• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Presidential Primaries 2016

dudalb said:
Does anybody here actually think that Bernie will get the nomination?
Click to expand...

If the Democrats have any sense at all--they's better start voting for him en masse, cause they have NO idea just how deep the anti-Hillary sentiment is, and Trump will play that like a fiddle
 
stanfr said:
If the Democrats have any sense at all--they's better start voting for him en masse, cause they have NO idea just how deep the anti-Hillary sentiment is, and Trump will play that like a fiddle
Click to expand...

So the guy that isn't winning even among the liberals and who has yet to feel the burn of a full force, 'Sanders is a commie' campaign is the one we should put our faith in?
 
Kasich has just scheduled an big announcement for later today...
 
I imagine that many Republicans who haven't voted yet aren't too happy with their limited selection of one. On the bright side, I'm looking forward to Stephen Colbert's next "Hungry for Power Games" skit.
 
Argumemnon said:
You can't even admit to having being wrong about Indiana?

Come on. Just a hint of humility: "I was wrong."
Click to expand...
Where did I say Clinton would win Indiana? I did repeat 538's numbers. My position has always been that Sanders and Clinton would split the state.

This is what I said:
They are tied in Indiana currently in the polls. Sanders is ahead in W Virginia (with only one poll from Feb). Kentucky is an unknown given the one poll is a year old but with 90% white, Sanders will likely win. Same with Oregon. If Clinton does poorly in those three states and ties in Indiana, she'll still only need ~100 more delegates by June 7th.
Click to expand...

I also said this:
Final count: Clinton won PA, DE and MD by very big margins. She won CN by a clean, surprising 5%. Sanders won RI by a 12% margin.

It is over.
Click to expand...

And finally I said this:
5% in, Clinton leads by 10, Trump by 20.

MSNBC calls it for Trump but they are too wimpy to call it for Clinton.

I suppose Clinton's lead is narrowing so I take the wimpy comment back.
Click to expand...

I don't have any problem saying I was wrong. I said Trump would burn out by Dec (I think). Clearly that was wrong.

But other than thinking the early lead Clinton had in Indiana was an indicator, I was expecting a tie. Sanders got a little more than a tie in votes: 5%, but not enough to change his delegate deficit.

Using the numbers in the NYT, in pledged delegates it's currently 1,700 to 1,410, Clinton. There are 1,114 delegates left including pledged and supers. About 155 of those are supers so there are roughly 960 pledged delegates up for voting on.

Sanders has to get half of the 960 and then 290 more in order to reverse the current standing. He needs 80% of all the remaining pledged delegates. Without that, he doesn't have the majority of votes and has little chance of swaying any, let alone many of the superdelegates already supporting Clinton to support him.

On the Clinton side assuming the superdelegates that already support her have no reason to change support, she has 2220 total delegates out of 2383 needed. 163 is 17% of 960 to reach the winning number.

Sanders continues to talk about "the biggest upset in election history." If he believes that, his cheering crowds really have gone to his head.

163 delegates is 30% of CA's 546 delegates alone.

NJ and DC have 187 delegates between them. If Clinton only got half of those, and 10% of the states that favor Sanders (~290 not counting the territories) that's ~122 delegates. She would only need 41 of CA's 546 delegates.

No matter how you do the math, the Sanders miracle ain't gonna happen.

Clinton is right to begin her national campaign and stop campaigning against Sanders no matter what the appearance of a Sanders last little surge might do.
 
Last edited:
Lots of talk about Anti Trump insurgency in the GOP.
Gary Johnson...a Ex GOP Governor who switched to the Libertarian Party and is their probable Predisential nominee...is being mentioned a lot as a possible alternative. It would certainly be easier for the people who really cannot support Trump to support Johnson then try to get a new independent candidate started this late in the game.
 
This will be a good time for the Libertarians to make their move. What do they have to lose if they see Trump as worse than Clinton? They might gain some cred as a third party.
 
Argumemnon said:
Nobody said you did. You claimed that the media were "too wimpy to call it for Clinton", and you were wrong.

Why is it so hard to admit?
Click to expand...

She kind of did, even in the post where she made the comment, and at least once since.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom