Poll: Trump up to 60 percent in New York

[A-Lert]

Poll: Trump up to 60 percent in New York

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/275947-poll-trump-leads-by-43-points-in-new-york

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has a whopping 43-point lead in New York, according to a new poll.

Trump has 60 percent support in the Empire State, according to a NY1/Baruch College survey released late Monday.

John Kasich follows with 17 percent, with Ted Cruz at 14 percent.

“Trump is just killing it,” said Baruch College pollster Mickey Blum. "This could really be his road to getting enough to win it outright before he ever gets to that [Republican National] Convention.”

New York awards 95 delegates in next week's primary, making it a major prize for the remaining GOP White House hopefuls.

[A-Lert]

“Trump is just killing it,” said Baruch College pollster Mickey Blum. "This could really be his road to getting enough to win it outright before he ever gets to that [Republican National] Convention.”

I guess we'll see how well oiled the Trump NY campaign machine is in 6 days.

[ArneFufkin]

I guess this will be one primary and State delegate selection regime Trump considers "fair".

New York values.

[A-Lert]

I guess this will be one primary and State delegate selection regime Trump considers "fair".

New York values.

As opposed to what?

[ArneFufkin]

As opposed to what?

Please clarify your interrogatory.

[Mesaclone]

Please clarify your interrogatory.

Here's a simple primer for you.

1. If a state is winner take all, that is fair.
2. If districts give 2 delegates to a winner and 1 to a runner up. That is fair.
3. If a state gives out delegates proportionally, that is fair.
4. Any mix or 1,2, and 3 is fair.
5. If the makeup of a state's delegates is not representative of actual votes, and does not meet 1, 2, 3, and/or 4 above...it is unfair.
6. Finally, folllowing rules that allow voters to be disenfranchised AFTER a vote, or without a vote, is innately unfair...and grossly unethical.

Hope that helps.

[A-Lert]

Here's a simple primer for you.

1. If a state is winner take all, that is fair.
2. If districts give 2 delegates to a winner and 1 to a runner up. That is fair.
3. If a state gives out delegates proportionally, that is fair.
4. Any mix or 1,2, and 3 is fair.
5. If the makeup of a state's delegates is not representative of actual votes, and does not meet 1, 2, 3, and/or 4 above...it is unfair.
6. Finally, folllowing rules that allow voters to be disenfranchised AFTER a vote, or without a vote, is innately unfair...and grossly unethical.

Hope that helps.

Agreed.

[ArneFufkin]

Here's a simple primer for you.

1. If a state is winner take all, that is fair.
2. If districts give 2 delegates to a winner and 1 to a runner up. That is fair.
3. If a state gives out delegates proportionally, that is fair.
4. Any mix or 1,2, and 3 is fair.
5. If the makeup of a state's delegates is not representative of actual votes, and does not meet 1, 2, 3, and/or 4 above...it is unfair.
6. Finally, folllowing rules that allow voters to be disenfranchised AFTER a vote, or without a vote, is innately unfair...and grossly unethical.

Hope that helps.

I expect Trump's acolytes to completely misunderstand the role of State Parties, primary and delegate apportionment rules.  You support a lifelong NYC liberal Democrat and insular crony and venal bagman.

LONGSTANDING State primary and apportionment rules and procedures are in play.   Every primary is a two pronged process and has been forever - a candidate wins delegate apportionment and then works to get their loyalists elected through KNOWN and STRATEGIC local, district and State meetings where delegates are elected from the support of folks who are engaged, active and knowledgeable.

The fact that Trump and his "Great People" didn't know or care makes him unfit for office.

I hope that helps you.  You could use some help.

Ignorance has become a virtue for many it seems.

[sinkspur]

Here's a simple primer for you.

1. If a state is winner take all, that is fair.
2. If districts give 2 delegates to a winner and 1 to a runner up. That is fair.
3. If a state gives out delegates proportionally, that is fair.
4. Any mix or 1,2, and 3 is fair.
5. If the makeup of a state's delegates is not representative of actual votes, and does not meet 1, 2, 3, and/or 4 above...it is unfair.
6. Finally, folllowing rules that allow voters to be disenfranchised AFTER a vote, or without a vote, is innately unfair...and grossly unethical.

Hope that helps.

Where were you last August when the rules for Colorado's delegates were formulated and voted on by members of the State GOP?  These rules were not secret, were published, and Ted Cruz's organization, instead of bellyaching, read the rules and got to work.

Trump was outhustled.   He's being outhustled, as we speak, in Arkansas, in Iowa, in Virginia, and in Indiana. 

Winners work, losers blame the refs.

[libertybele]

Where were you last August when the rules for Colorado's delegates were formulated and voted on by members of the State GOP?  These rules were not secret, were published, and Ted Cruz's organization, instead of bellyaching, read the rules and got to work.

Trump was outhustled.   He's being outhustled, as we speak, in Arkansas, in Iowa, in Virginia, and in Indiana. 

Winners work, losers blame the refs.

There must be some mistake. Trump has stated several times, that he has a very good brain and consults with himself on matters first! 

[A-Lert]

I expect Trump's acolytes to completely misunderstand the role of State Parties, primary and delegate apportionment rules.  You support a lifelong NYC liberal Democrat and insular crony and venal bagman.

LONGSTANDING State primary and apportionment rules and procedures are in play.   Every primary is a two pronged process and has been forever - a candidate wins delegate apportionment and then works to get their loyalists elected through KNOWN and STRATEGIC local, district and State meetings where delegates are elected from the support of folks who are engaged, active and knowledgeable.

The fact that Trump and his "Great People" didn't know or care makes him unfit for office.

I hope that helps you.  You could use some help.

Ignorance has become a virtue for many it seems.

Yes it has.  For instance, "lifelong NYC liberal Democrat".

[A-Lert]

Where were you last August when the rules for Colorado's delegates were formulated and voted on by members of the State GOP?  These rules were not secret, were published, and Ted Cruz's organization, instead of bellyaching, read the rules and got to work.

Trump was outhustled.   He's being outhustled, as we speak, in Arkansas, in Iowa, in Virginia, and in Indiana. 

Winners work, losers blame the refs.

Trump is winning.

[ArneFufkin]

Yes it has.  For instance, "lifelong NYC liberal Democrat".

Putting an emoji at the end of an inane snark doesn't make it witty or good natured.

[A-Lert]

Putting an emoji at the end of an inane snark doesn't make it witty or good natured.

It wasn't intended to be either. Your claim of ""lifelong NYC liberal Democrat" is provably false and you know it. I can't understand  why you made such a silly, false allegation.

[Mesaclone]

Where were you last August when the rules for Colorado's delegates were formulated and voted on by members of the State GOP? These rules were not secret, were published, and Ted Cruz's organization, instead of bellyaching, read the rules and got to work.

Trump was outhustled.   He's being outhustled, as we speak, in Arkansas, in Iowa, in Virginia, and in Indiana. 

Winners work, losers blame the refs.

The rules for behavior in Dachau were published and known to all there....I've actually seen them in person. Still wrong. The just or unjust nature of a rule is not determined by its having been pre-published and known to all.  Preening that you used such unjust rules to do evil...in the current case, to disenfranchise GOP voters...does not make it less reprehensible. Calling out an injustice is not whining, it is calling a cat a cat.

Oh look, I've broken Godwin's law...oh well...sometimes it just has to be done to hit home a valid point.

[Right_in_Virginia]

I guess this will be one primary and State delegate selection regime Trump considers "fair".

Well, yeah.  Allowing people to cast a vote IS the preferred way to hold a primary.   

[Bill Cipher]

Well, yeah.  Allowing people to cast a vote IS the preferred way to hold a primary.   

Huh?  Following the rules is the preferred way to do things.  Something Trump appears to have no clue about when it comes to elections.

Trump doesn't seem to have any problem ignoring the will of the voters when it comes to winner-take-all states.  If he's that concerned about people having their voices respected, why hasn't he disavowed those states and promised to have the delegates from those states vote proportionately?

Oh, wait, it's because Trump doesn't give a damn.  Not about his supporters, not about the rules, and not about the country.

[Mesaclone]

Huh?  Following the rules is the preferred way to do things.  Something Trump appears to have no clue about when it comes to elections.

Trump doesn't seem to have any problem ignoring the will of the voters when it comes to winner-take-all states.  If he's that concerned about people having their voices respected, why hasn't he disavowed those states and promised to have the delegates from those states vote proportionately?

Oh, wait, it's because Trump doesn't give a damn.  Not about his supporters, not about the rules, and not about the country.

So, when rules are inherently unjust, we should simply follow them as its the "preferred way to do things". That's always worked out well in history.

[Fishrrman]

Mesaclone wrote above:
"6. Finally, folllowing rules that allow voters to be disenfranchised AFTER a vote, or without a vote, is innately unfair...and grossly unethical."

Jes' fer fun, a graphic:

[Right_in_Virginia]

Huh?  Following the rules is the preferred way to do things. 

Are you arguing that rules denying a citizen the right to vote are preferred over the right to vote itself?  Seriously? 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Are you arguing that rules denying a citizen the right to vote are preferred over the right to vote itself?  Seriously?

You have no idea what you're talking about. People got to vote in Colorado. You understand the primary system there about as much as your herro Trump, which is to say not at all.

[Right_in_Virginia]

You have no idea what you're talking about. 

Yes, I do.  And you know it. 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

RIV, please educate yourself:

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php?topic=202201.new#new

Your belligerent ignorance is harming the forum.

[sinkspur]

The rules for behavior in Dachau were published and known to all there....I've actually seen them in person. Still wrong. The just or unjust nature of a rule is not determined by its having been pre-published and known to all.  Preening that you used such unjust rules to do evil...in the current case, to disenfranchise GOP voters...does not make it less reprehensible. Calling out an injustice is not whining, it is calling a cat a cat.

Oh look, I've broken Godwin's law...oh well...sometimes it just has to be done to hit home a valid point.

Invoking the Holocaust in a lame effort to make a point is, frankly, licking the underside of the rim of the toilet bowl.  Does it taste good?

I don't know what you're attempting to prove here, but it's lost on me. 

It profits a man nothing to lose one's soul to gain the world. 

But for Donald Trump?

[Right_in_Virginia]

RIV, please educate yourself:

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php?topic=202201.new#new

Your belligerent ignorance is harming the forum.

But at least not as much as your rude, slime coated replies.