Total Delegates allocated as of 3/23/16: 1537 (number includes 9 unbound delegates)
Total Delegates bound to Trump: 739 (48%)
Delegates needed for Trump to clinch the nomination: 1237 – 739 = 498
Delegates remaining to be allocated: 935
Percentage of remaining delegates Trump needs (assuming that all unbound go against him): 498 out of 935 = 53%
As of 3/22, those numbers were:
Bound to Trump: 680 out of 1437 = 47%
Percentage needed by Trump: 557 out of 1035 = 54%
Trump had a good night in that he outperformed the minimum that he needed, but he barely outperformed.
Good. On the same day I found a really reasonable article that supported Trump, I was able to find a really reasonable article that was agin (that’s Southern for “against” or “opposed to”) him.
This article is really all about political correctness and how Trump isn’t exactly a good poster child for a movement against it, but this is the part I loved because it made me laugh:
If you set out to create the least correct and most implausible political figure of the age, you could hardly do better than Trump. He even defies the notion that the true opposite of political correctness is unalloyed and unapologetic political expressiveness — an emotional populism. He actually may be the most inarticulate, repetitive, low-vocabulary, shambolic speaker ever to get this close to the White House. Who knows what he’s actually saying?
Yes! As much as I’m amused by Trump, I’m sometimes as bemused as well. Most of the time, I think there’s a coherent statement in his speeches somewhere, but it takes a lot of effort digging to find it.
I read a lot of articles about Trump. Seriously, if you’re into reading about politics, it’s hard to avoid them. I have to say that the ones in his favor seem to be much more reasonable written than the vitriolic hyperbole against him.
This particular article brought an interesting perspective that crystallized something that I’d been thinking:
My gut tells me much of the contempt for Trump reflects contempt for his working-class white support. It is one prejudice gentry liberals and gentry conservatives share.
It is perhaps the last acceptable bigotry …
Wow. Interesting and powerful stuff. The only question is, is it reasonable?
The blog post below presents a very detailed breakdown of where the author sees the race going, and it’s not good news for the #nevertrump folks. My own crystal ball is broken, so I can’t tell you if the writeup is accurate or not. It is, however, a good read:
As with hurricanes and sex scandals, our cynical journalists find little quite so titillating as the notion of a brokered convention. Unfortunately for them and for the anyone-but-Trump crowd, the …
Source: Brokered GOP Convention? Nope. Why journalists have it wrong – again
I’ve always considered myself, in addition to being reasonable, to be intelligent. Simply put, though, I can’t figure out what is going on in the US Virgin Islands.
According to this link, the Republican caucus was held (Yes, the US apparently owns some kind of island or something somewhere. Yes, this territory apparently gets to vote on who the nominees will be. 9 delegates are at stake.)
Beyond that, I’m having a hard time making sense of anything. I think that the islanders vote for actual people who are will attend the convention in Cleveland as delegates. I also think that some of these delegates will be somehow bound by the vote on who to choose on the first ballot. After that, everything gets really hazy as all the articles assume you have knowledge that I don’t possess.
The results are in but all 6 delegates are unpledged? Huh? And what about the other three delegates?
If anyone can explain it to me, I’d appreciate it.
The author of the post below lays some serious truth on us:
parties have become glorified spin doctors for state power as their leaders are more interested in their role as part of the government than in representing their voters.
What good is political science if it flubs the biggest development in American politics in generations? Using this question, some commentators are turning “political science didn’t pred…
Source: Ruling the void
Just today, I had a conversation with two actual Trump supporters in person in my office. This post is a real account and is not an attempt to be funny in any way (okay, so I do attempt to be funny because that’s just what I do, but I’m not fabricating the event in an attempt to be funny). This actually happened.
Supporter 1 is a white legal immigrant from south Africa. Truthfully, I don’t know if he’s from the country of South Africa or simply one of the countries in the southern part of the continent (I’m an American; you’re lucky that I can even find Africa on a map and know that a country called South Africa exists). He likes Trump because Trump has actually accomplished something with his life as opposed to Senators Cruz and Rubio who have been “public servants” all their lives. He equates being a politician to pretty much living off the government dole.
Supporter 2 is also a legal immigrant. He’s a darker-skinned Muslim from some middle eastern country (again, I play the American card here regarding not knowing his exact origins). He likes Trump because Trump isn’t afraid to give voice to problems. “How are you ever going to solve anything if you’re too afraid to even talk about it?”
I don’t think that you can draw overarching conclusions about anything based on such a tiny sample size, but maybe you can start to say, “Trump supports are more diverse than we thought.”