I disagree, I think Bernie has a great chance in Cali and NY

Edited by marconi101: 12/4/2016 12:49:02 PM

It's obviously closer than Azza wants to make it out, but being a close Primary, I'm not too optimistic about NY. Bernie has done well when he can bring across the independents and republican votes. Sadly, if he can't win NY, then it'll be as good as finished.

But he doesn't, and he isn't.

Based on....?

From the polling I have seen he is behind by double digits in both NY and California.

FiveThirtyEight.com is rating Clinton a 97% chance of winning NY:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/new-york-democratic/

And a 91% chance of winning Cali:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/california-democratic/

I am not saying he has no popularity. I am saying he has a plurality of support amongst republicans, not a majority of support amongst republicans.

Whereas Clinton has the support of a majority of Democrats.

You can argue about why that is, but to win you need a majority of delegates.

Why do you say that? I am no fan of Hillary. I actually like a lot (but not all) of what Sanders advocates.

I'm just not wearing rose-coloured glasses. Would love to know how it is "obviously" closer than what I am stating? Where do you think I am wrong in my statements?

I'd love it if it was closer. It just isn't.

Not necessarily. There has been large fields before. But usually support coalesces behind a couple of candidates after the first couple of primaries. You could argue that Trump's divisiveness is unique in that in any other election season, if a candidate had the results Trump did early on, they would have increased their vote share more than he did. But I accept that is speculation (though based in credible polling).



That is speculation though. You are arguing something similar to one of the points I made, regarding who would support which candidate as a second preference. But I think you could make an equally plausible case that people who aren't voting for Trump now would not be happy for him to be the nominee if their preferred candidate lost.

I argued that there should be something akin to preferential voting in primaries. This would help to ensure that delegates could be bound beyond the first round of votes.



I think that is an open question. If you look at the history of open conventions, there is a long history of the leading candidate not winning the nomination. It is just something new since the reforms of the 1970s.

I think you are likely to be correct though, especially if he ends up with a total which is very close to the majority he needs. But if he falls away and is "well short" of a majority, it becomes less predictable. I use quotations because how do you define how much is "close" and how much is "well short"???

They don't even have their final rules made in terms of bound an unbound candidates.

At the moment there is a rule that you have to win 8 states to be considered as candidate in the voting - was put in place to block Ron Paul from having influence in 2012. That may get thrown out if the party tries to engineer a candidate like Paul Ryan etc.

It is very unclear in my opinion as to what will happen.

"Revolt" :lol:

If the GOP shafts Trump he and his supporters are absolutely powerless to do anything about it. Maybe in four years' time he'll take another doomed crack at the primaries but the vast majority of Americans (and the majority of Republicans) will move on with their lives glad that the world dodged a bullet.

There is not a chance Trump will become president. Even if he had the majority of the country supporting him it won't happen.

Its either Trump or Sanders for mine. Hate Clinton.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimism

Bernie does very well when he can focus on one state for a long period of time. Probably still won't win either but I'd be laying a bet atm. (in fact I am).

Pretty vague quote from Orwell. I judge truth on things that are provable like climate change not being a chinese conspiracy to take U.S. jobs

After you put that bet on Bernie, I have a bridge to sell you!

Citation provided:

http://leavittpartners.com/2016/03/a-history-of-contested-political-conventions/

"When a contested convention does occur, the candidate with the highest number of delegates after the first ballot has only won a minority of times. For the Democrats, the leading candidate after the first ballot secured the nomination 7 out of 16 times. For the Republicans, the leading candidate only secured the nomination 3 out of 10 times".

Any human with decency would also choose sanders. Unfortunately people with vision on how to make things better do not fit the agenda of America's real rulers.

Even thought the same powers that be would not want trump, I as well would like to see him because he'd totally destroy the country in trade, foreign relations and domestic policy.

Would be kind of cool watching them implode.

Do you not understand what laying a bet is?

Worked well for me when he went from paying $7 in Illinois to $2.5. He's paying $6 in New York atm, watch this shorten by the end of the week

Edited by tbitm: 13/4/2016 10:39:18 AM

Trump seems to be heading for a comprehensive victory in New York, with the very real possibility he could take all of the delegates.

Clinton is going to win NY by a very comfortable margin, Sanders has no chance.

$6 odds mean nothing if you don't win. Hillary is paying $1.10.

You can also bet that Joe Biden will be the Democratic nominee, doesn't mean it is worth betting on.

Sanders has only a 9% chance of winning NY. I'd want more than $6 odds!

Hillary had 99% chance of winning Michigan and look how that turned out :lol:

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Laying is like putting money in the stock trade. You buy odds when they're better now than you think they will be later and sell them at a profit. Comprendes?

Edited by tbitm: 13/4/2016 12:57:58 PM

So what happened? People bailed their support after the first round?

-PB

I'm sceptical about his odds shortening. But you didn't explain that your goal was to sell out of the bet though. I understand what you are saying now.

Edited by AzzaMarch: 13/4/2016 02:53:49 PM

Michigan ain't NY. There were a number of issues specific to Michigan, and in particular a dearth of voter demographic info from previous elections, plus a lack of polling generally.

I hope Bernie wins, but then again I hop that I win the lotto too. Doesn't mean either will happen!

Lol, everytime there's evidence to refute your claims, you say it doesn't matter. You threw out a percentage that Hillary is 90%+ chance of winning NY, and I told you that the same thing was said in Michigan and look what happened.

You keep moving the boundaries and can't seem to maintain a coherent argument.

https://berniesanders.com/press-release/clintons-ties-wall-street/

Drag her!:cool:

Not at all. I am arguing that the Michigan result was due specifically to the unique circumstances in Michigan. I am arguing that the poll error issues there don't translate to NY.

And I gave you specific reasons why - a lack of polling undertaken in Michigan, as well as no recent primary voting data. To go further into this - Michigan’s Democratic primary was weird in 2008 (Barack Obama wasn’t on the ballot), and the state party held caucuses in 2000 and 2004 that weren’t really competitive.

Here is an article looking at the issue:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-the-polls-missed-bernie-sanders-michigan-upset/

You can disagree with my opinion that Sanders won't win NY, but I struggle to see how I am not maintaining a coherent argument.

If you have a reason to think why the NY polling is so incorrect, I am happy to hear it.

Laying is a common term for punters. Clearly you are not one. All good mate.

Also perhaps naive, but I believe Bernie will hammer Hillary on the Panama papers during the debate which will turn a lot of democrats.

Enough to win, probably not. Enough to alter the odds for sure though

Edited by tbitm: 13/4/2016 07:03:03 PM

what you fight for? that Bernie going to win?

Bernie had no chance to win from day one...Bernie job is to make sure Democratic win the white House with Clinton

Bernie hasn't hammered her for the emails or her ties to Wall St/political donations. When he even references it in a debate, he backs off and tries to take the high road.

I doubt anything will change for the papers.

Trump on the other hand will go all in, probably bring up Monica too :lol: