New York Primary Results Thread

[FieldTheorist]

I'm not a Trump fan, but I see him getting to 1237. It would be a crime though if he hit, say, 115o, and they swiped the nomination from him and handed it to Kasich or some as yet mentioned savior. All hell will break loose.

Don't worry, that's almost certainly what they're going to do.

Looking at the board (RealClearPolitics), I calculate that he should expect to get around 261 delegates with his current number (in only a two or three states is he polling above 50% and they were almost all small delegate states, so it's unlikely winner-take-all comes in to save him). Now if he ran a well-organized campaign, he might be able to use counties to his advantage, but alas he does not have a well run organization, nor a lot of time. Assuming a 20% standard error, that means I'd give him <5% chance of taking the nomination on the first ballot, unless his national numbers start improving quickly and his important local numbers (i.e. California) improve. Even if he did a winner-take-all in California, it still wouldn't compensate his numbers.

And you think that Republicans will let Trump survive after a first ballot? Oh hoh hoh. I would considering betting everything I owned that he wouldn't survive the second ballot. The Establishment would wait until three or so ballots until all delegates are freed, give Kasich the nomination with Cruz as VP, and claim that combined they + Rubio + Carson got more delegates, and hey, this is the process.


Again, it will be the cherry on top of the **** sunday that was the 2016 primary cycle.

 

[Wiggen]

America does have a lot of problems, though. Are you denying this?

Of course America has problems. Every country has problems. But it's a giant step to go from 'America has problems' to 'America sucks'.

 

[sKiTzo]

LOL yeah its pretty hilarious that the Bernie busters first hated the superdelegates and claimed that it was unfair and undemocratic (they made the same hypocritical claim about closed primaries but make excuses for caucuses because Bernie wins in them). Now they've done a 180 and want to use the supers to get a win for Bernie.

The reason I complained is that the idea of the supers was presented to me as extra delegates placed there by party leaders to vote for the candidate that is favored by party leaders. Why are they there then? What is the reason for superdelegates?

 

[sKiTzo]

I just think it's hilarious she continues to describe herself as being 'Very Liberal' despite being nothing of the sort as her assertions repeatedly prove, even from an American frame of reference; this is not unlike rabid partisans who pretend to be independents on this forum.

One thing we can be certain of with her is that she will do NOTHING of what she says she'll do. She's the phoniest there ever was. At least with Sanders, his voting record is a solid backing for his spiel.

 

[sKiTzo]

Yes, some do, plenty of other followers, myself included, prefer pledged delegates to determine the nominee, even if it results in as distasteful and unacceptable an outcome as Hillary.

That said, I'm not opposed to courting superdelegates, so long as the primary objective of that is not to subvert the popular vote.

Contradiction: Distasteful and unacceptable outcomes would be a result of subverting the popular vote. No?

 

[sKiTzo]

You seem to have me confused with someone else, maybe one of the voices in your head.
Have fun.

My apologies. Your statement was actually agreeing with me, I now believe.

 

[sKiTzo]

Yeup, ya picked the correct Handle. Good Job

...and I agree with you as well.