Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Yes, I can see Sanders start to pull some support away from a Trump who has the nomination wrapped up. Because Sanders is saying the same thing Trump is in a basically more sane manner on trade and defence. And because voters see Sanders as more trustworthy than either Trump OR Hillary.

More significantly -- Bernie Sanders is much more civil and honest than Donald Trump. Donald Trump can offer just about everything that Bernie Sanders promises, only to contradict what he promises when and where such is convenient. Such is how demagogues operate.

I don't think Hillary can blunt the support she gave to NAFTA, which has really hurt people, by opposing TPP. I think few people believe that Hillary will continue to oppose TPP if elected. For that matter, Hillary cannot be trusted to continue to oppose Keystone XL, particularly in the face of a NAFTA suit by Canada that is in the offing. A President Hillary can always find something to like about TPP and a treaty reason to go along with Keystone XL. And everybody knows it.

TPP needs to go back to the drawing board. Keystone XL? It failed without the need for its political defeat because oil prices dropped low enough that tar sands became uneconomic.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Precisely my point. Being a centerist MEANS appealing to authoritarians at least to some degree. And being a governor of a Southern state taught Bill Clinton the skills he needed to do so. Ironically, Trump, despite basing his appeal on authoritarians IS a Centerist too. He is just realistic enough to understand that the Center has turned against things like free trade and that given leadership that accepts this rather than leadership that, in fief to the Big Banks puts the questioning of neo-liberal free trade off limits, that he will have a major following in this 4T election.

The polls will have to shift pretty strongly for that to happen, but it certainly COULD. Right now polls and trends indicate a 346 to 192 electoral college victory for Hillary over The Donald.

Hillary Clinton vs Donald Trump, polls as of March 14, 2016

sources: real clear politics
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo.../pres_general/

wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statew...election,_2016
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-20...election,_2016 (only using polls since Donald Trump announced; not using polls where 2016 polls are available)

2012 results for those states with no polls.

Using map from
http://uselectionatlas.org/TOOLS/evcalc.php

(red and blue symbols for the parties switched)

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Hillary Clinton vs Donald Trump, polls as of March 14, 2016

sources: real clear politics
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo.../pres_general/

wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statew...election,_2016
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-20...election,_2016 (only using polls since Donald Trump announced; not using polls where 2016 polls are available)

2012 results for those states with no polls.

Using map from
http://uselectionatlas.org/TOOLS/evcalc.php

(red and blue symbols for the parties switched)

Great stuff, Eric.

Could you start doing the math and adding the EC vote national totals for each candidate?

--------------------------------------

Whoops, my bad, I didn't see the post above with the total EC numbers. But still, it would be nice to add those to the graphic.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Hillary Clinton vs Donald Trump, polls as of March 14, 2016

sources: real clear politics
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo.../pres_general/

wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statew...election,_2016
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-20...election,_2016 (only using polls since Donald Trump announced; not using polls where 2016 polls are available)

2012 results for those states with no polls.

Using map from
http://uselectionatlas.org/TOOLS/evcalc.php

(red and blue symbols for the parties switched)

Good work there!

I doubt that Kentucky would go for either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. Demographics of Kentucky are similar to those of West Virginia, except that Kentucky has a fairly-large city in Louisville. But if Hillary Clinton is winning Kentucky, then she is also winning Arkansas, Missouri, and Tennessee... maybe Georgia and Louisiana as well.



The telling state is Utah. Utah is arch-conservative, but it will vote against someone who offends Latter-Day-Saint (abbreviated LDS and more commonly known as Mormon) sensibilities. Even lukewarm support by Mormons puts Trump wins in Arizona (large Mormon community in the Greater Phoenix area), Idaho, and Wyoming at risk. Mormons distrust religious bigotry, having been victims of it in their history; multiple failed marriages are very non-Mormon, and his investments in gambling casinos (dens of heavy drinking and smoking as well as gambling, serious iniquities to devout Mormons) may cause many Mormons to either not vote, vote for Third Party nominees, or even vote for the Democratic nominee.

There is something worth watching from the momentum state-by-state theme in the Dem primaries. The question there is whether Bernie's surprise win in Michigan translates tonight to wins in Ohio and Illinois and suggest he's strong everywhere except the South. We'll see.

The other way to examine this is by pledge delegate counts (does not include the fickle superdelegates). It's likely important to watch this because this is how Obama defeated Clinton in '08 and why it went all the way to June. That could repeat but it is also possible that it will be cut off by the simple arithmetic of delegate counting - no matter how much true believers on the losing side kick and scream.

One of the easier ways to look at is to look at it is how many delegates Sanders needs tonight (and subsequent nights, if needed) to see what % of delegates he would need to win in all subsequent primaries. This works for the Dems' ubiquitous policy of proportional awarding of delegates by percentage of votes (with occasional coin toss to break ties in caucus states; pretty much unimportant given the delegate size of remaining caucus states), but don't try this with the GOP's mixed bag of proportional and winner-takes-all - attempting that analysis would reflect the GOP's snake pit in general.

So here's the number of the 691 delegates up for grab tonight that Sanders needs to win to put him in the position of the percent of delegates he would need to win in all subsequent primaries.

250 — 60.2 %

275 — 58.9%

300 — 57.7%

326 — 56.5%

350 — 55.3%

375 — 54.1%

400 — 52.8%

In other analysis (which I'll post later), there is general agreement that if Clinton can increase her delegate lead over Sanders from the current 223 to 300+, the game is over (that number declines, of course, as we move to the next primaries). Doing the arithmetic, Bernie needs to win at least 268 delegates tonight to avoid the knockout of Clinton's lead going to 300 (he would still need to win about 59% of the remaining delegates in subsequent primaries - a daunting task in the remaining proportional large primaries compared to smaller caucus states).

Others have suggested he probably needs to win over 300 delegates tonight to stay in as a credible underdog. It's going over 326 that will make it look like he remains as a very serious challenger particularly if it comes with clear wins in Ohio and Illinois with Missouri sprinkled on top. On the other hand, if he just squeaks by with a win in OH and/or IL (ala MI) but loses big in FL and NC (ala MS), he might be undone regardless of how much the momentum theme takes over the airways.

We'll just have to wait and see later tonight if not tomorrow morning.

Rubio knocked out, Rubio asks his delegates to pledge to support Kasich.

Kasich now becomes the new Zombie.

He goes along for another round until giving up (or not, maybe goes all the way to the Convention).

In any case, Kasich then asks his delegates to pledge to Cruz.

Granted, some Delegates would not do as asked, in either the case of Rubio or Kasich. But a good many would.

Cruz ends up with more delegates by a hair.

Trump takes his bat and ball, exits to go 3rd party.

What a mud fight!

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Rubio knocked out, Rubio asks his delegates to pledge to support Kasich.

Kasich now becomes the new Zombie.

He goes along for another round until giving up (or not, maybe goes all the way to the Convention).

In any case, Kasich then asks his delegates to pledge to Cruz.

Granted, some Delegates would not do as asked, in either the case of Rubio or Kasich. But a good many would.

Cruz ends up with more delegates by a hair.

Trump takes his bat and ball, exits to go 3rd party.

What a mud fight!

John Kasich: The Man of Lead.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Good work there!

I doubt that Kentucky would go for either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. Demographics of Kentucky are similar to those of West Virginia, except that Kentucky has a fairly-large city in Louisville. But if Hillary Clinton is winning Kentucky, then she is also winning Arkansas, Missouri, and Tennessee... maybe Georgia and Louisiana as well.



The telling state is Utah. Utah is arch-conservative, but it will vote against someone who offends Latter-Day-Saint (abbreviated LDS and more commonly known as Mormon) sensibilities. Even lukewarm support by Mormons puts Trump wins in Arizona (large Mormon community in the Greater Phoenix area), Idaho, and Wyoming at risk. Mormons distrust religious bigotry, having been victims of it in their history; multiple failed marriages are very non-Mormon, and his investments in gambling casinos (dens of heavy drinking and smoking as well as gambling, serious iniquities to devout Mormons) may cause many Mormons to either not vote, vote for Third Party nominees, or even vote for the Democratic nominee.

Idaho and Wyoming as bellwethers suggest that the Mormon vote is going to Cruz. Of course Cruz may well become Trump's running mate (for Party Unity of course). Cruz has been such an enfant terrible in the Senate that he has burned his bridges with the Republican Establishment everywhere outside of his home state of Texas (and even there, he wasn't the Establishment's favoured choice). So Cruz has little to lose.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The polls will have to shift pretty strongly for that to happen, but it certainly COULD. Right now polls and trends indicate a 346 to 192 electoral college victory for Hillary over The Donald.

That's only a little more than polls were suggesting that Hillary would beat John McCain 8 years ago. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statew...illary_Clinton

Originally Posted by playwrite

There is something worth watching from the momentum state-by-state theme in the Dem primaries. The question there is whether Bernie's surprise win in Michigan translates tonight to wins in Ohio and Illinois and suggest he's strong everywhere except the South. We'll see.

The other way to examine this is by pledge delegate counts (does not include the fickle superdelegates). It's likely important to watch this because this is how Obama defeated Clinton in '08 and why it went all the way to June. That could repeat but it is also possible that it will be cut off by the simple arithmetic of delegate counting - no matter how much true believers on the losing side kick and scream.

One of the easier ways to look at is to look at it is how many delegates Sanders needs tonight (and subsequent nights, if needed) to see what % of delegates he would need to win in all subsequent primaries. This works for the Dems' ubiquitous policy of proportional awarding of delegates by percentage of votes (with occasional coin toss to break ties in caucus states; pretty much unimportant given the delegate size of remaining caucus states), but don't try this with the GOP's mixed bag of proportional and winner-takes-all - attempting that analysis would reflect the GOP's snake pit in general.

So here's the number of the 691 delegates up for grab tonight that Sanders needs to win to put him in the position of the percent of delegates he would need to win in all subsequent primaries.

250 — 60.2 %

275 — 58.9%

300 — 57.7%

326 — 56.5%

350 — 55.3%

375 — 54.1%

400 — 52.8%

In other analysis (which I'll post later), there is general agreement that if Clinton can increase her delegate lead over Sanders from the current 223 to 300+, the game is over (that number declines, of course, as we move to the next primaries). Doing the arithmetic, Bernie needs to win at least 268 delegates tonight to avoid the knockout of Clinton's lead going to 300 (he would still need to win about 59% of the remaining delegates in subsequent primaries - a daunting task in the remaining proportional large primaries compared to smaller caucus states).

Others have suggested he probably needs to win over 300 delegates tonight to stay in as a credible underdog. It's going over 326 that will make it look like he remains as a very serious challenger particularly if it comes with clear wins in Ohio and Illinois with Missouri sprinkled on top. On the other hand, if he just squeaks by with a win in OH and/or IL (ala MI) but loses big in FL and NC (ala MS), he might be undone regardless of how much the momentum theme takes over the airways.

We'll just have to wait and see later tonight if not tomorrow morning.

It's certainly doable for Bernie. Bernie is behind in NC and FL but only by like 60-40, making a pickup of 150 delegates possible in those places. Combined with narrow wins in OH, IL and MO, he can come to 310.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Good work there!

I doubt that Kentucky would go for either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. Demographics of Kentucky are similar to those of West Virginia, except that Kentucky has a fairly-large city in Louisville. But if Hillary Clinton is winning Kentucky, then she is also winning Arkansas, Missouri, and Tennessee... maybe Georgia and Louisiana as well.

I agree; KY is not polled much because it's assumed GOP; it will go for the Republican nominee.

The telling state is Utah. Utah is arch-conservative, but it will vote against someone who offends Latter-Day-Saint (abbreviated LDS and more commonly known as Mormon) sensibilities. Even lukewarm support by Mormons puts Trump wins in Arizona (large Mormon community in the Greater Phoenix area), Idaho, and Wyoming at risk. Mormons distrust religious bigotry, having been victims of it in their history; multiple failed marriages are very non-Mormon, and his investments in gambling casinos (dens of heavy drinking and smoking as well as gambling, serious iniquities to devout Mormons) may cause many Mormons to either not vote, vote for Third Party nominees, or even vote for the Democratic nominee.

It's interesting that partisan politics does have its limits in places like Utah. I think the Mormon effect plus the hispanic effect is going to make it hard for Trump to carry Arizona. He might do it, but it WILL be a swing state if Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are the nominees. It did actually vote once for Hillary's husband. In the latest poll, it's 44-42; closest in the nation.

Has anyone seen this? http://www.thewrap.com/hillary-clint...er-gay-voters/ And this? https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=3&theater . What WAS Hillary thinking, going to Nancy Reagan's funeral in the midst of the climax of her election campaign? Surely she knew something like this could happen. This is really going to hurt Hillary with gay voters.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Has anyone seen this? http://www.thewrap.com/hillary-clint...er-gay-voters/ And this? https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=3&theater . What WAS Hillary thinking, going to Nancy Reagan's funeral in the midst of the climax of her election campaign? Surely she knew something like this could happen. This is really going to hurt Hillary with gay voters.

Maybe she meant that at least Nancy said SOMETHING about it, despite the pressures of her party and her husband to stay silent?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I agree; KY is not polled much because it's assumed GOP; it will go for the Republican nominee.



It's interesting that partisan politics does have its limits in places like Utah. I think the Mormon effect plus the hispanic effect is going to make it hard for Trump to carry Arizona. He might do it, but it WILL be a swing state if Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are the nominees. It did actually vote once for Hillary's husband. In the latest poll, it's 44-42; closest in the nation.

Arizona has been a swing state for the last 16 years. And a state that is in continual danger of flipping Democratic on a statewide basis like California did in 1998. Arizona is a state where battle lines are drawn between Latinos and Native Americans (and Millennials) and older voters, white voters and Mormon voters. That's why there have been the battles over immigration that are vicious enough for the whites to be willing to trash the local economy to discourage Latinos from living in Arizona. There is a big Latino vote. But the hate politics that have been dominant in AZ fit Donald Trump to a T. And Cruz too, for that matter. Everybody predicts each election that this will be the year AZ flips Democratic. So far that hasn't happened. That dosen't mean that it won't this time. Bernie MIGHT be able to flip AZ. Hillary almost certainly cannot.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Has anyone seen this? http://www.thewrap.com/hillary-clint...er-gay-voters/ And this? https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=3&theater . What WAS Hillary thinking, going to Nancy Reagan's funeral in the midst of the climax of her election campaign? Surely she knew something like this could happen. This is really going to hurt Hillary with gay voters.

Two former First Ladies. It is fully appropriate.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Arizona has been a swing state for the last 16 years. And a state that is in continual danger of flipping Democratic on a statewide basis like California did in 1998. Arizona is a state where battle lines are drawn between Latinos and Native Americans (and Millennials) and older voters, white voters and Mormon voters. That's why there have been the battles over immigration that are vicious enough for the whites to be willing to trash the local economy to discourage Latinos from living in Arizona. There is a big Latino vote. But the hate politics that have been dominant in AZ fit Donald Trump to a T. And Cruz too, for that matter. Everybody predicts each election that this will be the year AZ flips Democratic. So far that hasn't happened. That doesn't mean that it won't this time. Bernie MIGHT be able to flip AZ. Hillary almost certainly cannot.

I don't agree; Arizona usually goes Republican by 10 points; often by more. Going Democratic once does not make it a swing state. It has not been considered as such at all. The swing states are Florida, Ohio, Iowa, New Hampshire, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada. If the Democratic candidate is weak, then Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Michigan might be added to that list; and in past years, New Mexico. If the Republican is weak, maybe North Carolina. That is all.

California voted solidly Democratic in presidential races since 1992. Any blue state like that can go wrong and vote for a Republican governor now and then. Even MA or NY. That does not make it a swing state.

The hate-immigrant politics among whites is strong there, no doubt. And the hispanic voting population is growing, and as Brower pointed out, support for Trump among Mormons is weak. Those factors make it ripe for picking by Hillary, even more than for Bernie, because Hillary is a Clinton, and a center-left candidate; and Bill Clinton is the only Democratic presidential candidate who carried Arizona since Harry S Truman.

Trump seems to be winning in Florida. His win there practically knocks out Rubio, as Florida is winner-take-all.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Trump seems to be winning in Florida. His win there practically knocks out Rubio, as Florida is winner-take-all.

Yes, and Hillary is romping there too. It will be closer in the other states though.

Sanders is pulling ahead in Missouri, 50-48%. Trump still has a 2 point lead over Cruz there.
Clinton still leads Bernie in Illinois, 52.5 to 46.6; Sanders slowly gaining. Trump @ 40% has a big lead there over Kasich at 22 and Cruz at 26 who are splitting the anti-Trump vote.
Clinton leads Sanders in NC about 55-40, while Trump has a narrow 40-36 lead there over Cruz.
Kasich is claiming his home state about 44-37 over Trump. Clinton is dashing Bernie's hope there 58-41.
Clinton beat Sanders in Florida about 64-33, while Trump knocked out Rubio 46 to 27%

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yes, and Hillary is romping there too. It will be closer in the other states though.

Among Republican voters under 30, Rubio actually got a lead against Trump. But voters under 30 in Florida number only 9% of Republican voters. I'm guessing that if Florida is at all representative of America, we may see Florida called as early on Election Day, 2016 as it was on Election Day, 2000.

The difference: the Democratic lead will hold up this time. Demographics may make Donald Trump unelectable.

Revision of polling -- no new polls, but 25 polls have just become irrelevant.

Hillary Clinton(D) vs. Ted Cruz (R)




Hillary Clinton vs. John Kasich



Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump



30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

White -- tie or someone leading with less than 40%.

Update to delete polls for Marco Rubio, effectively knocked out tonight.

Bernie Sanders vs. Ted Cruz




Bernie Sanders vs. John Kasich



Bernie Sanders vs. Donald Trump



30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

White -- tie or someone leading with less than 40%.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't agree; Arizona usually goes Republican by 10 points; often by more. Going Democratic once does not make it a swing state. It has not been considered as such at all. The swing states are Florida, Ohio, Iowa, New Hampshire, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada. If the Democratic candidate is weak, then Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Michigan might be added to that list; and in past years, New Mexico. If the Republican is weak, maybe North Carolina. That is all.

California voted solidly Democratic in presidential races since 1992. Any blue state like that can go wrong and vote for a Republican governor now and then. Even MA or NY. That does not make it a swing state.

The hate-immigrant politics among whites is strong there, no doubt. And the hispanic voting population is growing, and as Brower pointed out, support for Trump among Mormons is weak. Those factors make it ripe for picking by Hillary, even more than for Bernie, because Hillary is a Clinton, and a center-left candidate; and Bill Clinton is the only Democratic presidential candidate who carried Arizona since Harry S Truman.

Republicans still have the upper hand in Arizona (and have since 1912--I suspect AZ became a separate state in large part because NM which it split off from was too Latino and too Catholic). But AZ has a huge amount of political tension. Just like CA did in the 80s and 90s when it usually went Republican. The worry about immigration in AZ is in large part a worry about how new citizens will vote. . .

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Among Republican voters under 30, Rubio actually got a lead against Trump. But voters under 30 in Florida number only 9% of Republican voters. I'm guessing that if Florida is at all representative of America, we may see Florida called as early on Election Day, 2016 as it was on Election Day, 2000.

The difference: the Democratic lead will hold up this time. Demographics may make Donald Trump unelectable.

I'm not so sure about that. FL could be as close as it has been the last election. Though a million PR voters (who have gotten in the habit of turning out in large numbers back in PR) may make a big difference.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yes, and Hillary is romping there too. It will be closer in the other states though.

Hillary seems to be winning in Ohio. For the same reason she beat Obama in Ohio. Ohio is half southern. And population in Ohio is evenly distributed compared to Illinois and Indiana. Once one gets south of Columbus the whites mainly vote Republican in Ohio.