Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sheb]

Including superdelegates?

[smjjames]

Kasich has to start actually winning states and delegates before he can get the nomination.

Right now Rubio has 10 and Kasich 5 to Trumps 67.

Right now, yes, and I'm sure you know what I mean here.

Including superdelegates?

No, Clinton has an almost 400 superdelegate lead.

[penguinofhonor]

I believe pledged delegates are specifically non-super delegates.

[RedKing]

They want "fire in the belly". And Trump has a fucking furnace full of it, even if it's mostly manufactured for entertainment purposes.

But all Rubio is ever going to be is a poor second best to Trump in that regard.  Kasich can at least claim the right to look down on Trump.  He can point to his record and ask who the hell Trump thinks he is to come in and ruin everything.  Rubio can't do that because Rubio doesn't actually have a record to run on.  Trump would salivate at the prospect of Rubio trying to run on his weak sauce record.

Again, you're thinking too smart. Put yourself in the rank-and-file's shoes. They're mad. Who up there on the stage is mad too? That Kasich fella doesn't even raise his voice, he's probably happy with having a Muslim in the White House. That Rubio fella at least gets worked up a little bit. But not near as much as Cruz and Trump.

Granted, those sort of voters aren't likely to gravitate to Rubio *or* Kasich. The actual establishment voters and support are looking at "who's currently doing the best?" By that standard, Rubio is outperforming Kasich. Seems pretty simple to me.

[sluissa]

P.S. I think I saw an article which said Clinton and Sanders are 51-51 for pledged delegates.

They are.

This is true but as of this moment there's still one undecided from Nevada. Still, whichever way it falls, thats only a 1 delegate lead in the only race that should matter. This race isn't over by a long shot.

[RedKing]

Taking a look forward to Super Tuesday, and the polling margins (newest polls used, where available):

Democrats:

Alabama (66): Clinton 59, Sanders 31
American Samoa (10): no poll results (Clinton will likely win -- territories tend to vote establishment)
Arkansas (37): Clinton 57, Sanders 32
Colorado (79): Sanders 49, Clinton 43
Expat vote (17): no poll results (Anecdotal evidence that Sanders has a strong following abroad)
Georgia (117): Clinton 60, Sanders 26
Massachusetts (116): Sanders 46, Clinton 46
Minnesota (93): Clinton 59, Sanders 25 (poll is a month old)
Oklahoma (42): Clinton 46, Sanders 44
South Carolina (59): Clinton 60, Sanders 32
Tennessee (76): Clinton 58, Sanders 32
Texas (252): Clinton 57, Sanders 34
Vermont (26): Sanders 86, Clinton 10
Virginia (109): Clinton 56, Sanders 34

So out of all those (and I lumped SC in, because it's in the same primary "week"), Sanders looks set to win 3 (VT, CO, expat vote) and maybe squeak out a win in MA. Clinton looks set to win 10, and could squeak out a win in MA. And her margins of victory are larger. To put it another way, Sanders needs to be winning Massachusetts by 35 points, to offset losing Georgia by 35 points, since they're almost identical in delegate share.

Put simply, the South is going to kill Sanders -- several large states that Clinton is set to win by hefty margins. He's going to destroy her in Vermont, but it doesn't matter because Vermont has about 0.5% of the total delegate pool.

But now you see why the hubbub over Sanders possibly winning the Latino vote is causing such a stir -- if they could swing Texas and Colorado his way and give him an edge in Massachusetts, that might give him the momentum to carry forward. If he developed the kind of advantage with Latinos that Clinton has with blacks (which I don't see happening unless she puts on a bullfighter mustache and makes Speedy Gonzalez impressions), then June 7 would be his chance at a comeback: several Latino-heavy states (California, New Jersey, New Mexico, Puerto Rico) are on the ballot, including mammoth California.

[Wolock]

P.S. I think I saw an article which said Clinton and Sanders are 51-51 for pledged delegates.

They are.

This is true but as of this moment there's still one undecided from Nevada. Still, whichever way it falls, thats only a 1 delegate lead in the only race that should matter. This race isn't over by a long shot.

Also Bernie needs to do more than 50% to get superdelegates or to flip those of Hillary. Also Bernie needs a big endorsement like Obama got from Ted Kennedy in 2008 to have a chance to win.

[Loud Whispers]

I never did get why Canada was such an attractive destination for Chinese immigrants. It seems to have become popular with Chinese estate agents for some reason, even my area that's just called Canada Water seems to have grown that same connection. Basically China numba 1

[mainiac]

Wouldn't you want to immigrate to a wealthy county if you lived in China but you had the option?

[RedKing]

I never did get why Canada was such an attractive destination for Chinese immigrants. It seems to have become popular with Chinese estate agents for some reason, even my area that's just called Canada Water seems to have grown that same connection. Basically China numba 1

Same reasons as California -- gold mining and railroad labor. And once you have a large enough nucleus of Chinese people, it becomes an attractive destination because it has Chinese people already there.

[RedKing]

Heh...not the normal route to hear people complaining about immigrants raising the property values. 

[Wolock]

I think it started when the UK decided to give back Hong Kong to China. Fearing that the chinese government would seize their wealth they invested and stashed it in another commonwealth nation.

[mainiac]

China has too much money chasing too few investments.  There is already a glut in real estate markets and manufacturing so overseas flows make sense.

[RedKing]

I think it started when the UK decided to give back Hong Kong to China. Fearing that the chinese government would seize their wealth they invested and stashed it in another commonwealth nation.

Not so much. HK is a huge investor in the mainland. As is Taiwan.
And vice versa, HK is a huge destination for mainland investment capital.

Overall, China accounts for only about 3 percent of FDI in Canada. Now, Canadians of Chinese origin....that may be a different story.

[Loud Whispers]

Wouldn't you want to immigrate to a wealthy county if you lived in China but you had the option?

No, no, that is obvious. The question is why Canada in particular? Why Canada Water in particular?

Same reasons as California -- gold mining and railroad labor. And once you have a large enough nucleus of Chinese people, it becomes an attractive destination because it has Chinese people already there.

Then the growth would've appeared around Chinatowns and existing nuclei :P

I think it started when the UK decided to give back Hong Kong to China. Fearing that the chinese government would seize their wealth they invested and stashed it in another commonwealth nation.

Massive capital flows out of China happen all over the mainland. Hong Kong actually helps capital flow back to China as foreign investors feel safer investing in Hong Kong than mainland China (even if such feelings are mostly illusion heh)