Sara Palin endorses....Donald Trump

[catch24]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/20/us/politics/donald-trump-sarah-palin.html

It all makes sense. All Trump needs now is Anthony Weiner to go rogue and it'll come full circle. :eek:

EDIT: The "rally" is live on FOX/CNN

[Levity]

sara palin gets a lot of shit everywhere, but honestly, shes pretty damn cool. i was recently on the russian coast and i could see her waving hello to me from alaska. shes pretty down to earth like that. :rockon:

[Terahite]

i was recently on the russian coast and i could see her waving hello to me from alaska. shes pretty down to earth like that. :rockon:

Negged :facepalm

[Dave3]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/20/us/politics/donald-trump-sarah-palin.html

It all makes sense. All Trump needs now is Anthony Weiner to go rogue and it'll come full circle. :eek:

EDIT: The "rally" is live on FOX/CNN
Weiner's ideologically the antithesis of those two though. The only thing he has in common with them is his partisanship.

[catch24]

Weiner's ideologically the antithesis of those two though. The only thing he has in common with them is his partisanship.

Hence guy busting a Hogan, full NWO status. If the Donald can do it why can't he? :banana:

But in all seriousness, I only brought him up because of the sideshow he is. Just like these two clowns.

[ArbitraryWater]

was about to post this https://twitter.com/FlyByKnite/status/689602857025216512

:roll:

[HitandRun Reggie]

Trump gets endorsed by an unpopular former governor. Obama endorses a soon to be incarcerated governor. Hmmm which is worse?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-k5CeQ5Cw56Q/VPNn719eMiI/AAAAAAAAYdE/NYiCTUnidaQ/s1600/Blagojevich-teaches-history-in-prison.jpg

[TheSilentKiller]

Trump gets endorsed by an unpopular former governor. Obama endorses a soon to be incarcerated governor. Hmmm which is worse?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-k5CeQ5Cw56Q/VPNn719eMiI/AAAAAAAAYdE/NYiCTUnidaQ/s1600/Blagojevich-teaches-history-in-prison.jpg
well, one is trying to be elected and the other is in the last year of his second term in office so......


imma say the trump one

[FillJackson]

well, one is trying to be elected and the other is in the last year of his second term in office so......


imma say the trump oneThey are both known grifters, but Trump is aligning himself with Palin after the grift became known.

In other Palin news (http://www.adn.com/article/20160119/track-palin-faces-domestic-violence-charges-incident-sarah-palins-wasilla-home)

Sarah Palin’s son Track Palin is facing charges after getting into a drunken altercation with a woman outside the former Alaska governor’s home in Wasilla Monday night, according to an affidavit filed in the case.

The charges -- one count each of fourth-degree domestic violence assault, interfering with a report of domestic violence, and fourth-degree weapons misconduct -- were reported by the Wasilla Police Department on Tuesday, the same day that Sarah Palin endorsed GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump.

According to an affidavit filed in the case by Wasilla police officer Andrew Kappler, a woman called 911 just after 10 p.m. Monday to report a man had just “punched her in the face and that a firearm was involved.” Around the same time, a man identifying himself as Track Palin called 911 and said the woman was drunk.

Less than 10 minutes later, police arrived at a home along Lake Lucille on the West Parks Highway, where they found Track Palin walking around outside, the affidavit says.

“I observed the male had a visible injury to his right eye and the area around his eye,” Kappler said. “His eyes were bloodshot and I detected a strong odor of alcohol on his breath and person. Upon contacting Palin, he was uncooperative, belligerent, and evasive with my initial line of questions.”

According to the affidavit, Palin claimed to not know where the woman was and denied the involvement of a gun, although he did tell detectives there were firearms in the house.

“Due to Palin’s escalating hostility, the unknown whereabouts of the 911 caller, and officer safety, Palin was placed into handcuffs,” Kappler wrote.

The woman was later found hiding and crying under a bed inside. Palin told police he and the woman had been arguing over her communication with an ex-boyfriend.

“This angered Palin,” the affidavit says. “He stated that they had been arguing for most of the night.”

[BigNBAfan]

sara palin gets a lot of shit everywhere, but honestly, shes pretty damn cool. i was recently on the russian coast and i could see her waving hello to me from alaska. shes pretty down to earth like that. :rockon:

She's a tough cookie... i'd love to eat.

[ThePhantomCreep]

Not a particularly meaningful endorsement--she appeals to largely the same crowd that flocks to Mein Trumpf. Palin coming on board certainly won't help the Orange Goblin improve his dismal favorability numbers:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-is-really-unpopular-with-general-election-voters/

[Nick Young]

http://stillrealtous.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/stunner2.gif

[DonDadda59]

SNL finna enter a new Golden era. :banana:

[Lakers Legend#32]

Someone should shove a c*ck into Wasilla Hillbilly's mouth before she speaks.

[IcanzIIravor]

SNL finna enter a new Golden era. :banana:

:cheers:

[oh the horror]

SNL finna enter a new Golden era. :banana:



No kidding. This should fuel comedians for the next 5 years at least. Jesus Christ this is comedic gold


i still can't accept that any of this is real. I'm convinced that he's trolling and so are his followers.

[TheMan]

:oldlol:

This coming political season is gonna be entertaining as hell

[highwhey]

:oldlol:

This coming political season is gonna be entertaining as hell
Not if trump wins :(

This country will be ruined.

[TheMan]

Not if trump wins :(

This country will be ruined.
Lol, not worried in the least.

He's not winning the GE.

[highwhey]

In related news, Sarah Palin's eldest son has been charged with domestic violence. What a joke of a family.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/track-palin-sarah-palins-son-charged-with-domestic-violence/

[Dresta]

was about to post this https://twitter.com/FlyByKnite/status/689602857025216512

:roll:
:roll:

Even Trump is like "wtf is this bish talkin about"

[Draz]

In related news, Sarah Palin's eldest son has been charged with domestic violence. What a joke of a family.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/track-palin-sarah-palins-son-charged-with-domestic-violence/
Came here to post this :roll: :banana:

[dunksby]

Came here to post this :roll: :banana:

"An investigation revealed Track Palin had committed a domestic violence assault on a female, interfered with her ability to report a crime of domestic violence, and possessed a firearm while intoxicated," police said in the statement.

The girlfriend told authorities she was punched in the face by Palin, who is the oldest child of Sarah Palin, the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee and conservative leader.

There is no telephone listing for the girlfriend. The court documents say the woman, Palin's girlfriend of one year, had bruising and swelling around her left eye, and she said her right knee hurt after Palin kicked her there

Palin family attorney John Tiemessen declined to comment on the matter other than to say in an email that respect for the family's privacy is appreciated "as Track receives the help that he and many of our returning veterans need." Palin's arraignment was held Tuesday, but Tiemessen was not sure if he entered a plea yet.
First of all, who the **** names their kid Track? :biggums: secondly, this mother****er is one twisted son of a bitch, but hey he is a veteran that needs help like all others. Way to bunch this sick **** with all others :facepalm

[HitandRun Reggie]

Palin is a joke that keeps on giving. She has a big mouth but not the brainpower to back it up, plus she's a quitter. I don't see how some on the right still got behind her after she was exposed.

[Derka]

Because she did f*cking WONDERS the last time she got involved in an election :roll: :roll:

Also, she gives her kids incredibly stupid names. No wonder they act the damn fool all over the place.

[Take Your Lumps]

Yes, Palin is a joke of a politician.

BUT. She will increase Trump's numbers among the evangelical crowd in Iowa. Those numbers were too close for comfort and he needed that.

She may just win him that state and nullify any surge Cruz was hoping for.

[Yoda]

The downfall of Trump she will be.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Yes, Palin is a joke of a politician.

BUT. She will increase Trump's numbers among the evangelical crowd in Iowa. Those numbers were too close for comfort and he needed that.

She may just win him that state and nullify any surge Cruz was hoping for.
True, but,

https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtf1/t31.0-8/s960x960/12593660_10153213109182541_3828741154582099732_o.j pg

Is still some good haw-haw.

[NumberSix]

Trump is focussing a little too hard on Iowa. In all honestly, it's really not that important. It's 1 state. I get that if he wins Iowa, it pretty much puts Cruz away, but it really makes no difference if Trump wins Iowa.

[TheSilentKiller]

I get that if he wins Iowa, it pretty much puts Cruz away, but it really makes no difference if Trump wins Iowa.
which one is it?

[Nick Young]

Palin was a governor of the largest state in America. We are just schlubs sitting on ISH.


What does that say about us? What does that say about Palin?

[Derka]

Yes, Palin is a joke of a politician.

BUT. She will increase Trump's numbers among the evangelical crowd in Iowa. Those numbers were too close for comfort and he needed that.

She may just win him that state and nullify any surge Cruz was hoping for.
The evangelical crowd in Iowa is a horrible barometer for how he's going to perform in demographics he has to take away from Democrats if he's going to win the GE.

[Nick Young]

http://i.imgur.com/WnXzh5U.gif

[NumberSix]

which one is it?
Which one is what?

What I'm saying is, Cruz NEEDS to win Iowa. Trump doesn't. Winning Iowa makes no difference for Trump. If he loses Iowa, Cruz stays at #2. If Trump wins Iowa, Cruz drops off and somebody else replaces him at #2. It's not like if Trump wins Iowa everybody else just disappears. He'll still have to battle the #2 candidate, it just won't be Cruz.

[NumberSix]

The evangelical crowd in Iowa is a horrible barometer for how he's going to perform in demographics he has to take away from Democrats if he's going to win the GE.
The republican doesn't have to take away a single vote from the democrats. If republican voters would have simply come out to vote in 2012, Romney would have won. It's not usually mentioned, because it's kind of an awkward topic, but a lot of reliable republican voters (evangelicals) didn't have a strong turnout last election because honestly, they weren't too thrilled about Romney being a Mormon.

If Romney was the exact same guy, but happened to be a mainstream Christian instead of a Mormon, he would have won the election. Add to that that Hillary is not going to have the same kind of voter turnout that Obama did. This is the republicans' election to lose.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Which one is what?

What I'm saying is, Cruz NEEDS to win Iowa. Trump doesn't. Winning Iowa makes no difference for Trump. If he loses Iowa, Cruz stays at #2. If Trump wins Iowa, Cruz drops off and somebody else replaces him at #2. It's not like if Trump wins Iowa everybody else just disappears. He'll still have to battle the #2 candidate, it just won't be Cruz.
There are people seriously talking about a brokered convention. The more delegates Trump gets the further he gets from that possibility. If he can get to 1,237 then the GOP leadership can't stop him and he gets to destroy their party with his raging dumpster fire of a campaign.

If Cruz takes Iowa on the other hand Cruz will get more donations, get to campaign longer and harder and thus (really this should be obvious) it becomes harder for Trump to get to 1,237 and then Party leadership gets to dump Trump if they want (and they do) in a brokered convention.

[NumberSix]

There are people seriously talking about a brokered convention. The more delegates Trump gets the further he gets from that possibility. If he can get to 1,237 then the GOP leadership can't stop him and he gets to destroy their party with his raging dumpster fire of a campaign.

If Cruz takes Iowa on the other hand Cruz will get more donations, get to campaign longer and harder and thus (really this should be obvious) it becomes harder for Trump to get to 1,237 and then Party leadership gets to dump Trump if they want (and they do) in a brokered convention.
There's not going to be a brokered convention.

Keep in mind, the rule for the Republican Party is that in the case of a brokered convention, if nobody gets 1237 delegates, they still can only choose a candidate that has won at least 8 states. They can't just dump Trump for anybody they want.

Trump might not get to 1237, but nobody else will win 8 states.

[Terahite]

In related news, Sarah Palin's eldest son has been charged with domestic violence. What a joke of a family.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/track-palin-sarah-palins-son-charged-with-domestic-violence/

Do you have a family? :lol

Thanks for your scintillating commentary you raving dipshit. :oldlol:

[Real Men Wear Green]

There's not going to be a brokered convention.

Keep in mind, the rule for the Republican Party is that in the case of a brokered convention, if nobody gets 1237 delegates, they still can only choose a candidate that has won at least 8 states. They can't just dump Trump for anybody they want.

Trump might not get to 1237, but nobody else will win 8 states.
And if, for example, Cruz wins Iowa? That is one of 8 states. There are 50 states, if Trump couldn't get half the delegates then there is a very good chance someone else won 8 states. I wouldn't bet on a brokered convention but if Trump took your advice and let Cruz have a state like Iowa he is increasing the odds that that happens. It's smart for Trump to try and take out the other contenders and he can do that by dominating early.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Already pulled a no-show. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/01/20/sarah-palin-is-a-no-show-at-trump-campaign-event-in-iowa/?tid=sm_fb)

[KnittingRyu]

The timing of this is amazing. Her oldest son just got arrested for beating his wife(or girlfriend) and threatening to kill himself with a gun. :roll:

[DonDadda59]

The timing of this is amazing. Her oldest son just got arrested for beating his wife(or girlfriend) and threatening to kill himself with a gun. :roll:

Not really funny. He's an Iraq war vet and it sounds like he's struggling with some severe PTSD. Sarah is pure comedy and fair play, but how many politicians who voted in favor of war let their kids go into the war zone?

I hope he gets the help he needs.

[KnittingRyu]

Not really funny. He's an Iraq war vet and it sounds like he's struggling with some severe PTSD. Sarah is pure comedy and fair play, but how many politicians who voted in favor of war let their kids go into the war zone?

I hope he gets the help he needs.
Just for clarity, I am laughing at Trump and the timing, not the son.

[bladefd]

Wow lol!! Trump should be running the other way from Palin. Palin is bad luck. It is like the head of the looney asylum is shaking hands with the presidential candidate. This will hurt Trump more than help. Stay losing, Republicans! :roll:

[Coach Eddie]

Wow lol!! Trump should be running the other way from Palin. Palin is bad luck. It is like the head of the looney asylum is shaking hands with the presidential candidate. This will hurt Trump more than help. Stay losing, Republicans! :roll:
Palin simply solidifies those who already planned on voting Trump. She does not help with the moderates at all, which is who Trump will need to actually win.

[DonD13]

what a time to be alive

[ThePhantomCreep]

The republican doesn't have to take away a single vote from the democrats. If republican voters would have simply come out to vote in 2012, Romney would have won. It's not usually mentioned, because it's kind of an awkward topic, but a lot of reliable republican voters (evangelicals) didn't have a strong turnout last election because honestly, they weren't too thrilled about Romney being a Mormon.

If Romney was the exact same guy, but happened to be a mainstream Christian instead of a Mormon, he would have won the election. Add to that that Hillary is not going to have the same kind of voter turnout that Obama did. This is the republicans' election to lose.

You're making excuses now- -Romney pulled in more voters than McCain (Christian war hero), and by modern-day standards, the turnout for the 2012 GE was pretty good. Better in fact, than the '80,' 84, and '88 elections that produced GOP landslide victories.

Obama was ripe for a loss in 2012, yet Romney didn't come close, despite winning over several groups that went to Obama in 2008. Sorry, but banking on imaginary Christian voters to turn up in droves won't win you the 2016 election--according to the Pew Research Center, their share of the population declined from 78% to 71% between 2007-2014. Their influence is weakening.

The GOP doesn't have a turnout problem, they have a demographic problem, namely a (percentage wise) decline in America's White and Christian populations. This trend, now in its 4th decade, will continue in 2016.

[Coach Eddie]

You're making excuses now- -Romney pulled in more voters than McCain (Christian war hero), and by modern-day standards, the turnout for the 2012 GE was pretty good. Better in fact, than the '80,' 84, and '88 elections that produced GOP landslide victories.

Obama was ripe for a loss in 2012, yet Romney didn't come close, despite winning over several groups that went to Obama in 2008. Sorry, but banking on imaginary Christian voters to turn up in droves won't win you the 2016 election--according to the Pew Research Center, their share of the population declined from 78% to 71% between 2007-2014. Their influence is weakening.

The GOP doesn't have a turnout problem, they have a demographic problem, namely a (percentage wise) decline in America's White and Christian populations. This trend, now in its 4th decade, will continue in 2016.
:applause:

[DonDadda59]

You're making excuses now- -Romney pulled in more voters than McCain (Christian war hero), and by modern-day standards, the turnout for the 2012 GE was pretty good. Better in fact, than the '80,' 84, and '88 elections that produced GOP landslide victories.

Obama was ripe for a loss in 2012, yet Romney didn't come close, despite winning over several groups that went to Obama in 2008. Sorry, but banking on imaginary Christian voters to turn up in droves won't win you the 2016 election--according to the Pew Research Center, their share of the population declined from 78% to 71% between 2007-2014. Their influence is weakening.

The GOP doesn't have a turnout problem, they have a demographic problem, namely a (percentage wise) decline in America's White and Christian populations. This trend, now in its 4th decade, will continue in 2016.

But Trump knows these two Corinthians. They're Christian. They're great. They love the Donald. They're gonna help build his wall that Mexico's gonna pay for. :confusedshrug:

[Coach Eddie]

But Trump knows these two Corinthians. They're Christian. They're great. They love the Donald. They're gonna help build his wall that Mexico's gonna pay for. :confusedshrug:
:roll:

[NumberSix]

You're making excuses now- -Romney pulled in more voters than McCain (Christian war hero), and by modern-day standards, the turnout for the 2012 GE was pretty good. Better in fact, than the '80,' 84, and '88 elections that produced GOP landslide victories.

Obama was ripe for a loss in 2012, yet Romney didn't come close, despite winning over several groups that went to Obama in 2008. Sorry, but banking on imaginary Christian voters to turn up in droves won't win you the 2016 election--according to the Pew Research Center, their share of the population declined from 78% to 71% between 2007-2014. Their influence is weakening.

The GOP doesn't have a turnout problem, they have a demographic problem, namely a (percentage wise) decline in America's White and Christian populations. This trend, now in its 4th decade, will continue in 2016.
You're out of your depth. It's not a matter of national demographics. It's a state by state race. The places where the demographics have most drastically changed are states that aren't in play in the first place. The blue states are getting even bluer, so what? You either win a state or you lose it. Whether it's by 1 point or 50 points.

The demographics of states like California and Texas don't matter. The presidential election isn't about the blue states and the red states. It's about a small handful of purple states. And the point is, Romney could have won enough of these purple states had he inspired a better voter turnout.

[BoutPractice]

"He builds things, he builds big things, things that touch the sky.

[ThePhantomCreep]

You're out of your depth. It's not a matter of national demographics. It's a state by state race. The places where the demographics have most drastically changed are states that aren't in play in the first place. The blue states are getting even bluer, so what? You either win a state or you lose it. Whether it's by 1 point or 50 points.

The demographics of states like California and Texas don't matter. The presidential election isn't about the blue states and the red states. It's about a small handful of purple states. And the point is, Romney could have won enough of these purple states had he inspired a better voter turnout.

:wtf:

Obama won all 11 swing states in 2008. He won 10 of 11 in 2012 and his margin of victory was smaller in all of them. In 2012, he won key battlegrounds such as Ohio, Florida, and Virginia, which Al Gore lost to George W. Bush in the razor-thin election of 2000—even though Obama attracted the same share, or even less, of white voters in each state than Gore had.

Turnout for wasn't a problem for Romney, at least among the GOP's bedrock (White Christians). The problem is the White Christian vote has declined in several swing states, and Romney failed to attract enough minority voters necessary to win.

How many swing states got whiter between 2012-present? Not very many. How many grew more diverse? Off the top of my head, Florida, Nevada, and Colorado did.

It's amazing how pigheaded conservatives are on this issue. The data screams "ATTRACT MORE MINORITY VOTERS" yet you're still waiting for this massive group of apathetic white religious fundamentalists to show up out of nowhere and see you through. :oldlol:

Ronald Reagan won 56% of the White vote in 1984. His victory was the biggest landslide in history. Romney won 59% of the White vote in 2012. He lost badly.

If anyone has a turnout problem, it's the Democrats, in off-year elections. The GOP's problem lies in America's transforming demographics. Deal with it.

[Draz]

This just in:
She changes her mind

[BoutPractice]

Seriously, her endorsement speech is a comedy masterpiece from start to finish :lol

[ThePhantomCreep]

Seriously, her endorsement speech is a comedy masterpiece from start to finish :lol

Here's a small portion of it. For once, Trump was only the second most dimwitted, incoherent person in the room:



We all have a part in this, we all have a responsibility. Lookin’ around at all of you, you hard-workin’ Iowa families, you farm families an’ teachers an’ teamsters, an’ cops an’ cooks … you… rock ‘n rollers an’ HOLY ROLLERS. All of you who work so hard, you full time moms! YOU, with the hands that rock the cradle! You all make the world go ‘round, and now our cause is one!

When asked why I would jump in, into a primary, nnn kinda stirrin’ it up a little bit baby, and choose one over… some friends who are running and I’ve endorsed, couple others, in their races before they decided to run for president. UH, I was told, you know warned left and right, you are gonna get so clobbered in the press, you are just gonna get beat up. Chewed up ‘n spit out, ‘n you know I’m thinkin’, and…? Yeah?

Stunning.

[bdreason]

What a perfect marriage. Trump should make her his V.P..

[ThePhantomCreep]

What a perfect marriage. Trump should make her his V.P..

If that happens, "Comedy writer" instantly becomes the easiest job on Earth.

[NumberSix]

[QUOTE=ThePhantomCreep]:wtf:

Obama won all 11 swing states in 2008. He won 10 of 11 in 2012 and his margin of victory was smaller in all of them. In 2012, he won key battlegrounds such as Ohio, Florida, and Virginia, which Al Gore lost to George W. Bush in the razor-thin election of 2000

[oh the horror]

What a perfect marriage. Trump should make her his V.P..




Let's all write letters asking for this to happen. Must see TV like a mofo. But a landslide loss in an actual election :oldlol:

[ThePhantomCreep]

Deal with what? I think you think we're having a different conversation then we are. It seems like you think that I'm arguing that the republicans shouldn't want minority voters. What moron would think that? They should want every voter they can get. All I'm arguing is that 2012 was a winnable election for Romney if he would have inspired better voter turnout. I don't know what you think I'm arguing.

A dipshit conservative, most likely: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7545676There


"The way Republicans win is by driving up the white vote," she told the Fox News host. "It is not by appealing to women or Hispanics or blacks.

:lol


No presidential candidate garnered as many White votes as Romney and lost the election. It's actually remarkable that he lost so decisively with 59% of the their votes in his pocket. He won ONE swing state. You can rationalize the loss all you want, Romney's Mormon faith was not what cost him the election. That's a ridiculous theory.

[NumberSix]

A dipshit conservative, most likely: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7545676There



:lol


No presidential candidate garnered as many White votes as Romney and lost the election. It's actually remarkable that he lost so decisively with 59% of the their votes in his pocket. He won ONE swing state. You can rationalize the loss all you want, Romney's Mormon faith was not what cost him the election. That's a ridiculous theory.
It's not the sole thing that cost him the election, but he definitely did lose a lot of traditional republican voters over it. You're a casual observer if you don't know that.

What you're not getting here is how few people in America vote. Romney didn't get 59% of white people who were eligible to vote. He got 59% of white people that actually voted. And only about 30% of people who are able to vote actually vote. Most people who can vote, don't. That's not a demographic issue, that's a turnout issue. If there was turnout increase of 4% of eligible white voters, Romney would have won a landslide. Those are hard cold numbers. If Romney would have inspired a slightly higher voter turnout, he would have won. I don't know why you're unable to understand this.

[TheMan]

You're out of your depth. It's not a matter of national demographics. It's a state by state race. The places where the demographics have most drastically changed are states that aren't in play in the first place. The blue states are getting even bluer, so what? You either win a state or you lose it. Whether it's by 1 point or 50 points.

The demographics of states like California and Texas don't matter. The presidential election isn't about the blue states and the red states. It's about a small handful of purple states. And the point is, Romney could have won enough of these purple states had he inspired a bettr voter turnout.
But the demographics are shifting in those purple states.

Nevada, Arizona and Colorado used to be pretty much in the bag for the GOP but now with the growing Hispanic populations, those are now in play and Democrats have even won them.

I read an article not too long ago that mentioned Texas as being a state that within a few more election cycles, it's going to start being in play for the Dems since Texas Hispanic population is rapidly growing and if the GOP can't count on Texas, they pretty much have no shot winning GEs without their biggest electoral state.

The GOP needs to change tactics, they can't keep alienating the fastest growing minority group. And the thing is that Hispanics aren't just in California and New York, they are growing in Ohio, Virginia, Illinois, Florida (non Cubans who vote Democrat), New Mexico etc etc

You can pretend all you want that the GOP can keep winning with just turning out more White Christians but that just isn't the case anymore. Party leaders know this, that's part of the reason they don't want Trump as the GOP candidate.

[DonDadda59]

But the demographics are shifting in those purple states.

Nevada, Arizona and Colorado used to be pretty much in the bag for the GOP but now with the growing Hispanic populations, those are now in play and Democrats have even won them.

I read an article not too long ago that mentioned Texas as being a state that within a few more election cycles, it's going to start being in play for the Dems since Texas Hispanic population is rapidly growing and if the GOP can't count on Texas, they pretty much have no shot winning GEs without their biggest electoral state.

The GOP needs to change tactics, they can't keep alienating the fastest growing minority group. And the thing is that Hispanics aren't just in California and New York, they are growing in Ohio, Virginia, Illinois, Florida (non Cubans who vote Democrat), New Mexico etc etc

You can pretend all you want that the GOP can keep winning with just turning out more White Christians but that just isn't the case anymore. Party leaders know this, that's part of the reason they don't want Trump as the GOP candidate.

Exactly. That's why the Republican establishment is panicking over him (and now Cruz) leading the field.

They realized after the embarrassment of 2012 that they needed to court certain demographics that they normally overlook (namely Hispanics). Instead they now have Benito Trumpolini alienating everyone.

[TheMan]

Exactly. That's why the Republican establishment is panicking over him (and now Cruz) leading the field.

They realized after the embarrassment of 2012 that they needed to court certain demographics that they normally overlook (namely Hispanics). Instead they now have Benito Trumpolini alienating everyone.
Yup, it's not only Hispanics they need to preform better with, they need to get more women, Blacks, young people, the educated...

Trump would be a disaster for them, he preforms at all time lows with everyone but the crazies and the uninformed (which apparently there are lots of them in the GOP base :lol)

[NumberSix]

But the demographics are shifting in those purple states.

Nevada, Arizona and Colorado used to be pretty much in the bag for the GOP but now with the growing Hispanic populations, those are now in play and Democrats have even won them.

I read an article not too long ago that mentioned Texas as being a state that within a few more election cycles, it's going to start being in play for the Dems since Texas Hispanic population is rapidly growing and if the GOP can't count on Texas, they pretty much have no shot winning GEs without their biggest electoral state.

The GOP needs to change tactics, they can't keep alienating the fastest growing minority group. And the thing is that Hispanics aren't just in California and New York, they are growing in Ohio, Virginia, Illinois, Florida (non Cubans who vote Democrat), New Mexico etc etc

You can pretend all you want that the GOP can keep winning with just turning out more White Christians but that just isn't the case anymore. Party leaders know this, that's part of the reason they don't want Trump as the GOP candidate.
They aren't. They just not going to pander to them on the matter of illegals. It's a country of laws. The laws apply to everyone. "Hispanic" illegals don't get a free pass just because they're Hispanic. What's next? Theft laws don't apply to blacks? Rape laws don't apply to Muslims?

[Yoda]

A joke this campaign is.

[KyrieTheFuture]

They aren't. They just not going to pander to them on the matter of illegals. It's a country of laws. The laws apply to everyone. "Hispanic" illegals don't get a free pass just because they're Hispanic. What's next? Theft laws don't apply to blacks? Rape laws don't apply to Muslims?
So what is an issue conservatives have helped the latino population with?

[FillJackson]

Keep in mind, the rule for the Republican Party is that in the case of a brokered convention, if nobody gets 1237 delegates, they still can only choose a candidate that has won at least 8 states. According to the rules for the 2012 convention. I believe the Rules Committee meets before the first ballot and, would have a chance to rewrite this rule.


If republican voters would have simply come out to vote in 2012, Romney would have won.
Mitt Romney got a million more votes than McCain did in an election with a 3 percent lower turnout. He got 1.5 percentage points more than McCain did.

That is Romney outperformed McCain and he lost by
- 5 million votes
- 126 electoral votes
- 51.1% to 47.2%

Exactly where would this turnout have come from that would have given the GOP the win?

Or to put it another way. Turnout in the 2008 election was higher than any since 1968. If all those folks who turned out in 2008, turned out in 2012, AND every single one of them would have voted for Romney, he would have lost the overall vote by 500,000 votes.

Of course, in real life, those votes would be split between Romney and Obama. Will Obama getting millions more votes too.

[FillJackson]

What you're not getting here is how few people in America vote. Romney didn't get 59% of white people who were eligible to vote. He got 59% of white people that actually voted. And only about 30% of people who are able to vote actually vote. Now I see where you are getting this. And only about 30% of people who are able to vote actually vote.That is flat out false. Here's the percentage of voting age population (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_el ections) for the last four presidential elections that actually voted.

50.3%
55.7%
57.1%
54.9%

Note that voting age population is actually Bigger than eligible voters (http://bipartisanpolicy.org/press-release/2012-election-turnout-dips-below-2008-and-2004-levels-number-eligible/).


Voter turnout dipped from 62.3 percent of eligible citizens voting in 2008 to an estimated 57.5 in 2012. That figure was also below the 60.4 level of the 2004 election but higher than the 54.2 percent turnout in the 2000 election.

And Democratic turnout was down for Democrats more than Republicans. Your numbers just don't work.


Turnout was down for both Republicans and Democrats, falling 4.2 percentage points for the Democrats from 33.0 percent of eligible citizens in 2008 to 28.8 this year; and 1.2 percentage points for the GOP from 28.4 in 2008 to 27.2 this year.

[FillJackson]

They aren't. They just not going to pander to them on the matter of illegals. It's a country of laws. The laws apply to everyone. "Hispanic" illegals don't get a free pass just because they're Hispanic. What's next? Theft laws don't apply to blacks? Rape laws don't apply to Muslims?
Yeah, this ain't the issue at all. It's that when Republicans do talk about immigration, there's a sizable wing of their party, that does it in a way that is completely demeaning to all Hispanics and gets these guys all excited. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/01/12/why-this-leading-white-nationalist-is-urging-iowa-voters-to-back-donald-trump/) Trump is one of these Republicans.

[Dresta]

You would think winning at the ballot box by importing in a bunch of paid mercenaries from neighbouring countries (and politicising and polarising the issue for that same reason) is something most Americans would consider disgraceful, no matter whether it was a Democrat or Republican tactic, but I guess not...

It's ok if it suits our interests is a strange logic. The Republican Party needs to start the mass-importation of Polacks with a "path to citizenship" to balance things out a bit I guess.

It is illogical and foolish: you've created disastrous incentive structures and don't even care because it suits your political agenda. That is called being a partisan bellend.

[Coach Eddie]

You would think winning at the ballot box by importing in a bunch of paid mercenaries from neighbouring countries (and politicising and polarising the issue for that same reason) is something most Americans would consider disgraceful, no matter whether it was a Democrat or Republican tactic, but I guess not...

It's ok if it suits our interests is a strange logic. The Republican Party needs to start the mass-importation of Polacks with a "path to citizenship" to balance things out a bit I guess.

It is illogical and foolish: you've created disastrous incentive structures and don't even care because it suits your political agenda. That is called being a partisan bellend.
All a party needs to do is import voters from states that are already determined into states with skewed voting weight, like Ohio.

[FillJackson]

Not really funny. He's an Iraq war vet and it sounds like he's struggling with some severe PTSD. Sarah is pure comedy and fair play, but how many politicians who voted in favor of war let their kids go into the war zone?

I hope he gets the help he needs.
Do you know what would caused the PTSD? Because Track Palin was not in combat.

[UK2K]

But the demographics are shifting in those purple states.

Nevada, Arizona and Colorado used to be pretty much in the bag for the GOP but now with the growing Hispanic populations, those are now in play and Democrats have even won them.

I read an article not too long ago that mentioned Texas as being a state that within a few more election cycles, it's going to start being in play for the Dems since Texas Hispanic population is rapidly growing and if the GOP can't count on Texas, they pretty much have no shot winning GEs without their biggest electoral state.

The GOP needs to change tactics, they can't keep alienating the fastest growing minority group. And the thing is that Hispanics aren't just in California and New York, they are growing in Ohio, Virginia, Illinois, Florida (non Cubans who vote Democrat), New Mexico etc etc

You can pretend all you want that the GOP can keep winning with just turning out more White Christians but that just isn't the case anymore. Party leaders know this, that's part of the reason they don't want Trump as the GOP candidate.
They're not, they're alienating the ones who don't want to come here the legal way.

In the end, it doesn't matter. If the Democrats can convince blacks and Hispanics that voting Democrat means more free shit and an easier time breaking the law, that's all that's needed given the outrageous birth rate of the poorest of society.

Like I've said all along...

"If we can't get them out, we'll breed them out".

Been a tactic in history for hundreds of years, and its still just as effective today.


http://cnsnews.com/news/article/wisconsin-homeless-reportedly-given-free-cigarettes-gore-votes

A Milwaukee television station, WISN-TV is reporting campaign workers for Vice President Gore supplied homeless voters with packs of cigarettes and then gave them rides so the voters could pick up their absentee ballots in Milwaukee.

Gore campaign officials said they didn't ask for that kind of campaign help and ordered those workers to leave Wisconsin. However, Gore campaign volunteer Connie Milstein told WISN-TV, "we've been pretty busy, going to the local shelters." The station reported that Milstein worked for the Gore campaign in New York and was brought in to "get out the vote."

Like I said, more free shit equals more votes. In Houston in 2012, they were handing out cheeseburgers and free bus rides for homeless to vote Democrat. In the grand scheme of things, what's good for the country doesn't matter anymore to most, as long as your side wins.

[Real Men Wear Green]

On the subject of Track: Blame Obama? (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/veterans/vets-don-t-blame-obama-track-palin-s-behavior-n500716) I couldn't stand to listen to Sarah Palin's speech (I really can't deal with her anymore) so I'm asking if any of you got the impression from it that she was blaming Obama's alleged lack of respect for veterans for her son's PTSD? And if so, would that be better or worse than someone blaming her parenting for her son being screwed up and her daughter being the most hilarious abstinence advocate of all time?

[rezznor]

On the subject of Track: Blame Obama? (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/veterans/vets-don-t-blame-obama-track-palin-s-behavior-n500716) I couldn't stand to listen to Sarah Palin's speech (I really can't deal with her anymore) so I'm asking if any of you got the impression from it that she was blaming Obama's alleged lack of respect for veterans for her son's PTSD? And if so, would that be better or worse than someone blaming her parenting for her son being screwed up and her daughter being the most hilarious abstinence advocate of all time?
she claims her son has ptsd...but he never saw combat :oldlol: :oldlol:

[Derka]

Do you know what would caused the PTSD? Because Track Palin was not in combat.
Have you seen his mother? Listened to her speak? He grew up with that. Couple that with dealing with a raging whore of a sister taking paid speaking engagements about abstinence and marriage while popping out kids out of wedlock left and right. He's lucky that all he's got is PTSD.

[ThePhantomCreep]

On the subject of Track: Blame Obama? (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/veterans/vets-don-t-blame-obama-track-palin-s-behavior-n500716) I couldn't stand to listen to Sarah Palin's speech (I really can't deal with her anymore) so I'm asking if any of you got the impression from it that she was blaming Obama's alleged lack of respect for veterans for her son's PTSD? And if so, would that be better or worse than someone blaming her parenting for her son being screwed up and her daughter being the most hilarious abstinence advocate of all time?

Dat personal responsibility doe. :coleman:

She was definitely blaming Obama in a roundabout way. What a joke Palin is. That's like blaming Obama for Bristol "Queen of Abstinence" Palin's two out-of-wedlock pregnancies. It's a lame cheapshot that begs to be mocked.

[FillJackson]

Dunno if it's a fraud or not, but a Palin cousin has been posting some interesting things on the internet and threatening to come forward and publish the real stories.

As proof that she is real, she posted about what the photos of Bristol's new baby woul show........3 weeks before the baby was supposedly born.

[FillJackson]

When all is said and done, what becomes of the Republican party after this year?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CZSv8yUXEAIxv_u.jpg

[FillJackson]

The RNC has disinvited NATIONAL REVIEW from the February 25 GOP debate in Houston because of it’s anti-Trump stance.

[NumberSix]

When all is said and done, what becomes of the Republican party after this year?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CZSv8yUXEAIxv_u.jpg
When the first name is "Glenn Beck"... :roll:

Wasn't this guy trying to be Alex Jones and ranting about hobbit homes a couple years ago? Now that that didn't work out, he's trying to play the role of super conservative guy? C'mon man.

[Dresta]

Glenn Beck on the same editorial headline as Tom Sowell :facepalm

National Review has become a joke; old Russell Kirk was right not to want to be on its masthead.

[RepMe]

Hilarious that Palin blames Obama for her son's problems more than parenting.