Re: 2016 Election
 

The arithmetic is cruel to Sanders. Despite a very clear win, he still picked up only 14 more delegates than Clinton.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Republicans hoping to see Trump fade are getting increasingly embittered that 'f***ing Kasich stays in the race and keeps splitting the "anyone but Trump" vote. In the NY race, where he's slightly ahead of Cruz - but has no chance to get the nomination on the first ballot - he may prevent Cruz from getting NY delegates, and maybe allow Trump to get all of the NY delegates, thus allowing The Donald to close in on 1237.

It Trump falls short of 1237 and Kasich is chosen as the White Knight at the convention on the 6th ballot he won't beat Hillary - despite what the national polls show now, because millions of Trump and Cruz supporters will stay home in protest.

What puzzles me is the number of anti-Trump posts here, because if he gets the nomination he will absolutely lose to Hillary and destroy the Republican Party as well. Isn't that what most of you want?

Re: 2016 Election
 

If I may paraphrase Churchill, I suppose the fear is will the Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else? How well do you trust the electorate?

You also have to consider that with all the gerrymandering and voter suppression put in place the ability of the establishment to influence the vote in their favor may actually be diminished.

Re: 2016 Election
 

....and will their 'will' (as expressed through their vote) be respected?

Although buried by all the brouhaha over the Wisconsin Primary - something rare occurred at SCOTUS on Monday:

Rare in that it came down with a unanimous :blink: decision.
Rare in that it's implications, at least for now, favour the 'liberal' side:

All 8 members affirmed the principle of 1 person = 1 vote
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who wrote the court opinion, said:

“We hold, based on constitutional history, this court’s decisions and longstanding practice, that a state may draw its legislative districts based on total population” ...(as opposed to total eligible voters)

read more about it here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/05/us...vote.html?_r=0

Re: 2016 Election
 

As a point of order, unanimous decisions are not that rare.

Re: 2016 Election
 

:lol:
guess I was confusing SCOTUS with Congress (if ya know what I mean)

but, thankfully...you're right

Re: 2016 Election
 

Speaking as a registered democrat of long standing it's not me wanting to destroy the Republican Party. A two party system at least is always necessary in a functioning democracy. It's a case of the Republicans seemingly some times to field outlandish candidates in Presidential elections. Kasich should have been the one to be where Cruz or Trump are . He seems to be the most down to earth, mentally sanest of the three of them but will he get the nomination? Doesn't seem likely to me.

That doesn't mean to say that the Democrats always field the ideal candidates either. Need I say more about Sanders ?

This is a rotten election campaign with rotten candidates. It's no credit to Hillary that I feel I have to vote for her but one has to pick the least rotten apple out of the barrel when such an occasion arises

Re: 2016 Election
 

Another 10,000+ rally today in New York of all places - the most liberal state in the US

Clinton has a huge problem with independents and the young, both of whom are voting for Sanders in their droves. She can't win the general election if independents don't come out for her, same with Trump; its independents who decide elections. Trump's numbers with independents are better than those with registered Republicans; most of the primaries and caucuses he's lost were in places where you have to be a registered Republican to vote

The general election is going to be decided by no more than 8 swing states, Florida among them, where Trump has a huge presence and completely annihilated Rubio who's a local senator. If Clinton does go on to win by stitching up Sanders and evading justice over the email scandal, it is not going to be the white wash people like you predict and Trump is not going to destroy the GOP leading up to it. I urge you and the rest of the GOP hate mob to come back to planet earth on this. This is the same America that voted for Bush II not once, but twice

Re: 2016 Election
 

Lol that you consider Flavius part of the the "GOP hate mob".

Re: 2016 Election
 

NY is Trump's home state, I would be shocked if he didn't do well there. Plus you are confusing how liberal say Brooklyn is compared to the rest of the rather vast state or even with Staten Island which is notoriously Republican as is Long Island where the rally was.

Re: 2016 Election
 

I'm still to new to be part of the clique on here so wouldn't know. If I'm wrong, pass on my apologies

Re: 2016 Election
 

Still too new actually to read thoroughly what you quoted??

Re: 2016 Election
 

Clinton clearly has a problem with the young. But how many open primaries have there been that show independents are voting for Sanders rather than Clinton? It would be interesting to see some data on this.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Not so!
The general election will be decided, as it always is, by the Electoral College.

Not so!

"America" ( assuming you mean by that - the majority of the voters) voted for Bush once.
He lost the popular vote in the 2000 election to Al Gore.

It was the Electoral College that voted for him twice.

The winner of the majority of the popular vote will lose the election if they fail to capture 270 electoral votes.

Re: 2016 Election
 

What's actually interesting is that if a strong third party candidate runs you can get to the position where no candidate has 270 electoral college votes. The burden of picking the president then falls on the speaker of the house.