Tuesday, April 05, 2016

Happy to be wrong

About the New Yawk showdown.

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have agreed to debate in Brooklyn on Thursday April 14, according to reps for the two campaigns. The debate will be hosted by CNN and NY1 and will be held at the Brooklyn Navy Yard at 9 p.m. ET.
The announcement comes after a week of back-and-forth between the Clinton and Sanders campaigns as they tried to negotiate a day and time for a debate in New York ahead of the state’s primary on April 19.

I didn't think it was going to happen, and after all the vitriol that has been spewed from the Clinton camp, I felt pretty good about that bet right through to Opening Day yesterday. 

Over the weekend, the Clinton campaign accused the Sanders campaign of playing “games” over the debate schedule and for rejecting three possible dates that they had offered, including April 14.
On Monday the two campaigns finally reached an agreement.
“Brooklyn. April 14. It's on.” Clinton national press secretary Brian Fallon tweeted ...
The Sanders campaign -- which moved a rally they had scheduled for that night -- confirmed the debate too, but not without taking a not so subtle shot at Clinton.
"Fortunately, we were able to move a major New York City rally scheduled for April 14 to the night before,” Sanders spokesman Michael Briggs said. "We hope the debate will be worth the inconvenience for thousands of New Yorkers who were planning to attend our rally on Thursday but will have to change their schedules to accommodate Secretary Clinton’s jam-packed, high-dollar, coast-to-coast schedule of fundraisers all over the country.”

Facts may be snarky but they are not attacks, Clintoneers. 

More truth: Sanders needs to win Wisconsin today by a much larger margin that he currently leads in the polling, and then he must win New York in two weeks and Pennsylvania the week after that (4/26; Clinton +27.5) in likewise fashion, or the ice just keeps getting thinner for him.

... There was a time when Hillary Clinton held commanding leads in Wisconsin, but the most recent polling shows Bernie Sanders with a small but steady lead heading into today’s voting. And Wisconsin certainly fits the profile of a state that would favor Sanders – he’s run very well in the industrial Midwest, the state has high concentrations of white liberals and college students, and it’s an open primary. For Sanders these are all good signs: he keeps beating Hillary in big states that are critical to Democratic victory in November, and a Wisconsin win would provide another boost in momentum.
But, again, the critical problem he just can’t seem to solve is the delegate math. It’s not enough for Sanders just to win Wisconsin; he has to blow Hillary out of the water to put any sort of significant dent in her delegate lead. A finish that tracks with his two-point lead in the polling average won’t do him much good, given that Democrats award delegates proportionally ...
He’ll need a strong showing in Wisconsin because the next big delegate prizes on the Democratic calendar – New York and Pennsylvania – appear to be strong territory for Clinton. Setting aside the elaborate and exotic delegate-gaming strategies, the only hope for a Sanders victory rests on posting big upset victories in states that are solidly pro-Clinton. To the extent that that is possible, it can only happen if Sanders scores blowouts in pro-Bernie states like Wisconsin.

I will repeat that the poisonous remarks from Clintonoids are not likely to be so easily forgotten as they have been in presidential cycles past (and particularly so when it depends on what the definition of words like 'Democrat' or 'all my adult life' are).  Maybe I'm wrong about that, too, but either way I still see the lady standing on the Capitol steps taking the oath of office next January 20th ... because #NeverTrump and #NeverCruz are pretty potent things.

Speaking of those two guys, the right-wing news coming out of the Cheese State is that not only will Lyin' Ted slow the Orangutan's roll, but that Scott Walker is at the center of Cruz's comeback.

... as bad as (his presidential campaign) was, Walker made two intelligent choices as a candidate that are coming into play as his state votes today for the Republican presidential nominee:
The first was that Walker quit the race early – he recognized very quickly that he had no chance at winning the White House, and so he folded up shop in late September and went back to Wisconsin to tend to his political affairs at home. Walker’s second smart move was to recognize the threat posed by Donald Trump to his party and call for the other candidates to unite to stop him. Nobody listened then, but now Walker has the state GOP behind him as part of a unified effort to elevate Ted Cruz over Trump, and it seems to be working – going into today’s voting, Cruz is leading Trump in the polls and poised to put a large dent in Trump’s delegate lead. Wisconsin was a bad state for Trump to begin with, given its demographic make-up, and the candidate has done himself no favors recently, so Cruz and Walker are positioned to deliver a stinging blow to Trump.

Ted's in much the same boat as Bernie, needing to score big wins in forthcoming contests in order to make a persuasive case for himself as standard-bearer.

The question is whether it will be enough to do real damage to Trump’s push for the nomination. For the #NeverTrump types, Wisconsin is a critical part of the plan to deny Trump the nomination outright. The margin in Wisconsin matters, given how the state apportions its 42 delegates – 18 delegates go to the statewide winner, while the winner of each of the state’s congressional districts gets three. It’s conceivable that Cruz could shut out Trump or limit him to just a handful of delegates, which would force Trump to make them up in later contests. Right now, for the #NeverTrump faithful, it’s all about making Trump’s delegate math as difficult as possible, keeping him from reaching the 1,237-delegate threshold to win outright, and hoping that someone else will prevail in a contested convention.

Ah, that brokered convention.  Since GOP delegates are released from their commitment after the first round, it's almost a certainty today that the nomination will be negotiated.  And making that deal looks like poor odds for The Donald, even if he tries to buy them or bribe them.

The question remains whether this scenario is good for Ted or not.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz said (last month) that he would be OK with a "contested convention," but not a "brokered convention."
The two terms have become prominent in political buzz as it grows increasingly likely that no candidate will claim an outright majority of delegates before the GOP convention in July. In that case, delegates would re-vote to pick a winner.
Cruz previously has asserted that a brokered convention would prompt a voter "revolt," but he told Fox's Megyn Kelly at a town hall interview in Raleigh, North Carolina that, "a contested convention is a different thing."
So, what's the difference? According to Jeff Engle, director of the Center for Presidential History at Southern Methodist University, "In a contested convention, no one shows up with all the delegates they need (to win the nomination). In a brokered convention, people begin cutting deals."
In other words, the delegates supporting third- and fourth-place candidates would have to choose which of the top two candidates to support in a contested convention.

Ted's not lying here; like Hillary he's just using flexible definitions of words.  Both Mr. T and Havana Ted are worried about a Paul Ryan nomination from a floor fight, but it's more possible in my humble O that a Trump/Cruz ticket comes out of that, since Ted holds most of the face cards.

...in the event that Trump fails to lock down the Republican nomination by June 7, it will be Cruz’s turn to deal a high-stakes hand of Texas Hold-Em. If he cannot put together three of a kind with Kasich and Rubio, he’ll get his share of the pot by pairing up with Trump.

Good times.

1 comment:

Gadfly said...

A Trump/Cruz ticket would take deep swallows from both AND a lot of delegates AND a lot of "backroom brokers."

On Bernie, this: https://theweek.com/articles/616524/why-trashing-hillary-clinton-wouldnt-have-helped-bernie-sanders

is an interesting, or "interesting," read.

And, it "interestingly" never mentions a word about his, or her, foreign policy. Nor does the NYT piece it links.

Shock me.

On the race, Clinton's got Establishment backing, looking ahead, in both Pennsylvania and New York. She does in California, too, but that state may favor Sanders in other ways.