How does my complacency affect the degree to which Hillary pantses her opponent next fall?
Now if she gets overconfident, that’s a problem.
Now available - your very own Trump pinata. I gotta get one of these. 
Not sure what that proves, but whatever.
I can go all in for 7 No Trump, at a cost of $0.
… and I believe the latest poll shows Trump’s national numbers in Republican primaries the highest yet: 33%. 13% ahead of the nearest competitior - Carson at 20%.
And Trump and Carson together are at 53%. Doesn’t leave much room for other candidates.
Maybe the inmates have indeed seized control of the asylum, maybe not. The first of the vanity candidates has already dropped out, let’s see what happens when the field is winnowed down by about half. We all know that Jindal, Kasich, Christie, Paul, and Santorum aren’t going to win. When they figure it out and drop out, let’s see how the dynamics of the race change. About the only way this could get more fun to watch (in a train wreck sort of way) would be for Mittens to heed the call and jump back in.
The thing is, when candidates drop out because nobody’s supporting them, you’re not going to have much of a change in the dynamics.
It’s really more a question of who sucks the support from whom to force them out. And it’s still Trump and Carson sucking up everyone’s support.
The way I figure it, Carson gets Santorum’s and Jindal’s supporters (+1%), Bush or Rubio get Christie’s, Perry’s, and Graham’s support (+3% between them), and Kasich, Paul, Huckabee, and Fiorina stay in the race a bit longer. And nobody notices when Pataki and Gilmore fold their tents.
I think Mittens is hoping that nobody gets enough delegates for a first-ballot win, and wiping away a tear, the GOP turns to him for salvation.
It’s scary how much better he looks than any of these clowns. But he isn’t going to sully himself by running for the nomination this time. Either it’s handed to him, or he stays home with his car elevator. 
I wonder if anyone’s still talking about Trump’s support having a ‘ceiling.’
And 25% ahead of the nearest rival not named Carson.
Maybe that’s better expressed as a multiple - he’s got 4x the support of any of his rivals besides Carson.
I think the dynamics change when the vanity candidates drop out and from a field of say 6-10 the voters get serious with actual votes. It’s one thing to say you’re for Trump in September when there is no commitment on your part and no consequences for what you tell a pollster, it’s another to walk into a voting booth or caucus with the responsibility of actually choosing a candidate. I think a lot of the current Trump supporters will get cold feet when the time comes to cast real ballots.
It’s amazing that anyone still thinks that his one vote actually matters. Can you cite me one presidential primary in one state, ever, that was decided by one vote?
You don’t vote in order to “choose a candidate” - that’s ridiculous. You vote because it makes you feel good. For some, the “feel good” part is the delusion that they are actually “choosing a candidate”, but it still remains a delusion.
It makes people feel good to support Trump. That’s why he’s getting the support and that is why he will get the votes.
No single vote has ever made the difference in any election, because how do you know which individual’s vote broke the tie?
You vote because your one vote works with other single votes to make the 3,020,113 that wins the election.
I’m a left-wing Californian. I can confidently not vote, knowing that (1) my state will vote for the lefternmost of the two mainstream candidates, and (2) therefore, my state isn’t really in play. But it’s not because my vote doesn’t matter: it’s playing the percentages. If somebody, perhaps somebody who is being paid to post propaganda on message boards, convinces enough left-leaning voters not to vote, but keeps right-leaning voters in the game, that could change things. Not by a single vote, which is ludicrous in a country of hundreds of millions, but by shifting the electorate until it represents a different breakdown than the potential electorate (i.e. American adults).
Well you can do this…
Take away one vote and see if it changes the result. If it doesn’t, just discard it. Then take away another vote and see if the result changes, if not, discard it… keep doing this and sooner or later you will find the one vote that decided the whole thing!
I don’t think any voter steps into the booth with the expectations that all the other voters will cancel each other out and that he/she alone will choose the winner. But the process has a soberness that merely talking to pollsters several months out lacks. Some Republicans are going to back out of a Trump vote on somber reflection of imagining him with the launch codes, others may be thinking strategically in terms of who might best beat Hillary. I’d love to be proven wrong and have the GOP nominate Trump as their sacrificial lamb.
We did that in 2000 to get President Bush. You’re welcome, but I hope you don’t mind if we don’t do it again?
If one side got 3,000,124 and the other one got 3,000,125, and you voted for the other one, if you didn’t go and vote, it would have been a tie.
If one side got 3,000,124 and the other 3,001,124, you going to vote didn’t matter at all. Except for the warm and fuzzy feeling of participation.
But voting (and/or telling others that you voted) can encourage others to vote. For those of us who are bad liars, or who don’t want to lie, voting is necessary to have this beneficial effect.
I understand the math; I don’t understand what makes my vote the tiebreaking one, rather than my friend’s vote. And if I hadn’t gone to vote that day, well, all the what-if scenarios are equally meaningless, because they didn’t happen.
Once again, that “somber reflection” or “strategic thinking” requires at its basis the delusion of thinking that your vote may influence the primary. Granted, there are a lot of such delusional people, but most aren’t.
Most people vote because either they like the candidate, they don’t care about the candidate but they hate the other candidate(s), or because they have been brainwashed by the concerted effort of the election propaganda that it is their duty. In either of the cases, it just equates to some kind of warm/fuzzy feeling.
Trump is not an expert at domestic policy, foreign policy, or political infighting. What he is an expert at is having people feel warm&fuzzy toward him (no, definitely not all people, but an awful lot of them). I am not sure the exact prescription he follows, but then if I knew it, I guess I’d run for office (Nah I wouldn’t).
Someone’s must.