21st February 2016, 12:06 PM
The longest any supreme court nominee has ever been delayed is something like 180 days. Republicans would need to set a new record of delays for that to work.
I disagree on the Sanders front, in that I don't think he's JUST about the banks (and even if he were, fixing economic inequality is a pretty important thing even if it isn't a cure-all, which it isn't). I really don't think Hillary is going to do a single thing about economic inequality.
I do agree Sanders is slated to lose the nomination though. This is based on statistical analysis.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/
I'd recommend reading this. Of all the predictors, only Nate Silver and his team have actually proven capable of predicting the outcomes of these things. They take all the polls, weight them according to which ones have shown to be effective predictors in the past (so many get dropped right there) and then weight in a long-view look at similar candidates from America's entire electoral history.
According to this, Sanders was a shoe-in for New Hampshire, but is almost completely doomed when the southern states weigh in. Also, Trump has a big issue and has HAD a big issue. Namely, Trump can't break 50% support from his own party. Yes, he's leading against all the other candidates, but when you think of all the other candidates as votes for "not trump", "not trump" beats trump handily. The republican party majority want ANYONE but Trump, and it's really only a matter of whittling down the remaining candidates until only one remains in the race. That remaining candidate will take the entirety of the "not trump" vote and he'll be the thing he hates most, a loser.
I disagree on the Sanders front, in that I don't think he's JUST about the banks (and even if he were, fixing economic inequality is a pretty important thing even if it isn't a cure-all, which it isn't). I really don't think Hillary is going to do a single thing about economic inequality.
I do agree Sanders is slated to lose the nomination though. This is based on statistical analysis.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/
I'd recommend reading this. Of all the predictors, only Nate Silver and his team have actually proven capable of predicting the outcomes of these things. They take all the polls, weight them according to which ones have shown to be effective predictors in the past (so many get dropped right there) and then weight in a long-view look at similar candidates from America's entire electoral history.
According to this, Sanders was a shoe-in for New Hampshire, but is almost completely doomed when the southern states weigh in. Also, Trump has a big issue and has HAD a big issue. Namely, Trump can't break 50% support from his own party. Yes, he's leading against all the other candidates, but when you think of all the other candidates as votes for "not trump", "not trump" beats trump handily. The republican party majority want ANYONE but Trump, and it's really only a matter of whittling down the remaining candidates until only one remains in the race. That remaining candidate will take the entirety of the "not trump" vote and he'll be the thing he hates most, a loser.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)