2016 elections - because it's never too early

[derspiess]

Does the Constitution say anything about someone under indictment not being able to serve as president?

No
But I wouldn't worry.  Trump has good counsel, he'll probably steer clear of any indictments.

I just had a vision of a Trump and Hillary debate with each in his respective jail cell

[Barrister]

Politico is banned from covering the Trump campaign after writing an article quite critical of Trump's campaign manager.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/03/ben-schreckinger-denied-access-donald-trump-220836

They're hardly the first to be banned:

POLITICO is far from alone among media organizations being denied entry to Trump events. The Des Moines Register, Univision, Fusion, The Huffington Post, National Review, Mother Jones and BuzzFeed have all been denied credentials to Trump's events, often after publishing critical stories about the campaign. In January, New York Times reporter Trip Gabriel was ejected from an event in Iowa after writing about Trump's weak ground game in the state, which he eventually lost to Ted Cruz.

[Martinus]

Incidentally, can the POTUS pardon someone before the court verdict?

[merithyn]

A simple majority being "satisfied" is a pretty low bar.

A simple majority of Sanders supporters would be "dissatisfied" with Clinton as the nominee.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/exit-polls-voters-split-on-supporting-eventual-nominee-220797

I'm really not ready to count Sanders out yet, despite all of the Mainstream Media plumping Clinton's numbers with the super delegates whenever they can. In real delegates, Sanders is really only down by 322: 1100 - Hillary; 778 - Bernie. With over a 2000 delegates still out there - most out west where Bernie trends well - there's a chance that he could still pull this off.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats/

[The Minsky Moment]

Incidentally, can the POTUS pardon someone before the court verdict?

As a result of certain acts or omissions occurring before his resignation from the Office of President, Richard Nixon has become liable to possible indictment and trial for offenses against the United States. Whether or not he shall be so prosecuted depends on findings of the appropriate grand jury and on the discretion of the authorized prosecutor. Should an indictment ensue, the accused shall then be entitled to a fair trial by an impartial jury, as guaranteed to every individual by the Constitution.

It is believed that a trial of Richard Nixon, if it became necessary, could not fairly begin until a year or more has elapsed. In the meantime, the tranquility to which this nation has been restored by the events of recent weeks could be irreparably lost by the prospects of bringing to trial a former President of the United States. The prospects of such trial will cause prolonged and divisive debate over the propriety of exposing to further punishment and degradation a man who has already paid the unprecedented penalty of relinquishing the highest elective office of the United States.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.

It would appear so.

[Barrister]

A simple majority being "satisfied" is a pretty low bar.

A simple majority of Sanders supporters would be "dissatisfied" with Clinton as the nominee.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/exit-polls-voters-split-on-supporting-eventual-nominee-220797

I'm really not ready to count Sanders out yet, despite all of the Mainstream Media plumping Clinton's numbers with the super delegates whenever they can. In real delegates, Sanders is really only down by 322: 1100 - Hillary; 778 - Bernie. With over a 2000 delegates still out there - most out west where Bernie trends well - there's a chance that he could still pull this off.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats/

Is there a chance?  Sure.  It's just not much of a chance.

It's all a question of trends.  Sanders gets his votes and his rallies and his donors, but he pretty consistently gets fewer votes than Hillary.  Just over half the states have voted at this point.

Because Sanders is behind in delegates at this point, and because delegates are handed out proportionately, not only does Sanders need to start beating Clinton, but he has to start beating her quite significantly.  At half way through the process there's no sign that that is going to happen.  Sanders support has been pretty stable, but it's not growing.

[The Minsky Moment]

Also other than Wisconsin, where Bernie could make some inroads, the big delegate states are Cal and NY - where I think Hillary has a significant advantage.

[merithyn]

Is there a chance?  Sure.  It's just not much of a chance.

It's all a question of trends.  Sanders gets his votes and his rallies and his donors, but he pretty consistently gets fewer votes than Hillary.  Just over half the states have voted at this point.

Because Sanders is behind in delegates at this point, and because delegates are handed out proportionately, not only does Sanders need to start beating Clinton, but he has to start beating her quite significantly.  At half way through the process there's no sign that that is going to happen.  Sanders support has been pretty stable, but it's not growing.

And I can see that happening with the states that are going to be coming up for their primaries now. Sanders' issue has been his lack of appeal to minorities. The next batch of states have very few minorities, with Arizona being the exception. I'm just saying that things may not be quite as dire as it's being portrayed.

[merithyn]

Also other than Wisconsin, where Bernie could make some inroads, the big delegate states are Cal and NY - where I think Hillary has a significant advantage.

Clinton is going to take New York. I think that's a given. Probably by 65% or more. But California... that's still questionable.

[Capetan Mihali]

Naturally, she's a Chappaqua native.

[merithyn]

Naturally, she's a Chappaqua native.

Well.... I was thinking because of the black vote, but okay.

[Capetan Mihali]

Naturally, she's a Chappaqua native.

Well.... I was thinking because of the black vote, but okay.

It was really a slight dig at her supposed carpet-bagging back when she squared off against the formidable Rick Lazio in 2000, with the Chappaqua part included for, well... just Minsky's benefit I guess.

[Phillip V]

Florida Governor Rick Scott finally endorsed Trump today, but he pretty much endorsed Trump back in January.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/rick-scott-endorses-trump-220864

Thus, Scott could also be a good pick for Trump's VP:
- rich outsider businessman with no political experience before current office
- swing state governor (second term ending Jan 2019)
- military veteran
- ignored Bush and Rubio despite being a fellow Floridian

[garbon]

Is there a chance?  Sure.  It's just not much of a chance.

It's all a question of trends.  Sanders gets his votes and his rallies and his donors, but he pretty consistently gets fewer votes than Hillary.  Just over half the states have voted at this point.

Because Sanders is behind in delegates at this point, and because delegates are handed out proportionately, not only does Sanders need to start beating Clinton, but he has to start beating her quite significantly.  At half way through the process there's no sign that that is going to happen.  Sanders support has been pretty stable, but it's not growing.

And I can see that happening with the states that are going to be coming up for their primaries now. Sanders' issue has been his lack of appeal to minorities. The next batch of states have very few minorities, with Arizona being the exception. I'm just saying that things may not be quite as dire as it's being portrayed.

But again, in order to catch up, he would either have to all of those voters become Vermonters or have Hillary have some sort of meltdown. Sure he's alive enough to stay in the race without embarrassment but he's pretty much done absent a major game changer. While it is true that he stands to win some of the states coming up, that would only change the game if Dems did winner take all.

[Barrister]

Is there a chance?  Sure.  It's just not much of a chance.

It's all a question of trends.  Sanders gets his votes and his rallies and his donors, but he pretty consistently gets fewer votes than Hillary.  Just over half the states have voted at this point.

Because Sanders is behind in delegates at this point, and because delegates are handed out proportionately, not only does Sanders need to start beating Clinton, but he has to start beating her quite significantly.  At half way through the process there's no sign that that is going to happen.  Sanders support has been pretty stable, but it's not growing.

And I can see that happening with the states that are going to be coming up for their primaries now. Sanders' issue has been his lack of appeal to minorities. The next batch of states have very few minorities, with Arizona being the exception. I'm just saying that things may not be quite as dire as it's being portrayed.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_vote_count.html

To date Clinton has received 8.6 million votes.

Sanders has received 6.1 million votes.  A very respectable amount - but he's still two million behind.

In order for Sanders to win he has to not only catch up to Clinton, he has to make up that two million vote deficit.  I don't see that happening.  It's not as if Sanders results are getting better over time - they're pretty  much been constant since January.