CalvinBall wrote:

pacino wrote:Jeez, hope Cruz gets the nomination. He's unelectable nationwide.

He's unelectable in his own party.

drsmooth wrote:calvin, it's difficult for me to convey how far behind you are here. drumpf is not winning majorities in states where he needs to win them. 40% will not do it in the proportional states. He needs to win ALL the "true" WTA states, PLUS bigger pluralities in the proportional states, to gain the nomination. He's not doing it. He already lost Ohio. So he's even less likely to do what he needs to do.

If he underperforms in big states, like PA and CA - which seems quite probable - it's unlikely he'll corral enough delegates to secure the nomination before Cleveland.

It's not my fault you can't do math.

Plus, drumpf is just a disgusting awful, horrible organism.

TomatoPie wrote: Not seeing how it's different now other than there is a brighter light on the wealthiest. And somehow it's OK for celebs and athletes to be super wealthy, but not CEOs.

pacino wrote:Let's make sure we're civil to one another, guys.

mozartpc27 wrote:

drsmooth wrote:calvin, it's difficult for me to convey how far behind you are here. drumpf is not winning majorities in states where he needs to win them. 40% will not do it in the proportional states. He needs to win ALL the "true" WTA states, PLUS bigger pluralities in the proportional states, to gain the nomination. He's not doing it. He already lost Ohio. So he's even less likely to do what he needs to do.

If he underperforms in big states, like PA and CA - which seems quite probable - it's unlikely he'll corral enough delegates to secure the nomination before Cleveland.

It's not my fault you can't do math.

Plus, drumpf is just a disgusting awful, horrible organism.

It's pretty clear Trump will not be able to secure the number of delegates necessary to win the nomination outright.

Tonight some of the discussion has been about how big the gap between "1237" and the number Trump actually winds up with has to be for the party to have the stones to deny him the nomination. Consensus was less than 100, Trump will be nominated - over 100, let the games begin.

But there is also the gap between theory and practice. Such a move would have, presumably, catastrophic consequences for the Republican party.

mozartpc27 wrote:But there is also the gap between theory and practice. Such a move would have, presumably, catastrophic consequences for the Republican party.

drsmooth wrote:

TomatoPie wrote: Not seeing how it's different now other than there is a brighter light on the wealthiest. And somehow it's OK for celebs and athletes to be super wealthy, but not CEOs.

oh, get off your knees.

too few ceos actually earn it. they're managers. They don't do that much more than you or I could. At the stage decisions arrive in their laps for a determination, it's a fait accompli, or a coin flip. If they're actually smart, they maneuver to avoid having their names on even those "choices".

don't be such a sucker

mozartpc27 wrote:

drsmooth wrote:calvin, it's difficult for me to convey how far behind you are here. drumpf is not winning majorities in states where he needs to win them. 40% will not do it in the proportional states. He needs to win ALL the "true" WTA states, PLUS bigger pluralities in the proportional states, to gain the nomination. He's not doing it. He already lost Ohio. So he's even less likely to do what he needs to do.

If he underperforms in big states, like PA and CA - which seems quite probable - it's unlikely he'll corral enough delegates to secure the nomination before Cleveland.

It's not my fault you can't do math.

Plus, drumpf is just a disgusting awful, horrible organism.

It's pretty clear Trump will not be able to secure the number of delegates necessary to win the nomination outright.

Tonight some of the discussion has been about how big the gap between "1237" and the number Trump actually winds up with has to be for the party to have the stones to deny him the nomination. Consensus was less than 100, Trump will be nominated - over 100, let the games begin.

But there is also the gap between theory and practice. Such a move would have, presumably, catastrophic consequences for the Republican party.

pacino wrote:Trump is going to DOMINATE PA, smooth.

Let's make sure we're civil to one another, guys.

pacino wrote:Steve Kornacki is in his element.

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:Steve Kornacki is in his element.

I know I say this every election night or at least every time he's brought up, but he's one of a very select people on cable TV who are actually worth watching and know what they're talking about and say interesting things.

jerseyhoya wrote:Teddy looks like he's going to lose Missouri by a margin smaller than Trump's stubby fingers. Glad the Canadian douchelord who I'm now apparently supporting to be the next president of the United States spent chunks of the past week campaigning in Florida and Ohio. That was great. Good job.

CalvinBall wrote:I'm guessing he will stil be on target when that feature is updated. If not, a percentage point or two below.

pacino wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:Steve Kornacki is in his element.

I know I say this every election night or at least every time he's brought up, but he's one of a very select people on cable TV who are actually worth watching and know what they're talking about and say interesting things.

I know he is a Jersey guy, do you know similar people?

I would also say that Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow are good at what they do. It's a very short list for me. Soledad O'Brien was good.candy Crawley. About all I can think of off the top of my head.

John Dickerson is the only Sunday show guy worth his salt. Ran a poor debate, though.