The remaining races and 2 NY as yet unassigned account for 676 delegates. By taking a look at the number of delegates each has already won, I have calculated the percentage needed to reach the “magic number” of 1,237 at the convention.
Looking at these numbers, one would think that Trump has a Sisyphean task ahead to get to the magic number. Yet it would also seem to indicate that, as Trump said in his NY victory speech, Cruz is just about mathematically eliminated from any chances of victory. In other words, these numbers indicate that a contested convention is almost inevitable. And so the media would lead you to believe.
But the “just about” caveat of Trump’s declaration is clear when you consider the 244 delegates from previous primaries that are not dedicated to any current candidates:
|Bush||4||<– He spent how much?!!|
Cruz will easily pick up a lot, if not most, of these delegates.
But I’m going to go out on a very short limb here and say Trump will almost certainly get a quarter of these, which would be 61 delegates. If so, he will need 49% of the delegates from the remaining primaries. 49% will be tough to pull in.
If he picks up 100 (or a mere 41% of the spares), he will need 43% of the yet-to-vote. A much more likely scenario.
If he picks up 150 (61% of the free delegates), he will need only 36% of the coming delegates. Not outside the realm of possibility.
And then there’s this:
Internal documents show Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump‘s campaign advisers are projecting that the billionaire businessman will secure more than 1,400 delegates at the Republican National Convention in July, The Washington Post reported Wednesday.
That total greatly exceeds the 1,237 delegates necessary to secure the nomination on the first ballot.
I don’t know about 1,400 but, given the outstanding delegates and the math above, I believe he will almost certainly hit the “magic number” required by the time he rolls into Cleveland in mid-July. Especially if California tilts to him as New York did.
Meanwhile, after eight years of America destroying, race baiting, terrorist hugging, apology ridden, despot bowing Obama, we are allowing him to go happily into retirement. Trump isn’t even the presumptive nominee and the “conservative” politicians are wargaming how best to get rid of him.
That’s right: the GOP elite are already starting to socialize the scenarios under which Trump can be impeached.
And they wonder at the average Joe’s anger.
Newt Gingrich advices the party elitists to “start taking Trump seriously.”
“By any reasonable standard, this is a decisive victory,” Gingrich continued, adding that Trump is likely to win in Nevada on Tuesday. “What people need to get a grip on in the Washington establishment is their job is to understand Trump. His job isn’t to understand them. They live in a world of ideas and details and policy programs and long papers and conferences and ideas. This guy lives in a world of making very big decisions, doing very big things, and I think you could start keeping a list.”
“It’s a very simple rule — if you think Washington is so sick you want someone to kick over the kitchen table, then you like Donald Trump and you frankly don’t care about the details,” Gingrich added.
Great advice from one of the smart ones. They should have seen this coming after the anger at them for spending like drunken sailors and the subsequent Tea Party revolt. Trump is because a lot of people are mad as hell and aren’t going to take it anymore. He is a the result of decades of politicians abusing the trust of the people who sent them to Washington to represent them.
Trump is karma.
After billions have been spent, Obamacare continues to disappoint … unless you are trying to get a free ride on the back of honest American taxpayers, in which case you’ll love this!
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has verified that Obamacare exchanges continue to accept counterfeit documents. The GAO created 10 fake profiles for submital to the California and Kentucky exchanges, complete with “counterfeit follow-up documentation, such as fictitious Social Security cards with impossible Social Security numbers, for all 10 undercover applications.”
The sites failed to verify basic information such as household income, Social Security number, or even*gasp* citizenship. Instead, fraudulent documentation was accepted and the fake people covered under American taxpayer largesse.
“For each of the 10 undercover applications where we obtained qualified health-plan coverage, the respective marketplace directed that our applicants submit supplementary documentation… we provided …
“For all 10 of these undercover applications, we maintained subsidized coverage beyond the period during which applicants may file supporting documentation to resolve inconsistencies.”
Every one of the 10 faux people were granted Obamacare premium tax credit and cost-sharing reduction subsidies, totaling $2,300 in tax credits per month.
Now multiply that by how many illegal aliens in this country?
As the Americans for Tax Reform notes, this is not the first time that Obamacare Exchanges have failed similar audits. Click through to see the list of four other government tests that the system has failed … all in 2015!
Revisionist history via Hollywood isn’t going to win this one. Despite heavy support from Sony Classic Pictures, this fairy tale of Dan Rather and Mary Mapes’ career-ending support of a bogus news story to push their liberal agenda is not going to influence another generation of young voters.
Unenthusiastic reviews led up to a weak limited release weekend with a “pathetic” per-theater average of just $11,000, bringing in only $66,000.
Younger-skewing publications like Paste echoed many of the mixed reactions in pointing out that the film “feels phony, but doesn’t offer up any entertainment value in the place of the honesty it’s lacking.”
Dorothy Rabinowitz observes in WSJ:
Despite its glamorization, this saga of a news investigation built on fabrications presented as important truth isn’t likely to persuade anyone with any knowledge of this history.
Hollywood continues to ignore the lessons of the past: patriotic, uplifting themes sell while liberal brain washing fails.
Another journalist questions why politics rather than science is driving debate on climate change, wondering, “Why are environmentalists and scientists so reluctant to discuss long-term increases in southern hemisphere sea ice?”
For years, computer simulations have predicted that sea ice should be disappearing from the Poles. Now, with the news that Antarctic sea-ice levels have hit new highs, comes yet another mishap to tarnish the credibility of climate science. Climatologists base their doom-laden predictions of the Earth’s climate on computer simulations. But these have long been the subject of ridicule because of their stunning failure to predict the pause in warming – nearly 18 years long on some measures – since the turn of the last century.
An adult chinstrap penguin jumps out of the sea at Port Lockroy, Antarctica
It’s the same with sea ice. We hear a great deal about the decline in Arctic sea ice, in line with or even ahead of predictions. But why are environmentalists and scientists so much less keen to discuss the long-term increase in the southern hemisphere? In fact, across the globe, there are about one million square kilometres more sea ice than 35 years ago, which is when satellite measurements began.
It’s fair to say that this has been something of an embarrassment for climate modellers. But it doesn’t stop there. In recent days a new scandal over the integrity of temperature data has emerged, this time in America, where it has been revealed as much as 40 per cent of temperature data there are not real thermometer readings. Many temperature stations have closed, but rather than stop recording data from these posts, the authorities have taken the remarkable step of ‘estimating’ temperatures based on the records of surrounding stations.
So vast swathes of the data are actually from ‘zombie’ stations that have long since disappeared. This is bad enough, but it has also been discovered that the US’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is using estimates even when perfectly good raw data is available to it – and that it has adjusted historical records.
Is climate change real? Does Man have an impact on global weather? We should at least be given facts to decide, not politically-driven junk science.