2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary opens up massive leads in Arizona, New York, Maryland, and Pennsylvania
Cain S. LaTrans ?@snkscoyote 5h5 hours agoHillary Clinton opens up massive leads in Arizona, New York, Maryland, and Pennsylvania
Hillary Clinton has taken such a dominant lead in the popular vote and delegate count that her Democratic primary opponent Bernie Sanders now needs to win the remaining states by an average margin of around twenty points. The trouble for him: four of the most delegate-rich upcoming states are slanting heavily toward Clinton in the latest polling. Even one of the very few states where he held a significant lead now appears to be leaning the other way. Heres a look at just how dominant Hillarys latest numbers are.
The next round of voting on March 22nd consists of the big state of Arizona and the small states of Idaho and Utah. New polling says that Hillary Clintons lead in Arizona is a whopping twenty-six points. Clinton also has a seven point lead in Utah, but due to its caucus format Sanders could win the state. Sanders could also win the Idaho caucus for the same reason. But delegates are awarded proportionally, so the total popular vote across the three states on this day should boost Clintons overall delegate lead by at least a bit and as always, thats before even getting to the superdelegates.
There is little to no polling for the March 26th states of Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii, making predictions difficult. Sanders wants Washington badly, and well go deeper into that one in a moment. Moving on in the calendar to April 5th, the polls in Wisconsin have Clinton and Sanders statistically tied. That would result in the delegate haul being split almost evenly. So through the next seven states, the delegate count is going to come out roughly even. Thats bad news for Sanders, because hes supposed to be winning all of these states by twenty points to have any chance of catching up.
Then comes New York on April 19th, where the two latest polls give Hillary an average lead of thirty-four points. That would boost Clintons lead by approximately sixty-five delegates. But the crushing blow comes on April 26th. Five states vote that day, but just two of them have most of the delegates. Hillary leads in Maryland by thirty-one points, and in Pennsylvania by twenty-six points. So just where is Sanders supposed to get his delegates from?
Sanders was counting on a blowout win in West Virginia, where a month ago he had a twenty-eight point lead in the only poll conducted. But now a different polling outlet says Clinton actually leads the state by eleven points. Whats really going on in West Virginia? We dont know. But its no longer a safe stronghold for anyone.
The two large states Bernie supporters keep pointing to are Washington and California, the latter of which doesnt vote until June. However, all states award their Democratic delegates proportionally. So even if Sanders pulled out fairly close wins in both states, he would get little more than half of the delegates in each state. This would in no way help him catch up mathematically. He needs to be winning blowout after blowout in large states, with no more losses and no close wins. And there is simply no roadmap for that.
http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/hillary-clinton-opens-up-huge-leads-in-arizona-new-york-maryland-pennsylvania/24167/
DCBob
(24,689 posts)but probably as shock to the Bernie folks.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)As opposed to "most of you".
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Just blinded by bias.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)We just don't see that happening with Hillary desire to inch forward and let the Republicans dominate the agenda.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)She is an amazing intelligent experienced dedicated public servant who can beat the GOP and secure a Democrat in the White House for at least 8 more years.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)comradebillyboy
(10,184 posts)and votes cast the 99% just isn't buying what Bernie is selling. All this despite the media trying to prop up the Sanders campaign. Despite virtually all positive press and no really negative scrutiny. Until last Tuesday that is, because after Hill's 5 state sweep even Chris Hayes couldn't pretend that Bernie is competitive anymore.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)I think you're right. There is no hope for this country. I'm thinking seriously about moving to a country that is more civilized.
Somewhere where health care, education and other socialist programs are more than corporate cash cows.
comradebillyboy
(10,184 posts)difficult and complex problems to deal with but I expect to see continued progresss. I view Hillary as a pragmatic problem solver and I like most of her political positions. I don't expect purity from politicians and I know she will do things that piss me off but I find her to be the best choice available. You have a different view and I'll just leave it there.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)Truman tried to get national health care in 1945. Incrementalism hasn't worked.
Its fairly well accepted that the U.S. is the most expensive healthcare system in the world, but many continue to falsely assume that we pay more for healthcare because we get better health (or better health outcomes). The evidence, however, clearly doesnt support that view.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/06/16/u-s-healthcare-ranked-dead-last-compared-to-10-other-countries/#1509074e1b96
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Just a matter of which filter one chiooses for their own particular bias.
I'm kinda biased by frustration and disgust of 40 years of seeing the Democratic Party morph into a "kinder and gentler" version of the GOP as a party of Big Business, Wall St. and status quo corruption.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Hillary probably would not have been my first choice if I had more choices. I was hoping Howard Dean would run again or perhaps Kirsten Gillibrand. But when my choices are Bernie and Hillary.. Hillary is the one. She can handle the GOP and beat them. Bernie? I doubt it. He's simply not ready for primetime.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)I happen to believe she will be a tremendous fighter for the things we as Democrats value and will move this country forward in a good way. I know you will find that amusing and perhaps even ridiculous.. but that's where bias comes in again.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)But I'm confused about this 'polls' business. Do you get more votes because of how many polls there are in your state? I could build a bunch if that would help. There are lots and lots of telephone polls in North Dakota - will that help?
What kind of polls would help Bernie? Telephone polls, electricity polls, street light polls? And does it matter how tall they are?
But I thought that what really mattered was your how big your coccyx was and how hard it was to pry Mary away from the Re-publicans? I still don't understand why a lot of people quit being publicans and why they want to be them again...
It's all really confusing. Well, when Queen Clinton appoints Bernie to be the Prime Minister, it'll all work out just fine. Then he and Chancellor Trump can build the Wall to keep out the Others from Mexico. They're dangerous and only 'fireglass' can stop them. And they make zombies. Totally creepy. I don't know how they'll keep it from melting - it's hot down there a lot, but they play hockey in Texas so I guess someone knows how to make it work.
But maybe she won't now that he's not helping out at the A-Pack conference. I don't know what goes into an A-Pack, but lots of people seem to think it's important. I've never seen an A-Pack, at least as far as I know. Is it, like, a winter survival kit or something like that? But it's almost spring - that wouldn't be the time to pack those, unless, I guess, you're sending them to Australia. I don't know why, but they have winter at totally the wrong time of the year.
Well, in Minnesota our coccyxes were the right size for Bernie, so that was cool. If I should build some polls in those other states to help, someone let me know.
Anything to help out 'dem 'O-crats.' They're the best.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)I thought I'd write it in 'the intelligence level hard-core Hillary Clinton supporters seem to think we possess' language.
Since a great many of us are old-time Democratic stalwarts, who have not only a clue but have already solved most of the mysteries, it would be of great benefit to many Clinton supporters to consider carefully why we support Sanders so vigorously. And, perhaps, why we may be concerned about a person seeking to become the next President of the United States who is widely viewed as dishonest and untrustworthy, who has spent decades building relationships with a diverse range of exceptionally wealthy people, and now is sheepishly declaring how nearly everything she would do as President would be adverse to their interests...
charlespercydemocrat
(46 posts)Its not over till Bernie sings somewhere over the rainbow/
DCBob
(24,689 posts)John Poet
(2,510 posts)I had no idea that so many Democratic primary voters were either neoconservative war hawks, or ill-informed and blind lemmings...
Armstead
(47,803 posts)The message has been "Hillary is the defacto nominee. bernie is just playing out his string."
Yeah that's going to cause many people in the "eitehr or" category to shift to Clinton. Plus the "time for unity" meme.
And Trump and the "Oh No Not That!" factor reinforces her false "electabilty" meme.
Doesn't mean a lot of those are wildly enthusiastic about Clinton, except for the shopworn meme of "anyone but a Republican."
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)that.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)At this stage, for the states mentioned, polls are of minimal predictive value.
And polling has been... peculiarly less-than-accurate this year on the subject of Democratic primary and caucus outcomes.
Nope, no shock. Especially with the media blackout of what has actually been an historic campaign by Bernie Sanders, unprecedented in many, many ways in modern American history. Nope - I'll let Democrats in the states decide who they support when it's actually their primary/caucus day.
Solid Snake1
(95 posts)For Hillary! If she wins AZ by 20 or 30 points the primary is effectively over. Sanders would have to win every single remaining state 70-30.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)With her winning handily and the gop imploding, I am extra excited now
pandr32
(11,639 posts)I am still excited about President Obama! It seems important history is being made and we are right here witnessing it! The future and past will look very different! No wonder the GOP are eating their own--desperation!
chillfactor
(7,587 posts)Bernie would mathematically be eliminated....yeah Hillary!
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)out the Big Money politicians that Clinton fans revere.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)and more of the dominance of the Wealthy and Super-Wealthy that you guys so venerate. Sooner or later we will throw out the Big Money that dominates our government and you bow before.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)brooklynite
(94,950 posts)Trenzalore
(2,331 posts)I'm sure he'll be fired up and ready to go.
Joe the Revelator
(14,915 posts)You guys LOOOOOVE Hillary to the point that one could call it a cult of personality. Bernie supporters are less about Bernie and more about moving the issues to a progressive place.
brooklynite
(94,950 posts)I'm also working to get 8 Senators, 30 House members and a handful of Governors elected. How about you folks?
Human101948
(3,457 posts)Average citizens have little or no independent influence on the policy-making process? This must be an overstatement of Gilenss and Pages findings, no?
Alas, no. In their primary statistical analysis, the collective preferences of ordinary citizens had only a negligible estimated effect on policy outcomes, while the collective preferences of economic elites (roughly proxied by citizens at the 90th percentile of the income distribution) were 15 times as important. Mass-based interest groups mattered, too, but only about half as much as business interest groups and the preferences of those public interest groups were only weakly correlated (.12) with the preferences of the public as measured in opinion surveys.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/08/rich-people-rule/
While Hillary has railed against for profit education companies, --she literally gave them a place at the table, Bill collected a cool 16.5 million, and Laureate doubled their take of tax dollars
It was recently revealed through Hillarys emails that during her first year as Secretary of State she insisted that Laureate Education be included in the guest list for an education policy dinner hosted at the U.S. Department of State.
Its a for-profit model that should be represented, she wrote in the August 2009 email, and as a result, a senior vice president at Laureate was added to the guest list. Several months later, former President Bill Clinton became an honorary chancellor of Laureate International Universities, which turned out to be incredibly lucrative. He was paid a cool $16.5 million between 2010 and 2014 for his role with the for-profit college.
https://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/hillarys-emails-reveal-lucrative-ties-to-for-profit-colleges/
Newkularblue
(130 posts)Rec
brooklynite
(94,950 posts)I'll pass that suggest along to him the next time I see him.
But it says something else as well; you're unhappy with the House and Senate candidates, but The Revolution () didn't run any of their own.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)(Sorry I don't have any corporate backers. I can't afford to buy any Senators or Congrees people.)
Compare the donors--
Hillary's top donors
Emily's List $939,881 $930,961 $8,920
Citigroup Inc $883,547 $875,547 $8,000
DLA Piper $847,930 $820,930 $27,000
Goldman Sachs $821,031 $811,031 $10,000
JPMorgan Chase & Co $771,111 $768,111 $3,000
Morgan Stanley $754,538 $749,538 $5,000
University of California $608,858 $608,858 $0
Time Warner $591,524 $566,524 $25,000
Skadden, Arps et al $522,688 $518,188 $4,500
Corning Inc $492,750 $474,750 $18,000
Kirkland & Ellis $443,420 $426,420 $17,000
Paul, Weiss et al $427,062 $427,062 $0
Greenberg Traurig LLP $411,640 $403,540 $8,100
Sullivan & Cromwell $396,625 $396,625 $0
Akin, Gump et al $393,531 $390,031 $3,500
National Amusements Inc $366,640 $363,640 $3,000
21st Century Fox $363,899 $363,899 $0
Lehman Brothers $362,853 $359,853 $3,000
Ernst & Young $360,127 $340,127 $20,000
Harvard University $359,451 359,451 0
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00000019&cycle=Career
Bernie's big donors
Alphabet Inc $132,228
University of California $46,777
Apple Inc $38,106
Microsoft Corp $36,937
Amazon.com $24,878
US Navy $20,027
Kaiser Permanente $19,578
Columbia University $16,850
University of Illinois $15,300
US Air Force $13,608
New York University $13,600
University Of Michigan $12,960
EMC Corp $12,725
IBM Corp $12,200
Intel Corp $12,150
Cornell University $11,975
Stanford University $11,800
Harvard University $11,614
US Postal Service $11,207
Facebook Inc $11,207
https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?id=N00000528&
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)And the PEOPLE who work in them donated to her campaigns, over the course of about 15 years.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)and were never instructed to contribute to Hillary? That's believable.
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)Seriously?
And that they were "instructed" to give their own money to a Democratic candidate?
Human101948
(3,457 posts)How Lawmakers Get Their 'Bundle' : Elections: 'Open Secrets' shows how interest groups are bypassing campaign laws by 'bundling' individual contributions.
July 01, 1992|SARA FRITZ | TIMES STAFF WRITER
Email
Share
WASHINGTON In the most pronounced example of a new phenomenon in campaign contributions, Sen. Bill Bradley (D-N.J.) received donations of $20,000 or more from each of nine different Wall Street securities firms, five law firms and three Hollywood film studios in the 1990 election, a new study found.
Entitled "Open Secrets," the 1,500-page analysis released Tuesday by the Center for Responsive Politics demonstrates the extent to which special interests now rely on coordinated personal contributions from corporate executives--along with political action committee contributions--in giving money to members of Congress.
http://articles.latimes.com/1992-07-01/news/mn-1177_1_individual-contributions
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)First of all...everyone who works in finance is NOT a Republican.
And even if they were, Republican companies would NOT be making their employees donate to a Dem.
And if you look at the crosstabs from your link to Hillarys donors, you will see the majority of money from those totals is from individual donors and the PAC money, listed from any of those companies, is in very small amounts.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)Perhaps, but I live in the midst of Wall Streeters and have yet to met a Democrat.
And the coordination (or intimidation) was enough of a problem that, to their credit, Goldman Sachs had to make a rule against it. Whether that has stopped the practice, I don't have any idea.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Bernie is the current standard bearer, but this was building form many years, and will keep on long after Bernie.
mythology
(9,527 posts)You haven't noticed the posts from Sanders supporters calling him the Jewish carpenter, or that blacks supporting Clinton have Stockholm Syndrome, or the post saying this
"Bernie is truth. Bernie is conviction. Bernie is love. Bernie is tolerance. Bernie is Robin Hood. Bernie is Pope Francis. Bernie is selfless. Bernie is fearless. Bernie has a history of outspoken leadership that we should all applaud. Bernie is the type of person who is fit to lead because he does so out of a concern for others, not out of a desire for power. Bernie is humble."
Or the posts saying that Sanders is our last hope.
Yes there are some Clinton supporters who seem to have an overly devoted attachment to Clinton, but I would argue that there are significantly more Sanders supporters (not all of them) who are that way. I don't think it's even close in total numbers, especially at DU given how many more Sanders supporters there are than Clinton supporters.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)I would certainly be 100% behind Hillary if she did the same. So far she has adopted a few of his policy objectives but I suspect those will be dust in the wind if she gains the White House.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)Joe the Revelator
(14,915 posts)that poster has spent his entire short history at DU making completely outrageous/tongue in cheek posts.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)to be primaried.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)between discussions and a "call to primary" Obama in an attempt to defeat him.
And you conveniently forget the many trial balloons that were floated by Clinton supporters before the 2012 election for Clinton to run against him because of his political weakness at the time.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)But her and bill will become billionaires and it disturbs me that Democrats actually support the domination of our democracy by the Ruling Class.
Goldman-Sachs doesn't really love you.
Trenzalore
(2,331 posts)You are all pure as fresh snow.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Great numbers for Hillary
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)enjoy
baby step!!!
Newkularblue
(130 posts)Right here
Alfresco
(1,698 posts)WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)We need the President out on the stump for Hillary at the earliest date. The Hillary campaign needs as much time and resources to begin challenging voter suppression laws in critical states. If Sanders doesn't tip his hat to Hillary by the end of April, it will be time to go nuclear on the guy. He's NOT a Democrat and does NOT have the Democratic Party's interest at heart. Sanders is only about Sanders.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)And if Bernie gets out now the news will be all Trump all the time. Bernie is bringing up important issues that would otherwise be ignored. He should stay in as long as possible.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)by the end of April, he needs to concede that Hillary is the presumptive nominee so that the President can start working his magic on her behalf. Bernie can stay on the stump as long as he wishes. Instead, he's talking about a fight at the convention. That would be hurtful to our efforts.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)The convention is not until July. No need to drop out before that.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)before the convention if Sanders refuses to concede before then ?
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)Do you really think a rally in May is going to motivate people to vote in November?
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)To hamstring that power so that Sanders can feel his oats in July would be a very selfish thing to do IMO.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)He is discussing very important issues.
DebJ
(7,699 posts)Please explain. I sincerely want to know. I don't understand this talk that the only way to support democracy, is to tell a huge portion of it to shut up, give up, and go away, and to NOT fight for Progressive ideals and PROGRESS. (Versus, we won't go backwards...well, if that's the STARTING goal, then one knows yes, we will go backwards...you don't begin negotiations with an attitude of 'I give up" and expect to win much of anything).
The only way for real progressives to reach everyone and get the message out is to keep talking and keep fighting for real progress at every available opportunity. Unfortunately most of those elected to Congress have absolutely no chutzpah, and merely become part of the machine instead of fighting and working to move things forward. So everyone ELSE HAS to stand up and keep fighting, and that means taking every possible second of every possible day and opportunity to talk, and talk, and talk, and talk and thereby fight.
Exactly what is democratic about telling everyone to shut up and just accept "no, we can't'? Of course, we can't..when no one is trying, when one is beginning from the assessment of 'no, we can't'. No, we couldn't go to the moon in 1960 either. Nor could you get a high school education in 1925. You have to dream, and fight, and struggle, and TALK TALK TALK to make progress.
Unless, of course, the Democratic Party wishes to just come right out and say "We do not accept progressives. The Republicans are conservatives who wish to take us backwards. The Democratic Party's goal is to simply not go backwards; we have NO intention of moving forward because we like things just like they are."
I understand Republicans saying, basically, shut up and go away, and we don't care what you want, or what you have to say, leave us alone to control things as we see fit. Let us lead you blindly, and don't participate except by giving us accolades.
I thought the Democratic Party was different.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Bernie is done.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)redstateblues
(10,565 posts)One of the 99
(2,280 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)jcgoldie
(11,657 posts).
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)It never gets old!
zixiofix
(40 posts)I'm new here but I've been watching the dialogue/debate on here for a few months. I'm actually a little nervous to post something because of how contentious this environment is.
I'm a Hillary supporter, but I'm also open to ideas from Bernie supporters. Or at least open to listening to their thoughts and ideas. I am not interested in being right, I am interested in forming the best position I can and I can't do that in an intellectual vacuum.
I was hoping to join this community to engage in civil intellectual debate and I love the free exchange of ideas. I hope that's still a goal of this community.
That said, polls like these tend to make a base complacent. We should continue to fight for every vote.
Go Hillary!
bigtree
(86,016 posts)...should suit this forum.
It's still the internet, though, and motives are hard to discern through the scattered posts here. Lot's of folks to interact with, though, with a good range of Democratic mindsets.
Welcome to DU!
zixiofix
(40 posts)I hope so. I've just seen so much virtual carnage in the last few months on here that it is quite bizarre. As others have posted, I am shocked because the dialogue I see on here between Bernie Supporters and Hillary Supporters reminds me of the dialogue between conservatives and liberals/progressives on sites like Mediaite, which, again, I go to because I like to see all sides/perspectives on an issue.
But shocking to see that level of vitriol in a space where everyone is ostensibly supposed to be on the same side.
Thanks for your comment!
bigtree
(86,016 posts)...but you should consider the number of folks just reading, and that the more vitriolic and controversial posts inevitably rise to the top. You really need to take this discussion board on whatever terms you decide and recognize that countless others are inclined to do the same.
Look forward to reading your posts, zixiofix.
yardwork
(61,772 posts)Bangbangdem
(140 posts)Thus rag is owned by a bundler for Clinton. Serve as the press wing of the campaign. Don't believe the hype.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Hillary does beter in closed primaries.
bigtree
(86,016 posts)...
Bangbangdem
(140 posts)Mostly from one source.
bigtree
(86,016 posts)...here's your chance to make your own news.
RealAmericanDem
(221 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Especially if he loses Arizona.