I am only considering actual pledged delegates. 200 is an overwhelming lead at this point. His major misses on the over/unders would be damning even if he was in a lead with a cushion.
I said in my post I had no idea what they’re trying to accomplish with that tactic.
But then when I saw their updated headline I felt they must be trying to plant the impression in people’s mind that Clinton was faring better than Trump…an impression likely to take root despite what people read in the morning.
Trump himself uses this tactic. See his $10 billion dollar net worth claim. People in the know say that he’s worth more like $3.5 - $4 billion and yet despite their corrections a lot of people still think he’s worth $10 billion.
Still, my guess is just that - a guess. But CNN clearly has some reason for downplaying Trump’s success until they can compare it with Hillary’s in some sort of competitive way, even if it means they’re hours behind the competition in declaring which candidate has won which state.
I wish someone would tell the stupid media that superdelegates don’t mean anything. I’m starting to root for the media to get roughed up at Trump rallies.
NYT and Google (not sure who’s supplying their data, possibly NYT) are showing Sanders as having won MA despite being down 2+ points. Anyone else seeing this?
eta: NM, it’s been corrected it seems.
Just got back from my caucus. They were unprepared for the turnout. The middle school auditorium was SRO for the preliminary meeting (there were at least 5 precincts there). They were still registering people an hour after the caucus was scheduled to start. Many people were quoting Will Rogers.
My precinct had 85 people, who went 55-45% for Clinton, but because there were only 2 delegates to allocate to the county convention, the split was 1-1.
My general conclusion is that caucuses suck. I prefer primaries.
Yeah, several news outlets show Sanders as winning Massachusetts but down in the vote with 90% of precincts in: The Guardian, Politico, Google. I’m guessing there must be something weird going on with a shared datasource or something–the actual spoken word announcements/printed announcements of Massachusetts have all called Hillary the winner there (a lot of outlets still haven’t called it either way.)
No. CNN (heh) just called it for Clinton, despite having said that the Vermont border supported Sanders while pointing to the NH border. They couldn’t have pointed to the Vermont border as Williamstown (the only Vermont bordering county reporting at the time) went to Clinton.
The problem for Sanders is the huge margin of wins for Clinton in the South makes it difficult for him to pick up the delegate count he needs going forward. With these blow out numbers Clinton just dominated the entire African American vote and quite possibly the latino vote in Texas. And Mass was a mortal blow for Sanders. The state of Elizabeth Warren just narrowly gave it to Clinton.
I’m watching Don’s speech, and…does Christie realize that the camera is on him? I hit pause every few seconds, and every time, ol’ Chris looks looks like a deer in headlights, his eyes fixed on the back of Don’s head, then darting across the crowd, nervously glancing over at the guy across the stage from him. Luca Brasi, indeed.
I watched Hillary’s speech earlier, and of all the candidates, she’s the only one who actually carries a “presidential” vibe. The rest just seem either juvenile, nutty professor-ish, crass, whiny, dopey, or straight-up hateful. She’s nailed the feeling of authority and power and, I never thought I’d have to say it in a presidential race, maturity.
I don’t see anyone but Clinton and Trump making it to the general. Put a fork in Bernie, he’s done. So are Rubes, Cruz and whoever those other people are.
The ABC exit poll shows Hillary dominated all demographics except for the very young voter and a small percentage of independents and republicans that voted democratic in the primaries.
Eh, a margin of 100 would have been very survivable in some analyses. I was hoping for less than 200, of course. We shall see.
Yglesias is hoping for Hillary Clinton to run on ethics and competence? We’re doomed. :eek:
But our Sanders supporters were right that the media will take even these few states wins and try to spin a horse race narrative a bit longer. Overwhelming losses in huge delegate states with relatively narrow wins in small ones, will not yet be the ledes. Remember that the next states are Kansas, Louisiana, and Nebraska. He should be able to bank on solid wins in two out of three of them even if the end of day net delegates will be a wash. And then Maine! “Winning states” will still be the preferred story line to delegate math at least until after Michigan.
Yeah, Christie is finally coming to the realization he’s committed career suicide. The only “movement” a racist is starting is a bowel movement. He’s aligned himself with the worst kind of narcissist, and the noose is in a death grip. I couldn’t even with the “press conference” among his snobby friends and the media in his Florida palace. Way to thank his voters, King Trump. It was never about how his voters helped him. It was all about his business and how he will do what he did in business in government. Oye vey.
What ethics? What competence?
I keep hearing that a woman needs to be President as an example for girls. What kind of example is that? “If you get married to someone who is a two-term President, carpet-bag your way to a Senate seat, make millions of dollars, and run a ton of shady deals, you too could be President someday Suzy”?
The coarsness of the last post can only be chalked up to a butt hurt Berner who got their ass kicked on Super Tuesday.
No–it’s over. Trust me. I was for McCain in 2008, for Romney in 2012. As someone who has been on the loser’s side many times in politics trust me that self-delusion doesn’t help. If you support Bernie’s message and what he stands for, then by all means continue to advocate for him, if your State has yet to hold its primary/caucus, go out and vote for him on election day. But don’t lie to yourself about the mathematical reality–Bernie’s candidacy can continue, but any shot at the nomination is over.
Sanders has pledged to stay in the race until all 50 states vote no matter what the count is. Given the way his campaign is financed and his actual goals I think thats plausible. Even without winning he is forcing Clinton to move to the left to win his supporters over and changing the national dialogue on important issues.
Clinton is objectively faring better than Trump at this point. With today’s delegates, she has a lead of 630 delegates over her closest competitor; she’s won 65% of the delegates so far; and she’s got 29% of the delegates she needs to be nominated. Trump’s lead is 125 delegates; he’s won 50% so far; and he’s got 22% of the delegates he needs.
I agree. Every other candidate is in the race for only one reason; to be nominated. When they’ve lost their chance of being nominated, they have no reason to continue.
Sanders is the exception. A big reason why he entered the race was to spread his message. And he can continue to do that regardless of what his chances of being nominated are. He still has a reason to keep running.
Just to have it here, 538’s results that Sanders needed to be on track vs reality:
Needed Result Weighted Diff.
Iowa Sanders +19 Clinton +0 -11.78
N.H. Sanders +32 Sanders +22 -3.4
Nev. Clinton +0 Clinton +5 -2.45
S.C. Clinton +20 Clinton +48 -21
Vt. Sanders +83 Sanders +73 -2.3
Minn. Sanders +21 Sanders +20 1.08
Colo. Sanders +11 Sanders +19 7.44
Mass. Sanders +11 Clinton +2 -16.65
Okla. Sanders +4 Sanders +10 3.18
Tenn. Sanders +2 Clinton +34 -33.84
Va. Clinton +9 Clinton +29 -26.8
Texas Clinton +13 Clinton +32 -59.28
Ark. Clinton +15 Clinton +37 -9.9
Ga. Clinton +27 Clinton +43 -23.04
Ala. Clinton +30 Clinton +59 -21.75
Now some of these states we won’t have full precinct results until tomorrow. There’s only three states where Sanders has done better than he needed to in order to be on the path to the nomination in a 50-50 nationally tied race, weighted to his demographic appeal. I’ll go ahead and say right now, the race is not 50-50 nationally. Now, obviously beating his over/under in Texas would be a lot more impactful than doing so in Vermont, so the last column above is the “weighted” value of how much Sanders missed his mark or beat his mark, relative to pledged delegates only (since I know Bernie fans hate to even think about superdelegates.) What this shows in aggregate is Sanders has largely failed spectacularly up to this point in the campaign.
Could he recover? Sure, he could win every state left by 80% and win it in a landslide (and he wouldn’t need to win by that much–I’m just saying Bernie could.)
Will he? Absolutely not.