Bernie Sanders has won Oklahoma, which is basically in the South. It's really happening now lads.
Bernie Sanders has won Oklahoma, which is basically in the South. It's really happening now lads.
It's on.
Btw how fucking stupid is it to not have everyone vote at the same time? Jesus.
Why does it matter?
Originally Posted by Pepe
It's something I'm ignorant of. Have you got something to read on it?
I would now put a fair load of money on Clinton to beat Trump in the general (if anyone wants to take me up on it...). It seems like a lot of Clinton's dominance today has to do with people being terrified of Trump and seeing her as the person to beat him, and that will only be increased in the general election. On the other side it's hard to see Trump losing it from here, Nate Silver said that Marco Rubio could well be 200 delegates behind him by the end of the night and nobody likes Ted Cruz.
It's a myth. Pure PR bullshit from an industry desperate to extract every last dollar of their soon to be useless reserves before clean energy destroys their business model.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...a4947/4339171/
Clinton v Trump it is, then.
Will the Republican Party still exist to challenge Clinton if she runs for re-election in 2020?
Hillary's numbers in the south are pretty comprehensive.
Which states would Trump carry in the general? Idaho? Bonne chance, old boy.
Better than expected for Bernie, but it's probably not enough.
Five Thirty Eight said he should have been winning Massachusetts as well as the four states he did.
I reckon they'll work themselves up into getting behind Trump. Even the ones who'd swear they never will.
They hate Liberals more than RINOs.
It means that everyone isn't voting with the same information, which is a bit weird. I mean, I can see why they do it - every state is doing this indepedently - but it's odd.
Maybe this will finally be the thing to sink the Donald's campaign:
Piers Morgan, who has known Donald Trump for 10 years, tells the BBC Radio 4's Today programme the Republican presidential candidate as someone "pretty smart" with "warmth", "good humour" and a "sense of perspective".
Is it too late for Rubio to drop out and run as Cruz'z running mate? You would have thought that combined they would easily beat Trump.
Yeah, that was a shitter, although a couple of others were a bit of a surprise as the little polling there had been seemed to indicate that Hilary was holding on.
They were talking more about what he would need to win rather than what would be outperforming current polling. Massachusetts being predominantly white and 'liberal', and bordering Vermont, meant it should have been one of his stronger states, and without it it doesn't seem clear where he's going to make up the difference.
He's losing the Southern states by so much that even piling up wins in more liberal but less populated states can't get him enough delegates (even without the super delegates).
I actually think most "party" Republicans would rather Trump than Cruz. There's no way Rubio makes way for him even as VP, his Senate colleagues *hate* Cruz.
If Hillary were smart, she'd offer him VP. Probably more chance of Colonel Sanders getting on the ticket sadly.
Hillary will want someone younger and more ethnic than Sanders, I think, given "old, boring and white" are basically her three biggest weaknesses apart from the whole career politician thing, which she can't do much about.
So, what happens to the nomination if Trump is the leading candidate but without a majority?
And if say, Rubio drops out, what happens to his delegates?
Then it's a floor war at the RNC with everyone trying to steal delegates.
What does that mean? Can delegates change their views as they please?
Yes, if there's a majority then the delegates are locked but if Trump has less than 1538 (I think) delegates then they can swap as they wish. Which means you're going to have the Cruz/Rubio/Carson train rolling on so that Trump keeps winning 30/40% in the hope that it keeps his delegate numbers low enough to stab him in the back from the RNC convention.
Cheers. It would be absolutely glorious to see those gobshites ripping each other to pieces over that.
Doesn't Trump then just run as an independent and crash the whole thing anyway?
A brokered convention would be the most fascinating political entertainment in years. As delegates are generally party establishment, they'd probably squeeze Trump out, and he and his base would go ballistic. That's the only situation I could envision where the party would really tear itself apart.
The West Wing prepared us for everything. Brokered convention, check. President temporarily resigning with no VP in position and handing over to opposite party, check. No impeachment, but we had one of those in the 70s (and 90s?)
They did have almost a whole series on Barlet's possible impeachment too, just that he got away with it in the end.
I liked the idea (I can't remember where I read it) that the other Republicans up for election would base their campaigns around the need for conservative representatives to hold 'Hillary' to account, rather than bothering to waste their time backing whoever gets nominated. That would probably keep the party together, since 'The Donald' would just tell them to get lost and forsake their support rather than appeal for it.
This is incredible. Fuck me.
The white, working class have finally had enough of the bollocks. Viva la Trump!
Because results from early elections inevitably affect the voting decisions of elections occurring later.
You know what, I actually don't have anything right now. Let me dig something out although elth's article covers the principle and challenges well enough, although it only mentions one method of carbon capture, there are (potentially) better ones out there.
While 'Big coal' and 'Big oil' and big whatever are definitely a nasty bunch (not sure why we thing Big wind and big solar will be any better though) and I would be happy if we could all live off solar panels in an emissions free world, the technical challenges of that are pretty darn big, so it is not so much about whether we want to burn fossil fuels or not and more about how much must we burn. Even your article admits it:
I would also add: Lets not allow clean-energy myths to divert us from pursuing technologies that will allow us to reduce emissions in the short term. If we focus entirely on wind and solar and batteries it will be decades (lots of them) before we reduce emissions in any considerable way.Let's be clear. We should continue research into making coal cleaner--that fuel will be a vital part of our energy mix for decades. But let's not allow clean-coal myths to divert us from real-world energy alternatives that work today.
I would also strongly agree with this part:
Unfortunately that's the hardest sell because it actually requires 'the common folk' to do something.The cleanest energy option of all is also the closest at hand: conservation.
Not specifically about 'Clean Coal' but If you really want to read the other side, then The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels by Alex Epstein is a good option.
He wants to lower their wages, you know.
Yes but it's for their own good.
I read that his tax plan would make everybody better off. Yes, the country would also collapse under the weight of all the added debt, but they'll be winning so much by then they're gonna be tired of winning.
The Presidential primary season is fine. It shows if the candidates have the executive ability to create and build coalitions and if they can manage teams that can successfully disseminate policy information and achieve their stated goals over a sustained period. Presidents don't have a lot of institutional power and their strength is primarily about their ability to manage retail politics.
Under no circumstances.
@Henry
We have not had a brokered convention since the 60's so who knows. In the near past losing candidates have released their delegates. I know some Hillary delegates who were told (by the Clinton campaign) to stay home to allow Obama to choose who he wanted to send. They would have happily voted for Obama but it allows the candidate to reward people with a party who worked hard even when they lost or were sacrificial. So it all depends on whether the Republicans release their delegates or not.
She does seem like somebody who can't really deal with criticism/disagreement. If 'The Donald' gets to debate her we could be on for a right THE MASK HAS SLIPPED (God I hate that expression) chimp out.
Boydy the comment section is even better than the article.
Trump now saying that he's a "unifier" and that he wants the party behind him. LOL.
I legitimately miss Romney at this point.
Yeah that's going to be very interesting. As far as I can tell, she's usually really intent on not actually settling for a position so that it's hard to criticise her/disagree with her.
Like here (from 3.40, how do I make it start there?)
There were those books that claimed she used to kick fuck out of poor ol' Bill and terrorise the staff, but everybody has been too polite to mention it... UNTIL NOW.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...fox-news.html#
lol. I really don't get how he's bungled it this badly. When I saw him at the first debate I honestly felt like he could the Republican's Obama (I guess one of the problems is that the GOP is white as fuck).
Ted Cruz is the dream Republican nominee. He'd never get elected, and if he did he'd be less disastrous than Trump.
Reply With Quote
