Originally Posted by MordecaiK

This religious studies PH.D. knows of quite a few religious beliefs that condone racism. Hindu beliefs on caste are the biggest numerically, obviously. And if you want to see them at their rawest, rent http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109206/ The Bandit Queen on Netflix. Of course the US has a fair number of "identity Christian" cults and LDS offshoots that follow Cleon Skousen's Anglo-Israelite teachings too.

Fortunately for me I don't run with that crew. Most of my friends are traditional Christians.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Not even the Jews were able to enforce redistribution of wealth in jubilees for very long. The result was the highly unequal society that Jesus grew up in and ultimately, the Destruction of the Temple.

I have found no evidence that the Jews actually practiced the Jubilee concept. It is just that I like the concept for both individuals and organizations ( Religious & Secular).

Here is someone else's projection. I disagree with his politics, but his methods have been very good in recent Presidential elections.

http://www.electionprojection.com/pr...-elections.php





His most recent view of the states:

State Trump Clinton Projection
Alabama 9 — Solid Trump
Alaska 3 — Solid Trump
Arizona 11 — Strong Trump
Arkansas 6 — Solid Trump
California — 55 Solid Clinton
Colorado 9 — Mod Trump
Connecticut — 7 Solid Clinton
Delaware — 3 Solid Clinton
Dist. of Columbia — 3 Solid Clinton
Florida — 29 Weak Clinton
Georgia 16 — Mod Trump
Hawaii — 4 Solid Clinton
Idaho 4 — Solid Trump
Illinois — 20 Solid Clinton
Indiana 11 — Strong Trump
Iowa — 6 Weak Clinton
Kansas 6 — Solid Trump
Kentucky 8 — Solid Trump
Louisiana 8 — Strong Trump
Maine — 4 Strong Clinton
Maryland — 10 Solid Clinton
Massachusetts — 11 Solid Clinton
Michigan — 16 Mod Clinton
Minnesota — 10 Mod Clinton
Mississippi 6 — Strong Trump
Missouri 10 — Strong Trump
Montana 3 — Strong Trump
Nebraska 5 — Solid Trump
Nevada — 6 Mod Clinton
New Hampshire — 4 Weak Clinton
New Jersey — 14 Solid Clinton
New Mexico — 5 Mod Clinton
New York — 29 Solid Clinton
North Carolina — 15 Weak Clinton
North Dakota 3 — Solid Trump
Ohio — 18 Weak Clinton
Oklahoma 7 — Solid Trump
Oregon — 7 Strong Clinton
Pennsylvania — 20 Weak Clinton
Rhode Island — 4 Solid Clinton
South Carolina 9 — Strong Trump
South Dakota 3 — Solid Trump
Tennessee 11 — Solid Trump
Texas 38 — Solid Trump
Utah 6 — Solid Trump
Vermont — 3 Solid Clinton
Virginia — 13 Weak Clinton
Washington — 12 Strong Clinton
West Virginia 5 — Solid Trump
Wisconsin — 10 Mod Clinton
Wyoming 3 — Solid Trump
BOLD – change from 2012
Race ratings:
“Weak” – under 5%
“Mod” – 5% to under 10%
“Strong” – 10% to 15%
“Solid” – over 15%

New projection with Arizona, which has gone for a Democratic nominee for President only once since 1948.

Hillary Clinton(D) vs. Ted Cruz (R)




Hillary Clinton vs. John Kasich





Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump



30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

White -- tie or someone leading with less than 40%.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Your idea of a Democratic moderate is either

(1) someone ready to leave the Democratic Party for the Republican Party, or

(2) someone who would take dictation from the leadership of the GOP -- the analogues being leaders of the tolerated 'bourgeois' minor parties in the old German Democratic Republic.

My idea of a moderate Democrat was Bill Clinton and I don't expect his wife to be much different than him.

Polls involving Bernie Sanders:

Bernie Sanders vs. Ted Cruz




Bernie Sanders vs. John Kasich




Bernie Sanders vs. Donald Trump



30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

White -- tie or someone leading with less than 40%.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

My idea of a moderate Democrat was Bill Clinton and I don't expect his wife to be much different than him.

OK, I can buy that. BTW, who is a moderate Republican? Are there any?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

OK, I can buy that. BTW, who is a moderate Republican? Are there any?

And beyond that, if one assumes that William Buckley was the intellectual center of conservatism, back in the day, who might we point to that has taken his place?

For a time, I thought George Will would be the natural heir to Buckley, but he's turned into just another Republican bumper sticker writer.

Originally Posted by TnT

And beyond that, if one assumes that William Buckley was the intellectual center of conservatism, back in the day, who might we point to that has taken his place?

For a time, I thought George Will would be the natural heir to Buckley, but he's turned into just another Republican bumper sticker writer.

I think conservatism today has become inherently un-intellectual, and so there is no such person.

Hillary Clinton has a slight lead over Donald Trump in Utah, of all places. It's only 38-36, and in my color scheme a lead with less than 40% of the vote counts as a tie.

Maybe Donald Trump could underperform Barry Goldwater, who lost the state almost 55-45 in 1964, the only time since 1948 that Utah went for the Democratic nominee for President. Cruz and Kasich do about as well as most other Republican nominees for President (Romney excepted, for obvious reasons) have done in other elections beginning in 1952.

I'm guessing that there might be a significant write-in vote for Mitt Romney in Utah in November, assuming that Trump wins the nomination.

....North Carolina, PPP, a North Carolina-based pollster.

The strongest Republican candidate for President in North Carolina is the one the party is least likely to nominate. John Kasich is the only hopeful in either party with a positive favorability among voters in the state- 36% have a good opinion of him to just 31% with a negative one. He leads Hillary Clinton 49/41 and Bernie Sanders 44/41 in hypothetical contests in the state.

It looks like Republicans are going to nominate either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz though, and they both trail the Democratic candidates by small margins. Clinton leads Trump 44/42, and Sanders has a 48/41 advantage over him. While 81-82% of Republicans would support Cruz or Kasich over Clinton, only 73% say they would vote for Trump. He has a 31/58 favorability rating in the state, and his unpopularity is such that 15-18% of voters- including 22-25% of Republicans- say they would vote for a conservative independent candidate if he was the nominee and that was an option for them. Clinton and Sanders each lead Cruz by identical 45/42 spreads. “If Republicans nominated John Kasich it looks like North Carolina would go back to being a solidly red state at the Presidential level like it was before 2008,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “But since their nominee is likely to be the unpopular Trump or Cruz, North Carolina is likely to retain its new found swing state status this fall.”

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/p...e_NC_32216.pdf


Hillary Clinton(D) vs. Ted Cruz (R)




Hillary Clinton vs. John Kasich





Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump



30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

White -- tie or someone leading with less than 40%.

Bernie Sanders is more electable in Utah in November, according to this poll. That's relevant should Donald Trump be the nominee, and not so relevant should Cruz or Kasich be the nominee. The poll by KSL-TV (NBC 5 in Salt Lake City) and Deseret News gives Bernie Sanders a 48-37 edge.

You may want to see it to believe it:


http://www.ksl.com/?sid=38970451&nid=960

From the source:

If Donald Trump becomes the Republican Party's nominee, Utahns would vote for a Democrat for president in November for the first time in more than 50 years, according to a new Deseret News/KSL poll.

"I believe Donald Trump could lose Utah. If you lose Utah as a Republican, there is no hope," said former Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt, a top campaign adviser to the GOP's 2012 nominee, Mitt Romney.

The poll found that may well be true. Utah voters said they would reject Trump, the GOP frontrunner, whether former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton or Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is the Democratic candidate on the general election ballot.

.
.
.
Also surprising is the number of Utahns who said they wouldn't vote if Trump were on the ballot. Sixteen percent said they'd skip the election if Trump and Clinton were their ballot choices, while 9 percent said they wouldn't vote if it was a Trump-Sanders matchup.



The red space for Utah in the Sanders-Trump matchup is no optical illusion and is not in error.

North Carolina. PPP. See notes on the preceding post.

Bernie Sanders vs. Ted Cruz




Bernie Sanders vs. John Kasich




Bernie Sanders vs. Donald Trump



30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

White -- tie or someone leading with less than 40%.

Bernie is more electable period. The DNC don't wanna run him

Originally Posted by marypoza

Bernie is more electable period. The DNC don't wanna run him

Yes, polls show he's more electable. The DNC cannot stop him from being nominated. The Democratic Party voters needed to get behind him. Not quite enough have done so. I'd vote for him, but it's not going to be enough, apparently.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yes, polls show he's more electable. The DNC cannot stop him from being nominated. The Democratic Party voters needed to get behind him. Not quite enough have done so. I'd vote for him, but it's not going to be enough, apparently.

That's a poll or two now.
When Trump makes clear that Bernie will 'help' the Middle Class by raising their taxes while he will dramatically cut them, Trump will win the election. This is about the only way Trump can win the election.
No way for Bernie to use the voodoo economics counter because his own economics has been labeled unicorn economics by Krugman and other Leftie economists.
With Bernie out except for all the crying, we really dodged a bullet.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yes, polls show he's more electable. The DNC cannot stop him from being nominated. The Democratic Party voters needed to get behind him. Not quite enough have done so. I'd vote for him, but it's not going to be enough, apparently.

The point is that if Bernie is nominated, almost all Hillary voters will vote for Bernie. If Hillary is nominated, Bernie voters will not support Hillary so much. Even against Trump. Because at the end of the day, Hillary believes in war and free trade and Trump dosen't.

And Bernie just won Idaho and Utah with over 75% of the vote, cancelling out Hillary's gain in delegates in Arizona and then some. Washington, Alaska and Hawaii are up next this Saturday. Then in two weeks....On Wisconsin!

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

The point is that if Bernie is nominated, almost all Hillary voters will vote for Bernie. If Hillary is nominated, Bernie voters will not support Hillary so much. Even against Trump. Because at the end of the day, Hillary believes in war and free trade and Trump dosen't.

I'm technically Center Right and it's likely that if Sanders is the Dem candidate, I will be voting for my first Socialist in 30ish years. I can't see the GOP resolving its current crisis in a manner that would give me a candidate I can vote for in November.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

The point is that if Bernie is nominated, almost all Hillary voters will vote for Bernie. If Hillary is nominated, Bernie voters will not support Hillary so much. Even against Trump. Because at the end of the day, Hillary believes in war and free trade and Trump dosen't.

Trump will not dose off; that much I agree with you on.

But generalizations like "Hillary believes in war and free trade and Trump doesn't" are just false. I don't think most people will agree with you either.

It's true though; it's hard to teach people anything on here. People have their own habits and opinions, and they don't hardly budge from them, regardless of facts. Even from incorrect spelling.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

The point is that if Bernie is nominated, almost all Hillary voters will vote for Bernie. If Hillary is nominated, Bernie voters will not support Hillary so much. Even against Trump. Because at the end of the day, Hillary believes in war and free trade and Trump dosen't.

As she has always done, Clinton will provide a measured response. Will it be 100% perfect retrospectively in the eyes of people who will never get close to such decision making? Probable not.
Trump will go where the greatest adoration lies. If you think the Neoconservative or the oligarchs don't know that and will manipulate to move as far away from what you believe is best you're in for a big surprise.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

And Bernie just won Idaho and Utah with over 75% of the vote, cancelling out Hillary's gain in delegates in Arizona and then some. Washington, Alaska and Hawaii are up next this Saturday. Then in two weeks....On Wisconsin!

Check the percentage of remaining delegates Sanders needs to win now. People tend to forget the denominator as these primaries move forward - at least until it becomes clear that there's ittle more that can be added to the top or the bottom to make a difference.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Check the percentage of remaining delegates Sanders needs to win now. People tend to forget the denominator as these primaries move forward - at least until it becomes clear that there's ittle more that can be added to the top or the bottom to make a difference.

Do you have a link?

Originally Posted by playwrite

Check the percentage of remaining delegates Sanders needs to win now. People tend to forget the denominator as these primaries move forward - at least until it becomes clear that there's ittle more that can be added to the top or the bottom to make a difference.

A good analogue is a sports season. In baseball, a team has 162 games in which to win a division. A team that starts out 35-5 may not be all that great -- well, nobody would confuse the 1984 Detroit Tigers (which has no players in the Baseball Hall of Fame) with the 1927 New York Yankees, but that team has completed nearly a quarter of the season and made catching up difficult. 122 games remain, and if the team is only mediocre the rest of the season, going 61-61, it still gets 96 wins. The Tigers in fact went 69-53 the rest of the season, which projects to a good-but-not-great 92-70 season that can be good enough to win a divisional title. The Tigers could simply grind the season down from there, which is exactly what they did. The Tigers played cautious baseball, not making trades that could gut the minor-league team and not letting regulars spend too much time on the field.

In a game? When the Dallas Cowboys had a great record under Head Coach Tom Landry, the Cowboys typically got a huge lead early and then ground down the remaining time on the clock. If they were up 28-3 at half time -- well, get four touchdowns and shut down the Cowboys' offense completely, and you win. Landry changed the strategy. The other team faced the nickel-back defense that allowed the other team to slowly gain its way down the field while the clock runs out. That allows the other team to look good while losing, but it practically ensures a win for a team up by a big margin. So what if a team tries to force faster scoring? The Cowboy defense was going to turn high-risk plays into interceptions and kill even more time or expand the margin. The Cowboy offense was likely to slow down the game on offense, taking precious time from the opposition. So a 28-3 lead at halftime might end up 31-20 but it still was a win. Things could have been worse for the losing team, but the Cowboys won. That's what mattered to the Cowboys.

So it is with delegate races. If a candidate is up 54-3 with 1500 to go, then that isn't insurmountable. If he is up 540-489 then the leader is up by a difficult margin to overtake. 1029 delegates are already determined, with 471 to go.

The candidate ahead at the time needs only 211 delegates to win. The candidate behind needs 262. The candidate ahead wins if he gets 44.8% of the remaining delegates; the candidate behind needs to get 55.6% of the remaining delegates to win. That is not so decisive.

Yes, the early 54-3 start looks impressive and imposing, but the candidate ahead still needs 697 more delegates and the one behind needs 748 of the remaining 1493 delegates. The one ahead needs to win 46.7% of what remains; the one behind must win 53.3%. That's not so imposing. Most games are won by running out the clock or taking away the opportunities for the other team. Many seasons -- in sports or politics -- are won by grinding down the season while one has the lead.

Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz need miracles to win at their respective conventions. John Kasich needs a brokered convention.

Nate Silver's 538.com has a political model based upon baseball seasons, baseball games and seasons reflecting random events in unequal circumstances. That's how delegate chasing goes -- random events (we assume) with unequal probabilities.

This is a rant. Bear in mind that I'm not a Hilary Clinton fan; I was hoping that she would decide not to run back in 2014 so that we'd have fresh blood. I am extremely sympathetic to Bernie Sanders message, although I wish he were 20 years younger.

However, I am appalled by a lot of the negative monikers and adjectives given to Clinton, such as "whore" and "shillery" (the latter sounds an awful lot like "shrill", which is the bane of the woman trying to make herself heard). My Millennial daughter, who likes Sanders (duh!), pointed out the sexism in the characterization of Clinton.

More to the point, if progressive Sanders supporters don't get on board with Clinton (assuming she's the Democratic nominee), then we'll be stuck with a President Trump or a President Cruz. Please feel free support Sanders while he's still viable, but if it's over for him, please don't make the perfect be the enemy of the good (or even the okay).

Okay, rant done!

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

This is a rant. Bear in mind that I'm not a Hilary Clinton fan; I was hoping that she would decide not to run back in 2014 so that we'd have fresh blood. I am extremely sympathetic to Bernie Sanders message, although I wish he were 20 years younger.

However, I am appalled by a lot of the negative monikers and adjectives given to Clinton, such as "whore" and "shillery" (the latter sounds an awful lot like "shrill", which is the bane of the woman trying to make herself heard). My Millennial daughter, who likes Sanders (duh!), pointed out the sexism in the characterization of Clinton.

"Whore" is inexcusable. "Shill" is even worse than "shrill".

More to the point, if progressive Sanders supporters don't get on board with Clinton (assuming she's the Democratic nominee), then we'll be stuck with a President Trump or a President Cruz. Please feel free support Sanders while he's still viable, but if it's over for him, please don't make the perfect be the enemy of the good (or even the okay).

Okay, rant done!

Hillary can yield some to Bernie Sanders. I wonder whether Trump or Cruz would simply crack down on anyone who lacks faith in profits-first economics. I trust neither with my civil liberties.

Originally Posted by playwrite

As she has always done, Clinton will provide a measured response. Will it be 100% perfect retrospectively in the eyes of people who will never get close to such decision making? Probable not.

Trump will go where the greatest adoration lies. If you think the Neoconservative or the oligarchs don't know that and will manipulate to move as far away from what you believe is best you're in for a big surprise.

Trump knows that the sale is often more important than the product. Hillary should spend some time leaning that lesson. Trump can sell horsesh!t as perfume, and people will buy it. Hillary has a hard time giving away gold coins in Times Square.