Plan B Forum

Here

Thus far Cruz has won Kansas, leading in Maine, neck-in-neck with Trump in Kentucky, nothing reported from Louisiana (our resident village idiot must be helping with the counting).

Nothing reporting yet on the Dem side.

Oh, no! Does this mean Drumpf is finally starting to feel the effects of ED (Electile Dysfunction.)


More live results:
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results

[quote="RayThom

[/quote]
I love the cartoon RayThom.

I think it means that the voters may be finally waking up to the possibility that Trump might get elected. That's why Mrs Mc spent three hours in line at the local caucus to vote for Cruz.

Trump has always struck me as being much like the Biff Tannen character in Back to the Future Two. Now the writer has confirmed it.

https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+b ... HOgyPjM%3A

It was a lousy night for my candidate, but the expectations weren't high in these races...

The most important tactical goal was to see the air start to go out of the Drumpf balloon, and last night's results suggest this is starting to happen. I'm no Cruz fan, but even though he was the immediate beneficiary, I'm still very pleased to finally see signs that the Trumpty Express is being derailed....

That had to be the first goal. This race is far from over...

The results on the Democratic side once again underscored Sanders' fundamental problem for getting the nomination:

With Democrats voting in Louisiana and caucusing in Nebraska and Kansas, Sanders won both the Midwestern states while Clinton carried Louisiana. These results mirrored the candidates' previous wins, as caucuses typically favor more ideological members of a party’s base, playing to Sanders’ strength among more liberal Democrats.

Both Nebraska and Kansas have fairly white electorates, an advantage for Sanders. Clinton is much more popular than Sanders among voters of color, having beat him by wide margins in South Carolina and in the several Southern states that voted on Super Tuesday. In Louisiana, where African-Americans make up 32 percent of the population, the former secretary of state won more than 70 percent of the vote Saturday, while Sanders took about 68 percent of the vote in Kansas, which is 86 percent white, and 55 percent of the vote Nebraska, which is 89 percent white.

http://www.ibtimes.com/super-saturday-2 ... nt-2330910

Even though he won two out of three states, he actually lost the day's delegate count 55 to 47, because he got slaughtered in Louisiana, a state with a larger population, and a much higher African American Democratic primary vote.

There simply are not enough states with 85-90 percent white participation in Democratic primaries, for him to be able to offset continuously being on the losing end of 80%-20% splits in the black vote.

And after 19 contests, the results uniformly show absolutely no indication that Sanders is making any progress at changing this.

This is still a "win" for Sanders, it seems. He got in this to provide a candidate for the far left, to energize that side of the party and force the "establishment" to move in his direction. His main goal is to make HRC move far enough to be acceptable to the very liberal so that they will turn out and vote for her in the general election. Actually winning the nomination has always been a glimmer for him, though his surprising strength has made for a good story.

Long Run wrote:This is still a "win" for Sanders, it seems. He got in this to provide a candidate for the far left, to energize that side of the party and force the "establishment" to move in his direction. His main goal is to make HRC move far enough to be acceptable to the very liberal so that they will turn out and vote for her in the general election. Actually winning the nomination has always been a glimmer for him, though his surprising strength has made for a good story.

This.

I was reading something in the Washington Post that Sanders's candidacy may force Clinton to bring on Elizabeth Warren as her running mate, in order to keep Sanders's supporters with her through the general election.

Now THAT is a ballot that I would love to see Jim facing next November: Trump and whatever bobblehead he gets to join him on the ticket, vs. Clinton and Warren. Best keep him away from sharp objects after he gets out of that polling booth.

Re. Cruz's booger -- that snot funny.

I feel strongly that Hillary will go with Julián Castro as a running mate. Had Biden stayed in the race I think he would have gone with Warren.

Now THAT is a ballot that I would love to see Jim facing next November: Trump and whatever bobblehead he gets to join him on the ticket, vs. Clinton and Warren. Best keep him away from sharp objects after he gets out of that polling booth.

And don't stand between me and the bar...

Lord Jim wrote:
Even though he won two out of three states, he actually lost the day's delegate count 55 to 47, because he got slaughtered in Louisiana, a state with a larger population, and a much higher African American Democratic primary vote.

There simply are not enough states with 85-90 percent white participation in Democratic primaries, for him to be able to offset continuously being on the losing end of 80%-20% splits in the black vote.

Your system is nuts.

RayThom wrote:I feel strongly that Hillary will go with Julián Castro as a running mate.

It has seemed to me for a while that he has been being groomed precisely for that. It probably neutralizes any effect that having Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio on the GOP ticket would have on Hispanic voters.

I think an un-talked about but very logical possible running mate for HRC, (particularly if she feels pressured by the left) is Sherrod Brown...

He's nearly as left-wing as Warren, but he's far more low-profile and less likely to overshadow Slick Hillie or go off message during the campaign...

and he's from Ohio....

I've never heard of these people, are you just pulling random names out of a hat?

Your system is nuts.

Yes, well at least we don't have the leader of one of our two major parties saying it would be "a good idea" to have nuclear submarines running around with no missiles on them...

Gob wrote:I've never heard of these people, are you just pulling random names out of a hat?

Julian Castro is the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in Obama's cabinet. He was formerly the mayor of San Antonio, Texas.

Elizabeth Warren is the senior U.S. Senator from Massachusetts. She was formerly a White House staffer and chair of the committee that oversaw TARP, and an early proponent of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Sherrod Brown is the senior U.S. Senator from Ohio and before that was a long-time member of the House of Representatives. I don't know that much about him other than he was one of the few brave members of Congress who voted against both DOMA and the Iraq War.

Gob wrote:I've never heard of these people, are you just pulling random names out of a hat?

No, our collective backside.

Thanks Scooter and Dales

Well Old Darling, you failed to respond to this:

Lord Jim wrote:

Your system is nuts.

Yes, well at least we don't have the leader of one of our two major parties saying it would be "a good idea" to have nuclear submarines running around with no missiles on them...