2016 Postmortem

Cali_Democrat

(30,439 posts) Thu Mar 24, 2016, 04:01 PM Mar 2016

Hillary actually increased her popular vote lead after the "Western Tuesday" primaries:

So even though Bernie won Idaho and Utah by large margins, Hillary's win in Arizona more than offset those popular vote totals.

The spread is now Clinton +2,552,265.

Go figure!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_vote_count.html

10 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Hillary actually increased her popular vote lead after the "Western Tuesday" primaries: (Original Post) Cali_Democrat Mar 2016 OP

She beat Obama in the popular vote too and still lost. Loudestlib Mar 2016 #1

Some do and some don't Cali_Democrat Mar 2016 #2

Yep but caucuses tend to depress turnout. JonLeibowitz Mar 2016 #3

Sort of, it depends how you measure. 2008 was effectively a tie tritsofme Mar 2016 #4

I think it is fair to say the pop vote in 08 was a push. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2016 #7

You haven't noticed any regularities in Arizona yet? -none Mar 2016 #5

The majority of it was Latino community which would have put her number higher. seabeyond Mar 2016 #8

Yup Cali_Democrat Mar 2016 #9

I still can't figure out why Bernie ... NurseJackie Mar 2016 #6

in a proportional comparison her popular vote is 40% higher than Bernie's Bill USA Mar 2016 #10

Loudestlib

(980 posts)

1. She beat Obama in the popular vote too and still lost.

Reply to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 04:17 PM

Mar 2016

Maybe, because we don't count the people in caucuses. n/t

Cali_Democrat

(30,439 posts)

2. Some do and some don't

Reply to Loudestlib (Reply #1)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 04:18 PM

Mar 2016

Utah and Idaho do disclose the raw vote totals.

BTW, Florida and Michigan threw off the totals in 2008.

2008 was a quirky year.

JonLeibowitz

(6,282 posts)

3. Yep but caucuses tend to depress turnout.

Reply to Cali_Democrat (Reply #2)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 04:19 PM

Mar 2016

Ironically, it probably took more time to vote in Arizona. Thanks, GOP!

tritsofme

(17,399 posts)

4. Sort of, it depends how you measure. 2008 was effectively a tie

Reply to Loudestlib (Reply #1)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 04:25 PM

Mar 2016

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

Bernie is not anywhere near that ballpark.

But you are correct, the undemocratic and unrepresentative nature of caucuses makes it difficult to get a solid picture of the national popular vote.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,711 posts)

7. I think it is fair to say the pop vote in 08 was a push.

Reply to tritsofme (Reply #4)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 06:24 PM

Mar 2016

Bookmark this post... Senator Sanders won't get in smelling distance of Hillary Clinton this time around.

-none

(1,884 posts)

5. You haven't noticed any regularities in Arizona yet?

Reply to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 04:35 PM

Mar 2016

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)

8. The majority of it was Latino community which would have put her number higher.

Reply to -none (Reply #5)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 06:26 PM

Mar 2016

Cali_Democrat

(30,439 posts)

9. Yup

Reply to seabeyond (Reply #8)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 06:40 PM

Mar 2016

The problems were mostly in densely populated areas with higher proportion of minorities.

Hillary has been winning these areas over Bernie across the country. Hillary wins in more densely populated urban areas with more minorities. Bernie wins more suburban and rural areas with more whites.

So it would make sense that the problems in Arizona actually hurt Hillary more than Bernie.

NurseJackie

(42,862 posts)

6. I still can't figure out why Bernie ...

Reply to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 06:17 PM

Mar 2016

... and his followers think he's going to win. (Maybe they're just messin' with us.) :-P

Bill USA

(6,436 posts)

10. in a proportional comparison her popular vote is 40% higher than Bernie's

Reply to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 06:50 PM

Mar 2016

Reply to this discussion