannon accurately from an unstable base.If nothing else at least Clinton won't put federalist society members on the courts. That is a big deal. Once the supreme court and circuit courts are rid of partisan conservative judges we can see a lot of bad law over turned.We can't stop the clown cars without the courts. Some progressive changes must happen at the state level, some in the courts, others in Congress, and yes some in the White House. Sanders supporters should not have a White House our bust mentality. I would prefer Sanders to Clinton but will not be angry or fustrated is Clinton is the next president. She will nominate good judges and that alone is huge. Will she start her battles far to the left as Sanders would, no. But I think what she will end up be able to squeeze out of Congress will essential be that same. Where a negotiation begins matters but so does every participants line in the sand. If someones absolute limit is 5 it doesn't matter is you start negotiating at 20 or a hundred. The most you'll get is five. The GOP have shown they will hurt this country for partisan cause.

I pointed out that all the headlines were about Trump (GOP primary) meanwhile both Clinton ans Sanders had stronger support (Democratic primary). So I think it is what I said. Clinton has recieved two in a half million more votes than Trump and Sanders isn't far behind Trump and will most likely pass Trump as the races move west. The media is given a termendous amount of attention to the GOP but in reality Both Clinton and Sanders have stronger individual support than anyone in the GOP field.

More people in the USA identify as democrat period; that was sort of my point.

Flipping through the news this morning and I am seeing that Trump had a big win in NY. Headline after headline exultings Trump huge NY victory. Meanwhile on the Democratic side Clinton received double the votes that Trump received and Sanders received 50% more votes than Trump did as well. Clinton received more votes alone than all candidates combined in the NY Republican Primary. A caveat to Trump's huge win that the headlines wouldn't lead one to assume.

What do you think happens with Sanders support? He has done so well that I don't believe Clinton can get thenomination and just move right. However because both Clinton and Sanders are older than normal I don't know if them together on a ticket makes any sense. Perhaps that is a bit of ageism on my part? How do you think it plays out? Same question for Trump. I have felt all along that Trump would fail to get the needed delegates .However the GOP have failed to find a reasonable alternative. Cruz is not well like by the majority of Republicans either. Is there a path to the nomination for Trump if he can work out a deal with Kasich, Rubio, or Cruz? Or do you think the GOP will just replace the field with someone else (Ryan, Romney, etc) and then lose this thing will some dignity in an attempt to not tarnish the brand any further?

@ Willie71, do older people that watch CNN support Hillary because CNN is nice to Hillary or vice versa? If we take a look at the demographics going back in every general elections all the way to LBJ what do we see; minorities and young people vote Democrat while whites and older folks vote Republican. If take a look at the demographic break down of the 1988 election and compare it directly to the 2012 election by plus or minus a couple of points Dukakis did identical to Obama and Bush did identical to Romney. 1988 was before the influence of Foxnews, MSNBC, and the internet. http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/ A few headlines don't move the needle. If headlines and media coverage did move the needle we'd see more variation in how people vote election after election. Instead there are consistant and predictable trends. Politics is like religion. People are raised on political ideology. More Sanders coverage on CNN isn't going to make a 70yr old democrats, who specifically watches CNN over Foxnews because they support Clinton, go out and vote for Sanders. People consume the media they want. They are on the couch watching CNN for a reason. Seriously would you ever watch CNN to learn something new or to better inform yourself about anything? Sanders does have his supporters in the media. Bill Maher has nice things to say are Sanders every show, Thom Hartmann's show has become unapologetic Sanders campaign programming. Sanders supporters have taken to protesting Trump events and media outlets all of which have been covered. And of course Foxnews and conservatve media in general boast about how good Sanders is doing every chance they get. It is April going on May do you really think at this point Sanders issue is that voters don't realize he's out there? By nature primary voters are more political. Most people in the U.S. will never vote in a primary a single time in their lives. If you are voting in the Democratic primary this year I think you have already known who your horse was for a long while. Trump has gotten 2 billion dollars in free coverage and he still can't get the delegates he needs. That is proof headlines aren't enough. Foxnews, talk radio, Drudgereport, and etc have been giving Republicans free air time to the tune of billions for over a decade yet The GOP hasn't been able to enhance their position. To the contrary the GOP has shrunk. People vote the way they vote. You and I didn't learn about Sanders from CNN. Cable news isn't where people go to figure which side they are on it is where they go when they have already chosen a side.

@Willie71, I like Sanders over Clinton but disagree with what you're suggesting. I think you are allowing your passion to get the better of you a bit. 1 - media coverage via cable news does not direct impact votes. If it did Trump would have already won the GOP nomination long ago. With the amount of coverage he gets he'd be unstoppable. Yet Trump is coming up short in the primary and isn't competitive for the general. 2 - The average cable news viewer is not Sanders demographic. "CNN’s median viewer age was 61 compared to 67 for Fox. But in primetime the difference was starker; CNN’s average was 59 while FoxNews averaged 68." http://www.thewrap.com/fox-news-oldest-tv-news-audience-cnn-youngest-in-2015/ 3 - This is 2016; media is consumed al la carte. Facebook, Twitter, Google, Yahoo, and etc all know my preferences and give my the headlines they assume I would be most interested in based on my habits. If I or anyone else wants info about Bernies it is at our finger types 24/7. Separately I do not believe any member of this forum has been moved to support a specific candidate based on What Anderson Cooper or Rachel Maddow has had to say. If you are not swayed by CNN why assume millions of others would be? I think that is a rather cynical thought. There is not a direct link between media coverage and votes, cable media has a old audience that isn't Sanders demo, and we all pick and choose which media we consume. You are assuming that a few extra stories from Chris Mathews or whomever would change anything in the Democratic primary but there is no logical reason to assume that is the case. I understand being fustrated that a candidate you like isn't getting the type of coverage you may wish but the coverage isn't what is determining his support. The coverage isn't why I like him. Maybe Sanders has reached his peak? This is the level of support he has and it simply isn't enough. Extra mentions on the Today Show won't change anything. What percentage of Sanders supporters do you think still even watch live TV? Seriously, One tweet from Trump gets more views than the tonight shows get ratings. This is 2016. We all consume the media of our choosing and the media pushes out whatever stories people are hungry for. You are also exaggerating how helpful the media has been to Clinton. Everyone in the whole country is aware of her email "scandal". And that is just a plane as day partisan attack. We all are all aware of her role in Benghazi, we all know Bill slept around, she had made millions giving speeches, she voted for the war in Iraq, and etc,etc, etc. It is not like her negatives are hidden from view and the media is endorsing her all day every day. A lot of her headlines are about things I am sure she'd rather just go away.

@Delta1212, Great post. Well thought out. Surely better organized than my response will be . In my opinion is did not include two critical component that matter today; demographics and parties evolution. A-D would not have a vote based that is similiar. Whites, Blacks, Latino, Asians, men 18-24 (every age group on up), women 18-24 (every age group on up) Southerners, Easterners,and etc, etc, etc all vote a differently. Some groups would be represented A-D while others would only be represented C& D. Lets add names A - Trump, B - Cruz, C - Clinton, D - Sanders. The only demos that Trump and Cruz are competing for are conservative whites. Trump specifically does poorly with women so Trump is only getting conservative white males. Clinton is getting the majority of blacks and then good amounts of every demo (whites, latinos, asians, women, etc). Sanders is doing about like Clinton only his crowd has less blacks and is younger. If this year saw a 4 way race Trump and Cruz simply would not be representing enough people. There is a good cahnce that by the time this primary is over both Sanders and Clinton will have received more votes in the primary than any of the Republicans. Currently Clinton is ahead of Trump and Sanders is just behind Trump but ahead of Cruz and the race is moving into more progressive states like NY, CA, PA, WA, MD, OR, and etc where both Sanders and Clinton will do better than Trump or Cruz. Party evolution; our 2 major parties have changed over time. George Wallace was a Democrat. His third party run highlighted a huge bible belt segment of the Democratic party that were bigots. His run changed our two parties. The Republican Party seized upon that with the Southern Stategy and as a result the GOP became more bigoted, religious, rural serving, and Southern. Over the last 40 years the GOP has used racism as a means of rejecting social programs by implying all such programs are just give aways to lazy minorities. As the demographics of the country are changing the GOP can no longer afford to be an exclusively white party. The GOP has lost the vote in 5 of the last 6 general elections (Gore won the popular over Bush). Obama received over 70% of every minority group in both 08' and 12'. In a 4 way, arguably, Most would be best represented Clinton or Sanders because they would have a little of every group vs Cruz and Trump who would have only a single group. The GOP has such a diversity problem they can not afford to lose even a sliver of their base and still have a chance to win. The above isn't always true but it is today. Over time multiple parties are not always viable but they are when there are large under represented voices. Today the under represented progressive voice finally outnumbers the bigots who have bouyed the GOP since George Wallace. The GOP needs to find a way to grow their tent and progressives should be tired of supporting centrist polcies out of fear of enabling conservatives. If we divide by 3 or 4 today most people line up left of center yet one of our 2 parties isn't moving and is able to use their brand name to be taken more serious than they should be and it freezes both sides. Either Sanders or Clinton beat Cruz or Trump by double digits. The GOP must change to in order to continue and I think more parties for the next couple election cycles would be a healthy way to start that evolution. We have spent enough time agruing over abortion, immigration, oil, gays, and welfare. I think the majority of the U.S. would like to move on and the inclusion of other parties would allow for a change in narrative. Allow us to start arguing over a new set of issues

The fear is always based on the idea of there being the 2 major parties and then one independent. In reality that is not the way is has to be. It 2012 beyond the 2 major parties there was also the Libertarian, Green, Constitution, and Justice parties. Jill Stien (Green Party) was on the ballot in 37 states. Her "Green New Deal" was a proposal I believe most all Bernie supporters would love. Gary Johnson (Libertarian party) was on the ballot in 48 states. His flat consumption tax plan is one that is very popular amongst the those on the right. Yet neither Stien or Johnson generated much support. People are affraid to vote for them. But is a 4 way race, not a 3 way, would voting Green or Libertarian truly help the other guy? There is a false notion of options. Prior to the 70's party primaries did not include the whole country. When JFK won the Democratic nomination only 16 states voted in that primary. JFK ran against Nixon who had won the nomination in an 11 state primary. The way the game is played today further solidifies the the control the 2 major parties have. They have us all sold in to their primary. They get us emotional committed to them as the only way. We view it as a choice. A way to get the 2 best candidates we can; that is not what it is. It is a party nomination. Bernie Sanders is an independent. Longest serving independent in the Senate. Why would the Democratic Party allow a non-democrat to have their nomination? Trump has never won and held office in his life. He has supported both sides over the years. Why would the Republican Party allow a non-Republican to have their nomination? It makes no sense. If we (American voters) want different options we must stop being afraid of voting for different Parties.

I agree people will feel disappointed. I just don't think as a party the Republican can allow that to impact who they nominate. Neither major party can allow themselves to be taken over by independents. If they did they would cease to exist. Trump's and Sanders popularity is a good argument for more parties. I say let Trump, Cruz, Clinton and Sanders all run in the general. The mistake we (Americans) keep making is trying to transform one of the our 2 major parties into what something they are not. If we look at only the policies of Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Bush 41, Clinton, and Obama it would be tough to distinguish who are the Republicans and who are the Democrats. In many ways that disappoints us, that at times there is seemingly no choice, but it also protects us by keeping politics generally moderate. Of course Reagan and Bush 43 up ended that, we all see how dangerous that was, we see how damaging it is when a major party gets radicalized. Instead of polarizing our traditional white beard parties we need to do the hard work of getting behind other parties. If the Green Party and Libertarian party could get the type of support Trump and Sanders are getting they'd be real parties that had the ability to get people put in office. That would have a much bigger impact in the long run. Instead we are fear other parties because we fear aiding the enemy by dividing votes.

@Overtone, I like Sanders. I prefer him to Clinton. He is better on the issues. However that doesn't I must believe he has been mistreated. You are claiming media attention is the reason why Clinton has received two in a half million more votes in the primary? No one has received more media attention than Trump and Clinton has received over a million more votes than Trump. Sanders is actually doing worse than his share of the delegates implies. Sanders has received a larger share of delegates than he has votes. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bernie-sanders-is-even-further-behind-in-votes-than-he-is-in-delegates/ As for the media and Clinton Nate Silver did an analysis back in Sept showing that Clinton had spent the whole summer in a negative media feedback loop that drove her poll numbers and likability down. In my opinion you are not being honest about the way the media has handled Clinton. She has not been done any favors. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/hillary-clinton-is-in-a-self-reinforcing-funk/

Is there a preference? Trump has received 37% of the popular vote and of the 63% that have voted from someones else exit polling shows they all pretty much would prefer anyone over Trump. If only about a third of the party want either Trump or Cruz as their first choice but then over half would prefer Cruz over Trump as a second choice what then? In my opinion the argument that Trump got the nearest so they have to or should let him have it is a very weak one. Imagine someone demanding a lottery pay out because they almost had the numbers. The number of delegates required have been known from the begining. Trump's failure to reach the needed delegate count stems from his lack of support and not from backroom deals. If Trump could do better than 37% he'd have more delegates. Fivethirtyeight just did an analysis a couple days ago showing the the struct of the Republican primary has actually favored Trump and not hurt or been unfair. Even with advantages Trump is still coming up short. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trumps-right-that-the-gop-primary-is-unfair-it-favors-him/