2016 Primaries

Ironically, it looks like Hillary will now get enough delegates to win outright without much need from super-delegates, whereas the Republicans will most likely rely on de-pledged delegates at the convention to stop Donald Trump.  

This whole election is an exercise in idiocy. Hillary has bought and paid for the Democrat nomination with the Super Delagate gamesmanship, she will not repeat 2008, Bernie never had a chance. And talk about a democratic process, Democrats get no choice, and never really had a choice.

The GOP is no better, too bad there is no unified front against Trump, the majority support everyone else, but no unified stance so Trump will prevail, unfortunately.

So we are down to the usual vote against not for election in November, I will as usual hold my nose and vote ABC (anyone but Clinton).

Did drive by the Bernie rally in downtown Lincoln Saturday, was a hoot you would think it was 1968 all over again. Strange crowd of new wanna-be hippies, and old gray haired never got the memo 60's are over hippies. Still asking the same question to the local Bernie supporters, who is going to pay for all this free stuff when you run out of wealthy people to tax, ala Venezuela. This all 'works' till you run out of other peoples money..................

I find it funny that Bernie worked hard to receive the votes, but the system took the delegates from him and gave them someone that didn't deserve it.

oldsoldier wrote: If we went pure popular vote only 5 states would essentially pick the president.

I tend to agree with you in spirit -- I think a proportional system is needed to keep campaigning more relevant in all states. But the counter to what you said is that essentially about five states pick the president as it is. 

Only a handful of states are ever going to be viably contested in a given election year. No Democrat is going to waste much time campaigning in Texas. No Republican is going to waste much time campaigning in Massachusetts. Consistently though, Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado and Pennsylvania decide who becomes president. The swing states shift over time, but there are always a handful of swing states. 

What I think the important part of the Electoral College is, rather than what you said, is that it equalizes the entire state vs. the urban center. Because it comes down to the popular vote per-each-state, more value is also placed on campaigning to the issues of the whole state -- things that impact cities and agricultural/rural. 

Barring some kind of weird surprise on Super Tuesday, it's hard not to see Donald Trump winning the GOP nomination. The theory has been that as other candidates drop, their supporters will go over to either Rubio or Cruz. But when Jeb dropped, that didn't happen in any available polling data. And Christie has now come out to endorse Trump, meaning a good chunk of his ~6% will go to Trump. 

The two biggest states on his plate are Florida and Texas, the home states for his competition. He's running away with Florida, and he's managed to almost tie Cruz in Texas. 

So as absolutely bizarre as it is, yeah, Donald Trump will probably represent the GOP in November. 

The Democrats are a little closer if you look at national polling data: Clinton is only ahead by 6 points. But that doesn't tell the whole story. Clinton is beating Sanders in delegates 505-71:



Despite the fact that Sanders and Clinton tied in Iowa, Sanders blew out New Hampshire, and Clinton won Nevada by only a handful of percentage points, Clinton is leading with the super-delegates -- folks who can put their vote toward any candidate regardless of how the state votes. 

So it's hard to see a mathematical way Sanders win this, despite him making up so much ground. 

As someone who early on wouldn't have hated Rubio, the last few debates/interviews I've seen with him have really changed my mind. I'd probably even rather have Cruz than him.

It does seem pretty convoluted and anachronistic. Why do we even need delegates to vote? They should just be distributed by the numbers alone. Leave the human element out of it.

When looking for a president, policies, goals, and character are important to me, but I think a president needs to look like a strong president. Cruz just looks too creepy to me. Definitely wouldn't want him going around the world to other leaders being the face of America.

Tallen, that is perfect.

There is no real choice at all. It is going to end up as a voting against the other candidate more than voting for 'your' candidate. Another lessor of the two evils presented elections. Pretty sure I am just voting anti-Democrat based on the two evils they are presenting, a liar and a whack job too liberal for NY so he left for Vermont.

So far it looks like the Republicans will hurt my wallet less, other than that no real issues concern me.