Who wins Wisconsin?(D)

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Hillary's been leading all the polls and she's actually contesting the state. I could see Bernie pulling it off, but I don't think it will be anything to write home about.

[This account no longer in use.]

Hillary Clinton, and easily. I'd say she wins it by at least 20%.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Getting a national movement of small donations to elect a president is one thing.  Doing it to swing Congress is an a different matter entirely.  Campaigns are expensive, there are a lot of them, and convincing someone in a contested district who just gave $20 to the Sanders campaign that it would be even more important to give $50 to a congressional candidate is a tough sell indeed.

That would be up to the individual's conscience. If someone can only afford $20, yes, it would be difficult to convince them to contribute more. Many people could afford to give Sanders $20 and more to a congressional candidate. Although it is doubtful that either Sanders or Clinton will swing the House, so, the money might be better spent on a Senate candidate. Who's to say that they won't contribute to a Senate candidate in the fall, when the money is really needed?

The way the system works, individuals who are wealthy can contribute a lot of money to a lot of candidates, but obviously most people can't. Public finance was supposed to mitigate this, but most candidates raise money from big donations instead (or in addition to).

Sanders' message of running on small contributions appeals to a lot of people. Why shouldn't everyone have a voice in electing candidates? Government, of, by, and for the people. Does anyone seriously think that someone who gets a lot of big money from special interests isn't going to be influenced by money?

The issue is keeping people's attention longer than the presidential election, and making people care about congressional elections.  Where was the wave that elected Obama in the 2010 and 2014 midterms?

[°Leprechaun]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's not an easy thing to do. Republicans are better at it than Democrats. People need to realize that Congress has a lot of power. Truman made this an issue back in 1950.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

The Berninator will give Her Highness' big rump a thorough spankin'.... 56-43.  Maybe that'll set the tone The Harpy wants? 

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's not an easy thing to do. Republicans are better at it than Democrats.

Republicans have massive, massive gerrymandering on their side.

That aside, if you can't even get the groundswell out to VOTE in the midterms, what's going to get them to DONATE to them?

[/]

Doesn't Naet Sliver give her like a 90% chance of winning?

[Landslide Lyndon]

Doesn't Naet Sliver give her like a 90% chance of winning?

That's because there are very few polls and all of them show Clinton ahead or tied.
But demographically he shows Sanders winning by 10 points or so, IIRC.

[Adam Griffin]

In terms of net delegates:
Sanders winning WI by 20 and WY by 60 = Clinton winning NY by 10

who care

[Senator-elect Spark]

Sanders and it won't be close

[Lyin' Steve]

Bernie by 10-15.
Wisconsin is very similar to Minnesota and western Michigan, which broke hard against Clinton both this year and in 2008.

[Ogre Mage]

Sanders.

[Kingpoleon]

I'm gonna go ahead and say Bernie with a margin of at least 60/40.  I don't see much support for Clinton around at the moment. He's certainly winning the yard sign and bumper sticker primary. We'll see.

He won those primaries in Arkansas, though.

[Democratic Cynicalism]

Should be Bernie. If it isn't, he hasn't a chance at the nomination.

Who am I kidding - he hasn't a chance anyway.

[Suburbia]

Clinton 54-46.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Gut tells me Sanders by about 4-6% But who knows...

[Hammy]

I think Sanders +10 is the most likely outcome, it could be a bit more considering Sanders has been outperforming Obama 2008 in some of the later states so far.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I think Sanders +10 is the most likely outcome, it could be a bit more considering Sanders has been outperforming Obama 2008 in some of the later states so far.

Caucuses shouldn't be confused...

[KingSweden]

Probably Sanders, albeit much more narrowly than many on here predict. I'm thinking 52-48 or so. If Hillary wins, it'll be roughly that margin too

[Maxwell]

Bernie, 54-44.