Tuesday March 22nd Primaries/Caucuses

[Gray_Matter]

Sure, but, Hillary needs independents to beat Trump. She doesn't have them, though. She also doesn't have all Sanders supporters. Doesn't look good for Democrats if she's the nominee.

It's far more complex than that:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/...-the-election/

If you put the non-white people at 90% odd voting for democratic which would happen with Trump because of how much he has antagonized them so far, then you need more than 63% of all white people to vote for Trump to still get him to win. To put that in perspective, The percentage of white voters that Romney got in 2012 was unprecedented with something like 55% and he still lost by a landslide. The last time a person won with that sort of white vote percentage it was a landslide. The demographics in the USA have changed.

[Gray_Matter]

The bernie bro's are celebrating their victory like they just won the nomination.

Fivethirtyeight have a good summary of the day:

"On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton won Arizona easily, while Bernie Sanders won Utah and (although it hasn’t been called officially yet) very probably will win Idaho — in both cases perhaps by overwhelming margins. Thus, it’s probable — likely if I had to guess — that Sanders will win more pledged delegates on the evening.

Not all the news is good for Sanders, however. He was expected to win more delegates on the evening based on our demographic targets — and more importantly, he’s far enough behind Clinton that he needs to not just meet but blow out his delegate targets the rest of the way to have a shot at eventually catching Clinton. Alaska, Hawaii and Washington will vote on Saturday, states where we expect Sanders to perform well."

According to their estimates (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/...ets/democrats/) he needed to win 17 more delegates on the day than Clinton if he was not behind. He will gain a lot less. Unfortunately for him, he needed to win Arizona too which he failed to do putting Clinton further on track for the nomination.

It's also interesting that Clinton will probably gain about 60k-80k on him in the voting numbers on the day too and she was already quite far ahead there.

[Vynestra]

I'm very realistic, Bernie probably has less than a 5% chance, but the "Math" as you state says he is still in the race. Also when you consider Bernie has a better chance at catching Hillary than Hillary has at getting enough pledge delegates to secure the nomination.

That's just not true. Clinton is on a PATH to the nomination, she is on a path to hit the required delegates without super delegates right now.

Go to 538 and look at their delegate tracker, they even have her patch carved out to where she is expected to lose in the next upcoming 5 contests, and STILL be on track.

And even if she ends up short a few delegates, if he's behind 200-300 delegates still and he tries persuading supers to all switch to him to give him the nod, that's sad.

After CA he needs to drop out, go to the convention and have a platform for things he wants to have influence on -- Not stay in it as a spoiler and make the dems do a full delegate vote including supers. We don't need to try to do what the republicans are doing.

So if she's short a few delegates, obviously the supers will carry her. There's no way they'd all switch, and if he even let them do that, that'd be so fucking un-democratic it'd be insane and I'd be completely disgusted.

(would be interesting if she's short just 1 delegate by the end and they make it so Bill Clinton is the super delegate vote that gives her the nom lol...)

(yes he is a super delegate)

[Targis]

The bernie bro's are celebrating their victory like they just won the nomination.

Holy fuck. It must be nice to be able to be behind double what Clinton was in 08 and still have an ounce of enthusiasm torwards a very clear losing situation.

I commend these people for being able to ignore the math so much that they somehow think they will win.

It would bother the hell out of me to throw math out the window and replace cold hard numbers with just pure enthusiasm.

- - - Updated - - -

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...he-nomination/

I find it disturbing that you are not just content on knowing your candidate will win, but that you need to crush the morale of your opponents. Is them celebrating a victory really going to change the outcome? Or does it just bother you knowing that people are happy about something you don't like?

[Gray_Matter]

I find it disturbing that you are not just content on knowing your candidate will win, but that you need to crush the morale of your opponents. Is them celebrating a victory really going to change the outcome? Or does it just bother you knowing that people are happy about something you don't like?

From a democratic party point of view, they would prefer that Bernie gets out of the race ASAP because he is limiting the amount that she can pivot to the center which is what the primary winners need to do. It's the same for the GOP side of things. I am not talking about changing their minds on things but rather changing their talking points to issues that are more relevant to the general election. Income inequality is a big issue for democratic voters but much less of an issue for independents and more moderate voters. They might be more interested in national security, as an example.

[Targis]

From a democratic party point of view, they would prefer that Bernie gets out of the race ASAP because he is limiting the amount that she can pivot to the center which is what the primary winners need to do. It's the same for the GOP side of things. I am not talking about changing their minds on things but rather changing their talking points to issues that are more relevant to the general election. Income inequality is a big issue for democratic voters but much less of an issue for independents and more moderate voters. They might be more interested in national security, as an example.

As an independent, I think that income inequality is a bigger issue than national security which I'm not worried about at all. I'm sure there are polls out there that can give a better idea of what independents care about. And from what I gathered, independents gravitate toward Sanders anyway so obviously the more she has to adopt his positions the more likely she can win in the general election.

[Gray_Matter]

I think i'd be a bigger mistake giving the Republicans 4 months of news coverage with almost no coverage of democrats.

Fivethirtyeight put out an article that debunked that theory. I will try and find it for you.

- - - Updated - - -

As an independent, I think that income inequality is a bigger issue than national security which I'm not worried about at all. I'm sure there are polls out there that can give a better idea of what independents care about. And from what I gathered, independents gravitate toward Sanders anyway so obviously the more she has to adopt his positions the more likely she can win in the general election.

The national security was an example. That said, how old are you if you don't mind me asking? The majority of voters are much older. Bernie is getting some large turnouts with the independent young voters (20-30) but not many older ones. Older voters tend to be more moderate in nature. There is no stats that indicate that older independents are gravitating towards him.

[McCulloch]

The final results aren't in, but as of right now Bernie netted 7 delegates. He's got Hillary right where he wants her; still way in front of him.

[GennGreymane]

Months late to the party aren't you..

couple of posters here seem to disagree on other threads, was wondering when they would just lay back and accept Donald Trump.

[Shadowferal]

I'm very realistic, Bernie probably has less than a 5% chance, but the "Math" as you state says he is still in the race. Also when you consider Bernie has a better chance at catching Hillary than Hillary has at getting enough pledge delegates to secure the nomination.

4,700 delegate will meet at the convention.
2,115 delegates are accounted for with Bernie only lagging by 300.

That's why Clinton conservatives want him to bow out. He's still a threat.
The longer he stays in the race the better his chances.

[BuckSparkles]

The bernie bro's are celebrating their victory like they just won the nomination.

Holy fuck. It must be nice to be able to be behind double what Clinton was in 08 and still have an ounce of enthusiasm torwards a very clear losing situation.

I commend these people for being able to ignore the math so much that they somehow think they will win.

It would bother the hell out of me to throw math out the window and replace cold hard numbers with just pure enthusiasm.

- - - Updated - - -

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...he-nomination/

As much as I dislike Clinton, Sanders supporters are so annoying.

He could win 1 single delegate in an evening and his crowds would be cheering and roaring and posting statuses "WE CAN WIN."

I am over here like "wat"

[AdrianCC100]

I find it absurd that in 2016 people have to wait in line for over 5 hour to vote. I heard stories of some polling places running out of ballots.

Which is why I think they should come up with an online voting system like some other countries have. I guess Americans are too scared of the potential hacking.. I mean people always complain that turn out for voting is low.. Well it would be much higher if it wasn't such a hassle..

[Ghostpanther]

It's far more complex than that:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/...-the-election/

If you put the non-white people at 90% odd voting for democratic which would happen with Trump because of how much he has antagonized them so far, then you need more than 63% of all white people to vote for Trump to still get him to win. To put that in perspective, The percentage of white voters that Romney got in 2012 was unprecedented with something like 55% and he still lost by a landslide. The last time a person won with that sort of white vote percentage it was a landslide. The demographics in the USA have changed.

Obama did not win by a landslide in 2012. He won easily with the electoral college, but the popular vote was closer than some seem to remember. And the democrats had a fairly good turnout, where as if the Republicans had got 30% more of the registered voters for their party to vote, Romney may have won. So the % of turn outs will be a big factor this election. But you are correct, the demographics of the US has changed. But if Trump can manage to pull over enough independent votes, will be interesting.

[Deleted]

Idaho called for Sanders on politico.



Sure, but, Hillary needs independents to beat Trump. She doesn't have them, though. She also doesn't have all Sanders supporters. Doesn't look good for Democrats if she's the nominee.

Spoken like a true uneducated person. Hillary will have all those votes when she faces Trump.

[BuckSparkles]

Obama did not win by a landslide in 2012. He won easily with the electoral college, but the popular vote was closer than some seem to remember. And the democrats had a fairly good turnout, where as if the Republicans had got 30% more of the registered voters for their party to vote, Romney may have won. So the % of turn outs will be a big factor this election. But you are correct, the demographics of the US has changed. But if Trump can manage to pull over enough independent votes, will be interesting.

I think Republican turnout will be much higher this time around.

But we will see.

[Deleted]

I'm very realistic, Bernie probably has less than a 5% chance, but the "Math" as you state says he is still in the race. Also when you consider Bernie has a better chance at catching Hillary than Hillary has at getting enough pledge delegates to secure the nomination.

He doesn't and he won't.

Sanders can't win big states with minorities in them, Hillary wins them rather easily.

In order for Sanders to win the nomination he'd had to beat Hillary by a 10-20% difference in every upcoming big state.

That's just not going to happen, if he wins in big states, it will be very marginal wins with Hillary still getting the most delegates.

- - - Updated - - -

I think Republican turnout will be much higher this time around.

But we will see.

Not when Trump is the nominee (unless it's to vote against him). With Cruz or even Kasich, definitely.

[BuckSparkles]

Not when Trump is the nominee (unless it's to vote against him). With Cruz or even Kasich, definitely.

I disagree. Trump is pulling independents and angry democrats.

Kaisch is irrelevant anyways, and Cruz is much too partisan to pull any moderate and demo who isn't hardcore religious.

[Ghostpanther]

- - - Updated - - -



Not when Trump is the nominee (unless it's to vote against him). With Cruz or even Kasich, definitely.

Well, I advise you not to put any money on a bet he will not get the nomination. However, against Hillary, the brokers will gladly take your money.