Posted on 09/15/2015 9:51:24 AM PDT by jimbo123
Fivethirtyeight.com founder Nate Silver said that GOP presidential candidates Donald Trump and Dr. Ben Carson have a “maybe about 5%” chance of winning the nomination on Monday’s broadcast of CNN’s “AC360.”
Silver put Trump’s and Carson’s chances of winning the nomination at “maybe about 5% each, somewhere around there.” Silver explained, “there are a of couple things to think about. One is that if you look back at history, you’ve never seen candidates like Donald Trump certainly, or Ben Carson win a party nomination, and secondly, if you look at the polling a lot of times, a candidate leading the polls now, mid-September didn’t win the nomination, didn’t even come close. So, if you look four years ago, Rick Perry was in the midst of a surge right now, and eight years ago on the Democratic side, you had Howard Dean — or 12 years ago, rather, Howard Dean was surging, Hillary Clinton was still way ahead of Barack Obama in 2008. Rudy Giuliani was leading the polls in 2008. I think people — there’s so much interest in this election, in this campaign, people forget that polls five months before Iowa, historically, have told you very, very little.”
-snip-
Silver added that an establishment candidate was “probably” going to be the nominee.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Not even close.... ;)
What position is that?
“What were they in love with? Were there specific ideas they were in love with, or a personality? “
Both.
The fact is that’s it’s too early to predict a winner. Anything can happen between today and election day.
In 2004, the anti-war-in-Iraq leftists -INTERNATIONALLY- mapped it all out for Liberals to get and keep all the political marbles FOREVER. Europe is going through the agonizing task of beating back determined Leftists as we are, but the left now sees themselves sinking maybe permanently.
Kristol and Beck are hysterically crazy examples of control freaks losing it LIVE. MORE!
In our culture today, what people want is not a tedious, detail oriented boring candidate. People will simply tune out
They want a person with vision that will promise them they will fight for their goals.
Detail will not get you elected. People who actually think that are GOPe losers. Is that you folks?
Dems never offer detail, nor do they ever offer it. Why do they win?
People want a vision and a person who will implement it. People no longer care about HOW because they know HOW ususally never works out.
Why tell the enemy your detail? Is that stupid? Yep it is stupid.
That Trump’s candidacy is unique.
The thing that makes this election cycle different from 2008 and 2012 is the excitement factor among the republicans. No one has excited the republicans —and seems like it’s crossing party lines —like Trump. There was not the unmitigated anger at the “republicrats” that you see now. Americans have had it “up to here” with their desires being ignored for the personal betterment of those we elected based upon their campaign promises. No...this time there is a “perfect storm” —a candidate that is articulating the anger of the ‘every man (and woman)”.
Nate can shove his predictions. All bets are off for this election cycle....
Pat
Since 9/11/2001, our country has been on a roller coaster ride. Then came 2008, and it’s been insane.
PC and racism have run amok. The world seems to be approaching war, possibly nuclear. At times, the situation seems overwhelming.
In walks Donald Trump; a man “larger than life”, with the media, the Left and the GOPe going berserk.
I love it.
People want a vision and a person who will implement it. People no longer care about HOW because they know HOW ususally never works out.
Why tell the enemy your detail? Is that stupid? Yep it is stupid.
I can't tell if your post is satire or serious, and I'm leaning towards satire.
And what were the specific ideas?
Nope, I am serious. You sit back and watch. I used to think that detail mattered. It did a long time ago. The electorate has changed. Unless you get that you are doomed.
And you're right, they are enemy, not opposition.
His most recent predictions (without help) have been failures.
So in other words, Nate is flying blind right now.
Did you watch his speech?
Did you check the URL in my tagline?
Here’s a primer for you:
Pro life since at least 2011, wanted to ban partial birth abortion as far back as 2000.
Says no funds for Planned Parenthood, while they do abortions.
Pro Traditional marriage. “Gay rights is not my thing.”
Pro capital punishment “Capital punishment isn’t uncivilized; murderers living is”
Hold Judges accountable
Opposes “Common core is a diaster” Teach citizenship, quit “dumbing down”.
Anti education unions (2000)
For school choice
“Climate Change is a hoax”
“No Cap-and-Tax”
For drilling our own.
On Environment “Good development enhances the environment”
Stressed the importance of a strong family & culture of life (2015)
Supports Israel
Opposes Iran deal and letting Iran obtain the bomb.
Wants to crush ISIS quickly.
Wants a military so strong no one will challenge us.
Against unbalanced trade deals that kill American jobs.
Against warrant-less government surveillance of citizens.
Is against having a high national debt. Warns that $24T is a point of no return.
Against gun control
For assault weapon ban but says the AR-15 shouldn’t be considered an assault weapon.
Wants to repeal Obamacare and replace it with market driven polices and increased competition among insurance companies.
Wants to increase military spending.
Will close the border to illegals
Will send the criminals and sponges back.
Will deport all illegals but will let the hard working ones go through the legal process to come back.
Against Anchor babies
Knows unemployment is much higher than official stats.
Will bring jobs back through better trade negotiation.
Attended military academy and Wharton Business School.
Stood up for Birthers and challenged Obama on his fraud.
Believes USA is “the greatest force for freedom the world has ever known”
Wants to honor commitments on Social Security and Medicare, which we can afford to do if he gets the economy going full steam.
Wants to reduce the fraud in disability and other programs.
Against marriage penalties in tax code.
Wants to reduce income taxes and eliminate corporate tax.
Wants to rebuild our infrastructure.
Wants to apply welfare-to-work to 76 other welfare programs (2011)
Doesn’t have time for political correctness.
Not afraid to call out either party or both when they are wrong.
Not a puppet to campaign donators.
Source: http://www.ontheissues.org/Donald_Trump.htm
Trump while not skinny, by any stretch of the imagination, isn't the willpowerless decadent who comes with a lot of skeletons in his closet.
“Let’s all try to remember that election day is over a year away. Kristol is making threats, Beck is having a psychotic break and it’s only 9/15/15.”
True, but we should keep collecting facts this early.
For instance, Trump is for single-payer health insurance.
Trump”care” = Obama”care.”
Trump”care” = Obama”care.”
That is not a "fact." That is a tendentious slur. He wants a single payer system for the bottom rung of society that is currently not covered.
Every wealthy person in history whose wealth was primarily in land/real estate has had issues with liquidity. It's simply a fact and Trump is no different, in fact it's plagued him multiple times in the past.
Trump has cash and marketable securities of around $300 million, that should be enough to get through the primaries, but he will need approximately $1 billion more to get through the election.
So, where does Trump get a billion dollars to self-finance his campaign? Estimates of his ACTUAL net worth are all over the map, but this doesn't matter because he certainly has a net worth in the billions. His problem is liquidating it. Trump has exactly two routes he could take to accomplish this: he could sell property or he could borrow against it and neither option is as simple as it sounds.
Let's say he decides to sell a billion dollars worth of property. How does he do this? Which property does he sell? Does he put everything on the market and see what sells? He needs to find buyers and he has to figure out which properties they want and he has to be willing to give them up. Plus, he would need to face the reality that you drive down the price of property when the buyers know that you NEED to sell it. Finally, there is the issue of timing, real estate often doesn't sell as quickly as you want it to. Could Trump sell enough property to net $1 billion? Sure. Could he sell it soon enough to self-finance once his cash runs out AND at a price he can live with? That's a lot less certain.
Then there's the option of taking loans against his property, but that has its own set of hurdles. This WOULD NOT be a "sweetheart" loan that a bank gives to a celebrity to buy a new beach house, there would be actual underwriting involved and they would want to know how the loan would be paid back. Keep in mind that this WILL NOT be a billionaire borrowing a billion dollars to invest in a business venture that will make money, this will be a billionaire borrowing a billion dollars to SPEND AND NEVER GET BACK. This brings us to Trump's actual income, he would need an income of well over $100 million per year to service the debt. Now, Trump was getting $30 million or so from NBC, but that's gone. He's also earning some money from dividends on his $300 million in securities, but that will be gone too. His disclosures indicate that his REVENUES in 2014 were $362 million, but is that all income? In the case of his resorts and golf courses, it probably isn't. He also has income from the sale of condos in his developments, but that would presumably go away if elected. So, the bottom line is that Trump MIGHT be able to service the debt, but it would be difficult and it would seriously impact his lifestyle for a long time.
So sure, you can say, "FReeper please..." all you want, but what I've laid out are FACTS. The crowds love it when Trump says he can self-finance a campaign, but when you really look at the numbers it's nowhere near as they think. Trump IS NOT in the same position as a lot of other billionaires when it comes to liquidity.
No, you laid out "probablies" and called them facts. You're getting "'FReeper please'ed" because NO ONE believes he can't marshal the resources to finance his campaign, and a "maybe he can't" isn't going to change that perception.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.