It's happening.

After Rubio's better than expected showing in Iowa, he became The Establishment Candidate to break free from the GOP limbo brought forth by Jeb!'s dismal performance on the campaign trail. He proved himself to the party that he's capable of organizing and getting out the vote -- in addition to not being Cruz or Trump. Even though he came in third, he gained the most. In essence, he won Iowa.

The Week has a nice piece on Rubio and what this means for him, as well as the rest of the race:

"Pressure to drop out will fall hard on candidates who are assumed to be blocking Rubio's path. That means Bush, Kasich, and Chris Christie. Rubio has been talking up his electability. The hypersensitive search for a "Rubio moment" existed for a reason; the political and media class believes Rubio is the Republicans' best shot at defeating Clinton. Her last name and her '90s-style, DNC-inspired political brand evoke America's past. Rubio looks like the America that is coming into being, built by the post-1965 wave of immigration. Rubio wants to make that pitch: "Yesterday is over."

The other reason that Rubio-mania will take off is less inspiring. Rallying around Rubio will just be too strong a temptation for the GOP's elite and the most established organs of the conservative movement. Rubio's candidacy is essentially based on the premise that nothing from the George W. Bush era has to change for the Republican Party.

Nominating Rubio is a statement that the party does not need a course correction. It doesn't need to stand even more firmly with social conservatives or fight with greater zeal and brinksmanship, as Cruz has argued. Nominating Rubio is a statement that the party does not need to find a less aggressive or less interventionist foreign policy, as Trump, Rand Paul, and (to a lesser degree) Cruz have argued. Nominating Rubio is a statement that the party does not need to offer any policy changes to attract working-class whites, as the candidacies of Trump, Mike Huckabee, and Rick Santorum have, to varying degrees, suggested. Instead, they just have to offer Rubio's story of gumption and rising from under his working-class parents' knees."

Politico also did a write-up:

"With the GOP hierarchy warming to Rubio, the squeeze is suddenly on struggling establishment contenders Chris Christie, John Kasich and Bush, who must convince party higher-ups that they have a reason to continue on. On Tuesday morning, top Bush donors and finance officials held two conference calls to discuss the path forward. On one, according to one participant, there was an acknowledgement of the campaign’s increasingly long odds and an agreement that, barring a strong Bush showing in New Hampshire, many Bush donors would soon bolt to Rubio."

Today, the endorsements really came through. Santorum, after dropping out, endorsed Rubio. Matt Salmon, co-founder of the House Freedom Caucus (AKA Tea Party 2), endorsed Rubio. Pat Toomey, PA Senator, endorsed Rubio. Tim Scott, SC Rep, endorsed Rubio. It goes on and on.

Rubio has officially surpassed Jeb! in 538's endorsement tracker. In other words, he has immense momentum and is on track to securing the nomination. Expect his numbers in NH to rise significantly. Conversely, expect Trump's to crater.

edit: this is particularly good news for me because 1) this all but guarantees I will win my bet with @SuperUltraAusterity (I'm really looking foward to my membership!), and 2) I have a prediction on the line.

edit 2: I've also updated my blog entry on the Iowa caucuses, which includes official delegate counts and some entertaining pieces of media.

Honestly, looking at things, I feel that whichever candidates we end up with, I feel that the outcome will be bad regardless. My preferred candidate is John Kasich, given his moderate views, but he seems silent enough for you to hear a pin drop. But I have a feeling that we are going to be stuck with the choice of two extremists. Among the leading candidates:

Donald Trump: We see him repeatedly target Muslims, and he shows that the GOP will be strictly a white person party. Often his lack of experience will show, and he might make Dubya look smart by comparison.

Ted Cruz: He is basically the voice of the Tea Party. I wouldn't be surprised if he would actually cause a debt default when he doesn't get his way. And he will try to abruptly shut down Obamacare, the Iran deal, and other Obama-era policies. You can't do that. You need to look into what works and what doesn't, and make changes from that.

Marco Rubio: He is also a Tea Party guy, and I feel like he would be a Ted Cruz Lite. I feel a little less worried about him vs Cruz, but I still find him too extreme for my liking.

Hillary Clinton: I say this regardless of the Benghazi case. I feel like she would likely be Obama's third term. Given what I heard recently regarding the military, I cannot see her shifting away from Obama's policy regarding ISIS. And his policies gave ISIS plenty of room to grow. I fear that her plan would end up giving ISIS plenty of time to grow even stronger.

Bernie Sanders: He sounds further left than Obama. I can see an even stronger PC movement and more "shove down your throat" tactics.

Why are we stuck with radicalism on both sides? What happened to the center?

I lived in Ohio during the beginning of Kasich's tenure. He did a nice job cleaning up Strickland's mess. I'd like to see a Rubio-Kasich ticket myself.

There are two major problems I see on the Democratic side. The GOP has no shortage of choices this year, but Hillary Clinton sucked all the air out of the Dems' room when she said she was running. As a result, no real legitimate candidates showed up. There are people in the Democratic party who are either rising stars or who are otherwise electable. Kristen Gillibrand comes to mind, though I don't think she's ready for prime time yet. But I think you get my point. Once she declared, everyone else said "nope." Michael Bloomberg may launch an independent bid, but who knows. I don't think he would unless Sanders got the nomination because he's basically Clinton lite.

Secondly is the age of the Democratic nominees. You have two old folks as opposed to the GOP's varying age range. Rubio is 44, for example. Meanwhile, the Dems have two relics from the Baby Boomer days. Gen Xers and Millennials are not going to be able to relate to them well. Hillary has already proven she doesn't get it with a series of gaffes, not to mention downright pandering (e.g. the emoji stunt).

Another issue is relatability. Let's say it comes down to Rubio and Clinton. We all know Rubio has some issues, but if people are trying to decide based on relatability, who do you think they'll go for: the guy who finally paid off a shitload of student loans, or a 60-something "flat broke" woman with eight houses who believes she is entitled to the presidency by dynastic right?

The more that I look at the candidates, the more flawed that all of them seem to be even by presidential candidate standards. Let's start with the GOP.

Ted Cruz: He's basically the Tea Party's voice if not de facto leader at this point, and considering how much negativity that they have gotten over the last couple of years, it's hard to really imagine that he would have any degree of bipartisan relationship with the non-TP Republicans and especially the Democrats. At best, he would be a do-nothing president. That's not including the fact that a lot of his stances are Bible-based or pretty close to that, which is a big no-no considering what happened with Bush 43.

Donald Trump: Quite simply, he's a loudmouth with an ego that won't allow him to back down when the situation calls for it. Not to mention his obvious lack of political experience will come into play sooner than later, especially when it comes to his rhetoric on immigration and Muslims. There is a time and place to tell it like it is, but the more you do it, the more people starting getting angry about telling people what to do or stop caring.

Marco Rubio: I got to admit, there really isn't that much I know about him or his policies. I would say that the age and experience factor would be to his detriment, but then again, Obama was just like this 8 years ago, and we all know what happened there. Since Kasich is all but done in this race, {though until he officially drops out, you never say never} Rubio is the alternative candidate to the Bible-based Cruz and loudmouth Trump. A Rubio/Kasich ticket might just be the best ticket the GOP can produce, and I would seriously consider voting for them just on Kasich's track record with Ohio.

As for the Democrats, Hilary Clinton is well-liked among the old-school Democratic crowds and corporate America, which aren't exactly the best ringing endorsements that the average voter is going to have a heavy degree of skepticism about. It just seems like she's more out of touch by the day, but will most likely win the Dem ticket because the alternatives are either untested or nobody outside of fringe voters wants, which gets me to Bernie Sanders.

Bernie Sanders is someone who says all the right things and appeals to populism and to most of Gen Y, but they aren't exactly the most reliable voter block to begin with, and outside of those folks, there is little support for him. Granted, doing well in Iowa does help him, but Iowa and New Hampshire {which he'll win because of home-field advantage} aren't exactly the biggest states nor are they telling signs of a future presidential candidate. Plus, a lot of his policies will not even get very far with Congress without watering them down heavily, not to mention that the Republicans and a lot of rich people will shun him as a pariah because of his social democratic leanings. Also, at 74 years old, he's no spring chicken and the stress of being the leader of the free world does take its toll on everybody.

Quite simply, outside of Gen Y and the hippie types, he's virtually unelectable, socialism is something that most people don't really want in America, and we have little on his foreign policy to go with.

If ever there was an election for a third-party candidate to pull a Ross Perot, this might just be the election, whether it comes from the Libertarian, Green or even Independent party.

At 2/4/16 11:56 PM, orangebomb wrote: If ever there was an election for a third-party candidate to pull a Ross Perot, this might just be the election

Michael Bloomberg's been talking about it, positioning himself as a moderate Independent in a potential Sanders v. Trump election.

At 2/4/16 01:40 AM, Feoric wrote: It's happening.

After Rubio's better than expected showing in Iowa, he became The Establishment Candidate to break free from the GOP limbo brought forth by Jeb!'s dismal performance on the campaign trail. He proved himself to the party that he's capable of organizing and getting out the vote -- in addition to not being Cruz or Trump. Even though he came in third, he gained the most. In essence, he won Iowa.

The thing is that he became the establishment candidate at a huge cost. It's tough to say that he's even an "establishment" candidate at this point considering how much pandering to the Trump crowd he had to do. Rubio reacted to Trump by being more like him, as did Carson and others. Jeb didn't quite do that, but Rubio certainly didn't get there by being moderate.

I know some people are turned off by the idea of another Clinton in the White House, if only because we already had two Bushes in the White House showing it's just the same thing over. Then again, you have to admit it would be cool to have a female President, but of course, we should look at the credentials.

I have to mention that if Hillary is elected, it will be the first time two Presidents have had sex with each other.

At 2/7/16 12:07 PM, tyler2513 wrote: This was a major problem with the '08 election, people were so wrapped up with reaching some sort of "progressive milestone" with the presidency they failed to realize what exactly they were supporting. Could you image if a tranny ran for office? There would be tons of progressives jumping on board just because of the idea of having something so "progressive" in office.

This is a common stereotype, but now seeing Bernie go far at the expense of Clinton I don't think you can say that's true anymore. All those millennial progressives who rallied behind Obama are now rallying behind Bernie, an old white guy (well he's Jewish, but even that) , at the expense of Hillary. Some female Democrats tried to guilt people to support Hillary, saying that you're not a true feminist if you don't support her, but it's really not working. Liberals prefer a Democratic Socialist, to an establishment candidate regardless of race or background.

At 2/3/16 12:22 AM, DoctorStrongbad wrote:

At 2/2/16 04:35 PM, Razerfist wrote: From Sander's perspective I don't think he called this a loss. Not really a win either, but seriously what he just pulled off was unimaginable 10+ years ago.

I support Sanders and hope he can defeat Hillary. If not him, she may actually make it to the white house.

That's a scary thought.

It's New Hampshire's turn! My news post on the event can be found here:

http://feoric.newgrounds.com/news/post/953880

Primaries are, as explained in the OP, much less complicated than caucuses, so there's very little to explain here (thank god!). Here's the rundown on the most general info you need to know if you want to get a better understanding of what will happen today:

For starters, New Hampshire's state laws require them to be the so-called "First in the Nation" when it comes to the primary contests. Now, you may be wondering how that can be, since Iowa came first. Well, the difference is that Iowa is the first of the caucuses, whereas New Hampshire is the first of the primaries. It's boring, pedantic, and petty, but the parties have agreed to it so whatever!

The polls open in most locations between 7-8 AM* -- state law requires all polls to be open no later than 11 AM. With the exception of the polling locations in the cities, the polls close typically close at 7 PM -- state law requires all polls to close at 8 PM. Between 7-8 PM is when the fun starts and we get our first batch of results.

*there is an obscure exception to this: "...communities with fewer than 100 voters can get permission to open their polls at midnight and close them as soon as all registered voters have cast their ballots." [source]

So three little towns (Hart's Location, Millsfield and Dixville Notch) have already voted! You can see their results here -- they'll be the only 3 colored squares before 7 PM.

The process itself is pretty simple. For the Republicans, there are 20 National Convention delegates up for grabs. The delegates are bound to the candidates based on their performance statewide. Each candidate must reach a 10% threshold in order to qualify for delegate allocation. Any leftover delegates not awarded to a candidate automatically go to the candidate with the most votes. Easy!

For the Democrats, it is a little more involved. In total, there are 32 National Convention delegates; however, only 24 of them are bound to the candidates based on the performance statewide. The Dems have a higher viability threshold: 15% to the GOP's 10. 8 delegates are divided into 5 National Convention delegates and 3 pledged PLEOs (aka Party Leaders and Elected Officials aka Superdelegates); these people become bound to a candidate based on their performance statewide. The other 24 delegates up for grabs consist of 16 district delegates (pledged proportionally, this time based on votes in each of the NH's 2 congressional districts as opposed to statewide) and 8 at-large (unpleged) delegates, which consist of 5 DNC members, 2 members of Congress (1 Senator, 1 Representative), and 1 Governor.

tl;dr somebody else will figure this shit out for you, just watch the news coverage

According to the FiveThirtyEight live coverage, the bean counters in NH have not yet determined who will be in third place. Three-way tie between Rubio, Bush, and Cruz.

I am happy to see Kasich did well though. I like the guy and his policies. Hopefully this will encourage people to give him a second look, as Trump sucked all the air out of the room before.

Also, random thought I've had: Why has Trump never attacked Rubio? He's been going full salvo on his other opponents, but other than the water comments, there's really been nothing about Rubio. There has to be a reason.

Well so much for those predictions everyone had after Iowa. Rubio is behind Bush and Kasich seems to be leading the moderate crowd while Trump still won overall. So much for Trump "not having the ability to get people out to vote for him" and Rubio "becoming the lead moderate".

At 2/9/16 10:49 PM, Warforger wrote: Well so much for those predictions everyone had after Iowa. Rubio is behind Bush and Kasich seems to be leading the moderate crowd while Trump still won overall. So much for Trump "not having the ability to get people out to vote for him" and Rubio "becoming the lead moderate".

I was wrong! Which is good, because that means the race will be much more interesting than I thought it would be.

At 2/9/16 09:57 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: According to the FiveThirtyEight live coverage, the bean counters in NH have not yet determined who will be in third place. Three-way tie between Rubio, Bush, and Cruz.

I am happy to see Kasich did well though. I like the guy and his policies. Hopefully this will encourage people to give him a second look, as Trump sucked all the air out of the room before.

Also, random thought I've had: Why has Trump never attacked Rubio? He's been going full salvo on his other opponents, but other than the water comments, there's really been nothing about Rubio. There has to be a reason.

Trump has attacked Rubio in the past, calling him a child and inexperienced. Whether or not he's been doing that recently, I really don't know.

I haven't read any of this shit but I have an announcement to make.

TODAY I REGISTERED TO VOTE!!!!!!! YAYYYYYYY!!!!!

At 2/10/16 06:24 PM, MonochromeMonitor wrote: I haven't read any of this shit but I have an announcement to make.

TODAY I REGISTERED TO VOTE!!!!!!! YAYYYYYYY!!!!!

Good for you. Back in my government class in senior year, I remember those of us who were old enough to vote could register for 10 points. That would go towards a 120-point project that needed to be completed to pass the class. Hey, there's one way to get people to register.

On that note, I need to change my party alignment so I can vote in the primaries.

As for the thread: Christie and Fiorina have finally seen the writing on the wall. Fiorina dropping out will not have much of an effect on the race. Christie, however, will. Not only will he not pull voters away from Rubio or the other establishment candidates, but he also won't be there to attack folks at the debates.

At this rate, I think we will need to go to Super Tuesday to get more clarity in the GOP side. South Carolina is full of evangelicals, but the rest of the states aren't exactly Cruz-friendly, so I don't see him doing too well. Carson is a dead man walking. Bush showed some life in the last debate and in New Hampshire, but he needs to prove that yes, he can fix it in order to have a shot past Super Tuesday. That being said, it's a three-way fight for Trump, Cruz, and Rubio for the top spot. However, the longer Kasich and Bush remain in the race, unless their viability shoots up, their presence increases the chances of a brokered convention.

On the Democratic side, Sanders needs to prove he can win with populations that are not white millennials. Blacks tend to favor Clinton. On that note, her recent trip to Flint was a very shrewd move. It basically said "hey, black people, I care about you." Whether or not that's true is up for debate, but appearances matter.

At 2/10/16 10:21 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: That being said, it's a three-way fight for Trump, Cruz, and Rubio for the top spot. However, the longer Kasich and Bush remain in the race, unless their viability shoots up, their presence increases the chances of a brokered convention.

I agree with you, I cannot wait for Super Tuesday to get here and hopefully see some of the hangers-on fall off. I'm a big fan of Kasich, but if he cannot turn NH into more states he's toast. (Duh.) I wish he and Jeb! would get out of the race since I do not see their supporters going to Trump or Cruz.

I don't see Trump moving much beyond 33%, so while the moderates (the deep bench of the Republicans could be hurting them this time) undercut each other, they are allowing a minority candidate appealing to the radical base to win.

On the Democratic side, Sanders needs to prove he can win with populations that are not white millennials. Blacks tend to favor Clinton. On that note, her recent trip to Flint was a very shrewd move. It basically said "hey, black people, I care about you." Whether or not that's true is up for debate, but appearances matter.

I think this shows how divided the Democrats are right now. Everyone is focused on the Republican circus, but I think the Democrats are trying to keep an implosion from happening on their side. There are older white liberals looking to see if Sanders can turn victories before changing their vote from Hillary. We'll have to see if this internal war will continue on to the general election as a lack of enthusiasm...which would doom the Dems.

An interesting thought; in this crazy year I wonder if who Bloomberg would hurt depends on the nominee. If it is Hillary v Trump I see him handing the election to Clinton. But if it's Bernie v Marco he'll seal the deal for Republicans. If it's two radicals (Sanders v Trump or Cruz) I think it's more likely he'll help Republicans.

At 2/11/16 02:24 AM, TheMason wrote:

At 2/10/16 10:21 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: That being said, it's a three-way fight for Trump, Cruz, and Rubio for the top spot. However, the longer Kasich and Bush remain in the race, unless their viability shoots up, their presence increases the chances of a brokered convention.

I agree with you, I cannot wait for Super Tuesday to get here and hopefully see some of the hangers-on fall off. I'm a big fan of Kasich, but if he cannot turn NH into more states he's toast. (Duh.) I wish he and Jeb! would get out of the race since I do not see their supporters going to Trump or Cruz.

I don't see Trump moving much beyond 33%, so while the moderates (the deep bench of the Republicans could be hurting them this time) undercut each other, they are allowing a minority candidate appealing to the radical base to win.

On the Democratic side, Sanders needs to prove he can win with populations that are not white millennials. Blacks tend to favor Clinton. On that note, her recent trip to Flint was a very shrewd move. It basically said "hey, black people, I care about you." Whether or not that's true is up for debate, but appearances matter.

I think this shows how divided the Democrats are right now. Everyone is focused on the Republican circus, but I think the Democrats are trying to keep an implosion from happening on their side. There are older white liberals looking to see if Sanders can turn victories before changing their vote from Hillary. We'll have to see if this internal war will continue on to the general election as a lack of enthusiasm...which would doom the Dems.

An interesting thought; in this crazy year I wonder if who Bloomberg would hurt depends on the nominee. If it is Hillary v Trump I see him handing the election to Clinton. But if it's Bernie v Marco he'll seal the deal for Republicans. If it's two radicals (Sanders v Trump or Cruz) I think it's more likely he'll help Republicans.

I think if Bloomberg runs, the Republican nominee will win no matter who it is. The Republicans are so far to the right that I don't think there is any chance they will vote for someone with moderate positions. I do see moderate democrats voting for Bloomberg, though. The last factor would be determining where independents go. That could make it interesting, but I still don't see a Democrat winning if Bloomberg is running.

At 2/12/16 01:03 PM, TheRat wrote: I think if Bloomberg runs, the Republican nominee will win no matter who it is. The Republicans are so far to the right that I don't think there is any chance they will vote for someone with moderate positions. I do see moderate democrats voting for Bloomberg, though. The last factor would be determining where independents go. That could make it interesting, but I still don't see a Democrat winning if Bloomberg is running.

Also, what Hillary fails to realize is that by moving further left in response to the challenge by Bernie Sanders, she's shooting herself in the foot. She is turning off moderate Democrats and independents who could have been persuaded to vote for her. The fact is, the lunatic fringe has also hijacked the left and turned off a lot of people.

Gary Johnson is also running, but I'm not sure how much of an effect he'll have. He doesn't have the pull for libertarians that Ron Paul did.

At 2/12/16 08:25 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: Also, what Hillary fails to realize is that by moving further left in response to the challenge by Bernie Sanders, she's shooting herself in the foot. She is turning off moderate Democrats and independents who could have been persuaded to vote for her. The fact is, the lunatic fringe has also hijacked the left and turned off a lot of people.

Bernie Sanders isn't even a lunatic. What he says is at least based in fact, which is more than what can be said of the GOP. Sanders himself is at best the Democratic Ted Cruz, he's no Trump. The Left simply doesn't have a Trump. The stuff he says isn't anything new, in fact it's what most Liberals have been saying for years including Obama.

Honestly I'm less and less convinced of Hillary's ability to appeal to moderates. She has an image as a corrupt say anything to get elected politician, the kind of politician that's been targeted for extinction this round.

At 2/12/16 10:02 PM, Warforger wrote: Sanders himself is at best the Democratic Ted Cruz

Um...what?

At 2/13/16 02:21 AM, Feoric wrote: Um...what?

People make comparisons between Trump and Sanders, when Sanders is nothing like Trump. Cruz to me is the closest because Cruz is known for ideological purity and appealing to the Republican base. Now Sanders isn't as unpopular in the Democratic party as Cruz is, but I can't think of any other GOP candidate quite like Sanders as Cruz.

Hey ya'll. So I haven't been on here in awhile. But I've kind of become a huge Bernie volunteer. Look out for Nevada, I have a pretty good feeling about it.

At 2/13/16 08:06 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote:

Also because Bernie spurs democracy in action: people getting out of their houses, and drawing signs is always, pun intended, a sign of a healthy political process. Have you thought of donating time or money to his cause?

I've donated both. A good deal of both.

I just like to see enthusiasm rather than negativity these days

At 2/13/16 09:37 PM, TylerFromTexas wrote:

At 2/13/16 03:40 PM, EKublai wrote: Hey ya'll. So I haven't been on here in awhile. But I've kind of become a huge Bernie volunteer. Look out for Nevada, I have a pretty good feeling about it.

That's pretty neat! I've thought about volunteering in the past, but when you have college to focus on back then, it's quite difficult to set the time to do so. Especially now that I got a new job that will make me work well pass 40 hours a week, there's no way I can volunteer for any candidate!

I work 40hr/week too, not in school though. Calling people is so freaking easy. Just doing 20 calls in a night helps a ton. You dial. Voter picks up or doesn't answer. When they do, you ask, "who you voting for?", they'll say who. You fill in the form and click "next" and do it again.

The only thing the phone calls are missing are a good achievement point system.

I am sooo glad Trump fell behind Ted Cruz. Of course, Trump is as insane as ever saying it was rigged or something. I don't even know anything about Ted Cruz, but whoever he is, he can't be worse than Trump. You never know, I thought Ron Paul was a good candidate, but legalizing pot was the only good thing he wanted.

If Jeb Bush had found his voice six months ago, the race might be very different now. Still not voting for him though (and neither are a lot of other people). I think he's just gonna coast until Super Tuesday when something has to give unless he really gets his ass handed to him earlier.

Does Ben Carson take Valium before every debate?

A website called FiveThirtyEight looked at all the Facebook Likes for candidates pages during the primary election. They showed them on a map of the United States.

Looks interesting.

At 2/14/16 11:55 PM, The-Great-One wrote: A website called FiveThirtyEight looked at all the Facebook Likes for candidates pages during the primary election. They showed them on a map of the United States.

Looks interesting.

Shows who has the young, and the entusiastic vote. Not too telling with regards to the older and more casual voters, especially seeing as these voters make or break elections.

At 2/14/16 09:26 AM, Ericho wrote: I am sooo glad Trump fell behind Ted Cruz. Of course, Trump is as insane as ever saying it was rigged or something. I don't even know anything about Ted Cruz, but whoever he is, he can't be worse than Trump.

Cruz is worse than Trump. He's currently cost this country 20b$ after orchestrating the shut-down a few years ago (arguably more than Trump has ever cost us), and is 100% against negotiating with both Democrats and Republicans that don't think like him. He has admitted to purposefully lying under good faith to make whomever that disagrees with him look bad (so you literally cannot take a single word he says at face value). There's a damn good reason the GOP even wants to see Cruz take office less than Trump.

Both are bad, let's not kid ourselves, but Cruz is marginally worse.