Amerikaanse verkiezingen 2016 #49 Nimble Navigating

quote:

Op woensdag 16 maart 2016 14:51 schreef SherlockHolmes het volgende:

Trump heeft de media enorm slim bespeeld en is nu bezig met een swing naar het midden, maar wordt nog steeds aangevallen door de media, iedere dag weer.

quote:

Afgevallen kandidaten:
Rick Perry
Scott Walker
Bobby Jindal
Lindsey Graham
George Pataki
Mike Huckabee
Rand Paul
Rick Santorum
Carly Fiorina
Chris Christie
Jim Gilmore
Jeb Bush
Ben Carson
Marco Rubio

quote:

Op woensdag 16 maart 2016 15:13 schreef skysherrif het volgende:
Nee, juist omdat het niet mag laten ze het medewerkers doen, maar dat doet dat af aan het idee dat Times Warner doneert aan Clinton?

quote:

Op woensdag 16 maart 2016 15:01 schreef Belabor het volgende:

[..]

Wat is hier nou weer gek aan? Trump heeft meerdere keren gezegd dat protesten bij zijn rally's maar met geweld beëindigd moeten worden. Ze moeten die mensen maar 'op hun bek slaan' en 'zo nodig met geweld verwijderen'.

Dat is het tegenovergestelde van wat hij zou moeten doen, en wat alle andere kandidaten doen: het geweld afkeuren, ook als het de eigen aanhang is. Maan ze aan om er mee te stoppen.

Bernie heeft daarnaast ook gewoon gelijk dat er niet van je verwacht kan worden dat je iedereen die voor je stemt onder controle kunt hebben. Dat kan hij niet en dat kan Trump ook niet. Maar als je het geweld aanmoedigt in plaats van het af te keuren, tsja...

quote:

Op woensdag 16 maart 2016 15:18 schreef skysherrif het volgende:

[..]

Had ik die maar.

quote:

Op woensdag 16 maart 2016 15:24 schreef OMG het volgende:
PACs die geld aan campaigns geven?

quote:

Op woensdag 16 maart 2016 15:25 schreef DUTCHKO het volgende:

[..]

Time Warner $591,524 $566,524 $25,000 <---- dit zijn PAC's

The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

quote:

Op woensdag 16 maart 2016 15:27 schreef OMG het volgende:
$591,524

quote:

Op woensdag 16 maart 2016 15:28 schreef skysherrif het volgende:

[..]

Het blijft toch opvallend dat individuen binnen Times Warner zoveel geld doneren?

quote:

Op woensdag 22 april 2015 17:05 schreef Hexagon het volgende:

[..]

Dat doet hij iedere vier jaar maar daarna hoor je er niks meer van

quote:

Op woensdag 22 april 2015 17:28 schreef Niox het volgende:

[..]

Die kans is zo goed als 0. Trump heeft helemaal geen ambitie om een presidentiële campagne te voeren, maar hij vind het wel leuk om met het idee te spelen. Om aandacht van de media te krijgen en tegen iedereen die het wil horen te roepen dat hij het aan overwegen is. Maar het daadwerkelijk doen? Nee, dat gaat niet gebeuren.

Leuk stuk van BuzzFeed hierover: http://www.buzzfeed.com/m(...)il-with-donald-trump

quote:

Op woensdag 6 mei 2015 21:24 schreef Euribob het volgende:
En zie ik nu fucking Donald Trump als mogelijke kanshebber in dat lijstje staan?

quote:

Op woensdag 3 juni 2015 20:19 schreef Tem het volgende:

[..]

[..]

Geweldig toch die malloten.

quote:

Op dinsdag 16 juni 2015 17:38 schreef Iwanius het volgende:

Die zelf ingenomen rechtse kwal? Gaat' m geheid niet worden.

quote:

Op woensdag 16 maart 2016 15:28 schreef Re het volgende:
even een side question over de SCOTUS, wat is het gedoe nu rondom die 60-vote threshold op filibusters for de nominee van Obama (en de gevolgens als Hillary straks potus is met een senate majority)

quote:

Republicans are already charging that Democrats, should they win back control of the Senate in November, will be quick to further erode the filibuster. For instance, if Hillary Clinton wins the White House and a Republican minority promptly blocks her Supreme Court nominees, that would create the prime conditions where a rules fight could escalate.

quote:

Op woensdag 16 maart 2016 15:34 schreef Gambetta het volgende:

[..]

Je hebt 60 stemmen nodig om een filibuster te breken en 51 om daadwerkelijk de genomineerde te bevestigen. Ook als de Democraten de senaat in handen krijgen hebben ze waarschijnlijk enkele Republikeinen nodig om te helpen een filibuster te breken. Er gaan echter nu ook stemmen op om die 60-vote threshold af te schaffen.

[..]

http://www.politico.com/s(...)rt-filibuster-220806

quote:

Op woensdag 16 maart 2016 15:35 schreef Hexagon het volgende:
Daar zat ik er goed naast ja

quote:

Op woensdag 22 juli 2015 11:21 schreef Reya het volgende:
Trump doet me denken aan Herman Cain, die was in 2011 ook een tijdje erg populair in de peilingen, voor vrijwel helemaal te verdwijnen. In het geval van Cain werd dat dan nog wel verder geholpen door geruchten van seksuele intimidatie.

quote:

Op woensdag 16 maart 2016 15:41 schreef antiderivative het volgende:
"John Boehner Endorses Paul Ryan for President"

Paul Ryan spokesperson: "He will not accept a nomination and believes our nominee should be someone who ran this year

[ afbeelding ]

Wat een paniek in die partij

quote:

Op woensdag 16 maart 2016 16:00 schreef SherlockHolmes het volgende:
Die paniek, heerlijk.

Haat em of hou van em, Trump doet geniale dingen met de politiek in die bende van een land

quote:

Clinton Is Following Obama’s Path To The Nomination
Sanders would need big wins in the remaining states to make up for his delegate disadvantage.

Hillary Clinton may have had a sense of déjà vu. Eight years ago, after being ahead all night in Missouri’s Democratic presidential primary — the Associated Press erroneously called the state for Clinton — she lost after Barack Obama surged ahead with late-reporting votes from St. Louis. This time around, the shoe was on the other foot. Late Tuesday night, Bernie Sanders led Clinton by about 2 percentage points in Missouri. But Clinton pulled ahead after midnight on votes from St. Louis City and St. Louis County.

Clinton has not yet been declared the winner in Missouri, but she leads Sanders 49.6 percent to 49.4 percent in unofficial results. A win there would complete a 5-for-5 evening for her: Clinton won Illinois narrowly and Florida, Ohio and North Carolina emphatically. She was already likely to be the Democratic nominee, but she became more likely after what was perhaps the best evening of her campaign.

It’s not that Sanders had a terrible night. OK, losing Florida and Ohio by such large margins wasn’t good. But because of the Democrats’ proportional delegate rules, losing Missouri by a few thousand votes would make essentially no difference to his delegate count versus winning it by the same margin. Sanders’s narrow loss in Illinois was pretty respectable given that polls had once shown Clinton with a giant lead there. And Sanders lost North Carolina by only 14 percentage points. I’m not being sarcastic or damning with faint praise: If Sanders had lost the rest of the South by 14 points instead of margins that were sometimes 40 points or more, his path to the nomination would be considerably more viable. Sanders seems to be making progress with African-American voters.

But a night that wasn’t quite as bad as it seems wasn’t what Sanders needed. Even a pretty good night wouldn’t have mattered for him all that much. Instead, he needed a stupendous night that redefined the campaign. Big wins in Missouri, Illinois or Ohio might have done that; so might have making Clinton sweat in North Carolina or Florida. Sanders didn’t come close to passing that admittedly high bar.

I’m intrigued by the parallels to the 2008 campaign perhaps because it’s where FiveThirtyEight cut its teeth. I spent a lot of time in the spring of 2008 arguing that Obama’s lead in elected delegates would be hard for Clinton to overcome. But Clinton’s lead over Sanders is much larger than Obama’s was over Clinton at a comparable stage of the race. At the end of February 2008, after a favorable run of states for Obama, he led Clinton by approximately 100 elected delegates. Clinton’s lead is much larger this year.1 Clinton entered Tuesday’s contests ahead of Sanders by approximately 220 elected delegates. But she’ll net approximately 70 delegates from Florida, 20 from Ohio, 15 from North Carolina and a handful from Illinois and Missouri. That will expand her advantage to something like 325 elected delegates.

Sanders will need to win about 58 percent of the remaining 2,000 or so elected delegates to tie Clinton. Since the Democrats allot delegates proportionally, that means he’d need to win about 58 percent of the vote in the average remaining state to Clinton’s 42 percent, meaning he’d need to beat Clinton by around 16 points the rest of the way. Sanders would also have to overcome Clinton’s huge lead in superdelegates, although that’s probably the least of his worries. (If Clinton goes from winning the average state by double digits to losing it by the same margin, something cataclysmic will have had to have happened, likely sending her superdelegates scurrying for the exits.)

The second half of the calendar appears more favorable to Sanders than the states that have voted so far. Pretty much all of the South has voted, other than Maryland (if you consider it a Southern state), so Clinton doesn’t have many more delegates to rack up there. Not very much of the West has voted, and it will probably be a good region for Sanders. New York has lots of delegates, and could be interesting for Sanders, as could California. Pennsylvania could theoretically be a good state for Sanders, although it appears less promising for him after Clinton’s big win in Ohio.

Sanders can’t afford to merely come close in these states, as he did on Tuesday. Nor would narrow wins suffice. He needs to win these states going away to make up for his delegate disadvantage.

There’s no particular reason to expect he will do so. Instead, the Democratic race appears fairly static and fairly predictable along demographic lines. Even after Sanders’s dramatic, poll-defying win in Michigan last week, few Democratic voters decided upon or changed their vote this week, according to exit polls, and those who did broke about evenly between Clinton and Sanders. Polling averages quite accurately predicted the outcomes in the Democratic race on Tuesday, allaying the concern (one which worried us a lot!) that Democrats were experiencing some sort of existential polling crisis.

We’re fond of sports metaphors here at FiveThirtyEight. If the Republican race is Calvinball, with everyone making up the rules as they go along, the Democratic race is more like — zzzzzzz — golf. Clinton entered Tuesday night with the equivalent of a four-stroke lead with four holes to play. Then on the 15th hole, when Sanders already needed a minor miracle, she birdied while Sanders bogied. It’s not that it’s mathematically impossible for Sanders to win; Clinton could have some sort of epic meltdown. But she controls her own fate while Sanders doesn’t really control his, and she has quite a lot of tolerance for error.

Sanders has run a good campaign, and the fact that he ran competitively with Clinton in diverse states such as Michigan, Missouri and Illinois is more impressive in many ways than his early successes in Iowa and New Hampshire. But around 15 million Democrats have voted and, simply put, more of them seem to want Clinton as their nominee.

quote:

Op woensdag 16 maart 2016 16:33 schreef Re het volgende:
Trump zit trouwens wel al lekker te dreigen dat het los gaat als hij de nominatie niet krijgt

http://www.politico.com/s(...)s-gop-nominee-220859

quote:

Op woensdag 16 maart 2016 16:33 schreef Re het volgende:
Trump zit trouwens wel al lekker te dreigen dat het los gaat als hij de nominatie niet krijgt

http://www.politico.com/s(...)s-gop-nominee-220859

quote:

It’s Still Not Clear That Donald Trump Will Get a Majority of Delegates

You ever feel like you don’t know exactly how to interpret an election night? That’s how I feel about the Republican side of the aisle after Tuesday. Donald Trump won at least three of the five states that voted on Tuesday, including Florida. (We’re still waiting on a call in Missouri, but Trump leads.) Marco Rubio ended his campaign. John Kasich stayed alive by winning Ohio. Given that Trump likely won every state except for the home state of another candidate, it has to be considered a good night for him. And yet, the main question — are we going to a contested convention? — remains unanswered.

The good news for Trump is that he won the most delegates on Tuesday, and was able to make up for the 66 delegates he lost in Ohio by winning Illinois and likely Missouri, which could bring as many as 95 delegates, depending on how the district allocation shakes out.

Moreover, Trump performed strongly in all the states that voted Tuesday. He won 36 percent of the vote in Ohio, 39 percent in Illinois, 40 percent in North Carolina, 41 percent in Missouri and 46 percent in Florida. His average performance was 40.3 percent. That’s far above his average 34.6 percent that he had on March 1. Granted, the states that voted tonight were different than the states that voted two weeks ago, but there isn’t any sign that Trump’s support is falling. If anything, these results suggest it may be somewhat rising.

The bad news for Trump is pretty clear: even with a Missouri win, he would still have won only a little more than 47 percent of the delegates allocated so far. Moreover, he’ll need to win a little more than 54 percent of the remaining delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot. That’s certainly possible given there are several winner-take-all states to come, and Trump may do well in big East Coast states such as New York and New Jersey. Trump is also in a good position in Arizona, a winner-take-all state that votes next Tuesday.

Still, there are plenty of ways the delegate math can go haywire for him. My own delegate estimate has Trump falling short of the 1,237 delegates he needs because he has done poorly in the west so far, and many of those states haven’t voted yet. It’s also possible that Kasich plays better than we might think among moderate voters in the remaining states to vote in New England and Mid-Atlantic.

Moreover, there are plenty of signs that Trump would have lost a majority of states that voted on Tuesday had Rubio not been in the race. I’m talking about Missouri and North Carolina, where Ted Cruz beat Trump in a one-on-one race in the exit polls. Trump may be rising, though he is still not getting close to a majority of the vote in most states. If the anti-Trump voters can find a better way to coordinate behind one candidate, they probably can beat Trump in a lot of upcoming contests.

When you put it all together, I think the result on Tuesday can best be defined as messy. Trump is likely to have a plurality of delegates after all the contests have finished up on June 7. But a majority? We still don’t know.

quote:

Op woensdag 16 maart 2016 16:52 schreef Elfletterig het volgende:
Wat gebeurt er eigenlijk met de gedelegeerden die Rubio heeft binnengehaald? Mogen die nu opnieuw een keuze maken, of worden die automatisch verdeeld over de andere kandidaten op basis van de uitslagen in de betreffende staten?

quote:

Op woensdag 16 maart 2016 16:51 schreef John_Q het volgende:
Een Kasich-Rubio ticket, is dat denkbaar nu volgens jullie?
Kasich is uiterst vriendelijk naar Rubio in een van de eerder genoemde filmpjes, en het zou een sterke samenwerking zijn om Trump mogelijk van de nominatie af te houden.