2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Rjd2

Billy86 wrote: »

FWIW, a few weeks back either he was 12/1 or she was 1/12. Can't remember which, mind.

She would have been 1/12 and probably shorter with the UK bookies after all the Southern States. You'd have definitely got Bernie 12/1 or bigger some places as well back then.

Black Swan

Next up: Wyoming Caucus for the Democrats occurs next on 9 April for 18 delegates, and the next big primary for both parties is for New York on 19 April with 291 Democratic and 95 Republican delegates to be decided. My guess is that Sanders will beat Clinton in Wyoming, but Clinton and Trump will win in NY.

briany

Black Swan wrote: »

Next up: Wyoming Caucus for the Democrats occurs next on 9 April for 18 delegates, and the next big primary for both parties is for New York on 19 April with 291 Democratic and 95 Republican delegates to be decided. My guess is that Sanders will beat Clinton in Wyoming, but Clinton and Trump will win in NY.

If Clinton answered truthfully on whether she cared about doing well in Wyoming it would likely be,

SNIP

The 18 delegates will likely mean nothing to her if she holds on to her polling leads elsewhere. Despite the huffing and puffing going on, it's looking very likely that the Sanders campaign will suffer a blow it will not recover from on April 19th.

K-9

Paleface wrote: »

As much as I'd like to see Bernie get the nomination you only have to look at the odds to see that his chances are almost non existant. Paddy Power currently have the odds for the Democratic nomination as:

Clinton 1/10
Sanders 5/1

Its stands to reason that this would indicate all if not most of the super delegates are planning on pledging their votes to her making Sanders recent wave of popularity valiant but inconsequential in the grand scheme of the convention itself.

I hope I'm wrong but I doubt Paddy Power are!

If he can keep defying the early polls, i.e. over coming deficits in polls the momentum is with him, or to look at it the other way, Clinton losing states and vote share towards the end of the race looks bad. Realistically if Sanders can come within 10 points of her in NY that's a hugely impressive performance. Obviously the odds and numbers are very much against him.

Bit like Cruz, if he can come reasonably close to Trump in Donald's own home state, that's more significant than actually losing it.

eire4

Paleface wrote: »

As much as I'd like to see Bernie get the nomination you only have to look at the odds to see that his chances are almost non existant. Paddy Power currently have the odds for the Democratic nomination as:

Clinton 1/10
Sanders 5/1

Its stands to reason that this would indicate all if not most of the super delegates are planning on pledging their votes to her making Sanders recent wave of popularity valiant but inconsequential in the grand scheme of the convention itself.

I hope I'm wrong but I doubt Paddy Power are!

Well I hope your wrong also and I would not be so dismissive of where things are at right now. With last nights big win in Wisconsin that is 7 wins in 8 and mostly be very big margins. Wyoming to come on Saturday where Sanders is likely to win again making it 8 out 9 heading into New York in a couple of weeks and chip away further at Clinton's delegate lead. You would think Clinton as former senator for New York should win the second biggest state running away. Certainly that looked to be the case earlier in March with Clinton enjoying leads at least in the mid 20's and some polls higher. The latest 2 polls have Clinton's lead down to 10-12 points depending on which poll you look at. So in half a month Sanders has cut into Clinton's New York lead by more then half. There still is Wyoming and one more debate to go before New York votes in 2 weeks. Momentum is once again moving in Sanders direction so while Clinton remains the firm favourite a second Michigan is not out of the question. Or more likely a second Illinois Clinton's home state where her massive lead of over 30 points disappeared and she only won by 1.8% meaning a virtual draw in delegates in one of the biggest states.


With the momentum Sanders has built if he can go and make New York into another Illinois that will really put the cat among the pigeons so to speak in the Democratic race given Clinton being the former New York senator.

eire4

briany wrote: »

If Clinton answered truthfully on whether she cared about doing well in Wyoming it would likely be,

SNIP

The 18 delegates will likely mean nothing to her if she holds on to her polling leads elsewhere. Despite the huffing and puffing going on, it's looking very likely that the Sanders campaign will suffer a blow it will not recover from on April 19th.

The recent trends would suggest New York may not end up being such a safe Clinton firewall. Already polls this week show Sanders has closed in the polls to between 10-12 points with Clinton. That means Sanders has closed the gap by more then half since mid March when the best polls for Sanders had him down in the mid 20's.


I agree with you that Clinton has maybe even just written off Wyoming. It is one of the smaller states population wise and thus delegate wise. So I would expect Sanders to win there. But Clinton is playing a risky game assuming New York will be her firewall. Her lead is shrinking and there is one more debate to come as well as Wyoming before New York. It would be a massive blow and even an embarrassment if Clinton lost New York as the former New York senator. Even an Illinois style win for Clinton would be a blow and only further boost the Sanders campiagn.


The danger is it seems Sanders almost always out performs polls when the actual vote is made. He has done it time and time again even in states when he has lost other then the early big losses in the south. The gap in New York has been shrinking and if Sanders out performs the polls again New York could end up back firing on Clinton rather then being her firewall.

honru

According to FiveThirtyEight, in terms of pledged delegates, Clinton has 1,300 and Sanders has 1,190. The pledged delegate gap is 210. A strong win by Sanders in Wyoming this weekend would close the gap to in-or-around 200.

Polichart maps a path for Sanders to tip a pledged delegate lead against Clinton in the remaining contests. It remains to be seen whether he can capitalise on his recent momentum and push activism from the grassroots to pull off these wins and margins. Yet things seem to be boding well for Sanders: a poll today has shown him close the gap in Pennsylvania to six points behind Clinton with three weeks to go, and he has slightly overtaken Clinton in some national polls.

Given that 41% of the pledged delegates are to be won in the remaining contests and going by the growing enthusiasm behind his campaign, Sanders still has a shot of closing that gap and winning the nomination.

Augme

Paleface wrote: »

But why would anyone do that if neither have a chance of winning?

This is why I think the PP odds are more a reflection of what will happen. Nobody is making stupid bets in these kinds of markets.

They could be, just not with Paddy Power. If any knowledgeable gambler wanted to back Bernie they could do it for 7/1 on Betfair. The markets have been quite interesting on this one though, I do think most people just aren't that clued up on the situation. The media have been pushing a massive agenda as well which clouds people's thoughts.

Akrasia

New York is gonna be huge. It's a big ask though. The new yorker seems to like Sanders, but the NY times is firmly in the Clinton camp.

It's a closed primary and registration closed weeks ago, so Sanders' massive advantage amongst independent voters won't count for much. Clinton absolutely has to win this state. Sanders needs to tie or win. A Clinton blowout would be bad news for Bernie

Blue Magic

Akrasia wrote: »

New York is gonna be huge. It's a big ask though. The new yorker seems to like Sanders, but the NY times is firmly in the Clinton camp.

It's a closed primary and registration closed weeks ago, so Sanders' massive advantage amongst independent voters won't count for much. Clinton absolutely has to win this state. Sanders needs to tie or win. A Clinton blowout would be bad news for Bernie

Ya this one is huge. If Bernie wins then he's going to be so much closer in delegates and will have big momentum behind him.

If Hilary loses another democratic nomination then she'll lose the plot altogether!

honru

Akrasia wrote: »

New York is gonna be huge. It's a big ask though. The new yorker seems to like Sanders, but the NY times is firmly in the Clinton camp.

It's a closed primary and registration closed weeks ago, so Sanders' massive advantage amongst independent voters won't count for much. Clinton absolutely has to win this state. Sanders needs to tie or win. A Clinton blowout would be bad news for Bernie

That is a disadvantage for Sanders, however New York does not — without a good reason — permit early voting, unlike most other states. The Clinton camp has strategically pushed early voting to her advantage in earlier contests, with some commentators suggesting that this was pushed to 'get the vote in' before voters in earlier primaries could take a good look at Sanders and his policies.

I don't know if this will have a significant effect on how the primary plays out, but it is worth noting. In the exit polls for Wisconsin and Florida, for instance, the vast majority of voters that made their mind in the days before the primary went to Sanders. We also know that Sanders actually won the Election Day vote in states such as Arizona and Massachusetts, but lost to Clinton due to early voting.

Manic Moran

According to my radio, California has become ground zero. No matter how well Trump or Clinton do in other states, if they don't take California, they can't reach their finish posts. As a result, all the candidates will be spending much time in CA over over the next two months.

The position is particularly interesting for the Republicans. The California republicans go three delegates per congressional district, no matter the number of republicans in that district. As a result, by wining, dining, and bribing the seven republicans in San Francisco, they can get as many votes as trying to win all the Republicans in San Diego and its Navy base. Californians are not used to being relevant given it's one of the last primaries, and San Francisco Republicans are definitely not used to being wooed.

Of further interest, California is an open primary. Anyone can vote for anyone, regardless of party. In my case, as an independent, it thus begs the question of if I want to throw my penny into the Democrat race or the Republican one. I have a preference in both.

TheDoctor

Trump generally does well in the open primaries. Latest poll in CA has him with an 8 point lead.

BOHtox

Why are there so many more, ~ twice as many, democrat delegates?

Akrasia

BOHtox wrote: »

Why are there so many more, ~ twice as many, democrat delegates?

The democrats have almost twice as many delegates at their convention as the republicans. it's just the way they've organised their selection process.

The two parties also give different weights to the different states based on their expectations for the GE.

So for example, if the democrats consider California to be a swing state or one that is essential to winning the GE, they'll give more proportionately more delegates to that state in the primaries to ensure that the more popular candidate in these key swing states wins the nomination.

The whole process is horribly complicated with every state having different rules about how the delegates are selected and how they are allowed to behave at the convention

Christy42

Akrasia wrote: »

The democrats have almost twice as many delegates at their convention as the republicans. it's just the way they've organised their selection process.

The two parties also give different weights to the different states based on their expectations for the GE.

So for example, if the democrats consider California to be a swing state or one that is essential to winning the GE, they'll give more proportionately more delegates to that state in the primaries to ensure that the more popular candidate in these key swing states wins the nomination.

The whole process is horribly complicated with every state having different rules about how the delegates are selected and how they are allowed to behave at the convention

Just thinking if they did that properly the vast majority of states should have 0. Maybe give a few to blue states to keep them sweet but come on. Either Hilary or Bernie would lose Kansas and both would win MA. Not arguing with you, just musing on the state of American politics.

BOHtox

BOHtox wrote: »

Why are there so many more, ~ twice as many, democrat delegates?

Just different systems. Both parties roughly give delegates proportionately to population. The GOP then gives extras to states they won last time. I don't know if either party has other little things like that.

Akrasia

Christy42 wrote: »

Just thinking if they did that properly the vast majority of states should have 0. Maybe give a few to blue states to keep them sweet but come on. Either Hilary or Bernie would lose Kansas and both would win MA. Not arguing with you, just musing on the state of American politics.

Every state has their own branch of the national party, they also all have congressional and senate seats up for grabs, so the national democratic party would be really stupid to offend the smaller states by ignoring them in the presidential primary process because they rely on the state party apparatus to work on the ground to get their members elected to local offices and the congress and senate.

Akrasia

The panama papers could really hurt Clinton. Bernie is really really strong on this matter, he spoke out against the trade agreement with Panama while Clinton strongly supported it, and the reasons why Sanders was against it were the very reasons that have been vindicated by this weeks leaks.

it also plays right into Sander's platform of the wealthy elites avoiding taxes and screwing the little guy.

I also would not be in the least bit surprised if there are some direct links to the Clintons discovered in these papers. Whether tenuous or real, they have a very wide network of political and corporate connections, and Trump or Cruz could find something to link to Clinton (possibly in retaliation to someone discovering a link to them)

Sanders would be mad to not hammer this point in the NY debate and his rallies

The nature of this scandal is that we are going to be drip fed news for weeks and months as more of the connections are unravelled. Clinton, even if she is never directly implicated in the leaks, is going to suffer by being one of the main facilitators via her enthusiastic support of the Panama trade agreement.

JPNelsforearm

Akrasia wrote: »

The panama papers could really hurt Clinton. Bernie is really really strong on this matter, he spoke out against the trade agreement with Panama while Clinton strongly supported it, and the reasons why Sanders was against it were the very reasons that have been vindicated by this weeks leaks.

it also plays right into Sander's platform of the wealthy elites avoiding taxes and screwing the little guy.

I also would not be in the least bit surprised if there are some direct links to the Clintons discovered in these papers. Whether tenuous or real, they have a very wide network of political and corporate connections, and Trump or Cruz could find something to link to Clinton (possibly in retaliation to someone discovering a link to them)

Sanders would be mad to not hammer this point in the NY debate and his rallies

The nature of this scandal is that we are going to be drip fed news for weeks and months as more of the connections are unravelled. Clinton, even if she is never directly implicated in the leaks, is going to suffer by being one of the main facilitators via her enthusiastic support of the Panama trade agreement.

The problem with the Panama papers is they have been leaked selectively, so whilst there may be links to Clinton, and it wouldnt surprise me considering the whole Clinton foundation, her ties to Wall st etc, it may never surface due to political bias on the holder of the informations behalf.

honru

Manic Moran wrote: »

Of further interest, California is an open primary. Anyone can vote for anyone, regardless of party. In my case, as an independent, it thus begs the question of if I want to throw my penny into the Democrat race or the Republican one. I have a preference in both.

Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I believe California is a semi-closed primary for Democrats and closed for Republicans.

This means that voters that indicate "no party preference" are able to vote in the Democratic primary, but not in the Republican primary.

This has not been widely reported in the media, but this works to a considerable advantage to Sanders. He does far better with independents than Clinton, and this group are effectively shut out of voting in the Republican contest.

JPNelsforearm

Sanders panders.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xt62UmzqsR0

BoJack Horseman

At least he wasn't stupid enough to take the reparations bait.

Akrasia

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Sanders panders.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xt62UmzqsR0

I can't see the video because it's blocked on my work network, but from your highly descriptive comment, I presume it refers to Sanders' comments that he will apologise for slavery.

First of all, he was asked a question. If you asked Hillary or any of the other candidates, what do you think they would say? 'No, Screw em!'?

Secondly, this is not new, Sanders has consistently said that the U.S. should make a formal apology for slavery, and also for the way the native Americans were treated

I think it's actually a really worthwhile gesture for the President of the U.S. try and get past the racial politics divisions and unite the country

Brian?

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Sanders panders.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xt62UmzqsR0

How is this pandering? You don't think an apology is needed?


What's your view on it, rather than dumping a video.

PopePalpatine

Brian? wrote: »

How is this pandering? You don't think an apology is needed?


What's your view on it, rather than dumping a video.

Because it's not putting those Negroes in their place, of course. :rolleyes:

timmyntc

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Because it's not putting those Negroes in their place, of course. :rolleyes:

Because people shouldn't have to apologise for the sins of their fathers?




Or their fathers' fathers' fathers as the case may be :pac:

JPNelsforearm

Brian? wrote: »

How is this pandering? You don't think an apology is needed?


What's your view on it, rather than dumping a video.

I think an apology is pandering, and no, I dont think its needed, much the same way an apology from Britain is not needed nor wanted for 800 years of oppression. Its a platitude, 700k Americans died in a war over slavery, apologising for something you had no control nor involvement in is pointless, its a never ending ball to set rolling.

WarZ

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

I think an apology is pandering, and no, I dont think its needed, much the same way an apology from Britain is not needed nor wanted for 800 years of oppression. Its a platitude, 700k Americans died in a war over slavery, apologising for something you had no control nor involvement in is pointless, its a never ending ball to set rolling.

Apologizing is recognition to the victims and shows a genuine attempt to mend bridges.

And yes Britain have apologized multiple times. Blair apologized for the Potato Famine, Cameron apologized for Bloody Sunday, The Queen apologized for the plantations. And lets be honest, the Plantations in Ireland paled in significance to Slavery.

BoJack Horseman

WarZ wrote: »

Apologizing is recognition to the victims and shows a genuine attempt to mend bridges.

It's worth wondering why no previous president has done so?

Obama still has 9 months on the clock.
I wonder if he will apologise?