GOP Primary Megathread III: Third Time's A Charm

[Zurkerx]

I think Trump only needs to win like 55% of the remaining delegates to secure the nomination. He's going to get it.

So this is a rather weird prediction here by Limbaugh but then again, anything is possible.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop- ... nee-220805

I think trump will win it too. but that just means that Kasich has no big reason to drop out. its only his money and his pride at stake.

Yeah, I believe Kasich is positioning himself to be VP despite multiple times saying he won't consider the position. Ohio is the only State he'll win in my opinion.

[MolokoPlus]

https://theintercept.com/2016/03/14/florida-attorney-general-endorses-trump-after-taking-his-money-and-backing-off-trump-university-investigation/
Mildly interesting.

But hey, Trump is totally not one of them crooked establishment politicians!

Y'know, in July, I sat with about 20 Alaskan Republicans, who included teachers, residents of Wasilla, a city councilman, and a mayor of a small Alaskan town over pizza and some beer. Trump was brought up, and immediately laughed at.

Who could elect him? We figured he was just having fun, and I lost $40 because I bet that he would be out of the race by September. I lost the bet to the one man who said Trump had a chance.

Four months later, I was in Oregon for my new job, and there I also discussed Trump. The Republicans I talked with and myself all agreed that Rubio would gain momentum, or that either Carson or Cruz could capitalize on their growing momentum. I distinctly remember saying trump will be history by January.

By the time the Iowa primaries hit, I knew Trump would likely be the nominee. Sure, Cruz had won Iowa, but at that point, the inevitable feeling that Trump would be at the helm of my party hit me, and it hit hard.

I will not vote for any Republican nominee, unless it's Kasich. The GOP, with its support for populism and xenophobia, is no longer the party I used to proudly call my own. I've gotten rid of my "Proud Elephant" beer mug.

Libertarians, here I come.

[Lychgate]

Rubio's gone...Forever. Even off of my delegate counter...

Now then, about odds:

Trump has 646, Cruz has 397, and Kasich has 142. Thanks to Rubio, there are now 1103 remaining delegates up for grabs, but 1237 needed for the nomination. Trump needs 591 delegates, or about 53%. Cruz needs 840 delegates, or about 76%. Kasich needs 1095, or about 99%.

Trump has a 47% chance of being the nominee
Cruz has a 24% chance of being the nominee
Kasich has a 1% chance of being the nominee
There is a 28% chance of a brokered convention

If Trump or Cruz win another 9+ delegates before Kasich does, Kasich is mathematically shut out of the race. I may have calculated this wrong, FYI.

[AiliailiA]

Rubio's gone...Forever. Even off of my delegate counter...

Now then, about odds:

Trump has 646, Cruz has 397, and Kasich has 142. Thanks to Rubio, there are now 1103 remaining delegates up for grabs, but 1237 needed for the nomination. Trump needs 591 delegates, or about 53%. Cruz needs 840 delegates, or about 76%. Kasich needs 1095, or about 99%.

Trump has a 47% chance of being the nominee
Cruz has a 24% chance of being the nominee
Kasich has a 1% chance of being the nominee
There is a 28% chance of a brokered convention

If Trump or Cruz win another 9+ delegates before Kasich does, Kasich is mathematically shut out of the race. I may have calculated this wrong, FYI.

I like this kind of calculation, but I think you've overlooked that Trump's chance of getting 53% of the remaining delegates isn't (100% — 53% = 47%) because it's not a two-way race.

I'd give more effective help, but I'm kinda drunk. I sincerely encourage you to try again!

[Zurkerx]

Inside Marco Rubio's Hollow Campaign

I'm sure there will be a day of reckoning.

[Ostroeuropa]

Rubio is retaining control of his delegates. If Kasich makes a good run, I expect Rubio will be happier to back him than he would be to back Cruz, and definitely Trump.

Rubios voters will now decide the outcome, I think. If they line up behind Cruz, It's Cruz V Trump with Kasich acting as a potential spoiler giving Trump the nomination if he doesn't drop out soon.

If they split between Cruz and Kasich, Trump wins OR it'll be a brokered convention, and It'll be Cruz or Kasich.

If a decent number of them go to Trump or stay home, Trump wins.

If they line up behind Kasich, it'll be a brokered convention, and It'll be Cruz or Kasich.

I think that Cruz will now finally be able to beat Trump in most states. As we have seen the margins between Trump and Cruz have been getting smaller and same has happened in national polls. I doubt that most of the Rubio voters will be voting for Trump because Rubio has been against Trump all the time.
I belive that Cruz will benefit most from Rubio dropping out and just enough to start winning more stats than Trump. Rubio dropping out might just give him that few % that he seems to lack in most states to beat Trump.

Idk, remains to be seen. Rubio supporters might swing to Kasich, he's more closely aligned with Rubio.

[Alien Space Bats]

me too

I just had to turn the tv away from a trump rally (where he had talked for 15 minutes about his businesses) because the idiot crowd had started chanting "build the wall" as if we need a freaking wall and if we had a freaking wall it would change something.


arrrrgggghhhhhh

Donald has reminded me of Pink for quite some time.

[Romalae]

me too

I just had to turn the tv away from a trump rally (where he had talked for 15 minutes about his businesses) because the idiot crowd had started chanting "build the wall" as if we need a freaking wall and if we had a freaking wall it would change something.


arrrrgggghhhhhh

Donald has reminded me of Pink for quite some time.

I will have to go listen to that album again with this in mind.

[Guy]

Rubio's gone...Forever. Even off of my delegate counter...

Now then, about odds:

Trump has 646, Cruz has 397, and Kasich has 142. Thanks to Rubio, there are now 1103 remaining delegates up for grabs, but 1237 needed for the nomination. Trump needs 591 delegates, or about 53%. Cruz needs 840 delegates, or about 76%. Kasich needs 1095, or about 99%.

Trump has a 47% chance of being the nominee
Cruz has a 24% chance of being the nominee
Kasich has a 1% chance of being the nominee
There is a 28% chance of a brokered convention

If Trump or Cruz win another 9+ delegates before Kasich does, Kasich is mathematically shut out of the race. I may have calculated this wrong, FYI.

Firstly, your chances of winning the nomination aren't 1-n (where n is the proportion of delegates left that the candidate needs to win). That doesn't have any mathematical significance.

Second, Delegates that Rubio has won remain with him.

Third, wait for the fog to clear before pronouncing exact delegate situations, but your delegate figures are low (don't include Missouri, probably).

[Lychgate]

Rubio's gone...Forever. Even off of my delegate counter...

Now then, about odds:

Trump has 646, Cruz has 397, and Kasich has 142. Thanks to Rubio, there are now 1103 remaining delegates up for grabs, but 1237 needed for the nomination. Trump needs 591 delegates, or about 53%. Cruz needs 840 delegates, or about 76%. Kasich needs 1095, or about 99%.

Trump has a 47% chance of being the nominee
Cruz has a 24% chance of being the nominee
Kasich has a 1% chance of being the nominee
There is a 28% chance of a brokered convention

If Trump or Cruz win another 9+ delegates before Kasich does, Kasich is mathematically shut out of the race. I may have calculated this wrong, FYI.

Firstly, your chances of winning the nomination aren't 1-n (where n is the proportion of delegates left that the candidate needs to win). That doesn't have any mathematical significance.

Second, Delegates that Rubio has won remain with him.

Third, wait for the fog to clear before pronouncing exact delegate situations, but your delegate figures are low (don't include Missouri, probably).

Yep, probably jumped the gun on that one. Missouri's 15 pledged are in there, but the remainder of the unpledged are mixed in with the 1103 delegates remaining (which may or may not be correct). Blame it on my wifi.

[Guy]

Firstly, your chances of winning the nomination aren't 1-n (where n is the proportion of delegates left that the candidate needs to win). That doesn't have any mathematical significance.

Second, Delegates that Rubio has won remain with him.

Third, wait for the fog to clear before pronouncing exact delegate situations, but your delegate figures are low (don't include Missouri, probably).

Yep, probably jumped the gun on that one. Missouri's 15 pledged are in there, but the remainder of the unpledged are mixed in with the 1103 delegates remaining (which may or may not be correct). Blame it on my wifi.

Missouri has 52 pledged delegates, and 0 unpledged. Some of the pledged delegates simply have not been 'called' by AP. It's quite likely they'll break 42-10 to Trump.

[Kelinfort]

Rubio's gone...Forever. Even off of my delegate counter...

Now then, about odds:

Trump has 646, Cruz has 397, and Kasich has 142. Thanks to Rubio, there are now 1103 remaining delegates up for grabs, but 1237 needed for the nomination. Trump needs 591 delegates, or about 53%. Cruz needs 840 delegates, or about 76%. Kasich needs 1095, or about 99%.

Trump has a 47% chance of being the nominee
Cruz has a 24% chance of being the nominee
Kasich has a 1% chance of being the nominee
There is a 28% chance of a brokered convention

If Trump or Cruz win another 9+ delegates before Kasich does, Kasich is mathematically shut out of the race. I may have calculated this wrong, FYI.

I give Trump a much higher chance. Probably 60-40 he wins outright. 40% chance of a brokered convention.

There's practically zero chance of Cruz or Kasich winning outright.

[Alien Space Bats]

Yes. It is! There was Top Secret information on her server! Which was not in a secure space! Why else are the last looking at it? For fun?

At least he got fired for it.

<le sigh>

The press has pretty much fucked up the whole narrative surrounding Ms. Clinton's personal server. This is not the place to get into detail regarding all of the issues, but since the issue of e-mail messages containing classified content has come up, it should be addressed.

The material in question was not classified at the time it was sent out by e-mail. It was SUBSEQUENTLY classified AFTER THE FACT, and THEREIN lies the real issue.

Talk to any Congressman or Senator on the Hill, and they'll candidly tell you that our classification system is a total mess. Too many agencies have the ability to classify too much material on a whim, and there's too little review of what gets classified. At the intersection of classification and FOIA, this creates a complete train wreck. In essence, career bureaucrats and political appointees aggressively use ex post facto classification as a way of defeating disclosure laws (such as FOIA) in order to hide professionally embarrassing revelations (like assessments that they mishandled things or made mistakes in the performance of their duties) beneath security classifications. IOW, if you screwed up and just want the whole thing swept under the rug for the sake of your career, get a classification stamped on all of the relevant documentation after the fact, and you're good as gold.

That's the REAL issue in the Clinton e-mail "scandal": The information in those "classified" e-mails wasn't thought of as sensitive in any way at the time the e-mails were sent, but someone in some department somewhere (and it doesn't have to be State; it could be ANYWHERE in the Federal bureaucracy) decided that they'd rather not see some of what was in those e-mails reach the press or the public (or even Congress, since not every Congressman or Senator has a security clearance, after all), and so they stamped a classification on it to sweep it under the rug and save their careers from the adverse scrutiny.

Folks on the Hill will tell you that this practice has become so pervasive in recent years that it's out of control, and everybody wants to rein it in. In the meantime, though, nobody's interested in talking about this absurd situation in the name of making political hay.

So, again: Hillary didn't send or receive classified information via e-mail. She sent e-mail, and then (at a later date) somebody somewhere decided that what was in the e-mail out to be treated as classified, and stamped it accordingly.

To claim on that basis that she's guilty of the "crime" of mishandling "secrets" would be as ridiculous as accusing the New York Times of espionage for receiving a government e-mail whose contents were subsequently classified by some embarrassed official who wanted to hide their blundering after the fact. If ex post facto classification make you a criminal, we're ALL spies and traitors now.

[Trumpostan]

I do not see any scenario where Trump doesn't go to the Convention with at least 46-48% of all delegates, and at least 300-400 ahead of Cruz. By all means they are free to make it a contested Convention but in all realisticness it isn't gonna be one.

[Gauthier]

Yes. It is! There was Top Secret information on her server! Which was not in a secure space! Why else are the last looking at it? For fun?

At least he got fired for it.

<le sigh>

The press has pretty much fucked up the whole narrative surrounding Ms. Clinton's personal server. This is not the place to get into detail regarding all of the issues, but since the issue of e-mail messages containing classified content has come up, it should be addressed.

The material in question was not classified at the time it was sent out by e-mail. It was SUBSEQUENTLY classified AFTER THE FACT, and THEREIN lies the real issue.

Talk to any Congressman or Senator on the Hill, and they'll candidly tell you that our classification system is a total mess. Too many agencies have the ability to classify too much material on a whim, and there's too little review of what gets classified. At the intersection of classification and FOIA, this creates a complete train wreck. In essence, career bureaucrats and political appointees aggressively use ex post facto classification as a way of defeating disclosure laws (such as FOIA) in order to hide professionally embarrassing revelations (like assessments that they mishandled things or made mistakes in the performance of their duties) beneath security classifications. IOW, if you screwed up and just want the whole thing swept under the rug for the sake of your career, get a classification stamped on all of the relevant documentation after the fact, and you're good as gold.

That's the REAL issue in the Clinton e-mail "scandal": The information in those "classified" e-mails wasn't thought of as sensitive in any way at the time the e-mails were sent, but someone in some department somewhere (and it doesn't have to be State; it could be ANYWHERE in the Federal bureaucracy) decided that they'd rather not see some of what was in those e-mails reach the press or the public (or even Congress, since not every Congressman or Senator has a security clearance, after all), and so they stamped a classification on it to sweep it under the rug and save their careers from the adverse scrutiny.

Folks on the Hill will tell you that this practice has become so pervasive in recent years that it's out of control, and everybody wants to rein it in. In the meantime, though, nobody's interested in talking about this absurd situation in the name of making political hay.

So, again: Hillary didn't send or receive classified information via e-mail. She sent e-mail, and then (at a later date) somebody somewhere decided that what was in the e-mail out to be treated as classified, and stamped it accordingly.

To claim on that basis that she's guilty of the "crime" of mishandling "secrets" would be as ridiculous as accusing the New York Times of espionage for receiving a government e-mail whose contents were subsequently classified by some embarrassed official who wanted to hide their blundering after the fact. If ex post facto classification make you a criminal, we're ALL spies and traitors now.

Don't be silly. Ex post facto guilt is perfectly fine for a Democrat.

[Solorni]

Yes. It is! There was Top Secret information on her server! Which was not in a secure space! Why else are the last looking at it? For fun?

At least he got fired for it.

<le sigh>

The press has pretty much fucked up the whole narrative surrounding Ms. Clinton's personal server. This is not the place to get into detail regarding all of the issues, but since the issue of e-mail messages containing classified content has come up, it should be addressed.

The material in question was not classified at the time it was sent out by e-mail. It was SUBSEQUENTLY classified AFTER THE FACT, and THEREIN lies the real issue.

Talk to any Congressman or Senator on the Hill, and they'll candidly tell you that our classification system is a total mess. Too many agencies have the ability to classify too much material on a whim, and there's too little review of what gets classified. At the intersection of classification and FOIA, this creates a complete train wreck. In essence, career bureaucrats and political appointees aggressively use ex post facto classification as a way of defeating disclosure laws (such as FOIA) in order to hide professionally embarrassing revelations (like assessments that they mishandled things or made mistakes in the performance of their duties) beneath security classifications. IOW, if you screwed up and just want the whole thing swept under the rug for the sake of your career, get a classification stamped on all of the relevant documentation after the fact, and you're good as gold.

That's the REAL issue in the Clinton e-mail "scandal": The information in those "classified" e-mails wasn't thought of as sensitive in any way at the time the e-mails were sent, but someone in some department somewhere (and it doesn't have to be State; it could be ANYWHERE in the Federal bureaucracy) decided that they'd rather not see some of what was in those e-mails reach the press or the public (or even Congress, since not every Congressman or Senator has a security clearance, after all), and so they stamped a classification on it to sweep it under the rug and save their careers from the adverse scrutiny.

Folks on the Hill will tell you that this practice has become so pervasive in recent years that it's out of control, and everybody wants to rein it in. In the meantime, though, nobody's interested in talking about this absurd situation in the name of making political hay.

So, again: Hillary didn't send or receive classified information via e-mail. She sent e-mail, and then (at a later date) somebody somewhere decided that what was in the e-mail out to be treated as classified, and stamped it accordingly.

To claim on that basis that she's guilty of the "crime" of mishandling "secrets" would be as ridiculous as accusing the New York Times of espionage for receiving a government e-mail whose contents were subsequently classified by some embarrassed official who wanted to hide their blundering after the fact. If ex post facto classification make you a criminal, we're ALL spies and traitors now.

The NYT had a great article on this. In essence, it talked a lot about how people simply classified stuff to be safe (with no process to appeal this really until 4 or 5 years) and also how there was a lot of confusion about what was exactly classified. A lot of stuff that appeared to be classified in some documents was not classified in others.

With regards to Hillary, I'll echo Bill Maher who said it's not a big deal and who also said that Hillary is such a boring centrist anyway... what is she going to have on them?

[Galloism]

me too

I just had to turn the tv away from a trump rally (where he had talked for 15 minutes about his businesses) because the idiot crowd had started chanting "build the wall" as if we need a freaking wall and if we had a freaking wall it would change something.


arrrrgggghhhhhh

Donald has reminded me of Pink for quite some time.

Honestly, I think he's basically orange Kanye West.

As soon as the cameras start to pivot away, he does something else insane to bring them back.

[Geilinor]

no she isn't. the fbi is looking into her server not "removing top secret material from a secured space". THAT is what patraues did when he took top secret files home and let his girlfriend read them.

Yes. It is! There was Top Secret information on her server! Which was not in a secure space! Why else are the last looking at it? For fun?

At least he got fired for it.

Patraeus actually gave someone else the classified information.

[Trumpostan]

Yes. It is! There was Top Secret information on her server! Which was not in a secure space! Why else are the last looking at it? For fun?

At least he got fired for it.

<le sigh>

The press has pretty much fucked up the whole narrative surrounding Ms. Clinton's personal server. This is not the place to get into detail regarding all of the issues, but since the issue of e-mail messages containing classified content has come up, it should be addressed.

The material in question was not classified at the time it was sent out by e-mail. It was SUBSEQUENTLY classified AFTER THE FACT, and THEREIN lies the real issue.

Talk to any Congressman or Senator on the Hill, and they'll candidly tell you that our classification system is a total mess. Too many agencies have the ability to classify too much material on a whim, and there's too little review of what gets classified. At the intersection of classification and FOIA, this creates a complete train wreck. In essence, career bureaucrats and political appointees aggressively use ex post facto classification as a way of defeating disclosure laws (such as FOIA) in order to hide professionally embarrassing revelations (like assessments that they mishandled things or made mistakes in the performance of their duties) beneath security classifications. IOW, if you screwed up and just want the whole thing swept under the rug for the sake of your career, get a classification stamped on all of the relevant documentation after the fact, and you're good as gold.

That's the REAL issue in the Clinton e-mail "scandal": The information in those "classified" e-mails wasn't thought of as sensitive in any way at the time the e-mails were sent, but someone in some department somewhere (and it doesn't have to be State; it could be ANYWHERE in the Federal bureaucracy) decided that they'd rather not see some of what was in those e-mails reach the press or the public (or even Congress, since not every Congressman or Senator has a security clearance, after all), and so they stamped a classification on it to sweep it under the rug and save their careers from the adverse scrutiny.

Folks on the Hill will tell you that this practice has become so pervasive in recent years that it's out of control, and everybody wants to rein it in. In the meantime, though, nobody's interested in talking about this absurd situation in the name of making political hay.

So, again: Hillary didn't send or receive classified information via e-mail. She sent e-mail, and then (at a later date) somebody somewhere decided that what was in the e-mail out to be treated as classified, and stamped it accordingly.

To claim on that basis that she's guilty of the "crime" of mishandling "secrets" would be as ridiculous as accusing the New York Times of espionage for receiving a government e-mail whose contents were subsequently classified by some embarrassed official who wanted to hide their blundering after the fact. If ex post facto classification make you a criminal, we're ALL spies and traitors now.

Please don't bring facts to an argument with Republicans. It's unfair on them.

The golden rule is still that you get your opinion, not your own facts. But the GOP golden rule is that something is true if you desperately want it to be.

[The Black Forrest]

The press has pretty much fucked up the whole narrative surrounding Ms. Clinton's personal server. This is not the place to get into detail regarding all of the issues, but since the issue of e-mail messages containing classified content has come up, it should be addressed.

*snip*

The question to ask the Repubs? What about the Russian hack?

That is far worse then Hillary and the email server.

[Farnhamia]

The press has pretty much fucked up the whole narrative surrounding Ms. Clinton's personal server. This is not the place to get into detail regarding all of the issues, but since the issue of e-mail messages containing classified content has come up, it should be addressed.

*snip*

The question to ask the Repubs? What about the Russian hack?

That is far worst then Hillary and the email server.

Uhm ... Benghazi! HillaryCare! Pantsuits!

[MERIZoC]

The question to ask the Repubs? What about the Russian hack?

That is far worst then Hillary and the email server.

Uhm ... Benghazi! HillaryCare! Pantsuits!

Hillary wears pantsuits to disguise the fact that she is a lizard man.

[Lychgate]

Both Trump and Cruz are now saying that a brokered convention would be "disaster", with Trump promising riots from his people (Chicago x100) and Cruz appealing to the popular voters of the GOP, stating that "the people will revolt". Seeing as how many people think that a brokered convention is the only way to stop Trump, this certainly puts an interesting spin on things:

Source, for your convenience

[Diopolis]

Both Trump and Cruz are now saying that a brokered convention would be "disaster", with Trump promising riots from his people (Chicago x100) and Cruz appealing to the popular voters of the GOP, stating that "the people will revolt". Seeing as how many people think that a brokered convention is the only way to stop Trump, this certainly puts an interesting spin on things:

Source, for your convenience

Cruz probably thinks he can win outright, for some reason. Trump has better reasons, but he somehow thinks the GOP will respond well to this.
It seems like a good time for that story about the convention turning into a bloodbath that gets posted on every thread to be reposted here, though. I can completely see a Cruz-supporting militia clashing with Trump voters outside it.

[Philjia]

Both Trump and Cruz are now saying that a brokered convention would be "disaster", with Trump promising riots from his people (Chicago x100) and Cruz appealing to the popular voters of the GOP, stating that "the people will revolt". Seeing as how many people think that a brokered convention is the only way to stop Trump, this certainly puts an interesting spin on things:

Source, for your convenience

This election is going to be remembered as the one where the GOP imploded. The Democrats have had a minor shake up now that they've realised people might be voting for the more left wing party because they're actually left wing, but the GOP has properly gone to pot. The various factions have finally diverged now that suitable figureheads have been found to ram on the front of the boats, and now they're on a high speed collision course. Whatever happens next is going to be very messy.