This is interesting...
Re: This is interesting...
that would be nice in the electoral college as well, but I doubt it will catch on.
Re: This is interesting...
The best electorate money can buy.Lord Jim wrote:John also hasn't raised boatloads of cash, but he's raised enough, and he's deployed his assets intelligently and shepherded his resources effectively...( skills one should want in a President...)
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: This is interesting...
Trump won Michigan. Bernie did too. Was he expected to?
Re: This is interesting...
Donald J. Bullshit is toxic scum...
Anything that can be done to derail him is all to the good...
Anything that can be done to derail him is all to the good...



Re: This is interesting...
Yes to Trump. But he is at 37% and he looks to win 21 of 48 delegates. This is a win, but it also illustrates that he is not a shoo-in.TPFKA@W wrote:Trump won Michigan. Bernie did too. Was he expected to?
Re: This is interesting...
Actually, this election is putting a lie to the argument that money buys elections (i.e., the person with the most money gets to win). If a candidate has enough money, he or she can get a message out, and either that gains traction or it doesn't. Look at Jeb, Mr. Moneypants in this election, and he never got anywhere. HRC has multiples more money that Sanders, but he is putting her through her paces anywhere there is not a significant black vote.Gob wrote:The best electorate money can buy.Lord Jim wrote:John also hasn't raised boatloads of cash, but he's raised enough, and he's deployed his assets intelligently and shepherded his resources effectively...( skills one should want in a President...)
Re: This is interesting...
Next week is the "do or die" on stopping our latter day Buzz Windrip...Long Run wrote:Yes to Trump. But he is at 37% and he looks to win 21 of 48 delegates. This is a win, but it also illustrates that he is not a shoo-in.TPFKA@W wrote:Trump won Michigan. Bernie did too. Was he expected to?



Re: This is interesting...
Nice reference. Fortunately, our culture and the current conditions do not lend themselves to that scenario, but he would fit it better than any candidate since that time.Lord Jim wrote: stopping our latter day Buzz Windrip...
ETA: It Happened One Night > It Can't Happen Here
- Sue U
- Posts: 9102
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
- Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)
Re: This is interesting...
From the Michigan results, it looks like Trump was barely nipped by Cruz and Kasich; between them they may have shaved 1 or 2 points off his total. But they ate Rubio's lunch, keeping him from even making double digits. So now the GOP has to ask itself if it is willing to kiss Ted Cruz to keep Donald Trump at bay. Ew ew ew ew ew ew ew ew ew and gross. :vomit:
GAH!
Re: This is interesting...
I was asking if Bernie was expect d to win Michigan.
- MajGenl.Meade
- Posts: 21467
- Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
- Location: Groot Brakrivier
- Contact:
Re: This is interesting...
No, he was not expected to win Michigan; he was expected to do better than in the southern states but not win. He got more than 50% to everyone's surprise. The delegate count gained was only slightly in his favor though.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
Re: This is interesting...
If it's Berine vs Drumpl I expect to see president Drumpf. I just don't see Bernie being able to handle Drumpfs brand of politics. I expect Bernie/Drumpf to make Jeb!/Drumpf look like Lincoln/Douglass.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
- Sue U
- Posts: 9102
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
- Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)
Re: This is interesting...
It will not be Bernie. He would have to win every race from here on out by 60-40 margins to get enough delegates for the nomination. Michigan-squeak 1 or 2 point victories, even if it could happen, will not do it. It can, however, pressure the nominee to adopt a more Bernie-esque line on policy.
So I sent him some more money today.
So I sent him some more money today.
GAH!
Re: This is interesting...
I am doing the same.
- MajGenl.Meade
- Posts: 21467
- Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
- Location: Groot Brakrivier
- Contact:
Re: This is interesting...
Money a bit tight these days... but I found out yesterday (somewhat to my surprise) that my wife decided (as I have done) that she will register as a Democrat at the polling station next week and vote for Bernie. She values sincerity and consistency.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
Re: This is interesting...
That's correct, as I have also pointed out...the math is extremely daunting for Sanders...He would have to win every race from here on out by 60-40 margins to get enough delegates for the nomination.
And if he continues to only get 20% of the African-American vote, it's a mathematical impossibility....
Hillary's main stumbling block for the nomination at this point isn't Bernie Sanders...
It's James Comey...
And if she does wind up getting indicted, (which she fully deserves, just based on what is now in the public record...of course that doesn't mean it will happen...) the most likely Democratic nominee will be Joe Biden, not Bernie Sanders....
ETA:
I value sincerity and consistency too, but I would prefer someone who is not sincerely and consistently wrong...She values sincerity and consistency.



Re: This is interesting...
Joe Biden...I'm going to mark this down and we'll see what happens if it ever comes to this. FWIW, I'm nor sure Uncle Joe entering the race late would play well with the public, nor am I sure Hillary would throw her support/delegates to Biden without an Obama pardon offer, which is iffy at best.And if she does wind up getting indicted, (which she fully deserves, just based on what is now in the public record...of course that doesn't mean it will happen...) the most likely Democratic nominee will be Joe Biden, not Bernie Sanders....
Re: This is interesting...
One thing I have recently learned, is that if the FBI recommends filing charges against Hillary to the Justice Department, that fact is supposed to be secret and not publicly released...
That apparently is standard procedure...
And maybe in most cases that makes sense....
But if a leading candidate for the Presidency Of The United States, ( a candidate who given the current political dynamics is in fact most likely to win the Presidency) has serious endangering national security and/or public corruption charges recommended against them by the FBI (following an exhaustive investigation involving 150 agents) the American people have an absolute right to know that...
For information of that sort to be withheld, is thwarting of our political process...
If charges are recommended, it will undoubtedly be leaked, and if that happens you can count on Team Clinton to focus on how unfair it is that the information was leaked and try to avoid the substance...
Now there's my idea of a "whistle blower" as opposed to a "traitor"...
Forget about it being someone I loathe as much as I loathe Hillary Clinton...
If any leading Presidential candidate (even one I liked) had serious charges recommended against them by the FBI, and that information was being withheld from the public, (especially with the possibility that a Justice Department whose leadership was appointed by the same party might quash it for political reasons) that would be completely wrong, and the public should hear about it...
There's absolutely no threat to national security by releasing that kind of information...
That apparently is standard procedure...
And maybe in most cases that makes sense....
But if a leading candidate for the Presidency Of The United States, ( a candidate who given the current political dynamics is in fact most likely to win the Presidency) has serious endangering national security and/or public corruption charges recommended against them by the FBI (following an exhaustive investigation involving 150 agents) the American people have an absolute right to know that...
For information of that sort to be withheld, is thwarting of our political process...
If charges are recommended, it will undoubtedly be leaked, and if that happens you can count on Team Clinton to focus on how unfair it is that the information was leaked and try to avoid the substance...
Now there's my idea of a "whistle blower" as opposed to a "traitor"...
Forget about it being someone I loathe as much as I loathe Hillary Clinton...
If any leading Presidential candidate (even one I liked) had serious charges recommended against them by the FBI, and that information was being withheld from the public, (especially with the possibility that a Justice Department whose leadership was appointed by the same party might quash it for political reasons) that would be completely wrong, and the public should hear about it...
There's absolutely no threat to national security by releasing that kind of information...



Re: This is interesting...
Can't argue with that Jim.
Re: This is interesting...
Your system....Sue U wrote:It will not be Bernie. He would have to win every race from here on out by 60-40 margins to get enough delegates for the nomination. Michigan-squeak 1 or 2 point victories, even if it could happen, will not do it.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”