Icewolf

There are super-delegates who can cast votes in their own right and make up about 10% of the votes at the final conference. Hillary has the majority of these delegates.

Do you really think the Republicans want to spend the next 10 months playing into every single attack advert setting out that they are the party that blocks things rather than looking to work across party lines? If Obama puts up a middle of the road candidate, and they block them, then they will just be offering free adverts to the Democrats.

Right...so because it won't harm you directly, it doesn't matter?

What have I ever said that is fanboying Hillary Clinton? So we now say we are wrong in percentages?... "we were 20% wrong"... Do you hear yourself? Who is it that is coming up with the numbers that you wish to believe? That's right... the same people that said they were 100% right 10 years ago, and now say they were 20% wrong... when you refuse to consult your own lying eyes. If they were "80% right", everything on every coast would be under water... it's not... nothing has changed... even Venice Italy is still cruising along just fine. Either you are part of the lie, or stupid enough to believe the lie... which one are you? Very soon, it is my hope that we have a President that will end the insanity. They, as in the scientific community, created a model and presented a prediction. It was not 100% accurate but it was fairly close. After noticing the discrepancy they reviewed the model. That is standard scientific practice. On the otherside are the deniars. To date their model is inaccurate by a far greater degree. Rather than reviewing their model they just point out discrepancies in the other model to try and hide the fact. I mean seriously, show me any complex model that can make specific predictions over ten years to an accuracy of 20%. And to you only being 80% accurate when modelling the entire globe is a fraud?

Given the complexity of what is being modelled being only wrong by 20% is pettyimpressive. And either way 80cm sea level rise vs 1m is still a fairly powerful impact.

Because the Democrat race is boring. Hillary will win. Sanders is going to lose the next 5 states according to the polls. I don't know how you can realistically come back from that. He is a nice guy, means well, has some interesting policies, but American politics is not aligned to him. Clinton is Clinton. She is a reasonable candidate, but carried a lot of baggage. I don't think the email server thing is going to cripple her as much as her critics think because her standing already factors that into account. She is experienced, she has a reasonable platform and has the money and organisational ability to run a decent campaign. If the Republicans put up a moderate, reasonable, candidate with cross party appeal then she would however lose because lets be clear here, she is not a great or even very good candidate. However the fact of the matter is that whilst the Democract field is not exactly brilliant, it at least has a plausible candidate for the Presidency. The only Plausible republican candidates were Rubio and Kasich, and Rubio just shot himself rather heavily (although could come back) and Kasich is a moderate, experienced candidate with sensible plans and cross party appeal, which does not seem popular with the Republicans right now. End of the day, you have to be fair confirmation bias towards the REpublicans not to see this as advantage Democrat. A state of affairs I admit I am happy with because no Republican candidate will implement the Paris Climate Change Convention, and I am young enough that I will live to suffer if it is not implemented.

Despite these victories, the majority of Republican voters still don't want Trump as their nominee, and the majority of America can't stand him. I really don't see where this glide to power is going to come from. I have watched the same thing take place in the UK. The Labour Party leadership elections this summer saw three utterly shite "mainstream" candidates in the form on Andy Burnham (aka some bloke who did something in the shadow cabinet or something) Yvette Cooper, and .....and....I can't actually remember the third, other than the fact she decided that Nicola Murray from the Thick of It was a good role model when she threw her support behind a policy of welfare cuts so toxic that even Conservative MPs were howling in protest. Enter Jeremy Corbyn, the outsider. Ok a hard left winger not a crazy all immigrants are terrorists nutjob, but still the anti-establishment figure to shake up politics, carrying labour party members by storm, huge rallies, cheering people, lots of excitement. Swept to power by the entire party membership, to the horror of the MPs and Party Leadership. The man to start a grass roots movement that would take the country by storm and propel Labour to a crushing victory.... Since then Labour's polling performance has stayed stationary. Not one inch of movement. Internal bickering has undone the few moments of success, and slowly but surely the outsider has begun to sink. The thing is, when you put up a terrible field, outsiders can look great, build some momentum and seem really popular. And lets be clear, as bad fields go, the Republican 2016 field is shockingly awful. From Bush III, to Soundbite Rubio, to bridgegate Christie, to Pyramids are grain silos Carson, it is shocking. Beating this field just requires turning up, wearing shoes (optional) and having a pulse (also potentially optional). But if there is one very clear thing here, if the Republican's elect Trump, get ready for President Clinton. That is a dead certainty. EDIT: Liz Kendall....it was Liz Kendall. The 4th candidate, the "woops did I accidentally join the Labour Party?" Candidate

Trump and Sanders will win, and the media will immediately label it as a "shock upset" because "predicted winners win in utterly unexciting result" is just boring, dull, and downright un-American!

The Carson and Trump comedy double act at the start of the debate was fairly entertaining.

Trump demanding a re run of Iowa after throwing a hissy fit that fox wouldn't drop Kelly. I don't think he could look more like a cry baby if he tried. Given he tried to sell himself as a tough guy I have a feeling this will hurt him more than any attack from outside.

Zogby didn't do it properly, hence it went wrong. Its nothing to do with internet vs telephone being inherently better. The real difficulty for pollsters is the weighting and actually reaching a representative sample. In the latest UK election the pollsters all got it quite badly wrong because they failed to properly take into account the disinterested voter-the person that doesn't closely follow politics but votes anyway, a group that broke heavily towards the Conservative party and accounted for most of their win. The trouble is that group are just as likely to ignore a "fill out this online survey on politics" email from Yougov as to ignore a telephone call regarding politics. There is also an issue that Conservatives are generally in the more affluent socio-economic group so less likely to have the time to answer polls. However these issues affect both telephone and internet polling, but can be corrected through proper weighting. The trouble is that the weighting is the really difficult part and is the difference between a good Pollster and whoever the Romney campaign used in 2012.

Online polling in the UK industry refers to market research companies that have large databases of people who take part in surveys for small sums of money, and they select samples from them to carry out political polling. They are generally considered as accurate as telephone polling, although they suffered from the same sampling errors as telephone polls in the last UK election. They would not show Trump as getting 65%.

I do follow nate silver. As a question do US companies use Internet polling? Very popular in Uk as cheaper and easier to get responses and about as accurate.

I misremembered the polling results, I though Cruz was closer to his actual result than he was. I mean polls are all over the place and chasing a tiny population, but I do still suspect Trump is over represented in the polls as he is an insurgent candidate, and attracts people who don't normally vote which is a pollsters worse nightmare because they are very hard to predict. Which could then mean he has never actually been the front runner reported. I also don't think there was a late swing (although am willing to be shown wrong), partly because the result was effectively predicted beforehand by those following the actual events and not the headline number, but also because Trump's supporters seemed in complete denial that anything he did could be wrong.

I think that the most interesting thing here is that Cruz didn't win by doing well. He did not exceed his polling numbers. It was more a story of a Trump failure than anything else, which could well mean the entire trump as front runner narrative was never correct and down to poor polling results. Of course one data point is insufficient to draw conclusions from but I would not be surprised if he underperformed in other states soon to hold votes.

Some very stupid things can happen during breakups of marriage. Calling the police over a missing phone is a relatively minor thing to do compared to some things I saw whilst interning with family lawyers. Lets just say that burying the kid's toys in a mock graveyard in the back garden falls into the "less disturbing" category. However, in this case there could be a potential theft charge (without knowing all the facts). If one parent buys the child a phone, then the other parent confiscates it, that can clearly be regarded as theft, and in some cases can go beyond parenting. I can definitely imagine a case of one parent taking the phone off the child because they don't like the fact the other parent can afford a nicer phone than they could buy the child, and refusing to give it back on that basis. In which case the parent may well have just taken several hundred dollars worth of property that they have absolutely no right to. Now the facts of this case are clearly fairly murky, although it does seem the Father has continued to refuse to hand back the phone. Which means he is hanging on to several hundred dollars of property he has no legal right to. However, to make it clear, parents in a messy divorce often do not put the needs of their child ahead of their own need to get one up on the other side.

Saying nothing will change your mind is effectively taking pride in close mindedness. Is that really who you are?

How do you get to overpopulation from rising sea levels are putting low lieng land at risk? Or blame overpopulation for the fact rainfall has stopped being consistent. These are climate risks not population risks.

The other campaigns should cspitalise by hiring people in chicken suits to follow trump around

Have a loik at the Formula E series. They upload the races to YouTube. It's quite interesting but lacks the excitement of F1 due to lack of horsepower compared to the latest F1 hybrids.

The neighbouring county to me used to have a name that ended in "sea." On the whole there is a desire not to see that become the case again. More directly and having a more direct impact the farmers in this county cannot accept the contracts they need to in order to generate economic growth in the region because tgey cannot guarantee production levels due to the rusing unpredictability of the water supply.

I will try and find the graphic when I have a computer, but effectively tge ten warmest years in the last century have all been after 1990. And the ten coldest before 1950. We are not talking vast temperature changes, but put it this way. At a time when parts of the USA was under a 1000m of ice global temperature was 2 degrees cooler. We are talking about trying to limit the increase created by man to 2 degrees.

It honestly wouldn't surprise me if Trump also thinks Africa is a country, and that would therefore explain the support from Palin.

The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. When someone takes the Fifth, they are exercising their right to not answer any questions, because the answers would incriminate themselves. No one is compelled to talk themselves into jail. Is that enough? Its the right not to answer questions, and to remain silent, and for inference not to be taken from that silence. Saying that it is because the answers would incriminate themselves kind of goes against the point as that implies silence means guilt, which isn't the point of it at all. You might want to exercise it for a lot of reasons. Its 3am, I am really tired and not thinking straight and I think this police officer is trying to trip me up is a perfectly valid reason for not answering questions. The honest answer would reveal that I am having an affair I don't want to mention in open court is another valid reason.

There is a cafe in my city run by prisoners as part of their rehabilitation, which is technically inside the prison buildings. It serves good food, has very friendly staff (all Category D Prisoners, lowest level of security known as "open prison"), and all profits go to victim support charities. Anyway, if you want some idea about Prison, there are two good blogs I follow. http://prisonuk.blogspot.co.uk/ This one is written by a guy who had a 4 year sentence and served 2. He doesn't discuss his crime, but just what life in prison was like. It is entirely written after release on the basis of the diaries he kept inside prison. Its a good read, mixing prison experience with railing against the failures of the system to actually rehabilitate, and by extension, to protect the public. http://prisonerben.blogspot.co.uk/ This one is mostly inactive now, so I would go back to the start (around 2009). It is written by a Child murderer who spent over 30 years in prison, and the guy started blogging on a typewriter, and then posted the material to his editor who would put it online. He is also noteworthy for being the first prisoner in the UK to try writing a Ph.D in prison (he failed as the prison service lost all his papers and notes about halfway through). He has now been released and since then his posts became less interesting as they are more about prison policy than prison life, and make the same points somewhat repetitively. However the early stuff about prison life, and reflecting on his crime is very interesting. Both have a common theme of regarding prison as an ineffective tool for keeping the public safe, and think that underfunding of the prison system has caused the failure of rehabilitation in prison. These views are reflected in an interesting book called "Out of sight, out of mind," written by John Podmore, former governor of some of the UKs most notorious prisons.