Next week’s races in descending order of delegate value, with RCP polling averages:
Pennsylvania (Clinton +13, Trump +20)
Maryland (Clinton +20, Trump +15)
Connecticut (Clinton +7.5, Trump +22)
Rhode Island (Clinton +9?, Trump +18? One old poll from February)
Delaware (No polling)
Doesn’t look like a great week coming up for anyone not named Clinton or Trump.
I think Delaware’s demographics look more like a Clinton state than a Sanders state. But RI and maybe CT are more Sanders-ish.
For me, the gold standard (so to speak) was Dukakis-Bush in 1988. I like Clinton considerably more than I liked Dukakis. Trump, on the other hand, seems considerably less palatable than GHWB.
It’s not that “nobody” will accept the delegates rallying around Kasich. It’s that the delegates themselves won’t accept that. Most delegates support Cruz, and that includes even those delegates who are pledged to Trump. At this point, there are only three possible outcomes to the convention: Trump scores a simple majority of pledged delegates and wins on the first ballot, or Cruz wins on the second ballot (or however many ballots it takes before all the pledged delegates are released; some states require them to hold for multiple ballots), or the rules committee rejiggers the rules somehow to prevent both of those outcomes.
My vote for Line Of The Night goes to CNN, along the lines of, “We’ll look at our exit polls to see just where Clinton’s 57% comes from” - 45 minutes after claiming, “Our exit polls show that Clinton will get only 52% of the vote”
How soon before somebody on Facebook claims, “That’s because of the 125,000 Sanders votes that the Hillary Party disenfranchised?”, and never mind that (a) some of the 125,000 removals are valid, and (b) even if you give Sanders another 125,000 votes, that’s still 54-46?
How do you preemptively know which voters are Sanders voters to strike their registration anyway?
I am so tired of the 125,000 claim that is all over Facebook. A massive conspiracy? Or perhaps these voters moved? Perhaps they sat out elections and became inactive?
I think we should fight against restrictive voter ID laws, we should make polling places easily accessible, and make early voting and vote by mail easy. But these idiotic conspiracy theories from the Bernie Bros are really ticking me off.
I don’t care if the parties use a sorting hat. A large percentage of the party might. The potential of a permanent split is what is at risk. Maybe that’s good for the long run. But from the point of view of a party as a brand or institution not so much.
That’s what the chair of the Board of Elections has said in the CNN article linked earlier:
FWIW, nah, no “momentum” required.
Clinton buried him yesterday but dang, RCP average was 12, 538’s “polls only” was 13.5 and their “polls plus” was 15. 15.8 was good but not much better than polls had been running fairly consistently ever since there was enough polling to be meaningful.
As noted she’s been ahead, consistently, in all the states that have polling next Tuesday. All except Rhode Island are closed primaries (albeit not as distantly closed to changed registrations as NY was). On a per delegate basis, counting only the states with decent polling (PA, MD, and CT) she is up 14% currently.
“Momentum” implies that she needed a boost from that current base. And nah.
Yes, he can outperform expectations, polls can be very wrong, yadda yadda.
But even Tad Devine is prepping for the wind down.
He might be hoping that somehow miraculously achieving a narrow win could be spun into enough to keep the hype train chugging a wee bit longer, but even he knows that even a narrow loss cannot be spun with a straight face.
Sanders is resting today. I read nothing into that. The schedule he’s been keeping up? I am a bit of a fitness nut and I don’t think I could keep it up without a day off. But I am curious to see what his tone will be Thursday through Monday. His “We win when voter turnout is high, we lose when it is low.” line was already demonstrably false before yesterday, but yesterday’s turnout, even higher than 2008’s, blowing him away, should stop him from saying it despite its lack of truthfulness.
Does he ignore New York (it’s a speedbump) and campaign as if it never happened? Minimize it as her home state? Blame it on the unfair system that is rigged in her favor with the closed primary and the early date for changing party registration? Attack her harder? Move back to more positive issues based campaigning?
We’ll see!
And waitasecond … Sanders supporters are thinking that 126K being taken off from the rolls in Brooklyn, which went 60-40 Clinton, hurt Sanders?
I can only assume the argument is that they were all Sanders supporters who were removed in an amazing display of prescience by the elections people.
[conspiracy theorist]You drive around looking for Sanders campaign signs. Purge that entire neighborhood. Just to be sure. [ct]
Yup.
Not only was Brooklyn in particular very Clinton strong, the people taken off the list are the least likely to have been young White voters new to the district. People are removed when it is believed they have become inactive by not voting for multiple cycles, become a felon, or moved out of state.
One expects that when any qualified provisional ballots get counted more of them will be in the Clinton column than not.
Bernie might as well be crying about the 15-year-old vote he was denied because of the unfair voting laws.
Is Bernie crying about this or just a bunch of Facebookers?
Most likely a bunch of Facebookers. Unfortunately, the extreme conspiracy-mongering types have becomes the unofficial face of his campaign, and it would behoove him to root that out.
Likely we simulposted, but no, Bernie himself got the meme going yesterday.
Noted. Thanks.
The post you quoted did not include a period at the point where you inserted one.
I am going to forego the Warning on the grounds that you did not radically change the meaning of the quote, but DO NOT change text inside quotes.
Moderating