(March 9, 2016 at 12:31 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(March 8, 2016 at 9:16 pm)Minimalist Wrote: It seems that Sanders has been crushed in Mississippi.

The Red States only matter to the Dems for the nomination.  They don't mean squat in the Presidential election.  Hillary won't win any of them in November.

The "red states" are not enough to get to 270. You have to win some of the swing states. Hilary only needs to win the blue states and enough of the swing states.

I don't necessarily agree with you that she can't win any red states though. The Black + Hispanic vote is 50% in Texas. I wonder how Trump can win this state when Blacks love Hillary Clinton and Hispanics hate Trump. There has been talk for awhile of the Texas demographics forcing the state blue. And if Texas goes blue, it's all over. Your boy Trump could be the one to make it happen.

(March 9, 2016 at 12:56 am)AFTT47 Wrote:

(March 9, 2016 at 12:31 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: The Red States only matter to the Dems for the nomination.  They don't mean squat in the Presidential election.  Hillary won't win any of them in November.

The "red states" are not enough to get to 270. You have to win some of the swing states. Hilary only needs to win the blue states and enough of the swing states.

I don't necessarily agree with you that she can't win any red states though. The Black + Hispanic vote is 50% in Texas. I wonder how Trump can win this state when Blacks love Hillary Clinton and Hispanics hate Trump. There has been talk for awhile of the Texas demographics forcing the state blue. And if Texas goes blue, it's all over. Your boy Trump could be the one to make it happen.

There were more registered Dems in Texas in 2012 than Repubs.  The lazy bastards didn't vote.  The Dems would have to get an additional 1.5 million votes than they got in 2012 to make Texas competitive.  So it's a waste of time and money for the Dem candidate to even spend an hour in Texas.  

The Dems don't need any damn "Swing States" to win.  They just have to win all of the true Blue States.  The Repubs have to win all of their Red States plus pull off a couple of true Blue States.  If the Dems win Texas it will give them a greater margin of victory but they don't need it as long as they keep all of their Blue States.  http://elections.nbcnews.com/ns/politics...t-xGVJllz8

That's why the only poll that matters is one that polls the Dem voters in the Blue States.  All of the other polls are useless and a complete waste of money.

(March 9, 2016 at 12:56 am)AFTT47 Wrote:

(March 9, 2016 at 12:31 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: The Red States only matter to the Dems for the nomination.  They don't mean squat in the Presidential election.  Hillary won't win any of them in November.

The "red states" are not enough to get to 270. You have to win some of the swing states. Hilary only needs to win the blue states and enough of the swing states.

I don't necessarily agree with you that she can't win any red states though. The Black + Hispanic vote is 50% in Texas. I wonder how Trump can win this state when Blacks love Hillary Clinton and Hispanics hate Trump. There has been talk for awhile of the Texas demographics forcing the state blue. And if Texas goes blue, it's all over. Your boy Trump could be the one to make it happen.

There was an article in today's Austin American-Statesman about a surge in citizenship applications from legal migrants who want to vote to ensure that Trump faces stiffer opposition.

(March 9, 2016 at 1:37 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(March 9, 2016 at 12:56 am)AFTT47 Wrote: The "red states" are not enough to get to 270. You have to win some of the swing states. Hilary only needs to win the blue states and enough of the swing states.

I don't necessarily agree with you that she can't win any red states though. The Black + Hispanic vote is 50% in Texas. I wonder how Trump can win this state when Blacks love Hillary Clinton and Hispanics hate Trump. There has been talk for awhile of the Texas demographics forcing the state blue. And if Texas goes blue, it's all over. Your boy Trump could be the one to make it happen.

There was an article in today's Austin American-Statesman about a surge in citizenship applications from legal migrants who want to vote to ensure that Trump faces stiffer opposition.

Is it around 1,500,000 new Dem voters that will actually vote for the Dem candidate?  If not, it's irrelevant and immaterial.

(March 9, 2016 at 3:00 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(March 9, 2016 at 1:37 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: There was an article in today's Austin American-Statesman about a surge in citizenship applications from legal migrants who want to vote to ensure that Trump faces stiffer opposition.

Is it around 1,500,000 new Dem voters that will actually vote for the Dem candidate?  If not, it's irrelevant and immaterial.

I'm not sure of the numbers.

Of course, neither is Trump's campaign manager. And neither are you.

Way to miss the point, Woggy.

(March 9, 2016 at 4:57 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(March 9, 2016 at 3:00 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Is it around 1,500,000 new Dem voters that will actually vote for the Dem candidate?  If not, it's irrelevant and immaterial.

I'm not sure of the numbers.

Of course, neither is Trump's campaign manager. And neither are you.

Way to miss the point, Woggy.

Get it through your head:  The Dems lost Texas by around 1,500,000 votes in 2012.  So it doesn't matter a rat's ass if they add 1 million Hispanic voters.  They will still come up short if the Repubs show up.

Not sure whether this has been discussed before or not, but given Sanders' victory in Michigan last night, and the fact he's consistently getting the independent vote 70-30, *and* assuming that Clinton wins the nomination (not certain but likely at this stage), would it be in Clinton's best interests to have Sanders as the VP?

I feel like it would. There are certainly going to be Sanders supporters who won't vote for Clinton in the general election, but perhaps if he was the VP they might be swayed.

(March 9, 2016 at 3:51 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Not sure whether this has been discussed before or not, but given Sanders' victory in Michigan last night, and the fact he's consistently getting the independent vote 70-30, *and* assuming that Clinton wins the nomination (not certain but likely at this stage), would it be in Clinton's best interests to have Sanders as the VP?

I feel like it would. There are certainly going to be Sanders supporters who won't vote for Clinton in the general election, but perhaps if he was the VP they might be swayed.

I refuse to vote for Hillary under any condition.

(March 9, 2016 at 3:51 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Not sure whether this has been discussed before or not, but given Sanders' victory in Michigan last night, and the fact he's consistently getting the independent vote 70-30, *and* assuming that Clinton wins the nomination (not certain but likely at this stage), would it be in Clinton's best interests to have Sanders as the VP?

I feel like it would. There are certainly going to be Sanders supporters who won't vote for Clinton in the general election, but perhaps if he was the VP they might be swayed.

I doubt Sanders would accept being her VP. Might be Elizabeth Warren, though. But many Bernie Sanders supporters are too disappointed with her for not endorsing Sanders to be swayed.

I haven't followed the campaigns closely, but has Sanders' age ever played a role?