Hypothetical: Trump either is disowned by the Republican party, or he decides to bolt and run independently. Does this ensure a victory for the democrats?

Victory for the democrats was ensured a long time ago. Probably around the time that we knew the full slate of Republican hopefuls. There isn’t one who could win against either Clinton or Sanders.

Yupper. She’s a shoo-in.

One thing is certain. If Trump leaves, he takes what amounts to the Republican base with him, or certainly enough of it to guarantee defeat for any possible “legitimate” substitute.

I do not believe that either of the major parties can “toss” a candidate that the rank-and-file vote for under the party’s auspices in the primary. That’s the thing about the relatively open primary system that we have: no more “back room deals” where an unknown entity is selected as the party’s candidate to run in place of a more popular one who does not gain the party bosses’ trust and faith. In fact, I’m surprised that the entire system hasn’t been gamed a lot worse than this, and a lot sooner than this.

I don’t think that the Democrats are any more thrilled than the Republicans that a relative outsider may be poised to lead the party’s ticket into the presidential election. Bernie Sanders? Are you kidding me?

@CWOTUS “I don’t think that the Democrats are any more thrilled than the Republicans that a relative outsider may be poised to lead the party’s ticket into the presidential election. ”

I’m sure you’re right that they’re not happy about that prospect at all. Sanders is not a Democrat, and has always been very clear about that. But at least the party doesn’t have to fear for the future of the nation if he wins.

Thus the requirement to deflect the “oddballs” prior to the primary. The thing common to both Sanders & Trump, is that neither of them are dependent on the coffers typically required to mount an effective campaign. The financial chokehold is the mechanism usually deployed by both parties in regulating who gets to play. The question for Sanders is whether or not he can continue to nickel and dime his way to success. Trump is a nightmare for his party because he can obviously muscle his obnoxious way right down to the wire. Both Trump and Sanders are huge threats to business as usual entrenched 2 party politics in the country. If Sanders can hold on and keep drumming away at his basic message, the time will soon arrive when discussion will be FORCED on the validity of his positions, and at THAT point it’s all up for grabs.

No. I will never say something is a sure thing, because as soon as people start saying that usually the other shoe drops. Democrats and media have been saying Trump would never have these numbers and never make it this far. What does it mean that they were completely wrong? It means most of them just don’t get it.

When I was a realtor back during the heyday of the early 2000’s I had clients and some people in my family saying you can’t lose on real estate, and were flipping properties. They were very wrong.

My experience of American politics is extremely limited. I have found betting websites are usually correct in their selections, that is to say those with the shortest odds usually (99.9% usual) win the election. Just take a look at one those sites (Ladbrokes for example) and look under political betting. Currently they have Hilary Clinton with shortest odds for president and Marco Rubio with shortest odds fro Republican nominee.

Not really, and here is why.

Look at how many people, even a few in this thread, dismiss Sanders. They seem to buy into the numbers put out by Hillary’s corporate sponsors that she is THE Democratic candidate. With @kritiper saying “she”, @CWOTUS with “Are you kidding me?”, and @Cosmos going with the people who said Clinton would defeat Obama in the primaries back in ‘07, it’s obvious that a lot of people consider Sanders non-viable.

With corporate news trying to get Democrats to pick an establishment candidate despite polls showing that people on both sides want an outsider (or at least a shake up of the status quo), and doing so with some success, and the possibility of Independent bids from Sanders and/or Trump, I’d say it’s NOT a sure thing.

I doubt Sanders actually will go indie though. While both he and Trump said they wouldn’t, Bernie actually sticks to his promises. That said, either might be a popular enough write-in that no being on the ballot could be moot.

@Cosmos Western Illinois University has predicted the last nine presidential elections accurately. Here is what they say. And lets not forget to keep an eye on Dixville Notch.

@jerv I’m surprised to see people buy into the media’s dismissal of Sanders. I see it here on Fluther and on Facebook, as well. This is not a true story, unless the people make it true.

It’s worth mentioning that Obama won in 2008 by ignoring the media’s conventional wisdom, and we have a couple of very liberal candidates who similarly won in unlikely places in Canada (notably the extremely popular Naheed Nenshi as mayor of conservative Calgary), mainly by whipping up and maintaining interest and support among young people.

@dappled_leaves I seem to remember the media in love with Obama. I credit the Oprah Effect for most of his initial momentum. That and the medias interpretation of the Iowa Caucus.

@dappled_leaves Precisely so.

@JLeslie Screw Iowa. There is a reason I mentioned Dixville Notch; they’ve been right far more often.

@jerv I don’t feel Iowa predicts it. I said how the media interpreted Iowa. The TV was full of people saying all white Iowa voted for a black guy. If white Iowa will vote that way then a black guy really can win. Blah blah. I won’t rehash it all except to say, my personal feeling at the time and still now is it’s easier for a minority to get votes in a very white place than in a state where there is a fairly large minority population.