metisdead Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 A post in weird font has been removed as well as a reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helpisgood Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 Today's line in Las Vegas to be elected next Potus HR Clinton has odds of 1-2 or the probability percentage of 66.67% DJ Trump has odds of 3-1 or the probability percentage of 25%. These odds haven't changed since the day after Super Tuesday (March 1st). Odds aren't everything but the oddsmakers in Vegas have a long and superb track record. Looking at RCP polling averages and the D party lock on 251 Electoral College votes with 270 needed to win (Florida alone with 29 of 'em Bingo!) and all the blue smoke and mirrors from the right about Bernie Sanders voters not voting for HRC gets blown away. The right still hasn't figured out the new math. Bernie's primary campaign voters know it well. The right keeps running out of things to make up out of the blue so they should keep right on smoking that stuff that comes across from south of the border. I am not sure how much you want to rely upon the oddsmakers in regards to the actual results. I am not much of a gambler and not an expert. However, as I understand it from my brief time spent at the Sports Book, the odds are set in such a way to get about an even number of money on bets from both sides, This will result in a profit for the book. After all, they're trying to make a living as well. If you have been to the horse racetrack, I am sure you have noticed that odds change on the horses as the bets come in. Thus, if too many people are betting on the longshot, the odds will be reduced on that horse to attract bettors to other horses. Otherwise, if that longshot wins, the track will lose money to those specific bettors. Thus, the set odds are not based upon an expert analysis of who shall actually win (though that does a play an indirect role), it is based on how bettors will place their money given certain odds. Yes, it probably does reflect a belief out there as to who will win, but it is more about how oddsmakers think bettors will place their bets. Maybe someone out there understands this better than me. If so, thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaBlue05 Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 It's more than a small gamble regardless of which one you vote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 Burnie is what you American need big time .he is a god for change a man full of good not owned by anyone ,He will fix what is rotten in America believe in this man,vote him in. Don't you just love foreigners who are such experts in what's good for "us Americans"? What hubris. The world is cosmopolitan, the post is parochial. Donald Trump and his supporters and boosters are living proof of the parochial. The ignorant frankly. I put American first. That includes our relations with the world, allies first and foremost. It is in this respect that the Obama presidency has enjoyed its greatest successes. My critique of Bernie Sanders is that, for a US senator especially, he says or knows little about the world, our enemies the CCP, Russia, Iran in particular as he is perpetually silent on these matters. People who like Trump while saying token nice things about Bernie Sanders speak from deep in the midst of a heavy fog. Trump knows more about nothing than anyone else in the race for Potus. Witness the views expressed by our allies first and foremost, thx. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keemapoot Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 (edited) Burnie is what you American need big time .he is a god for change a man full of good not owned by anyone ,He will fix what is rotten in America believe in this man,vote him in. Don't you just love foreigners who are such experts in what's good for "us Americans"? What hubris. The world is cosmopolitan, the post is parochial. Donald Trump and his supporters and boosters are living proof of the parochial. The ignorant frankly. I put American first. That includes our relations with the world, allies first and foremost. It is in this respect that the Obama presidency has enjoyed its greatest successes. My critique of Bernie Sanders is that, for a US senator especially, he says or knows little about the world, our enemies the CCP, Russia, Iran in particular as he is perpetually silent on these matters. People who like Trump while saying token nice things about Bernie Sanders speak from deep in the midst of a heavy fog. Trump knows more about nothing than anyone else in the race for Potus. Witness the views expressed by our allies first and foremost, thx. This is one of your best posts IMO, and sums it up very well. Most American Conservatives are indeed parochial, and long for the days of blissful isolationism. There is a great nostalgic appeal to that. Let the world flail on its own, let the Middle East burn itself to the ground, etc.. However, the reality is that isolationism is dead. Americans must learn to be cosmopolitan, and worldly, however painful that may be. I don't share your view that Obama has been particularly successful internationally, but at least he was not the grim reaper of global conflict chaos George W. was, which has been a needed respite. Sanders, as is typical of many Republican Presidential candidates since (the highly international) George H.W. is also parochial, matching the direction the party has taken. Trump, though touted as an "international businessman" is NOT. He has done deals internationally, with anglophone countries as a typical American. He has little global understanding in business and seemingly none in diplomacy and politics. He is a NY real estate guy mostly. He is a USA media phenomenon who doesn't play outside US borders. Trump is the perfect President to erect a wall and isolate America. Edited March 13, 2016 by keemapoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 (edited) Today's line in Las Vegas to be elected next Potus HR Clinton has odds of 1-2 or the probability percentage of 66.67% DJ Trump has odds of 3-1 or the probability percentage of 25%. These odds haven't changed since the day after Super Tuesday (March 1st). Odds aren't everything but the oddsmakers in Vegas have a long and superb track record. Looking at RCP polling averages and the D party lock on 251 Electoral College votes with 270 needed to win (Florida alone with 29 of 'em Bingo!) and all the blue smoke and mirrors from the right about Bernie Sanders voters not voting for HRC gets blown away. The right still hasn't figured out the new math. Bernie's primary campaign voters know it well. The right keeps running out of things to make up out of the blue so they should keep right on smoking that stuff that comes across from south of the border. I am not sure how much you want to rely upon the oddsmakers in regards to the actual results. I am not much of a gambler and not an expert. However, as I understand it from my brief time spent at the Sports Book, the odds are set in such a way to get about an even number of money on bets from both sides, This will result in a profit for the book. After all, they're trying to make a living as well. If you have been to the horse racetrack, I am sure you have noticed that odds change on the horses as the bets come in. Thus, if too many people are betting on the longshot, the odds will be reduced on that horse to attract bettors to other horses. Otherwise, if that longshot wins, the track will lose money to those specific bettors. Thus, the set odds are not based upon an expert analysis of who shall actually win (though that does a play an indirect role), it is based on how bettors will place their money given certain odds. Yes, it probably does reflect a belief out there as to who will win, but it is more about how oddsmakers think bettors will place their bets. Maybe someone out there understands this better than me. If so, thanks! Interesting post in many ways. One can begin a reply by noting the time when media critics used to refer to media reporting of the campaign for Potus as equal to coverage of a "horse race." We know of course that they were using a metaphor. Media did in fact often use the term "frontrunner" (derived also from track and field) and the "dark horse" candidate, i.e., the one in the background. Due to a great deal of criticism from many quarters of media focusing on the "horse race" aspect of Potus campaigns, MSM has refocused to a greater attention to issues, voters, polling too yes, trends and the like. Everyone still complains about their favorite peeve nonetheless and who can blame us. Except in four states, anyone in the United States who bets on any election in the US commits a federal offense which the US Attorneys throughout the country don't go lightly in prosecuting. There isn't much of it, if anything of it. It's sort of like the baseball World Series "Black Sox" scandal of 1919 schemed by a young Hyman Rothstein for the Chicago professional team to 'throw' the Series to the Cincinnati Red Legs, which the White Sox did do. So all but one of the Las Vegas oddsmakers issue statements based on money put down in two places primarily -- London and Dublin. So how do we know how and where Americans most prefer to put their green and how do we identify odds based on Americans who wager on these things. Four states have legal wagering on US elections and the states have strict laws overseen by the Feds from bank money transfers to everything else. They are: Nevada, Oregon, Montana, Delaware. The premier licensed US wagering house is Bovada. Bovada is authorised under federal and the four states laws to issue odds only on the last day of each month; also on the morning of election day. Except for year 2000, Bovada odds on Potus have never been wrong. Bovada (American style) odds as of February 29th of the candidate to be elected Potus are: (minus sign = odds-on favorite; plus sign = in the dog house) Hillary Diane (Rodham) Clinton is at Bovada odds of -210 which converts to standard odds of 1-2 and the percentage probability of 66.7% Donald John Trump is at Bovada odds of +250 which converts to standard odds of 3-1 or the percentage probability of 25%. American style odds that are 50-50 elsewhere equal 100 no plus or minus sign. The salient point of calculating by American odds vs European odds (1/2 for HRC and 3/1 for Trump, no plus or minus signs) is we get to see that to arrive at the American neutral 100 there would need to be a shift of a combined 260 points. That is like scoring 25 runs in the bottom of the ninth inning to win the World Series 7th game. In World Football it would be scoring two goals in the final five seconds to win the Cup. The beauty of political odds is that, unlike sports odds to include horse racing, the odds are a straight up calculation. There is no handicapping, no point spread other than the straight up head to head 'spread'. (One can get odds on whether HRC wins by 5% of the popular vote, but that is not in the head to head win-lose calculation. Same for Electoral College difference...one can get odds that say, for instance, HRC wins the EC by 30% but that is also excluded from the straight up head to head win-lose calculation.) While polling is a series of snapshots, oddsmaking is a longer term documentary presenting phases of the whole. Odds change much more slowly than the flickering polling data hits us as it continually gets tracked. And the American political oddsmaking system is actually quite straightforward and to the point. Edited March 13, 2016 by Publicus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpokaneAl Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 This was interesting . . . https://medium.com/@kimballmortensen/10-reasons-why-conservatives-should-start-supporting-bernie-sanders-immediately-7eb700302a2a#.izbwqwm4i Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lannarebirth Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 This was interesting . . . https://medium.com/@kimballmortensen/10-reasons-why-conservatives-should-start-supporting-bernie-sanders-immediately-7eb700302a2a#.izbwqwm4i He makes a pretty good case. Possibly some upside. Limited downside. FYI: https://www.demcaucus.com/register Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helpisgood Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 This was interesting . . . https://medium.com/@kimballmortensen/10-reasons-why-conservatives-should-start-supporting-bernie-sanders-immediately-7eb700302a2a#.izbwqwm4i Thanks, that was interesting! One of the most thought out articles on how to vote I have read. It's not just the knee-jerk conservative or liberal analysis. Thanks for sharing that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomerangutang Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 This just in. . . . . I get mailings from the Sanders campaign, and here are the latest numbers. . . . . . "down only by single digits (compared to Hillary) in Ohio and Illinois and up by one in Missouri. We're also doing better in polls in Florida and North Carolina than we were before we won in Michigan." Boomers adds: If you're a HRC supporter, gird yourself for some upsets manana. Ensuing primaries include all 3 west coast states, which Bernie should win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinot Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 (edited) No way a Bernie supporter is going to vote Republican. Simply isn't going to happen. Speak for yourself.. It's this opinion by DNC powers that be that make it so they feel they can shaft Bernie and appoint Hillary.. As Bernie supporter have no were to go and at the end of the day must vote for Hillary I am a Bernie supporter.. Voted for him in Primary and would vote for him in the fall I refuse to vote for Hillary If she wins and Trump wins.. I'd vote for Trump Okay, up to you. You do realize HRC and Trump are polar opposites? That makes you a very confused and unusual voter. Come on, voters are not going over to Trump if HRC is the nominee. That's wingnut thinking. You hate her so much, you'd vote for a lying racist buffoon. That's pathetic. You wouldn't really vote for Bernie, would you? That's just wishful thinking by the Trumpeteers. Politico checked 4 and half hours of Trump stump speeches and press conferences and found 5 dozen statements where he either mischaracterized, exaggerated or just outright lied. Basically Trump lies every five minutes on the average. That's your man. Where are we this week Publicus? 25% chance of Trump getting elected? Edited March 15, 2016 by Pinot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 Basically Trump lies every five minutes on the average. That's probably about half as much as Hillary. 57% think she is NOT honest or trustworthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up2u2 Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 This was interesting . . . https://medium.com/@kimballmortensen/10-reasons-why-conservatives-should-start-supporting-bernie-sanders-immediately-7eb700302a2a#.izbwqwm4i Not even slightly interesting. An election win by Bernie gives him a clear mandate to introduce legislation in Congress to enact the social changes he proposes. He has the backing of the People and if Republicans think for one second they can deny the will of the electorate then that would be beautiful. Nothing would please me more. The American People have had enough of Republican obstructionist Congress. How many times did Republicans block supply bills and the last time they did it the Electorate made it quite clear they would be relegated to political backwaters. If they aren't already there. The usual 'can't win fair and square then game the system' Republican attitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up2u2 Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 This just in. . . . . I get mailings from the Sanders campaign, and here are the latest numbers. . . . . . "down only by single digits (compared to Hillary) in Ohio and Illinois and up by one in Missouri. We're also doing better in polls in Florida and North Carolina than we were before we won in Michigan." Boomers adds: If you're a HRC supporter, gird yourself for some upsets manana. Ensuing primaries include all 3 west coast states, which Bernie should win. Thanks for the 'insider' news boomer. I hope Bernie does well. Nice of you to give a 'heads up' to HRC supporters. Hopefully they will be well girded should Bernie take a lot of Delegates that they weren't expecting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lannarebirth Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 This was interesting . . . https://medium.com/@kimballmortensen/10-reasons-why-conservatives-should-start-supporting-bernie-sanders-immediately-7eb700302a2a#.izbwqwm4i Not even slightly interesting. An election win by Bernie gives him a clear mandate to introduce legislation in Congress to enact the social changes he proposes. He has the backing of the People and if Republicans think for one second they can deny the will of the electorate then that would be beautiful. Nothing would please me more. The American People have had enough of Republican obstructionist Congress. How many times did Republicans block supply bills and the last time they did it the Electorate made it quite clear they would be relegated to political backwaters. If they aren't already there. The usual 'can't win fair and square then game the system' Republican attitude. The Congress introduces legislation. Ironically, introducing legislation is something Bernie can do now but can not to as President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpokaneAl Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 (edited) This was interesting . . . https://medium.com/@kimballmortensen/10-reasons-why-conservatives-should-start-supporting-bernie-sanders-immediately-7eb700302a2a#.izbwqwm4i Not even slightly interesting. An election win by Bernie gives him a clear mandate to introduce legislation in Congress to enact the social changes he proposes. He has the backing of the People and if Republicans think for one second they can deny the will of the electorate then that would be beautiful. Nothing would please me more. The American People have had enough of Republican obstructionist Congress. How many times did Republicans block supply bills and the last time they did it the Electorate made it quite clear they would be relegated to political backwaters. If they aren't already there. The usual 'can't win fair and square then game the system' Republican attitude. Actually republicans took over the house majority and most recently the senate majority under Obama's watch, not to mention a majority of governors are republican so I am not real clear on the point you are trying to make.I suppose you mean that the liberal portion of America has had enough about republican obstructionism - as for me - keep it coming. Also, each time a candidate wins the election he seems to think he has a mandate, and each time is proven wrong. He, or possibly she, can do nothing without some negotiation with congress. Edited March 15, 2016 by SpokaneAl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpokaneAl Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 (edited) Sanders' plans for spending my money keep growing and growing . . . http://www.livetrucking.com/bernie-sander-says-hell-take-semis-off-the-road-if-elected/ Edited March 15, 2016 by SpokaneAl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtsabai Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 A state of the art rail system is badly needed in the states. I didn't hear Bernie say he was planning on shutting down the trucking industry. Do you have any idea how long it would take to build a true state of the art rail system (system is the key word here) in the States? If I was an over the road trucker I don't believe I would have much worries. Certainly local trucking would not be affected by his plans. BTW, I spent a lot of my childhood and early teens around trains, my dad worked for the Missouri Pacific and retired from them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomerangutang Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 This was interesting . . . https://medium.com/@kimballmortensen/10-reasons-why-conservatives-should-start-supporting-bernie-sanders-immediately-7eb700302a2a#.izbwqwm4i Not even slightly interesting. An election win by Bernie gives him a clear mandate to introduce legislation in Congress to enact the social changes he proposes. He has the backing of the People and if Republicans think for one second they can deny the will of the electorate then that would be beautiful. Nothing would please me more. The American People have had enough of Republican obstructionist Congress. How many times did Republicans block supply bills and the last time they did it the Electorate made it quite clear they would be relegated to political backwaters. If they aren't already there. The usual 'can't win fair and square then game the system' Republican attitude. Actually republicans took over the house majority and most recently the senate majority under Obama's watch, not to mention a majority of governors are republican so I am not real clear on the point you are trying to make.I suppose you mean that the liberal portion of America has had enough about republican obstructionism - as for me - keep it coming. Also, each time a candidate wins the election he seems to think he has a mandate, and each time is proven wrong. He, or possibly she, can do nothing without some negotiation with congress. talking heads predict Reps will lose more than a few seats in upcoming Congressional face-offs. You're somewhat right about mandates. Obama pledged to close Gitmo but hasn't been able to yet. Republicans block that, as they block everything else. It seems Reps don't have a problem with US spending $2.7 million per prisoner per year. "I suppose you mean that the liberal portion of America has had enough about republican obstructionism - as for me - keep it coming." That's another point we differ upon. I favor forward movement. Reps are comfortable with putting on the brakes or, as Trump would say, "delay, delay, delay." It's ironic that Republican voters make so much noise about Washington not doing anything, yet it's their very Republican foot-draggers who are the problem. If an American wants Congressmen and women to do their jobs, they should vote in people who know the issues, and can get things done. Hopefully, those same leaders have at least a bit of wisdom and compassion ....well, that eliminates the Republican candidates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 This was interesting . . . https://medium.com/@kimballmortensen/10-reasons-why-conservatives-should-start-supporting-bernie-sanders-immediately-7eb700302a2a#.izbwqwm4i Not even slightly interesting. An election win by Bernie gives him a clear mandate to introduce legislation in Congress to enact the social changes he proposes. He has the backing of the People and if Republicans think for one second they can deny the will of the electorate then that would be beautiful. Nothing would please me more. The American People have had enough of Republican obstructionist Congress. How many times did Republicans block supply bills and the last time they did it the Electorate made it quite clear they would be relegated to political backwaters. If they aren't already there. The usual 'can't win fair and square then game the system' Republican attitude. Actually republicans took over the house majority and most recently the senate majority under Obama's watch, not to mention a majority of governors are republican so I am not real clear on the point you are trying to make.I suppose you mean that the liberal portion of America has had enough about republican obstructionism - as for me - keep it coming. Also, each time a candidate wins the election he seems to think he has a mandate, and each time is proven wrong. He, or possibly she, can do nothing without some negotiation with congress. talking heads predict Reps will lose more than a few seats in upcoming Congressional face-offs. You're somewhat right about mandates. Obama pledged to close Gitmo but hasn't been able to yet. Republicans block that, as they block everything else. It seems Reps don't have a problem with US spending $2.7 million per prisoner per year. "I suppose you mean that the liberal portion of America has had enough about republican obstructionism - as for me - keep it coming." That's another point we differ upon. I favor forward movement. Reps are comfortable with putting on the brakes or, as Trump would say, "delay, delay, delay." It's ironic that Republican voters make so much noise about Washington not doing anything, yet it's their very Republican foot-draggers who are the problem. If an American wants Congressmen and women to do their jobs, they should vote in people who know the issues, and can get things done. Hopefully, those same leaders have at least a bit of wisdom and compassion ....well, that eliminates the Republican candidates. The Senate voted in 2015 barring the transfer of any GITMO prisoners to the US. The vote was 91 - 3. Unless 37 Democrats suddenly changed parties, the vote would have to be considered as one the Democrats favor as well. Blaming the Republicans for the Democrats vote is a no-no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpokaneAl Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 This was interesting . . .https://medium.com/@kimballmortensen/10-reasons-why-conservatives-should-start-supporting-bernie-sanders-immediately-7eb700302a2a#.izbwqwm4i Not even slightly interesting. An election win by Bernie gives him a clear mandate to introduce legislation in Congress to enact the social changes he proposes. He has the backing of the People and if Republicans think for one second they can deny the will of the electorate then that would be beautiful. Nothing would please me more. The American People have had enough of Republican obstructionist Congress. How many times did Republicans block supply bills and the last time they did it the Electorate made it quite clear they would be relegated to political backwaters. If they aren't already there.The usual 'can't win fair and square then game the system' Republican attitude.Actually republicans took over the house majority and most recently the senate majority under Obama's watch, not to mention a majority of governors are republican so I am not real clear on the point you are trying to make.I suppose you mean that the liberal portion of America has had enough about republican obstructionism - as for me - keep it coming.Also, each time a candidate wins the election he seems to think he has a mandate, and each time is proven wrong. He, or possibly she, can do nothing without some negotiation with congress. talking heads predict Reps will lose more than a few seats in upcoming Congressional face-offs. You're somewhat right about mandates. Obama pledged to close Gitmo but hasn't been able to yet. Republicans block that, as they block everything else. It seems Reps don't have a problem with US spending $2.7 million per prisoner per year. "I suppose you mean that the liberal portion of America has had enough about republican obstructionism - as for me - keep it coming."That's another point we differ upon. I favor forward movement. Reps are comfortable with putting on the brakes or, as Trump would say, "delay, delay, delay."It's ironic that Republican voters make so much noise about Washington not doing anything, yet it's their very Republican foot-draggers who are the problem. If an American wants Congressmen and women to do their jobs, they should vote in people who know the issues, and can get things done. Hopefully, those same leaders have at least a bit of wisdom and compassion ....well, that eliminates the Republican candidates. The Senate voted in 2015 barring the transfer of any GITMO prisoners to the US.The vote was 91 - 3.Unless 37 Democrats suddenly changed parties, the vote would have to be considered as one the Democrats favor as well.Blaming the Republicans for the Democrats vote is a no-no. Both sides are very proficient at blocking legislation. When the democrats had a senate majority Harry Reid and his team did a very effective job of blocking bills generated in the house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stillbornagain Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 (edited) Basically Trump lies every five minutes on the average.( That's probably about half as much as Hillary. 57% think she is NOT honest or trustworthy. I remember there was somebody you might be familiar with touting Politifact's rating of Obama's claim about Obamacare as the lie of the year. He made quite a big deal about it and repeated it over and over. I wonder why he's been so curiously reticent about Politifact's 2015 winner: the campaign of Donald Trump. "PolitiFact has been documenting Trump’s statements on our Truth-O-Meter, where we’ve rated 76 percent of them Mostly False, False or Pants on Fire, out of 77 statements checked. No other politician has as many statements rated so far down on the dial." No other politician http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/dec/21/2015-lie-year-donald-trump-campaign-misstatements/ Care to rephrase your statement? Edited March 15, 2016 by stillbornagain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWMcMurray Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 (edited) No way a Bernie supporter is going to vote Republican. Simply isn't going to happen.Speak for yourself..It's this opinion by DNC powers that be that make it so they feel they can shaft Bernie and appoint Hillary.. As Bernie supporter have no were to go and at the end of the day must vote for Hillary I am a Bernie supporter.. Voted for him in Primary and would vote for him in the fall I refuse to vote for Hillary If she wins and Trump wins.. I'd vote for Trump Okay, up to you. You do realize HRC and Trump are polar opposites? That makes you a very confused and unusual voter. Come on, voters are not going over to Trump if HRC is the nominee. That's wingnut thinking. You hate her so much, you'd vote for a lying racist buffoon. That's pathetic. You wouldn't really vote for Bernie, would you? That's just wishful thinking by the Trumpeteers. Politico checked 4 and half hours of Trump stump speeches and press conferences and found 5 dozen statements where he either mischaracterized, exaggerated or just outright lied. Basically Trump lies every five minutes on the average. That's your man. Where are we this week Publicus? 25% chance of Trump getting elected? He's not my man but would find him the lesser of 2 evils if Hillary gets the Democratic ticketAnd yes I absolutely would vote for Bernie if he won the Democratic nomination I agree with Bernie's belief in where America should end up If he is nominated, great... He will win and we are there I just don't believe the Democratic Party would go there in General election unless Hillary is defeated this time and Trump wins Trump victory melts down the Republican Party and Hillary's loss to a so called bafoon by many.. While at the same time polls showing Bernie would have stomped Trump may just push the Democratic Party to rethink Hillary can say 'me too' all she wants in the Primaries but don't believe her for a second Trump may be a bit crazy but he may shake things up with corporate America , campaign finance and the drug companies Of course don't agree with him on immigration or some of his other policies but think even if he does a horrible job, still think it works out better in the long run and a mediocre middle same old politics Hillary presidency Of course if Rubio or Cruz gets the Republican nod , would then either vote for Clinton or sit this one out... So a vote for Trump in my case would not be as a die hard supporter but rather some one looking at the long game Not short term 'safety' Think about it.. What does a Hillary presidency bring? Think any real change? My guess is just after 4 years of Hillary.. Would just lead to what ever the Republicans put up next election winning Then where does that leave Bernie's ideas.. Gone for another 10-20 years at least Edited March 15, 2016 by CWMcMurray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWMcMurray Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 This was interesting . . . https://medium.com/@kimballmortensen/10-reasons-why-conservatives-should-start-supporting-bernie-sanders-immediately-7eb700302a2a#.izbwqwm4i Not even slightly interesting. An election win by Bernie gives him a clear mandate to introduce legislation in Congress to enact the social changes he proposes. He has the backing of the People and if Republicans think for one second they can deny the will of the electorate then that would be beautiful. Nothing would please me more. The American People have had enough of Republican obstructionist Congress. How many times did Republicans block supply bills and the last time they did it the Electorate made it quite clear they would be relegated to political backwaters. If they aren't already there. The usual 'can't win fair and square then game the system' Republican attitude. I disagree and can't find any reason that should be dissuading conservatives from voting for Bernie Every vote for Bernie is a good thing I say share the article to all your friends Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWMcMurray Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 This just in. . . . . I get mailings from the Sanders campaign, and here are the latest numbers. . . . . . "down only by single digits (compared to Hillary) in Ohio and Illinois and up by one in Missouri. We're also doing better in polls in Florida and North Carolina than we were before we won in Michigan." Boomers adds: If you're a HRC supporter, gird yourself for some upsets manana. Ensuing primaries include all 3 west coast states, which Bernie should win. Thanks for the 'insider' news boomer. I hope Bernie does well. Nice of you to give a 'heads up' to HRC supporters. Hopefully they will be well girded should Bernie take a lot of Delegates that they weren't expecting. Or perhaps they will begin to realize that Bernie is the Better Candidate and change their support Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtsabai Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 I agree with you CW. Perhaps up2 didn't read the article correctly. Damn, Bernie needs all the votes he can get and conservatives are NOT right wingers. Unfortunately I thing true conservatives are rare and far between. Look back to Ike who frankly is to the left of Democrat Party today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtsabai Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 damn, did it again, think, not thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 No way a Bernie supporter is going to vote Republican. Simply isn't going to happen. Speak for yourself.. It's this opinion by DNC powers that be that make it so they feel they can shaft Bernie and appoint Hillary.. As Bernie supporter have no were to go and at the end of the day must vote for Hillary I am a Bernie supporter.. Voted for him in Primary and would vote for him in the fall I refuse to vote for Hillary If she wins and Trump wins.. I'd vote for Trump Okay, up to you. You do realize HRC and Trump are polar opposites? That makes you a very confused and unusual voter. Come on, voters are not going over to Trump if HRC is the nominee. That's wingnut thinking. You hate her so much, you'd vote for a lying racist buffoon. That's pathetic. You wouldn't really vote for Bernie, would you? That's just wishful thinking by the Trumpeteers. Politico checked 4 and half hours of Trump stump speeches and press conferences and found 5 dozen statements where he either mischaracterized, exaggerated or just outright lied. Basically Trump lies every five minutes on the average. That's your man. Where are we this week Publicus? 25% chance of Trump getting elected? Where are we this week Publicus? 25% chance of Trump getting elected? Yep. Hasn't changed since day after Super Tuesday. While HRC's Potus odds at Vegas are fluctuating on this eve of the March 15 primaries between being the 1-2 odds-on favorite since Super Tuesday (66.7% probability) to today's 4-9 odds (69.2% probability), Donald remains at 3-1 in Vegas (25%). Clinton for the D nomination has odds today of 1-12 or a probability of 83.3% (which does of course make HRC the odds-on favorite as in very odds-on and the very favorite). Trump's Vegas odds to win the R nomination remain at 1-3 or 75% probability. Cruz comes second to Trump in today's odds. Ted Cruz' already looong odds for the nomination have improved recently, to 7-2 (22.2%) up from 9-2 day after Super Tuesday (18.1%). Cruz needs to win something today (our time) or risk higher water, up to his nose. Cruz' odds are very low but the news for him is that the odds are tightening (around his neck). Kasich's odds are tightening too so he's now all the way up to 9-1 for the R nomination (10%) so he has only one way to go, which is up....to maybe 12% if he wins Ohio. Forget it. A campaign that might carry in to the convention might give K some close your eyes and pray hard possibility. The Rube for the R nomination is today at 40-1 or 2.4%. Here's the killer though. Vegas odds on which party, no names, wins in November... D Party have odds of 2-5 which is 71.4% probability. R Party have odds of 7-4 or the percentage probability of 36.3%. (Over in London, Wm Hill has the R party no candidate name at 9-5 odds, or 35.7% probability, so the good newz for the good guyz spreads across the board. Btw, 35.7% at Wm Hill suggests the R party popular vote percentage in November if Trump is the nominee.) Odds aren't everything but over hundreds of years a lotta people make a lotta green in futures markets of all kinds in numerous categories of goods and services, goods especially and the D's winning in November is the ultimate political good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 This was interesting . . . https://medium.com/@kimballmortensen/10-reasons-why-conservatives-should-start-supporting-bernie-sanders-immediately-7eb700302a2a#.izbwqwm4i Not even slightly interesting. An election win by Bernie gives him a clear mandate to introduce legislation in Congress to enact the social changes he proposes. He has the backing of the People and if Republicans think for one second they can deny the will of the electorate then that would be beautiful. Nothing would please me more. The American People have had enough of Republican obstructionist Congress. How many times did Republicans block supply bills and the last time they did it the Electorate made it quite clear they would be relegated to political backwaters. If they aren't already there. The usual 'can't win fair and square then game the system' Republican attitude. The Congress introduces legislation. Ironically, introducing legislation is something Bernie can do now but can not to as President. Members of the House and the Senate of the party of Potus introduce legislative proposals sent to them by the Potus. They do it as a courtesy. Legislative proposals are sent in the exact legal language by Potus. Each propsoal can and is always amended later as nothing gets through word for word. While the vp is president of the Senate, he is not authorised either by the Constitution to introduce legislation as he is a part of the executive branch who can sit in the Senate to vote only in the event of a tie. Constitution thus gives the executive branch that edge. Which brings us to the Democratic party (sorry to talk to you about one political party only as I really don't intend to offend one's tender moral and independent sensibilities) gaining a majority control of the Senate in November. D's need a net win of five senators in the election to gain 51 of the 100 senators. However, if the D's win the White House, they'd need only four, which means, with six R senators up for reelection in Blue states, the anti political party sensibilities of some might get offended further. Sorry again but real life goes on and so do the political parties in each democracy of the West and elsewhere. Well, maybe not the Republican party after this election. That's because they're going to run a political arsonist as their candidate. Don the Torch. The Blowtorch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keemapoot Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 This was interesting . . . https://medium.com/@kimballmortensen/10-reasons-why-conservatives-should-start-supporting-bernie-sanders-immediately-7eb700302a2a#.izbwqwm4i Not even slightly interesting. An election win by Bernie gives him a clear mandate to introduce legislation in Congress to enact the social changes he proposes. He has the backing of the People and if Republicans think for one second they can deny the will of the electorate then that would be beautiful. Nothing would please me more. The American People have had enough of Republican obstructionist Congress. How many times did Republicans block supply bills and the last time they did it the Electorate made it quite clear they would be relegated to political backwaters. If they aren't already there. The usual 'can't win fair and square then game the system' Republican attitude. The Congress introduces legislation. Ironically, introducing legislation is something Bernie can do now but can not to as President. Members of the House and the Senate of the party of Potus introduce legislative proposals sent to them by the Potus. They do it as a courtesy. Legislative proposals are sent in the exact legal language by Potus. Each propsoal can and is always amended later as nothing gets through word for word. While the vp is president of the Senate, he is not authorised either by the Constitution to introduce legislation as he is a part of the executive branch who can sit in the Senate to vote only in the event of a tie. Constitution thus gives the executive branch that edge. Which brings us to the Democratic party (sorry to talk to you about one political party only as I really don't intend to offend one's tender moral and independent sensibilities) gaining a majority control of the Senate in November. D's need a net win of five senators in the election to gain 51 of the 100 senators. However, if the D's win the White House, they'd need only four, which means, with six R senators up for reelection in Blue states, the anti political party sensibilities of some might get offended further. Sorry again but real life goes on and so do the political parties in each democracy of the West and elsewhere. Well, maybe not the Republican party after this election. That's because they're going to run a political arsonist as their candidate. Don the Torch. The Blowtorch. Before George W. starting expanding Executive Privilege, and as we have seen Obama continuing this trend and consolidation in the office of the Presidency, I never really thought the office of POTUS carried too much power which might upset the beautiful balance of power mechanisms put in place by the framers of the Constitution. For those of us who have formally studied that document, it is a thing of real beauty. But, BOTH recent Presidents (Republican and Democrat) have started a dangerous trend of getting away with wielding more power than the office originally granted. Having said the above, I agree with your assessment of the POTUS "power to legislate" which normally is not overt. With a democrat President and Senate it really does set up a trifecta possibility: Dems win the POTUS, Dems win the Sentate, and Dems appoint a new Supreme Court Justice (assuming most probably the GOP successfully opposes any Obama nomination). The GOP looks set to really take the biggest setback in generations. As I mentioned earlier, that is not necessarily a good thing for the country unless by some slim chance, Sanders should win. The most likely outcome, as you've correctly documented in many threads with your probability analysis and citation of Vegas & London odds, is a Clinton win, which I think would result in steady governance, but little reform in the party which is needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now