According to NYT, after tonight Trump will have more than 50% of the pledged delegates selected so far. If all of the unpledged delegates go NoTrump, he needs 60% of the delegates left to win.
Is there anything he can do to sway the unpledged from CO or PA?
Losers do not dictate terms to winners.
Yes, absolutely. I may have written this before, but my daughter, who attended our local high school, was one of 325 kids when freshman year began. At graduation four years later, the class numbered just above 150. This is a school district serving a largely impoverished population with a majority of black students and a growing number of Hispanics.
Who was dropping out? Well, it wasn’t the 20% or so of middle-to-upper-middle-class kids, black and white and Hispanic, that made up the freshman class.
Why did tbhose who dropped out decide to do so? For a million reasons, I’m sure. I kind of doubt that “I dropped out of high school because I didn’t think I’d be able to pay for college” was high on anyone’s list.
I don’t know exactly how I feel about the free college thing. I can see benefits; I can see drawbacks. But we shouldn’t pretend that this is a wonderful boon for the poorest Americans, because it isn’t. It’s a middle-class entitlement, and we ought to call it that.
(Not that I think middle-class entitlements are necessarily awful, by the way…)
Not a snarky question, but how in the world is Trump racking up such majorities in states where Republican voters are more liberal? One would think Kasich would sweep up those states.
Indeed. I’m not talking about Sanders dictating anything to anyone. I’m saying, does not Clinton need to win some share of Sanders supporters? Is it not her actions that will do this, or not?
That’s a good question. Maybe they are like me in thinking Trump is a centrist (look at his history and his recent stand on LGBT rights) who is trolling the TeaBaggers.
They certainly can try when they have the loyalty of a voting block strong enough to make or break the general election results. Politics is all about compromises. If Clinton wants the support of Bernies voters, she will compromise.
Kasich has kind of a “this guy’s not going to win” vibe, and Trump is more liberal than Cruz? I don’t think hard core conservatives tend to be Trump’s base. Trump’s base is disaffected people who are upset by the gridlock and posturing in Washington and worried that America is ineffective and weak.
Right now, over a 538, they are saying only 7% of Bernie’s voters wouldn’t vote for Clinton - but she’ll get 19% of the Republicans don’t support Trump. I don’t think she needs the extortionists on the Bernie side - she’ll get the reasonable Bernie supporters and the #anybodybuttrump Republicans.
I started out as a Bernie supporter (and I still like most of his goals, even if I don’t now think he can actually reach them), but I voted Hillary today in PA. I’ll admit that about 70% of that switch had to do with some of my fellow Bernie supporters. I’m getting really tired of the whole “You have to kiss our asses if you want our votes” thing. It reeks of millennial entitlement.
OK. Then perhaps neither of their attitudes to rapprochement matters a whit. From the perspective of her personal ambitions, anyway.
CT looks like the only race of the night (for the Dems). Bernie has a slight lead, but a lot of the NY suburban ‘bedroom’ communities in the SW corner of the state haven’t reported yet, so still time for that to change.
I believed that Trump would win, but the margins he’s winning by surprise me.
A lot of those Bernie voters who won’t vote for Clinton are the most fickle of all voters. It’s simply not a good use of campaign resources to try to constantly woo them, especially those whose eyes light up for so-called rebels like Nader, Sanders, or Ron Paul.
Nah, her prospects do not require it. They are better with it than without it but she has more to lose than to gain by pandering for so-called progressive support. Significantly so.
OTOH if Sanders and his camp do not rally to Clinton they only have “lose” as possible outcome. The biggest lose of course is in the case of an unexpectedly close general election and a Trump upset. The other outcomes include less of a flip in Congress than otherwise might have been and simultaneously marginalizing themselves, proving that their “support” means little. If alternatively they declare victory and take credit for having moved Clinton on some major issues and claim to have controlled the conversation, and work to a top to bottom success for the party in November, then they can claim some credit for the success and will both move the country in the direction they want to see it going (even if not as far as they want to see it) and earn relevancy in the future.
Realize that not all of the minority (less than 42%) that voted for Sanders is part of “the movement”. MANY just wanted to vote for “something different”, some like his personality better than Clinton’s, some just are not thrilled with her for a variety of reasons (and not enthralled with “the cause” or “the revolution” per se …
The choice is to support the team moving forward and have a voice at the table after a victory, to be part of the conversation moving forward, or to place yourself not only not seated at the table but outside the room.
Well, strictly speaking Sanders-supporters’ Congressional votes aren’t tied to backing Clinton. There will always be some people who don’t show up without a Presidential candidate they like in the field–but that dynamic may be hurting Republicans worse this year, regardless what happens on the Dem side.
I don’t understand how the GOP gives delegates, but aren’t they mostly on a winner take all system, and with Trump sweeping states shouldn’t that help him get to his goal of 1237?
Does Trump, after tonight, have a realistic chance of getting enough delegates to avoid a brokered convention? There are still states like NJ, CA, OR, IN, TN, etc that have yet to vote.
My WAG is different. Many of Sanders supporters are the traditional non-voters. It is great that he got them to the polls but it is unclear that his support would get them to the polls for Clinton in any case and they are the least likely to bother to come out to vote if not for President - see midterm turnouts. They will either come out to vote against Trump, suddenly find the attraction of Clinton, or just stay home. They won’t come out and vote for a Congresscritter and decline to vote for President.
Strictly speaking they are not, but a percentage of them who won’t vote for Clinton will just stay home. These aren’t the people who have been turning out in overwhelming numbers for the midterms. And some of their narrative has a lot of power placed in the Presidency (which it doesn’t have) and Congress not making a difference. Some won’t understand how important the down ballot is.
Meanwhile dang! Clinton up a freakin’ 31 points in MD (95 delegates), 20 in DE (21 delegates), 14 in PA (189 delegates). Moving ahead in CT (55 delegates). (And losing RI - 24 delegates by 12)
If current margins hold that comes to Clinton winning the day’s delegates by something like a 13 point margin.
Whoa.
Bernie Bros needed to win 4 out of 5, including PA. They LOST 4 of 5 including PA.
Game over.
Clinton wins.