New York is his home state. His main rival implied that New York values are something to be ashamed of. He consistently does better among liberals / moderates than conservatives, who prefer Cruz. The state party does well and is not just for people on the extreme end of the right wing, unlike in some other liberal states. Another strong group of Trump supporters is white people living in areas with lots of minorities. New York qualifies. The region is good for him, almost as good as the South; he has taken 3 out of 4 north-eastern states including arch-liberal Vermont. At the macro level, he has taken 14/17 states east of the Mississippi, and only 6/15 states west of the it.
On the long run the GOP will do good to jettison the "crazies" west of the Mississippi, the vast majority of people live east of that river.
Those two halves look too incompatible now, if trying to placate the voters of Nebraska costs them votes in Florida, they should go for Florida as the bigger prize.
But their current strategy is good for their control of the Senate, each state has 2 senators regardless of size. A third of all Senators are elected by a very small fraction of the population, most of them in the west.
The Republicans have always been strong in the western Great Plains states, many of which only voted a handful of times for a Democrat. What's changed since the 1970s is that white Southern conservative politicians, especially in the Deep South which is east of the Mississippi, used to call themselves Democrats and now call themselves Republicans. This is why their party now enjoys its largest legislative majority since the years before F.D.R. - maybe they are not so crazy after all. However, in the long term, Democratic occupation of the presidency would lead to more executive and judicial constraint of Republican state and federal lawmakers.
I think those southern Republicans are more and more incompatible with the conservatives of the great plains and the mountains.
First of all they are democrats who are simply republicans because they don't like foreigners and are suspicious of minorities, they don't subscribe to the severe conservative conditions of the plains. That's the reason why Trump is doing so well in both the old South and the old North.
It would be rather symbolic if Trump wins in New York but Clinton doesn't.
Right now Hillary is getting 55 and Trump 53 in my estimates of the Exit Polls.
Don't forget the polls don't close until 9pm EDT
I know, It's not my fault if they leak it hours in advance.
They're not leaks - if you want to take an exit poll and release it at 5pm, have at it.
You can still get Hillary at 1.05 on Betfair, be quick.
Dammit - let me go and delete a bunch of my posts over the last few weeks....
Well as I said, Sanders lost the nomination on March 15th. His voters voted Kasich to stop Trump, Sanders thought that going aggressively against Trump might win him votes but it backfired, as a result he lost Ohio, Illinois and Missouri.
Do you think the incompetence is accidental, or is it a deliberate attempt to make life difficult for less affluent voters?
Cock up, not conspiracy
With the corruption in american politics you can expect anything, even incompetence.
That is such a sweeping and ridiculous statement that it is not worthy of response, except I grant you much incompetence on both sides.
Not even a Bridge to Nowhere ? (you remember, Ted Stevens).
That's just pork. Just like the many weapons systems the military would love to kill but can't because some congressman has a plant in his district and keeps voting it money.
That's open. on the the record, and voted by Congress. It may be a dumb way to run things, but it's not corruption.
An interesting couple of stats, courtesy of MsNBC, CNN and Fox News -
there are 5,792,497 registered Democrats across NY state, 53% reside within New York City
There are 2,731,688 registered Republicans across NY state, 17% reside within New York City.
It's 30 years since I lived in upstate NY, but even then then the prevailing wish was that the city would just float away to sea, leaving everyone better off.
Sanders - $5.6 million, all from campaign Clinton - $2.8 million, all from campaign Kasich - $480k, $349 from Superpac, $131k from campaign Cruz - $467k, $419k from superpac, $48k from campaign Trump - $67k, all from campaign
The confusion comes because in the 60s the two sections switched political parties. The Yankees switched from Republican and the South switched from Democrat. Really the parties need to switch names again, then southerners can go back to saluting their political antecedents of Jackson, Jefferson and Davis, it is just silly when they say they are the party of Lincoln.
As David Hackett Fisher showed in Albion's Seed US history is really the long deep seated conflict between New England Puritans and Virginia Cavaliers, which begins with our own civil war and political/religious conflicts of the 17th century. The one that persuades the rest of the US to take their side gains the upper hand. These patterns have lasted for over 300 years so not much can shift them, except wide scale immigration. Indeed the loss of California, which once elected Nixon and Reagan as governors, due to Mexican immigration is what so hamstrings the South.
That said I think Colin Woodard's American Nations gives a more complete understanding of the different US sectional interests.
The confusion comes because in the 60s the two sections switched political parties. The Yankees switched from Republican and the South switched from Democrat. Really the parties need to switch names again, then southerners can go back to saluting their political antecedents of Jackson, Jefferson and Davis, it is just silly when they say they are the party of Lincoln.
As David Hackett Fisher showed in Albion's Seed US history is really the long deep seated conflict between New England Puritans and Virginia Cavaliers, which begins with our own civil war and political/religious conflicts of the 17th century. The one that persuades the rest of the US to take their side gains the upper hand. These patterns have lasted for over 300 years so not much can shift them, except wide scale immigration. Indeed the loss of California, which once elected Nixon and Reagan as governors, due to Mexican immigration is what so hamstrings the South.
That said I think Colin Woodard's American Nations gives a more complete understanding of the different US sectional interests.
A few weeks ago somebody (I can't remember who) said that Michael Gove had turned into a Maoist. Now, he has proposed the "Albanian model". Perhaps he is turning into a Hoxhaist? I am a member of the Gavin Barwell Party, but I am a big fan of Gove too, with his focus on excellence and standards in education and on rehabilitation in prisons. I am a Goveist-Barwellist.
A few months ago there was an article in the Communist Review magazine which made a plausible argument that Hoxha's Albania was the closest real example to the correct path of orthodox Marxism-Leninism. North Korea, on the other hand, with its idiosyncratic Juche-Songun / Kimilsungism-Kimjonilism, is more akin to the various socialist / nationalist and Ba'athist régimes in Arab and African countries.
How long before the exit polls? Hopefully it'll be close between Clinton and Sanders, just to make the night an exciting one.
There are exit polls all the time. Polls close at 9pm EDT. Last exit one I saw Clinton was ahead by 7. I am seeing lots of t-shirts with "Hillary's Lies Matter".
A few weeks ago somebody (I can't remember who) said that Michael Gove had turned into a Maoist. Now, he has proposed the "Albanian model". Perhaps he is turning into a Hoxhaist? I am a member of the Gavin Barwell Party, but I am a big fan of Gove too, with his focus on excellence and standards in education and on rehabilitation in prisons. I am a Goveist-Barwellist.
A few months ago there was an article in the Communist Review magazine which made a plausible argument that Hoxha's Albania was the closest real example to the correct path of orthodox Marxism-Leninism. North Korea, on the other hand, with its idiosyncratic Juche-Songun / Kimilsungism-Kimjonilism, is more akin to the various socialist / nationalist and Ba'athist régimes in Arab and African countries.
"Albanian Model". Sounds like something Donald Trump would marry.
I am a Cholmondley Bottomly Featherstone Haugh - ist
The confusion comes because in the 60s the two sections switched political parties. The Yankees switched from Republican and the South switched from Democrat. Really the parties need to switch names again, then southerners can go back to saluting their political antecedents of Jackson, Jefferson and Davis, it is just silly when they say they are the party of Lincoln.
As David Hackett Fisher showed in Albion's Seed US history is really the long deep seated conflict between New England Puritans and Virginia Cavaliers, which begins with our own civil war and political/religious conflicts of the 17th century. The one that persuades the rest of the US to take their side gains the upper hand. These patterns have lasted for over 300 years so not much can shift them, except wide scale immigration. Indeed the loss of California, which once elected Nixon and Reagan as governors, due to Mexican immigration is what so hamstrings the South.
That said I think Colin Woodard's American Nations gives a more complete understanding of the different US sectional interests.
Once the Civil Rights Act was signed the transition began from Democrat to Republican in the South. Carter was the aberration, but don't forget Ford's reputation for being total klutz and having pardoned Nixon.
LBJ is alleged to have said - but it's probably apocryphal - that the Democrats had lost the south for a generation when he signed the Civil Rights Act.
Glib statements might work in a bar but not on this site:
Quit the smartass shit. I've lived in the South for 30 years. The South is STILL chafing under the Civil Rights Act. It is the reason the South is solidly Republican. "the stroke of a pen" was something of a flourish, I admit.
Once the Civil Rights Act was signed the transition began from Democrat to Republican in the South. Carter was the aberration, but don't forget Ford's reputation for being total klutz and having pardoned Nixon.
LBJ is alleged to have said - but it's probably apocryphal - that the Democrats had lost the south for a generation when he signed the Civil Rights Act.
Glib statements might work in a bar but not on this site:
Quit the smartass shit. I've lived in the South for 30 years. The South is STILL chafing under the Civil Rights Act. It is the reason the South is solidly Republican. "the stroke of a pen" was something of a flourish, I admit.
Southern Republicans are simply anti-minority Democrats. Hence Trump's sweep there.
Once the Civil Rights Act was signed the transition began from Democrat to Republican in the South. Carter was the aberration, but don't forget Ford's reputation for being total klutz and having pardoned Nixon.
LBJ is alleged to have said - but it's probably apocryphal - that the Democrats had lost the south for a generation when he signed the Civil Rights Act.
Glib statements might work in a bar but not on this site:
Quit the smartass shit. I've lived in the South for 30 years. The South is STILL chafing under the Civil Rights Act. It is the reason the South is solidly Republican. "the stroke of a pen" was something of a flourish, I admit.
Southern Republicans are simply anti-minority Democrats. Hence Trump's sweep there.
Firstly I would like to hear what the first sentence means. I am curious.
Trump does well with Catholic ethnics (Irish, Italian, French Canadians and Slavs) in the north and the English and Scots-Irish of the Deep South and Appalachia. The old FDR coalition. He will still lose New England in the general.
Once the Civil Rights Act was signed the transition began from Democrat to Republican in the South. Carter was the aberration, but don't forget Ford's reputation for being total klutz and having pardoned Nixon.
LBJ is alleged to have said - but it's probably apocryphal - that the Democrats had lost the south for a generation when he signed the Civil Rights Act.
Glib statements might work in a bar but not on this site:
Quit the smartass shit. I've lived in the South for 30 years. The South is STILL chafing under the Civil Rights Act. It is the reason the South is solidly Republican. "the stroke of a pen" was something of a flourish, I admit.
Southern Republicans are simply anti-minority Democrats. Hence Trump's sweep there.
Firstly I would like to hear what the first sentence means. I am curious.
Until I hear that I can't comment on the second.
It's simple, most southern Republicans were simply Democrats and supported Democratic social and economic programs (FDR, Huey Long ect), but for historical reasons are against minorities (Civil War, Slavery ect), so after the Civil Rights Act they switched to Republicans but kept their populist Democratic traditions.
Southern Republicans are not conservative purists, they are populist, anti-minority Democrats.
People in Singapore that bastion of civil rights & press freedom can now read about the celebrity (sic) threesome........so I think the Law in E&W has joined ***** ******* and ***** **** in having its reputation trashed.......
It'll be difficult to deny Trump the nomination if he also wins convincingly in California.
That is what Trump's campaign team thought after his early big wins, and why he took a relaxed approach. He won't underestimate the special interests again and it is why Trump has hired Manafort, Wiley etc. and why he has given them a 20 mil budget for Cali.
Once the Civil Rights Act was signed the transition began from Democrat to Republican in the South. Carter was the aberration, but don't forget Ford's reputation for being total klutz and having pardoned Nixon.
LBJ is alleged to have said - but it's probably apocryphal - that the Democrats had lost the south for a generation when he signed the Civil Rights Act.
Glib statements might work in a bar but not on this site:
Quit the smartass shit. I've lived in the South for 30 years. The South is STILL chafing under the Civil Rights Act. It is the reason the South is solidly Republican. "the stroke of a pen" was something of a flourish, I admit.
'Something of a flourish' = inaccuracy.
The South was solidly Democrat in 1976 and in 1980 significantly more Democrat than the USA as a whole.
Even now is the South solidly Republican ?
Or just nice middle class white Southerners ?
Perhaps you'd let us know how black majority and Hispanic majority congressional districts voted in 2014. I wonder if their inhabitants are 'chafing under the Civil Rights Act'.
It'll be difficult to deny Trump the nomination if he also wins convincingly in California.
If he wins convincingly in California he'll have the 1237, so there would be no 'denial'.
I'm surprised because there have been a lot of articles recently about how he was likely to fall short of 1237 despite winning California.
It depends how you define 'convincingly'. There are many many scenarios about how this will go and whether Trump does / doesn't make 1237. It's all about the math and it's all up in the air.
Once the Civil Rights Act was signed the transition began from Democrat to Republican in the South. Carter was the aberration, but don't forget Ford's reputation for being total klutz and having pardoned Nixon.
LBJ is alleged to have said - but it's probably apocryphal - that the Democrats had lost the south for a generation when he signed the Civil Rights Act.
Glib statements might work in a bar but not on this site:
Quit the smartass shit. I've lived in the South for 30 years. The South is STILL chafing under the Civil Rights Act. It is the reason the South is solidly Republican. "the stroke of a pen" was something of a flourish, I admit.
Southern Republicans are simply anti-minority Democrats. Hence Trump's sweep there.
Firstly I would like to hear what the first sentence means. I am curious.
Until I hear that I can't comment on the second.
It's simple, most southern Republicans were simply Democrats and supported Democratic social and economic programs (FDR, Huey Long ect), but for historical reasons are against minorities (Civil War, Slavery ect), so after the Civil Rights Act they switched to Republicans but kept their populist Democratic traditions.
Southern Republicans are not conservative purists, they are populist, anti-minority Democrats.
I couldn't decide where to start on this, so I called a Democrat friend who has lived in Georgia all his life (he was 16 when the Civil Rights Act passed) and read this to him. I had to read it twice, and he was almost dumbfounded.
His comments can best be stated as -
1) it's nonsense 2) has he ever lived here?
My comments would be longer and more detailed with different emphasis but it's not worth the effort.
We can start polling 65 million people in the morning, finish at 10 at night, and get over 99% of the seats peaceably filled by noon the next day using nothing more than blokes from the council, some tin boxes, pencils, and the leisure centre gym. Draw your own maps...
Comments
Seriously, some post voting assignment of candidates to rationalise their own choice there.
First of all they are democrats who are simply republicans because they don't like foreigners and are suspicious of minorities, they don't subscribe to the severe conservative conditions of the plains.
That's the reason why Trump is doing so well in both the old South and the old North.
N.Y. Exit Poll Dem, Full Numbers.
Hillary 54
Sanders 46 You can still get Hillary at 1.05 on Betfair, be quick.
His voters voted Kasich to stop Trump, Sanders thought that going aggressively against Trump might win him votes but it backfired, as a result he lost Ohio, Illinois and Missouri.
That's open. on the the record, and voted by Congress. It may be a dumb way to run things, but it's not corruption.
there are 5,792,497 registered Democrats across NY state, 53% reside within New York City
There are 2,731,688 registered Republicans across NY state, 17% reside within New York City.
It's 30 years since I lived in upstate NY, but even then then the prevailing wish was that the city would just float away to sea, leaving everyone better off.
Sanders - $5.6 million, all from campaign
Clinton - $2.8 million, all from campaign
Kasich - $480k, $349 from Superpac, $131k from campaign
Cruz - $467k, $419k from superpac, $48k from campaign
Trump - $67k, all from campaign
Source - SMG Delta
As David Hackett Fisher showed in Albion's Seed US history is really the long deep seated conflict between New England Puritans and Virginia Cavaliers, which begins with our own civil war and political/religious conflicts of the 17th century. The one that persuades the rest of the US to take their side gains the upper hand. These patterns have lasted for over 300 years so not much can shift them, except wide scale immigration. Indeed the loss of California, which once elected Nixon and Reagan as governors, due to Mexican immigration is what so hamstrings the South.
That said I think Colin Woodard's American Nations gives a more complete understanding of the different US sectional interests.
https://jaymans.wordpress.com/american-nations-series/
A few months ago there was an article in the Communist Review magazine which made a plausible argument that Hoxha's Albania was the closest real example to the correct path of orthodox Marxism-Leninism. North Korea, on the other hand, with its idiosyncratic Juche-Songun / Kimilsungism-Kimjonilism, is more akin to the various socialist / nationalist and Ba'athist régimes in Arab and African countries.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/celebrity/queen-apparently-good-at-it-20160419108124
I am a Cholmondley Bottomly Featherstone Haugh - ist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1976
Time for an 80s interlude — here's She Blinded Me With Science by Thomas Dolby from 1982:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FIMvSp01C8
Someone on Fox said that they already know that Trump won by 35 points.
LBJ is alleged to have said - but it's probably apocryphal - that the Democrats had lost the south for a generation when he signed the Civil Rights Act.
Glib statements might work in a bar but not on this site:
Quit the smartass shit. I've lived in the South for 30 years. The South is STILL chafing under the Civil Rights Act. It is the reason the South is solidly Republican. "the stroke of a pen" was something of a flourish, I admit.
Hence Trump's sweep there.
Trump 61
Kasich 24
Cruz 15
Same as the Fox News guy's leak.
Trump much higher than I thought.
Until I hear that I can't comment on the second.
No surprise, I suppose, that Trump's brashness goes down so well in New York.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbGW-L7zJb4
https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2016/03/11/donald-trump-the-american-nations/
Trump should pick up more than 90 delegates then, and win all of Connecticut's next week as he will crack 50% there too.
Southern Republicans are not conservative purists, they are populist, anti-minority Democrats.
Trump 58
Kasich 25
Cruz 16
Hillary 52
Sanders 48
Clinton 52, Sanders 48
The South was solidly Democrat in 1976 and in 1980 significantly more Democrat than the USA as a whole.
Even now is the South solidly Republican ?
Or just nice middle class white Southerners ?
Perhaps you'd let us know how black majority and Hispanic majority congressional districts voted in 2014. I wonder if their inhabitants are 'chafing under the Civil Rights Act'.
Goodnight.
1% in
Trump 54
Kasich 28
Cruz 18
Kasich just ahead in Brooklyn, by 1 vote.
Hillary 62
Sanders 38
http://edition.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/ny/Rep
http://nyenr.elections.state.ny.us/Home.aspx
Good...
He's at 42, not only bellow 50 but 3 points behind Kasich.
His comments can best be stated as -
1) it's nonsense
2) has he ever lived here?
My comments would be longer and more detailed with different emphasis but it's not worth the effort.
http://www.wnyc.org/story/map-ny-primary-vote-nyc-2016/
You don't see these in Britain with such detail.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/19/eu-unpopular-because-it-meddles-admits-juncker/
So at a minimum he will get 82 delegates, right now he is on course for 92 out of 95.
New thread ?