2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

The Randy Riverbeast

Deleted User wrote: »

For those who still think Sanders has a shot just read this. http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2016/Pres/Maps/Apr13.html#item-8 Seriously, read it. Take it in.

But going by actual statistics he does have a shot, a low one but it isnt as bad as some people have been claiming. He needs 56% of the remaining delegates which isn't a huge number.

Clinton is clearly the favourite to win and is leading so far but it isn't as bad for Sanders as people are making it out to be and have been for months. Kasich doesn't get half the attention and his only hope is for Trump and Cruz to have an accident or the republican party decides if they are going down they are doing it themselves.

hatrickpatrick

Billy86 wrote: »

That's the thing though - he doesn't need bribes because he is the bribe, and would be the one doing the bribing if he were not in office. Now he can do whatever he likes without having to bribe anyone to achieve it, were he to win the election.

That's the point though, that's why a lot of people believe he will remain a purely populist candidate once elected and that he's not just pandering to win votes. And as I say, some of his policies are far less right wing than Clinton's.

Once again: Both evil, but which one is the lesser of two evils comes down to which issues one regards as red line issues. Ergo, some Sanders supporters will vote for Clinton, some will vote for Trump, and some won't be able to decide between the two evils and will either abstain or vote for someone like Jill Stein.

PopePalpatine

It looks like Ted is not a fan of sex toys or a bit of "choking the chicken"...

...and then his old roommate chimed in.

keane2097

keane2097 wrote: »

Sanders is 11/2 to win the democratic nomination. I don't think you are 11/2 to win a World Cup with Ireland.

Do you know how bookies set their odds?

The Randy Riverbeast

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

But going by actual statistics he does have a shot, a low one but it isnt as bad as some people have been claiming. He needs 56% of the remaining delegates which isn't a huge number.

Clinton is clearly the favourite to win and is leading so far but it isn't as bad for Sanders as people are making it out to be and have been for months. Kasich doesn't get half the attention and his only hope is for Trump and Cruz to have an accident or the republican party decides if they are going down they are doing it themselves.

At what stage will it be done? When he needs 101% of remaining delegates and not a second sooner?

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Any statement built on prophetic presumption is at best a theory, not a fact.

So checking polls, trends and demographics and drawing a conclusion is prophetic stuff now? Good to know.

The Randy Riverbeast

Deleted User wrote: »

At what stage will it be done? When he needs 101% of remaining delegates and not a second sooner?

When should it be done?

Im sure there is a point before requiring over 100%+ of delegates as I doubt anyone has managed such a win (while still being against another person) but I haven't looked into what is a person's success chance as the percentage requires increases.

According to paddypower.com Sanders has a Higher change than Cruz. Is it over for Cruz yet?

Billy86

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Any statement built on prophetic presumption is at best a theory, not a fact.

It's a fair assumption mind. Still an assumption, but it's no more an assumption than Barcelona beating the bottom placed team in Spain, in a must-win home game. I don't think that shows how Sanders definitively has no shot, but he does have to be viewed as a big underdog at this very point in time, and only even that because of the momentum he has had on his side more recently.

cHaTbOx

Sanders is only around 210 pledged delegates behind Hillary . That is what is key here. He needs to win around 56.5% of remaining pledged delegates to pass Hillary's pledged delegates. If he has more pledged delegates rather than superdelegates, he will probably be the Democratic nominee as superdelagates vote are not counted for until the convention and if he has more pledged delegates, he will be the stronger candidate .The same thing happened with Obama in 08 when Clinton had more superdelgates.

If he loses in NY which he is currently down by 10 percentage points (52-42) in the polls, then that lead for Clinton will get bigger and momentum for Sanders will be gone.

NY is a closed primary and it could cause a lot of issues for Sanders as independents have been on his side. One thing for sure is that it will be very close. His first senator endorsement came today and New York's Public Transit Union endored him today and he was on the picket line for Verizon workers .
Clintons are getting attacked on Bill's response to BlackLivesMatter was terrible and Hilary has been receiving blowback from the African-American community due to a racially charged joke in a skit she performed with New York Mayor Bill de Blasio over the weekend, in which they referenced "C.P. time" — a term that can reference "colored people's time."

Corporate media hates Sanders and tomorrows debate held by CNN looks like it could be key to winning NY. CNN owned by Time Warner is Clinton's sixth biggest donor and if they don't try to make it hard for Sanders I would be surprised.

The Randy Riverbeast

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

When should it be done?

Im sure there is a point before requiring over 100%+ of delegates as I doubt anyone has managed such a win (while still being against another person) but I haven't looked into what is a person's success chance as the percentage requires increases.

According to paddypower.com Sanders has a Higher change than Cruz. Is it over for Cruz yet?

I'm asking when will people accept it as a done deal.
Again, do you know how odds are set? It's all about the money already in the market.
It really is like people don't understand the process, Trump included. Cruz has been going around getting "his" delegates elected in different states. If Trump doesn't win on the first round of voting then he's gone. And it's looking close to 50/50 if he'll hit the 50% mark in the first round, perhaps slightly more likely he won't. A percent or 2 either way in New York could well decide it.

cHaTbOx wrote: »

Sanders is only around 210 pledged delegates behind Hillary . That is what is key here. He needs to win around 56.5% of remaining pledged delegates to pass Hillary's pledged delegates. If he has more pledged delegates rather than superdelegates, he will probably be the Democratic nominee as superdelagates vote are not counted for until the convention and if he has more pledged delegates, he will be the stronger candidate .The same thing happened with Obama in 08 when Clinton had more superdelgates.

If he loses in NY which he is currently down by 10 percentage points (52-42) in the polls, then that lead for Clinton will get bigger and momentum for Sanders will be gone.

NY is a closed primary and it could cause a lot of issues for Sanders as independents have been on his side. One thing for sure is that it will be very close. His first senator endorsement came today and New York's Public Transit Union endored him today and he was on the picket line for Verizon workers .
Clintons are getting attacked on Bill's response to BlackLivesMatter was terrible and Hilary has been receiving blowback from the African-American community due to a racially charged joke in a skit she performed with New York Mayor Bill de Blasio over the weekend, in which they referenced "C.P. time" — a term that can reference "colored people's time."

Corporate media hates Sanders and tomorrows debate held by CNN looks like it could be key to winning NY. CNN owned by Time Warner is Clinton's sixth biggest donor and if they don't try to make it hard for Sanders I would be surprised.

He needs to win 56.5% of delegates in states that suit Clinton perfectly. What states do remaining do people see him realistically hae a chance of even hitting 50%?

oscarBravo

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm asking when will people accept it as a done deal.

When it's actually a done deal, as opposed to when you personally have decided that it's not going to happen. I don't understand why you think people should stop supporting someone just because the odds are against them winning. Imagine if fans of sports teams worked on that basis?

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote: »

When it's actually a done deal, as opposed to when you personally have decided that it's not going to happen. I don't understand why you think people should stop supporting someone just because the odds are against them winning. Imagine if fans of sports teams worked on that basis?

Care to put a percentage on it?

cHaTbOx

Deleted User wrote: »

He needs to win 56.5% of delegates in states that suit Clinton perfectly. What states do remaining do people see him realistically hae a chance of even hitting 50%?

I think it will all depend on New York, but he just keeps going up in the polls and Clinton just keeps going down and he has been winning by over that percentage in 6 of 7 victories in a row . If he wins in New York, it will have a snowball effect and the fact is that Clinton "is now viewed unfavorably by 55 percent of the electorate (according to the HuffPost Pollster average, which tracks findings from 42 different polling outfits. Only 40.2 percent of people view her favorably, according to that average.)"
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/276078-clintons-dismal-approval-ratings-prompt-dem-fears

eire4

oscarBravo wrote: »

When it's actually a done deal, as opposed to when you personally have decided that it's not going to happen. I don't understand why you think people should stop supporting someone just because the odds are against them winning. Imagine if fans of sports teams worked on that basis?

Never mind this is way more important then supporting any sports team. This is about who will be president of the most powerful nation on earth. Thats important to all of us both Americans and non Americans given how they like to plant military bases in so many countries around the world never mind what they do to foreign governments they don't like.

hatrickpatrick

Deleted User wrote: »

So checking polls, trends and demographics and drawing a conclusion is prophetic stuff now? Good to know.

Not at all, but presenting your conclusion as fact certainly is, especially after numerous polling upsets (going both ways - Clinton losing Michigan, Sanders not cleaning up in Wyoming, etc). He's still unlikely to win the upcoming big delegate states, but until they've voted, it isn't a fact. Simple as that.

hatrickpatrick

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm asking when will people accept it as a done deal.

When the last state has voted, presuming that state has more delegates than Sanders needs to catch up.

He needs to win 56.5% of delegates in states that suit Clinton perfectly. What states do remaining do people see him realistically hae a chance of even hitting 50%?

You're missing out on several wildcards here. Clinton is sitting on a couple of ticking timebombs, all of which are due to slap her very, very soon. She's wanted for questioning within weeks over potential felonies, she is coming under increasing pressure to release her Wall St transcripts, and most crucially of all, California with 275 is as good as an open primary considering its registration deadline isn't until the last week of May, just two weeks before its own primary.

This isn't over. It doesn't look good, sure, but it is by no means over.

Hande hoche!

Seems like Trump's campaign manager isn't going to face charges. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/trump-campaign-manager-lewandowski-221921

Black Swan

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Their counter argument is that Trump is already filthy rich, ergo he doesn't need bribes, ergo he can't be bought by anyone other than himself. So he's likely to stick to his platform once elected as opposed to selling out, as Hillary Clinton is pretty much guaranteed to.

Yet another counter argument regarding the obscenely wealthy like Trump is why do billionaires want more and more and more billions? When is enough ENOUGH? Methinks that enough is never enough for such billionaires, and if Trump is elected, he will continue to take advantage of his fantastic presidential office by handing out "favours" to special interests that he can collect upon to make even more billions upon leaving office; i.e., the "Art of the [Presidential] Deal" by the "Celebrity [Presidential] Apprentice" Trump.

Of course this makes Trump no different than the other wealthy Democrat or Republican members of Congress, who when leaving office often become special interests lobbyists to make even more millions.

Akrasia

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Their counter argument is that Trump is already filthy rich, ergo he doesn't need bribes, ergo he can't be bought by anyone other than himself. So he's likely to stick to his platform once elected as opposed to selling out, as Hillary Clinton is pretty much guaranteed to.

Most politicians are very wealthy before they run for the oval office.

Rich people are not noted for saying no to more money.
If someone has demonstrated that it is in their character to screw people over for some more money for themselves, then they will do that whether they're destitute, or multi billionaires.

Look into Trump's past, he has thrown people out on the street, he has excluded minorities from his developments because they might affect the value of the property, he has repeatedly gone bankrupt to protect his own assets while screwing over all his employees and creditors.....

Akrasia

Sanders has a huge uphill battle on his hands for NY, but NY has a tradition of bucking the favourite, also, NY is hardly ever relevant by this stage in the primary, so a lot of people are getting energised and engaged who normally wouldn't care.

Because it's a closed primary and registration closed ages ago, Sanders will have to convince many Clinton supporters to switch rather than encouraging first time or independent voters to support him.

He's been holding some pretty massive rallies in NY. 30k people showed up to see him yesterday. He's also been making progress on union and minority voters.

I think the debate could be a turning point. CNN won't be friendly to Sanders but he'll be fresh from a trip to the Vatican with all the media coverage of him being associated with the pope. He might be more forthright in his condemnation of Clinton's positions on the board of Walmart and her huge personal financial ties with Goldman Sachs. Regarding the speeches, She says she will release them when all the other candidates do, All he has to do is say that she is no better than the republicans and that transparency is important to him. Sanders will probably be questioned on his tax returns, so hopefully he'll release his taxe returns before the debate, but even if he doesn't, he'll could use the question to attack clinton on having 5 shell companies registered and and question the value of her releasing tax returns while also having instruments designed to hide the flow of money.

JPNelsforearm

Pander pander pander, shill shill shill, gotta apologise for Bill.
Terrible stuff from Hilldog.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwmI8JcVJ8E

BoJack Horseman

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Pander pander pander, shill shill shill, gotta apologise for Bill.
Terrible stuff from Hilldog.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwmI8JcVJ8E

Terrible is right.

White Americans need to do a much better job of listening when black Americans talk about the seen and unseen barriers you face every day.

We need to recognise our privilege and practice humility rather than assume our experiences are everyone elses experiences.

Hardly going to play well with the majority of people who don't feel they need to feel shame for their existence.

Perhaps Hilary should assume that her multi-millionaire experiences are not everyone elses experiences.... respective of their skin colour!

She might just top Barry for divisiveness.

And it is sad to see Bill backpeddling furiously after facing down the BLM mob last week.

hatrickpatrick

Black Swan wrote: »

Yet another counter argument regarding the obscenely wealthy like Trump is why do billionaires want more and more and more billions? When is enough ENOUGH? Methinks that enough is never enough for such billionaires, and if Trump is elected, he will continue to take advantage of his fantastic presidential office by handing out "favours" to special interests that he can collect upon to make even more billions upon leaving office; i.e., the "Art of the [Presidential] Deal" by the "Celebrity [Presidential] Apprentice" Trump.

Of course this makes Trump no different than the other wealthy Democrat or Republican members of Congress, who when leaving office often become special interests lobbyists to make even more millions.

Akrasia wrote: »

Most politicians are very wealthy before they run for the oval office.

Rich people are not noted for saying no to more money.
If someone has demonstrated that it is in their character to screw people over for some more money for themselves, then they will do that whether they're destitute, or multi billionaires.

Look into Trump's past, he has thrown people out on the street, he has excluded minorities from his developments because they might affect the value of the property, he has repeatedly gone bankrupt to protect his own assets while screwing over all his employees and creditors.....

Just to be clear, I'm not myself of the opinion that one should switch to Trump if Sanders doesn't get the nomination, I think on balance Trump would be far more disastrous for America than Clinton would (although I certainly think that Cruz would be far, far worse than Trump - look up his comments yesterday regarding masturbation and sex toys :eek: ) - I'm merely regurgitating what I've seen some Sanders supporters say online about why they want to switch to Trump if Clinton is nominated.

The point being, if it's Trump v Clinton it will be an unimaginably close presidential race. If it's Sanders v Trump or Cruz I reckon Sanders has it in the bag, and if it's Cruz vs literally anyone I reckon the Democratic candidate has it in the bag no matter who it is. Trump v Clinton would be very difficult to call and would really depend entirely on what kind of presidential race emerges between them.

keane2097

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you know how bookies set their odds?

I bet I know how you think they do.

BoJack Horseman

I had been looking at RCP polls for California... they are small and old & Trump was leading.

But I noticed on Nate Silver's site, they are predicting Cruz will win California & take all of its delegates.

That would be a huge blow to Trump.

Billy86

How have Silver & co been doing so far? The last two elections I think it was, they basically had crystal-ball type of predictions.

BoJack Horseman

They aren't quite calling it in black & white (sensible in case there is a sh*t show at the conventions).

They are projecting where the candidates will finish as a percentage of the wining threshold.

KingBrian2

Californian Republicans do not like Ted Cruz. They won't chose a candidate that has no opinions of his own and is worshipped by the fringe.

RobertKK

Watching the Dem debate, Sanders always seems genuine, Clinton is the opposite, I find her repulsive, the worst type of politician, seems to say what she believes people want to hear and ignores her terrible record.

CNN had to tell both to stop screaming at eachother :pac:

RobertKK

That was a great debate, each going after each other hell for leather.