Posted by bad_luck on 4/4/2016 5:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 4/4/2016 5:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/4/2016 5:11:00 PM (view original):
This is fun:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/can-you-get-trump-to-1237/

If Trump only gets <12 delegates from WI tomorrow, he's going to miss out on 1237 and he's essentially done.

It will only be Cruz and Trump on the ballet (rule 40b).... But as to the 1237... Trump will take 90+ in NY to offset WI. Then the next MONTH favors Trump in the Northeast. There are 125 unaccounted-for delegates of which 54 are in Trump-friendly Pennsylvania and more in some other states he won like Tenn and Louisiana. Sounds like Trump may have locked up 12 from Missouri... He's threatening court for others. Not all of the delegates are #nevertrump people, which I think you assume. Many of the delegates have said they feel it's their moral obligation to support the candidate that won their district.

There is no guarantee he gets 90+ in NY. The polling isn't showing that big of a landslide.

And, again, rule 40 isn't for sure. The party would have to put it into place and there are a lot of people in the party that see what a disaster Trump is. Paul Ryan is very popular and would probably win the general election.

There is no guarantee of anything.... But the polling right now suggests Trump might only lose 1-2 districts in NY. That's what, 89 delegates?

You're putting a lot of what ifs out there. I'm saying things aren't changing, nothing drastic at least. A minority is not overthrowing the majority. Trump polls at 48% nationality and he's climbing higher.... STILL. Who knows where he'll be polling on 3 months, maybe 60%, 70%?

He's polling at roughly 50% in a proportional state, so you can estimate roughly 50% of the proportional delegates. I think 70 would be a good day for Trump in NY.

LOS ANGELES (KABC) --
An exclusive Eyewitness News poll conducted by SurveyUSA shows that in California, 50 percent of registered voters have an "extremely negative" view of Donald Trump, but he still leads narrowly among likely Republican primary voters.

The poll, released on Monday, showed that 15 percent of Republicans likely to vote in the state's Republican primary also have a negative view of Trump. Yet, Trump polls at 40 percent, Ted Cruz at 32 percent and John Kasich at 17 percent.

And despite Trump's remarks about women and his staff's treatment of women, he still leads among female voters.

Posted by bad_luck on 4/4/2016 7:13:00 PM (view original):
He's polling at roughly 50% in a proportional state, so you can estimate roughly 50% of the proportional delegates. I think 70 would be a good day for Trump in NY.

Not how it works. Look at Illinois where he got 38% of the vote.... And 53 of 69 delegates.

— "Trump leads Kasich 47 percent to 22 percent in New York, with Cruz bringing up the rear at 15 percent, according to Optimus’ survey. The district breakdowns also show Trump leading in every seat except one, a heavily Democratic district where the sample size was less than 100. Furthermore, Trump clears the 50-percent mark in 11 New York congressional districts ... That’s important because district winners in New York can collect all three district delegates if they win a majority of the vote there. (A statewide majority would also net Trump all 14 at-large delegates, instead of sharing them proportionally.) Trump is at 45 percent or higher in an additional half-dozen New York congressional districts, per Optimus."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-score/2016/03/delegate-chase-tight-race-in-wisconsin-trump-running-up-the-score-in-new-york-dem-oppo-picks-up-2014-republicans-tactics-king-predicts-very-nasty-race-in-ia-04-213432#ixzz44u2OhLN4

Posted by moy23 on 4/4/2016 7:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/4/2016 7:13:00 PM (view original):
He's polling at roughly 50% in a proportional state, so you can estimate roughly 50% of the proportional delegates. I think 70 would be a good day for Trump in NY.

Not how it works. Look at Illinois where he got 38% of the vote.... And 53 of 69 delegates.

Every state has different rules. You can't just look at another state and guess.

I wouldn't be surprised if Trump pulls down 70 delegates from NY, but he isn't getting 90. 80 is an extreme long shot.

Posted by tecwrg on 4/4/2016 6:45:00 PM (view original):
Moy, let's play a hypothetical.

Let's say the Acme Party has three possible candidates for President: Tom, Dick and Harry. Tom looks like he will be heading into the Acme National Convention this summer with the most delegates from the caucuses and primaries, but not enough to garner the nomination on the first ballot. Dick also has a lot of delegates, but is a distant second. Harry is dead last among the three.

However . . . national polls show that Tom is virtually guaranteed to be unelectable in the general election in November, no matter what (despite what his delusional followers may believe). Dick may have somewhat more success than Tom in the general election, but is also likely to lose. However, national polls show that Harry would actually be favored to win in November against the other parties likely candidate, Sally, because a great deal of people mistrust and dislike Sally.

What would be in the Acme Party's best interests . . . nominating their "leading" candidate who is doomed to lose to Sally in November, or throw tradition aside and nominate the candidate who is most likely favored to bring the Presidency to the Acme Party?

Irrelevant. Trump hasn't even started on Hillary yet.... And he's going to have 1237 delegates.

Posted by moy23 on 4/4/2016 7:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 4/4/2016 6:45:00 PM (view original):
Moy, let's play a hypothetical.

Let's say the Acme Party has three possible candidates for President: Tom, Dick and Harry. Tom looks like he will be heading into the Acme National Convention this summer with the most delegates from the caucuses and primaries, but not enough to garner the nomination on the first ballot. Dick also has a lot of delegates, but is a distant second. Harry is dead last among the three.

However . . . national polls show that Tom is virtually guaranteed to be unelectable in the general election in November, no matter what (despite what his delusional followers may believe). Dick may have somewhat more success than Tom in the general election, but is also likely to lose. However, national polls show that Harry would actually be favored to win in November against the other parties likely candidate, Sally, because a great deal of people mistrust and dislike Sally.

What would be in the Acme Party's best interests . . . nominating their "leading" candidate who is doomed to lose to Sally in November, or throw tradition aside and nominate the candidate who is most likely favored to bring the Presidency to the Acme Party?

Irrelevant. Trump hasn't even started on Hillary yet.... And he's going to have 1237 delegates.

How is a hypothetical "irrelevant"?

Please answer the question.

Posted by tecwrg on 4/4/2016 7:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 4/4/2016 7:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 4/4/2016 6:45:00 PM (view original):
Moy, let's play a hypothetical.

Let's say the Acme Party has three possible candidates for President: Tom, Dick and Harry. Tom looks like he will be heading into the Acme National Convention this summer with the most delegates from the caucuses and primaries, but not enough to garner the nomination on the first ballot. Dick also has a lot of delegates, but is a distant second. Harry is dead last among the three.

However . . . national polls show that Tom is virtually guaranteed to be unelectable in the general election in November, no matter what (despite what his delusional followers may believe). Dick may have somewhat more success than Tom in the general election, but is also likely to lose. However, national polls show that Harry would actually be favored to win in November against the other parties likely candidate, Sally, because a great deal of people mistrust and dislike Sally.

What would be in the Acme Party's best interests . . . nominating their "leading" candidate who is doomed to lose to Sally in November, or throw tradition aside and nominate the candidate who is most likely favored to bring the Presidency to the Acme Party?

Irrelevant. Trump hasn't even started on Hillary yet.... And he's going to have 1237 delegates.

How is a hypothetical "irrelevant"?

Please answer the question.

Seriously dude? You can't figure out where I stand on this issue based on my previous posts in this thread? I side with the people.


According to Machiavelli, when the nobles see that they "cannot withstand the people," they work to "increase the standing" of one of their own in order to pursue their aims through him. When threatened, the people act similarly, trying to make a private citizen into a prince so that they may seek protection behind his authority. Machiavelli writes, "A man who becomes prince with the help of the nobles finds it more difficult to maintain his position than one who does so with the help of the people." When a prince gains power with the nobles, "he finds himself surrounded by many who believe they are his equals" and who are less willing to take orders from him. The nobles are also less honest in their intentions than the people, since the people want only to avoid oppression.

NO! He doesn't wanna play. I WANNA PLAY! I WANNA PLAY HYPOTHETICAL!

Let's say your name is Tom and you got a little Dick and you wished it was Harry.

NO WAIT! Let's pretend abortion was illegal and then what would you…...

OH! OH! OH! WAIT!!!!~ LET'S PRETEND THIS! LET'S PRETEND THIS!!!

LET'S PRETEND THE FBI INDICTS HILLARY. LET'S PRETEND OBAMA AND HIS A.G. REFUSE TO ACT. LET'S PRETEND THE MAIN STREAM LAME STREAM MEDIA IGNORES THE STORY JUST AS THEY ARE IGNORING THE STORY TODAY!

WHAT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE CONSTITUTION AND THE RULE OF LAW? IGNORE HILLARY THE FELON FOR THE GOOD OF THE ESTABLISHMENT AMERICAN SOCIALIST SOCIETY (A.S.S.) PARTY, ONCE KNOWN AS DEMOCRAPS AND DEMONAZIS….OR PRESERVE ORDER AND JUSTICE BY UPHOLDING THE LAW AND SERVING THE PEOPLE?

PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION.

Posted by moy23 on 4/4/2016 8:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 4/4/2016 7:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 4/4/2016 7:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 4/4/2016 6:45:00 PM (view original):
Moy, let's play a hypothetical.

Let's say the Acme Party has three possible candidates for President: Tom, Dick and Harry. Tom looks like he will be heading into the Acme National Convention this summer with the most delegates from the caucuses and primaries, but not enough to garner the nomination on the first ballot. Dick also has a lot of delegates, but is a distant second. Harry is dead last among the three.

However . . . national polls show that Tom is virtually guaranteed to be unelectable in the general election in November, no matter what (despite what his delusional followers may believe). Dick may have somewhat more success than Tom in the general election, but is also likely to lose. However, national polls show that Harry would actually be favored to win in November against the other parties likely candidate, Sally, because a great deal of people mistrust and dislike Sally.

What would be in the Acme Party's best interests . . . nominating their "leading" candidate who is doomed to lose to Sally in November, or throw tradition aside and nominate the candidate who is most likely favored to bring the Presidency to the Acme Party?

Irrelevant. Trump hasn't even started on Hillary yet.... And he's going to have 1237 delegates.

How is a hypothetical "irrelevant"?

Please answer the question.

Seriously dude? You can't figure out where I stand on this issue based on my previous posts in this thread? I side with the people.


According to Machiavelli, when the nobles see that they "cannot withstand the people," they work to "increase the standing" of one of their own in order to pursue their aims through him. When threatened, the people act similarly, trying to make a private citizen into a prince so that they may seek protection behind his authority. Machiavelli writes, "A man who becomes prince with the help of the nobles finds it more difficult to maintain his position than one who does so with the help of the people." When a prince gains power with the nobles, "he finds himself surrounded by many who believe they are his equals" and who are less willing to take orders from him. The nobles are also less honest in their intentions than the people, since the people want only to avoid oppression.

Oh, I know where you stand. Just wanted to hear you say it once again.

I assume you consider yourself a staunch Republican. What do you think is in the overall best interests of the party . . . nominating an electable candidate, or nominating an unelectable candidate? Which better furthers the Republican cause . . . a Democrat or a Republican in the Oval Office?

Posted by DougOut on 4/4/2016 8:12:00 PM (view original):
NO! He doesn't wanna play. I WANNA PLAY! I WANNA PLAY HYPOTHETICAL!

Let's say your name is Tom and you got a little Dick and you wished it was Harry.

NO WAIT! Let's pretend abortion was illegal and then what would you…...

OH! OH! OH! WAIT!!!!~ LET'S PRETEND THIS! LET'S PRETEND THIS!!!

LET'S PRETEND THE FBI INDICTS HILLARY. LET'S PRETEND OBAMA AND HIS A.G. REFUSE TO ACT. LET'S PRETEND THE MAIN STREAM LAME STREAM MEDIA IGNORES THE STORY JUST AS THEY ARE IGNORING THE STORY TODAY!

WHAT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE CONSTITUTION AND THE RULE OF LAW? IGNORE HILLARY THE FELON FOR THE GOOD OF THE ESTABLISHMENT AMERICAN SOCIALIST SOCIETY (A.S.S.) PARTY, ONCE KNOWN AS DEMOCRAPS AND DEMONAZIS….OR PRESERVE ORDER AND JUSTICE BY UPHOLDING THE LAW AND SERVING THE PEOPLE?

PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION.

PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION.

Posted by tecwrg on 4/4/2016 8:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 4/4/2016 8:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 4/4/2016 7:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 4/4/2016 7:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 4/4/2016 6:45:00 PM (view original):
Moy, let's play a hypothetical.

Let's say the Acme Party has three possible candidates for President: Tom, Dick and Harry. Tom looks like he will be heading into the Acme National Convention this summer with the most delegates from the caucuses and primaries, but not enough to garner the nomination on the first ballot. Dick also has a lot of delegates, but is a distant second. Harry is dead last among the three.

However . . . national polls show that Tom is virtually guaranteed to be unelectable in the general election in November, no matter what (despite what his delusional followers may believe). Dick may have somewhat more success than Tom in the general election, but is also likely to lose. However, national polls show that Harry would actually be favored to win in November against the other parties likely candidate, Sally, because a great deal of people mistrust and dislike Sally.

What would be in the Acme Party's best interests . . . nominating their "leading" candidate who is doomed to lose to Sally in November, or throw tradition aside and nominate the candidate who is most likely favored to bring the Presidency to the Acme Party?

Irrelevant. Trump hasn't even started on Hillary yet.... And he's going to have 1237 delegates.

How is a hypothetical "irrelevant"?

Please answer the question.

Seriously dude? You can't figure out where I stand on this issue based on my previous posts in this thread? I side with the people.


According to Machiavelli, when the nobles see that they "cannot withstand the people," they work to "increase the standing" of one of their own in order to pursue their aims through him. When threatened, the people act similarly, trying to make a private citizen into a prince so that they may seek protection behind his authority. Machiavelli writes, "A man who becomes prince with the help of the nobles finds it more difficult to maintain his position than one who does so with the help of the people." When a prince gains power with the nobles, "he finds himself surrounded by many who believe they are his equals" and who are less willing to take orders from him. The nobles are also less honest in their intentions than the people, since the people want only to avoid oppression.

Oh, I know where you stand. Just wanted to hear you say it once again.

I assume you consider yourself a staunch Republican. What do you think is in the overall best interests of the party . . . nominating an electable candidate, or nominating an unelectable candidate? Which better furthers the Republican cause . . . a Democrat or a Republican in the Oval Office?

Hey look!!! The Cubs have the best odds to win the World Series!!!! Why even bother to play the season, Right?????
http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/chicago-cubs-san-francisco-giants-have-best-odds-to-win-world-series-in-2016-121615

If I'm hearing you correctly you would ignore the will of the majority of republican voters now because 'YOU' 'THINK' a different candidate is more suited to win an election 8 months from now? How very elitist of you.

10 contested conventions, 3 eventual nominees were the leading vote getters.

Sounds to me that Trump is 70% ****** if he doesn't have 1237.

Sounds to me that if Hillary goes to prison she can't be President.