SD Are there many Americans who gawp in shocked disbelief when they contemplate Trump as I do? On the news they have found a lot of people who are backing him in a kind of 'I'm for Boris' way with no idea about what he will do. To make matters worse Clinton seems both dull and tainted. It is far from inconceivable to me that if elected, Trump might want to launch a teensy weensy nuclear strike on somebody to make a point. Nutcase Megalomaniac Putin responds, and the planet can kiss it's arse goodbye.
I don't think there are as many Americans shocked by Trump's popularity as there were. He continues to rise in the polls, and is getting the endorsements of some pretty smart people. Trump is on TV constantly over here, and doesn't come over as nutty as so many of the popular sound-bites make him appear. His tactic seems to be outrageous, and then back off to a more sensible position. Apparently this has been the way he has negotiated in his businesses as well. I'm not a supporter of his, but I'm not as scared as having him as President as I am of Clinton.
@seth plum Limey and I certainly run in different circles, so I would disagree to some extent, though I think the shock and novelty is wearing off for all concerned. I think Trump has been found out to a certain degree, which is basically shoot from the hip and don't apologize. Basically, it's just attack, attack, attack. And that lands. I would posit that we have a lot of people in this country who are down and out, who live in places where jobs have long since disappear, and who feel trampled on by the Government, immigrants, those on welfare, etc. This kind of brashness from an elitist has always played to that kind of group in America.
There is also a Horatio Alger-esque view that "as he (Donald Trump) is, I will be" type of rags to riches mentality, even if those tales are almost nonexistent these days. A lot of working class Americans support small Government and lower taxes not necessarily because it's better for themselves, but because they feel that when they become rich, or richer, they don't want the Government taking their money.
As far as the isolationism and bigotry he spouts, he is simply more direct about it than others, and one could argue more captivating. The views that China and Mexico are somehow ruining our country are not new, and in the case of China taking our jobs, not entirely inaccurate, and he simply plays to that. The same is true of Islamaphobia. It is rampant in this country. He has simply come along and, by more or less equating all Muslims to terrorist, declared what many on the right of the Republican/Tea Part have been saying for years. To give you an idea, by comparison, George W. Bush was quite tolerant, and publicly made steps to decry Islamaphobia in the aftermath of 9/11 (while detaining Muslims under the PATRIOT Act but that's another story). In short, Trump is not an anomaly, but rather the voice of a fair few Americans. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/irving-texas-armed-mosque-protest_us_5651eddfe4b0d4093a581d14
@SantaClaus To be fair, Nate Silver and his team at fivethirtyeight.com are pretty brilliant. I absolutely know what you mean about his general election predictions, and I was traveling from Atlanta back to California following the results as they were coming in. He does play a bit of cat and mouse in that when he's right, he's right, and when he's wrong, it's "because the polls are inaccurate." Which isn't necessarily untrue, but it's a bit of a cop out. To his immense credit, in 2008 he came from out of nowhere and basically called our general election down to the county, which was neigh on unheard of before. The way he and his team analyze and manipulate data is the envy of many, including those in my world of web applications.
@1StevieG Steven Gerrard is one of the most overrated players of his generation. One footed, one paced, and completely without tactical awareness. Sorry, what were we talking about . Party conventions are essentially one big circle jerk. "Aren't we great, isn't this person we've elected great, etc." It's all very 1984.
@Jints A doff of the cap as ever. I don't think we'll see a re-alignment in the way we did in the mid-to-late '60s and into '72, where the map basically flipped entirely. But it's clear that both parties now have a struggle to cover their "bases." I genuinely have no idea what will happen. The Democrats were held together by the leadership of Barrack Obama over the last eight years, but there are strong rifts there. The Republicans had about four years of that under George W. Bush, but that is a party that seemingly can no longer hold libertarians like Bloomberg (and even the Koch brothers) and the likes of Ted Cruz and even Marco Rubio.
@Succotash All good points, and I agree with you, very astute on the rise of "anti-politics." This has been on the fringes, slowly encroaching in America for a while now, and I think Trump is simply the next step in the evolution. The "Outsider" is a huge narrative in American politics, to the extent that George W. Bush ran and won on it in 2000 (despite being the son of a former CIA agent, head of the CIA, Vice President, and then President). Sanders is doing the same this year, despite having been in congress for decades. People view Washington as useless, so anyone that can position themselves as "the anti-Washington" is going to have their message resonate. As I'm sure you can imagine, it is not a huge leap from "Anti-Washington" to "Anti-Politics."
My love for John Oliver is longstanding, but last night when I watched that I think it was as hot as it has ever been.
If you can, I highly recommend watching clips from his show. He and his team, through the medium of satire, are some of the best investigative journalists in America right now, certainly on television. He has taken the mantle from his old boss, Jon Stewart, and has gone about ten times further in covering sorries that otherwise go unnoticed.
Also, if you like his humor, I highly recommend The Bugle podcast with his longtime friend, collaborator, and cricket aficionado Andy Zaltzman.
Lastly, and sorry for triple posting, but I tend to write with an "authoritative tone/voice" because that's my training and what I tend to use in everyday life/business. But by all means, please feel free to question, contradict, or interject. As I said at the beginning, I am by no means an expert and I am not all knowing on this subject. I am as impressed as ever with this forum at how many well educated, well read people we have on this topic.
This election is unlikely to be won by hard-line Democrats or Republicans. The independent vote will carry the deciding weight, and whichever candidate can bring them over will be President. Right now that is (like it or not) Trump.
This election is unlikely to be won by hard-line Democrats or Republicans. The independent vote will carry the deciding weight, and whichever candidate can bring them over will be President. Right now that is (like it or not) Trump.
Assuming the general election is between Clinton and Trump, I would politely completely disagree. I would say it will be a battle over who can get better turnout from the "party base." Clinton has alienated the progressive, leftist part of the party. Trump has alienated the socially progressive libertarian wing, as well as a lot of hard right Christians. Trump will certainly pick up a lot of independents, but it will be a huge question as to whether he has strong enough support within the more traditional portions of the Republican party.
I seem to recall Trump lauding the statistic that 46% of the Hispanic vote were his. Surely this is completely insignificant because it's only 46% of Hispanic voters registered to vote in the Republican primaries. That's about 18 ?
This election is unlikely to be won by hard-line Democrats or Republicans. The independent vote will carry the deciding weight, and whichever candidate can bring them over will be President. Right now that is (like it or not) Trump.
Assuming the general election is between Clinton and Trump, I would politely completely disagree. I would say it will be a battle over who can get better turnout from the "party base." Clinton has alienated the progressive, leftist part of the party. Trump has alienated the socially progressive libertarian wing, as well as a lot of hard right Christians. Trump will certainly pick up a lot of independents, but it will be a huge question as to whether he has strong enough support within the more traditional portions of the Republican party.
I seem to recall Trump lauding the statistic that 46% of the Hispanic vote were his. Surely this is completely insignificant because it's only 46% of Hispanic voters registered to vote in the Republican primaries. That's about 18 ?
Reading up on it he achieved 44% of the 130 Latinos included in the survey. As you say, only Republican party members we're included, and only around 16% of Latinos in Nevada are Republic voters. So that represents around 7% of the Latino vote in Nevada being for Trump, so not the majority he claims. Of course the tiny sample size (you have to be up around 1000 before it becomes statistically significant, so sampling 130, especially 130 who are all Republican party members, is pretty much useless. One of the reports I saw stated an 8.5% margin of error when extrapolated to represent the whole of Nevada, and that's bigger than the extrapolated figures, so his real figures is between 0 and 16%, a massive range relatively speaking.
I seem to recall Trump lauding the statistic that 46% of the Hispanic vote were his. Surely this is completely insignificant because it's only 46% of Hispanic voters registered to vote in the Republican primaries. That's about 18 ?
Reading up on it he achieved 44% of the 130 Latinos included in the survey. As you say, only Republican party members we're included, and only around 16% of Latinos in Nevada are Republic voters. So that represents around 7% of the Latino vote in Nevada being for Trump, so not the majority he claims. Of course the tiny sample size (you have to be up around 1000 before it becomes statistically significant, so sampling 130, especially 130 who are all Republican party members, is pretty much useless. One of the reports I saw stated an 8.5% margin of error when extrapolated to represent the whole of Nevada, and that's bigger than the extrapolated figures, so his real figures is between 0 and 16%, a massive range relatively speaking.
This.
Also, not all Latino votes, or votes in general, are equal. Latino votes in large swing states, such as Florida, count for far more than those in, say California, which will undoubtedly go Democratic in the general election. Nevada is a swing state, but it's an odd one, and usually quite unpredictable. Assuming Cruz and Rubio survive today, it will be very interesting to see how well Trump does with Latinos in Florida when they hold their primary (March 12 I believe).
I seem to recall Trump lauding the statistic that 46% of the Hispanic vote were his. Surely this is completely insignificant because it's only 46% of Hispanic voters registered to vote in the Republican primaries. That's about 18 ?
Reading up on it he achieved 44% of the 130 Latinos included in the survey. As you say, only Republican party members we're included, and only around 16% of Latinos in Nevada are Republic voters. So that represents around 7% of the Latino vote in Nevada being for Trump, so not the majority he claims. Of course the tiny sample size (you have to be up around 1000 before it becomes statistically significant, so sampling 130, especially 130 who are all Republican party members, is pretty much useless. One of the reports I saw stated an 8.5% margin of error when extrapolated to represent the whole of Nevada, and that's bigger than the extrapolated figures, so his real figures is between 0 and 16%, a massive range relatively speaking.
Thank you for filling in my gaps. Given the same scenario being similar with the black vote I just don't see how in a straight fight Trump could beat Clinton. Unless something cataclysmic happens with the Clinton campaign I can only see her as next president.
I seem to recall Trump lauding the statistic that 46% of the Hispanic vote were his. Surely this is completely insignificant because it's only 46% of Hispanic voters registered to vote in the Republican primaries. That's about 18 ?
Reading up on it he achieved 44% of the 130 Latinos included in the survey. As you say, only Republican party members we're included, and only around 16% of Latinos in Nevada are Republic voters. So that represents around 7% of the Latino vote in Nevada being for Trump, so not the majority he claims. Of course the tiny sample size (you have to be up around 1000 before it becomes statistically significant, so sampling 130, especially 130 who are all Republican party members, is pretty much useless. One of the reports I saw stated an 8.5% margin of error when extrapolated to represent the whole of Nevada, and that's bigger than the extrapolated figures, so his real figures is between 0 and 16%, a massive range relatively speaking.
Thank you for filling in my gaps. Given the same scenario being similar with the black vote I just don't see how in a straight fight Trump could beat Clinton. Unless something cataclysmic happens with the Clinton campaign I can only see her as next president.
I would tend to agree - if you asked Clinton who she would want to fight in a head to head for the presidency I believe she would pick Trump over Rubio.
I seem to recall Trump lauding the statistic that 46% of the Hispanic vote were his. Surely this is completely insignificant because it's only 46% of Hispanic voters registered to vote in the Republican primaries. That's about 18 ?
In fairness, he was talking in the context of the Republican nomination not the general election. Given that his two main opponents are Hispanic, he was well within his rights to boast about his success. That said, agree the sample size is too low to draw any conclusions.
@1StevieGSteven Gerrard is one of the most overrated players of his generation. One footed, one paced, and completely without tactical awareness. Sorry, what were we talking about Party conventions are essentially one big circle jerk. "Aren't we great, isn't this person we've elected great, etc." It's all very 1984.
Eh, calm down, calm down!
So these party conventions are just full of folks blowing smoke up other folks arses!!
I think it was last year that the US reached the milestone of being majority non-white, i.e. the number of black, asians and latinos rose to over 50% for the first time. Now obviously a lot of that rise will be children, so the voting population is still slightly white dominated.
Obama's success was in mobilising the black vote. Historically white Americans vote in greater numbers than the various minorities, and so the more anti-Republic black and asian voters were simply outnumbered as smaller proportions of the demographics actually voted.
What Trump may inadvertently doing is mobilising the hispanic vote, the vast majority of which will likely vote Democrat.
If Trump does win the nomination he may well be forced to take Rubio or Cruz as a running mate to try and win back some hispanic support. Whoever wins the Democratic nomination doesn't necessarily need to go chasing that vote too hard, but if they wanted an hispanic running mate there's a far bigger choice of hispanic congressmen/women and senators to choose from (24D v 7R)
I think it was last year that the US reached the milestone of being majority non-white, i.e. the number of black, asians and latinos rose to over 50% for the first time. Now obviously a lot of that rise will be children, so the voting population is still slightly white dominated.
Obama's success was in mobilising the black vote. Historically white Americans vote in greater numbers than the various minorities, and so the more anti-Republic black and asian voters were simply outnumbered as smaller proportions of the demographics actually voted.
What Trump may inadvertently doing is mobilising the hispanic vote, the vast majority of which will likely vote Democrat.
If Trump does win the nomination he may well be forced to take Rubio or Cruz as a running mate to try and win back some hispanic support. Whoever wins the Democratic nomination doesn't necessarily need to go chasing that vote too hard, but if they wanted an hispanic running mate there's a far bigger choice of hispanic congressmen/women and senators to choose from (24D v 7R)
Dems have always had strong support from Hispanics, although GWB made a lot of progress in closing the gap. But a lot of people hugely over-estimate the impact of the Hispanic vote. A lot of the Hispanic population are children, a lot aren't citizens and don't have the vote and a lot who do have the vote don't register or don't vote. Dems keep dreaming about taking back states like Texas which have a big Hispanic population but they're still not even competitive.
Samantha Bee (another Jon Stewart protege) really nails it in this clip about how the Dem party effectively derailed Obama's Presidency by spectacularly failing to get out the vote in the 2010 mid terms.
It's also nice to see that limeygent and sdaddick can have sadly diametrically opposed political viewpoints and perspectives, yet actually debate without resorting to point scoring and bickering. Makes for a much for interesting read than yet another tear up
I try to follow US Politics as best I can and know a little about how things work (although obviously nothing like as much as SDAddick). My understanding is that under the Electoral College system you can actually win the presidency by winning as few as 11 states although I don't suppose that will ever happen. I do have 1 question however, namely what happens in the very unlikely event of a 269-269 tie as nearly happened in the Al Gore/George W Bush 2000 Election.
It's also nice to see that limeygent and sdaddick can have sadly diametrically opposed political viewpoints and perspectives, yet actually debate without resorting to point scoring and bickering. Makes for a much for interesting read than yet another tear up
...on this thread. There is another one where I was guilty of one or two rather childish and condescending posts .
I keep meaning to watch Sam Bee's show. Because I'm currently transient, I haven't had a chance to watch much telly, but she is awesome and from with I hear her show is great.
Dems have always had strong support from Hispanics, although GWB made a lot of progress in closing the gap. But a lot of people hugely over-estimate the impact of the Hispanic vote. A lot of the Hispanic population are children, a lot aren't citizens and don't have the vote and a lot who do have the vote don't register or don't vote. Dems keep dreaming about taking back states like Texas which have a big Hispanic population but they're still not even competitive.
So I'm going to somewhat disagree with you on this. There are many Hispanic voters and voting blocks that have traditionally voted Republican. GWB did a great job of picking up a lot of the traditional Hispanic Republican base, namely Cubans in Florida and Conservative Catholics.
It should be noted that the "Hispanic" voting block is very diverse, and covers Puerto Ricans living on the mainland US (usually more liberal), as well as Mexican and Salvadorians (mixed, but with a good amount of Catholic conservatives), and Cubans in Florida (traditionally VERY Republican).
There was a big shift in 2008 amongst hispanics, particularly in Florida, to Barrack Obama. The second generation of immigrants (or potentially third in the case of Cubans) do not seem to hold the same religious conservatism or feelings toward Cuba that their parents did.
The Cuban voting block had a pretty seismic shift. That has been a strong Republican block going more or less back to the failure of the Bay of Pigs, and the inability to overthrow Castro. It should be noted that George H.W. Bush had huge allegiance down there due to his then ~30 year ties to the CIA. I believe that GWB inherited some of that good will in 2000. But the generation of Cuban exiles who came here to escape Castro, either because they were Batista supporters or generally well-educated and middle class, is pretty rapidly dying off. Their children/grandchildren do not have the same reservations about Cuba and Castro that their forefathers did, and as a result, Dem's desire to have a more open relationship with Cuba (as happened a couple years ago) is more warmly embraced these days.
Sorry this got very tangental. The Cuban exile population in the States from the late 50s/early 60s onward, and US-Cuban relations during this time is of particular interest to me. Cuba and Cubans have, in my opinion, had an incredibly strong impact on US foreign (and in some cases domestic) policy that far outweighs their numbers and world influence. This is another topic for another time though.
I'll try to keep monitoring this, and I keep meaning to track down some sources for further reading. I'm switching back and forth between this thread, work, and news from the Primaries. Fortunately, work today is mostly negotiations and organization, so it's a lot of me spouting semi-informed nonsense, which makes for a great transition from this thread .
Am I to understand that I must register with all parties in order to make a last minute decision who to vote for? Or I register for all parties and vote for delegates for each party? Or if I register for a party I am locked into that party until I de register?
I don't disagree that Cubans have traditionally voted GOP and that has started to shift. But they are the only solidly Republican block amongst Hispanics and constitute only 5% of that group. IK agree that they have been very influential but I think primarily because they were preaching to the converted in a febrile anti-communist, anti-Castro atmosphere of the 1950s and 60s.
Am I to understand that I must register with all parties in order to make a last minute decision who to vote for? Or I register for all parties and vote for delegates for each party? Or if I register for a party I am locked into that party until I de register?
No. You can only register for one party and if you do you can only vote in that parties primary. However you can be "unenrolled", which means you can vote in any primary, but you can only vote in one. At least, that's the rule in Massachusetts, but each state can set their own rules.
You can change your registration, but it had to be done several weeks before the primary.
Sounds a bit like insurance companies relying on inertia to get the next year's premium. A lot of malarkey if you want to switch around isn't it?
In California, you can vote in the Democratic primary even if you're registered as a Republican, and vice versa. You can only vote in one though, and there are specific ballots for each.
Limey, this is the sort of thing why I think that, even with a strong showing today Trump is far from nailed on to be the nominee. I think he has a good rick in him still. He's great when he's ahead, but were he to find himself chasing, even if only in a couple big states, I think the perception of him would change.
Something I haven't really touched on is how important momentum is in all of this. Though the whole things lasts up to 18 months when you take all the ridiculous build up the previous year into account, once the voting actually starts it's a series of mini sprints rather than a marathon. Minor errors or just things that play oddly on TV later, like Howard Dean shouting in Iowa in 2004, can have ridiculously disproportionate impacts on results. It is a major criticism that I have with the process, and in general with how we treat politics (basically as a sport) in this country.
Comments
There is also a Horatio Alger-esque view that "as he (Donald Trump) is, I will be" type of rags to riches mentality, even if those tales are almost nonexistent these days. A lot of working class Americans support small Government and lower taxes not necessarily because it's better for themselves, but because they feel that when they become rich, or richer, they don't want the Government taking their money.
As far as the isolationism and bigotry he spouts, he is simply more direct about it than others, and one could argue more captivating. The views that China and Mexico are somehow ruining our country are not new, and in the case of China taking our jobs, not entirely inaccurate, and he simply plays to that. The same is true of Islamaphobia. It is rampant in this country. He has simply come along and, by more or less equating all Muslims to terrorist, declared what many on the right of the Republican/Tea Part have been saying for years. To give you an idea, by comparison, George W. Bush was quite tolerant, and publicly made steps to decry Islamaphobia in the aftermath of 9/11 (while detaining Muslims under the PATRIOT Act but that's another story). In short, Trump is not an anomaly, but rather the voice of a fair few Americans.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/irving-texas-armed-mosque-protest_us_5651eddfe4b0d4093a581d14
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park51
@SantaClaus To be fair, Nate Silver and his team at fivethirtyeight.com are pretty brilliant. I absolutely know what you mean about his general election predictions, and I was traveling from Atlanta back to California following the results as they were coming in. He does play a bit of cat and mouse in that when he's right, he's right, and when he's wrong, it's "because the polls are inaccurate." Which isn't necessarily untrue, but it's a bit of a cop out. To his immense credit, in 2008 he came from out of nowhere and basically called our general election down to the county, which was neigh on unheard of before. The way he and his team analyze and manipulate data is the envy of many, including those in my world of web applications.
@1StevieG Steven Gerrard is one of the most overrated players of his generation. One footed, one paced, and completely without tactical awareness. Sorry, what were we talking about
@Jints A doff of the cap as ever. I don't think we'll see a re-alignment in the way we did in the mid-to-late '60s and into '72, where the map basically flipped entirely. But it's clear that both parties now have a struggle to cover their "bases." I genuinely have no idea what will happen. The Democrats were held together by the leadership of Barrack Obama over the last eight years, but there are strong rifts there. The Republicans had about four years of that under George W. Bush, but that is a party that seemingly can no longer hold libertarians like Bloomberg (and even the Koch brothers) and the likes of Ted Cruz and even Marco Rubio.
@Succotash All good points, and I agree with you, very astute on the rise of "anti-politics." This has been on the fringes, slowly encroaching in America for a while now, and I think Trump is simply the next step in the evolution. The "Outsider" is a huge narrative in American politics, to the extent that George W. Bush ran and won on it in 2000 (despite being the son of a former CIA agent, head of the CIA, Vice President, and then President). Sanders is doing the same this year, despite having been in congress for decades. People view Washington as useless, so anyone that can position themselves as "the anti-Washington" is going to have their message resonate. As I'm sure you can imagine, it is not a huge leap from "Anti-Washington" to "Anti-Politics."
If you can, I highly recommend watching clips from his show. He and his team, through the medium of satire, are some of the best investigative journalists in America right now, certainly on television. He has taken the mantle from his old boss, Jon Stewart, and has gone about ten times further in covering sorries that otherwise go unnoticed.
Also, if you like his humor, I highly recommend The Bugle podcast with his longtime friend, collaborator, and cricket aficionado Andy Zaltzman.
Also, not all Latino votes, or votes in general, are equal. Latino votes in large swing states, such as Florida, count for far more than those in, say California, which will undoubtedly go Democratic in the general election. Nevada is a swing state, but it's an odd one, and usually quite unpredictable. Assuming Cruz and Rubio survive today, it will be very interesting to see how well Trump does with Latinos in Florida when they hold their primary (March 12 I believe).
@1StevieG Steven Gerrard is one of the most overrated players of his generation. One footed, one paced, and completely without tactical awareness. Sorry, what were we talking about
Eh, calm down, calm down!
So these party conventions are just full of folks blowing smoke up other folks arses!!
Obama's success was in mobilising the black vote. Historically white Americans vote in greater numbers than the various minorities, and so the more anti-Republic black and asian voters were simply outnumbered as smaller proportions of the demographics actually voted.
What Trump may inadvertently doing is mobilising the hispanic vote, the vast majority of which will likely vote Democrat.
If Trump does win the nomination he may well be forced to take Rubio or Cruz as a running mate to try and win back some hispanic support. Whoever wins the Democratic nomination doesn't necessarily need to go chasing that vote too hard, but if they wanted an hispanic running mate there's a far bigger choice of hispanic congressmen/women and senators to choose from (24D v 7R)
I keep meaning to watch Sam Bee's show. Because I'm currently transient, I haven't had a chance to watch much telly, but she is awesome and from with I hear her show is great.
It should be noted that the "Hispanic" voting block is very diverse, and covers Puerto Ricans living on the mainland US (usually more liberal), as well as Mexican and Salvadorians (mixed, but with a good amount of Catholic conservatives), and Cubans in Florida (traditionally VERY Republican).
There was a big shift in 2008 amongst hispanics, particularly in Florida, to Barrack Obama. The second generation of immigrants (or potentially third in the case of Cubans) do not seem to hold the same religious conservatism or feelings toward Cuba that their parents did.
The Cuban voting block had a pretty seismic shift. That has been a strong Republican block going more or less back to the failure of the Bay of Pigs, and the inability to overthrow Castro. It should be noted that George H.W. Bush had huge allegiance down there due to his then ~30 year ties to the CIA. I believe that GWB inherited some of that good will in 2000. But the generation of Cuban exiles who came here to escape Castro, either because they were Batista supporters or generally well-educated and middle class, is pretty rapidly dying off. Their children/grandchildren do not have the same reservations about Cuba and Castro that their forefathers did, and as a result, Dem's desire to have a more open relationship with Cuba (as happened a couple years ago) is more warmly embraced these days.
Sorry this got very tangental. The Cuban exile population in the States from the late 50s/early 60s onward, and US-Cuban relations during this time is of particular interest to me. Cuba and Cubans have, in my opinion, had an incredibly strong impact on US foreign (and in some cases domestic) policy that far outweighs their numbers and world influence. This is another topic for another time though.
I'll try to keep monitoring this, and I keep meaning to track down some sources for further reading. I'm switching back and forth between this thread, work, and news from the Primaries. Fortunately, work today is mostly negotiations and organization, so it's a lot of me spouting semi-informed nonsense, which makes for a great transition from this thread
You can change your registration, but it had to be done several weeks before the primary.
A lot of malarkey if you want to switch around isn't it?
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/02/28/468455028/trump-wont-condemn-kkk-says-he-knows-nothing-about-white-supremacists
Limey, this is the sort of thing why I think that, even with a strong showing today Trump is far from nailed on to be the nominee. I think he has a good rick in him still. He's great when he's ahead, but were he to find himself chasing, even if only in a couple big states, I think the perception of him would change.
Something I haven't really touched on is how important momentum is in all of this. Though the whole things lasts up to 18 months when you take all the ridiculous build up the previous year into account, once the voting actually starts it's a series of mini sprints rather than a marathon. Minor errors or just things that play oddly on TV later, like Howard Dean shouting in Iowa in 2004, can have ridiculously disproportionate impacts on results. It is a major criticism that I have with the process, and in general with how we treat politics (basically as a sport) in this country.