Democratic Ides of March Tuesday results thread (first polls close at 7pm ET)

[Ebsy]

Words cannot describe how happy I am that Clinton won the Great State of Missouri.

[IceSpear]

It looks like those of us that theorized about Hillary's residual white support in MO were correct. Due to a disappointing result in St. Louis, this is what delivered her the state. She performed particularly well in the bootheel near Arkansas.

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

Adam Griffin, that's a fantastic signature.

It really is. I might have to find the (non-photoshopped) gif of Trump getting scared by a bald eagle. Not sure if imgur will let me use it though.

[Ebsy]

It looks like those of us that theorized about Hillary's residual white support in MO were correct. Due to a disappointing result in St. Louis, this is what delivered her the state. She performed particularly well in the bootheel near Arkansas.

Clinton did remarkably well in rurul Missouri, particularly the Southeast, while underperforming in the cities, though in the end, her margin in St. Louis County was enough to push her over the top.

[yourelection]

Clinton scores big on this primary day. She racks up delegates putting her more than 300 over Sanders. Sanders can not pull off another surprise win like he did in Michigan. His uphill battle gets steeper and steeper.

More at: http://www.yourelection.net/2016/03/march-15-primaries/

[IceSpear]

On Hispanics: I think it's safe to say Hillary is winning them comfortably. Based on the states with significant amounts of Hispanics, we've gotten two essential ties (NV/IL) and two Hillary blowouts (TX/FL). Blowout states are much larger too.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

On Hispanics: I think it's safe to say Hillary is winning them comfortably. Based on the states with significant amounts of Hispanics, we've gotten two essential ties (NV/IL) and two Hillary blowouts (TX/FL). Blowout states are much larger too.

Hillary is winning southern Hispanics, but Bernie ties or wins non southern Hispanics.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

On Hispanics: I think it's safe to say Hillary is winning them comfortably. Based on the states with significant amounts of Hispanics, we've gotten two essential ties (NV/IL) and two Hillary blowouts (TX/FL). Blowout states are much larger too.

Hillary is winning southern Hispanics, but Bernie ties or wins non southern Hispanics.

Isn't that what he said... But I see you're still invested in the weird NV entrance poll.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

On Hispanics: I think it's safe to say Hillary is winning them comfortably. Based on the states with significant amounts of Hispanics, we've gotten two essential ties (NV/IL) and two Hillary blowouts (TX/FL). Blowout states are much larger too.

Hillary is winning southern Hispanics, but Bernie ties or wins non southern Hispanics.

Isn't that what he said... But I see you're still invested in the weird NV entrance poll.

He did win NV Hispanics, and may have won Colorado Hispanics.

[Alcon]

On Hispanics: I think it's safe to say Hillary is winning them comfortably. Based on the states with significant amounts of Hispanics, we've gotten two essential ties (NV/IL) and two Hillary blowouts (TX/FL). Blowout states are much larger too.

Hillary is winning southern Hispanics, but Bernie ties or wins non southern Hispanics.

Isn't that what he said... But I see you're still invested in the weird NV entrance poll.

He did win NV Hispanics, and may have won Colorado Hispanics.

Why are you so convinced that he won NV Hispanics?  Why trust the exit poll sample over Hispanic precincts? They both have similar problems with representativeness.  What's the difference, besides that you prefer one is true?

[Joe Biden is your president. Deal with it.]

Why don't they call MO yet for both sides?

[Adam Griffin]

Nate Cohn posted this map of the South (Clinton vs. Sanders):



He notes that OK, NC, and FL all have party registration, and so the "Dixiecrats" (or whatever you want to call them) are unable to crossover and vote in the Republican primary.

Not necessarily a perfect correlation there: Louisiana has party registration, too, and the biggest D registration advantage out of all of those states to boot. Furthermore, look at the areas surrounding western NC (North GA, East TN, SW VA, etc) where there isn't party registration - Sanders came within single digits in about 20 counties in North GA and did quite well in East TN and VA, too.

Just to add to this: when you look at partisan registration figures for 2014-2015 in NC, you'll also notice that some of the stronger areas for Sanders are in some of the most ancestrally-weak areas in terms of Democratic registrations, so I'm not sure I buy this theory about closed primaries influencing the result to any substantial degree for Sanders.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

On Hispanics: I think it's safe to say Hillary is winning them comfortably. Based on the states with significant amounts of Hispanics, we've gotten two essential ties (NV/IL) and two Hillary blowouts (TX/FL). Blowout states are much larger too.

Hillary is winning southern Hispanics, but Bernie ties or wins non southern Hispanics.

Isn't that what he said... But I see you're still invested in the weird NV entrance poll.

He did win NV Hispanics, and may have won Colorado Hispanics.

Why are you so convinced that he won NV Hispanics?  Why trust the exit poll sample over Hispanic precincts? They both have similar problems with representativeness.  What's the difference, besides that you prefer one is true?

Heavily Hispanic precincts which likely have a lot of blacks don't vote the same as Hispanics statewide. Read this for more details.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/22/1488704/-Do-Nevada-precinct-results-show-that-Clinton-won-Latinos-Um-No-Not-when-you-look-more-carefully

[Alcon]

On Hispanics: I think it's safe to say Hillary is winning them comfortably. Based on the states with significant amounts of Hispanics, we've gotten two essential ties (NV/IL) and two Hillary blowouts (TX/FL). Blowout states are much larger too.

Hillary is winning southern Hispanics, but Bernie ties or wins non southern Hispanics.

Isn't that what he said... But I see you're still invested in the weird NV entrance poll.

He did win NV Hispanics, and may have won Colorado Hispanics.

Why are you so convinced that he won NV Hispanics?  Why trust the exit poll sample over Hispanic precincts? They both have similar problems with representativeness.  What's the difference, besides that you prefer one is true?

Heavily Hispanic precincts which likely have a lot of blacks don't vote the same as Hispanics statewide. Read this for more details.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/22/1488704/-Do-Nevada-precinct-results-show-that-Clinton-won-Latinos-Um-No-Not-when-you-look-more-carefully

That looks very credible.  I'll give it some thought/research if I give a chance.  One thing I do caution is that a lot of heavily Hispanic areas have incredibly awful registration/turnout rates, especially in renter-heavy zones.  However the point that heavily Hispanic precincts are not representative is very, very well-taken.

A lot of states input their caucus results to the VAN (remember that?  the thing we argued about a while back) and include attendance by ethnicity.  It would be awesome if someone could Nevada could just run those numbers and settle the question!

[Gass3268]

Looking at the congressional district breakdown of Missouri, Sanders actually won 6 of the 8 districts. Clinton ended up winning the delegates in the state 36-35 (based on some quick calculations).

Will be interested to see the congressional district breakdown of Illinois and North Carolina as well. Not so much Florida or Ohio.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Where did that malarkey that Sanders won Colorado Hispanics came from?
There was no entrance poll there and besides that Clinton crushed him in the two most Latino-heavy counties, Conejos and Costilla.

[Panhandle Progressive]

Congrats to Hillary on her sweep of the primaries yesterday. Bernie was able to keep it quite close in IL + MO. Dems should now move into GE mode.

[Mr. Morden]

Nate Cohn posted this map of the South (Clinton vs. Sanders):



He notes that OK, NC, and FL all have party registration, and so the "Dixiecrats" (or whatever you want to call them) are unable to crossover and vote in the Republican primary.

Not necessarily a perfect correlation there: Louisiana has party registration, too, and the biggest D registration advantage out of all of those states to boot. Furthermore, look at the areas surrounding western NC (North GA, East TN, SW VA, etc) where there isn't party registration - Sanders came within single digits in about 20 counties in North GA and did quite well in East TN and VA, too.

Just to add to this: when you look at partisan registration figures for 2014-2015 in NC, you'll also notice that some of the stronger areas for Sanders are in some of the most ancestrally-weak areas in terms of Democratic registrations, so I'm not sure I buy this theory about closed primaries influencing the result to any substantial degree for Sanders.

Well, OK, here is a map of Democratic primary "protest votes" (those for candidates other than Clinton or Sanders):



It also shows a higher number of votes for non-Clinton/non-Sanders candidates in states with party registration.  Maybe the "Dixiecrats" vote for O'Malley or De La Fuente in some places, but Sanders in others?  I don't know.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Texas doesn't have party registration so I don't understand why all these people who didn't like the Democratic candidates voted O' Malley and Randall Terry instead of picking a Republican ballot.

[Joe Republic]

What's the deal with Clark county, MO?  Uncommitted won 63% with 650 votes; that's over a quarter of Uncommitted's statewide total.  Reporting error?

[Alcon]

What's the deal with Clark county, MO?  Uncommitted won 63% with 650 votes; that's over a quarter of Uncommitted's statewide total.  Reporting error?

Not sure what the deal with the data source is, but it's definitely wrong.  Official totals from the state of Missouri:

Clinton 202
Sanders 178
Other 7
Uncommitted 6

[IceSpear]

Texas doesn't have party registration so I don't understand why all these people who didn't like the Democratic candidates voted O' Malley and Randall Terry instead of picking a Republican ballot.

Maybe they either didn't know they could take a Republican ballot, or wanted to vote in the local Democratic primary for sheriff or dog catcher.

[Landslide Lyndon]

When are they going to post their results the last 100 Illinois precincts?

And why the hell Missouri is still uncalled when the votes are all in?

[Ebsy]

When are they going to post their results the last 100 Illinois precincts?

And why the hell Missouri is still uncalled when the votes are all in?

The possibility of a recount along with the lack of clarity regarding some of the results out of Jackson County. I think most of the media outlets are waiting for the Missouri SOS to certify the results.

[user12345]

When are they going to post their results the last 100 Illinois precincts?

And why the hell Missouri is still uncalled when the votes are all in?

The possibility of a recount along with the lack of clarity regarding some of the results out of Jackson County. I think most of the media outlets are waiting for the Missouri SOS to certify the results.

If they asked for a recount in either the Republican or Democratic primary, how long does it usually take to get that done.