Can trump be stopped? A good analysis here:
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/cry...-path-to-1237/
- Join Date
- Jul 2001
- Location
- San Jose CA
- Posts
- 22,504
Sabato's crystal ball
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/cry...016-president/
According to this calculation, and as I see it, the Democratic candidate just needs to sew up New Hampshire, Virginia and Nevada to win. These 3 states are likely Democratic states now.
Ohio goes Safe R if Kasich is nominated, but otherwise toss-up. Utah and Arizona become tossups if Trump is nominated.Originally Posted by Eric the Green
Sabato's crystal ball
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/cry...016-president/
According to this calculation, and as I see it, the Democratic candidate just needs to sew up New Hampshire, Virginia and Nevada to win. These 3 states are likely Democratic states now.
Sabato basically says that things are much like in 2012, with Democrats not having sealed the race (I agree with you on New Hampshire, Eric). I see 251 fairly easy electoral votes for the Democrats. Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, Ohio, and Virginia are toss-ups. Florida clinches. Ohio and anything else (which could include NE-02) clinches. Virginia and anything else in this group clinches. Colorado, Iowa, and Nevada clinch.
North Carolina is generously being shown as "Lean Republican" -- but either Florida or Virginia goes R before it does.
But going with Sabato, from Lean D to Lean R I have:
217 Wisconsin 227
227 Pennsylvania 247
247 New Hampshire 251
251 Nevada 257
257 Iowa 263
263 Virginia 276 ==== TIPPING POINT ====
276 Colorado 285
285 Ohio 303
303 Florida 332
332 North Carolina 347
Arizona, Indiana, Missouri, and Utah become legitimate toss-up states if Trump is nominated.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
That's right I think. Iowa gives the impression of being very much a tossup, especially with its tea party senator, but I still consider it a blue state based on its record since 1988. It was a fairly easy win for Obama in 2012, despite poll numbers tied until close to the election. And I do think a Democratic win is likely, if Hillary can perform OK and stay out of trouble, since VA is the "tipping point." It is moving more Democratic all the time.
latest 2016 polls
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statew...election,_2016
AK Clinton 44 Trump 49, Clinton 37 Cruz 57
AZ Clinton 38 Trump 38, Clinton 35, Cruz 41
FL Clinton 49 Trump 41, Clinton 48 Cruz 43
GA Clinton 41 Trump 50, Clinton 42 Cruz 49
IL Clinton 57 Trump 32, Clinton 51, Cruz 40
KS Clinton 36 Trump 46, Clinton 35 Cruz 49
MI Clinton 52 Trump 36, Clinton 48 Cruz 41
MN Clinton 43 Trump 38, Clinton 43 Cruz 45
MO Clinton 38 Trump 43, Clinton 34 Cruz 51
NH Clinton 47 Trump 39, Clinton 46 Cruz 35
NJ Clinton 52 Trump 36
NY Clinton 55, Trump 36, Clinton 61 Cruz 30
NC Clinton 44 Trump 42, Clinton 45 Cruz 42
OH Clinton 48 Trump 42, Clinton 45 Cruz 47
PA Clinton 46 Trump 33, Clinton 45 Cruz 35
UT Clinton 38 Trump 36, Clinton 32 Cruz 60
VA Clinton 52 Trump 35, Clinton 45 Cruz 41
WI Clinton 47 Trump 38, Clinton 46 Cruz 45
The entire context of the race could change as Trump starts to emphasise disengagement from alliances that oblige the US to intervene militarily and Hillary defends maintaining those alliances. For all Trump's personal belligerence and authoritarianism, Trump turns out to be a Robert Taft style non-interventionist. See http://www.alternet.org/election-201...orst-nightmare . This could actually resonate with quite a few Sanders voters if Sanders loses to Hillary, making it impossible for Hillary to maintain a significant part of her Democratic base. Though she could compensate for this to an unknown degree by gaining neo-conservative Republicans in the John Kasich mould. This is going to be a real dilemma for quite a few voters. But not Trump's authoritarians who strangely enough are uncharacteristically unenthusiastic about going to war this election.
Of course if Sanders, who also is a non-interventionist wins the Democratic nomination, this dilemma does not exist. And neo-cons and liberal interventionists get shut out of the race. Which is one of the reasons, I suspect why Sanders polls better against Trump or any other Republican than Hillary does.
They'd rather ''fix things'' at home
Considering what we saw in Bush II's wars of choice I don't find it strange at all. First, most Trump supporters are mostly people of fairly modest means and know well that it will be their children/grandchildren who will be in fatigues and at risk in any more neocon misadventures. Second, and more importantly, most of their 'authoritarianism'' is directed inwards towards groups that they believe are stealing ''their America.'' Foreign wars of choice are counter productive toward addressing their concerns and they know it. No one they know will batten off of the crony contracts that would be larded out to transnational corporations after the shooting stops. But they will hear more calls to cut Social Security, Medicare and the few other programs that ''their America'' still maintains for them in order to more properly feed the war profiteers. And they know that too.
Last edited by herbal tee; 03-25-2016 at 11:13 AM.
As much as you try to imagine some majority of GOPers and Indys hating treaties, NATO, etc, the truth is, the actual Silent Majority would not agree to upsetting that apple cart and seeing Europe conquered by the Russian scum.
==========================================
#nevertrump
Some middle class voters may lean toward the interventionist camp, as they traditionally do, because of recent attacks. I don't know how much Trump's alleged non-interventionism accounts for Sanders' better poll numbers, but it could account for some of it. I'm not sure white lower-middle class voters know for sure what Trump's policies ARE though. I'm not sure at all myself what they are, in fact. He is only now beginning to lay them out. And it's very unclear whether he has any fixed policies on the matter, or whether people know what they are.
I think it's right, however, that Americans these days are not keen on more neo-con misadventures. That probably extends to all classes. They want something done about the IS, but are hesitant to send "troops on the ground" to Iraq and Syria or Libya in any great numbers. I am probably too. Although I think the IS is not a hard enemy to defeat in its territory, you never know for sure. Hillary is following Obama's caution in this regard, and I think that's where the people are right now. I'm not sure what Trump wants to do, but it seems like he wants to send troops there.
I'm not sure yet what Trump wants to do about alliances. Does he want other countries to supply more troops and money, or does he want to break with or not support current allies even if attacked? That's not at all clear. So far I only get the former idea from him.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 03-25-2016 at 03:00 PM.
Why the Turnout in November Should Help Hillary Clinton
BY MARGARET TALBOT
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-...illary-clinton
Hillary Clinton and Democrats shouldn’t be complacent about a showdown with Donald Trump, but they shouldn’t be fretting, either.
Should Democrats be worried that their voters are less energized than the G.O.P.’s are this primary season? In a piece earlier this month headlined “Beneath Hillary Clinton’s Super Tuesday Wins, Signs of Turnout Trouble,” the New York Times noted that many fewer Democrats had participated in primaries this year than in 2008, especially throughout the South. The conservative Washington Times, meanwhile, has been sounding this theme since the start of primary season, with headlines like “Donald Trump Drives GOP’s Record Turnout; Democrats Lack Enthusiasm.” And, according to the Pew Research Center, while seventeen per cent of eligible Republican voters came out to the polls in the first twelve primaries, just under twelve per cent of Democrats did. (You can pause for a moment to take in how low both of those percentages are.) Moreover, Trump’s chest-thumping nativism has brought to the polls people who don’t usually bother with them, notably white men with a high-school degree or less, the “poorly educated,” whom Trump professes to love. Their presence has certainly made itself felt in the Republican primaries. And on the other side are the Bernie Sanders diehards—not large in number, surely, but there—who might actually stay home in November rather than cast a vote for Clinton.
Still, the answer to the should-she-worry question is: probably not so much. The Democratic-primary turnout likely isn’t all that accurate a projection of the general elections. In the first place, people usually come out to vote under two conditions, according to Michael McDonald, a University of Florida political scientist who studies voter behavior: first, when races are competitive and, second, when they see a significant difference between the candidates. With a smaller field and a front-runner who has held on to that spot, the Democratic race has clearly been much less competitive than the Republican one, even if Sanders has proved to be a more relentless marathon runner than many people thought he’d be. If you’re a Bernie Bro or a “Yasss Queen” Clintonite, you might indeed see an enormous gulf between the two. But, in fact, most Democrats polled before Super Tuesday said they’d be satisfied with either Clinton or Sanders as their nominee (though most also saw Clinton as the candidate more equipped to defeat Trump). That’s a sharp contrast with the polarized Republican contest, and with the feeling a majority of Republican voters said they harbored of having been betrayed by their party’s leading politicians.
A general election pitting Clinton against Trump would offer about the most Manichaean contrast imaginable in American electoral politics, thus easily fulfilling McDonald’s second condition. And while it might not be that closely competitive—polls at this point show both Clinton and Sanders handily beating Trump in an electoral-vote contest—there’s an exception to the rule that people are more likely to vote when they perceive the contest as tight, McDonald said. Sometimes, voters are so horrified by a candidate that they come out to register their opposition, even when they’re reasonably confident he or she will lose. As an example, McDonald reminded me of the 2010 Senate election in Delaware, when the Republican candidate, Christine O’Donnell, a Sarah Palin-esque Tea Party favorite with a notional résumé and a penchant for saying things like “Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?” and “I’m not a witch,” lost definitively, in large part because people were so motivated to vote against her. Turnout was correspondingly high.
There’s good reason to expect that Latino voters would show up in unprecedented numbers to vote against Trump. For quite a while, we’ve been hearing speculation about how that could help Clinton in swing states like Colorado and Nevada. It may also be critical in Florida, a big battleground state whose Hispanic population has until recently been largely Cuban-American and, historically, more likely to vote Republican. The number of Hispanic voters registered as Democrats in Florida has been growing, however. In 2008, for the first time, more Latinos in the state were registered as Democrats than Republicans, and Barack Obama won both the Hispanic vote and the state. (In 2004, George W. Bush had won both.) Between 2006 and 2016, “the number of Hispanic registered voters increased by 61%,” according to a Pew Research Center analysis, “while the number of Hispanics identifying as Democrats increased by 83% and those having no party affiliation increased by 95%.” Much of that shift is due to the fact that, over the last decade, Puerto Ricans (who are U.S. citizens) have been settling in Florida in significant numbers, especially in and around Orlando, as economic conditions on the island have deteriorated. They’re more likely to vote Democratic, and the growth in their numbers is outpacing that of Cuban-Americans.
Meanwhile, across the country, as the New York Times reported this month, applications for citizenship are on the rise, fuelled by the urgency many Latino immigrants feel about voting against a candidate who wants to build a wall on the border and initiate mass deportations and who has vilified immigrants as criminal riffraff. “I want to vote so Donald Trump won’t win,” Hortensia Villegas, a legal immigrant from Mexico, told the Times, as she lined up to fill out her citizenship application in a Denver union hall. “He doesn’t like us.”
Democratic voters shouldn’t be complacent, not in this election. The Party will have to do its best, for example, to insure that younger voters who are still excited about Sanders don’t drop out of the picture in November. But the enthusiasm gap between the two parties that some commentators have detected shouldn’t be sending Democrats to their worry beads, either. For one thing, they have demographics on their side. With the Electoral College map laid out as it is, bigger voter turnout tends to benefit Democrats. (It won’t make a difference if, for example, Trump runs up the score in Mississippi.) And it’s quite possible, McDonald told me, that “we’ll be looking in November at one of the highest turnouts we’ve seen in a hundred years of American politics.”
Ali Zifan - Own work. Used blank map from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...ank_US_Map.svg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republ...can_Party).svg
CC BY-SA 4.0
File:U.S. States by Vote Distribution, 2016 (Republican Party).svg
Created: 6 March 2016
Last edited by Eric the Green; 03-25-2016 at 06:44 PM.
Any state Trump did not win on that map could be a de facto swing state in the general if Trump is the GOP nominee. Some of them are really a shock. Places that have never been swing states before.
Ali Zifan - Own work. Used blank map from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...ank_US_Map.svg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republ...can_Party).svg
CC BY-SA 4.0
File:U.S. States by Vote Distribution, 2016 (Republican Party).svg
Created: 6 March 2016
==========================================
#nevertrump
Nice graphic. It's interesting that with the possible exception of Massachusetts, Trump has yet to crack 50 percent in any state. (Although it does seem like he won a yuge majority in one of the territories)
Ali Zifan - Own work. Used blank map from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...ank_US_Map.svg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republ...can_Party).svg
CC BY-SA 4.0
File:U.S. States by Vote Distribution, 2016 (Republican Party).svg
Created: 6 March 2016
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008
And that authoritarianism is directed against remarkably few groups. While I would emphasise that it's 8 months until November, we have heard very little racial animus directed against African-Americans. Or Latino citizens. Or young people. Or anyone who can vote. Mainly against non-citizens.
Even Trump's insults to particular women do not seem to reflect an agenda aimed at decreasing women's rights. Trump goes along with restricting abortion. He dosen't lead or emphasise restrictions on abortion. And Trump has no problem with birth control, apparently.
The other side of the coin is that while Trump has yet to crack 50%, he has been running against multiple candidates. And Trump's pluralities are well within the range of winning candidates in general elections that had major third party candidates, such as Clinton in '92 and 96, Nixon in 68, Truman in '48 and Wilson in '12.
From reading Trump's pronouncements on the subject, I'm getting the picture that Trump wants nations who would be our allies to match or exceed our per capita troop and financial commitment to be worthy of BEING our ally. And perhaps to be willing to follow us everywhere we go too. Basically a complete reversal from our policy from 1945 on of discouraging military re-armament by European and Far Eastern allies out of fear that they would drag us into wars between each other. A policy Trump sees as putting the US at a disadvantage economically with allies who don't take self-defence all that seriously.
It is a policy that makes some sense. Right now the US is in a position of needing powerful allies and not having them. Even in less developed nations we see armies that are large on paper but geared more toward keeping regimes in power domestically rather than acting as a regional ally. Egypt is a good example. Egypt has no troops to spare to defeat ISIS in Libya. Saudi Arabia is afraid to arm it's own subjects to defend itself, preferring to rely on foreign mercenaries. I could go on and on.
We have nothing like the commitments the British and Free French had to helping the US defeat Nazi Germany in WWII. (The British could even draw upon India, as well as Canada and Australia for manpower). Only Israel matches US commitments. And Israel is a poison pill in the rest of the Mideast and very wary about outside interventions having learned the hard way the cost of ocupying any Muslim people that do not immediately threaten Jewish lives.
Is Kasich a nice, unifying figure?
Soft and Cuddly? John Kasich’s Old Colleagues Don’t Recognize Him
By THOMAS KAPLAN, MICHAEL BARBARO and STEVE EDERMARCH 25, 2016
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/26/us...aign.html?_r=0
Mr. Kasich’s aura of civility, kindness and positivity is so pronounced — and so at odds with the fulminations of the real estate mogul — that an anxious voter in Worcester, Mass., wondered whether he could summon the combativeness required to be an effective president.
“I worry that you’re just so nice,” the woman said.
Mr. Kasich’s colleagues in Ohio and Washington do not share that worry.
In interviews, they recall a three-decade career in government punctuated by scolding confrontations, intemperate critiques and undiplomatic remarks.
Today, as Mr. Kasich makes comity a centerpiece of his long-shot bid for the Republican nomination, they describe his candidacy as an exercise in remarkable self-restraint that has managed to keep his crankier instincts mostly out of sight.
The John Kasich of 2016 is a much mellower politician than the hard-charging congressman of the 1990s, who could be so difficult that House Speaker Newt Gingrich, never known for his diplomacy, offered Mr. Kasich firm advice about his tendency to bulldoze colleagues.
“I talked to him a lot about unlocking people rather than running them over,” Mr. Gingrich recalled, adding of his counsel, “I think some of that actually stuck.”
But not all of it. In Ohio, Mr. Kasich is known for flashes of impatience, anger and disdain. A police officer who pulled him over? An “idiot,” Mr. Kasich said (though he later apologized). Lobbyists? Farm animals with “their snouts in that trough,” in his words. Out of-state rivals? “Wackadoodles.” .................
So the question remains, if Trump thinks, for example, that Estonia is not meeting its commitment to NATO by not supplying troops and money to the alliance, will he defend Estonia if attacked by Russia? Do we even know?
It makes some sense. But right now the Saudis seem unconcerned about fighting in Yemen, and have offered to send troops to Syria. It seems to have an army, contrary to your suggestion (and "arming its citizens" sounds like the "militias" that gun nuts here in the US suppose can "defend America's liberty"). We may be able to depend on them. And they have helped the Syrian rebels.It is a policy that makes some sense. Right now the US is in a position of needing powerful allies and not having them. Even in less developed nations we see armies that are large on paper but geared more toward keeping regimes in power domestically rather than acting as a regional ally. Egypt is a good example. Egypt has no troops to spare to defeat ISIS in Libya. Saudi Arabia is afraid to arm it's own subjects to defend itself, preferring to rely on foreign mercenaries. I could go on and on.
I can't think of anything our "ally" Israel has done for us, ever. Can you? They spy on us, I know that. Israel is the best example of what you attributed to Egypt.We have nothing like the commitments the British and Free French had to helping the US defeat Nazi Germany in WWII. (The British could even draw upon India, as well as Canada and Australia for manpower). Only Israel matches US commitments. And Israel is a poison pill in the rest of the Mideast and very wary about outside interventions having learned the hard way the cost of occupying any Muslim people that do not immediately threaten Jewish lives.
Right now in Iraq, we have the Iraqis and Kurds fighting against ISIS; even Iranians. We'll need more to defeat it in Syria, no doubt. Maybe if Syria peace talks bear fruit, we may have Russian and Syrian help. Saudi and Jordanian help too, perhaps. Nigeria is acting with our help against Boka Haram, and the Mali group has been pushed back. Libya remains up in the air.
In this regard, Kasich reminds me of George W Bush running in 2000. And for that matter his father (anyone remember 1000 points of light?) in 1988.
It's all media hype. Aside from Kasich's combativeness as a Congressman, Kasich is probably almost as reactionary a state governor as Snyder in Michigan and Walker in Wisconsin. And like both of them, has ignored lead poisoning of his citizens, which may well be this generation's AIDS.
Most Cruz supporters will not vote Democratic.
The most likely swing red states if Trump is the nominee appear to be Arizona and Utah.
Oh, but Estonia IS meeting per capita commitments to NATO. A lot more than other poorer allies such as Hungary and Slovakia, let alone Germany or Finland or Greece or Italy.
Yes, and some of those Syrian rebels were the Islamic State. There was speculation back in 2007 that the Saudis would intervene to prevent a Shia domination of Iraq. The Saudis don't want to FIGHT the Islamic State so much as they want to BE the Islamic State. The Saudis retain a commitment to preventing Sunnis in the Mideast from falling under Shia or Alawite domination--and would prefer that Sunnis do the dominating. That's why the Saudis were vehemently opposed to the US invasion to topple a Saddam Hussein who was becoming, in his "Faith Campaign" a good Wahabi Muslim. And when the US DID invade Iraq, the Saudis aided Al Qaeda in Iraq before it became ISIS to kill Americans.It makes some sense. But right now the Saudis seem unconcerned about fighting in Yemen, and have offered to send troops to Syria. It seems to have an army, contrary to your suggestion (and "arming its citizens" sounds like the "militias" that gun nuts here in the US suppose can "defend America's liberty"). We may be able to depend on them. And they have helped the Syrian rebels.
So when we talk about Saudi help to defeat Islamic State what we are looking at is Saudi Arabia occupying ISIS territory and retaining Wahabi Sharia law there against the day it can turn that occupation into annexation at an overall peace settlement. Just as it did Hejaz, Asir and Qatif 90 years ago. And in the meantime, preventing the establishment of a "Shia Crescent" from Iran to the Mediterranean Sea, including Hezbollah ruled Lebanon.
Which is why Saudi Arabia, no matter how the Saudis may be willing to buy off Americans with business relationships are NOT America's friend. Not when Saudi Arabia is willing to undercut oil prices in an attempt to drive American domestic producers out of business. Until very recently, that was considered to be a hostile act.
And Saudi Arabia quietly supports ISIS elsewhere in the Mideast.
Israel spies on the US. The US spies on Israel. And Israel has helped the US develop cutting edge weapons systems. Israel had the first military drones, the Heron--which the US was allowed to copy. Israel has developed the Arrow and Iron Dome anti-missile systems as joint ventures with the US--and the US will be using those missiles too. Israel develops these weapons systems at a fraction of the cost of US defence contractors. Because Israel is small, in this world only to survive and dosen't worry about protecting large businesses. In short, the perfect defence contractor.I can't think of anything our "ally" Israel has done for us, ever. Can you? They spy on us, I know that. Israel is the best example of what you attributed to Egypt.
We are not happy with the Iranians fighting ISIS. We are in Iraq more to keep the Iranians from dominating Iraq than we are to fight ISIS. Curbing Iran is the end. Fighting ISIS is the means, not vice- versa. And we still aren't willing to support Kurdish independence. We still have Americans fighting and dying to retain the petrodollar.Right now in Iraq, we have the Iraqis and Kurds fighting against ISIS; even Iranians.
Doubtful. The Syrian regime may win. But at the price of expelling all the Sunnis in rebel held territory to be refugees in Turkey and Europe. In the Mideast, once people rebel they are not trusted. Short of Milosevic style ethnic cleansing, Syria (and Iraq and the US) will face years of insurgency in ISIS country. While the High Command escapes to Libya with Turkish connivance.We'll need more to defeat it in Syria, no doubt. Maybe if Syria peace talks bear fruit, we may have Russian and Syrian help. Saudi and Jordanian help too, perhaps.
Which is turning out to be a lot more resilent than expected. NIgeria has the same topography issues that Vietnam did. Watch "Beasts of No Nations" and you will get a picture of what a lot of NIgeria looks like.Nigeria is acting with our help against Boka Haram,
Which is not to say that Boko Haram will rule all Nigeria. Too many Christians in the South for that to happen. But Nigeria may split in the middle.
The French, "practical" as ever are allowing Al Qaeda Mahgreb to continue to rule Northern Mali--and spread to northern NIger, along with Boko Haram and ISIS from Libya. While supporting Tuareg nationalists in an effort to contain AQM. Mali is the first time in former French Africa that French intervention has failed to completely dislodge an insurgency--unless one counts Algeria of course. The French are not about to make a major military commitment in West Africa. They lost in Vietnam before we did.and the Mali group has been pushed back.
[/QUOTE]Libya remains up in the air.
The Sahara is probably far too large for the US to patrol. Even with drones.
Well fine, but that DOESN'T answer my question.
No, the Syrian rebels were not the Islamic State. And it's very cruel to refer to them as such.Yes, and some of those Syrian rebels were the Islamic State. There was speculation back in 2007 that the Saudis would intervene to prevent a Shia domination of Iraq. The Saudis don't want to FIGHT the Islamic State so much as they want to BE the Islamic State. The Saudis retain a commitment to preventing Sunnis in the Mideast from falling under Shia or Alawite domination--and would prefer that Sunnis do the dominating. That's why the Saudis were vehemently opposed to the US invasion to topple a Saddam Hussein who was becoming, in his "Faith Campaign" a good Wahabi Muslim. And when the US DID invade Iraq, the Saudis aided Al Qaeda in Iraq before it became ISIS to kill Americans.
I don't have any fondness for the Saudis, but don't have any evidence that they aided Al Qaeda in Iraq.
The Saudis would not be allowed to annex territory. I could care a rat's ass what they do to drive American fossil fool producers out of business. I hope they do! And I don't know if they help ISIS elsewhere in the Middle East (in which case it can't be called ISIS, but only IS, which is the proper initials).So when we talk about Saudi help to defeat Islamic State what we are looking at is Saudi Arabia occupying ISIS territory and retaining Wahabi Sharia law there against the day it can turn that occupation into annexation at an overall peace settlement. Just as it did Hejaz, Asir and Qatif 90 years ago. And in the meantime, preventing the establishment of a "Shia Crescent" from Iran to the Mediterranean Sea, including Hezbollah ruled Lebanon.
Which is why Saudi Arabia, no matter how the Saudis may be willing to buy off Americans with business relationships are NOT America's friend. Not when Saudi Arabia is willing to undercut oil prices in an attempt to drive American domestic producers out of business. Until very recently, that was considered to be a hostile act.
And Saudi Arabia quietly supports ISIS elsewhere in the Mideast.
I guess they dose not, if they are such good inventors. I would think the USA developed drones by themselves, or could have.Israel spies on the US. The US spies on Israel. And Israel has helped the US develop cutting edge weapons systems. Israel had the first military drones, the Heron--which the US was allowed to copy. Israel has developed the Arrow and Iron Dome anti-missile systems as joint ventures with the US--and the US will be using those missiles too. Israel develops these weapons systems at a fraction of the cost of US defense contractors. Because Israel is small, in this world only to survive and dosen't worry about protecting large businesses. In short, the perfect defense contractor.
Here's one history of drones; I don't see Israel mentioned
http://www.nesta.org.uk/drones-history-flying-robots
Here is the story of the inventor. Apparently he went to Israel, but could not get support, so he came back to the USA and got it built here.
http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-to...970502/?no-ist
The Iron Dome was a joint venture, but what does it do for the USA? It just protects Israel. My initial question remains. What has Israel done for us, besides get us involved in the Middle East to protect its imperial ambitions?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome
You seem to have quite a bit of ESP to divine what our government and allies are thinking. I don't agree. Maybe I'm just dense, but there's nothing about the "petrodollar" that I can figure has anything to do with this. Oil companies; maybe. But I think that is old hat, and not in Obama's calculations. He knows that wars for oil are nonsense. It's time to get off oil, NOW.We are not happy with the Iranians fighting ISIS. We are in Iraq more to keep the Iranians from dominating Iraq than we are to fight ISIS. Curbing Iran is the end. Fighting ISIS is the means, not vice- versa. And we still aren't willing to support Kurdish independence. We still have Americans fighting and dying to retain the petrodollar.
I am predicting a settlement by 2017, which would have to involve a new government. However, it may not last. I don't disagree with your skepticism. But from 2017 on, it may be able to help defeat ISIS. The question for me is, if Europe gets tired of being attacked, it might decide to send troops. Then we should expect both the USA and especially Turkey to do so too. Allies need to act together. I am sure such a powerful alliance could wipe up the IS in Syria. But what happens afterward will not be certain.Doubtful. The Syrian regime may win. But at the price of expelling all the Sunnis in rebel held territory to be refugees in Turkey and Europe. In the Mideast, once people rebel they are not trusted. Short of Milosevic style ethnic cleansing, Syria (and Iraq and the US) will face years of insurgency in ISIS country. While the High Command escapes to Libya with Turkish connivance.
No, Boka Haram is being wiped out.Which is turning out to be a lot more resilent than expected. NIgeria has the same topography issues that Vietnam did. Watch "Beasts of No Nations" and you will get a picture of what a lot of NIgeria looks like.
Which is not to say that Boko Haram will rule all Nigeria. Too many Christians in the South for that to happen. But Nigeria may split in the middle.
I doubt an Islamic State can flourish there either.The French, "practical" as ever are allowing Al Qaeda Mahgreb to continue to rule Northern Mali--and spread to northern Niger, along with Boko Haram and ISIS from Libya. While supporting Tuareg nationalists in an effort to contain AQM. Mali is the first time in former French Africa that French intervention has failed to completely dislodge an insurgency--unless one counts Algeria of course. The French are not about to make a major military commitment in West Africa. They lost in Vietnam before we did.
The Sahara is probably far too large for the US to patrol. Even with drones.
As of March 25
Ali Zifan - Own work. Used blank map from here.
CC BY-SA 4.0
File:U.S. States by Vote Distribution, 2016 (Democratic Party).svg
Created: 6 March 2016
county map: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democr...unty,_2016.svg
Democratic Primary, what Sanders needs in remaining states.
Remaining states and delegates:
CA 475
CT 55
DC 20
DE 21
HI 25 (results in)
IN 83
KY 55
MD 95
MT 21
NJ 126
NM 34
NY 247
ND 18
OR 61
PA 189
RI 24
SD 20
WV 29
WI 86
WY 14
Guam 7
VI 7
PR 60
Based on trends so far, I make these predictions:
state Clinton Sanders
CA 255-220
CT 30-25
DC 10-10
DE 13-8
IN 43-40
KY 28-27
MD 60-35
MT 4-17
NJ 70-56
NM 17-17
NY 147-100
ND 3-15
OR 20-41
PA 100-89
RI 10-14
SD 5-15
WV 15-14
WI 30-56
WY 4-10
Guam 4-3
VI 4-3
PR 35-25
total 907-840 Clinton
Including Washington (27-74 Sanders), Alaska (3-13), and Hawaii (8-17), Clinton now has 1266 pledged delegates and Sanders 1038, according to wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:2016USDem
https://www.washingtonpost.com/2016-.../us-primaries/
These predictions would give Clinton 2173 and Sanders 1878, not counting superdelegates and unpledged.
Based on current trends then, Bernie doesn't quite break even with Hillary in winning the remaining delegates. I note that some of these predictions are optimistic for Bernie (e.g. NY and WI).
What must he do to beat my prediction, and win? Bernie needs at least 150 more pledged (elected) delegates than my prediction of 840 to pass Hillary and give him an argument to win at least 350 superdelegates (half). That would give him 2028 to Hillary's 2023 pledged delegates.
To pass Hillary, Sanders must get a score of something like these delegates in each state:
state Clinton Sanders
CA 225-250
CT 20-35
DC 7-13
DE 8-13
IN 37-46
KY 23-32
MD 50-45
MT 3-18
NJ 60-66
ND 3-15
NM 14-20
NY 132-115
OR 10-51
PA 94-95
RI 8-16
SD 3-17
WV 9-20
WI 30-56
WY 2-12
Guam 2-5
VI 2-5
PR 15-45
total remaining pledged delegates in this score: Clinton 757, Sanders 990 (Sanders must win 56.66%)
Bernie must win all remaining primaries except NY and MD, and usually by big margins. MD must be a narrow loss, and NY not a big loss.
On his side, we note that he has won by blowout margins in many northern and western states, including Washington and Alaska tonight. There's hardly anything left in the South now, where Hillary is strongest.
Well, go Bernie! Let's see if you can do it.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 03-27-2016 at 10:01 AM.
-- Kasich is an ass, ppl here will vote for him just to get him out of Columbus if he's on the ballot in Nov. Which I doubt
Last edited by marypoza; 03-27-2016 at 12:17 PM.
