Wow, so Bernie got nothin’. 
Yeah, I’m in central Ohio and I never really thought a grievance-centered campaign would do well here. If you look at a map of the shift in the vote from 2008 to 2012, it’s an island of blue in a sea of red, so people aren’t really looking to turn over the apple cart.
The difference between winning by 1000 votes and losing by 1000 votes in the Democratic race is approximately 1 delegate (might even be none). It really doesn’t matter. What does matter is that Bernie lost a bunch of ground in Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina. Illinois and Missouri are effectively ties.
Of course, at this stage a tie is a loss for Bernie. Even a narrow win is a loss. He needs big wins, and lots of them. And he’s not going to get them.
In the Illinois Republican primary, the district delegates are elected individually and their names are on the ballot. In the 6th district, two of Trump’s delegates won with around 35,000 votes. But one of them lost, only getting 30,000 votes, giving Kasich a delegate from an area that otherwise supported Trump.
I wonder why 5,000 of Trump’s voters would pick Barbara and Paul but not Nabi Fakroddin.
Without supers, based on google’s count, Hillary is up 1,094 to Bernie’s 774. To get the required delegates, Bernie would need just under 65% of the primary vote to win. However, if he were to get anywhere near that point, some of the supers would probably switch over to him as being ‘more electable.’
In reality, it’s just not going to happen. Barring a major disaster, Hillary has it sewn up.
bengangmo’s point was to ingore the superdelegates, no? The remaining potential pledged, (i.e. non-super) delegate total is 2183. Sanders would have to win about 57.35% to get the the majority of 2026 out of 4051 total pledged delegates right now. Hillary would only need about 46%.
Wowww. That is blatant.
I just heard something on NPR that is too funny, poetic justice really. Remember when I was talking scornfully about the “dipshits” who made up the majority of Democratic voters in Michigan, who told exit pollsters that international trade reduced the number of American jobs? They broke two to one for Bernie, and all the Bernheads I know defended the wisdom of the people in that case.
So get this: in Ohio, this once again was the majority opinion among Democratic primary voters, but this time the majority of that group actually voted for Hillary! AH HAHAHAHA!
Hell, I could have told them, if I were being honest, that given that protectionist opinion, Bernie was their guy. Morons. Not only are they pathetically off in terms of their understanding of macroeconomics, they can’t even figure out which candidate stokes their simpleminded economic xenophobia! :smack:
Oh well, Hillary will still take those stumblebums’ votes, no matter how incoherently cast.
Um, she’d actually have to disagree with him on the issues in order to not be tarred as a radical leftie hippie. So far, she only disagrees on how realistic his plans are, politically.
That’s false, as any Bernhead will be glad to tell you. She is not advocating raising middle class taxes, is not advocating free college tuition, does not want to destroy Wall St., etc.
BTW, 538 predicts that Bernie will win at least six of the next eight states to vote over the next few weeks, and might even win all eight. However, this is simply because they are demographically favorable to him, and they are smaller states, so this “winning streak” won’t significantly eat into Hillary’s lead. So I would caution Bernheads not to let this get you all amped up, thinking “now the Democratic electorate is finally ‘feeling the Bern’ and we are making a comeback!”. It’s just how those states happened to fall on the calendar.
Raising middle class taxes is something that Democrats have been happy to do for decades, only recently bowing to political reality. Hillary Clinton opposing middle class tax increases would once again be walking back her own record in the Clinton administration, the last time middle class taxes were raised. I do realize that middle class tax increases are not in her agenda, but that’s politics. There is no way she can pay for her own spending without them.
Free college is in the same category. The country isnt’ ready, so Clinton isn’t ready.
Wall Street, now that’s an honest difference, because that’s where her family makes their money.
Shall I list all the things congressional Republicans really want to do, but don’t say out loud because they know they are impolitic? (They would make Drumpf’s agenda look mild.)
It would be a much shorter list, i guarantee you.
Plus we don’t consider ourselves to be in on the deception. If a REpublican says he supports something we know he doesn’t, he’s lying to US. When a Democrat says they support something they don’t, base voters think they are lying to the enemy, but they are in on it. Such as when Allison Lundergan Grimes in KY said she supported the coal industry, but a conservative reporter who went to her campaign HQ was told by volunteers, “Oh, that’s just something she has to say. She’ll support the President’s climate change agenda.”
Or the gay marriage issue, where Obama pretended to be against it and activists pretended to believe him.
That’s not it – “raising taxes” and “lowering taxes” are not actually political positions; they’re slogans. At some point there’s the “right value” for taxes at a given time (which might change later). It’s entirely reasonable to be for raising taxes at one point, and lowering them at another, and not inconsistent.
After all was said & done last night, Sanders only trails by 320 pledged delegates. I thought it would be more than that.
Obama evolved on gay marriage. People who have intellectual growth can and do change their positions, people who can only repeat bumper stickers do not.
On taxes, personally I think there is an optimum level and that level depends on circumstances. Republicans refuse to entertain such a notion, their catechism states that taxes must always be lowered, no matter what. Democrats can believe in shades of grey, even fifty shades, while Republicans believe in zero shades of grey. It’s all black and white with no nuance.
I wish I had thought of it, but yesterday was Goodbye Rubio Tuesday. The only surprise for me was that Bernie got pretty well hammered and while there is no chance for him getting the nomination, there is no reason for him to get out. Hillary needs a sparring partner, and she is a better general election candidate because of him.
Really Wesley? That’s both overall a 16 to 17% popular vote and pledged delegate count lead.
You thought it would be more?
If he did, it was well before his presidency, because he was for same sex marriage in 1996, and David Axelrod has admitted that the supposed opposition in 2008 was not really what Obama believed.
Lots of people did evolve, so it was a believable lie, but I don’t think the evidence supports it.
Unless you are from a party that has actually pinned its appeal to the idea that taxes should always be lowered no matter the circumstances. Then it’s right to point out how their actual plan ends up costing poor people more.
Wow, you are…something.