Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 4:18:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2016 21:26:02 GMT -5
Just wanted to say that I'm proud to be living in a state where the people ignore the polls, & think for themselves.  (In the final count here, Trump was in 3rd place for the Republicans. And, Sanders won the Democratic Party here.) yeah, that was a very pleasing result. it is how every state should look, imo. he is a 3rd rate candidate. Assuming your portrayal of "3rd rate" is accurate, he's still (unfortunately) better than 5th rate Rubio or Cruz though... (I don't disagree than he's well below a "first rate" candidate though) (I would have put him much lower than "3rd rate" though... if we break "Presidential Worthiness" into 10 parts {100% divided into 10% increments} he's closer to 7th rate for me, making Hillary & Sander 8th, and Rubio & Cruz 9th rate) |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233 
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 2, 2016 22:01:31 GMT -5
if i am not mistaken, there is an expression: "third rate". i think i used it correctly.  |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 2, 2016 22:04:09 GMT -5
a certain number might go all the way to convention. i am not above learning a thing or two, tho. So, uh, dj?
I haven't been in a math class for a long time, but isn't 336 more than 297?
yes. but he still only got 28 more delegates than Cruz, which is not a "trouncing". then again, Cruz's path forward is much tougher than Trump's, so he needed to do 28 BETTER, not 28 worse. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 2, 2016 22:05:22 GMT -5
I can't find final numbers, where are you? If you take Texas out as an anonoly, what happens? 538 says 254 to 217 which is +37. Remove Texas, and it's 216 to 118 which is + 98. I know, what sense does it make to remove Texas... But it is so obvious a state unlike any other in terms of Cruz likely results... If it had been another day, there would be no 'close' narrative. 538 is projecting. i am using actual delegate counts. 538 is probably right, but what i gave you is current reporting. |
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Mar 2, 2016 22:09:19 GMT -5
Is there really any more Cruz territory? there are a lot of states that he SHOULD win. deep South, midwest.... but it would require Trump to lose some ground. deep south? Cruz lost that Tuesday. Midwest? Illinois? idnk Indiana no Wisconsin no Ohio no Michigan no Or are you talking November? |
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 4:18:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2016 22:38:22 GMT -5
if i am not mistaken, there is an expression: "third rate". i think i used it correctly. LOL... you did... He's just not worthy enough to qualify FOR "third rate"... |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 2, 2016 23:06:17 GMT -5
there are a lot of states that he SHOULD win. deep South, midwest.... but it would require Trump to lose some ground. deep south? Cruz lost that Tuesday. Midwest? Illinois? idnk Indiana no Wisconsin no Ohio no Michigan no Or are you talking November? what is it with you and Virgil today, not being able to read posts? what i said was that he SHOULD win, but that in order to do that Trump would have to lose ground. now, with WHAT I SAID in mind, do you want to try again? the upper midwest region you asked about is not Cruz country. i would think that Rubio would do well there. but he ALSO has to gain ground, and/or Trump has to lose. look, VB- we are talking about stuff that has NOT HAPPENED YET, and MIGHT NOT HAPPEN. we are not talking about what HAS happened. but for the record, a 3% change in the polls would have lost Trump THREE MORE STATES. i know that didn't happen, but it COULD HAPPEN over the coming weeks, and it would make a HUGE DIFFERENCE in outcome. if Trump dropped 3%, and Kasich gained 3%, he would win Ohio. i wish i could say the same about Florida, but i can't. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 2, 2016 23:18:08 GMT -5
so, one more quick recap on how they did.
earlier i said that Trump and Clinton had approximately the same lead in the polls.
i also said that Trump was likely to lose a few, and that Clinton would likely lose one.
i also said that two had no polling data for each, and that they could both lose those, as well.
well, in general, both candidates underperformed. Clinton lost four, and so did Trump.
but Trump did worse in terms of delegates, getting only about 40% of the 600 delegates available.
Clinton, on the other hand, got 60% of the delegates on Super Tuesday.
Nate Silver is way better at this than me, and he says Trump is running ahead by 40 delegates.
but i don't see how a guy winning 40% of the delegates wins. i guess he does it by dominating
in winner take all races?
anyway, we will see how this goes. if Trump cleans up in the next (2) weeks, it will be hard to keep
him from winning the nomination- and there is no polling that indicates that he will NOT clean up.
i am moving on to the Republican Nomination thread now......
|
|
