The New American Politics thread

[Nehkara]

Just curious... on the Democrat side of this race, IF the race goes like this over the next 6 weeks:

MARCH 22
Arizona - Bernie Sanders Win
Idaho - Bernie Sanders Win
Utah - Bernie Sanders Win

MARCH 26
Alaska - Bernie Sanders Win
Hawaii - Bernie Sanders Win
Washington - Bernie Sanders Win

APRIL 5
Wisconsin - Bernie Sanders Win

APRIL 9
Wyoming - Bernie Sanders Win

APRIL 19
New York - Bernie Sanders Win

APRIL 26
Connecticut - Bernie Sanders Win
Delaware - Hillary Clinton Win
Maryland - Hillary Clinton Win
Pennsylvania - Bernie Sanders Win
Rhode Island - Bernie Sanders Win

MAY 3
Indiana - Bernie Sanders Win

---

Do you think that would generate enough momentum for Sanders to win the nomination?
(Yes, I know delegates make the nominee not momentum but they may go hand in hand.)

[octothorp]

It depends on the narrative, which in turn depends on the actual delegate counts. If he's winning by enough margins that the media starts talking about him realistically catching up to Hillary, maybe. But if he's winning these states by one or two delegates, then the number of wins won't really matter, and I think the narrative will be 'too little, too late,' rather than momentum.

I also think Trump will start to focus more on Hillary, Hillary will focus more on Trump, and those two will get the vast majority of headlines as a result, and Sanders would need some really huge wins to change the presumptive nominees narrative.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Also not sure why you think he'd win in places like New York and Wyoming. I haven't seen any recent polling or anything (not even sure there is any), but some of those states seem like pretty big longshots.

[Nehkara]

Originally Posted by octothorp

It depends on the narrative, which in turn depends on the actual delegate counts. If he's winning by enough margins that the media starts talking about him realistically catching up to Hillary, maybe. But if he's winning these states by one or two delegates, then the number of wins won't really matter, and I think the narrative will be 'too little, too late,' rather than momentum.

I also think Trump will start to focus more on Hillary, Hillary will focus more on Trump, and those two will get the vast majority of headlines as a result, and Sanders would need some really huge wins to change the presumptive nominees narrative.

Thanks!

Yeah, I agree. Sanders needs big wins both from a delegate point of view and so that he stays in the media spotlight.

He needs to set himself up so that a big win in California on June 7th can catapult him past Hillary in delegates.

This is a very interesting race. Should be intriguing to watch it continue to unfold.

---

On the Republican side of things... Trump needs to win some of the big prize winner-take-all states like Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Indiana.

And once again it will come down to California. California is winner-take-all for the the Republicans and 172 delegates. It could well be the key for Trump winning the nomination. Similarly, on the flip side, it is key for the "anti-trump" movement to stop him from winning California.

I'm kind of horrified that Trump could become president in 8 months or so... but I remain confident that he will lose to either of the Democrat possibilities.

[Nehkara]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Also not sure why you think he'd win in places like New York and Wyoming. I haven't seen any recent polling or anything (not even sure there is any), but some of those states seem like pretty big longshots.

Not saying I think he will win them, just curious what people think would happen if it did.

---

The reason I mentioned it is two-fold:

1. Sanders needs to win New York

2. In general he has done well in states where the polling shows Clinton support under 60%. Most recent poll of New York put her support at 55%.

That said, he IS trailing in the polls in New York so it's an area he needs to improve before April 19th.


In terms of Wyoming... he has a lot of support in the west and midwest. In addition, the demographics are good for him.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Nehkara

Just curious... on the Democrat side of this race, IF the race goes like this over the next 6 weeks:

MARCH 22
Arizona - Bernie Sanders Win
Idaho - Bernie Sanders Win
Utah - Bernie Sanders Win

MARCH 26
Alaska - Bernie Sanders Win
Hawaii - Bernie Sanders Win
Washington - Bernie Sanders Win

APRIL 5
Wisconsin - Bernie Sanders Win

APRIL 9
Wyoming - Bernie Sanders Win

APRIL 19
New York - Bernie Sanders Win

APRIL 26
Connecticut - Bernie Sanders Win
Delaware - Hillary Clinton Win
Maryland - Hillary Clinton Win
Pennsylvania - Bernie Sanders Win
Rhode Island - Bernie Sanders Win

MAY 3
Indiana - Bernie Sanders Win

---

Do you think that would generate enough momentum for Sanders to win the nomination?
(Yes, I know delegates make the nominee not momentum but they may go hand in hand.)

Realistically this is only happening if Hillary gets indicted. But if somehow he wins states he has no chance of winning like Arizona, Connecticut, New York and Pennsylvania (hint: closed primaries), then yeah he can probably claim to have momentum to build on and maybe he can steal it. But those closed primaries aren't just going to be losses for him, they're going to be 20 point losses or worse. So the deficit hasn't even hit how high it'll be, if she can pull out those huge wins the deficit will be 400+ going into May.

Bernie's done all he can, but his path to winning now is non-existent. If he wants to have a true long-term impact, he should drop out and focus on getting as many anti-establishment/progressive/liberal members of the House and Senate elected as he can. That could produce more significant impact than running out the string in the hope of some miracle.

[Coach]

All the stuff about Hillary being indicted, are they going to find out about that sometime soon?

For something so potentially serious, you'd think this would be something that should be getting looked at and solved either way ASAP.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Nehkara

Do you think that would generate enough momentum for Sanders to win the nomination?
(Yes, I know delegates make the nominee not momentum but they may go hand in hand.)

Don't frame it in terms of "wins".

Here's the cold hard facts... Sanders will need to win about 58 percent of the remaining elected delegates to tie Clinton. Since the Democrats allocate delegates proportionally, that means he’d need to win about 58 percent of the vote in the remaining states, meaning he’d need to beat Clinton by a 16 point margin the rest of the way. You have her winning Maryland and Delaware so let's bump his required margin up to 60% of remaining delegates for the other states... so he'd basically have to beat her by 20 points in all those contests (including the state in which she was the senator, and Arizona where as of yesterday she was up 26 points points in a poll voting next week)... and that basically just gets him into a tie. Sanders doesn't need just "wins" he needs massive wins everywhere.

Clinton is further ahead of Sanders then Obama was ahead of Clinton at this point in 2008. Sanders is not going to win. It's effectively over.

[troutman]

I think that is right, except some states are Winner Take All?

ie. 50% +1 gives you all the delegates.

EDIT - I see only Republicans do that . . .

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by MattyC

All the stuff about Hillary being indicted, are they going to find out about that sometime soon?

For something so potentially serious, you'd think this would be something that should be getting looked at and solved either way ASAP.

I don't understand why the mainstream media isn't running with this story if it's true. I read about it all over places like this and FB, yet the big news outlets don't touch it. Or is it one of those Lizardman/Bilderberg/Alex Jones conspiracy things?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by troutman

I think that is right, except some states are Winner Take All?

ie. 50% +1 gives you all the delegates.

EDIT - I see only Republicans do that . . .

I think only the GOP has winner-take-all states. Someone correct me if that is wrong, but that is my recollection.

[troutman]

http://www.investors.com/politics/on...o-be-indicted/

Based on the available facts and the relevant precedents, criminal prosecution of Clinton for mishandling classified information in her emails is extraordinarily unlikely.

In Clinton’s case, by contrast, there is no clear evidence that Clinton knew (or even should have known) that the material in her emails was classified. Second, it is debatable whether her use of the private server constituted removal or retention of material. Finally, the aggravating circumstance of false statements to federal agents is, as far as we know, absent.

[Senator Clay Davis]

GOP does winner take all but only in 11 states, most of which are to come though like California and New York, which will be big prizes in determining the winner.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

GOP does winner take all but only in 11 states, most of which are to come though like California and New York, which will be big prizes in determining the winner.

I don't believe California is winner-take-all--but I would expect Trump to do quite well in the Orange County-type areas, where there are lots of SoCal conservatives. New York should also be a shoo-in for him.

On the other hand, I don't expect him to win Wisconsin, which is winner-take-all. Scott Walker's endorsement on Wisconsin figures to be huge, and I'd think he makes a strong effort to deliver the state to Kasich.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

GOP does winner take all but only in 11 states

In 11 states remaining, + a there are a few winner take most and I think three remaining proportional states.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I don't believe California is winner-take-all--but I would expect Trump to do quite well in the Orange County-type areas, where there are lots of SoCal conservatives. New York should also be a shoo-in for him.

On the other hand, I don't expect him to win Wisconsin, which is winner-take-all. Scott Walker's endorsement on Wisconsin figures to be huge, and I'd think he makes a strong effort to deliver the state to Kasich.

Maybe it's just me but why would anyone vote for someone with zero chance of winning? I highly doubt the voting public would be thinking that the man with the smallest amount of delegates could win a brokered convention.

If I didn't like Trump or Cruz I would just stay home.

[2Stonedbirds]

Because it may help to shift political winds. Guarenteed that the support Bernie has enjoyed will help to shape future govts, and in many ways it's changing Clintons tone and direction right now.

I understand that if you don't like any of your choices it's hard to vote for someone, but it should still be important. If I was American I would be utterly crushed at my choices, but I'd still go out and exercise that choice.

[Looch City]

Could watch it over and over again...

[Caged Great]

Say Sanders wins all of the next six states by ten points 55-45, he'll pick up about 150 delegates to Hillary's 120. So instead of trailing by 300 he'll be down by 270. And that doesn't count the supers that are available, which there's about 40 of them and would likely go to Hillary.

That's the problem Sanders faces, there simply isn't enough time. Hillary will likely take New York, and say she only wins by 4 points 52-48, that alone would probably eliminate the losses from those six states by itself.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by T@T

Maybe it's just me but why would anyone vote for someone with zero chance of winning? I highly doubt the voting public would be thinking that the man with the smallest amount of delegates could win a brokered convention.

If I didn't like Trump or Cruz I would just stay home.

I think Kasich needs to win the winner-take-all states (or a goodly portion of them) to make the case for that. At the end of the day, I think you're likely right, but keep in mind that at a brokered convention the ultimate candidate needn't even be Kasich. There are other possibilities, including Kasich holding the balance of power and tipping the nomination to Cruz over Trump, or a brokered convention where another candidate (Paul Ryan, perhaps?) comes up the middle on the second ballot--keep in mind that even Cruz and Trump's delegates are only "pledged" to those candidates on the first ballot.

With that said, I agree that it's a longer shot. But if you are a republican who isn't a fan of the ultra-right evangelical Cruz, or of the apocalyptic racist rhetoric of Trump, what do you do?

At this point, I am hoping for a brokered convention, just for the entertainment value.