OK, then, how do you explain it? It can’t be because of the superdelegates, because they had already made and publicized their decisions before then. Nothing changed with them. If anything changed, it must have been something other than the superdelegates.
I don’t think I differ much from Do Not Taunt. Clinton was the default candidate back in January, and as each state’s primary/caucus got closer, polling respondents looked more closely at all of the candidates and decided that they liked what Sanders was selling. I think where we differ is that (s)he thinks that Clinton was the default candidate because people liked what Clinton brought to the table, whereas I think that she was the default candidate because of name recognition and media coverage, the latter which was fueled in part by endorsements and superdelegates being the only thing the media really had to cover at that point. Do Not Taunt says that this is insulting; I can see where it might be but I don’t mean it that way. I wouldn’t expect anyone to sit down and analyze their primary options months out from election day, so when the pollster calls and asks who they support, “Meh, Clinton seems like she’s got it in the bag already” is reason enough.
Not quite. I’m differentiating between how I think people answer early polls (sure, Clinton sounds good!) versus how they’re actually voting after a campaign has been run (where it’s all over the map, based on various levels of engagement with the process.) I just don’t think people are voting based on, “well, it’s what the superdelegates are doing…”
Again, for early polls, I agree. For actual voting, I’m skeptical that many people vote in a contested primary for a candidate that is inevitable simply because she’s perceived as inevitable. And even if some do, the inevitability is being driving by a certain set of factors that also cause the superdelegates to line up behind that candidate. In other words, the superdelegates’ votes isn’t a causal factor there, it’s the result of the same other factors that drives lower-information voters (eg, name recognition, fund raising, press coverage…)
While name recognition is a major factor for relatively uninformed voters (which is most of them), I would expect that all of the superdelegates would be politically aware enough that it’d be basically irrelevant for them.
For the little it is worth I think the cause and effect was reversed from how you perceive it steronz: from well before she announced, before a single super declared, Clinton was felt to be the overwhelming frontrunner and a priori superdelegate support, far exceeding previous cycles’, followed that. Throughout the process though everyone I think has accepted that superdelegate support is tentative and the vast majority of delegate count horse race analyses have ignored them, focussing on the pledged delegate race.
I highly doubt that the 24 point spread between hardly heard of socialist from Vermont and well known long expected front runner was because those polled looked at the superdelegate count and answered accordingly. Nor did the superdelegate count get in the way of bring that spread to within 10 within 2 weeks as more were exposed to Sanders and liked what they heard.
Since then it’s been more inter-house variation than anything else: latest IBD/TPP has Clinton +1 and had her +2 back in mid Feb.; latest PPP had Clinton +18 and had her +21 in early Feb. Over the last 2 weeks polls range from Clinton +18 to Sanders +2 … the noise to signal ratio is huge. Clearly Sanders had a huge pop early January as more actually started paying attention and another after his New Hampshire win. He is roughly the same now as he was the second half of February though, with neither Clinton’s RCP rolling national poll average lead increasing back up to +11 or its coming back down to +4 signifying actual huge shifts. Did he really become 6 to 7 points less popular nationally between the last half of February and the middle of March?
In any case, the nomination process is not strictly democratic (and Bush v Gore reminded many of us that the general is not either). I understand the good reasons for that even as I recognize the problems with it. Again, I personally believe that supers pushing an election in a direction other than how it would have gone by both majority pledged delegate count and popular vote would be only justifiable in an extremely unusual circumstance. It is easier to imagine a reasonable place for them in a multiple candidate plurality circumstances however. Still it strikes me as … something … to hear Team Sanders arguing that the superdelegates as a group should, if it came down to it, overrule the voice of the people as expressed in both the majority of the pledged delegates and the popular vote … now because their candidate allegedly did not really try in every state.
I don’t find anything unethical about Sander’s attempt to win the super delegates even if he loses the pledged delegate race, but it does a lot to undermine his whole appeal as a candidate. Every Bernie fanatic I know has been going on for months about how super delegates are this terrible affront to democracy, composed of"neo-liberal"party insiders trying to steal the election for Hillary.
Now that Bernie’s team has changed their tune knowing they need the super delegates, all I hear is crickets from Bernie’s die-hard supporters about the whole thing. The “we won all the states we tried to win”, the “count of states we won is high!”, “the south’s votes should count less for some reason” arguments are exactly the kind of political BS gymnastics that Bernie was supposed to be above.
There’s actually a somewhat legitimate argument to make for the super delegates, and this race might turn out to make that argument stand. And ironically, as much as it is Sanders’ voters who are crying murder over the super delegates now, there’s at least a possibility that they could persuade a considerable number of super delegates to change their vote.
As someone mentioned up-thread, the main job of the super delegates is to make sure that the most electable candidate goes on. In most cases, the super delegates are merely reflecting the election results from February through June. However, this is one election cycle in which the results have to be evaluated more carefully.
Hillary Clinton dominated states with large and diverse populations, but more to the point, she benefited heavily from her support from non-whites early in the campaign. There are signs that her support is beginning to erode, just as it did in 2008 when she ran against Barack Obama. The difference between 2016 and 2008 is that her support evaporated much sooner so that this could be reflected in the actual election results. That didn’t happen this time because Bernie Sanders was never touted by the democratic establishment as a possible alternative to Clinton. He was never on their radar.
But there’s evidence that her support is now finally beginning to unravel. To use a boxing analogy, she’s like a boxer who landed some heavy blows and nearly knocked out Sanders in the early rounds. But Sanders is fighting back and Hillary’s just trying to get to the final bell and win on the judges’ scorecards.
As I predicted a few weeks ago, it is now apparent that Sanders will win the majority of the state contests that are remaining and he will be, at minimum, able to claim that he has won a majority of the individual state contests by the end of the race. That by itself is not necessarily the strongest argument to make, but it’s not insignificant either.
Clinton will counter-argue that she has won more votes, which would probably be true. However, again, the super delegates’ main concern is not necessarily selecting the candidate who is most ‘deserving’ – it’s not really a sports contest in which you analyze achievement. Rather, their concern is who gives the democratic party and the progressives the best chance to win in November. Moreover, it also helps to have a presidential candidate who can inspire voters to vote for other democratic party candidates in other races.
My point here is that the super delegates could, in June and July, look at the entire election calendar and conclude that Clinton was the go-to candidate in the Winter, just like she was the inevitable nominee when nobody was running last summer, but that she no longer is in the summer of 2016. They could conclude that her victories in March were when people were trying to figure out who this Bernie guy was. But now they know, and now they actually kinda dig him. Maybe, too, the super delegates are finally, once and for all, convinced that, just as republican voters are done with the Bush family, maybe democratic voters are finally tired of being fed the Clinton platter. In short, the super delegates could (legitimately) conclude that Clinton’s earlier victories are meaningless and that Sanders is their best choice going forward.
Clinton’s last counter-challenge would have to be that she has performed better in larger, more diverse states. And that is why California and New York, even though they are almost certainly going to vote democratic no matter who wins, are important contests. People are going to be watching to see whether Hillary’s diversity edge continues to hold. Bernie probably won’t win New York, but that possibility can’t be ruled out entirely. Moreover, I don’t think Bernie has to win in New York to make a powerful statement, particularly if he can keep sweeping other states. If he even comes within a few percentage points of victory, that would get everyone’s attention. And if he could follow that up with a victory, particularly a convincing one, in California, the democratic party would have a huge decision to make.
Hillary needs to win without the support of super delegates. Otherwise, anything can happen at the convention, and the way things are going right now, I don’t think she can automatically count on their support.
And I say all of this as someone who is more convinced than ever that she is absolutely hands-down the better choice than Sanders. But I still think that Sanders can make a case for himself at the convention if Clinton’s support collapses.
I still think people are making mountains out of molehills. Sanders won a bunch of caucuses (duh) and one primary where he was favored to win big anyway. So what?
As if he’s the presumptive candidate. AND a lot of people pay WAY too much attention to polls. For all the multitudes of analysts (and analysis), they seldom accurately simulate any election. Might as well ask weathermen to forecast them.
But caucuses are elections. Sure, they’re different kinds of elections, but they follow the same democratic process. Frankly, the “he’s only won caucuses” argument is another example of Clinton’s supporters whistling in the dark. Sanders is for real. And I think the fact that the Clinton’s have been so grouchy in front of the cameras lately reveals that fact plainly.
Caucuses are fundamentally different from primaries, in that they require substantially more time investment, and everyone doesn’t have all day to sit and jaw about who they’re going to vote for and why. College-age people, however, can generally manage it.
Caucuses are elections. Elections that tend to preferentially filter out Clinton supporters at least some.
Closed primaries are elections. Elections that tend to preferentially filter out Sanders supporters at least some.
Which effect will predominate in Nov, which has neither caucuses nor closed elections? But does have an R-shaped person on the ballot and includes the complexities of an EC instead of a national popular vote. Damn if I know for sure.
But anyone talking about one effect without also talking about the other is distorting the picture whether deliberately or inadvertently.
There is no evidence her support is eroding.
Show me the math that supports this analogy. It should be easy to find.
Sanders has won in exactly the places he’s predicted to win except Michigan. He is not going to win a majority of the states. He is not going to win a larger percentage of the votes. He is not going to win a larger number of the pledged delegates. He is not going to win a larger number of the super delegates. Not a single data point supports him beating Clinton in any respect. These are the best indicators of who will be the best Democratic candidate. Your analysis is just showing you where the hope still remains for a victory. It really isn’t there. It’s understandable and perfectly fair that you hold onto hope and continue to look for your victory in the gaps.
As had been stated, caucuses are not only different, they’re less democratic. I would probably not go to a caucus but I would go to a primary. Caucuses bias towards people who have a wealth of time.
This makes no sense at all. Caucuses require a time commitment. Sanders supporters have the enthusiasm to go to these events. If they have the enthusiasm to go to these events why would it suddenly disappear if they just have to show up to a school and vote? Maybe I am missing something but it just doesn’t make sense that primaries would filter anyone out.
Huh? When in 2008 did she ever have large amount of support amongst African-Americans?
Obama cleaned her clock in South Carolina which was on January 26, soon jumped to a lead and never looked back. It should be noted that Obama won that primary 55-25 over Hillary Clinton in 2008 which was not nearly as dramatic as the spanking she gave Sanders in 2016, 87-12.
Among African-Americans in the South she was winning around 90% of the vote every election they participated in.
Now, it is true that Sanders has done better amongst African-Americans in northern states, but even in Wisconsin, according to CNN exit polls, Hillary won 70-30.
However, that’s hardly evidence that her support amongst African-Americans is weakening. What it actually shows is that just as Northern and White Southerners are different politically, Northern and Southern African-Americans are as well.
You’ll notice he didn’t refer to “primaries” but to “closed primaries”, meaning primaries which only allow registered democrats to participate. He’s trying to equate closed primaries to caucuses. I personally think it’s a terrible comparison, but his point is that Sanders does better in primaries where people who aren’t registered democrats can participate.
You can’t just show up and vote in a closed primary. You have to make sure you’re a registered Democrat, sometimes well in advance of the primary (New York’s deadline was in October). And Sanders does disproportionately well among people who don’t identify as Democrats, so he’s more likely to have supporters kept from voting.
Clinton lost in Michigan, where she was once leading in the double digits. Clinton once had a lead in the polls against Sanders in Wisconsin - that evaporated, too. Clinton once had a large lead in the polls in New York and in California, and now there’s evidence that her lead is dwindling in New York and that Sanders is within striking distance in California. It seems like you haven’t been keeping up with the race.
Predicted when – you mean the night before an election when the most accurate polling data is in? That doesn’t indicate the trend that has been occurring in this long race that started in earnest last summer and fall. Back then, Clinton was the anointed one and Sanders was just trying to get some attention. Sanders has won 7 - count them - 7 consecutive races. He’s won two “swing” states (Wisconsin and Michigan). Actually Wisconsin could go ‘red’ this year if it’s a one-on-one republican vs democrat general election contest but that’s for another thread. The point is, Clinton, by anyone’s estimation in 2015, was expected to finish off the likes of Bernie Sanders by the time Super Tuesday rolled around. That just hasn’t happened. And there is, contrary to what you say, very real evidence that her support among minorities is collapsing - otherwise California’s polls wouldn’t have Sanders within 8 points of Clinton. And it’s a loooooong way to that race yet.
You are 100 percent wrong on this. I called Trump’s collapse nationally. I called for a near clear Cruz majority vote win in Wisconsin. I was right both times when it seemed crazy to make such predictions. I am telling you now: Bernie Sanders will have won a majority of the state-by-state election contests by the time the Democratic Convention arrives, and that’s assuming Clinton wins New York and California, which are far from guaranteed. New York is looking a lot more promising than California at this point and Sanders is running out of time. But he could make that race very close – too close for comfort.
If you had read more closely, I never made those predictions as you stated. Clinton will probably have won more votes than Sanders – but largely on the strength of voting that took place much earlier in the campaign cycle when Bernie Sanders was still trying to build name recognition. How would you read the electorate if you were a super delegate in July and you’re now being asked to vote for a candidate who’s lost 60-70 percent of the contests over the last 2 months of the race? How strong would a Clinton candidacy look if she lost California, the most diverse state in the nation? Yes, Clinton may officially have the math in her favor in the aggregate, but leading isn’t winning. Winning is winning. And without a clear number of pledged delegates, both candidates would need to make the argument that he or she would be the most likely to win going forward. Going on a major losing streak that would include the loss of California wouldn’t be a good sell for the Clinton campaign.
Again, if you had read more closely, you wouldn’t be arguing about statements I haven’t made. I actually support Clinton over Sanders. But the facts are the facts, and right now, Clinton’s campaign is on very shaky ground. I think it’s the Clinton campaign that is hoping and praying that Sanders just goes away. He won’t. She will have to make adjustments to her campaign’s rhetoric and positioning that will enable her to blunt Sanders’ momentum and I don’t see her campaign responding to the Sanders insurgency at all. Case in point: Bill Clinton’s eruption in response to BLM protesters was an unmitigated disaster and one that potentially could cause a serious collapse among black voters going forward.
More whistling in the dark, I’m afraid. What you seem to be saying is that activists have a proclivity to support Sanders only, that committed voters are supporting Bernie Sanders and not at all supporting Hillary Clinton? That begs the question: why aren’t activists supporting Hillary Clinton?
asahi,
Individual races changing as campaigning and massive advertising within them occurs, polls being off from actual results, are not any evidence for overall support eroding.
The “support eroding” claim that was being challenged was non-white support. Ibn points out that Northern Black voters having differing levels than Southern Blacks is not evidence of eroding support, just of differences between two different sociocultural groups.
In fact her support has stayed at about 70% among Northern state Black populations consistently from Michigan through Wisconsin. And was back up to 80% in Florida and North Carolina. (Both sorta Southern.)
IMHO, from a practical POV Clinton did finish Sanders off on Super Tuesday. Since then this has basically been a checkmate in 7 where the loser, as is his right, insists on playing it out hoping that somehow the board will change. It has been and remains mathematically possible for Sanders to win but practically not.
By demographics (according to 538’s analysis anyway) at 50/50 nationally, Sanders should have won Iow but did not. There is not a single state that he won that should have lost in a 50/50. He’s exceeded 50/50 expectation in some states he was expected to win, mainly White caucus states, and far far underperformed 50/50 expectation in other, bigger, states. Michigan was a polling failure but as expected for demographics, a narrow Sanders majority.
I won’t go into the number of states argument because correct of incorrect it is of no interest: no one, including you, is arguing that Wyoming and the Dakotas both are equal to Texas. Or even that a narrow win in Michigan is equal to a larger win in Ohio. It, irrelevantly, might end up true that he wins more contests. There’s quite a few small very White states coming up. No one, especially no superdelegate, cares.
Essentially you have been making the case that a majority of superdelegates would decide to overrule an actual pledged delegate count and larger popular vote loss (what is what gets called “the will of the people”) so long as the loser of each is gaining in the final stretch … because … momentum?
And it simply is not a very strong argument or rational expectation.
It is terrible and the word closed doesn’t change anything.
New York’s deadline to switch parties was October. New York’s deadline to register was March 25. I am sure middle class white males had plenty of time to register as a Democrat in New York.
Yes Sanders is winning with the predicted demographics, except Michigan. These predictions are based on the elections through super Tuesday. She still has a large lead in New York and California.
Why don’t you figure that out for me.
Okay, but is Hillary likely to win Texas? No.
Is Sanders or Clinton likely to lose New York? No.
Let’s look at some of the swing states:
Clinton won in Ohio, Florida, Nevada, and Virginia, all of which are impressive wins. North Carolina could be flipped but is likely to be, but I’ll give Clinton that one, too. But all of those were early in the election cycle.
Sanders, meanwhile, has won Michigan, Colorado, and Wisconsin. Those are all very real swing states. And Wisconsin is a recent victory for Sanders. So we’re talking 4 maybe 5 swing states to 3 for Clinton – for now. But we still have Pennsylvania. And that, I predict, will tell us a lot about the prospects of both candidates.
You may not be interested in the state-by-state contest argument. What I’m telling you is that Sanders’ supporters are interested in using that as leverage at the convention. Bear in mind, too, that there are going to be people at the convention who might not have voted for Sanders but are nevertheless going to be far more neutral to Hillary. A lot of people who haven’t voted for Sanders and don’t intend to (myself included) still acknowledge the fact that Hillary Clinton is a candidate with baggage.
That would only be one argument; the other potentially more compelling argument would be that Sanders has all the momentum going forward and that the electorate has Clinton fatigue. He could make a very strong case for that if Sanders keeps NY close and wins in Pennsylvania (a swing state) and in California, the most diverse state in the U.S.
Again, Hillary has the opportunity to make these arguments moot. All she has to do is win the number of pledged delegates. But as I said earlier, leading isn’t winning. What has to be kept in the memory bank is that this is not a one-day referendum on the candidates. It’s a long campaign cycle that changes. There’s a reason why the will of the people can be overturned at the convention. Many reasons, actually. A candidate comes down with cancer. A candidate becomes indicted for corruption. A candidate gets caught up in some other type of scandal. Whatever. In each of these situations, the party would want a remedy for dealing with a candidate who, despite having once been popular enough to win elections in February and March, is obviously in no position to win an election in November.
And so here we have a novel situation: a candidate who was supposed to dispose of an upstart who had essentially no obvious mechanism for challenging the super-PAC backed president-elect-in waiting. The democratic party selected their candidate early on. They gave Bernie Sanders the opportunity to run, but fully expected him to fall flat and quit like Martin O’Malley did. But that just hasn’t happened, has it? That’s the problem for Hillary and the DNC. They’re going to sell the convention-goers on the idea that the people have spoken. But what if there are strong signs that the public has changed its mind? Again, if Hillary clinches the pledged delegates by winning elections outright, then there’s no controversy. But if she doesn’t, then it comes down to super delegates who will be presented with a decision to make. And there’s nothing that absolutely dictates that they make a decision for Hillary Clinton. It seems that they are leaning in her direction but super delegates began changing their minds once Barack Obama started winning elections in 2008. Anything can happen if Hillary doesn’t start winning election contests.
To add a few more thoughts:
The super delegates could still decide that Hillary is their best choice. In fact, I’ve NOT taken the position that Sanders actually will win the nomination. In fact, like you, I still believe that the Democratic party will ultimately vote in favor of Hillary Clinton at a contested convention.
The question is, what happens after that? How inspired would voters be to support a candidate whom they refuse to believe won? That’s what I’m pointing out here – assuming that Hillary somehow starts losing the big ones that really matter. Because then the narrative wouldn’t be that Clinton beat Sanders; it would be that Sanders had the momentum, had the best chance to win in November, better represented their values, and that the DNC decided to steal something from them. Look, telling Ralph Nader and Green voters to go eff themselves is one thing (yet even that had permanent, history-changing consequences). But telling the largest insurgency campaign in modern history that it just doesn’t really matter? I can’t imagine that not having consequences.
Again, I am NOT saying that all of this will happen. I think Clinton and the DNC are in safer harbor if they can win in NY, PA, CA and other states and limit the damage to fly-over country. It’s what happens if the Clinton campaign doesn’t achieve this that worries me. If I had to guess, I think Sanders will have won more individual contests, but that doesn’t necessarily matter. What does matter is which states Sanders wins and whether Clinton can still claim to have support of a strong progressive base in August, or whether Sanders is the clear favorite in that regard.
Michigan isn’t much of a swing state. It’s pretty solidly blue (all Democratic wins since 1992, in 2012 it was +10 D). The last time Wisconsin went Republican in a presidential contest was 1984.
Yeah, I’d worry more about who can take Virginia, Ohio, N. Carolina and Florida than which Democrat will somehow be the only one who can win Michigan.