drsmooth wrote:Hoooooooollllllyyyyy shit. Just listened to rancid crapsack AL R congressman Mo Brooks break down yesterday's results.

His analysis is crystalline.

drumpf, in his calculation, was the big loser yesterday, by not winning sufficiently. He emphasized, rightly, that you need DELEGATES to win the nomination, not "state wins" in proportional states. He actually simulated something like ridicule for all the media idiots (he's talking about you, Joe Scarborough, you dumbass) hyperventilating about state wins, and ignoring delegate accumulation.

drumpf now needs to win MAJORITIES of votes in more than a few non winner-take-all states to get to 1,273 before Cleveland, & there's no sign he'll do that in ANY upcoming states. Nobody's coalescing around any drumpf opponent - and not enough are coalescing around drumpf either.

Of course Brooks is agreeing with me, and admittedly he's a moron, but this is a day I never foresaw ever occurring.

drsmooth wrote:Hoooooooollllllyyyyy shit. Just listened to rancid crapsack AL R congressman Mo Brooks break down yesterday's results.

His analysis is crystalline.

drumpf, in his calculation, was the big loser yesterday, by not winning sufficiently. He emphasized, rightly, that you need DELEGATES to win the nomination, not "state wins" in proportional states. He actually simulated something like ridicule for all the media idiots (he's talking about you, Joe Scarborough, you dumbass) hyperventilating about state wins, and ignoring delegate accumulation.

drumpf now needs to win MAJORITIES of votes in more than a few non winner-take-all states to get to 1,273 before Cleveland, & there's no sign he'll do that in ANY upcoming states. Nobody's coalescing around any drumpf opponent - and not enough are coalescing around drumpf either.

Of course Brooks is agreeing with me, and admittedly he's a moron, but this is a day I never foresaw ever occurring.

JUburton wrote:

drsmooth wrote:Hoooooooollllllyyyyy shit. Just listened to rancid crapsack AL R congressman Mo Brooks break down yesterday's results.

His analysis is crystalline.

drumpf, in his calculation, was the big loser yesterday, by not winning sufficiently. He emphasized, rightly, that you need DELEGATES to win the nomination, not "state wins" in proportional states. He actually simulated something like ridicule for all the media idiots (he's talking about you, Joe Scarborough, you dumbass) hyperventilating about state wins, and ignoring delegate accumulation.

drumpf now needs to win MAJORITIES of votes in more than a few non winner-take-all states to get to 1,273 before Cleveland, & there's no sign he'll do that in ANY upcoming states. Nobody's coalescing around any drumpf opponent - and not enough are coalescing around drumpf either.

Of course Brooks is agreeing with me, and admittedly he's a moron, but this is a day I never foresaw ever occurring.

The sentiment here isn't incorrect but he did well enough and doesn't need majorities to hit 1,273. I'll pimp this again but 538 (of course 538) has broken down who needs what by when and Trump was the only person to overperform yesterday.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/ele ... e-targets/

CalvinBall wrote:

drsmooth wrote:Hoooooooollllllyyyyy #$!&@. Just listened to rancid crapsack AL R congressman Mo Brooks break down yesterday's results.

His analysis is crystalline.

drumpf, in his calculation, was the big loser yesterday, by not winning sufficiently. He emphasized, rightly, that you need DELEGATES to win the nomination, not "state wins" in proportional states. He actually simulated something like ridicule for all the media idiots (he's talking about you, Joe Scarborough, you dumbass) hyperventilating about state wins, and ignoring delegate accumulation.

drumpf now needs to win MAJORITIES of votes in more than a few non winner-take-all states to get to 1,273 before Cleveland, & there's no sign he'll do that in ANY upcoming states. Nobody's coalescing around any drumpf opponent - and not enough are coalescing around drumpf either.

Of course Brooks is agreeing with me, and admittedly he's a moron, but this is a day I never foresaw ever occurring.

Tom Delay said something similar last night. I think this is the plan (hope?) for the long time Rs at this point.

JUburton wrote:The sentiment here isn't incorrect but he did well enough and doesn't need majorities to hit 1,273. I'll pimp this again but 538 (of course 538) has broken down who needs what by when and Trump was the only person to overperform yesterday.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/ele ... e-targets/

CalvinBall wrote:I am concerned that the primary numbers are basically flipped from 2008. About 8 million Rs have voted and 5 million Ds so far. Somewhat concerning.

CalvinBall wrote:I am concerned that the primary numbers are basically flipped from 2008. About 8 million Rs have voted and 5 million Ds so far. Somewhat concerning.

CalvinBall wrote:I am concerned that the primary numbers are basically flipped from 2008. About 8 million Rs have voted and 5 million Ds so far. Somewhat concerning.

jerseyhoya wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:I am concerned that the primary numbers are basically flipped from 2008. About 8 million Rs have voted and 5 million Ds so far. Somewhat concerning.

I don't know that there's any real correlation between this and general election success. We have more voters, but also more people saying they'd never support various nominees if chosen.

CalvinBall wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:I am concerned that the primary numbers are basically flipped from 2008. About 8 million Rs have voted and 5 million Ds so far. Somewhat concerning.

I don't know that there's any real correlation between this and general election success. We have more voters, but also more people saying they'd never support various nominees if chosen.

Interesting. I just know there has been talk about the vast differences in turnout. Hoping it means nothing as well.

JUburton wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:I am concerned that the primary numbers are basically flipped from 2008. About 8 million Rs have voted and 5 million Ds so far. Somewhat concerning.

I don't know that there's any real correlation between this and general election success. We have more voters, but also more people saying they'd never support various nominees if chosen.

Interesting. I just know there has been talk about the vast differences in turnout. Hoping it means nothing as well.

It's easier to get more turnout with more candidates but I think there's an inevitability in the democratic race that may be turning people away. The Republican one is 'wide' open (though not as much anymore) so people want to make sure their voices are heard.

Brantt wrote:

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:Brantt answer these 4 easy questions for us



Please tell me which one you think is more important for a child to have: independence or respect for elders?
Please tell me which one you think is more important for a child to have: obedience or self-reliance?
Please tell me which one you think is more important for a child to have: to be considerate or to be well-behaved?
Please tell me which one you think is more important for a child to have: curiosity or good manners?

I try not to deal in absolutes.

Hillary Clinton wrote:America never stopped being great

drsmooth wrote:drumpf now opining that an open convention subverts the "will of the people", underscoring that he has absolutely zero understanding of what primaries represent, how they work, what their earthly purpose is - or that anyone who knows anything about anything would buy this particular glob of his bullshit. He is an appallingly dim individual.