Democratic WV primary + NE fake contest results thread (1st polls close @7:30ET)

[Adam Griffin]

1/2 of Sanders voters would back Trump over Clinton.

And now the uninformed Hillary Hacks on FB are going to be screaming about this and saying "SHENANIGANS! PARTY-CRASHING!"...and I'm going to have to type multi-paragraph responses whenever I see it. In fact, I should get on that and save it so I can just copy/paste...

[Adam Griffin]

Ummm....

9% of Clinton voters would back Trump over Clinton
39% of Sanders voters would back Trump over Sanders

Looks like we may have some Trump supporters causing shenanigans in WV.

Pro-Trump Independents no longer have a reason to vote in the GOP primary.

But what's the point in voting for a candidate in a primary that you didn't intend to vote for in the general?

Every local and statewide primary election.

[Adam Griffin]

Why is this worth more delegates than Delaware and Hawai'i? There are absolutely no real Democrats.

Uh, because "real Democrats" is a subjective term and can't be applied. Even just two years ago, WV had 2 Democratic Senators, a Democratic Governor, a Democratic House/Senate, and the vast majority of county offices controlled by Democrats.


Also:

Dots are gradient shifts; the larger mark is a county flip (Hampshire).

Two-way model:



Somewhere (maybe Potus still has it in his inbox), I made a GIF of WV partisan registration by county going back to 2006 or so. Very little movement in terms of flips over that time - I think 3 or 4 counties, tops.

In the last 18 months, WV has lost 30,000 Democrats and added 21,000 Republicans.

Currently:
D: 577,977
R: 374,931
O: 289,677

[Adam Griffin]

Not sure if anyone has pointed it out yet, but Bernie Sanders could theoretically get 2/3 of the delegates or so despite only getting 50-55% of the overall vote (this is assuming that none of the protest candidates reach viability).

Scenario #1:
Bernie Sanders 55%
Hillary Clinton 27%
Others 18%

Scenario #2:
Bernie Sanders 50%
Hillary Clinton 25%
Others 25%

[Adam Griffin]

Only 59% of the Democratic primary voters self-identify as Democrats.  Clinton won them 50% to 48% for Sanders (according to the exit poll).

Ouch. This is going to be a slaughter, then.





Wait, though: is that a two-way model? I would think there'd be more of a protest presence even there.

If that is correct and assuming I play it fast and loose (assuming the 41% of non-Democrats overlap pretty well with the 42% who want the next President to be less liberal) by combining these three sets of numbers, then it'd look something like 54% Sanders, 41% Clinton, 5% Others.

[Adam Griffin]

If that is correct and assuming I play it fast and loose (assuming the 41% of non-Democrats overlap pretty well with the 42% who want the next President to be less liberal) by combining these three sets of numbers, then it'd look something like 54% Sanders, 41% Clinton, 5% Others.

I already posted the exit poll toplines on the last page (which you can calculate just by doing the math on the male and female %ages):

Exit poll toplines (if my math is right):

http://edition.cnn.com/election/primaries/states/wv/Dem

Sanders 57%
Clinton 38%

That leaves 5% for other.  Whether that actually holds up in the real results...we'll see.

Both sets of numbers (the exit poll vs my numbers) are within the margin of error of one another, so I guess there is considerable overlap there. I hadn't yet seen those exit poll numbers when I posted mine.

[Adam Griffin]

I feel like the protest vote might end up being underestimated by the exit. I guess we'll see soon enough.

You know...it'd definitely be possible if they were doing entrance polls instead of exit polls (people walking in who expect to pull a GOP ballot but find out once inside that they're still registered Dems).

[Adam Griffin]

How smug, and you didn't answer the question.

Not that you could, but if you asked people that know me it's long been my position that I'd rather be independent but NJ's primary system made it convenient to stay registered as one.  

Now, I've found enough reason to make it official.  Have you seen my avatar?  It's fairly green.

If you read the blockquote, I wasn't even the person you were replying to. So I have no idea why you posed the question to me.

What is the reason you changed it, if not because Sanders lost?

Anyway, see you back on the D ship in a few years.

Nope.  It's why and how.  

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/clinton-and-the-dnc-are-not-just-colluding----theyre-changing-the-rules-for-superdelegates_b_9876274.html

Simply, the validation of existing reservations with the party.  And, of course, my former party ditching economic progressivism in favor of turning back to the Clintons for the foreseeable future.  That's a biggie.

I've never read such a long article that stated absolutely nothing of value. Typical from Seth Abramson, H.A. Goodman's mini-me.

Hillary Clinton will win by hundreds of elected delegates and millions of votes. Superdelegates, as always, will be irrelevant. What exactly is the problem here?

Ah... of course you do not see.  My problem is that the party has a system that fancies itself democratic but allows party elites to declare their support before a vote is cast.  And that it was like... 500 to 10 out of the gates between Hillary Clinton and the most leftist Senator in Congress was startling to someone who, as a Democrat, was on the far left edge of the party.  Tells me that the party is far to the right of me.  

In all fairness...Seth Abramson is a dumbass. I wrote a 2,500-word post debunking every single claim he made in his little "Why Bernie Sanders Is Winning the Democratic Primary" piece. Everything I've seen from him since is either factually inaccurate or pie-in-the-sky subjective commentary. He's a literature professor: not a political scientist,consultant or anything relevant to this broader topic.

[Adam Griffin]

Not sure if anyone has pointed it out yet, but Bernie Sanders could theoretically get 2/3 of the delegates or so despite only getting 50-55% of the overall vote (this is assuming that none of the protest candidates reach viability).

57/85 = 67%

[Adam Griffin]

JIM JUSTICE BARNSTORMING TO VICTORY

Jim Justice   5,991   52.2%   
Jeff Kessler   2,822   24.6   
Booth Goodwin   2,671   23.3   

[Adam Griffin]

[Adam Griffin]

64% of votes cast/counted thus far have been cast in the Democratic primary; that's higher than the two-way percentage between the parties in registration (60 D/40 R).

[Adam Griffin]

Why does hillary do so well in early voting in every state?

Because she has a better campaign organization that's able to identify and help more of her potential voters who can't vote on election day than Sanders' org has been able to.

Actually, I would say that in this Democratic primary specifically, older and more reliable voters are more likely (than in general elections, at the very least) to vote early because they're aware of how things work. Younger voters are more likely to vote on Election Day because of a combination of procrastination and less overall awareness of voting procedures...which leads to Clinton banking more voters early on and Sanders banking more voters on Election Day.

I don't think there's a case to be made that Sanders' campaign is less adept at identifying and engaging with likely supporters.

[Adam Griffin]

It's all over now. These ass-hats done went and cut the Democratic bloc into two pieces.