The duopoly isn't going to give up without one doozy of a fight, but they can't sweep back the tide of change any more than they can stop the sun from moving across the sky. There is one line from the Hadith that I remember--it was in the opening screen of a documentary about Sufi Sam: "On that day the sun will rise in the west, and all men seeing, will believe."
Politico: “The impact of Rubio’s exit — and Kasich’s sudden rise — creates a mess of unpredictable scenarios that could end in Trump’s coronation, a contested convention or some kind of split decision that sends the GOP’s mid-July convention into fractious anarchy.”
It's about 100 delegates more then we hoped it would be at this point. But it's not insurmountable. I got my hair cut this afternoon, and my hair cutter was saying that Hillary was going to win. My response was, "If you're making an even money bet, that's the way to bet. But don't lay odds."
And yes, it won't really be over until California. But we don't at this point know just how big Bernie would have to win to take the nomination.
To listener's question from the end of last thread: Rotering lost by about 10 points. IL-10 isn't exactly my area; I think the nearest boundary is about 20 miles away, so I'm not sure what factors beyond established name recognition could have played into Schneider's win. But my experience with Illinois politics doesn't suggest finagling with polling places could have had anything to do with it.
I suppose I was not the only one here to get the e-mail from Bernie expressing an anticipation that they would win sufficient delegates to gain the nomination on June 7th (almost the last primaries, including California). If that simply is a measure of the nominal delegate estimates from the primaries, it would require an average [as I figure] of 60% from here on out, which seems a very tall order. Might they be working on delegates as well, rather than simply votes, as Ron Paul did in 2012? Do they have that good a ground game? Maybe it wouldn't take a monumental effort, but it would have to vary according to each state's system. And of course it would be sub rosa insofar as possible. Just brainstorming.
Even without making the 60% mark, the persistence of a determined opposition could have a significant psychological effect on HRC and her campaign. I note that HRC's major SuperPAC is not buying any more broadcast advertising (Arizona ads are already paid for) during the primary. They say.
Ron Paul was running as a Republican. And Republicans do things differently. For the Democrats, what you're talking about is flipping superdelegates. They'll automatically flip if he gets a majority of pledged delegates, but otherwise I don't see it.
The duopoly isn't going to give up without one doozy of a fight, but they can't sweep back the tide of change any more than they can stop the sun from moving across the sky. There is one line from the Hadith that I remember--it was in the opening screen of a documentary about Sufi Sam: "On that day the sun will rise in the west, and all men seeing, will believe."
ReplyDelete--Alan
Thanks, Alan; that's a worthy thought. I do hope we see it in our lifetime.
DeletePolitico: “The impact of Rubio’s exit — and Kasich’s sudden rise — creates a mess of unpredictable scenarios that could end in Trump’s coronation, a contested convention or some kind of split decision that sends the GOP’s mid-July convention into fractious anarchy.”
ReplyDeleteI vote for fractious anarchy.
—Alan
According to Wikipedia, HRC currently leads Bernie by about three hundred delegates (not including superdelegates). That's not a lot.
ReplyDelete--Alan
It's about 100 delegates more then we hoped it would be at this point. But it's not insurmountable. I got my hair cut this afternoon, and my hair cutter was saying that Hillary was going to win. My response was, "If you're making an even money bet, that's the way to bet. But don't lay odds."
DeleteAnd yes, it won't really be over until California. But we don't at this point know just how big Bernie would have to win to take the nomination.
Looks like California's vote is going to matter this year. . . .
ReplyDeleteTo listener's question from the end of last thread: Rotering lost by about 10 points. IL-10 isn't exactly my area; I think the nearest boundary is about 20 miles away, so I'm not sure what factors beyond established name recognition could have played into Schneider's win. But my experience with Illinois politics doesn't suggest finagling with polling places could have had anything to do with it.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Bill. I heard there were some glitches in some polling places in the morning, so some stayed open later.
DeleteI suppose I was not the only one here to get the e-mail from Bernie expressing an anticipation that they would win sufficient delegates to gain the nomination on June 7th (almost the last primaries, including California). If that simply is a measure of the nominal delegate estimates from the primaries, it would require an average [as I figure] of 60% from here on out, which seems a very tall order. Might they be working on delegates as well, rather than simply votes, as Ron Paul did in 2012? Do they have that good a ground game? Maybe it wouldn't take a monumental effort, but it would have to vary according to each state's system. And of course it would be sub rosa insofar as possible. Just brainstorming.
ReplyDeleteAlan
Even without making the 60% mark, the persistence of a determined opposition could have a significant psychological effect on HRC and her campaign. I note that HRC's major SuperPAC is not buying any more broadcast advertising (Arizona ads are already paid for) during the primary. They say.
Delete--Alan
Ron Paul was running as a Republican. And Republicans do things differently. For the Democrats, what you're talking about is flipping superdelegates. They'll automatically flip if he gets a majority of pledged delegates, but otherwise I don't see it.
DeleteUS Senate doesn't overrule Vermont's GMO labeling law! [Click]
ReplyDelete--Alan
Bernie's full Tuesday evening speech [Click]
ReplyDelete--Alan