I just can't see that happening, the typical Sanders supporter seems like the type of person that would rather chop their arm off than vote for Trump. :unsure:

That's what they might say now, but people are irrational, and easily swayed.

It's a theory I've seen mentioned a few times, and I'd like to think the kind of people supporting Sanders would be smart enough not to be so stupid, but... it doesn't seem that unbelievable. Utterly beyond stupid, of course.

Never underestimate the ability of voters to act irrationally.

The fact that anyone would willing vote for either of the two Republican front runners makes me extremely worried for the future of the world.

 

 

It could be argued that the American Declaration of Independence was illegal and they are technically still a colony so the Queen could step in and stop all this madness once and for all.

I think Sanders supporters voting third party or not voting at all when Hillary wins is more likely to be an issue than them defecting to Trump en masse (although as a lot of Bernie's supporters are independents rather than Democrats there will probably be more Sanders supporters defecting than Hillary supporters in the case that Bernie wins, just because of the much lesser degree of party loyalty). That's part of the reason I believe Sanders is the more electable candidate (as supported by literally every head-to-head poll with the Republicans!), Hillary Clinton is not popular at all outside of registered Democrats, she is despised by Republicans and really struggles to bring in independent support in comparison to Bernie (he won the independent vote in Michigan by ~70-30). Independent support is what you need to win the general election.

 

That said, one would HOPE that as Tirren keeps saying, the Bernie supporters that don't like Hillary will mostly vote for her anyway to prevent Trump winning.

(On the topic of Bernie winning the independent vote ~ I've seen some suggestion that the Michigan polls might have been way out due to being based on the responses of 'likely voters' which resulted in underrepresentation of independents - so there's some chance that Illinois and Ohio polls (demographically similar states which also have open primaries) might suffer from the same problem if that's true? Not suggesting he's definitely or even likely going to win those as well but I think there's a very good chance that after Michigan he's going to come much closer there than current polls indicate. He's still fucked in Florida where it's a closed primary though)

Bernie's the more electable candidate *now* when he's entirely theoretical and known mostly for 'stop the fatcats in Wall Street'. But when it comes down to it, Americans (like most people) don't like their taxes going up. And the amount his straight-forward, shoot from the hip one size fits all policy proposals will cost means he can't pay for that by just having the top 1 percent cough up, or even just the top 10 percent.

 

And I think when it comes down to it, more independents will go for the woman they don't necessarily trust over a lying bombastic racist who gets called out as such in the strongest possible terms by his own side.

I'm seriously getting worried about Trump's safety now. Hope the Secret Service has it's eye on the ball and nothing happens to him.

I'd be more worried about the sane candidates, traditionally they are the ones the nutters go for. People venting their anger at the appalling things he says are far more likely to be fairly sane people, just angry. Though there would be some irony in anyone in favour of the American public having unlimited access to guns, rifles, machine guns, sniper equipment having an encounter on the wrong end of one.....

 

I have no sympathy. If you shit-stir, expect to see some shit while you're doing it. He could always try having some policies and concentrate on those instead.

That's pretty much how I see it too, you can't say let everyone have guns and then complain if/when a moron does something stupid with one. Not that I actually believe he IS in any danger, of course.

Trumps latest pronouncements are to announce that he will pay the legal fees of anyone that commits illegal acts of violence against other people exercising their right to protest/free speech. How can the US public elect a President that encourages his supporters (but not anyone else) to break the laws and act as judge jury and executioner, as opposed to the police and judges paid to do that?

 

Dangerous man.

 

 

But being born white in America is just SO UNFAIR. They can't help that they have such hard wired entitlement that the only way to deal with not getting what they want, or being treated fairly, is violence.

 

Donald Trump, saviour of the oppressed white majority.

As no-one posts them, here's the Republican party delegate count up to today, 14th March. From CNN.

 

Trump 460

Cruz 370

Rubio 163

Kasich 63

 

1237 needed for Nomination with 1401 still left to be allocated.

The figures will change a lot tomorrow. Until now, delegates have been allocated proportionately. The winners in tomorrow's Republican votes will win all the delegates for that State. If Trump wins all tomorrow's States, he will open up a very large lead.

I'd be more worried about the sane candidates, traditionally they are the ones the nutters go for. People venting their anger at the appalling things he says are far more likely to be fairly sane people, just angry. Though there would be some irony in anyone in favour of the American public having unlimited access to guns, rifles, machine guns, sniper equipment having an encounter on the wrong end of one.....

 

I have no sympathy. If you shit-stir, expect to see some shit while you're doing it. He could always try having some policies and concentrate on those instead.

 

 

That's pretty much how I see it too, you can't say let everyone have guns and then complain if/when a moron does something stupid with one. Not that I actually believe he IS in any danger, of course.

 

This might be of interest:

 

http://time.com/4253103/florida-mom-shot-son/

 

 

The figures will change a lot tomorrow. Until now, delegates have been allocated proportionately. The winners in tomorrow's Republican votes will win all the delegates for that State. If Trump wins all tomorrow's States, he will open up a very large lead.

 

 

I'll update the figures after today.

 

I don't understand someone on Newsnight saying that if Trump wins big today then he's got the nomination. He hasn't! Agreed he'll be nearer but still a lot needed.

No, but given two of BIG states of the day are winner takes all and he already has a fairly strong lead, it will put him in a commanding position, so he will as good as have the nomination in the bag is what they mean.

 

I'm hoping, in the end, that Bernie's likely wins in Illinois and Missouri (and potentially Ohio) are small enough that it still comes out as a comfortable HRC gain, I'm fairly confident it will but that 17 year old voting thing in Ohio and the Michigan error make me a bit less certain.

Even by his 'targets' Bernie would still be getting further behind today, there's no chance of him closing any of the lead (if he does that is a very good sign for him going forward because it would mean Michigan really was a game-changer). To do that he'll have to win Missouri, Illinois and Ohio by pretty decent margins and at least come very close in North Carolina as well. He's hardly guaranteed to win any of those let alone by the required margins. His theoretical path to overcoming Hillary's lead was always 'supposed' to start after today.

 

17 year olds voting in Ohio will help him but his open primary advantage there will be reduced by independents voting for Kasich instead in the latest feeble attempt to stop Trump.

This might be of interest:

 

http://time.com/4253103/florida-mom-shot-son/

 

She should be charged with child endangerment, not to mention other road users. What these gung ho morons consistently fail to realise is that guns don't make you safer, they make you less safe, the statistics are 100% irrefutable. The number of situations where guns have saved a life is almost zero annually (ignoring armed forces and police action). Should be fairly obvious by now from the number of mass killings in the USA that none of them have been thwarted by any of the zillions of gun-owners about. You don't get warnings, like in the movies, when someone shoots you, you just die suddenly.