Political Roundtable Part VIII

[AFM]

Well said dckf

[TGW]

Maybe my peabrained self can't understand economics (I'm very self-taught through Google University) but isn't the problem that DCKings laid out not a problem that would exist in any economic system, whether progressive or conservative? The system is going to be skewed towards giving advantage to "those closest to the spending benefit" in a progressive system as DCK puts it, or the "job-creators" in a supply-side system. In both sides of the spectrum, the workers get the shaft, especially in a global economy where companies can take production overseas.

In a progressive system, I can't argue against the government trying to level the playing field (i.e. raising the minimum wage, raising marginal tax rates) because every system is lopsidedly in the favor of to job creators. We know what happens when corporations aren't held to some sort of standard (poverty wages, children working for nothing, tax havens, etc).

At the end of the day, the fundamental argument is going to be what the role of the federal government is--is the government's responsibility to spurn growth, or is it merely to act as a regulatory branch? Should the government artificially control interest rates, or leave it up to the banks? I don't know...I think either way you frame it, human failure, greed, or however you want to phrase it, comes into play.

[nate33]

Maybe my peabrained self can't understand economics (I'm very self-taught through Google University) but isn't the problem that DCKings laid out not a problem that would exist in any economic system, whether progressive or conservative? The system is going to be skewed towards giving advantage to "those closest to the spending benefit" in a progressive system as DCK puts it, or the "job-creators" in a supply-side system. In both sides of the spectrum, the workers get the shaft, especially in a global economy where companies can take production overseas.

At the end of the day, the fundamental argument is going to be what the role of the federal government is--is the government's responsibility to spurn growth, or is it merely to act as a regulatory branch? Should the government artificially control interest rates, or leave it up to the banks? I don't know...I think either way you frame it, human failure, greed, or however you want to phrase it, comes into play.

By using a gold standard, there is no Fed to inflate currency. Inflation means that banks are first in line at the money printer and get to spend the money before market prices adjust. By the time everyone else gets the money, prices have risen - screwing those at the end of the line (the average worker).

The Libertarian argument is that there should be no intentional monetary inflation at all. Instead, with the money supply held constant, we should see a steady decline in prices as technology drives efficient production at lower cost. Keynesians argue that the lack of inflation under a gold standard provides an incentive to horde money rather than invest it. Hording money means your not using it to stimulate the economy. Libertarians say so what. If money gets horded by some individuals, it takes money out of the economy. The remaining money in circulation therefore increases in relative value, allowing them to buy more stuff. (Effectively, prices would drop as goods-makers compete to exchange their goods for the now rarer money.) The hoarders lose out on this global sale if they hoard money. Therefore, there already is a built-in disincentive to hoard money.

It really all boils down to who to trust on regulating the value of currency. In a gold standard, the market determines the value of gold. In a fiat money system, a small cadre of private bankers determine the value of money in a manner that benefits them the most. Both systems result in a business cycle where things get mistakenly overvalued and then corrections are necessary. Zonker argues that under a fiat system, these business cycles are more muted, and he might be right. But I'm concerned that the only reason they are muted is because massive deficit spending is used to cushion the corrections. This massive increase in debt will one day lead to collapse. This collapse will be in the form of a massive market crash, or a 30-year deflationary death spiral like Japan where all savings is slowly but inexorably wiped out.

Japan's slow death has been rather uneventful because they live in a world policed by the U.S. It has allowed them to watch their society slowly get weak and old with no real repercussions. But in the real world, a slow deflationary death spiral will only remain serene until an enemy with superior military strength decides to attack. At that point, the orderly decline would end and a crash would take place as resources must be mustered to fight this new threat. (Effectively, old people with savings, expecting to retire in comfort, will be screwed as their savings gets raided for national defense.)

[dckingsfan]

I would add - that the more that we pump money into the system and the more debt we accumulate, the faster the return on capital accelerates vs. the rate of economic growth (jobs).

So TGW, I am not saying we shouldn't do a minimum wage hike. What I am saying is it is meaningless when your debt is growing too fast and you are pumping money into the financial system.

The less debt and the less you are pumping money into the financial system the less the proportion that r>g.

Basically, I am saying that right now - the biggest issue that blue collar workers have is the Fed & Local and State Government.

[FAH1223]

This discussion kind of reminds me of Trump's isolationist views and why the establishment hates him.

Trump is smarter than he looks but he seems to be quite ignorant. Or he's just stroking up the nationalistic views.

The US cannot completely disengage and cannot stop being an empire, its what's keeping it alive.

If we disengage why do Japan, China, the Gulf Arabs and everyone else have to buy US treasury bills to keep the USA free credit card going on perpetually?

As soon as the plug is pulled, wouldn't the US sink into a depression that makes 1929 look like a day in a picnic?
The rest of the worlds economies will collapse too, as world trade stops.
China and Russia have become very strategic together to working on alternative financial and trade structure to weather the future storm and sanctions. It's why they were pushing so hard for the Iran Deal and why Iran may become a full member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. But even 20 years from now the best they could do would be maybe 20% of current trade probably less.

Trump also says silly things like Japanese, South Koreans and Germans should pay more for the upkeep of the US troops stationed there.

The reality is that they do shoulder the burden, but making them pay for everything means risking exposing the imperial structure and the reality of those countries relationship with the US.
It would show the world and the citizens of these countries that they are a vassal and not truly independent, people might wake up and develop nationalistic feelings that will be anti-American and anti-empire.

This is why the Establishment has been telling Trump to let sleeping dogs lie..ignorance and apathy should be cultivated.

[nate33]

This discussion kind of reminds me of Trump's isolationist views and why the establishment hates him.

Trump is smarter than he looks but he seems to be quite ignorant. Or he's just stroking up the nationalistic views.

The US cannot completely disengage and cannot stop being an empire, its what's keeping it alive.

If we disengage why do Japan, China, the Gulf Arabs and everyone else have to buy US treasury bills to keep the USA free credit card going on perpetually?

As soon as the plug is pulled, wouldn't the US sink into a depression that makes 1929 look like a day in a picnic?
The rest of the worlds economies will collapse too, as world trade stops.
China and Russia have become very strategic together to working on alternative financial and trade structure to weather the future storm and sanctions. It's why they were pushing so hard for the Iran Deal and why Iran may become a full member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. But even 20 years from now the best they could do would be maybe 20% of current trade probably less.

Trump also says silly things like Japanese, South Koreans and Germans should pay more for the upkeep of the US troops stationed there.

The reality is that they do shoulder the burden, but making them pay for everything means risking exposing the imperial structure and the reality of those countries relationship with the US.
It would show the world and the citizens of these countries that they are a vassal and not truly independent, people might wake up and develop nationalistic feelings that will be anti-American and anti-empire.

This is why the Establishment has been telling Trump to let sleeping dogs lie..ignorance and apathy should be cultivated.

Trump isn't talking about 100% tariffs or anything. He is talking about punitive tariffs in response to currency manipulation. Literally 99.5% of cars in Japan are manufactured in Japan even though Japanese automobiles cost about as much as American automobiles in the global market. This is mercantilism, and it's harming American manufacturing.

You are right that China and Japan can retaliate against any tariffs imposed by us with reducing their purchase of our Treasuries. But we will win that game of chicken and they know it. If they stop buying Treasuries, the FED will buy them (just as they have been doing). Yes, it's essentially printing money, but it's worked before, so it'll work again (at least temporarily). Meanwhile, Japan and China suffer a total economic collapse without the U.S. consumer demand. They have riots in the streets and revolution in government.

Trump's number one complaint about our governance of the past 30 years is the fact that we don't negotiate hard enough. We don't seem to make use of the leverage that we have in global agreements - instead opting to give away our manufacturing base. Trump will make better use of our superior negotiating position in these agreements. We have the leverage. When you owe the bank $10,000 dollars, you have a problem. When you owe the bank $10 million, they have a problem. Well, we owe China trillions. They're going to lose.

[nate33]

On a side note, I got frustrated with the lack of mathematical detail in the predictions of whether or not Trump can get to 1237 delegates by the end of the primary. I decided to make my own spreadsheet and project it out.

Trump will get to 1237 easily. It's not even a question. This thing is over.

He has 755 delegates right now. He's going to win the 277 votes in the winner-take-all states of Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey and California. He's going to win 70% of the 204 delegates in the WTA-by-congressional-district states of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Indiana, West Virginia. (He'll probably win much more than 70%, I'm being conservative.) He's going to win 50% or more of the 166 delegates in the proportional Trump states of New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island and New Mexico. He's going to win 25% of the 72 delegates in proportional non-Trump states of Oregon and Washington. He'll lose the 92 WTA delegates in Cruz states of Nebraska, Montana and South Dakota.

All told that breaks down like this:
Current delegates won by Trump: 755
Upcoming WTA delegates for Trump: 277
Upcoming WTA by CD delegates for Trump: 143
Proportional delegates from Trump States: 83
Proportional from non-Trump States: 18

Total: 1276

This assumes Pennsylvania's delegates earned by Trump get credited to him. Trump will only have 13 Pennsylvania delegates technically bound to him, plus maybe 70% of the remaining 54 delegates ostensibly on his side but technically unbound. Ignoring the technically unbound Penn. delegates, he'll actually only have 1238, but that's still enough. And that 1238 number assumes that 0 unbound delegates from the rest of the nation go to him. There will be 54 unbound delegates from Pennsylvania, 37 from Colorado, 28 from North Dakota, 15 from places like Guam and Virgin Islands and from states who don't distribute all of their delegates, plus another 179 from candidates who have dropped out. All told, there will be 270 unbound delegates (54 from Pennsylvania which was won handily by Trump). Some percentage of those delegates will go to the frontrunner, so Trump has a significant cushion. And again, I was extremely conservative in my 70% estimate of the WTA-by-CD states of Wisconsin, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Indiana. If those go like Illinois and South Carolina, he should come away with more like 80-85%, boosting his count by 25 or so.

[krii]

Spoiler:

This discussion kind of reminds me of Trump's isolationist views and why the establishment hates him.

Trump is smarter than he looks but he seems to be quite ignorant. Or he's just stroking up the nationalistic views.

The US cannot completely disengage and cannot stop being an empire, its what's keeping it alive.

If we disengage why do Japan, China, the Gulf Arabs and everyone else have to buy US treasury bills to keep the USA free credit card going on perpetually?

As soon as the plug is pulled, wouldn't the US sink into a depression that makes 1929 look like a day in a picnic?
The rest of the worlds economies will collapse too, as world trade stops.
China and Russia have become very strategic together to working on alternative financial and trade structure to weather the future storm and sanctions. It's why they were pushing so hard for the Iran Deal and why Iran may become a full member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. But even 20 years from now the best they could do would be maybe 20% of current trade probably less.

Trump also says silly things like Japanese, South Koreans and Germans should pay more for the upkeep of the US troops stationed there.

The reality is that they do shoulder the burden, but making them pay for everything means risking exposing the imperial structure and the reality of those countries relationship with the US.
It would show the world and the citizens of these countries that they are a vassal and not truly independent, people might wake up and develop nationalistic feelings that will be anti-American and anti-empire.

This is why the Establishment has been telling Trump to let sleeping dogs lie..ignorance and apathy should be cultivated.

Trump isn't talking about 100% tariffs or anything. He is talking about punitive tariffs in response to currency manipulation. Literally 99.5% of cars in Japan are manufactured in Japan even though Japanese automobiles cost about as much as American automobiles in the global market. This is mercantilism, and it's harming American manufacturing.

You are right that China and Japan can retaliate against any tariffs imposed by us with reducing their purchase of our Treasuries. But we will win that game of chicken and they know it. If they stop buying Treasuries, the FED will buy them (just as they have been doing). Yes, it's essentially printing money, but it's worked before, so it'll work again (at least temporarily). Meanwhile, Japan and China suffer a total economic collapse without the U.S. consumer demand. They have riots in the streets and revolution in government.

Trump's number complaint about our governance of the past 30 years is the fact that we don't negotiate hard enough. We don't seem to make use of the leverage that we have in global agreements - instead opting to give away our manufacturing base. Trump will make better use of our superior negotiating position in these agreements.

When you owe the bank $10,000 dollars, you have a problem. When you owe the bank $10 million, they have a problem. Well, we owe China trillions. They're going to lose.

We need to remember a few things: global markets aren't individual components working on their own, they are very related; in fact, they are indivisible. China, for instance, owns a lot of US' debt but it doesn't mean that US need to feel that threaten by this fact - in the unlikely even if US economic system collapse that China would have any 'I won' attitude. They'd just loose A LOT of money. Even such a market cannot get through such lose without consequences. And we need to remember that they have muuuuuuch more money on a daily-basis business nobody talk about - big companies spends trillions in China, China invest billions in the US etc. It's too much too loose to start any sort of conflict
But I don't believe in printing money. It'd be the worst possible scenario, IMO. They'll pay it back or just leave it.

[TGW]

thanks guys for the quick lesson in economics. admittedly I don't know crap about this stuff.

[DCZards]

Trump's number one complaint about our governance of the past 30 years is the fact that we don't negotiate hard enough. We don't seem to make use of the leverage that we have in global agreements - instead opting to give away our manufacturing base. Trump will make better use of our superior negotiating position in these agreements. We have the leverage. When you owe the bank $10,000 dollars, you have a problem. When you owe the bank $10 million, they have a problem. Well, we owe China trillions. They're going to lose.

This is where I strongly disagree with Trump—and you. Trump would have us believe that when he’s president everything we do in this country will be bigger, better, faster. Trump portrays himself as this “master negotiator” who will have other world leaders and countries in the palm of his hand. (e.g. “Believe me, Mexico will pay for the wall.”)

It’s always easier to say things like that when you’re on the outside of the government/political world looking in…as Trump has been. But I think reality will smack Trump—and his supporters—in the face if and when he actually sits across the table from other world leaders and learns that the negotiating skills he employed in the business world aren’t nearly as effective (or legal/appropriate) in the complex and multi-tiered political world.

[nate33]

Trump's number one complaint about our governance of the past 30 years is the fact that we don't negotiate hard enough. We don't seem to make use of the leverage that we have in global agreements - instead opting to give away our manufacturing base. Trump will make better use of our superior negotiating position in these agreements. We have the leverage. When you owe the bank $10,000 dollars, you have a problem. When you owe the bank $10 million, they have a problem. Well, we owe China trillions. They're going to lose.

This is where I strongly disagree with Trump—and you. Trump would have us believe that when he’s president everything we do in this country will be bigger, better, faster. Trump portrays himself as this “master negotiator” who will have other world leaders and countries in the palm of his hand. (e.g. “Believe me, Mexico will pay for the wall.”)

It’s always easier to say things like that when you’re on the outside of the government/political world looking in…as Trump has been. But I think reality will smack Trump—and his supporters—in the face if and when he actually sits across the table from other world leaders and learns that the negotiating skills he employed in the business world aren’t nearly as effective (or legal/appropriate) in the complex and multi-tiered political world.

You may be right. There is no way to know for sure.

But I think the fact that our manufacturing base has been hollowed out to a much greater extent than that of, say, Canada or Germany, suggests that our issue is with the treaties, not just the fundamental dynamics of globalism.

[Kanyewest]

On a side note, I got frustrated with the lack of mathematical detail in the predictions of whether or not Trump can get to 1237 delegates by the end of the primary. I decided to make my own spreadsheet and project it out.

Trump will get to 1237 easily. It's not even a question. This thing is over.

He has 755 delegates right now. He's going to win the 277 votes in the winner-take-all states of Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey and California. He's going to win 70% of the 204 delegates in the WTA-by-congressional-district states of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Indiana, West Virginia. (He'll probably win much more than 70%, I'm being conservative.) He's going to win 50% or more of the 166 delegates in the proportional Trump states of New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island and New Mexico. He's going to win 25% of the 72 delegates in proportional non-Trump states of Oregon and Washington. He'll lose the 92 WTA delegates in Cruz states of Nebraska, Montana and South Dakota.

All told that breaks down like this:
Current delegates won by Trump: 755
Upcoming WTA delegates for Trump: 277
Upcoming WTA by CD delegates for Trump: 143
Proportional delegates from Trump States: 83
Proportional from non-Trump States: 18

Total: 1276

This assumes Pennsylvania's delegates earned by Trump get credited to him. Trump will only have 13 Pennsylvania delegates technically bound to him, plus maybe 70% of the remaining 54 delegates ostensibly on his side but technically unbound. Ignoring the technically unbound Penn. delegates, he'll actually only have 1238, but that's still enough. And that 1238 number assumes that 0 unbound delegates from the rest of the nation go to him. There will be 54 unbound delegates from Pennsylvania, 37 from Colorado, 28 from North Dakota, 15 from places like Guam and Virgin Islands and from states who don't distribute all of their delegates, plus another 179 from candidates who have dropped out. All told, there will be 270 unbound delegates (54 from Pennsylvania which was won handily by Trump). Some percentage of those delegates will go to the frontrunner, so Trump has a significant cushion. And again, I was extremely conservative in my 70% estimate of the WTA-by-CD states of Wisconsin, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Indiana. If those go like Illinois and South Carolina, he should come away with more like 80-85%, boosting his count by 25 or so.

Thanks for the explanation. It seems like network news wants to say this is a much closer race than it is actually is in order to keep people tunedin.

[nate33]

Thanks for the explanation. It seems like network news wants to say this is a much closer race than it is actually is in order to keep people tunedin.

After reading my post, I see that it's more convoluted than it needs to be because of the way I described Pennsylvania. Here it is more succinctly:

755 – delegates so far.
291 – delegates from winner-take-all states (MD, DE, CA, NJ, plus 14 from PA)
110 – 75% of 147 delegates in WTA-by-congressional-district states (WI, IN, WV)
84 – 50% of proportional delegates from Trump states (NY, CT, RI, NM)
18 – 25% of proportional delegates from non-Trump states (OR, WA)
0 - from WTA states that Cruz will win (MT, SD, NE)

That gets him to 1258.

And that doesn’t even count the 54 unbound Pennsylvania delegates, the 37 from Colorado, the 28 from North Dakota and the 15 miscellaneous ones from places like Guam. It also doesn’t count the unbound delegates from Rubio (167) and Carson (8) and other candidates (4). Trump is going to get some of those unbound delegates – certainly a good chunk of the PA ones. He’ll probably finish with over 1300.

Watch for a lot of media hand-wringing about Wisconsin. I'm assuming Trump wins 75% of those 42 delegates. But if Cruz somehow wins by a hair and limits Trump to, say 40% of the delegates, it'll mean Trump gets 18 delegates instead of 31. Big deal. It still won't stop him from getting to 1237.

The only realistic way Trump can be stopped is if he loses California. Polls on the state are a bit outdated and have him leading by 5-15%. But after seeing his performance in Arizona, I think Trump is getting stronger, not weaker. I figure Southern California votes like Arizona, and northern California is going to vote like an East coast state with perhaps a bit more affinity for Cruz.

[crackhed]

Trump's number one complaint about our governance of the past 30 years is the fact that we don't negotiate hard enough. We don't seem to make use of the leverage that we have in global agreements - instead opting to give away our manufacturing base. Trump will make better use of our superior negotiating position in these agreements. We have the leverage. When you owe the bank $10,000 dollars, you have a problem. When you owe the bank $10 million, they have a problem. Well, we owe China trillions. They're going to lose.

This is where I strongly disagree with Trump—and you. Trump would have us believe that when he’s president everything we do in this country will be bigger, better, faster. Trump portrays himself as this “master negotiator” who will have other world leaders and countries in the palm of his hand. (e.g. “Believe me, Mexico will pay for the wall.”)

It’s always easier to say things like that when you’re on the outside of the government/political world looking in…as Trump has been. But I think reality will smack Trump—and his supporters—in the face if and when he actually sits across the table from other world leaders and learns that the negotiating skills he employed in the business world aren’t nearly as effective (or legal/appropriate) in the complex and multi-tiered political world.

the real tragedy is that there are many fools out there willing to believe this con-artist despite his very clear history of promising things he has no intention of delivering on. yes washington is horribly broken, but it can get worse.

[dckingsfan]

Thanks for the explanation. It seems like network news wants to say this is a much closer race than it is actually is in order to keep people tunedin.

After reading my post, I see that it's more convoluted than it needs to be because of the way I described Pennsylvania. Here it is more succinctly:

755 – delegates so far.
291 – delegates from winner-take-all states (MD, DE, CA, NJ, plus 14 from PA)
110 – 75% of 147 delegates in WTA-by-congressional-district states (WI, IN, WV)
84 – 50% of proportional delegates from Trump states (NY, CT, RI, NM)
18 – 25% of proportional delegates from non-Trump states (OR, WA)
0 - from WTA states that Cruz will win (MT, SD, NE)

That gets him to 1258.

And that doesn’t even count the 54 unbound Pennsylvania delegates, the 37 from Colorado, the 28 from North Dakota and the 15 miscellaneous ones from places like Guam. It also doesn’t count the unbound delegates from Rubio (167) and Carson (8) and other candidates (4). Trump is going to get some of those unbound delegates – certainly a good chunk of the PA ones. He’ll probably finish with over 1300.

Watch for a lot of media hand-wringing about Wisconsin. I'm assuming Trump wins 75% of those 42 delegates. But if Cruz somehow wins by a hair and limits Trump to, say 40% of the delegates, it'll mean Trump gets 18 delegates instead of 31. Big deal. It still won't stop him from getting to 1237.

The only realistic way Trump can be stopped is if he loses California. Polls on the state are a bit outdated and have him leading by 5-15%. But after seeing his performance in Arizona, I think Trump is getting stronger, not weaker. I figure Southern California votes like Arizona, and northern California is going to vote like an East coast state with perhaps a bit more affinity for Cruz.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-most-important-states-on-trumps-path-to-1237-delegates/

[nate33]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-most-important-states-on-trumps-path-to-1237-delegates/

Nate Silver has his projected track of what candidates need to get to 1237, but he doesn't actually try and predict what they will actually get and where. I couldn't find an analysis like mine anywhere, so I made one up.

The most important takeaway is that with the high number of winner-take-all states going forward, it's really easy for Trump to get the 51% of the remaining delegates necessary to get to 1237.

[crackhed]

Thanks for the explanation. It seems like network news wants to say this is a much closer race than it is actually is in order to keep people tunedin.

After reading my post, I see that it's more convoluted than it needs to be because of the way I described Pennsylvania. Here it is more succinctly:

755 – delegates so far.
291 – delegates from winner-take-all states (MD, DE, CA, NJ, plus 14 from PA)
110 – 75% of 147 delegates in WTA-by-congressional-district states (WI, IN, WV)
84 – 50% of proportional delegates from Trump states (NY, CT, RI, NM)
18 – 25% of proportional delegates from non-Trump states (OR, WA)
0 - from WTA states that Cruz will win (MT, SD, NE)

That gets him to 1258.

And that doesn’t even count the 54 unbound Pennsylvania delegates, the 37 from Colorado, the 28 from North Dakota and the 15 miscellaneous ones from places like Guam. It also doesn’t count the unbound delegates from Rubio (167) and Carson (8) and other candidates (4). Trump is going to get some of those unbound delegates – certainly a good chunk of the PA ones. He’ll probably finish with over 1300.

Watch for a lot of media hand-wringing about Wisconsin. I'm assuming Trump wins 75% of those 42 delegates. But if Cruz somehow wins by a hair and limits Trump to, say 40% of the delegates, it'll mean Trump gets 18 delegates instead of 31. Big deal. It still won't stop him from getting to 1237.

The only realistic way Trump can be stopped is if he loses California. Polls on the state are a bit outdated and have him leading by 5-15%. But after seeing his performance in Arizona, I think Trump is getting stronger, not weaker. I figure Southern California votes like Arizona, and northern California is going to vote like an East coast state with perhaps a bit more affinity for Cruz.

polls show that donald trump is THE ONLY 'republican' candidate left that loses to both hillary and bernie.. you should check it out

[nate33]

Thanks for the explanation. It seems like network news wants to say this is a much closer race than it is actually is in order to keep people tunedin.

After reading my post, I see that it's more convoluted than it needs to be because of the way I described Pennsylvania. Here it is more succinctly:

755 – delegates so far.
291 – delegates from winner-take-all states (MD, DE, CA, NJ, plus 14 from PA)
110 – 75% of 147 delegates in WTA-by-congressional-district states (WI, IN, WV)
84 – 50% of proportional delegates from Trump states (NY, CT, RI, NM)
18 – 25% of proportional delegates from non-Trump states (OR, WA)
0 - from WTA states that Cruz will win (MT, SD, NE)

That gets him to 1258.

And that doesn’t even count the 54 unbound Pennsylvania delegates, the 37 from Colorado, the 28 from North Dakota and the 15 miscellaneous ones from places like Guam. It also doesn’t count the unbound delegates from Rubio (167) and Carson (8) and other candidates (4). Trump is going to get some of those unbound delegates – certainly a good chunk of the PA ones. He’ll probably finish with over 1300.

Watch for a lot of media hand-wringing about Wisconsin. I'm assuming Trump wins 75% of those 42 delegates. But if Cruz somehow wins by a hair and limits Trump to, say 40% of the delegates, it'll mean Trump gets 18 delegates instead of 31. Big deal. It still won't stop him from getting to 1237.

The only realistic way Trump can be stopped is if he loses California. Polls on the state are a bit outdated and have him leading by 5-15%. But after seeing his performance in Arizona, I think Trump is getting stronger, not weaker. I figure Southern California votes like Arizona, and northern California is going to vote like an East coast state with perhaps a bit more affinity for Cruz.

polls show that donald trump is THE ONLY 'republican' candidate left that loses to both hillary and bernie.. you should check it out

I'm aware of this. They may be right, they may not. Head to head polls taken this early in the cycle are completely meaningless. We will see how Trump improves once he has unified the GOP and they stop stabbing each other in the back. And we will see how Hillary drops once she faces some actual opposition on her record and her multiple scandals.

Reagan trailed Carter by 20 points at this time in the cycle and went on to win in a landslide.

I do know that Democrats seem a lot more worried about facing Trump than they do Cruz or Kasich.

[crackhed]

After reading my post, I see that it's more convoluted than it needs to be because of the way I described Pennsylvania. Here it is more succinctly:

755 – delegates so far.
291 – delegates from winner-take-all states (MD, DE, CA, NJ, plus 14 from PA)
110 – 75% of 147 delegates in WTA-by-congressional-district states (WI, IN, WV)
84 – 50% of proportional delegates from Trump states (NY, CT, RI, NM)
18 – 25% of proportional delegates from non-Trump states (OR, WA)
0 - from WTA states that Cruz will win (MT, SD, NE)

That gets him to 1258.

And that doesn’t even count the 54 unbound Pennsylvania delegates, the 37 from Colorado, the 28 from North Dakota and the 15 miscellaneous ones from places like Guam. It also doesn’t count the unbound delegates from Rubio (167) and Carson (8) and other candidates (4). Trump is going to get some of those unbound delegates – certainly a good chunk of the PA ones. He’ll probably finish with over 1300.

Watch for a lot of media hand-wringing about Wisconsin. I'm assuming Trump wins 75% of those 42 delegates. But if Cruz somehow wins by a hair and limits Trump to, say 40% of the delegates, it'll mean Trump gets 18 delegates instead of 31. Big deal. It still won't stop him from getting to 1237.

The only realistic way Trump can be stopped is if he loses California. Polls on the state are a bit outdated and have him leading by 5-15%. But after seeing his performance in Arizona, I think Trump is getting stronger, not weaker. I figure Southern California votes like Arizona, and northern California is going to vote like an East coast state with perhaps a bit more affinity for Cruz.

polls show that donald trump is THE ONLY 'republican' candidate left that loses to both hillary and bernie.. you should check it out

I'm aware of this. They may be right, they may not. Head to head polls taken this early in the cycle are completely meaningless. We will see how Trump improves once he has unified the GOP and they stop stabbing each other in the back. And we will see how Hillary drops once she faces some actual opposition on her record and her multiple scandals.

Reagan trailed Carter by 20 points at this time in the cycle and went on to win in a landslide.

I do know that Democrats seem a lot more worried about facing Trump than they do Cruz or Kasich.

well donald trump isn't reagan, and maybe you underestimate what there is out there yet uncovered by the republicans about donald trump. hillary's problems are very well known by everyone already

[nate33]

polls show that donald trump is THE ONLY 'republican' candidate left that loses to both hillary and bernie.. you should check it out

I'm aware of this. They may be right, they may not. Head to head polls taken this early in the cycle are completely meaningless. We will see how Trump improves once he has unified the GOP and they stop stabbing each other in the back. And we will see how Hillary drops once she faces some actual opposition on her record and her multiple scandals.

Reagan trailed Carter by 20 points at this time in the cycle and went on to win in a landslide.

I do know that Democrats seem a lot more worried about facing Trump than they do Cruz or Kasich.

well donald trump isn't reagan, and maybe you underestimate what there is out there yet uncovered by the republicans about donald trump. hillary's problems are very well known by everyone already

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm not saying you're right either. I really don't know.

What I do know is that the old Bush/Dole/McCain/Romney coalition of red states just isn't going to get it done. The demographics have changed enough to render that strategy obsolete. Cruz or Kasich can only follow the same path, which means they can't win. Trump is at least a wild card. I don't know if he can win, I just know the others can't. I'd rather take my chances with Trump.