smitty wrote:There are SOME Trump supporters around these parts. I know a few.

Smitty, if I may ask - what part of it do they support? Have they said? Sincere question

He says things they want to hear. It's that simple. The government is taking their hard earned money and giving it to people who don't want to work. Also to Muslims.

Obama is the worst President ever. He's an alien and a Muslim.

Stuff like that.

Youseff wrote:

Werthless wrote:Calvinball, using data, here is your answer for why most people refuse to believe Trump has a shot to win:

http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-m ... image.aspx

Trump now has a higher unfavorable rating than any candidate at any time during all of these previous election cycles, and that conclusion takes into account the fact that unfavorable ratings tend to rise in the heat of a general election campaign as the barbs, negative ads and heightened partisanship are taken to their highest levels.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pol ... ble-rating

Hillary is at 53% though, and getting worse.

this is gonna be a shit show. gonna get way way worse.

What happens when an unlikeable force clashes with a hateable object? Find out this November!

i can't find any polls at all on republicans in washington so i'm not sure what the hell i was looking at earlier, but i swear i saw something that showed trump support was low in washington.

looking at the dem schedule, while super tuesday will probably go badly for bernie, he has a bunch of favorable states in march. bunch of states in the west and the big 3 states in the midwest have their primaries/caucuses. hopefully he can manage to not get killed in the SEC states on super tuesday and still come out with a decent amount of delegates.

tangential note: while googling around just now i saw a bunch of articles on how Sanders is killing Hillary in the latest poll in WV, whose primary is in may.

SK790 wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote: Let's be clear though--this outrage is not really being driven by poor people, it's being driven by people who are relatively well off and are angry anyway.

I'm not clear. Please elaborate

Poor people aren't supporting Trump or Sanders. I bet Hillary wins Flint by a large margin.

The outrage seems to be coming from people wishing for some fictional "good old days" where they could openly say racist, homophobic, etc... things. Trump really does seem to speak to the latently racist white Northeasterner.

I'm not buying it. Not the part about trump appealing to racists, but the overall tone of anger among middle class white people. I just don't get populist rage at all.

TenuredVulture wrote:

SK790 wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote: Let's be clear though--this outrage is not really being driven by poor people, it's being driven by people who are relatively well off and are angry anyway.

I'm not clear. Please elaborate

Poor people aren't supporting Trump or Sanders. I bet Hillary wins Flint by a large margin.

The outrage seems to be coming from people wishing for some fictional "good old days" where they could openly say racist, homophobic, etc... things. Trump really does seem to speak to the latently racist white Northeasterner.

I'm not buying it. Not the part about trump appealing to racists, but the overall tone of anger among middle class white people. I just don't get populist rage at all.

I don't understand what you mean? Trump's base seems to be angry middle class white people.

TenuredVulture wrote:

SK790 wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote: Let's be clear though--this outrage is not really being driven by poor people, it's being driven by people who are relatively well off and are angry anyway.

I'm not clear. Please elaborate

Poor people aren't supporting Trump or Sanders. I bet Hillary wins Flint by a large margin.

The outrage seems to be coming from people wishing for some fictional "good old days" where they could openly say racist, homophobic, etc... things. Trump really does seem to speak to the latently racist white Northeasterner.

I'm not buying it. Not the part about trump appealing to racists, but the overall tone of anger among middle class white people. I just don't get populist rage at all.

I would say a lot of the people supporting Sanders are upset about the way the financial crisis was handled. It hit middle class people in certain really acute ways (the values of their homes, their retirement plans etc). A lot of these middle class people, who feel they built a decent lives for themselves the "right" way, saw their hard work go up in smoke, while from their perspective the banks who caused the crash in the first place got bailed out and are now richer than ever. And that really pisses a lot of people off.

Now the trump people have similar feelings, but their rage is less directed at the banks and more directed at the government making the decision to help the poor, illegal immigrants, foreign countries etc. There probably could not have been an easier jumping off point for this than Obamacare. It's a very different target, but there's a common theme: These people think they are doing things the "right" way and aren't getting rewarded for it, and they see others who they think didn't are getting help from the government.

That, and the fact that we have a screwed up media that is incentivized to incite passion and controversy.

MoBettle wrote:Now the trump people have similar feelings, but their rage is less directed at the banks and more directed at the government making the decision to help the poor, illegal immigrants, foreign countries etc. There probably could not have been an easier jumping off point for this than Obamacare. It's a very different target, but there's a common theme: These people think they are doing things the "right" way and aren't getting rewarded for it, and they see others who they think didn't are getting help from the government.

Seems like we're still several unconnected dots short of why once you're all full up with white-boy-peevishness you then find charm in a gurgling asshat like the current R delegate leader. "I support stupid" just doesn't seem like the obvious, enduring outlet for that spasm of self-indulgence

drsmooth wrote:Turnip needs 1,200 some delegates to win the R nomination. Let's assume he wins all the winner-take-all states. Let's assume he wins 50% of the vote in all other states EXCEPT those displayed below:



With these results, all the delegates from the winner-take-all and the convention states, and 50% of delegates in all other states, Turnip collects - 1,227 delegates. he needs another 10 or so.

This chart is very revealing about why Trump just isn't likely. LOL Trump winning FL and OH.

Though this does lead one to wonder: with Trump ahead in delegates right now, what does this suggest about the likelihood of a brokered convention on the R side?

One other question doc: why did you basically evenly allocate CA's delegates?

I mean, in no universe does Ben Carson win 33 delegates in CA.

mozartpc27 wrote:This chart is very revealing about why Trump just isn't likely. LOL Trump winning FL and OH.
drop
Though this does lead one to wonder: with Trump ahead in delegates right now, what does this suggest about the likelihood of a brokered convention on the R side?

One other question doc: why did you basically evenly allocate CA's delegates?

1) T-dog is polling well in Florida, a winner-take-all state. The imbeciles in that place elected Rick Scott governor; they're capable of anything

2) Moz, my chart is basically a lazy man's calculus; all I really wanted to do was forecast T's delegate counts in states where lots of delegates are awarded, based on how recent polls have figured him finishing, in states where delegates are shared out proportionally. So I treated the remaining candidates as divvying the "non-T" vote amongst themselves.

I generally took the most generous of polls for each of the non-winner-take-all states and used that as the T factor. The other candidates got an equal share of what was left. The point the chart makes is that T has not polled well enough to date in these big proportional states to accumulate enough delegates to clinch the nomination before the convention, even if he wins ALL the winner-take-all states, and lands lots of the vote - but under 50% - in the other, smaller proportional states.

Now, more meticulous forecasters than I might dig further, and determine state by state if there are other allocation rules that would drop more delegates in T's lap. For example, at least 1 state (I forget which - may not be one of those I've displayed) has a minimum threshold of vote share a candidate must win to get any of the delegate spoils. So for example a Cruz finish under 20% might mean no delegates for him, and a divvy among only the other candidates who landed 20+ % of the vote totals. Rules like that would "plump the Trump"

Several of them have thresholds.

Nevada today. The guy with no chance to be the nominee is going to win the caucus there.

30 whole delegates Calvin. That gets him almost to 10% of what he needs.

Many, maybe most, of the proportional states have a "take all" threshold at the upper end: win 50% and you get all the delegates. Not so sure a lot have minimums. By "not so sure", I mean, as Jerz has told us many times, rules for delegate assignment are baffling AND communicated poorly. For example, here's The Green Papers explanation of California Rs delegate process. I don't see anything in there about a minimum vote share threshold, but I could be wrong.

And no one has said he has "no" chance. Certainly not I. This is America; there are plenty of dipshits who possess the right to vote. Rather, his chance is more fraught than our resident inevitablists believe.

the big controversy on the right is now whether Rubio said 'all the answers' or 'not many answers' in that book there when he saw Ted Cruz's dad holding a bible. Obviously he said hte former but the Cruz campaign is trying to peddle nonsense.

This tweet says it all:

Think about it. Rubio was trying to exchange pleasantries with Cruz campaign (about the Bible) and they twisted it into an attack.

Jesus christ.

Cruz fired a top staff member over it (scapegoat)
he's a slimy weasel with the dirty tricks he keeps trying to pull and I think he's losing voters over it

Ohio: Trump 31, Kasich 26, Cruz 21, Rubio 13, Carson 5

Texas: Cruz 37, Trump 29, Rubio 15, Kasich 5, Carson 4

pacino wrote:Never forget the Central Park Five

sssshhhhhhhhhhhhh... wait until he's the nominee to show this stuff.

Defender of the Fatherland Day in Russia, so they're celebrating: