Nah, he isn’t serious.
He’s going to drop out any day now.
He’s going to fade anytime now......
Why speculate. We will have the answer shortly.
What are the odds that vegas is giving?
Can you bet on elections?
Is that legal?
“If Trump were to lose both Iowa and New Hampshire, it’s likely his candidacy would be effectively over”
Well Chris, do you say the same about Cruz?
I’ve heard nothing but the debate on whether or not Trump’s poll numbers will equate to caucus goers in IA and primary voters elsewhere. The odd thing is, I’ve never heard anyone speculate on whether or not Bush’s 2 percent in IA will actually caucus for him, or whether Cruz’s supporters will actually turnout and caucus for him. It’s almost like a given that everyone’s supporters will turnout, but Trump’s.
I figure if hundreds and thousands of people can stand in long lines to attend his rallies, there is a good likelihood they’ll go to vote in a primary or caucus.
Yes.
And it won’t be close. The only question I really have is whether, by the time TX and UT come around, Cruz is still in. Cruz could win those two. But not if he’s been bludgeoned.
Iowa is the 30th most populous of the 57, I mean 50, states. There are about 3 million people living there (and, due to the way a caucus is set up, only living people can vote in Iowa, at least in the primaries.) New York and Florida each have nearly 7 times the number of citizens as Iowa does. Texas has 9 times as many and California, with a population of over 39 million, has a whopping 13 times as many people as Iowa does. Yet, as the first primary state, Iowa wields an inordinate amount of influence.
The ethanol subsidy, a minor blip in the scheme of things in America, is a major issue in Iowa, and has forced candidates to take sides in an attempt to woo voters. Major national issues, such as immigration, are a huge concern in California and Texas, yet only a minor issue to Iowans, at least insofar as it affects them on the state level.
I’m not saying that the primaries must necessarily be ordered according to state populations. I am saying that it seems grossly unfair that smaller states such as Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, due to their chronological advantage, give their voters far more bang for their buck. Voters in the majority of states, both highly and sparsely populated, are effectively disenfranchised in the primary process because the momentum gained in the early-voting states has made the eventual nominee a foregone conclusion by the time they finally get their turn.
I would favor a random system, pulling ping pong balls out of a hopper, rather than having a candidate’s position on ethanol subsidies, for example, carry far more weight than it otherwise would.
I don’t think so, but of the current contenders, including Trump, I don’t think any of them would win the general election.
I doubt that the candidate will be Hillary. I think she’ll have a “health crisis,” because the email Investigation is getting dangerously close to her husband and Sidney Blumenthal and the Clinton Foundation.
So I guess their candidate will be Bernie Sanders, unles Biden re-emerges. Personally, I think the other self-funding billionaire, Bloomberg, will come in and he will probably win it.
After IA, the #1 will be 2 delegates ahead of #2 who will be 3 delegates ahead of #3. After NH the spread will not change much as NH doesn’t have many delegates.
Not until the SEC primary will there be enough delegates in the pool to make anything but boasting or wishful thinking for your candidate. After the SEC primary, it may still be close, or it may not be close. Who knows? If it is close, then Mar 15 will probably decide it. But Bush has a stronger set of delegates to attract votes on Mar 15 than the earlier primaries. So the delegate race might favor Bush unless the others figure out how to win in enemy territory Mar 15.
Yeah, he will.
Will there be enough votes to overcome about 10,000,000 counted votes for Hitlary (who won’t be indicted as the 4 “babes” who have to give the nod to do so won’t) coming from illegals?