Dracula 发表于 2016-3-7 06:10
NET FAVORABLE RATING AMONG HISPANIC VOTERS(% FAVORABLE - % UNFAVORABLE)
Clinton: +37%
anyway，这个事情3月15日左右就差不多清楚了。不争了，坐下来看戏就行。
另外，非法移民这个事情，对合法移民其实很简单。不管怎样，绿卡/工作机会应该优先保证合法移民。这个是合法移民的基本诉求，这样的规则不应该破坏。这个保证了，合法移民就不会 care 非法移民到底怎样了。
布隆伯格宣布今年不参加总统选举{:198:}
海天 发表于 2016-3-7 05:39
如果提升到这样的高度（第六政党系统的终结），那还真值得好好关注一下初选
加拿大这里喜欢川普的看起 ...
刚看到的
This isn’t about winning the presidency in 2016 anymore. This is about something much bigger. Every 50 or 60 years, parties undergo a transformation. The G.O.P. is undergoing one right now. What happens this year will set the party’s trajectory for decades.
Since Goldwater/Reagan, the G.O.P. has been governed by a free-market, anti-government philosophy. But over the ensuing decades new problems have emerged. First, the economy has gotten crueler. Technology is displacing workers and globalization is dampening wages. Second, the social structure has atomized and frayed, especially among the less educated. Third, demography is shifting.
Orthodox Republicans, seeing no positive role for government, have had no affirmative agenda to help people deal with these new problems. Occasionally some conservative policy mavens have proposed such an agenda — anti-poverty programs, human capital policies, wage subsidies and the like — but the proposals were killed, usually in the House, by the anti-government crowd.
The 1980s anti-government orthodoxy still has many followers; Ted Cruz is the extreme embodiment of this tendency. But it has grown increasingly rigid, unresponsive and obsolete.
Along comes Donald Trump offering to replace it and change the nature of the G.O.P. He tramples all over the anti-government ideology of modern Republicanism. He would replace the free-market orthodoxy with authoritarian nationalism.
He offers to use government on behalf of the American working class, but in negative and defensive ways: to build walls, to close trade, to ban outside groups, to smash enemies. According to him, America’s problems aren’t caused by deep structural shifts. They’re caused by morons and parasites. The Great Leader will take them down.
If the G.O.P. is going to survive as a decent and viable national party, it can’t cling to the fading orthodoxy Cruz represents. But it can’t shift to ugly Trumpian nationalism, either. It has to find a third alternative: limited but energetic use of government to expand mobility and widen openness and opportunity. That is what Kasich, Rubio, Paul Ryan and others are stumbling toward.
Amid all the vulgarity and pettiness, that is what is being fought over this month: going back to the past, veering into an ugly future, or finding a third way. This is something worth fighting for, worth burning the boats behind you for.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/08/opinion/its-not-too-late.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fdavid-brooks
Dracula 发表于 2016-3-8 03:24
刚看到的
前面几段都不错，到了倒数第二段：
That is what Kasich, Rubio, Paul Ryan and others are stumbling toward
Kasich maybe, 可我看不出来Rubio和Ryan是怎样在stumble towards it:dizzy:
qyangroo 发表于 2016-3-4 07:05
看看两次大战，在世界经济普遍不景气下，内部矛盾通过战争转移外国是标准做法。
希拉里背后是金融加军火 ...
＋1
没错
澹泊敬诚 发表于 2016-3-6 15:00
退选的人在之前那些州里的的票怎么处理 不计入总票数 还是大伙按比例分？ ...
刚看到纽约时报上的一篇文章对共和党全国代表大会规定的介绍。我以前写的有些错误。文章里的一些图表我贴不过来，下面是原文的链接。
How Trump Could Be Blocked at a Contested Republican Convention
Dracula 发表于 2016-3-9 14:27
刚看到纽约时报上的一篇文章对共和党全国代表大会规定的介绍。我以前写的有些错误。文章里的一些图表我贴 ...
多谢伯爵
看来8个州超过50%肯定得改了 要不就剩Trump和Cruz了
Ben Carson endorses Trump。
中国网友叫他们医患组合。。。
本帖最后由 伽南香 于 2016-3-11 23:25 编辑
燕庐敕 发表于 2016-3-7 11:09
才注意到师姪的头像是个幼年小猎豹。
{:188:}我觉得是头非常帅气的小豹子，很认真努力的样子。所以就选来当头像了
海天 发表于 2016-3-7 05:39
如果提升到这样的高度（第六政党系统的终结），那还真值得好好关注一下初选
加拿大这里喜欢川普的看起 ...
刚看到的
Conservatives Face an Impossible Choice
They can back Trump, or run a candidate of their own—but either way, they’ll bring this era of American politics to a close.
DAVID FRUM
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/the-risk-of-the-third-party-solution/473499/
The accelerating likelihood that Donald Trump will win the Republican presidential nomination outright thrusts an agonizing dilemma on Republican politicians. Leave aside their own personal feelings about Trump. The most likely consequence of a Trump nomination is a severe Republican defeat in November, and not a defeat for Trump alone. Some significant number of Republicans just won’t vote for Trump. When people don’t want to vote for the top of a ticket, they often stay home altogether, dooming every close race lower down on the ticket.
Republicans have Senate seats at risk in Florida, Illinois, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—sufficient to put the Republican majority in question. The House looks safer, as does the Republican hold on state governments, but who knows? Trump is most objectionable to the most reliable and loyal Republican voters, exactly the kind of people who vote Republican for every office all the way down to county commissioner. Perhaps the very most reliable and most loyal will show up no matter what, skip the top line, and otherwise vote the straight ticket. Or perhaps not.
So talk is rising in the Republican world of some kind of independent candidacy, using some minor-party ballot line. It’s hoped that such a candidate—Senator Ben Sasse from Nebraska? Mitt Romney?—would offer anti-Trump Republicans a reason to show up to vote, and thus save the Senate.
That’s the hope. But the third-party solution has risks, too, bigger risks than anyone is calculating right now.
When people bolt their party, the party changes behind them.
Take, for example, the Progressive Republicans. When they bolted the party to follow Teddy Roosevelt’s independent campaign in 1912, they left conservatives in control of the Republican apparatus. Before 1912, it was very much an open question whether the reformist movements of the 20th century would find their home in the Republican or Democratic Party. After 1912, the most important of those reforms would be carried out at the federal level by Democrats, and opposed by Republicans. When Republicans regained the White House in 1920, it would be under the leadership of the man who’d delivered the nominating speech for William Howard Taft at the 1912 convention. The young people who’d looked to Teddy Roosevelt for change in 1912 would in many cases end up as followers of his cousin Franklin in 1932—most notably, the former Bull Moose who ran most of the early New Deal, Interior Secretary Harold Ickes.
Or consider the example of George Wallace. When he bolted from the Democratic Party in 1968, he offered downscale Southern whites the same political mix they’d supported since Reconstruction: populist economics joined to racial conservatism. His bolt was intended to frighten national Democrats to jettison Kennedy-Johnson liberalism and return to something like the old ways. Instead, the 1968 election confirmed the Democrats as the party of black interests and black votes. Wallace accelerated the great political realignment of the 1970s: minorities and highly educated whites moving into the Democratic party; downscale whites leaving it, especially in the South.
Or take Ross Perot’s 1992 insurgency. The Republican Party dominated presidential politics from 1968 through 1988, winning every election except 1976, and gaining in 1972 and 1984 two outright landslides: 60.7 percent and 58.8 percent of the vote, respectively.
But in 1992, Perot smashed the old Nixon-Reagan coalition. He won over 20 percent of the vote in the state of California—a solid Republican state before 1992, and never again thereafter. His very best state—Maine—had likewise been a Republican stronghold before 1992, and would never vote Republican again. Perot exposed Republican vulnerabilities in the new purple states of the South, notably North Carolina, where Bill Clinton finished within less than one point of George H.W. Bush.
The white voters most resistant to the Perot message were those who attended church most often. Post-1992, the GOP redefined its base vote in religious rather than economic terms. And while that redefinition reestablished the party’s competitiveness, it also denied it the majority support it had enjoyed pre-Perot. Only once after 1992, in 2004, would the Republican win more than 50 percent of the vote in a presidential election—and then only barely.
Which brings us to the present day.
An anti-Trump bolt will appeal to ideological conservatives, to libertarian leaners, and to the most religiously observant Republicans: what Republican strategist Grover Norquist has called the “leave us alone coalition.” What happens if that coalition does not run strongly in 2016? If it picks up something more like John Anderson’s 1980 6.6 percent of the vote, rather than Ross Perot’s nearly 20 percent? John Anderson ran as a liberal Republican who could not accept Ronald Reagan’s leadership—a group we have not heard much from since 1980. That’s the risk of political tests of strength: Sometimes you lose, and afterward nobody fears you ever again.
A “true conservative” independent race for president may offer anti-Trump Republicans a way to vote their consciences without endorsing Hillary Clinton. But it may also expose “true conservatism” as a smaller factor in U.S. presidential politics than it’s been regarded as since the advent of the Tea Party. And it will leave the instrumentalities of the GOP in the hands of people who were willing to work with Trump, and whose interest post-Trump-defeat will be in adapting his legacy to the future rather than jettisoning it.
Which is not to argue against it. Sometimes a political movement must and should go down fighting. Many conservatives will feel that way about opposing Trump in November 2016. The alternative—ticket-splitting between Hillary Clinton at the top and Republicans down-ballot—also carries daunting dangers. But whatever is decided by conservatives who refuse to board the Trump train, that decision is best made without illusions and false hopes. This election closes a long period in American politics. Whatever comes next, that period will not return.
Rubio 推退选，这下建制派能团结在Ted麾下咩～～
tanis 发表于 2016-3-15 16:30
Rubio 推退选，这下建制派能团结在Ted麾下咩～～
所以才叫搞笑，要是没有Trump, Ted Cruz就是insurgent, 这下成主流派了{:191:}
holycow 发表于 2016-3-15 20:05
所以才叫搞笑，要是没有Trump, Ted Cruz就是insurgent, 这下成主流派了
Between the rock and a very hard place...
眼看要赢伯爵100爱元啦。。。
{:190:}
MacArthur 发表于 2016-3-15 18:23
Between the rock and a very hard place...
眼看要赢伯爵100爱元啦。。。
啊，赌局在哪里？
本帖最后由 holycow 于 2016-3-15 18:44 编辑
holycow 发表于 2016-3-15 18:25
啊，赌局在哪里？
他未必能代表过半，先不要太早数鸡蛋{:187:}
@MacArthur
holycow 发表于 2016-3-15 21:43
他未必能代表过半，先不要太早数鸡蛋
@MacArthur
嘛叫赌呵。。。 希大妈那样的也不值当开盘呵。。。
{:190:}
川普冻蒜！
本帖最后由 sweeter 于 2016-3-16 15:50 编辑
在知乎看到个不算段子的段子：卡西奇赢了自己的州，卢比奥只赢了自己的镇。
{:191:}
MacArthur 发表于 2016-3-16 10:23
Between the rock and a very hard place...
眼看要赢伯爵100爱元啦。。。
哈哈。。我现在觉得川普都能把希大妈干掉。。现在米帝群众的逆反心理很严重啊。。阶级矛盾乌泱乌泱的。财阀越支持大妈，川普越能加分。。知识分子越支持大妈，低学历的老白工薪越支持川普。。。这都是老左们天天忽悠群众反智反智。反倒最后，才发现受伤的是自己。现在再想教育群众，已经来不及啦。哈哈哈。。。
王不留 发表于 2016-3-16 09:49
哈哈。。我现在觉得川普都能把希大妈干掉。。现在米帝群众的逆反心理很严重啊。。阶级矛盾乌泱乌泱的。财 ...
未必。。。 逆反心理严重只是白人。。。 吃福利的黑人、Latino们还是很希望希大妈上台，继续用钱堵嘴，讨好他们。。。
所以进入普选阶段，希大妈反而需要高投票率 -- 如果她能鼓动起当年奥八黑一半的投票热情，Trump肯定就没戏了。。。
普选期，Trump需要的反而是低投票率 -- 黑人和Latino们的投票热情普遍不如白人高涨。。。