Who will get 2016 Republican Presidential Nomination?

[betsy]

no - again; Robin Wachner, the communications director for the OC Fair and Event Center: “We only distributed 8,000 wristbands and then we closed the gates; there was no standing room or overflow permitted.”

HuffPost: CBS Los Angeles reported that there were at least 3,000 people both for and against Trump outside the rally attended by 8,000.

.

While there’s no question the rally was packed, the number of attendees at the Pacific Amphitheatre is estimated by Trump himself to have been 31,000.

What's the distribution of wrist band for? Is that a requirement to get in?

We can't rely on anyone's words.....not the media,even the cops or anyone else.

The media should've panned the audience - as challenged by Trump during his rally on two occasions.

Trump even called the media "liars" to their faces before he challenged the camera people to swivel their cameras to pan and show the people at the rally!

They could've proven Trump the liar right there and then, if the media did as challenged!

Trump may have exaggerated with his ESTIMATION, but that's not the point!

The point is: HE'S PACKING HIS VENUES TO FULL CAPACITY EVERYWHERE HE GOES! Your own source admitted that there's no question, the ampitheatre was PACKED!

Edited May 1, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

about that Hispanic vote... the so-called postmortem after the Romney defeat had the RNC emphasize the significance of the low Hispanic vote that Romney received and how it contributed to his defeat... and that they needed to significantly improve on that result to have any likelihood of victory in 2016. Romney received just 27% of the total Hispanic vote.

per the latest U.S. National survey of Hispanic voters done by Latino Decisions:

- Trump: favourable @ 9%; unfavourable @ 87%

- Clinton versus Trump: Clinton @ 76%; Trump @ 11%

.

What's that got to do with what I've said? What's Romney votes got to do with it?

Why bring up Romney? What? Did the attendance he got anywhere near Trump's at every rally?

Did you see those kinds of passionate crowds? Was he anywhere near Trump in popularity?

Did he do a sweep in primaries like last Super Tuesday - with 60% against TWO OPPONENTS?

Golly......

Edited May 2, 2016 by Michael Hardner
EMOTICONS REMOVED

[betsy]

Betsy Posted Yesterday, 07:52 AM

At this point, is it still possible to stop Trump from being the nominee?

31,000 in an 8200 seat venue - outstanding!

Going back to my question, let's do the crowd comparison between Cruz and Trump.

Crowd for Cruz rally less than expected

Many people arriving at the Grand Wayne Convention Center for Thursday’s Ted Cruz Rally expected to see a lot of commotion when they got there. For someone just passing by, they might not have even known a presidential candidate was in Downtown Fort Wayne.

Inside the center, about a 1,000 supporters came to see Cruz. Many people thought the turnout was underwhelming.

“I was surprised how few people there were,” Joseph Romary said.

Valerie Reynolds said she was surprised half the room was empty. It holds about 2,250 people.

“I mean it’s a big room,” she said.

http://wane.com/2016/04/28/crowd-for-cruz-rally-less-than-expected/

Thousands Turn Out For Trump In Evansville

Friday, April 29, 2016 5:50 a.m

Evansville, Ind (WIBQ) -- Donald Trump is bringing in large crowds ahead of next week's primary.

The Republican frontrunner drew 12-thousand people to a rally in Evansville yesterday and told them he will win Tuesday's primary.

http://wabx.net/news/articles/2016/apr/29/thousands-turn-out-for-trump-in-evansville/

There's no stopping Trump.

Edited May 1, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

In his Costa Mesa speech, Trump gave a nice anecdote about Rhode Island.

He said the polls showed he's going to win big. Trump told his people he wanted to go to Rhode Island. They told him he didn't have to go since he'll win big in Rhode Island. Trump said he wanted to go. What for, his strategists asked,

you'll win it. Trump's reply: I don't want to disappoint my supporters.

.....and then, Trump brought up the Cruz and Kasich deal. All those who worked hard knocking door-to-door in Indiana for Kasich - how were they treated by Kasich? Same thing for those who worked hard for the Cruz campaign in New Mexico and the other state.

That must resonate.

Edited May 1, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

This is an odd endorsement:

Ted Cruz probably wanted more than a half-hearted endorsement, but that was what he got from Indiana governor Mike Pence on Friday. “I’m not against anybody, but I will be voting for Ted Cruz in the upcoming Republican primary,” Pence told Indianapolis’s WCIB radio. “I urge everyone to make up their own mind.”

The governor, who has always favored a gentler and more soft-spoken approach to conservative politics, went out of his way to praise Donald Trump, who can all-but-end Cruz’s campaign if he carries Indiana’s primary on Tuesday, for tapping into “the frustration of millions of working Americans.”

Throughout, he sounded more like a man copping to intense pressure than an advocate offering his unqualified support. And he was.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/434786/mike-pence-ted-cruz-endorsement-agonizing-decision

[waldo]

Trump may have exaggerated with his ESTIMATION, but that's not the point!

no - that's exactly the point! One you haven't fully acknowledged yet. You claimed my source was unreliable; I'd actually given you 2 at that point. Given your obstinance on the issue, I followed up with 3 more... all mainstream media sources. Your initial post was all about the number - I await you finally acknowledging you were incorrect... it's up to you as to whether or not you also acknowledge you were suckered by the wholly dishonest Trump lie.

.

[waldo]

What's that got to do with what I've said? What's Romney votes got to do with it?

Why bring up Romney?

Golly......

you brought up and emphasized the Hispanic demographic/population of the California city the rally was held in... you clearly thought this relevant in relation to the Trump lie you were perpetuating in regards the rally attendance.

before the Tea Party hijacked the Republican party, GWBush received 44% of the Hispanic vote; as I said, Romney only got 27% of the Hispanic vote. I spoke of the postmortem the RNC performed after that Romney defeat... where they acknowledged the importance of the Hispanic vote in presuming to have the next 2016 Republican general election candidate win... that significant efforts would be required to gain back the support of Hispanics. So...... enter Donald Trump and the most recent National Poll of Hispanics that shows Trump has an 87% unfavourable rating; that in a comparative Clinton versus Trump vote, Trump received a mere 11% of the votes as compared to 76% for Clinton.

.

.

[Hal 9000]

I think Trump is actually trying to change the way demographics vote.

Hillary is poised to get the majority of the women's vote, Black vote, latino vote, gay vote and any other minorities she can pander too. The only real hope for Republicans is to convince people that regardless of your race, jobs and the economy are more important than better welfare (or whatever Hillary is stumping). Many of these offended women and hispanics were never gonna vote for Trump (or any republican), so may as well try to appeal to the ones that understand jobs, security and economy.

Right now, US always seems to be about 50% for each party, Trump has to bring people from the left over to his side and by all accounts, it seems to be working

[waldo]

Trump has to bring people from the left over to his side and by all accounts, it seems to be working

I'm not (as yet) questioning/challenging you on this; however, I most certainly would be interested in those accounts, "ALL" accounts, that speak to Trump gains in the regard you speak to

.

[betsy]

no - that's exactly the point! One you haven't fully acknowledged yet. You claimed my source was unreliable; I'd actually given you 2 at that point. Given your obstinance on the issue, I followed up with 3 more... all mainstream media sources. Your initial post was all about the number - I await you finally acknowledging you were incorrect... it's up to you as to whether or not you also acknowledge you were suckered by the wholly dishonest Trump lie.

.

Who doesn't lie in politics? You're the one suckered if you think no politicians lie!

Like I've said....all the media has to do was pan the audience and challenge him back!

Furthermore, how do you know he lied? How did he pick that number? Why 31,000? Why not 35,000? Or 28,000?

Who knows - most likely he was given that number!

You can chew this 31,000 issue till you're blue in the face, but it's really a non-issue!

You can't detract from the fact. The fact remains the same:

He's packing his venues to full capacity (and that doesn't count those who were unable to enter the facilities).

That's the issue!

Edited May 1, 2016 by betsy

[waldo]

Who doesn't lie in politics? You're the one suckered if you think no politicians lie!

You can't detract from the fact. The fact remains the same:

He's packing his venues to full capacity (and that doesn't count those who were unable to enter the facilities).

does an angel lose it's wings for every Trump lie? Standard practice for campaigns is to seek venues to the size of expectations... you don't want your candidate seen speaking to 10,000 people in a 50,000 seat stadium. In this focused rally regard, the size of that venue is well known - 8200 seat maximum (as I stated). So Trump lied in stating there were 31,000 persons in attendance... and that lie was perpetuated throughout the internets... aided and abetted by... YOU!

.

[betsy]

you brought up and emphasized the Hispanic demographic/population of the California city the rally was held in... you clearly thought this relevant in relation to the Trump lie you were perpetuating in regards the rally attendance.

before the Tea Party hijacked the Republican party, GWBush received 44% of the Hispanic vote; as I said, Romney only got 27% of the Hispanic vote. I spoke of the postmortem the RNC performed after that Romney defeat... where they acknowledged the importance of the Hispanic vote in presuming to have the next 2016 Republican general election candidate win... that significant efforts would be required to gain back the support of Hispanics. So...... enter Donald Trump and the most recent National Poll of Hispanics that shows Trump has an 87% unfavourable rating; that in a comparative Clinton versus Trump vote, Trump received a mere 11% of the votes as compared to 76% for Clinton.

.

.

So what if I boldened the Hispanic population? They come second to white!

We're talking about the Trump rally held in Costa Mesa! What's that got to do with Romney?

Why didn't you answer these?

Did the attendance Romney got anywhere near Trump's at every rally?

Did you see those kinds of passionate crowds? Was he anywhere near Trump in popularity?

Did he do a sweep in primaries like last Super Tuesday - with 60% against TWO OPPONENTS?

So....never mind bringing up Romney. He was a nominee who didn't make it!

It's still a long way to go til November. Anything is possible! Trump could tank and burn out like a meteor.....

........or he could win!

Edited May 1, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

you brought up and emphasized the Hispanic demographic/population of the California city the rally was held in... you clearly thought this relevant in relation to the Trump lie you were perpetuating in regards the rally attendance.

before the Tea Party hijacked the Republican party, GWBush received 44% of the Hispanic vote; as I said, Romney only got 27% of the Hispanic vote. I spoke of the postmortem the RNC performed after that Romney defeat... where they acknowledged the importance of the Hispanic vote in presuming to have the next 2016 Republican general election candidate win... that significant efforts would be required to gain back the support of Hispanics. So...... enter Donald Trump and the most recent National Poll of Hispanics that shows Trump has an 87% unfavourable rating; that in a comparative Clinton versus Trump vote, Trump received a mere 11% of the votes as compared to 76% for Clinton.

.

.

Trump won Nevada. He also defeated two Hispanic nominees (Cruz and Rubio).

Did Romney win Nevada? No.

Trump and Romney have differing platforms. We see how fast Trump had risen due to his controversial platform.

Hispanic Trump supporters have varying reasons why they support Trump.

Me Gusta Trump: Portrait of a Hispanic Trump Voter

Given the fact that Trump has built his campaign around the recurrent disparagement of Mexicans and immigrants, his support among Hispanic Republicans has baffled well-known Latino voices in the United States and Mexico.

In an interview with Jorge Ramos, former Mexican President Vicente Fox begged Trump’s Latino supporters to “open their eyes.” “I’d like to know who those Hispanics are,” Fox said, “because they are followers of a false prophet.”

No prominent Hispanic has endorsed Donald Trump.

John Castillo and others like him beg to differ. Over several recent conversations, Castillo explained his support for Trump in meticulous detail.

At times, he sounded like the many white voters who have been inspired by the candidate. He says he finds Trump relatable. “He speaks like a regular person,” Castillo says. “If I were running for President, that’s how I would talk.” He likes that Trump is not a politician. “I’m pretty much fed up with career politicians,” he says. Castillo believes Trump will manage to extricate the United States from unfair agreements, and he likes the idea of Trump imposing tariffs on imported goods. He firmly believes this will help “bring jobs back” Stateside. He also likes the fact that a number of “world leaders” have expressed concerns over a potential Trump Presidency: “He must be doing something right if the élite doesn’t want him.”

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/me-gusta-trump-portrait-of-a-hispanic-trump-voter

So Waldo, leave Romney out of this. They're not two peas in a pod.

He's irrelevant to what's happening with Trump.

Edited May 1, 2016 by betsy

[Hal 9000]

I'm not (as yet) questioning/challenging you on this; however, I most certainly would be interested in those accounts, "ALL" accounts, that speak to Trump gains in the regard you speak to

.

Well, the blue collar workers for one. Trump (and Sanders) have been pretty successful as showing Hillary as an elitist, pandering to the wall street crowd. Trump has gone directly to the people and promised jobs (for both Black and white...whoever). That will resonate with a lot of people.

Obama got like what 100% of the black vote (more than 100% in some areas - somehow), If Trump can pull down 25% of the black vote, it should offset any losses in the hispanic demographic. Besides, If he can convince enough people, white or black in major hispanic areas, then the hispanic vote becomes marginalized. Eg., would you trade off the hispanic vote for the border security vote? - Maybe!

Trump is the most socially liberal of any republican candidate in years, maybe ever. His issue is convincing the evangelicals to side with him, and given the option of him and Hillary, I gotta believe they'll come to his way of thinking. The fact is; for all the retoric, Trump may be the one candidate that brings the republican party (kicking and screaming) closer to the left socially. And; given the difference socially, I think Trump can actually sway some Bernie people to his side - or at the least, many of them will stay home on voting day - this also bodes well for Trump.

Foreign Policy, With what Hillary and Obama has been a part of in Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Libya, Syria etc etc, I think people will realize that the democrat's foreign policy is not all milk and honey, that they've been as big a problem, maybe bigger than the GW Bush decisions.

I think that we'll see voting based on things other than race, gender or age, maybe not a lot, but maybe enough for Trump to succeed.

[waldo]

What's that got to do with Romney?

So....never mind bringing up Romney. He was a nominee who didn't make it!

Hispanic Trump supporters have varying reasons why they support Trump.

So Waldo, leave Romney out of this. He's irrelevant to what's happening with Trump.

no - in the context provided, the Romney Hispanic vote, in defeat, is most relevant. The Republican National Committee acknowledged this to the point of emphasizing the importance of winning back the Hispanic vote in 2016. Trumps alienation of the Hispanic vote is not that, "winning back the Hispanic vote".

you speak of "Hispanic Trump supporters"! I provided a most representative (and recent) national poll in that regard; again, in regards Hispanic voters: Trump has an 87% unfavourable rating; that in a comparative Clinton versus Trump vote, Trump received a mere 11% of the votes as compared to 76% for Clinton. I look forward to you bringing forward info/data that speaks to actual numbers of your stated, "Hispanic Trump supporters". Note: please don't perpetuate further Trump lies should you presume to supply that info/data - yes?

.

[betsy]

no - in the context provided, the Romney Hispanic vote, in defeat, is most relevant. The Republican National Committee acknowledged this to the point of emphasizing the importance of winning back the Hispanic vote in 2016. Trumps alienation of the Hispanic vote is not that, "winning back the Hispanic vote".

you speak of "Hispanic Trump supporters"! I provided a most representative (and recent) national poll in that regard; again, in regards Hispanic voters: Trump has an 87% unfavourable rating; that in a comparative Clinton versus Trump vote, Trump received a mere 11% of the votes as compared to 76% for Clinton. I look forward to you bringing forward info/data that speaks to actual numbers of your stated, "Hispanic Trump supporters". Note: please don't perpetuate further Trump lies should you presume to supply that info/data - yes?

.

I believe that given time, a lot of Hispanics will come to their senses and end up supporting Trump.

Don't forget....a lot of them are also directly affected by illegal immigrants taking jobs from them, and by drug-related problems. A lot of them are also worried about the drug cartel.

The only thing alienating Hispanics from Trump is his speech that seem to imply all Mexicans are rapists, and the fact that Trump is being portrayed as a racist.

Watch this raw footage and see what happened to a Trump supporter:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JWw8cTEN14

I wouldn't be surprised if there are SILENT Hispanic Trump supporters, who prefer to remain invisible for obvious reason.

We'll just have to wait and see.

Edited May 1, 2016 by betsy

[waldo]

I wouldn't be surprised if there are SILENT Hispanic Trump supporters, who prefer to remain invisible for obvious reason.

so you have no numbers then for your stated, "Trump Hispanic supporters" - noted:

.

[betsy]

so you have no numbers then for your stated, "Trump Hispanic supporters" - noted:

.

You're editing my post, and quote-mining...and taking my message out of context.

That's not being honest. I believe that's the main reason I'd ignored you before. You tend to resort to dirty tactics

when you're losing the discussion.

You and I are done. link to image

Edited May 1, 2016 by Michael Hardner
ADDED IMAGE LINK

[GostHacked]

You're editing my post, and quote-mining...and taking my message out of context.

That's not being honest. I believe that's the main reason I'd ignored you before. You tend to resort to dirty tactics

when you're losing the discussion.

Hard to call someone else out for quote mining, We've seen many examples of you doing the same thing in those various 'creationism' threads.

Edited May 1, 2016 by GostHacked

[waldo]

You're editing my post, and quote-mining...and taking my message out of context.

That's not being honest. I believe that's the main reason I'd ignored you before. You tend to resort to dirty tactics

when you're losing the discussion.

You and I are done. ***SNIP***

I didn't change a word of what you stated; you were quoted verbatim. There is no MLW rule, as I'm aware, that states a complete post must be quoted; I do believe focusing on a pertinent point is... less clutter and that seems to be the 'order of the day' around here!

in this particular case, you were requested/challenged to put forward numbers that spoke to your reference to 'Hispanic Trump supporters'. Again, I note you replied without providing any such numbers to align with your implication. I do believe the sure sign of, as you say, "losing the discussion"... is resorting to a heightened presence of large font bolded Red/Green coloured text, interspersed with animated emoticons... you know, your posting pattern.

.

Edited May 1, 2016 by Michael Hardner
POST TRIMMED

[Shady]

I didn't change a word of what you stated; you were quoted verbatim. There is no MLW rule, as I'm aware, that states a complete post must be quoted; I do believe focusing on a pertinent point is... less clutter and that seems to be the 'order of the day' around here!

in this particular case, you were requested/challenged to put forward numbers that spoke to your reference to 'Hispanic Trump supporters'. Again, I note you replied without providing any such numbers to align with your implication. I do believe the sure sign of, as you say, "losing the discussion"... is resorting to a heightened presence of large font bolded Red/Green coloured text, interspersed with animated emoticons... you know, your posting pattern.

.

Selective quoting now huh? Doesn't surprise me. Regardless, if you're so concerned about fudging numbers, perhaps you should have a look at some of your climate buddies. Reminder hide the decline? That's fudging that actually means something. Not how many people attended an event.

[waldo]

Selective quoting now huh? Doesn't surprise me. Regardless, if you're so concerned about fudging numbers, perhaps you should have a look at some of your climate buddies. Reminder hide the decline? That's fudging that actually means something. Not how many people attended an event.

yes - I selected part of a quote that I wanted to respond to. If you have concerns... "ignore and report"! As for your off-topic reference, you've been personally schooled on that in the past. Please stay on topic.

.

[jbg]

yes - I selected part of a quote that I wanted to respond to. If you have concerns... "ignore and report"! As for your off-topic reference, you've been personally schooled on that in the past. Please stay on topic.

.

For once I take your side; when I joined the board in 2006 Greg sent me a few curt messages telling me to quote only the relevant part of messages. On the other hand, some other posters way overquote, and the multiquoting looks more like a puzzle than a board post. No naming names though.

[betsy]

I didn't change a word of what you stated; you were quoted verbatim. There is no MLW rule, as I'm aware, that states a complete post must be quoted; I do believe focusing on a pertinent point is... less clutter and that seems to be the 'order of the day' around here!

In this particular case, you were requested/challenged to put forward numbers that spoke to your reference to 'Hispanic Trump supporters'. Again, I note you replied without providing any such numbers to align with your implication. I do believe the sure sign of, as you say, "losing the discussion"... is resorting to a heightened presence of large font bolded Red/Green coloured text, interspersed with animated emoticons... you know, your posting pattern.

Good that you say I was quoted verbatim. Read it again. Here's what you quoted:

betsy

I wouldn't be surprised if there are SILENT Hispanic Trump supporters, who prefer to remain invisible for obvious reason.

waldo, on 01 May 2016 - 2:45 PM, said:

so you have no numbers then for your stated, "Trump Hispanic supporters" - noted:

So you indeed challenged me......which is actually funny.

Why do you want me to give numbers for these supporters? In this particular case.....WHAT FOR?

Don't you understand that my statement was an assumptive opinion? I was musing...here, read it again.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are........ SILENT Hispanic Trump supporters,

And yes, you've edited my post to suit yourself. Had it not been edited, I also gave you an article from the New Yorker. Let me post it again since obviously, you'd ignored it:

March 20, 2016 Me Gusta Trump: Portrait of a Hispanic Trump Voter

Fourteen per cent of Hispanic voters say they will “definitely support” the Republican candidate in November, and Castillo, who describes himself as an “American of Mexican descent, in that order,” is not an anomaly in his support for Trump. Although eighty per cent of Latino voters held an unfavorable opinion of Trump in a recent Washington Post/Univision poll, a fifth of Hispanic Republicans said they planned to vote for Trump during the Party’s primaries. That level of support has remained constant in states with a discernible Hispanic presence. According to entrance and exit polls, Trump got just under half of the admittedly few Hispanic Republican votes in Nevada and a quarter of them in Texas, surpassing Marco Rubio in both instances. Rubio won Florida’s Latino vote (seventeen per cent of all Republican voters) by a wide margin, but Trump’s backing among Hispanics remained at twenty-six per cent.

Given the fact that Trump has built his campaign around the recurrent disparagement of Mexicans and immigrants, his support among Hispanic Republicans has baffled well-known Latino voices in the United States and Mexico. In an interview with Jorge Ramos, former Mexican President Vicente Fox begged Trump’s Latino supporters to “open their eyes.” “I’d like to know who those Hispanics are,” Fox said, “because they are followers of a false prophet.”

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/me-gusta-trump-portrait-of-a-hispanic-trump-voter

There are numbers given in that article!

Furthermore, you've insisted to compare Trump to Romney, and yet you ignored my response to you:

betsy

Trump won Nevada. He also defeated two Hispanic nominees (Cruz and Rubio).

Did Romney win Nevada? No.

Trump won big in Nevada!

Trump scores big win in Nevada

One of the most surprising aspects of Trump's win was that entrance polls showed he was winning among Latino GOP caucus-goers even though he has campaigned on a hard-line immigration platform, including building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Entrance polls indicated Latino caucusgoers made up 8% of the GOP electorate and 45% of them planned to back Trump. Historically, however, entrance and exit polls have not proved to be a reliable measure when it comes to the preferences of minority voters, particularly when the sample size was as small as it was in Nevada.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/23/politics/nevada-republican-caucus-results/

Either you don't truly understand what you're reading....or you're trying to take my statement out of context!

You also tend to ignore pertinent counter arguments like as if they were never given at all. That's why I've ignored you in the past.

I rest my case.

Edited May 3, 2016 by betsy

[Moonlight Graham]

Right now, US always seems to be about 50% for each party, Trump has to bring people from the left over to his side and by all accounts, it seems to be working

The election always comes down to a small handful of swing states that decide the election. It's an electoral college remember. The vast majority of states either never change parties or often don't.