Fate

Trump won't quit

You also said he wouldn't run. And when he did announce you said he wouldn't last. And then you said when the field winnowed down, he'd be beaten...
So far you aren't doing well with your Trump predictions...

He's going to win Florida and probably Illinois because there are 4 candidates and irrational authoritarians make up 30 to 40% of the Republican party.And that's all he needs is about 35%. Which is only about 10 to 12% of the general election electorate, and should give pause to anyone who thinks the system isn't in serious decay.

(Andrew Klaven is great, but when I told you that was what the irrational base republican party was like for 2 years, you strongly disagreed.)
Trump will also get lots of delegates in North Carolina and Missouri. After Arizona most, (all?) of the primaries share delegates and he'll get enough to have a majority. Cruz has to win Arizona
and pretty much dominate from then on for even a remote chance at catching Donald.
Unless something is earth shatteringly wrong with the most recent polls, he's on his way.

Fate

Back to Trump: I believe the GOP will, in the end, risk even its own future to make sure Trump is not the nominee

Cruz has very extreme policies. Trump is an authoritarian con man. Neither Cruz or Trump poll well against Hillary., and will lose minorities in the 90s.
Rubio has in the past, but his polished veneer has been scraped off in the primary campaign and even he would have a tough time against unloved Hillary. Kasich will not be the nominee.

Seems possible that the future may be bleak for the GOP no matter... . If the general election becomes a rout, the odds of a Democratic Senate and House become much greater. And Hillary will get to nominate Supreme court justices till the cows come home.
Maybe someone should have listened to the analysis the party did on what they had to do to bounce back after the last General election loss.... Because none of its recommendations were followed...

Sassenach wrote:All politicians brag about their accomplishments, at least Kasich actually has a few. As it stands the alternatives are two first term Senators (inexperienced Senators make wonderful Presidents I'm sure you'll agree....) and a billionaire demagogue with no political experience whatsoever.

Despite the Doctor's protests, Kasich is clearly the best candidate for the Republicans. He can't fire up the base for the primaries, but he does have the broadest appeal, and that's what's going to matter in the general.

rickyp wrote:Fate

Trump won't quit

You also said he wouldn't run. And when he did announce you said he wouldn't last. And then you said when the field winnowed down, he'd be beaten...
So far you aren't doing well with your Trump predictions...

Oh, shut up. I was talking about if elected, which should have been obvious--except you cut out all of the context.

As for predictions, since you won't make any, you should pretty much keep your mouth shut about the predictions of others. It makes you seem rather cowardly. You won't stick your neck out, but want to chop everyone else's off.

The field has winnowed as far as it will. If it gets to two or even three, he won't get the nomination.

He's going to win Florida

Wow. How bold! The closest poll shows Trump winning by 8; several show him wining by 20. Gutsy call!

If you're wrong, however, I will remember that you finally made a "tough" call.

. . . and probably Illinois because there are 4 candidates and irrational authoritarians make up 30 to 40% of the Republican Party

Bull. Most of the States he's won have been open States. He's also benefitting from Democrats changing parties in a big way. Republicans value individual rights; Democrats value individual handouts.

And that's all he needs is about 35%. Which is only about 10 to 12% of the general election electorate, and should give pause to anyone who thinks the system isn't in serious decay.

So, that suggests he will have a great deal of difficulty should the field narrow, which it will if Trump does as well on Tuesday as you boldly predict.

(Andrew Klaven is great, but when I told you that was what the irrational base republican party was like for 2 years, you strongly disagreed.)

That's the point: Trump is not the base of the Party. If he was, he'd have the nomination sewn up. The base of the party is conservative. Nothing about Trump is conservative, except his stated position that the border needs to be sealed. His trade policy is protectionist; that's the stuff of the far left. He wants to raise taxes. He wants to stifle free speech, which is also a policy the far left embraces. He won't reform entitlements.

He has spent his whole life moving the levers of Big Government. Suddenly, he's s small government fan?

Nope, he's not even pretending. He'd be a Democrat if it weren't for abortion and immigration.

Trump will also get lots of delegates in North Carolina and Missouri. After Arizona most, (all?) of the primaries share delegates and he'll get enough to have a majority. Cruz has to win Arizona
and pretty much dominate from then on for even a remote chance at catching Donald.
Unless something is earth shatteringly wrong with the most recent polls, he's on his way.

Right. Well then, how about a pre-Tuesday wager?

I mean, the polls could not possibly be wrong, could they? I mean there is no way they could predict a huge win by Hillary and yet yield a slim win by Bernie, could they?

Fate

Back to Trump: I believe the GOP will, in the end, risk even its own future to make sure Trump is not the nominee

Cruz has very extreme policies. Trump is an authoritarian con man. Neither Cruz or Trump poll well against Hillary., and will lose minorities in the 90s.

Define "minorities." If it means anything more than "African-Americans," I'll take whatever odds you want to offer.

Btw, polls this far out are rarely predictive. Furthermore, Cruz polls a good deal better than Trump.
.

Maybe someone should have listened to the analysis the party did on what they had to do to bounce back after the last General election loss.... Because none of its recommendations were followed...

Or, maybe it should have listened to its base and done something. Then again, you think the base has been longing for Trump.

geojanes wrote:

Sassenach wrote:All politicians brag about their accomplishments, at least Kasich actually has a few. As it stands the alternatives are two first term Senators (inexperienced Senators make wonderful Presidents I'm sure you'll agree....) and a billionaire demagogue with no political experience whatsoever.

Despite the Doctor's protests, Kasich is clearly the best candidate for the Republicans. He can't fire up the base for the primaries, but he does have the broadest appeal, and that's what's going to matter in the general.

Yes, yes . . . Huntsman, Jeb, Kasich . . .

Fate

Define "minorities." If it means anything more than "African-Americans," I'll take whatever odds you want to offer.
Btw, polls this far out are rarely predictive. Furthermore, Cruz polls a good deal better than Trump

Oh, lets include Hispanics, since the post mortem to the last general insisted that Republicans needed to do better in that ethnic group....
In a Univision poll in February Trump lost to Clinton by 57 points...
Cruz, oh he did much better, He lost to Hillary by 38 points... And Sanders by 33 points... Yeah, Cruz is killing it with Hispanics...

The Post-Univision survey tested those four GOP candidates against Clinton and against Sanders. While all trail badly among Hispanics at this point, Trump does the worst — losing the Hispanic vote to Clinton by 73 to 16 percent. That 57-point gap is little changed from a 54-point deficit recorded last June, but is significantly wider than the 44-point margin by which former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney lost Hispanics four years ago and bigger than in any presidential exit poll since the 1970s.
Meanwhile, Clinton leads Rubio by 30 points, Cruz by 38 and Kasich by 43. Matched against Sanders, Trump trails by 56 points. Sanders leads Rubio by 24 points, Cruz by 33 and Kasich by 37.
Republican efforts to win a general election hinge in part on whether the party’s nominee can attract a larger share of the Hispanic vote. The alternative is to find additional support among white voters to offset expected losses among Hispanic voters.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/p ... rump-21976

Fate

Btw, polls this far out are rarely predictive.

And the results would change because Trump or Cruz would change the policy positions on immigration? The major defining issue among most Hispanics?

Fate

So, that suggests he will have a great deal of difficulty should the field narrow, which it will if Trump does as well on Tuesday as you boldly predict.

If Kasich wins Ohio, he'll stay in. Rubio is probably done after Tuesday.

That may give Cruz a chance in Arizona. But even if Cruz does win Arizona, if Trump wins 35% of the delegates left after that he gets the nomination. And after Arizona there are no winner takes all...
(If Trump wins Ohio, Kasich leaves but Trump will be pretty much done and dusted with Ohios delegates... Trumps 35% would need to decline by at least 10 points .... and that's not going to happen. Nothing he's done or said can dissuade this "base" up till now, nothing will in the future.)

Its math.

Right now, Sanders has more chance than Cruz... And Sanders doesn't have that much of a chance...

rickyp wrote:Fate

Define "minorities." If it means anything more than "African-Americans," I'll take whatever odds you want to offer.
Btw, polls this far out are rarely predictive. Furthermore, Cruz polls a good deal better than Trump

Oh, lets include Hispanics, since the post mortem to the last general insisted that Republicans needed to do better in that ethnic group....
In a Univision poll in February Trump lost to Clinton by 57 points...
Cruz, oh he did much better, He lost to Hillary by 38 points... And Sanders by 33 points... Yeah, Cruz is killing it with Hispanics...

Great. What odds are you giving me the GOP nominee will get 10% or less of the Hispanic vote? Oh, and how much?

Name it.

Oh yeah. I forgot. You can talk trash but you NEVER back it up.

You are talking about historical numbers, so it should be easy. But, you won't do a thing because you know this is crap.

Fate

Btw, polls this far out are rarely predictive.

And the results would change because Trump or Cruz would change the policy positions on immigration? The major defining issue among most Hispanics?

No, because Trump won't be the nominee. Show me how he gets to 1237. He's got to win Ohio and Florida tomorrow. Even then, it won't be easy.

Fate

So, that suggests he will have a great deal of difficulty should the field narrow, which it will if Trump does as well on Tuesday as you boldly predict.

If Kasich wins Ohio, he'll stay in. Rubio is probably done after Tuesday.

Great. So, Trump's 35-40% (according to you) won't guarantee him much.

That may give Cruz a chance in Arizona. But even if Cruz does win Arizona, if Trump wins 35% of the delegates left after that he gets the nomination. And after Arizona there are no winner takes all...
(If Trump wins Ohio, Kasich leaves but Trump will be pretty much done and dusted with Ohios delegates... Trumps 35% would need to decline by at least 10 points .... and that's not going to happen. Nothing he's done or said can dissuade this "base" up till now, nothing will in the future.)

If Trump wins OH and FL, Kasich will be out. You will see Republicans get very careful about their vote. I think Trump will not get to 1237 no matter what happens Tuesday.

Its math.

Right. It is. 40% is not a majority. And, when you vote in individual States, it's even less likely, because the electorate will vary in its desires. Oh, Trump may win NY, NJ and other Eastern States, but they are not winner-take-all.

Right now, Sanders has more chance than Cruz... And Sanders doesn't have that much of a chance...

In the Un-Democratic Party, the Uber-delegates will make sure Sanders doesn't win. In the GOP, no one gets to 1237.

fate

Show me how he gets to 1237.

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

Fate

Great. So, Trump's 35-40% (according to you) won't guarantee him much

Actually i said the opposite.
If he gets Florida and does well in Illinois, NC and Missouri, he only needs 35% to 40% to win enough delegates the rest of the way. See 538.
Unless he somehow falls below 35 to 40% support, he's home and cooled out. Especially if Kasich stays in after Ohio.....or if Trump wins Ohio. And the odds that Kasich wins Ohio but quits are ? Zero. So there is still going to be splintering of the anybody but Trump vote... Because some people just want another choice from Cruz or Trump. Understandably.

Fate

Great. What odds are you giving me the GOP nominee will get 10% or less of the Hispanic vote?

Latinos made up 10% of the electorate in 2012, as indicated by the Pew Centre national exit poll, up from 9% in 2008 and 8% in 2004.
Latinos voted for President Barack Obama over Republican Mitt Romney by 71% to 27%
Trump won't do as well as Mitt. Nor would Cruz. Immigration.... Racism... Deportation.... Rhetoric...

So it gives the Democrat 8 points to 2 for Hispanics. And the Hispanic vote is heavy in Florida, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada and Arizona.

The total non-white population voting is 28% of the electorate. Blacks will vote Dem about 95% (13 out of 14 points) .If the 4% of non-white who aren't black or Hispanic split, it gives the Dem 23 points of the 28 that are non-white.
Pretty good head start... If Hillary only gets 40% of the white vote: (29 points) she's at 57% total. Landslide territory. (and she'll get at least half of white women.... which makes up 20 of the 29 points from whites..)

Of course this could change if Trump or the improbable Mr. Cruz change their policies or their rhetoric in the next few months.....and they convince non-whites its a genuine change...
Fat chance.

rickyp wrote:fate

Show me how he gets to 1237.

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

Fate

Great. So, Trump's 35-40% (according to you) won't guarantee him much

Actually i said the opposite.
If he gets Florida and does well in Illinois, NC and Missouri, he only needs 35% to 40% to win enough delegates the rest of the way. See 538.
Unless he somehow falls below 35 to 40% support, he's home and cooled out. Especially if Kasich stays in after Ohio.....or if Trump wins Ohio. And the odds that Kasich wins Ohio but quits are ? Zero. So there is still going to be splintering of the anybody but Trump vote... Because some people just want another choice from Cruz or Trump. Understandably.

Fate

Great. What odds are you giving me the GOP nominee will get 10% or less of the Hispanic vote?

Latinos made up 10% of the electorate in 2012, as indicated by the Pew Centre national exit poll, up from 9% in 2008 and 8% in 2004.
Latinos voted for President Barack Obama over Republican Mitt Romney by 71% to 27%
Trump won't do as well as Mitt. Nor would Cruz. Immigration.... Racism... Deportation.... Rhetoric...

So it gives the Democrat 8 points to 2 for Hispanics. And the Hispanic vote is heavy in Florida, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada and Arizona.

The total non-white population voting is 28% of the electorate. Blacks will vote Dem about 95% (13 out of 14 points) .If the 4% of non-white who aren't black or Hispanic split, it gives the Dem 23 points of the 28 that are non-white.
Pretty good head start... If Hillary only gets 40% of the white vote: (29 points) she's at 57% total. Landslide territory. (and she'll get at least half of white women.... which makes up 20 of the 29 points from whites..)

Of course this could change if Trump or the improbable Mr. Cruz change their policies or their rhetoric in the next few months.....and they convince non-whites its a genuine change...
Fat chance.

Give me odds. Make me an offer.

Otherwise, this is just so much . . . well typical from you.

Let's see where things sit Wednesday morning. This is like a Trump press release:

If he gets Florida and does well in Illinois, NC and Missouri, he only needs 35% to 40% to win enough delegates the rest of the way.

If anything goes wrong tomorrow, Trump's smoked.

Btw, thanks for taking so much interest in our American elections. I remain pleased you don't get a vote.

fate

If anything goes wrong tomorrow, Trump's smoked.

And what is it you imagine is going to go wrong?

rickyp wrote:fate

If anything goes wrong tomorrow, Trump's smoked.

And what is it you imagine is going to go wrong?

The same pollsters who said Hillary would cruise to a win in Michigan . . .

Name one that said Bernie would win.

If Bernie Sanders were to defeat Hillary Clinton in Michigan’s Democratic primary, it would be “among the greatest polling errors in primary history,” our editor in chief, Nate Silver, wrote Tuesday evening when results started to come in. Sanders pulled it off, and now we’re left wondering how it happened. How did Sanders win by 1.5 percentage points when our polling average showed Clinton ahead by 21 points and our forecasts showed that Sanders had less than a 1 percent chance of winning?

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why ... gan-upset/

If you're so sure Trump has a lock on the nomination, where's your money?

The polls have been more accurate for other states though. Michigan is a little different because it's an open primary state where voters regularly switch between the different contests depending on which looks more interesting. A friend of mine lives in Detroit who's pretty engaged politically. He normally votes Democratic (although not always) and probably would have voted Hillary in the primaries but instead he decided to vote for Kasich in the Republican race. When there are very large numbers of swing voters it's much harder for the pollsters' models to capture them.

edit: I'll just put it in his own words since he explains it better than I do.

The open primary system where you pick which primary to vote in when you pick up your ballot might explain why the polls were all wrong. Since nobody is a registered Democrat or Republican, it is hard to poll Democrats or Republicans. In the last presidential primary, Obama ran unopposed in Michigan so primary turn-out was pretty low on the Democratic side, but a lot of people voted against Santorum or voted for Romney in the Republican primary, many who would normally vote for a Democratic candidate. The pollsters don't know who you voted for but they do know which primary you voted for. Because I switch up a lot, I get robo-calls from everybody.

If there are no records of registered Democrats or Republicans then the only way pollsters could go about choosing their samples would be to pick from people who voted in the respective primaries last time. If a lot of the normal Dem voters went with the Republican primary last time they may not have been polled at all.

Sassenach wrote:edit: I'll just put it in his own words since he explains it better than I do.

The open primary system where you pick which primary to vote in when you pick up your ballot might explain why the polls were all wrong. Since nobody is a registered Democrat or Republican, it is hard to poll Democrats or Republicans. In the last presidential primary, Obama ran unopposed in Michigan so primary turn-out was pretty low on the Democratic side, but a lot of people voted against Santorum or voted for Romney in the Republican primary, many who would normally vote for a Democratic candidate. The pollsters don't know who you voted for but they do know which primary you voted for. Because I switch up a lot, I get robo-calls from everybody.

If there are no records of registered Democrats or Republicans then the only way pollsters could go about choosing their samples would be to pick from people who voted in the respective primaries last time. If a lot of the normal Dem voters went with the Republican primary last time they may not have been polled at all.

And yet, for the most part, the pollsters have not been wrong--and this was no rounding error.

It's interesting because Trump has done better in "open primary" States. That's because his is a siren call of the disaffected. He's not attracting the "base" (as rickyp claims) or he'd be winning "closed primary" States.

Again, Trump disgusts me.

And yet, for the most part, the pollsters have not been wrong--and this was no rounding error.

Pretty sure I said this myself. The difference is the open primary factor, which makes polling much more difficult. So far as I'm aware (correct me if I'm wrong), the only other state so far to have the same system is Texas, which is obviously much easier to poll since it's overwhelmingly Republican.

Sassenach wrote:

And yet, for the most part, the pollsters have not been wrong--and this was no rounding error.

Pretty sure I said this myself. The difference is the open primary factor, which makes polling much more difficult. So far as I'm aware (correct me if I'm wrong), the only other state so far to have the same system is Texas, which is obviously much easier to poll since it's overwhelmingly Republican.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_prim ... te_note-12

Alabama
Arkansas
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Massachusetts (All races' primaries open for "unenrolled"/unaffiliated voters only)
Michigan
Mississippi
Missouri
New Hampshire
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma (Only Democratic primary is open to Independent voters as of November 2015) [11]
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Virginia
Wisconsin

So out of interest, do all of those states actually record the registered status of voters ?