2016 elections - because it's never too early

[Monoriu]

Any view or reports into the look on faces inside the Clinton camp right now? 

I thought the Democrats allocate the delegates proportionately?  If so, I think Clinton bags more or less the same number of delegates as Sanders, as she only lost Michigan marginally.  She got like 80% of the votes in the other state. 

Nobody cares about delegate count tonight.

Clinton losing Michigan marginally is a speedbump for her.  She is leading Sanders overall.  He needs much more convincing wins to overtake Clinton.  In other words, Michigan has not changed the overall picture.  They are still heading toward an end game where Clinton wins.

[Phillip V]

Any view or reports into the look on faces inside the Clinton camp right now? 

I thought the Democrats allocate the delegates proportionately?  If so, I think Clinton bags more or less the same number of delegates as Sanders, as she only lost Michigan marginally.  She got like 80% of the votes in the other state. 

Nobody cares about delegate count tonight.

Clinton losing Michigan marginally is a speedbump for her.  She is leading Sanders overall.  He needs much more convincing wins to overtake Clinton.  In other words, Michigan has not changed the overall picture.  They are still heading toward an end game where Clinton wins.

Sander's path (assuming an upset tonight leading to Big Mo') would be to win Illinois and Ohio next week followed by a strong sweep of the states on the calendar Mar 22 onward (mostly northern and western states remaining).

[Valmy]

Who cares. Our next president is almost guaranteed to suck.

Well...I guess you got me there.

[Monoriu]

Sander's path (assuming an upset tonight leading to Big Mo') would be to win Illinois and Ohio next week followed by a strong sweep of the states on the calendar Mar 22 onward (mostly northern and western states remaining).

Well, I admit I am not too familiar with US politics.  But to an outsider, that statement sounds like "if he wins every remaining state, he'll win".  Which is true for everybody in the race. 

[Phillip V]

Sander's path (assuming an upset tonight leading to Big Mo') would be to win Illinois and Ohio next week followed by a strong sweep of the states on the calendar Mar 22 onward (mostly northern and western states remaining).

Well, I admit I am not too familiar with US politics.  But to an outsider, that statement sounds like "if he wins every remaining state, he'll win".  Which is true for everybody in the race. 

The reasoning comes in that Clinton's best states have now already voted (Southern, black voting states).

[Monoriu]

Sander's path (assuming an upset tonight leading to Big Mo') would be to win Illinois and Ohio next week followed by a strong sweep of the states on the calendar Mar 22 onward (mostly northern and western states remaining).

Well, I admit I am not too familiar with US politics.  But to an outsider, that statement sounds like "if he wins every remaining state, he'll win".  Which is true for everybody in the race. 

The reasoning comes in that Clinton's best states have now already voted (Southern, black voting states).

Wiki tells me that Clinton won Iowa, Nevada, and Massachusetts.  I don't think those places are exactly Southern.  If Clinton sweeps the South, then Sanders needs big wins in other places to compensate.  But it seems to me that the reality is Clinton sweeps the South, and goes 50/50 with Sanders in other states. 

[Phillip V]

Cruz is catching up to Kasich in Michigan.   

[alfred russel]

Sander's path (assuming an upset tonight leading to Big Mo') would be to win Illinois and Ohio next week followed by a strong sweep of the states on the calendar Mar 22 onward (mostly northern and western states remaining).

Well, I admit I am not too familiar with US politics.  But to an outsider, that statement sounds like "if he wins every remaining state, he'll win".  Which is true for everybody in the race.

On the democratic side the delegates are allocated proportionally--so if Sanders wins all the rest of the states by narrow margins, he still could lose.

On the republican side, every state comes up with their own allocation method, and the party just told the states that if you want to be winner take all you need to be scheduled at least after March 14. And a lot after March 14 are that way. So starting next week, someone can really pull away quickly if they put together a string of wins.

[Admiral Yi]

The Democratic way is much more inclusive. 

[Monoriu]

On the democratic side the delegates are allocated proportionally--so if Sanders wins all the rest of the states by narrow margins, he still could lose.

On the republican side, every state comes up with their own allocation method, and the party just told the states that if you want to be winner take all you need to be scheduled at least after March 14. And a lot after March 14 are that way. So starting next week, someone can really pull away quickly if they put together a string of wins.

Thanks for that.  Seems to me that Clinton and Trump will win then.  If the Democrats go proportionally, then it is really difficult for Sanders to overcome his delegate deficit.  Trump doesn't win more than 40% of the vote, usually.  But unless the Republican field consolidates quickly, the frontrunner will grab a disproportionate number of delegates.  That guy will be Trump unless there is only one non-Trump left.

[Phillip V]

On the democratic side the delegates are allocated proportionally--so if Sanders wins all the rest of the states by narrow margins, he still could lose.

On the republican side, every state comes up with their own allocation method, and the party just told the states that if you want to be winner take all you need to be scheduled at least after March 14. And a lot after March 14 are that way. So starting next week, someone can really pull away quickly if they put together a string of wins.

Thanks for that.  Seems to me that Clinton and Trump will win then.  If the Democrats go proportionally, then it is really difficult for Sanders to overcome his delegate deficit.  Trump doesn't win more than 40% of the vote, usually.  But unless the Republican field consolidates quickly, the frontrunner will grab a disproportionate number of delegates.  That guy will be Trump unless there is only one non-Trump left.

As Hillary reminded us eight years ago: somebody might still get shot by June, giving the nomination to someone else. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0QAewVrR28

[alfred russel]

On the democratic side the delegates are allocated proportionally--so if Sanders wins all the rest of the states by narrow margins, he still could lose.

On the republican side, every state comes up with their own allocation method, and the party just told the states that if you want to be winner take all you need to be scheduled at least after March 14. And a lot after March 14 are that way. So starting next week, someone can really pull away quickly if they put together a string of wins.

Thanks for that.  Seems to me that Clinton and Trump will win then.  If the Democrats go proportionally, then it is really difficult for Sanders to overcome his delegate deficit.  Trump doesn't win more than 40% of the vote, usually.  But unless the Republican field consolidates quickly, the frontrunner will grab a disproportionate number of delegates.  That guy will be Trump unless there is only one non-Trump left.

I think Sanders is fucked.

You are right on the danger for the anti Trump vote. But...to become a nominee you have to have a majority of delegates - and some aren't even allocated by voting. Right now Trump has won under 50% of what has been allocated--so he isn't on pace to get the nomination at this point. On March 15, two big states have winner take all primaries: Ohio and Florida. Kasich is from Ohio and Rubio is from Florida. If Trump wins neither, it will be very difficult for him to get to 50%. The conventional wisdom is that Kasich and Rubio will drop out if they fail to win their home states. So on March 15 we should either get consolidation of the GOP field or what will probably be a decisive blow to Trump.

[jimmy olsen]

Any view or reports into the look on faces inside the Clinton camp right now? 

I thought the Democrats allocate the delegates proportionately?  If so, I think Clinton bags more or less the same number of delegates as Sanders, as she only lost Michigan marginally.  She got like 80% of the votes in the other state. 

Nobody cares about delegate count tonight.

Clinton losing Michigan marginally is a speedbump for her.  She is leading Sanders overall.  He needs much more convincing wins to overtake Clinton.  In other words, Michigan has not changed the overall picture.  They are still heading toward an end game where Clinton wins.

If he wins Michigan, a state in which he was predicted to lose by 21.4%, then it suggests that the dynamic of the race has changed, and he might actually be capable of winning states like Illinois, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

[alfred russel]

As Hillary reminded us eight years ago: somebody might still get shot by June, giving the nomination to someone else. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0QAewVrR28

Or indicted. 

[Monoriu]

If he wins Michigan, a state in which he was predicted to lose by 21.4%, then it suggests that the dynamic of the race has changed, and he might actually be capable of winning states like Illinois, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

I think the point is, even if Sanders wins all those states marginally, he'll still lose. 

And what about those "superdelegates"?