Presidential Election Aftermath: What Now / What Next?

I thought delegates for the RNC were bound to their pick during the primaries for their state unlike the DNC which delegates can switch at any time. Is that saying they can change during the Republican convention?

 

RNC trying to ensure Trump is not the candidate, unlike the DNC, which is trying to force Hillary on the people.

 

Rubio dropped out. I'm down to Kasich and... and.... and...... yeah, I'm about to crawl in a hole for the next 4 years.

 

Hillary won Ohio and Florida. Ugh.

Kasich leading in Ohio, but still too early to call.

Kasich said he'll be discussing his issues with Trump in the very near future.

 

It's like @John3:16 said the RNC is trying desperately to keep Trump from being the nominee. Unfortunately he's threatened them to run as an Independent if he loses so he may end up splitting the vote and maybe guaranteeing Hillary's election.

This is going about as badly as it could. I know you guys have great faith Sanders will come back, but I don't. The DNC wants Hillary as their candidate for some reason despite an ONGOING INVESTIGATION! WHAT IS HAPPENING?

 

As in he'll sit down with Trump and join his cause? Or he'll discuss why he doesn't want Trump?

Maybe the only way Trump gets my vote is if he radically changes his approach AND surrounds himself with the vastly more qualified RNC names like Kasich and Carson... Even then I don't want to do it because Trump is terrifying, but if he has a cabinet of men whose opinion I respect then at least he's an option? I don't know. I'm trying to justify some way not to vote for Hillary Clinton.

We should organize protests about who the candidates are that these parties are forcing at us.

edit- Woke up and made an argument to vote for Trump?? Yikes. Night time flu medicine makes me say weird things.

 

Don't worry, It was pretty much assumed Clinton would be up right about now.

This piece was written on March 3rd. Clinton winning yesterday was expected, but not after this.

"
Clinton Will Build Her Biggest Lead on March 15. Sanders Will Erode It After That.
Posted on March 3, 2016 by WashingtonsBlog
By Gaius Publius, a professional writer living on the West Coast of the United States and frequent contributor to DownWithTyranny, digby, Truthout, and Naked Capitalism. Follow him on Twitter @Gaius_Publius, Tumblr andFacebook. Originally published at at Down With Tyranny. GP article archive here.


I’m keeping this short to put a very simple idea into your head. Because of the way the Democratic Party voting calendar is structured this year, Clinton’s largest lead will occur on March 15. After that, most of Sanders’ strongest states will vote.

What this means is simple:

• Hillary Clinton will grow her lead until the March 15 states have voted.

• Bernie Sanders will erase that lead — partly or completely — after March 15.

• How much of Clinton’s lead he will erase depends on your not buying what the media is selling — that the contest is over.

• In most scenarios where Sanders wins, he doesn’t retake the lead until June 7, when five states including California cast their ballots.

March 15 is the Ides of March; a good way to remember the date. The message — gear up for a battle after the Ides of March, and don’t let the establishment media tell you what to think. They won’t be right until the last state has voted.

If you want to stop reading here, this is all you need to know.

The Data

Now the data. One of the best data-stitians I’ve come across is a diarist at Daily Kos named MattTX. Matt is very good, professionally good, at this stuff. In a long, carefully-reasoned diary, “How Bernie Sanders can win the Democratic nomination,” he lays out six scenarios for the race, in five of which Bernie Sanders wins the nomination (the other is a current baseline with no momentum). He presents them in a parallel fashion, and each presentation differs only in changing a small set of assumptions. Once you understand how to read the first one, you can read the others easily.

The first three scenarios are “static” — they assume that the national polling remains fixed throughout the race. He then runs the numbers on each state race for the following assumptions:

• The polling stays fixed at Clinton 49%–Sanders 42%, a 7-point Clinton lead.
• The polling stays fixed at Clinton 45%–Sanders 45%, a dead heat.
• The polling stays fixed at Sanders 47%–Clinton 44%, a 3-point Sanders lead.

Then he looks at what “momentum” looks like in a number of recent presidential contests (it actually can take a number of shapes) and chooses a momentum pattern associated with Obama’s win over Clinton in 2008. (Click here to see that chart.)

His final three scenarios are “dynamic” variations of his static ones, with shifting momentum off the current baseline. In each of these, Sanders wins, each time overcoming the bulge in the Clinton lead that comes on March 15. In the narrowest of these winning scenarios, the March 15 bulge is quite large, +184 delegates for Clinton.

Note that the data in Matt’s piece was run prior to South Carolina’s results, so Sanders has some additional ground to make up. Still, Sanders is right to “take it to the convention.” Most of his strength comes after most of Clinton’s, and Sanders could easily surprise in his states, just as Clinton will surprise in some of hers. Again, we won’t know who has the lead for good until after California and four additional states vote in early June.

Bottom line — What looks bad for Sanders supporters on March 1 will look worse a few weeks later. But stay heartened. Whatever the result through March, this isn’t over until June, after Sanders’ best states have voted as well."

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016...biggest-lead-march-15-sanders-will-erode.html

 

We'll see man. Just like the RNC side I'm not sure it matters. The DNC has their candidate and they're going to push her to the end even if Sanders starts racking up delegates. The RNC is going to do everything they can to keep Trump out and the DNC will do everything they can to keep Sanders out.

 

"They Haven’t Been Wrong Since 1975 And They Say Our Next President Will Be…

By JC Torpey on December 5, 2015

Even with the lead Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) has in the polls, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has continued to garner support from small donors at an historical pace not seen in any previous election – even President Obama’s election, which held the previous record.

Could that be why Western Illinois University just gave Sen. Sanders a hell of a holiday gift?

Introducing President Bernie Sanders
Western Illinois University, the only entity that’s predicted every single presidential election with 100 percent accuracy since 1975, just announced that its mock election sent Sen. Sanders and Martin O’Malley (D-Md.) to the White House in 2016 as President and Vice President, respectively.

From Hollywood A-list stars and musicians to millennials, veterans, and even a small-but-growing crop of Republicans with some common sense, supporters #FeelTheBern all over the demographic map. Sen. Sanders is the single “most electable”candidate from either party, even after running a so-called long-shot bid to be nominated as the 2016 Democratic candidate for president.


Mock Election Results via Western Illinois University

The university used the same mock election system in 2007 and 2011 to elect and reelect President Obama to the White House, and it’s the same system they’ve used all these years.

From ‘Most Electable’ to President?
According to the latest Quinnipiac Polling data, although Sen. Sanders is still well behind former Sec. Clinton by more than 30 percentage points, he polls better than any of the GOP presidential candidates – including current GOP front runner Donald Trump.

According to Quinnipiac,

“Sanders does just as well, or even better [than Clinton], against top Republicans.”

Sen. Sanders beats Donald Trump (R) by 8 points, Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) by 1 point, Ted Cruz (R-Texas) by 10 points, and Ben Carson (R) by 6 points, according to Quinnipiac.

Sec. Clinton on the other hand beats Trump by 6 points, Sen. Rubio by 1 point, Sen. Cruz by 5 points and Carson by 10 points, according to Quinnipiac.

What’s even more interesting is the WIU’s prior accuracy, despite naysayers in previous elections. The WIU predicted President Obama’s win in 2007, and in 2011, and our current president’s situation was pretty much the same against Clinton in 2007 as Sen. Sanders’ situation is now against Clinton.

President Obama was behind Sec. Clinton at one point by almost the same number of percentage points.

In a December 14 to 16, 2007, poll, Gallup reported that President Obama, then an Illinois Senator, was behind Sec. Clinton by 18 percentage points in a 45 to 27 percent match-up, respectively.

Republicans said he couldn’t win, but the WIU said otherwise, and the university was right. President Obama eventually pulled ahead of Sec. Clinton to gain enough support to earn the primary win, and earn enough of the popular vote to gain the Presidency.

What About Vice President?
The WIU also predicted that President Obama would pick Senator John Edwards (D-S.C.) to be his running mate instead of picking then Senator and current Vice President Joe Biden. At the time, then Sen. Edwards pulled 15 percent at the time, and then Sen. Biden 3 percent, but the WIU hasn’t been as accurate with its vice presidential picks.

That’s never stopped the WIU from being accurate on presidential picks, and there’s nothing about the current presidential race that would appear to be able to creep up to topple that accuracy.

Even throughout all the religious rhetoric, the GOP’s fear-mongering, fascism, andterrorist threats, and the right wing’s attacks on Americans’ freedoms nationwide – attacks that no one seems to notice or care about anymore – there is an important takeaway here.

Sen. Sanders has a very good shot at winning the nomination for the Democratic candidacy, and then winning the White House.

Any way you cut it, the latest numbers show that no matter how delusional or extreme the GOP candidate is, or which is polling at the top of the Republican ticket currently, a Democrat would win hands down if the general elections were held today.

This isn’t an opinion, it’s numbers, and the WIU backs up those numbers. I for one wouldn’t bet the long shot against the one university that has the single most accurate prediction record ever, Democrat or not.

Would you?"

http://www.liberalamerica.org/2015/...ext-president-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton/

 

I dunno if I'm going to trust the very fair and unbiased people at "liberalamerica.org".

 

They're just reporting it.

West Illinois University is the one providing the facts, and they haven't been wrong since 1975

Plus they could have said Hillary has it in the bag, but they didn't

 

"Bernie Sanders Had a Phenomenal Night — Here’s Why
Tom Cahill | March 16, 2016FacebookTwitter


Despite Bernie Sanders losing all five states in last night’s primary contests, he’s within striking distance of Hillary Clinton. And if Sanders wins the upcoming Western primaries, he could erase Clinton’s lead and become the new front-runner for the nomination.

At the end of the night, Hillary Clinton increased her delegate lead by about 100, still leaving Sanders plenty of room to eliminate her advantage in the 24 remaining states. A candidate needs 2,383 delegates to clinch the Democratic nomination, and as of March 16, Clinton only has 1,132 delegates to Sanders’ 818. Less than half of the pledged delegates have been selected thus far.

All of the states most favorable to Clinton have already voted, including the entire deep south, and the states most favorable to Sanders are still on the calendar. If anyone should be worried about their chances at the nomination waning over time, it’s Hillary Clinton.

Furthermore, it’s most important to note that going into these favorable states, Bernie Sanders only needs 58% of the remaining pledged delegates. And considering he picked up 67.7% of the vote in Kansas, 64.3% in Maine, and a thundering 86.1% in his home state of Vermont — shutting out Clinton entirely from the 15% delegate threshold — this is not as impossible as the doomsayers predict.

He also squeaked above the 58% figure with 59% of the vote in Colorado and 61.6% in Minnesota, and he scored a respectable 57.1% in Nebraska. He received 60% back in New Hampshire and has come in virtual ties in many other states outside of the South thus far, meaning he’s beaten the target a total of six times.

Sanders also continued to bolster his argument for electability in the general in tonight’s contests. Among groups that hold special significance in general elections, like young voters and independents, Sanders performed particularly well. For example, 70 percent of independents in Illinois voted for Sanders over Clinton. And despite Clinton pulling out a narrow win in Illinois, Sanders still won the under-45 bloc by a vast margin:


What all this means is that Bernie Sanders is still well within striking distance of the nomination as more Sanders-friendly states take to the polls throughout the Spring. The primary season is only halfway over, and the remaining states areoverwhelmingly favorable to Sanders in that they’re blue states with large populations of Democratic-leaning independents and voters under 45.

In fact, out of the 17 states Sanders has lost, it’s important to remember that Barack Obama still beat Hillary Clinton in 2008 despite losing 21 states. Florida and Ohio, which Clinton won last night, also went for Clinton in 2008. According to New York Times election results, Clinton beat Obama in Florida by 17 points. She also beat Obama in Ohio by a 10-point margin in 2008. Sanders’ loss in those states isn’t that devastating in context.

Nationally-renowned pollster Nate Silver carved out a pathfor Sanders to win the nomination, showing which states the Vermont senator had to win, and by what margins, to remain competitive. Silver doesn’t list Delaware and Maryland as must-win states for Sanders, meaning he could theoretically lose those states and two others while still remaining competitive throughout the remainder of the primary season.

If Sanders and Clinton are neck-and-neck in national polls, Sanders can still win the nomination if he wins the upcoming Western contests by comfortable margins. Many of the Western states are caucuses, where Sanders traditionally does well. Three of Sanders’ last four landslide victories — Kansas, Maine, and Nebraska — are caucus states. While Western states are traditionally polling deserts at this stage, donations from certain geographical regions help shine a light on how favorable the West is for Sanders. it should be noted that six of the top 10 cities that donate the most money per capita to the Sanders campaign are in Western states that have yet to vote:


Graphic from the Seattle Times

U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson, a Florida superdelegate who has endorsed Sanders, explained in a recent Huffington Post blog that the second half of this primary season — after March 15 — could be referred to as “Presidential Primary Version 2.0.” Grayson agrees that Sanders’ best states are in the months to come:

Democratic presidential primary 2.0 elects a total of 2033 pledged delegates. If Bernie Sanders wins those races (and delegates) by the same 60-40 margin that he has amassed in primaries and caucuses outside the “Old South” to date, then that will give him an advantage of 407 pledged delegates. That is more — far more — than the current Clinton margin of 223. [Ed. Note — Margin is now 314, but the math still works out. Again, Sanders’ target is about 58%.]

Almost 700 pledged delegates are chosen on June 7 alone. It seems unlikely that either candidate will accumulate a margin of 700 pledged delegates before then. So this one may come down to the wire.

Fasten your seat belts. It’s going to be a wild ride.
"

http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-sanders-worst-states-behind/

 

That may be, but if I were to post a link from FOX News we'd all understand they have an agenda attached to it. That's all I'm saying.

 

Not denying that at all, but it's a liberal site talking about how Bernie will probably win.

That goes against the typical liberal media spin

 

True enough, but I think much like the RNC side there's some sort of crazy weird groundswell for both Clinton and Trump. There could even be a majority against those decisions, but there's some "powers that be" that are making this decision it seems like. I still haven't met a Trump supporter. I know far more Sanders supporters than Clinton supporters. I live in LA which is typically very liberal. Where are these people that keep voting for Trump and Clinton?

I don't know.