The U.S. election and British house prices

Generali

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

If Rubio and Cruz can hold Trump to less than 50% of delegates then the party gets to pick the nominee at Convention.

It's probably not a surprise to anyone that in such a scenario, Rubio would have a good chance of getting that nomination versus the other two, even if he came in third up to that point.

Long shot but still sufficiently within the realms of possibility that I reckon they'll both stay in until Trump gets his 50% plus 1 delegate.....

Unless someone ups their game a bit things could get very interesting at the GOP convention.

It's worth remembering that just because a delegate stands on the basis that they will vote for a particular candidate doesn't mean that they must or will.

Filo25

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

If Rubio and Cruz can hold Trump to less than 50% of delegates then the party gets to pick the nominee at Convention.

It's probably not a surprise to anyone that in such a scenario, Rubio would have a good chance of getting that nomination versus the other two, even if he came in third up to that point.

Long shot but still sufficiently within the realms of possibility that I reckon they'll both stay in until Trump gets his 50% plus 1 delegate.....

I think the other candidates staying in might hurt Trump a bit in the states where the delegates are allocated on a reasonably proportional basis, but there are a few "winner takes all" states coming up, where it would make more sense to try to unify as best as they can behind an "anyone but Trump" candidate.

If Trump ends up beating Rubio to the win in Florida and Kasich in Ohio then the rest of the field starts to look like its in trouble, likewise if he loses those a lot of his lead starts to disappear.

The problem on the Democrat side for Sanders of course is that basically all of their states are proportional allocation of delegates so its tough to make up a significant early deficit.

antrobus

Generali wrote: »

..It's worth remembering that just because a delegate stands on the basis that they will vote for a particular candidate doesn't mean that they must or will.

They even have a name for them; faithless delegates.

There have even been faithless electors, since not all states have laws preventing such an occurence.

antrobus

Filo25 wrote: »

I think the other candidates staying in might hurt Trump a bit in the states where the delegates are allocated on a reasonably proportional basis,.but there are a few "winner takes all" states coming up, where it would make more sense to try to unify as best as they can behind an "anyone but Trump" candidate.

Nine to come.

But yes, Trump simply has to come top of the list to scoop the lot. As in South Carolina, 32.5% of the vote got him all 50 delegates.

Filo25 wrote: »

...If Trump ends up beating Rubio to the win in Florida and Kasich in Ohio then the rest of the field starts to look like its in trouble, likewise if he loses those a lot of his lead starts to disappear.....

They're both winner takes all. Trump apparently is ahead in Florida, but Kasich still has a chance in Ohio. If he wins both, he might well be home and dry.

Filo25 wrote: »

...The problem on the Democrat side for Sanders of course is that basically all of their states are proportional allocation of delegates so its tough to make up a significant early deficit.

Sanders has more or less consistently performed below target so far. Thus the mountain he needs to climb keeps getting higher. Clinton's gonna keep on piling on the lead particularly in them southern states.

antrobus

The initial results of (semi) Super Saturday are in.

In the Democratic race, Sanders won two states, Clinton one. But the net result is that Sanders has fallen even further behind.

For the Republicans it was two-all between Cruz and Trump - Cruz did much better than expected in Kansas and got a surprise win in Maine, and so has closed the gap on Trump.