Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page

# What Sanders needs to win.

 Posts: 9,992 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/7/2016 5:18:03 PMPosted: 2 years agoI was talking about what Sanders needs to win, and the notion that he is "close" is... Well, lets do that math.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The total count of delegates to the Democratic national convention------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Total Delegates = TD = 4763Total Super Delegates = TSD = 712Total Pledge Delegates = TPD = 4051Total delegates needed to win the nomination = TDN = 2383------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Current counts------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ClintonCTD = 1749CPTD = ~ %36.72CTSD = 469CPTSD = ~ %65.87CTPD = 1280CPTPD = ~ %31.60SandersSTD = 1061SPTD = ~ %22.28STSD = 31SPTSD = ~ \$4.35STPD = 1030SPTPD = ~ %25.43------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------So, we all know that the SD numbers are way out of whack. No getting around how odd that split is. All the calls for SDs to change their votes are spiting in the wind. Sure, a handful who have committed to Clinton MAY switch, but expecting greater than 1% is not very likely. How the remaining 212 shakeout will not be "fair" either. To "overcome" the lopsided count, if all 212 went Sanders the count would be 469-CTSD to 243-STSD or CPTSD-%65.8 to SPTSD-%34.13, and that is just not going to happen. So, let's extrapolate out that the super delegate distribution. As a percentage of super delegates committed it works out like this:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Total Committed Supper Delegates TCSD = 500Clinton percentage of committed super delegates CPTCSD = 93.8%Sanders percentage of committed super delegates SPTCSD = 6.2%------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Will Clinton win 93.8% of the remaining 212? Perhaps, but that should be the outside, so that would be ~199 of the 212 bringing her to CTSD-668 and STSD-44. So, as some range it we could project results like this------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Projected Grand Total Super Delegate------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------CPGTSD = 668 - 469SPGTSD = 44 - 243------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------That seems like the possible ranges. So then, what would Clinton or Sanders need in pledge delegates to win, starting from where we are today?TDN - (xPGTSD + xTPD)Clinton2383 - ( 686 + 1280 ) = 4172383 - ( 469 + 1280 ) = 634Sanders2383 - ( 243 + 1030 ) = 11102383 - ( 44 + 1030 ) = 1309------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------That looks like the range right? Clinton needs between 417 and 634 more delegates to win, and Sanders needs between 1110 and 1309 more delegates to win, right? That is out of 1741 remaining pledge delegates. So... Clinton needs to win 24% - 36.5% vs Sanders needing 63.75% and 75.19%.I think I will work this out through the remaining states - if anyone wants to help out they are welcome to.Source for current numbershttp://www.realclearpolitics.com...
 Posts: 469 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/7/2016 5:25:30 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 4/7/2016 5:18:03 PM, TBR wrote:I was talking about what Sanders needs to win, and the notion that he is "close" is... Well, lets do that math.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The total count of delegates to the Democratic national convention------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Total Delegates = TD = 4763Total Super Delegates = TSD = 712Total Pledge Delegates = TPD = 4051Total delegates needed to win the nomination = TDN = 2383------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Current counts------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ClintonCTD = 1749CPTD = ~ %36.72CTSD = 469CPTSD = ~ %65.87CTPD = 1280CPTPD = ~ %31.60SandersSTD = 1061SPTD = ~ %22.28STSD = 31SPTSD = ~ \$4.35STPD = 1030SPTPD = ~ %25.43------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------So, we all know that the SD numbers are way out of whack. No getting around how odd that split is. All the calls for SDs to change their votes are spiting in the wind. Sure, a handful who have committed to Clinton MAY switch, but expecting greater than 1% is not very likely. How the remaining 212 shakeout will not be "fair" either. To "overcome" the lopsided count, if all 212 went Sanders the count would be 469-CTSD to 243-STSD or CPTSD-%65.8 to SPTSD-%34.13, and that is just not going to happen. So, let's extrapolate out that the super delegate distribution. As a percentage of super delegates committed it works out like this:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Total Committed Supper Delegates TCSD = 500Clinton percentage of committed super delegates CPTCSD = 93.8%Sanders percentage of committed super delegates SPTCSD = 6.2%------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Will Clinton win 93.8% of the remaining 212? Perhaps, but that should be the outside, so that would be ~199 of the 212 bringing her to CTSD-668 and STSD-44. So, as some range it we could project results like this------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Projected Grand Total Super Delegate------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------CPGTSD = 668 - 469SPGTSD = 44 - 243------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------That seems like the possible ranges. So then, what would Clinton or Sanders need in pledge delegates to win, starting from where we are today?TDN - (xPGTSD + xTPD)Clinton2383 - ( 686 + 1280 ) = 4172383 - ( 469 + 1280 ) = 634Sanders2383 - ( 243 + 1030 ) = 11102383 - ( 44 + 1030 ) = 1309------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------That looks like the range right? Clinton needs between 417 and 634 more delegates to win, and Sanders needs between 1110 and 1309 more delegates to win, right? That is out of 1741 remaining pledge delegates. So... Clinton needs to win 24% - 36.5% vs Sanders needing 63.75% and 75.19%.I think I will work this out through the remaining states - if anyone wants to help out they are welcome to.Source for current numbershttp://www.realclearpolitics.com...Seems fairly consistent with what I've been reading from other sources. Basically he is a longshot at best.
 Posts: 9,992 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/7/2016 5:58:21 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 4/7/2016 5:25:30 PM, RookieApologist wrote:At 4/7/2016 5:18:03 PM, TBR wrote:I was talking about what Sanders needs to win, and the notion that he is "close" is... Well, lets do that math.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The total count of delegates to the Democratic national convention------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Total Delegates = TD = 4763Total Super Delegates = TSD = 712Total Pledge Delegates = TPD = 4051Total delegates needed to win the nomination = TDN = 2383------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Current counts------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ClintonCTD = 1749CPTD = ~ %36.72CTSD = 469CPTSD = ~ %65.87CTPD = 1280CPTPD = ~ %31.60SandersSTD = 1061SPTD = ~ %22.28STSD = 31SPTSD = ~ \$4.35STPD = 1030SPTPD = ~ %25.43------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------So, we all know that the SD numbers are way out of whack. No getting around how odd that split is. All the calls for SDs to change their votes are spiting in the wind. Sure, a handful who have committed to Clinton MAY switch, but expecting greater than 1% is not very likely. How the remaining 212 shakeout will not be "fair" either. To "overcome" the lopsided count, if all 212 went Sanders the count would be 469-CTSD to 243-STSD or CPTSD-%65.8 to SPTSD-%34.13, and that is just not going to happen. So, let's extrapolate out that the super delegate distribution. As a percentage of super delegates committed it works out like this:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Total Committed Supper Delegates TCSD = 500Clinton percentage of committed super delegates CPTCSD = 93.8%Sanders percentage of committed super delegates SPTCSD = 6.2%------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Will Clinton win 93.8% of the remaining 212? Perhaps, but that should be the outside, so that would be ~199 of the 212 bringing her to CTSD-668 and STSD-44. So, as some range it we could project results like this------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Projected Grand Total Super Delegate------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------CPGTSD = 668 - 469SPGTSD = 44 - 243------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------That seems like the possible ranges. So then, what would Clinton or Sanders need in pledge delegates to win, starting from where we are today?TDN - (xPGTSD + xTPD)Clinton2383 - ( 686 + 1280 ) = 4172383 - ( 469 + 1280 ) = 634Sanders2383 - ( 243 + 1030 ) = 11102383 - ( 44 + 1030 ) = 1309------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------That looks like the range right? Clinton needs between 417 and 634 more delegates to win, and Sanders needs between 1110 and 1309 more delegates to win, right? That is out of 1741 remaining pledge delegates. So... Clinton needs to win 24% - 36.5% vs Sanders needing 63.75% and 75.19%.I think I will work this out through the remaining states - if anyone wants to help out they are welcome to.Source for current numbershttp://www.realclearpolitics.com...Seems fairly consistent with what I've been reading from other sources. Basically he is a longshot at best.Yea. Look, I really am a Sanders supporter - he already got my vote, but I never thought he would even get this far. That he has is meaningful, really. That it would seem there is virtually no path forward - predictable.I thought we would be at the mathematically impossible months ago. That we aren't means to me that, among other things, Clinton should tread very lightly. She is just not well liked by the actual base of the party. She will win the nomination, she will win the general, but she better know that she does not have a whole bunch of support. She is going to win against the most pathetic GOP field ever assembled, and just make the nomination by inertia.
 Posts: 469 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/7/2016 6:08:05 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 4/7/2016 5:58:21 PM, TBR wrote:At 4/7/2016 5:25:30 PM, RookieApologist wrote:At 4/7/2016 5:18:03 PM, TBR wrote:I was talking about what Sanders needs to win, and the notion that he is "close" is... Well, lets do that math.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The total count of delegates to the Democratic national convention------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Total Delegates = TD = 4763Total Super Delegates = TSD = 712Total Pledge Delegates = TPD = 4051Total delegates needed to win the nomination = TDN = 2383------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Current counts------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ClintonCTD = 1749CPTD = ~ %36.72CTSD = 469CPTSD = ~ %65.87CTPD = 1280CPTPD = ~ %31.60SandersSTD = 1061SPTD = ~ %22.28STSD = 31SPTSD = ~ \$4.35STPD = 1030SPTPD = ~ %25.43------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------So, we all know that the SD numbers are way out of whack. No getting around how odd that split is. All the calls for SDs to change their votes are spiting in the wind. Sure, a handful who have committed to Clinton MAY switch, but expecting greater than 1% is not very likely. How the remaining 212 shakeout will not be "fair" either. To "overcome" the lopsided count, if all 212 went Sanders the count would be 469-CTSD to 243-STSD or CPTSD-%65.8 to SPTSD-%34.13, and that is just not going to happen. So, let's extrapolate out that the super delegate distribution. As a percentage of super delegates committed it works out like this:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Total Committed Supper Delegates TCSD = 500Clinton percentage of committed super delegates CPTCSD = 93.8%Sanders percentage of committed super delegates SPTCSD = 6.2%------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Will Clinton win 93.8% of the remaining 212? Perhaps, but that should be the outside, so that would be ~199 of the 212 bringing her to CTSD-668 and STSD-44. So, as some range it we could project results like this------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Projected Grand Total Super Delegate------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------CPGTSD = 668 - 469SPGTSD = 44 - 243------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------That seems like the possible ranges. So then, what would Clinton or Sanders need in pledge delegates to win, starting from where we are today?TDN - (xPGTSD + xTPD)Clinton2383 - ( 686 + 1280 ) = 4172383 - ( 469 + 1280 ) = 634Sanders2383 - ( 243 + 1030 ) = 11102383 - ( 44 + 1030 ) = 1309------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------That looks like the range right? Clinton needs between 417 and 634 more delegates to win, and Sanders needs between 1110 and 1309 more delegates to win, right? That is out of 1741 remaining pledge delegates. So... Clinton needs to win 24% - 36.5% vs Sanders needing 63.75% and 75.19%.I think I will work this out through the remaining states - if anyone wants to help out they are welcome to.Source for current numbershttp://www.realclearpolitics.com...Seems fairly consistent with what I've been reading from other sources. Basically he is a longshot at best.Yea. Look, I really am a Sanders supporter - he already got my vote, but I never thought he would even get this far. That he has is meaningful, really. That it would seem there is virtually no path forward - predictable.I thought we would be at the mathematically impossible months ago. That we aren't means to me that, among other things, Clinton should tread very lightly. She is just not well liked by the actual base of the party. She will win the nomination, she will win the general, but she better know that she does not have a whole bunch of support. She is going to win against the most pathetic GOP field ever assembled, and just make the nomination by inertia.As a lifetime republican and strict constitutional conservative, it pains me to say I agree with everything you said! I would love for Cruz to win, but I'm also not delusional to the fact that our country is no longer in the '80s (unsure if I mean 1980s or 1880s there tbh), and there simply isn't a large enough constitutional conservative voting base - not to mention that virtually non of Trump's supporters would vote for him simply out of spite.It pains me to say that the GOP's best chance of beating Hillary is actually probably Kasich, who won't even be eligible barring some silly rules change.
 Posts: 469 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/7/2016 6:18:58 PMPosted: 2 years agoOther interesting tidbits:Kasich destroys Clinton but it will never happen.http://www.realclearpolitics.com...Clinton beats Cruz by about 3% but it's gotten much closer over the last year, unfortunately not close enoughhttp://www.realclearpolitics.com...Clinton destroys Trump, and it's not even closehttp://www.realclearpolitics.com...Sanders beats everyone, but again it's never gonna happenhttp://www.realclearpolitics.com...http://www.realclearpolitics.com...He beats Clinton in favorable/unfavorable as well.
 Posts: 4,693 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/7/2016 6:22:42 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 4/7/2016 6:08:05 PM, RookieApologist wrote:It pains me to say that the GOP's best chance of beating Hillary is actually probably Kasich, who won't even be eligible barring some silly rules change.No, the GOP's best shot is with Trump."The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k "So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka "I eat glue." -- brontoraptor "I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible "Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout "Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
 Posts: 9,992 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/7/2016 6:53:50 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 4/7/2016 6:22:42 PM, ColeTrain wrote:At 4/7/2016 6:08:05 PM, RookieApologist wrote:It pains me to say that the GOP's best chance of beating Hillary is actually probably Kasich, who won't even be eligible barring some silly rules change.No, the GOP's best shot is with Trump.No, he is totally right. Kasich was their best bet, and they totaly rejected him. Trump is just about a sure Democratic win. The events that would have to transpire to get a Trump win is.... Well crazy.
 Posts: 9,992 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/7/2016 6:55:32 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 4/7/2016 6:18:58 PM, RookieApologist wrote:Other interesting tidbits:Kasich destroys Clinton but it will never happen.http://www.realclearpolitics.com...Clinton beats Cruz by about 3% but it's gotten much closer over the last year, unfortunately not close enoughhttp://www.realclearpolitics.com...Clinton destroys Trump, and it's not even closehttp://www.realclearpolitics.com...Sanders beats everyone, but again it's never gonna happenhttp://www.realclearpolitics.com...http://www.realclearpolitics.com...He beats Clinton in favorable/unfavorable as well.Yup.Trump is not pulling one demographic outside white-men. It is such a sure Democratic win - the party knows this, the democrats know this. The only people who don't seem to be clued-in are Trump supporters.
 Posts: 14,201 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/7/2016 7:07:25 PMPosted: 2 years agoThe super delegates are more or less irrelevant here. If Sanders win more pledged delegates, most of them will switch to him. Sanders won't win more pledged delegates, so they won't. If he had a little more time, maybe, but he doesn't. He's down by 10 in New York (from what, 40?) and by 6 in Pennsylvania (having originally been down by roughly the same as NY).I'm more interesting in seeing if Sanders can keep Clinton from reaching the magic number.White Privilege: http://www.debate.org... ASBW 1: http://www.debate.org... ASBW II: http://www.debate.org... ASBW III: http://www.debate.org... ASBW IV: http://www.debate.org... ASBW V: http://www.debate.org... ASBW VI: http://www.debate.org... <3 Annie
 Posts: 20,541 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/7/2016 7:10:45 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 4/7/2016 5:18:03 PM, TBR wrote:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------That looks like the range right? Clinton needs between 417 and 634 more delegates to win, and Sanders needs between 1110 and 1309 more delegates to win, right? That is out of 1741 remaining pledge delegates. So... Clinton needs to win 24% - 36.5% vs Sanders needing 63.75% and 75.19%.This is assuming that Hillary will get 95% or so of the remaining unpledged superdelegates like you claim, which im not sure will turn out to be the case. Any delegate who was hard in favor of Clinton over Sanders have already jumped on board her campaign, not waiting for the primary in their state to roll around first.... I accept the idea that Sanders wont get many/any superdelegates to swing to his side if he lasts to the convention, but I think the % of remaining superdelegates Hillary will get is more in the 60-70% range than 90-95%.Even if that turns out to be the case, this would only give Sanders 50 or so more superdelegates to his total overall, putting him at around 1250 to win compared to Clintons 700...... Out of 1700 remaining delegates, 700/1700 (x100) means Clinton only needs 40% of the total vote in remaining states to win the nomination if she only gets 60-70% of the remaining superdelegates.Thats still a bit of a stretch though for Hillary to achieve though...... A good number of states that have gone for Sanders over Hillary have gone to him in 65-35 or 70-30 margins, which he could percievably take in in west coast states still to vote..... If Hillary chokes in New York and Pennsylvania, then Sanders does still have a chance to miraculously clinch the nomination...... If Hillary wins in New York and Pennsylvania though, then Sanders is completely screwed, since even a massive win in California wouldnt be able to erase the defecit he is down by.DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... 12/14/14 to 1/1/15 = VP of DDO 8/4/18 to 8/6/18 = Start of the Worst Spam Attack in DDO History (61 Hours, 21 Minutes, and 37 seconds... Estimated 63,175 Spam Posts during the main attack) Be Today's Hero and Tomorrow's Hero The trash from yesterday will still be trash from every day onwards
 Posts: 20,541 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/7/2016 7:12:30 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 4/7/2016 7:07:25 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:The super delegates are more or less irrelevant here. If Sanders win more pledged delegates, most of them will switch to him. Sanders won't win more pledged delegates, so they won't. If he had a little more time, maybe, but he doesn't. He's down by 10 in New York (from what, 40?) and by 6 in Pennsylvania (having originally been down by roughly the same as NY). I'm more interesting in seeing if Sanders can keep Clinton from reaching the magic number.How is he going to do that in a two horse race?..... If Sanders wants to keep Clinton from reaching the magic number, then that would mean he himself would have to reach the magic number and get the nomination himself, which by your own admission he wont be able to do.DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... 12/14/14 to 1/1/15 = VP of DDO 8/4/18 to 8/6/18 = Start of the Worst Spam Attack in DDO History (61 Hours, 21 Minutes, and 37 seconds... Estimated 63,175 Spam Posts during the main attack) Be Today's Hero and Tomorrow's Hero The trash from yesterday will still be trash from every day onwards
 Posts: 9,992 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/7/2016 7:14:40 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 4/7/2016 7:10:45 PM, imabench wrote:At 4/7/2016 5:18:03 PM, TBR wrote:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------That looks like the range right? Clinton needs between 417 and 634 more delegates to win, and Sanders needs between 1110 and 1309 more delegates to win, right? That is out of 1741 remaining pledge delegates. So... Clinton needs to win 24% - 36.5% vs Sanders needing 63.75% and 75.19%.This is assuming that Hillary will get 95% or so of the remaining unpledged superdelegates like you claim, which im not sure will turn out to be the case. Any delegate who was hard in favor of Clinton over Sanders have already jumped on board her campaign, not waiting for the primary in their state to roll around first.... I accept the idea that Sanders wont get many/any superdelegates to swing to his side if he lasts to the convention, but I think the % of remaining superdelegates Hillary will get is more in the 60-70% range than 90-95%.No no Bench. That is why the range. The high side is Clinton winning the 95% of the remaining SDs, and the low is Sanders winning ALL of the remaining SDs. I tilted the scale TO Sanders, not away.Even if that turns out to be the case, this would only give Sanders 50 or so more superdelegates to his total overall, putting him at around 1250 to win compared to Clintons 700...... Out of 1700 remaining delegates, 700/1700 (x100) means Clinton only needs 40% of the total vote in remaining states to win the nomination if she only gets 60-70% of the remaining superdelegates.Thats still a bit of a stretch though for Hillary to achieve though...... A good number of states that have gone for Sanders over Hillary have gone to him in 65-35 or 70-30 margins, which he could percievably take in in west coast states still to vote..... If Hillary chokes in New York and Pennsylvania, then Sanders does still have a chance to miraculously clinch the nomination...... If Hillary wins in New York and Pennsylvania though, then Sanders is completely screwed, since even a massive win in California wouldnt be able to erase the defecit he is down by.
 Posts: 20,541 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/7/2016 7:16:12 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 4/7/2016 7:14:40 PM, TBR wrote:At 4/7/2016 7:10:45 PM, imabench wrote:At 4/7/2016 5:18:03 PM, TBR wrote:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------That looks like the range right? Clinton needs between 417 and 634 more delegates to win, and Sanders needs between 1110 and 1309 more delegates to win, right? That is out of 1741 remaining pledge delegates. So... Clinton needs to win 24% - 36.5% vs Sanders needing 63.75% and 75.19%.This is assuming that Hillary will get 95% or so of the remaining unpledged superdelegates like you claim, which im not sure will turn out to be the case. Any delegate who was hard in favor of Clinton over Sanders have already jumped on board her campaign, not waiting for the primary in their state to roll around first.... I accept the idea that Sanders wont get many/any superdelegates to swing to his side if he lasts to the convention, but I think the % of remaining superdelegates Hillary will get is more in the 60-70% range than 90-95%.No no Bench. That is why the range. The high side is Clinton winning the 95% of the remaining SDs, and the low is Sanders winning ALL of the remaining SDs. I tilted the scale TO Sanders, not away.Oh sh** my bad. Must have read it wrongDDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... 12/14/14 to 1/1/15 = VP of DDO 8/4/18 to 8/6/18 = Start of the Worst Spam Attack in DDO History (61 Hours, 21 Minutes, and 37 seconds... Estimated 63,175 Spam Posts during the main attack) Be Today's Hero and Tomorrow's Hero The trash from yesterday will still be trash from every day onwards
 Posts: 14,201 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/7/2016 7:16:47 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 4/7/2016 7:12:30 PM, imabench wrote:At 4/7/2016 7:07:25 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:The super delegates are more or less irrelevant here. If Sanders win more pledged delegates, most of them will switch to him. Sanders won't win more pledged delegates, so they won't. If he had a little more time, maybe, but he doesn't. He's down by 10 in New York (from what, 40?) and by 6 in Pennsylvania (having originally been down by roughly the same as NY). I'm more interesting in seeing if Sanders can keep Clinton from reaching the magic number.How is he going to do that in a two horse race?..... If Sanders wants to keep Clinton from reaching the magic number, then that would mean he himself would have to reach the magic number and get the nomination himself, which by your own admission he wont be able to do.Not necessarily. I mean if Sanders wins enough to still have fewer delegates than Clinton but ensure she has less than the 2,383 she needs. Kind of like what the Republicans are doing. There were a few interesting articles about what might happen in that situation.White Privilege: http://www.debate.org... ASBW 1: http://www.debate.org... ASBW II: http://www.debate.org... ASBW III: http://www.debate.org... ASBW IV: http://www.debate.org... ASBW V: http://www.debate.org... ASBW VI: http://www.debate.org... <3 Annie
 Posts: 9,992 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/7/2016 7:23:47 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 4/7/2016 7:16:12 PM, imabench wrote:At 4/7/2016 7:14:40 PM, TBR wrote:At 4/7/2016 7:10:45 PM, imabench wrote:At 4/7/2016 5:18:03 PM, TBR wrote:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------That looks like the range right? Clinton needs between 417 and 634 more delegates to win, and Sanders needs between 1110 and 1309 more delegates to win, right? That is out of 1741 remaining pledge delegates. So... Clinton needs to win 24% - 36.5% vs Sanders needing 63.75% and 75.19%.This is assuming that Hillary will get 95% or so of the remaining unpledged superdelegates like you claim, which im not sure will turn out to be the case. Any delegate who was hard in favor of Clinton over Sanders have already jumped on board her campaign, not waiting for the primary in their state to roll around first.... I accept the idea that Sanders wont get many/any superdelegates to swing to his side if he lasts to the convention, but I think the % of remaining superdelegates Hillary will get is more in the 60-70% range than 90-95%.No no Bench. That is why the range. The high side is Clinton winning the 95% of the remaining SDs, and the low is Sanders winning ALL of the remaining SDs. I tilted the scale TO Sanders, not away.Oh sh** my bad. Must have read it wrongNo problem.I'm looking at the map, NY, California Pennsylvania, these are the remaining good pools. He would have to have knock-outs in these states. He can win NY, and I really think he WILL win California, but not by the margins necessary.
 Posts: 9,992 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/7/2016 7:35:45 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 4/7/2016 7:16:47 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:At 4/7/2016 7:12:30 PM, imabench wrote:At 4/7/2016 7:07:25 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:The super delegates are more or less irrelevant here. If Sanders win more pledged delegates, most of them will switch to him. Sanders won't win more pledged delegates, so they won't. If he had a little more time, maybe, but he doesn't. He's down by 10 in New York (from what, 40?) and by 6 in Pennsylvania (having originally been down by roughly the same as NY). I'm more interesting in seeing if Sanders can keep Clinton from reaching the magic number.How is he going to do that in a two horse race?..... If Sanders wants to keep Clinton from reaching the magic number, then that would mean he himself would have to reach the magic number and get the nomination himself, which by your own admission he wont be able to do.Not necessarily. I mean if Sanders wins enough to still have fewer delegates than Clinton but ensure she has less than the 2,383 she needs. Kind of like what the Republicans are doing. There were a few interesting articles about what might happen in that situation.What you need to make this work is... Well, lets start by tossing the SDs entirely. So, what the candidates need to win the nomination is 2026 PDs (4051 / 2). SO, Clinton at 1280 needs 746 and Sanders needs 996 to stop him. So, out of the 1741, Clinton needs ~42% vs Sanders needing ~57%.
 Posts: 20,541 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/7/2016 7:35:45 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 4/7/2016 7:16:47 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:At 4/7/2016 7:12:30 PM, imabench wrote:At 4/7/2016 7:07:25 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:The super delegates are more or less irrelevant here. If Sanders win more pledged delegates, most of them will switch to him. Sanders won't win more pledged delegates, so they won't. If he had a little more time, maybe, but he doesn't. He's down by 10 in New York (from what, 40?) and by 6 in Pennsylvania (having originally been down by roughly the same as NY). I'm more interesting in seeing if Sanders can keep Clinton from reaching the magic number.How is he going to do that in a two horse race?..... If Sanders wants to keep Clinton from reaching the magic number, then that would mean he himself would have to reach the magic number and get the nomination himself, which by your own admission he wont be able to do.Not necessarily. I mean if Sanders wins enough to still have fewer delegates than Clinton but ensure she has less than the 2,383 she needs. Kind of like what the Republicans are doing.What the Republicans are doing only works when there are 3 main candidates in the race that stay in all the way to the end and each get delegates along the way. The same cant happen for the Dem side because there were only ever TWO candidates getting delegates: Clinton and Sanders. For Clinton to fall short of getting the nomination, 51% or more of the total votes have to go somewhere else, and the only other person who has ever been in the race besides Clinton has been Sanders.So the only way Clinton doesnt get the magic number is if Sanders himself gets the magic number firstDDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... 12/14/14 to 1/1/15 = VP of DDO 8/4/18 to 8/6/18 = Start of the Worst Spam Attack in DDO History (61 Hours, 21 Minutes, and 37 seconds... Estimated 63,175 Spam Posts during the main attack) Be Today's Hero and Tomorrow's Hero The trash from yesterday will still be trash from every day onwards
 Posts: 469 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/7/2016 7:38:51 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 4/7/2016 6:22:42 PM, ColeTrain wrote:At 4/7/2016 6:08:05 PM, RookieApologist wrote:It pains me to say that the GOP's best chance of beating Hillary is actually probably Kasich, who won't even be eligible barring some silly rules change.No, the GOP's best shot is with Trump.According to what poll?? I'll vote for him if he wins the nomination, but I'm afraid I'll only be part of the roughly 40% vote he'll get in the general election. He gets crushed by either democrat no matter what poll you use. Cruz does better but not good enough. Kasich is the only one that beats Clinton.
 Posts: 9,992 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/7/2016 8:18:21 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 4/7/2016 7:35:45 PM, imabench wrote:At 4/7/2016 7:16:47 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:At 4/7/2016 7:12:30 PM, imabench wrote:At 4/7/2016 7:07:25 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:The super delegates are more or less irrelevant here. If Sanders win more pledged delegates, most of them will switch to him. Sanders won't win more pledged delegates, so they won't. If he had a little more time, maybe, but he doesn't. He's down by 10 in New York (from what, 40?) and by 6 in Pennsylvania (having originally been down by roughly the same as NY). I'm more interesting in seeing if Sanders can keep Clinton from reaching the magic number.How is he going to do that in a two horse race?..... If Sanders wants to keep Clinton from reaching the magic number, then that would mean he himself would have to reach the magic number and get the nomination himself, which by your own admission he wont be able to do.Not necessarily. I mean if Sanders wins enough to still have fewer delegates than Clinton but ensure she has less than the 2,383 she needs. Kind of like what the Republicans are doing.What the Republicans are doing only works when there are 3 main candidates in the race that stay in all the way to the end and each get delegates along the way. The same cant happen for the Dem side because there were only ever TWO candidates getting delegates: Clinton and Sanders. For Clinton to fall short of getting the nomination, 51% or more of the total votes have to go somewhere else, and the only other person who has ever been in the race besides Clinton has been Sanders.So the only way Clinton doesnt get the magic number is if Sanders himself gets the magic number firstAgreed, sane and obvious.If Sanders had gone into this with much better name recognition, it would be much different.
 Posts: 14,201 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/7/2016 8:51:28 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 4/7/2016 7:35:45 PM, imabench wrote:At 4/7/2016 7:16:47 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:At 4/7/2016 7:12:30 PM, imabench wrote:At 4/7/2016 7:07:25 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:The super delegates are more or less irrelevant here. If Sanders win more pledged delegates, most of them will switch to him. Sanders won't win more pledged delegates, so they won't. If he had a little more time, maybe, but he doesn't. He's down by 10 in New York (from what, 40?) and by 6 in Pennsylvania (having originally been down by roughly the same as NY). I'm more interesting in seeing if Sanders can keep Clinton from reaching the magic number.How is he going to do that in a two horse race?..... If Sanders wants to keep Clinton from reaching the magic number, then that would mean he himself would have to reach the magic number and get the nomination himself, which by your own admission he wont be able to do.Not necessarily. I mean if Sanders wins enough to still have fewer delegates than Clinton but ensure she has less than the 2,383 she needs. Kind of like what the Republicans are doing.What the Republicans are doing only works when there are 3 main candidates in the race that stay in all the way to the end and each get delegates along the way. The same cant happen for the Dem side because there were only ever TWO candidates getting delegates: Clinton and Sanders. For Clinton to fall short of getting the nomination, 51% or more of the total votes have to go somewhere else, and the only other person who has ever been in the race besides Clinton has been Sanders.So the only way Clinton doesnt get the magic number is if Sanders himself gets the magic number firstTalking about pledged delegates. I already said SDs were irrelevant.White Privilege: http://www.debate.org... ASBW 1: http://www.debate.org... ASBW II: http://www.debate.org... ASBW III: http://www.debate.org... ASBW IV: http://www.debate.org... ASBW V: http://www.debate.org... ASBW VI: http://www.debate.org... <3 Annie
 Posts: 14,201 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/7/2016 8:53:40 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 4/7/2016 7:35:45 PM, imabench wrote:At 4/7/2016 7:16:47 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:At 4/7/2016 7:12:30 PM, imabench wrote:At 4/7/2016 7:07:25 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:The super delegates are more or less irrelevant here. If Sanders win more pledged delegates, most of them will switch to him. Sanders won't win more pledged delegates, so they won't. If he had a little more time, maybe, but he doesn't. He's down by 10 in New York (from what, 40?) and by 6 in Pennsylvania (having originally been down by roughly the same as NY). I'm more interesting in seeing if Sanders can keep Clinton from reaching the magic number.How is he going to do that in a two horse race?..... If Sanders wants to keep Clinton from reaching the magic number, then that would mean he himself would have to reach the magic number and get the nomination himself, which by your own admission he wont be able to do.Not necessarily. I mean if Sanders wins enough to still have fewer delegates than Clinton but ensure she has less than the 2,383 she needs. Kind of like what the Republicans are doing.What the Republicans are doing only works when there are 3 main candidates in the race that stay in all the way to the end and each get delegates along the way. The same cant happen for the Dem side because there were only ever TWO candidates getting delegates: Clinton and Sanders. For Clinton to fall short of getting the nomination, 51% or more of the total votes have to go somewhere else, and the only other person who has ever been in the race besides Clinton has been Sanders.So the only way Clinton doesnt get the magic number is if Sanders himself gets the magic number firstNot to mention that I highly doubt sites like Politico and 538 would bother analyzing that possibility if it was impossible.White Privilege: http://www.debate.org... ASBW 1: http://www.debate.org... ASBW II: http://www.debate.org... ASBW III: http://www.debate.org... ASBW IV: http://www.debate.org... ASBW V: http://www.debate.org... ASBW VI: http://www.debate.org... <3 Annie
 Posts: 1,387 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/7/2016 9:04:25 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 4/7/2016 6:53:50 PM, TBR wrote:At 4/7/2016 6:22:42 PM, ColeTrain wrote:At 4/7/2016 6:08:05 PM, RookieApologist wrote:It pains me to say that the GOP's best chance of beating Hillary is actually probably Kasich, who won't even be eligible barring some silly rules change.No, the GOP's best shot is with Trump.No, he is totally right. Kasich was their best bet, and they totaly rejected him. Trump is just about a sure Democratic win. The events that would have to transpire to get a Trump win is.... Well crazy.How do you figure
 Posts: 9,992 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/7/2016 9:36:47 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 4/7/2016 9:04:25 PM, someloser wrote:At 4/7/2016 6:53:50 PM, TBR wrote:At 4/7/2016 6:22:42 PM, ColeTrain wrote:At 4/7/2016 6:08:05 PM, RookieApologist wrote:It pains me to say that the GOP's best chance of beating Hillary is actually probably Kasich, who won't even be eligible barring some silly rules change.No, the GOP's best shot is with Trump.No, he is totally right. Kasich was their best bet, and they totaly rejected him. Trump is just about a sure Democratic win. The events that would have to transpire to get a Trump win is.... Well crazy.How do you figureHow do I figure Trump is a loss? Have you look at any of the polling? Have you not bothered to look at the very vertical demographic that Trump is winning? Did you not notice that woman, and all minorities are huge losses for Trump, and MUCH worse losses than any other GOP candidate? Have you looked at the "never vote Trump" numbers in the GOP?The guy is like a absolute train-wreck. Don't come crying to me if you guys never looked at actual electability. This was... well, like very obvious from the start.
 Posts: 20,541 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/7/2016 9:39:05 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 4/7/2016 6:53:50 PM, TBR wrote:At 4/7/2016 6:22:42 PM, ColeTrain wrote:At 4/7/2016 6:08:05 PM, RookieApologist wrote:It pains me to say that the GOP's best chance of beating Hillary is actually probably Kasich, who won't even be eligible barring some silly rules change.No, the GOP's best shot is with Trump.No, he is totally right. Kasich was their best bet, and they totaly rejected him.I think Rubio would have been a better bet for the GOP since he's kinda almost as moderate as Kasich but can reach out to Latino's much better than Kasich would ever have been able to.DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... 12/14/14 to 1/1/15 = VP of DDO 8/4/18 to 8/6/18 = Start of the Worst Spam Attack in DDO History (61 Hours, 21 Minutes, and 37 seconds... Estimated 63,175 Spam Posts during the main attack) Be Today's Hero and Tomorrow's Hero The trash from yesterday will still be trash from every day onwards
 Posts: 21,952 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/7/2016 9:43:28 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 4/7/2016 6:18:58 PM, RookieApologist wrote:Other interesting tidbits:Kasich destroys Clinton but it will never happen.http://www.realclearpolitics.com...Clinton beats Cruz by about 3% but it's gotten much closer over the last year, unfortunately not close enoughhttp://www.realclearpolitics.com...Clinton destroys Trump, and it's not even closehttp://www.realclearpolitics.com...Sanders beats everyone, but again it's never gonna happenhttp://www.realclearpolitics.com...http://www.realclearpolitics.com...He beats Clinton in favorable/unfavorable as well.These primaries are so close that you can be very sure these numbers will shift dramatically once the final candidates are chosen.The extinction of the species is worse than the extinction of the nation, which is worse than the extinction of the tribe, which is worse than the extinction of the family, which is worse than the extinction of the individual. The second he reverses that list of priorities, he becomes a coward, and would be summarily disposed of by any civilized society that values its own survival.
 Posts: 9,992 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/7/2016 9:52:58 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 4/7/2016 9:39:05 PM, imabench wrote:At 4/7/2016 6:53:50 PM, TBR wrote:At 4/7/2016 6:22:42 PM, ColeTrain wrote:At 4/7/2016 6:08:05 PM, RookieApologist wrote:It pains me to say that the GOP's best chance of beating Hillary is actually probably Kasich, who won't even be eligible barring some silly rules change.No, the GOP's best shot is with Trump.No, he is totally right. Kasich was their best bet, and they totaly rejected him.I think Rubio would have been a better bet for the GOP since he's kinda almost as moderate as Kasich but can reach out to Latino's much better than Kasich would ever have been able to.True that. Didn't hurt that every woman I know thinks Rubio is "cute" including my mother.
 Posts: 9,992 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/7/2016 9:54:35 PMPosted: 2 years agoJust adding..* "67 percent can't see themselves voting for him in November"* "Overall, 73% of female voters in a mid-March CNN/ORC poll said they had a negative view of Trump, just 26% view him positively."* "He has a 25 percent positive rating and a 64 percent negative rating and is trailing Hillary Clinton by 13 points and Bernie Sanders by 18"* "43 percent of Republicans believe he will be harmful to their party;"* "27 percent of all voters feel Trump"s version of change for the country would be right and a full 52 percent believe it would be wrong."* "50 percent believe 'Trump"s comments are frequently insulting and he has the wrong approach to the issues.'"* "Hispanics: Washington Post polling shows 80 percent have an unfavorable opinion of Donald Trump"* "Educated voters: This is a serious problem for Trump. Turnout for people with advanced degrees is over 80 percent: about 75 percent for those with bachelors degrees, 64 percent for those with some college, a bit over 50 percent for those who are high school grads and less than 40 percent for those without a high school degree. Trump"s strength right now is with less-educated voters.* "Close to 30 percent of 2016 voters will be non-white"Trump has demographic problems like no one ever. He is a sure loss. Like, betting HARD in the general.
 Posts: 9,992 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/7/2016 10:12:04 PMPosted: 2 years agoLoving this."8 in 10 Hispanic voters have an unfavorable view of Trump. That includes more than 7 in 10 who have a "very unfavorable" impression of him, which is more than double the percentage of any other major candidate."The guy is... Well, I had a ton of fun in 2008, but it was nerve-wracking. Running against Trump is going to be a riot. Can't wait till he pisses off yet another demographic.
 Posts: 9,992 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/7/2016 10:25:59 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 4/7/2016 9:43:28 PM, Greyparrot wrote:At 4/7/2016 6:18:58 PM, RookieApologist wrote:Other interesting tidbits:Kasich destroys Clinton but it will never happen.http://www.realclearpolitics.com...Clinton beats Cruz by about 3% but it's gotten much closer over the last year, unfortunately not close enoughhttp://www.realclearpolitics.com...Clinton destroys Trump, and it's not even closehttp://www.realclearpolitics.com...Sanders beats everyone, but again it's never gonna happenhttp://www.realclearpolitics.com...http://www.realclearpolitics.com...He beats Clinton in favorable/unfavorable as well.These primaries are so close that you can be very sure these numbers will shift dramatically once the final candidates are chosen.Its almost adorable that you guys think Trump can win a general with the singular group he has locked-up, or that he can just reverse himself for the wider audience and, woman for example, will just forget.He is a deeply flawed candidate, and it is only through these intense flaws that Clinton could win.
 Posts: 21,952 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/7/2016 10:38:48 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 4/7/2016 10:25:59 PM, TBR wrote:At 4/7/2016 9:43:28 PM, Greyparrot wrote:At 4/7/2016 6:18:58 PM, RookieApologist wrote:Other interesting tidbits:Kasich destroys Clinton but it will never happen.http://www.realclearpolitics.com...Clinton beats Cruz by about 3% but it's gotten much closer over the last year, unfortunately not close enoughhttp://www.realclearpolitics.com...Clinton destroys Trump, and it's not even closehttp://www.realclearpolitics.com...Sanders beats everyone, but again it's never gonna happenhttp://www.realclearpolitics.com...http://www.realclearpolitics.com...He beats Clinton in favorable/unfavorable as well.These primaries are so close that you can be very sure these numbers will shift dramatically once the final candidates are chosen.Its almost adorable that you guys think Trump can win a general with the singular group he has locked-up, or that he can just reverse himself for the wider audience and, woman for example, will just forget.He is a deeply flawed candidate, and it is only through these intense flaws that Clinton could win.Don't underestimate the disgruntled Sanders sign holder. If they feel shafted by the Clintonmachine, they just might make her pay for it.The extinction of the species is worse than the extinction of the nation, which is worse than the extinction of the tribe, which is worse than the extinction of the family, which is worse than the extinction of the individual. The second he reverses that list of priorities, he becomes a coward, and would be summarily disposed of by any civilized society that values its own survival.