US Presidential Election etc

Following on from Jeb Bush's recent tweet here's a rather wonderful little poem.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

(written by @brian_bilston)

Interesting use of the word "wonderful".

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

This did not happen. Well it did as far as the Trump quote but not the actual anecdote.

Jeb quits.

Indeed he does. Clinton v trump ?

No GOPper has won since 1928 (!) without one of the names Bush or Nixon on the ticket as either Pres or vice-Pres.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

No GOPper has won since 1928 (!) without one of the names Bush or Nixon on the ticket as either Pres or vice-Pres.

That's pretty much as irrelevant as your betting graphic, plus the "either Pres or vice-Pres" bit is redundant once you have referred to "the ticket".

You give smart arsery a bad name.

Remarkable how bullies use "the silent majority" as their justification.

Dick Trickle wrote:

Remarkable how bullies use "the silent majority" as their justification.

Why is it the same old losers never get it?

Freedom of speech mbreaks both ways and these muppets trying to disrupt Trumpy's campaign are giving him free publicity that money simply couldn't buy.

Freedom of speech, as a separate entity from all other life has always made me chuckle.
There has never been any such thing. It's a myth, a play on words.
It's Spring. listen to the birds tweeting. One tweet in the wrong place, and there's a robin on your case. Everyone knows the score.

Lord Biro wrote:

Freedom of speech, as a separate entity from all other life has always made me chuckle.
There has never been any such thing. It's a myth, a play on words.
It's Spring. listen to the birds tweeting. One tweet in the wrong place, and there's a robin on your case. Everyone knows the score.

Top gibberish Biccy.

Lord Biro wrote:

Freedom of speech, as a separate entity from all other life has always made me chuckle.
There has never been any such thing. It's a myth, a play on words.
It's Spring. listen to the birds tweeting. One tweet in the wrong place, and there's a robin on your case. Everyone knows the score.

Wonderful stuff.

The above, of course, is apoll and they are always dodgy.

Here's actual votes cast in the Primaries.

Clinton  6.6 million
Trump  5.7 mill
Cruz 4.2 mill
Bernie 4.2 mill
Rubio 3.1 mill
Kasich 1.5 mill

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

The above, of course, is apoll and they are always dodgy.

Here's actual votes cast in the Primaries.

Clinton  6.6 million
Trump  5.7 mill
Cruz 4.2 mill
Bernie 4.2 mill
Rubio 3.1 mill
Kasich 1.5 mill

What "above"?

As usual Franny posts something of little relevance and one can only wonder at what banal, obfuscatory, point he is trying to make.

I think he is referring to the post above his on the screen as one looks at it.

seadog wrote:

I think he is referring to the post above his on the screen as one looks at it.

Or proof as he likes to call it.

seadog wrote:

I think he is referring to the post above his on the screen as one looks at it.

Which has mysteriously appeared for me now, wtf is that all about?

If you look, Lord Tis, it often becomes possible to see.

Amsterdamage wrote:

seadog wrote:

I think he is referring to the post above his on the screen as one looks at it.

Or proof as he likes to call it.

There you go again putting words into my mouth to create a straw man you can knock down.

It's not proof of anything but it is an accurate précis of the US primaries to date.

Actually I like to call it "data" which if considered carefully and interpreted properly can lead to "insight" and thence, if we're really lucky, "wisdom" and from there, if we're really getting wildly ambitious, "truth".

From a tiny acorn a mighty oak can be grown - but not every time admittedly.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Amsterdamage wrote:

seadog wrote:

I think he is referring to the post above his on the screen as one looks at it.

Or proof as he likes to call it.

There you go again putting words into my mouth to create a straw man you can knock down.

It's not proof of anything but it is an accurate précis of the US primaries to date.

Actually I like to call it "data" which if considered carefully and interpreted properly can lead to "insight" and thence, if we're really lucky, "wisdom" and from there, if we're really getting wildly ambitious, "truth".

From a tiny acorn a mighty oak can be grown - but not every time admittedly.

You would need to install some real backbone to make a "straw man" out of Franny.

The figures and chart you have posted give next to no useful information, particularly not the polling chart, polls 8 months before an election are notoriously inaccurate and now suffer from institutionalised herding. A floating average of polls which may well have been based on entirely different assumptions is pretty pointless, to know anything you would have to look in detail at the raw data, a task way beyond you or I suspect anyone else likely to read these tomes.

The race will not be decided until way after the party conventions, while Hills appears to many over here to be the more considered candidate she is in fact an absolute red neck, nut bag of a sleaze ball. Trumpy, if he wins the inevitable run off with Cruz, will be in with a definite chance, the Murkan electorate is truly bored with the establishment and has huge appeal to the white working class Democrats who swarmed to support Reagan back in the day.

Should it become a Hills/Trumpy race then I feel it to be very likely that a third party candidate, and maybe even a fourth, might get involved.

Whichever way it goes down Trump will get a massive advantage from his high profile, estimates suggest he may well have had upwards of a billion dollars of 'free' publicity through the primaries, money does buy Presidents.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Amsterdamage wrote:

seadog wrote:

I think he is referring to the post above his on the screen as one looks at it.

Or proof as he likes to call it.

There you go again putting words into my mouth to create a straw man you can knock down.

It's not proof of anything but it is an accurate précis of the US primaries to date.

Actually I like to call it "data" which if considered carefully and interpreted properly can lead to "insight" and thence, if we're really lucky, "wisdom" and from there, if we're really getting wildly ambitious, "truth".

From a tiny acorn a mighty oak can be grown - but not every time admittedly.

Data, insight, wisdom, truth. Really?

That hasn't really worked out on the 22 pages of the Brexit thread Franny. In fact, despite all your canvassing, all that appears to have changed opinion-wise is that Pepsi Pete has gone from 'undecided' to 'leave'.