2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumLooks like Bernie's winning 4-5 states tonight (out of 11 total). That a VERY respectable showing.
These results are NOT a Clinton "mandate" for Hillary (or her supporters) to climb on
a high-horse and start demanding that Bernie "get out now".
That is total BULLSHIT. Don't buy into it for a second.
GO Bernie!!!!
bigtree
(85,986 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)Response to morningfog (Reply #3)
SCantiGOP This message was self-deleted by its author.
Optimism
(142 posts)CNN and their bullshit inclusion of Superdelegates when they show the delegate total graphic. All in hopes of making it appear there's been some sort of massive blowout tonight. There hasn't been! Don't be discouraged Bernie supporters! Not to diss all those Southern states Hillary won, but those are highly unlikely to vote for the Democrat in November. Oklahoma (which also dislikes Trump) DOES like Bernie. Crossover appeal. But the BIG news is Bernie's results in MN and CO. Not to mention the tie in MA !
Time for yet another donation to Sander's campaign. ENCOURAGEMENT! OPTIMISM !!
DJ13
(23,671 posts)Welcome to DU!
drokhole
(1,230 posts)...about how they could sway the election for Hilary (from Aeon):
We now estimate that Hannons old friends have the power to drive between 2.6 and 10.4 million votes to Clinton on election day with no one knowing that this is occurring and without leaving a paper trail. They can also help her win the nomination, of course, by influencing undecided voters during the primaries. Swing voters have always been the key to winning elections, and there has never been a more powerful, efficient or inexpensive way to sway them than SEME ('Search Engine Manipulation Effect').
DJ13
(23,671 posts)But nothing about Hillary and satisfying her ambition surprises me anymore.
I am loving how the counties broke down in all the states. There were a lot more Bernie supporters across board than camp weathervane was counting on. And look where Bernie has strong numbers. Then compare to how many republicans voted.
If she is the nominee, she better get better at reaching across a lot of tables or she will be very sad in November
But what the Hell, I am very happy with the results. Would have loved to have add the MA as a win, but we showed up in very close numbers there. Bernie got delegates in every state....it looks like h didn't get any in Vermont. That is the last I saw, who know if it has changed.
And I am not counting superdelegates until convention. That's when they cast their votes.
Mira
(22,380 posts)welcome to DU.
dchill
(38,465 posts)Anybody?
thesquanderer
(11,982 posts)dchill
(38,465 posts)I don't remember them being added to the count from the get-go.
thesquanderer
(11,982 posts)...but the link I posted showed that there were issues about them even about as early in the process as we are today.
dchill
(38,465 posts)them between, so it wouldn't have been such a seemingly deciding factor.
thesquanderer
(11,982 posts)creeksneakers2
(7,473 posts)John Poet
(2,510 posts)who had endorsed Hillary into the delegate totals, clearly misrepresenting the delegate results of actual voting. The networks all have their favorite in this.
LittleGirl
(8,282 posts)thanks for sharing. love that.
silenttigersong
(957 posts)Thats funny ,be carefull....
Fronkonsteen
(75 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)California has 546 votes or delegates and will go big-time for Bernie.
I'm out campaigning on the street here and people really like Bernie. I've campaigned in a lot of elections, and I have never seen anything like the enthusiasm for Bernie in California. It is incredible.
Herman4747
(1,825 posts)...however, it should be noted that California went for Hillary in 2008.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)gwheezie
(3,580 posts)The economy is pretty strong right now when you compare it to the rest of the world.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)the Fall of 2008 after the primaries had been held.
The economy is stronger now than it was in 2009-2011, but it isn't good. Most of the financial gain from the wonderful technology we have goes to the top 1% of our population. Listen to Bernie!
Duckfan
(1,268 posts)But the Central Valley may be a different story.
Emphasis on "maybe".
bvf
(6,604 posts)Gold star. Have mom put it on the fridge for you.
My, spinning like the Tazmanian Devil tonight, are we?
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)I know you don't follow the threads that talk about this, so consider this a reminder that we do discuss things like this, right along with the issues.
PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)alot of Bernie friendly states coming up too. ie Union territories not Confederate states
dchill
(38,465 posts)going forward from here.
George II
(67,782 posts)Outside of Maine, it doesn't look like he's close to a win in the remaining 35 states. No "path to victory".
retrowire
(10,345 posts)Pwease mr bigtree, expwain to us childwen how da hell dats devashtating to buhnies campaign???
keep wishing us away! lalalala
delrem
(9,688 posts)Martin who?
FarPoint
(12,321 posts)Respect is fine...but it's not a primary point for the Game of Thrones.
warrprayer
(4,734 posts)Go Bernie!
Cobalt Violet
(9,905 posts)I keep hearing that for days now. He is doing great!
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,883 posts)He gets an B for effort
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)You may not like the man, but you have to give him credit for the thousands of people he's mobilized and his nothing short of phenomenal fund raising.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)nc4bo
(17,651 posts)Fresh!
[IMG][/IMG]
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)It's about party delegates.
Clinton 841. Sanders 237. http://www.cbsnews.com/elections/2016/primaries/
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Since their votes are not "locked in".
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Where have I heard that before?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)They have not been cast yet, and they have changed in every single primary since superdelegates were created.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)So you're saying we shouldn't count any votes, since none have been cast?
Or just the ones you don't want to count.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Dear god that has to be one of the least-aware posts this primary season.
Pledged delegates are required to vote for one particular candidate. So we know which candidate they will be voting for at the convention. Because they have no choice. These primaries and caucuses are selecting pledged delegates (indirectly).
Superdelegates still have a choice until their vote is actually cast. And in every. single. primary since superdelegates were created, they have changed their votes.
For example, John Lewis said he'd vote for Clinton in 2008. He voted for Obama after Obama won his district. Superdelegates will be making the same political calculus at the convention this year.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Therefore, we don't count them.
Except, everyone else counts them!
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Every previous year, the media did not include superdelegates in delegate tallies. Suddenly, they are including superdelegates. Golly, I wonder why?
You can be sure NH's superdelegates are going to feel enormous pressure to change their vote by the convention. And after tonight, so are CO, VT and MN's.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)2,382. A number similar to all the recent primaries!
So let's not count the total votes until we get to the convention.
That's the plan. That's the rationalization.
OK.
No matter how many votes Hillary accumulates, it won't meet your "special Hillary standard."
jeff47
(26,549 posts)And the primary calendar is South heavy at first. Southerners are more conservative, even the Democrats. Today and next week should be the best environment for Clinton.
And she did not get a "knock-out" tonight, since Sanders won where he was expected to lose.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)At least that is what the news was saying here.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)artislife
(9,497 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)How fucking hard is that to comprehend? No matter what they say now who they are supporting is indeterminate until the convention. Period.
Did 2008 teach you nothing?
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Obama didn't steal the nomination.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)It taught us superdelegates follow the *overall* primary vote.
As in, whoever wins the most pledged delegate wins. And the Superdelegates will realign their support *however is necessary* to confirm that outcome.
So talking about any candidate having any superdelegate locked up when the primary isn't even half over is monumentally stupid. Because they don't.
(And of course he didn't steal it, wtf are you talking about?)
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)That doesn't bode well for her, or I should say us. But that hasn't happened yet.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Should we count that? Been Republican for decades.
rpannier
(24,329 posts)Winning SC, Oklahoma, Texas and others, while important in the primary, will mean very little in the GE
And no, I do not believe that having Castro as veep will make Texas competitive or force the Republicans to spend more money there
We've been hearing that about Governor's races and other races in Texas for the last 10 years or so and it never happens
Clinton or Sanders same electoral result
South Carolina, Georgia gonna go Republican by 6+ (likely more)
hedda_foil
(16,371 posts)Basically, she's sweeping the Confederacy. That's because the Democrats in those states are predominantly majority AA and they have been overwhelmingly loyal to Secretary Clinton. Unfortunately, the states themselves are overwhelmingly Republican.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)I think Clinton took American Samoa caucus.
rpannier
(24,329 posts)Dems Abroad will likely go Sanders
Would be a minor miracle if he didn't win Democrats Abroad
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Polynesian-Caucasian, Tulsi was born in 1981 in Leloaloa, American Samoa, the fourth of five children born to Carol and State Senator Mike Gabbard. When Tulsi was two, the family moved to Hawaiʻi, where they first settled in Wahiawa on Royal Palm Drive, where Tulsis sister, Vrindavan, the familys youngest, was born...
https://www.votetulsi.com/tulsi-gabbard
rpannier
(24,329 posts)Thank you for sharing
Optimism
(142 posts)... and very telegenic. A very positive face for the Sanders campaign, and she was extremely eloquent tonight when speaking of the need for a President that does NOT believe in 'regime change' and the carnage that always ensues. Not just in Iraq and Libya, but also looking forward in Syria. She's seen what war has done to her brothers and sisters in arms (two deployments, I believe) and she does NOT want Hillary to be the nominee. She's the most calm and measured in Bernie's camp, and looks to be becoming the go-to spokesperson for these talking heads shows.
Hell, I know it's still early in the game, but if Bernie were to somehow (SOONER rather than later) announce her as his preferred Veep choice (assuming Warren declines) ... it could well take the wind out of Hillary's sails at this crucial time. The more women to choose from on national tickets, the better. Especially when crucial matters of war and peace are on the line. Plus hey ... another mixed-race leader from Hawaii ... what's not to love?! Maybe just that alone would be reason enough for the hoped for Obama endorsement!
anotherproletariat
(1,446 posts)tommcc99
(48 posts)Your a class act.
calguy
(5,305 posts)Not even close to competing for a nomination that is slipping away.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Hillarians and TV pundits were peddling the bullshit that "Bernie will only
win VT, and that's about it"
Bernie is winning at least 4, maybe 5, out of 11.
Not bad for someone polling at 3% nationally just 9 months ago,
no matter how you want to parse it.
rpannier
(24,329 posts)Get that 25+% of the delegates and make some noise on the platform committee
TheFarseer
(9,319 posts)instead of the SEC primary, the results would be as lopsided for Bernie. Too bad they'll call Minnesota and Colorado after most people go to bed. Have to be honest, I'm disappointed if Mass holds up for Clinton.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)but MSNBC just called if for Hillary
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)but I have been watching the Mass returns since both Bernie and Hillary were near 100,000 votes each, but with Hillary ahead by about 22,000. Now, both are in the 500,000 range and the gap is about the same. I watched each time the returns came in, and the gap between them didn't vary much the entire time. What are the odds that Hillary's 22,000 vote lead would be compressed into the very first 20% reported, but for the next 80% that reported Bernie and Hillary would have almost the exact equal count of votes? It seems unnatural.
thesquanderer
(11,982 posts)I don't know what this will look like by the time you see it, but...
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2016/primaries/2016-03-01#MA-Dem
a lot of the unreported regions are (based on surrounding precincts) likely to go for Bernie. But they are calling it for Hillary, so I guess the population of the unreported areas is smaller.
karynnj
(59,501 posts)while the south where Hillary has won the bulk of her delegates.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)I think he'll win it decisively here.
karynnj
(59,501 posts)It is ridiculous how distorted the emphasis on the southern states - which we never win in the general election - is. So many of these were frontloaded. Bernie today noted that 15 states were done -- 35 are left.
I think HRC is the more likely nominee, but it is still possible that she could lose.
she could lose.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)to give the most conservative states (okay, not Mass. ) an outsized voice in the process, so that insurgents like Bernie can't build on wins in Iowa and/or NH.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)elections.
Here is a map of how states vote in presidential elections.
http://www.270towin.com/historical-presidential-elections/
artislife
(9,497 posts)Old Codger
(4,205 posts)To actually possibly have some impact on the primary, usually over by the time we have ours.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)but I think there needs to be a lottery each election year to decide which states
get to go first, middle and last. That would be so much more fair for all regions.
I hate the Eastern state's always telling the Western states who's "going to win"
and/or who we "get to" vote for.
Peace Patriot
(24,010 posts)Maybe after we demote you-know-who, we can push that with the DNC, or maybe as a Democratic Party platform item. I frankly can't remember how this odd stackup of red states first happened. I think it happened over a long period of time, with states jockeying for position. I can't even think right now WHO decides the order of states. I recall a bunch of fights about it in the...90s? The state legislatures? Constitution says states have control over election rules. So it must be up to each state, in agreement with the political parties. But it could be a platform item as a policy goal in the states, to do a lottery, or some fairer system. I'm in California and I'm sick and tried of being told who our nominee is before I get to vote.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)but am fuzzy on the details. As I recall it was quite a can of worms
that calmer heads never wanted to open up again, because it became
so contentious, involving states v. federal power, etc.
Given Bernie's fiery commitment to increase voter participation,
I could see him supporting some constructive changes in this
regard when he's in the WH.
Here is a proposal by the National Association of Secretaries of State:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_Regional_Primary_System
The Rotating Regional Primary System is a proposed system for reform of the United States presidential primary process, in which the country would be divided into four regions for primary elections. The plan has been promoted since 1999 by the National Association of Secretaries of State.[1]
The plan provides that the individual state primaries (or caucuses) would be grouped into 4 regions, each region voting in a different month--either March, April, May or June. Individual states in a region would vote on or soon after the first Tuesday of their month, though not necessarily on the same day. The first year, the order would be determined by lottery, and subsequently rotate for each election.
To continue traditional early primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire, they would be permitted to hold their primaries or caucus before any of the regions.
It calls for a lottery of states to determine the ordering of the states
within each region. It's apparently been 'on the table' since 1999.
fascinating stuff.
Skid Rogue
(711 posts)He honestly did better than I thought he would. I'm happy for you guys and I'm glad he's in the race. Great Job!!!!!!
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)This is how its done
Gene Debs
(582 posts)Feeling the Bern
(3,839 posts)How do I like my children? Barbecued!
TheDormouse
(1,168 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)don't recall where I heard that, so can't verify.
Anyone else know for sure?
TheDormouse
(1,168 posts)jmowreader
(50,552 posts)Republican primaries are winner-take-all.
thesquanderer
(11,982 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Virginia was a possibility but lots of people working for the current administration work there.
Bernie won the majority of Northern states plus Oklahoma and Looks like maybe Colorado also. Great work.
Minnesota is not completely in yet is it? I counted that for Bernie based on the results I have seen.
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)But now the race starts. There is Florida he'll most likely lose, but then a lot more northern and western states.
The Massachusetts loss stings a bit, but the vote is proportioned so there's very little difference in delegate apportionment there. I thought Massachusetts voters were a bit more progressive, but they chose the conservative hawk tonight. So be it. On to the next group. Glad we're through most of the confederacy.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)but rather Midwestern. The other half haughtily proclaimed themselves proud Southerners.
I just thought it was a swampy dump with too many water moccasins and snapping turtles trying to get at my little ankles.
madokie
(51,076 posts)then I joined the navy and man o man did I ever talk like the southerners so my impression of the state from then going forward was we are southern.
jalan48
(13,856 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Beacool
(30,247 posts)Although, he'll be far behind in pledged delegates when all is said and done.
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)Most forecasts show that the momentum will massively shift to Sanders after March 15th.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)She's polling ahead in all March 15 states and predicted to win them by the 538: FL, IL, NC and OH. She's also ahead in MI. There are a lot of delegates in those states. She'll win NY, is polling well in PA (which she won in 2008 by almost 10%) and will probably do well in MD too.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Kip Humphrey
(4,753 posts)reformist2
(9,841 posts)Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)SoapBox
(18,791 posts)The donations will be pouring in for Bernie.
George II
(67,782 posts)...the nomination.
Peace Patriot
(24,010 posts)...and, by God, done with no corporate/bankster money, & no superpacs--a virtually unknown US senator (black-holed by the corpo-fascist media, who are still trying their best to bury him), with only 3% support 9 months ago!
Now he's beating Trump by 12 pts in national polls. Clinton does only half as well and she loses to Cruz & Rubio. Sanders beats them all!
He could win this nomination if more of the superdelegates decide to go with the best candidate! That CAN happen now. I was a bit worried about all those wrong polls and the "narrative" spun around them. I think I'll stop worrying about David Brock's "narratives."
for Bernie Sanders and for all of us, and especially for Sanders volunteers in ALL of today's states!
basselope
(2,565 posts)KauaiK
(544 posts)If she didn't have Wassermann-Schultz to rig the system in her favor it would be a whole different story. I hope Wassermann-Schultz will see the same fate as Lee Atwater.
Go Bernie and go get 'em Tulsi Gabbard!
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)PoliticalMalcontent
(449 posts)Things that make you go 'hmmm.'
Clinton squeaked one out in Massachusetts and took the recently purple-ish Virginia.
Sanders took the purpe-ish Colorado, along with the Minnesota and of course his home state of Vermont.
Curiously, Clinton took all of the red states except for Oklahoma. I'm pretty sure Clinton isn't going to be swinging any of those red states around come Nov. 2016.
You'd think Clinton as a moderate would appeal to independents, but looking at the numbers they don't trust her and would probably only vote for her to avoid a Trump presidency. That's not a good reason to nominate her though. Nominate someone who inspires! Nominate someone who gives a damn about someone other than themselves.
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)Hey... maybe she IS really still a "Goldwater Girl."
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I hate it when states do that
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)seems like the M$M did too.
Hey where are you seeing the results??
Seems the NYTimes forgot about AK too, as it's not on their website of primaries.
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Guardian clarified that oopsie moment for me
I hate it when states do that.
And the NYT forgot it as well, for the dems, It is for the Rs
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)still_one
(92,117 posts)CO, Minnesota, and Oklahoma. Those are good solid states from different regions of the country. This will continue, no one is going away
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)same to you guy on your wins tonight... gotcha lotsa delegates. well done.
still_one
(92,117 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and I said as much yesterday.
And personally I am happy as punch. I like competitive primaries.
Marr
(20,317 posts)Super Tuesday was always Hillary's advantage. Sanders is doing surprisingly well here. Should be interesting as this thing goes forward.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)oh.. speaking of champaign ... just for tonight .. maybe we Bernistas
deserve a glass or two. It was an awesome night, here's to many more
wins down the road.