March 15, 2016

"Can Bernie Sanders Pull Off An Upset In Ohio?"

Asks Nate Silver, comparing Ohio to Michigan (the state where Sanders pulled off an upset last week, an upset that Silver failed to predict).
[T]he demographic model gives Sanders a 42 percent chance of winning Ohio, much better than the 3 percent chance that our “polls-only” forecast gives to him.
As for Illinois — Clinton's original home state — "the polls have been all over the place, with recent surveys showing everything from a 42-point lead for Clinton to a 2-point lead for Sanders."
Our weighted polling average has Clinton up by 7 points there, and the demographic model is largely in agreement, forecasting a 9-point win for Clinton.
In the southern states, North Carolina and Florida, the forecast is a blowout for Clinton, so "[i]f Sanders were to win or come close... it would be an even bigger upset than Michigan."

63 comments:

traditionalguy said...

Every time people vote for delegates Hillary loses, but she still gets her paid for SUPER Delagates. Democracy recognizes votes. Marxist fascism just counts the votes in their favor anyway.

AllenS said...

There is a very good possibility that this year and last year signals the end of polls as any indication of how anyone will vote.

sunsong said...

I'm hoping the voters are feeling the Bern today!

Bay Area Guy said...

Go, Bernie, Go!

@Trad Guy -- the Superdelegates aren't bound. Relax.

Limited blogger said...

For a completely staged candidacy, Bernie is putting on quite a show.

tim in vermont said...

A significant portion of Superdelegates are lobbyists. "Isn't that special."

tim in vermont said...

If Hillary wrests the nomination from Bernie starting with winning every coin flip in Iowa, I am thinking that whoever does run on the socialist ticket might get the 5% needed to qualify for matching funds in the next presidential go round.

damikesc said...

There is a very good possibility that this year and last year signals the end of polls as any indication of how anyone will vote.

Sanders in MI and Cruz' performances in multiple states is not showing that polls remotely work any longer.

Brando said...

I think until they figure out how the Michigan polls got it so wrong, we won't really have a clue about other states.

What's interesting to me is that nationally Sanders is in a virtual tie with her, yet I keep hearing that she has this "clinched". Presumably he can make up deficits in some of these "older" and "blacker" states where she gets big margins with his own victories in "younger" and "less black" states.

And Democrats have much more reason that Republicans to despise their establishment. It is the Dems who have the superdelegates, a chronic incompetent (Debbie Wasserman Shultz) heading their party and engineering the entire primary to be a coronation of Saint Hillary, and a strongarming of donors, staffers and endorsers into the Clinton camp. If I were a Sandersite I'd be far more pissed than any Trump fan.

mccullough said...

Almost no one under the age of 50 has a home phone anymore and almost no one under 50 with a cell phone will answer it unless they know who is calling. If it's important, they know who ever is calling will leave a message. At this point, people are guessing based on recent performance. Clinton does well with blacks, Latinos, and older and wealthier whites. Sanders does well with younger whites and blue collar whites. His supporters are more enthusiastic and he's turning out more of his voters as a percentage than Hillary.

eric said...

I'm wondering if Donald will upset in Ohio. If he does, this thing is over.

But, I don't think he will. Kasich has been a politician in Ohio for something like 30 hears. He should win by 10% or more, due to organization and such.

I'll be more surprised of a Trump upset than a Bernie upset.

tola'at sfarim said...

you dont need Nate Silver to answer can he. Nate Silver is supposed to predict will he

tim in vermont said...

Since 7 percent of Democrats in Michigan or Illinois, not sure, voted reportedly to "stop Trump" in the R primary, I think it is far more likely they voted for Trump, possibly to make a win for Hillary easier, I think that Hillary will find a way to convince her supporters this time that she has a fight here and now, so ease up on the battlefield prep for November.

traditionalguy said...

Freedom is in the air. Stopping the Clinton Army will be huge.

Then we get to see Andy Jackson's fighting style in a rematch with Cherokee Warren's indigenous Style.

Can another trail of tears be far behind for her Tribe?

Danno said...

It would seem Silver is not so golden in his predictions now that the Magic Negro is not in the race.

Also, how do you do accurate polling with so many landlines taken out? Like McCullough said about "the under 50s" in his comment, I too don't answer my landline ever, but wait to see if they leave a message. On my cell phone I only take known numbers. And I am in my early 60s.

Sammy Finkelman said...

AllenS said...3/15/16, 11:16 AM

There is a very good possibility that this year and last year signals the end of polls as any indication of how anyone will vote.

It's actually been true for quite some time. It's become much more an art than a science. telephone polling now has about a 9% response rate. There may be ways to tease out what people are likely to do, but its an art.

There's an Internet joke that Ted Cruz is the Zodiac serial killer, based on a resemblance to the sketch (something that is impossible for him to be without having a time machine.)

In a Florida poll it was question 19.

19. Do you think Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer?

Yes: 10%
No: 62%
Don't Know, maybe, 28%

What we have here is some people playing along with the joke; some people, who also probably don't have any idea who he Zodiac Killer is anyway, thinking there might be something to it BECAUSE the question is asked; and some people just giving any old answer or not listening to the questions even, or maybe the polltaker just filling in answers quickly..


D.D. Driver said...

I love how he's set himself up to win no matter what. If Sanders wins Ohio, Silver was right because he predicted that Sanders had a "much better chance" at victory than what the polls predicted. If Sanders loses in Ohio, Silver was still right because Silver predicted that Sanders only had a 42% chance at winning (and therefore a 58% chance at losing).

Sammy Finkelman said...

Brando said...

I think until they figure out how the Michigan polls got it so wrong, we won't really have a clue about other states.

Primaries have limited and variable turnout.

They got it wrong, in large part, by misjudging the composition of the electorate in terms of population subgroups, so they weren't weighted properly in the poll(s), and by assuming that Hillary Clinton would get practically all of the black vote, like 85%, while she really got around 70%.

Whatever mistakes they made are peobably being repeated in a number of other states.

Sammy Finkelman said...

They do random digit dialing, so that gets you cellphones, and they ask, at least on one poll, if they got you on a landline or a cellphone. Yet that poll (obviously for Governor Cuomo) asked for me by first name, so they must have been using voter registration data, maybe combined with data from commercial sources, except I think only 411 gives out telephone numbers, and they would only get a sub-sample. Are some telephone numbers now being sold commercially? That was a Florida based polling company. I don't think the Board of Elections has the telephone number of most registered voters, although they do have one of mine because I worked for them. Not I think the one that was called.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Brando said...3/15/16, 11:47 AM

What's interesting to me is that nationally Sanders is in a virtual tie with her, yet I keep hearing that she has this "clinched". Presumably he can make up deficits in some of these "older" and "blacker" states where she gets big margins with his own victories in "younger" and "less black" states.

The "older" and "blacker" (ans more conservative) states have mostly already voted.

Brando said...

"I'm wondering if Donald will upset in Ohio. If he does, this thing is over."

I think it's over anyway. Even with Kasich winning Ohio and Rubio improbably beating the odds and winning FL, it's just delaying the inevitable. Trump is going to have delegate leads in enough big states that he can't be denied a plurality, and the convention wouldn't dare give it to a non-plurality candidate. Unless Cruz somehow scooped up all the non-Trump support from here on out, but even that is a long shot.

"The "older" and "blacker" (ans more conservative) states have mostly already voted."

Well, she still holds big leads in FL and NC--and I don't know how NY or CA will play out. But if the polls are off and Sanders upsets in FL, say, this thing breaks wide open and we have a horse race.

I'd love to see Bernie nominated so Bill and Debbie can sit slack jawed and watch all their coronation plans pulled from under them as they tried to force a poor candidate on the Dems.

Hagar said...

Was it not in Ohio where Obama drew 110-20% of the registered voters in some districts in 2008 and -12?
Trump and Bernie will have to overcome that; not just a bare majority.

Virgil Hilts said...

Nate Silver (as one of your readers pointed out a couple of days ago) gave Clinton a 99% chance of winning Michigan. Whoops!

rehajm said...

...and the convention wouldn't dare give it to a non-plurality candidate....

Just as denying the nomination to a majority candidate, handing the nomination to a plurality candidate isn't part of the current rules. Unless they are ready to throw out the rules, expect brokered chaos absent a majority.

rehajm said...

...and the convention wouldn't dare give it to a non-plurality candidate...

BTW, I completely agree with this statement. However, they would definitely dare give it to a non candidate .

Brando said...

"Just as denying the nomination to a majority candidate, handing the nomination to a plurality candidate isn't part of the current rules. Unless they are ready to throw out the rules, expect brokered chaos absent a majority."

I know technically the rules allow them to give it to someone other than the plurality candidate, but I can't see them pulling this move. It would symbolize everything half the party hates about the establishment, and the Trumpites (assuming Trump is the plurality candidate, which I think he will be at least if not the majority candidate) will justifiably be pissed enough to sit out the general election or support an independent candidacy.

I wouldn't want to see Trump as the nominee, but even I would consider that move (denying him the nomination even if he got more delegates than any other candidate) underhanded and unfair. If we're going to select delegates by primaries then those primaries should matter--and Trump has so far been winning under those rules.

Brando said...

"BTW, I completely agree with this statement. However, they would definitely dare give it to a non candidate ."

I wonder who, though? Forget Romney or Paul Ryan--maybe they'd try to find someone who would mollify the Trump fans who felt cheated, but I don't know who could fit that bill and even then, just denying it to Trump at that point would be unfair.

The only chance the "never Trump" team had was to unite behind an alternative and hope that alternative could beat him. As that has not happened, I think the best they can hope for is to work out some sort of deal with Trump to get a VP nominee they could accept or some promises of cabinet posts.

rehajm said...

Forget Romney or Paul Ryan

Why forget them? I could completely envision a scenario where Anyone But Trump supporters lock up enough delegates to deny him the nomination. You can't give it to the also rans, so why not a white knight like Mitt or Paul?

Alexander said...

As someone who has been unambiguously on the Trump train since last July, I will say in response to Brando:

I will not vote for a republican brokered convention candidate. There is literally nobody they could pick. I will view such a move as fraudulent, assume that any chosen candidate has the stamp of approval from the establishment - whom I despise - and any attempt to look palatable is a move of utter contempt for my ability to see through a ruse.

I swallowed the shit sandwich for McCain and Romney, accepting the premise that it was 'better than the alternative'. The we had to all 'pull together', and it's baked into the cake that we can't all get who we want at the end of the primaries.

Well, funny how we can always get what the GOPe wants... but when we don't, suddenly 'loyalty' and 'Most Important Election' fly out the window. And the women they've spend my entire life claiming we need to keep out the White House... they're openly saying they'll support her.

I cannot quite express how much I despise these people.

But as time goes on, I am more certain that Trump is not just the best choice available, but the only choice. Illegal supporters hate him. Foreign governments hate him. Our own government hates him. Republican and Democrat establishments hate him. Media from Fox to Univision hate him. Globalists, Multi Cults, Dhimmis, GoldSacks and Progressives of every stripe hate him. Black Lives Matter hates him.

In short, he has every enemy I admire a man for having.

rehajm said...

I will view such a move as fraudulent, assume that any chosen candidate has the stamp of approval from the establishment

I'm in this camp, too. Do you think we can hold the nomination hostage until the GOPe gives us what we want?

Alexander said...

On the other hand.

You think Trump supporters are bad, you just wait and see the people that discover they voted for Cruz, only to realize that all they were really doing was keeping Trump down in order to make room for Romney/Ryan Mk.II

Brando said...

"Why forget them? I could completely envision a scenario where Anyone But Trump supporters lock up enough delegates to deny him the nomination. You can't give it to the also rans, so why not a white knight like Mitt or Paul?"

I suppose they could, but surely they'd know that the party would split over that, and the consequences down the road would be far reaching. The safer route would be letting Trump have it, trying to exert some leverage for their support, and doing what they can to hold Congress. I think that's more likely, considering even after all their denunciations most of his critics still say they'd support him if he were the nominee. Just saying that sort of undercuts their criticism--as bad as he is, they are still signaling that Hillary would be worse.

"I will not vote for a republican brokered convention candidate. There is literally nobody they could pick. I will view such a move as fraudulent, assume that any chosen candidate has the stamp of approval from the establishment - whom I despise - and any attempt to look palatable is a move of utter contempt for my ability to see through a ruse."

I think even a lot of Trump critics would find such a move deplorable. It seems a backdoor way to get what they couldn't get fair and square (even if technically the rules allow it). I mean, why not just dispense with primaries if the nominee has to pass muster with the party heads?

"I'm in this camp, too. Do you think we can hold the nomination hostage until the GOPe gives us what we want?"

I doubt it will come to that. I think the anti-Trumps in the party will grumble (as everyone does when the party nominates someone they don't like--there was plenty of grumbling in 2012 over Romney too) but get in line in the end. A party split would mean not only a Hillary election but it could hit downstream races and in future elections too.

The minute Romney et al announced the "brokered convention" strategy I saw that as a sign of acceptance that Rubio, Kasich and Cruz couldn't stop Trump--at most, they might try and get Trump to offer them something in exchange for a smooth nomination but ultimately he'll have the cards. Pissing off all the Trump fans (and anyone else who hates unfair play) would be suicide.

rehajm said...

at most, they might try and get Trump to offer them something in exchange for a smooth nomination but ultimately he'll have the cards. Pissing off all the Trump fans (and anyone else who hates unfair play) would be suicide.

I hope you're correct. I'm just not convinced the GOPe isn't ready to choose suicide over loss of control.

Fabi said...

Alexander@2:06 -- I think you've called that perfectly. As a Cruz voter, it makes my lunch a little harder to digest.

I'd love to believe that they won't try to bring in a ringer, but there's so much chatter around the web that I can't discount it. It was noted yesterday that even if Kasich wins Ohio tonight then he still needs 122% of the delegates to reach the number. The longer he stays in -- provided that he does -- the more I believe it's a set up for some combination of Romney / Ryan / Kasich they're after. Kasich said on one of the Sunday shows that Trump would "...never be the nominee." The fix may be in.

That scenario would be a disaster, but that's a comment for another day.

p.s.: for sunsong -- Go Bernie! It's great to see him making it a race.

Alexander said...

Yeah, all I really got from that was that you have your head on straight.

The evidence that the GOPe does... not so much.

Trump could turn around and betray his supporters. He could. But He could also either mean what he says, or even better from a practical point of view, not really care one way or another but realize that he rode the wave to the oval office and the worst thing to do would be to turn on his power base. Either way, he starts doing things...

... that are contrary to what the establishment of both parties have spent the last half-century (at a minimum) doing.

The GOPe may very well decide that splitting with their base by screwing them over in the convention is worth it, either to try and buy them back at some future date, or openly accept that they are but one wing of the establishment uniparty and just go on from there.

I expect more than a few GOPe types figured they joined the Republican Party so they could rule it, not so that they could accept the will of the bible-thumping gunclingers from flyover country who wouldn't know the first thing about getting an invite to all the right Georgetown dinner parties. If they can't have that, then they don't want to be part of the group, anyway.

Maybe I'm wrong. But the GOPe has not given much reason to assume they are genuinely interested in the base or at least cynically self-interested enough in their long term prospects to capitulate this once.

Big Mike said...

Thanks to super delegates, even if he wins she will have more delegates than him.

Jim said...

What @Alexander said, in both posts. I find it hard to believe the GOP would subvert the process. Or at least I would find it hard to believe in 'normal' times. A Romney ticket would signal that the GOP has accepted its role as a cuckold.
I've voted in every election since 1971. I would sit this one out if the bastards pick someone like Romney or Ryan.

Brando said...

"I hope you're correct. I'm just not convinced the GOPe isn't ready to choose suicide over loss of control."

Well, look at it this way--if they tried the "switch" at the convention, it would be the end of the party as we know it. Even if Trump didn't go third party, his fans would walk out and guarantee a loss in November, and beyond. Where those voters would go I can't say, but I don't see them staying in a party that they feel robbed them of their nominee even after long ignoring their interests.

"Maybe I'm wrong. But the GOPe has not given much reason to assume they are genuinely interested in the base or at least cynically self-interested enough in their long term prospects to capitulate this once."

We'll see--I figure whatever they think of the "base" (whether Tea Party, religious right, or Trumpist) they know they need them to win elections--the old suburban set is not what it used to be (and has mostly gone Democrat since the '80s). Doing something like this would be a much bigger betrayal than anything they've done before--the McCain and Romney and Dole nominations were all fair and square, and those guys at least made their concessions to the base (if clumsily--e.g., "severely conservative"). A move like this would be unprecedented since the days of the backroom deals.

The tell for me was that at no point did even Romney say he would prefer Hillary elected over Trump--he couched his criticism in terms of "Trump would lose to Hillary" as if that were a bad thing. Ryan criticized Trump (as did Rubio, Kasich, etc.) but they all said they'd stick by their pledge. While those "pledges" are cheap, it suggests that they still want to give themselves leeway to come around and endorse him in the end, and that they still see Hillary as the greater threat. If high profile Republicans started actually endorsing Hillary, that would be a different thing altogether.

Brando said...

"Thanks to super delegates, even if he wins she will have more delegates than him."

If Bernie gets more earned delegates, every one of those super delegates will switch.

rehajm said...

If Bernie gets more earned delegates, every one of those super delegates will switch.

Most leftie voters would: Fuck Bloomberg, Kill Hillary, Marry Bernie.

Alexander said...

@Brando,

Normally, I'd agree - no question.

But throughout the west, we are seeing a shift from left/right to nationalist/globalist.

I will say it's unlikely to become official this election cycle, but a political alliance between the GOPe/Chamber of Commerce types with big-tent immigration isn't exactly ridiculous anymore. It already exists in the back rooms.

I think the GOPe has wanted to do this for a long time, and all that's held them back is 1. A nagging sense that doing so would be to openly be treacherous cucks, and if they were wholly comfortable being such they would have been Democrats in the first place, and 2. the electoral reality that despite every one of them cheering for the demise of the white American, it hasn't happened yet and they unfortunately still old most of the votes.

Brando said...

"I will say it's unlikely to become official this election cycle, but a political alliance between the GOPe/Chamber of Commerce types with big-tent immigration isn't exactly ridiculous anymore. It already exists in the back rooms."

The last big party shift was conservative Democrats into the GOP and liberal Republicans into the Dem Party, and to some extent they've created strange bedfellows (moderate social liberals with populists and racialists in the Democrats, with "Wall Street" conservatives, religious conservatives and libertarians in the GOP). It's hard to picture the Mitt Romney types finding enough common cause with the Hillary Clinton types, but who knows--at one time southern segregationists shared a party with blacks and urban ethnics. Certainly if either (or both) parties start to rip apart, new coalitions will emerge.

I remember in the 2008 election when a lot of people were either losing their jobs, losing their net worth or reasonably fearing such losses, the usual mantra from the GOP (and their nominee) was "keep taxes low" and otherwise business as usual. There wasn't really any acknowledgement of what a lot of Americans were going through, and while the Democrats offered the same warmed over crap the GOP wasn't coming up with anything new from their 1980 playbook either. If anything good comes from this split, it will be to expose how much the old orthodoxies haven't addressed what a lot of Americans are going through.

damikesc said...

Well, look at it this way--if they tried the "switch" at the convention, it would be the end of the party as we know it. Even if Trump didn't go third party, his fans would walk out and guarantee a loss in November, and beyond. Where those voters would go I can't say, but I don't see them staying in a party that they feel robbed them of their nominee even after long ignoring their interests.

I'm a Cruz guy. If they gave it to him, I'd vote. Anybody else? I'd refuse. Vehemently.

Bay Area Guy said...

@Alexander

I appreciate your unswerving support for Trump. I am not supporting Trump in the primaries, but will definitely vote for him in the General. I am learning to like Trump.

Do you mind if, with civility, I address your comments?

I will not vote for a republican brokered convention candidate.

Even it helps hand the election to Hillary?


I swallowed the shit sandwich for McCain and Romney, accepting the premise that it was 'better than the alternative'.

Disagree. In 2008, the alternatives to McCain were Romney and Huckabee. Yes, McCain ran a crappy campaign, but neither of those two would have beaten Obama.

In 2012, the alternatives to Romney were Gingrich and Santorum. I'm sure Gingrich would have lost -- absolutely no cross-over appeal. Santorum had no business running, too inexperienced, lost his Senate in 2006. Romney, a good man, lost a winnable election, by failing to take the gloves off, particularly with that Candy Crowley debate. That's the lesson -- failed tactics, not a failed political strategy (in my opinion)

Well, funny how we can always get what the GOPe wants... but when we don't, suddenly 'loyalty' and 'Most Important Election' fly out the window. And the women they've spend my entire life claiming we need to keep out the White House... they're openly saying they'll support her.

I cannot quite express how much I despise these people.


I despise the Left -- but I don't despise the GOPe. I am merely frustrated with and disappointed by them. However, yes, if any GOP type supports Hillary in the General, they should be ignored and marginalized politically in future elections.

But as time goes on, I am more certain that Trump is not just the best choice available, but the only choice.

It depends if he wins the General. If he wins, we're happy. If he loses, the moderate GOP types will blame him and his supporters.


Illegal supporters hate him. Foreign governments hate him. Our own government hates him. Republican and Democrat establishments hate him. Media from Fox to Univision hate him. Globalists, Multi Cults, Dhimmis, GoldSacks and Progressives of every stripe hate him. Black Lives Matter hates him.

In short, he has every enemy I admire a man for having.


I kinda agree with you here. Michael K has also said that Trump has made the right enemies. I think it's necessary, but not sufficient. Trump has to have a positive vision for the future and a more diplomatic tone. After today, watch for a "kindler, gentler" Trump. He's gonna cut down on the heated rhetoric, and appear more presidential -- in order to get the 70 Million votes necessary to win.

Sammy Finkelman said...

The New York Post published a box with a series of polls today (not saying whose polls they were)

It showed Trump leadinbg everywhere and for Ohio it showed:

Trump 46%
Kasich 38%
Cruz 16%
Rubio 3%

That adds up to 103%

A separate article online today has:

http://nypost.com/2016/03/13/trumps-huge-lead-stops-in-ohio-poll-shows/

In Illinois, Trump is ahead of Cruz 34 percent to 25 percent. All three states, along with Missouri and North Carolina, vote Tuesday. It’s a make-or-break day for Rubio and Kasich in their winner-take-all home states with 99 delegates and 66 delegates at stake, respectively.

A CBS News Battleground Tracker poll found Trump also ahead of Cruz in Illinois (38-34 percent) and in Florida (44-24 percent). Rubio slipped behind Cruz to an embarrassing third place at 21 percent.

But Ohio appears to be Trump’s weakest state, with the billionaire tied with Kasich at 33 percent apiece in the CBS survey.


The boxes have Trump getting 46% in Florida, but Rubio second, at 22% with Cruz at 14% and Kasich at 10% - total 92%

And in Illinois Trump 34%, Cruz 25% Kasich 21% and Rubio 16% So that looks like teh CBS poll.

dbp said...

"I wouldn't want to see Trump as the nominee, but even I would consider that move (denying him the nomination even if he got more delegates than any other candidate) underhanded and unfair. If we're going to select delegates by primaries then those primaries should matter--and Trump has so far been winning under those rules."

I could not disagree more: In every state the Not-Trump vote has been larger than the Trump vote. Why should the majority of the party (who are Not-Trump) get screwed? I am for Cruz, but will happily vote for Rubio or Kasich, should they get the nomination. Yeah, I'll still vote for Trump over Hillary--but I will hate myself over it and know plenty of Republicans who will never vote for Hillary, but they will stay home if the alternative is Trump.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Th box in North Carolina has Trump, 44%, Cruz 33% Kasich 11% and Rubio 7% - total 95%

And for Missouri, Trump 36%.. Criz 29%. Rubio 9% and Cruz 8% - total 82%

The boxes have Sanders losing to Hillary Clinton everywhere except Missouri where he leads 47%-46%

They've got Illinois 48-45 Clinton; Ohio, 51-46 Clinton.

And North Carolina 56-37 Clinton and Florida 60-34 Clinton.

Now remembeer, nationwide Clinton sanders is very close and most of her strongest states have already voted, although maybe she was doing better then, but this was only a week or two ago.

Sammy Finkelman said...

It's very hard for there not to be as plit in the Republican Party and unless they get just the right person, anyoene who is not ahardliner on immigration will lose 5% to 10% of the vote, not to mention having no chance at getting Democrats and independents, and what chance there is depends on the Democratic candidate being Hillary Clinton, who is more toxic than Bernie Sanders. (in polls, Sanders consistently outpolls Hillary by 2% to 3% - probably some people switch both ways.

Someone like Trump or Cruz will lose more, up to 1/3 of the 45% of people who might lean Republican.

Bloomberg may be sorry he didn't say he was running if it looks like Sanders actually could get the nomination.

The Cracker Emcee said...


"But as time goes on, I am more certain that Trump is not just the best choice available, but the only choice. Illegal supporters hate him. Foreign governments hate him. Our own government hates him. Republican and Democrat establishments hate him. Media from Fox to Univision hate him. Globalists, Multi Cults, Dhimmis, GoldSacks and Progressives of every stripe hate him. Black Lives Matter hates him.

In short, he has every enemy I admire a man for having."

Well said. Trump's enemies are the exact crowd of goose-stepping creeps that I feel nothing but contempt for.

The Cracker Emcee said...

"I could not disagree more: In every state the Not-Trump vote has been larger than the Trump vote. Why should the majority of the party (who are Not-Trump) get screwed? I am for Cruz, but will happily vote for Rubio or Kasich, should they get the nomination. Yeah, I'll still vote for Trump over Hillary--but I will hate myself over it and know plenty of Republicans who will never vote for Hillary, but they will stay home if the alternative is Trump."

Incredible. So who is your imaginary unity candidate and how should he/she be chosen? By voting? Apparently you find that method distasteful.

Fabi said...

The "not-Trump" canard is hilarious. What about the not-Kasich vote or the not-Rubio vote or the not-Cruz vote? They're much more damning than the not-Trump vote.

Yancey Ward said...

Sanders must win both Illinois and Ohio. However, even if he does, Clinton stills wins the nomination.

Michael K said...

" I'm just not convinced the GOPe isn't ready to choose suicide over loss of control."

I am concerned about this, too. What would they lose in a Hillary administration ?

Banks control their destiny ? Check.

Unlimited immigration ? Check

Taxes on hedge fund types ? Look at who her son-in-law is.

The only loss is the Supreme Court but they don't give a shit about abortion or guns.

rcocean said...

Oh good lord - give it up Bernie Bros. Bernie has lost. He never had a chance. The Dems vote is proportional. Hillary can "Lose" Ohio with 48% and she'll get almost the same delegates as Bernie.

Meanwhile, Hillary has a massive lead in the South and in super delegates. "White Bread" Bernie gets only 20-35% of the black vote. Hispanics don't love him either.

He's the Washington Generals.

Brando said...

Dbp--the thing is, he'd still be the top delegate winner of everyone who competed, and the party decided long ago that primaries would determine their nominee. Sure, in that scenario a majority of delegates (and presumably voters in those primaries) picked someone else, but even greater majorities went against each of the other candidates, so there's no alternative candidate that could legitimately claim to speak for a larger group. They only could have stopped him in the primary races, with a candidate who beat him. There is no other plausible oath to deny him the nomination without ripping the party apart.

I'm sure some number of Republicans will sit out the election, go with a third party or even vote for Hillary. But usually people go back to their respective sides once the general election season gets going--the Hillary alternative is grotesquely unacceptable for almost every Republican, and when the choice comes into focus I think there will be a lot of nose holding and voting by party.

Michael K said...

"They do random digit dialing, so that gets you cellphones,"

My children don't even answer their phones when I call. I have to text them to get an answer. Of course, that means smart phones.

And all but one are over 25.

Polls are useless.

rehajm said...

dbp said...
"I wouldn't want to see Trump as the nominee, but even I would consider that move (denying him the nomination even if he got more delegates than any other candidate) underhanded and unfair.


Someone please pull the GOP rulebook. Rumor has it if you earn less than 1,237 before the convention it would be underhanded and unfair to hand over the nomination. You need to earn them on the floor.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Michael K said...3/15/16, 5:52 PM

The only loss is the Supreme Court but they don't give a shit about abortion or guns.

There actually is something to lose, but people may not realize this quickly.

That is on matters connected with religion, where it has never really been settled and there is a danger that the voucher system that included church-affiliated schools, or tax deductions for K-12 scholarships, might be outlawed, and there are anumber of other issues, like forced particpation in an Obamacare scheme that includes some things that some people object to.

And another place is the death penalty. Also maybe other criminal law related matters.

There might be other, unknown, things to worry about.

Issues of national security, wiretapping, encryotiuon, scope of subpoenas, may not quire divide liberal/conservative.

Abortion and gay marriage is mostly a lost cause, but limitations on abortion laws are not too likely to be extended much further.

On guns, the Supreme Court actually went too far. There is actually confusion, because on what basis can the possession of nuclear weapons by private individuals, or at least machine guns, be outlawed, if the second amendment is an individual right?

It is kind of arbitrary to say there is an individual right to possess arms, that goes beyond arms that existed in 1789, (as it logically should) but nevertheless is limited to just certain standard weapons which existed and were on the market circa 1930, which is what approximately seems to be the dividing line.

Anything in between all possible weapons, or nothing at all, just stands in the air without support, and reeks of judicial legislation.

Maybe you can say anything that is allowed to be manufactured must also be available for purchase by many people, which is what the Supreme Court seemed to say, but that's really arbitrary. Gadget guns, a la James Bond, are illegal to make, so, according to the Supreme Court, they seem to be also capable of being made illegal to possess. If they weren't illegal to make, possession maybe couldn't be limited too much under the Heller decision. That's pragmatism, maybe, but I'm not sure you can find any principle beyond saying what you can sell to non-police somewhere, you can sell everywhere. Which isn't much of a principle.

Sammy Finkelman said...

"They do random digit dialing, so that gets you cellphones,"

Actually I wasn't too clear as to just what that Florida polling outfit did in that poll. I am not sure the person I spoke to actually knew how they got my number. The other poll that reached me this year (on another phone) I think did use random digit dialing. I also did a New York City health survey last year and agreed to take more questions and another surbey or two from a slightly different source, and have gotten some $25 to $40 so far, I'm not sure. They're affiliated with Columbia University.

Sammy Finkelman said...

My children don't even answer their phones when I call. I have to text them to get an answer. Of course, that means smart phones....Polls are useless.

Not useless, but they require some fancy footwork. They have to adjust their numbers, and figure out how to adjust them.

It can only really be adjusted according to things that have known correct answers, so they they get a sample, or weight the sample so that they has the same proportion in the survey as they have in the world, but they have to pick known answers that track with unknown answers irregardless of whether or not someone answered the phone.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Bernie Sanders' people actually thought they could pull off an upset in Ohio. I think maybe both in Ohio and Florida early voting was a factor. In Florida, two thirds of the results were in right after the polls closed because they had already been counted and were cast before Election Day (but just kept secret)

Ohio also has significant early voting, but there Kasich was always strong in the Republican side. It probably helped cause the big Hillary Clinton victory, (about 57-42) because Sanders only really started to gain respect in the last week or two.

Illinois and North Carolina also have early voting, but it is probably not too customary or easy in Illinois, so it was close. Missouri does not, and that was Sanders' best state March 15.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Fabi said...3/15/16, 5:15 PM

The "not-Trump" canard is hilarious. What about the not-Kasich vote or the not-Rubio vote or the not-Cruz vote? They're much more damning than the not-Trump vote.

It really is a not-Trump vote.

http://prospect.org/article/losing-ohio-improves-trump%E2%80%99s-chances-win-nomination

In exit polls for Michigan and Mississippi, Rubio voters preferred Cruz over Trump by a ratio of four to one, and an ABC-Langer national sample of Republican and Republican-leaning independents got a similar split

That article, by the way, contains faulty logic. The problem is not with Ohio, where Trump losing doesn't heplp Trump. The problem would be Cruz and Kasich not agreeing to tag team in winner-take-all states, or any state where one might fail the threshold.

What Donald Trump is saying about people not knowing mathematics (or physics!!?) is nonsense - the votes cast for others can't just be assigned at random to the others - not just in this elections, but in most elections with multiple candidates as well. I mean, this is a elementary fact.

Brando said...

"Someone please pull the GOP rulebook. Rumor has it if you earn less than 1,237 before the convention it would be underhanded and unfair to hand over the nomination. You need to earn them on the floor."

That may be what the rules say--but when the entire process of meting out delegates in the first place is based on primary elections, and one candidate has earned more of those than any other, it's hard to argue that any other person more legitimately represents the party. I think that candidate's supporters would be right to feel cheated, even if the rules permit that.