Il Douché and His Discontents: The 2016 Primary Voting Thread, Part 4

wow margin thinning fast

discouraging for hrc if her strongest support is in presidential red states, but vs trump blue/purple states in industrial north go red.

it's sort of playing out like the reverse of 08 where obama won all the 'red' state primaries and clinton won ohio/pennsylvania/michigan/new hampshire etc
turned out fine in the end tho

detroit vote not all counted and they count absentees last so those too prob out, not sure how much though

cruz up in the great state of idaho btw

kent county just updated, bernie 28k in the lead again

Cruz up about 11% in Idaho with 14% reporting. tho have no earthly clue as to what the remaining makeup of state is so it could be a mirage

probably a silly question but why didn't FiveThirtyEight have any forecasting data for Idaho/Hawaii?

it's sort of playing out like the reverse of 08 where obama won all the 'red' state primaries and clinton won ohio/pennsylvania/michigan/new hampshire etc
turned out fine in the end tho

Latinos to the rescue!

What's the results from Washtenaw Cty? (Ann Arbor)

56/43 for sanders with 76% reporting, according to CNN

i think that's a wrap

discouraging for hrc if her strongest support is in presidential red states, but vs trump blue/purple states in industrial north go red.

― never have i been a blue calm sea (collardio gelatinous), Wednesday, 9 March 2016 04:10 (23 minutes ago) Permalink

doubt this is meaningful -- primary voters are a much smaller pool and not necessarily representative of general election voters

Washtenaw County
with 101 of 141 reporting (acc to NYT)
56.0% Sanders
43.2% Clinton

Bernie wins Michigan!

yeaaaah bernie

fuck yeah!

:)

Cruz with a little over 8% lead in Idaho, 25% in.

A close win is v much better than a close loss, but how will this result split the MI delegates?

CNN is estimating 41-41 but I dunno that they've updated their metrics

actually 44-43

doubt this is meaningful -- primary voters are a much smaller pool and not necessarily representative of general election voters

not necessarily, sure, but the hrc campaign would be remiss not to look into the "meaning" of this going forward, in terms of her potential ability to pull working class (esp white) votes from an anti-free trade candidate.

We won’t know exactly how many delegates Sanders or Clinton will take out of Michigan until the results are final, but based on the numbers so far, The Green Papers estimates that Sanders would get 72 delegates and Clinton 58. That would put Sanders five delegates above his FiveThirtyEight target for Michigan and Clinton five delegates below.

xp i'm sure the clinton campaign is thinking about working class whites a lot, but it's worth noting that Barack Obama lost working class whites 62-36 in 2012 and still won solidly. The link below gives a pretty solid breakdown:

http://theweek.com/articles/611097/why-workingclass-whites-cant-propel-donald-trump-ultimate-victory

the national media has been stuck on the narrative of "reagan democrats" as the only votes that really matter for 36 years now, but demographics have rendered that particular voting bloc far less relevant than it used to be

This article posits that Trump would need to win 70% of all white men in the U.S. to win a majority, which is a staggering, unprecedented amount in the modern era:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/donald-trump-needs-7-of-10-white-guys-213699?paginate=false

that's a lot of pints to buy

nobody here is saying Reagan Democrats are the only votes that really matter

i know no one here is necessarily saying that, but I am seeing an increasing discussion of it in the media over the past few weeks. There's been all sorts of talk of rust belt states like PA, Michigan, and Wisconsin potentially going for Trump after not going republican for nearly 30 years.

Had a feeling MI would pull through. \m/

I did the same calculations a couple of weeks ago, trying to convince a friend that Trump couldn't win. I started from two premises, both extremely conservative: same turnout as 2012 (turnout for a Trump election will likely be massive on the left), Democrats get 85% of African-American/Hispanic vote (also unlikely--sure it will be more like 90-95%). I came up with Trump needing to win 61% of the white vote, which only happened in '64, '72, and '84, all historic landslides.

xp so that wasn't necessarily directed at this board, i guess i'm honestly kind of bored that the media's already breaking out the same tired stuff I've seen my whole adult life, horse race speculation from people who can't quite shake the narrative of that demographic bloc representing "real america".

@clemenza

the 70% in the second article i linked to was for white men, not sure if that's relevant to your calculations

The 62% in the first article was specifically "white working class"

xp got it.

Thanks, I haven't read the piece yet. I went by Gallup's breakdowns on this page:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/139880/election-polls-presidential-vote-groups.aspx

Just grouped all white voters together independent of gender/income/whatever.

cool, thanks clemenza

Cruz projected to win Iowa.

i imagine so

xpost you mean ohio

Idaho

Rubio has an amazing 0 delegates tonight

rubiomentum

took me three re-reads to realize I typed Iowa and not Idaho. too goddamn late here.

he means 40(b) but....

https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/707430680133763074

Do you think these big data people get a raging boner when their computer finishes downloading a new set of spreadsheets?

don't really think about nerds and their erections

Nothing's hotter than a Nate Silver fantasy, and I'm sure even straight guys can agree on that one.

https://twitter.com/cdcarter/status/707438000163127297

Ok funny or die lurking writer needs to fess up

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/691b209fe7/finnish-news-team-reports-on-u-s-elections?_cc=__m___&_ccid=47bce0c034d440bc

Didn't see Trump's speech earlier tonight, but apparently he was claiming that Trump steaks are still around, they didn't go under, and he brandished some steaks to prove it. A panelist on CNN pointed out that the steaks were from a local butcher and not his own.

Van Jones: "He's lying about his meat again."

So seeing my name mentioned a lot in this thread since last night, do people really want to hear my thoughts on Michigan?

1) Great surprise, great victory, no doubt. At first I was dismayed, got way too caught up in the sport of it, but fuck that. However, does anyone really believe this changes anything fundamental about the primary? He still lost black voters by 35-40% (which is now considered really good...) he's still losing the pledged delegate count, and even if it turns out polling is off by 20% over the entire midwest, he won't make it up.

2) This just prolongs his defeat. Which is great! I've said repeatedly that I hope Sanders continues in the race, so this is good for that.

3) However, if he doubles down on an anti-free trade message, it could be the same. He won't win on that message, and the trade agreements weren't the cause of the decline in the rust belt, but another symptom of a wave of globalization that the west was ill suited for, due to the conservative waves in the eighties. And also, how does anti-NAFTA rhetoric track with hispanic voters?

(Also, anyone complaining about my 'smugness' in teaching US citizens about their own country, go to literally any debate on here where I try to explain what is going on in DK. Start with the Ice Age thread. This attack is massively hypocritical.)