Democratic primary map if every state had an open primary
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 11:11:47 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Democratic primary map if every state had an open primary
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Democratic primary map if every state had an open primary  (Read 1129 times)
Crumpets
Thinking Crumpets Crumpet
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,579
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.06, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: May 14, 2016, 12:29:12 PM »

This seems to be the model everyone is calling for, especially on the Democratic side. So, how would this year's map have looked if every state had an open primary with same-day registration?
Logged
Ronnie
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,993
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: May 14, 2016, 12:52:03 PM »

I think Hillary would still be winning, but the delegate gap would be somewhat narrower.  The only state I think might have flipped to Bernie is Connecticut, and he might have come within ten points in New York, Pennsylvania, and Arizona.  IMO, it would be far more interesting to postulate whether Sanders would be winning if every state had caucuses. Tongue
Logged
Minnesota Mike
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,957


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: May 14, 2016, 12:54:23 PM »

I think Hillary would still be winning, but the delegate gap would be somewhat narrower.  The only state I think might have flipped to Bernie is Connecticut, and he might have come within ten points in New York, Pennsylvania, and Arizona.  IMO, it would be far more interesting to postulate whether Sanders would be winning if every state had caucuses. Tongue

Open Primaries would have helped Clinton in most of the caucus states IMO. Probably a wash overall.
Logged
Ebsy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,001
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: May 14, 2016, 12:54:35 PM »

Probably not a lot of change considering that she would do substantially better in the caucus states.
Logged
Boston Bread
New Canadaland
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,636
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -5.00, S: -5.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: May 14, 2016, 12:55:49 PM »

Bernie wins Connecticut, but I don't think any other states flip.
Logged
dspNY
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,802
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: May 14, 2016, 03:18:44 PM »

Bernie wins Connecticut, but I don't think any other states flip.

Connecticut had a rule where voters could change registration up to the day before the primary so in that respect it was semi-closed
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: May 14, 2016, 03:19:03 PM »

Hillary improves in every caucus (IA/NV/CO/MN/KS/NE/ME/ID/UT/AK/WA/HI/WY) and the states with many Dixiecrats (OK/NC). Bernie improves in LA/FL/AZ/NY/CT/DE/MD/PA as well as WV, where many more Republicans would've crossed over due to the fact that their primary was over.

So Hillary improves in more states, but Bernie improves in bigger states. Who would net more delegates would depend on the margin changes which are difficult to guess, but I don't think it would change substantially either way. I do agree with the others that Connecticut would probably be the only state that flips.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: May 14, 2016, 03:21:29 PM »

I think Hillary would still be winning, but the delegate gap would be somewhat narrower.  The only state I think might have flipped to Bernie is Connecticut, and he might have come within ten points in New York, Pennsylvania, and Arizona.  IMO, it would be far more interesting to postulate whether Sanders would be winning if every state had caucuses. Tongue

He definitely would be, probably comfortably. Though it would've been interesting to have seen a caucus result in like...Alabama or Mississippi.
Logged
Spark
Spark498
Atlas Politician
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,708
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.58, S: 0.00


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: May 14, 2016, 03:45:48 PM »
« Edited: May 14, 2016, 04:09:26 PM by Spark498 »

Would look something like this:

Logged
dspNY
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,802
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: May 14, 2016, 04:34:56 PM »


LOL at New York swinging 16 points. Bernie got shredded here by hundreds of thousands of votes and he still would have lost an open primary here.

He lost by even more in Maryland and Delaware so no way can you give them to him. Maryland was a 32 point rout!
Logged
Xing
xingkerui
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,303
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.52, S: -3.91

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: May 14, 2016, 04:40:11 PM »

I'm guessing only CT would have flipped, though Bernie might've won IA had it been later in the primary season. His wins in the current caucus states would be smaller, but none of them would have flipped.
Logged
LLR
LongLiveRock
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,956


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: May 14, 2016, 06:09:49 PM »

Oklahoma would've flipped because Dixiecrats could vote for Trump
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: May 14, 2016, 06:16:40 PM »

Oklahoma would've flipped because Dixiecrats could vote for Trump

It would've been a lot closer, but keep in mind not all Dixiecrats voted for Sanders. A lot of them protest voted as well ("other" got 7%.)
Logged
BundouYMB
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 910


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: May 14, 2016, 07:14:46 PM »

I agree CT would be the only state to flip, but I imagine Clinton's lead would actually be slightly bigger in terms of delegates. Washington would probably have been extremely close. While individually the flyover states individually don't have many delegates, Clinton collectively would have netted maybe a dozen more in all of them.

Remember that almost all southern states already had open primaries, so Clinton's margins there wouldn't be affected. Even Mississippi, where she won 83% of the vote, was an open primary.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: May 14, 2016, 07:16:03 PM »

I agree CT would be the only state to flip, but I imagine Clinton's lead would actually be slightly bigger in terms of delegates. Washington would probably have been extremely close. While individually the flyover states individually don't have many delegates, Clinton collectively would have netted maybe a dozen more in all of them.

Remember that almost all southern states already had open primaries, so Clinton's margins there wouldn't be affected. Even Mississippi, where she won 83% of the vote, was an open primary.

Sanders actually would've been held under viability in AL/MS if they were closed. I don't think WA would've been close though. It probably would've been a ~20 point Sanders win instead of a ~50 point Sanders win.
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: May 14, 2016, 07:16:58 PM »
« Edited: May 14, 2016, 07:19:02 PM by President Griffin »

Oklahoma would've flipped because Dixiecrats could vote for Trump

Take out every single "conservative" in exit polling and Sanders still wins by 8 or so (52-44). His share of the vote doesn't actually change; Clinton's merely increases due to the lack of all those (real) protest votes.





Also, probably something like this (assuming that all of the existing party registrations and loyalties that come with them still exist; i.e.: places like KY where lots of conservadems are still going to be voting in the Democratic primary due to local primaries on the same ballot).

Missouri, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa would have flipped as well.

Logged
Holmes
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,719
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: May 14, 2016, 07:18:52 PM »

I don't see how Nevada wouldn't go for Clinton under an open primary if New Mexico and Arizona would.
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: May 14, 2016, 07:19:31 PM »

I don't see how Nevada wouldn't go for Clinton under an open primary if New Mexico and Arizona would.

Yeah, that was a screw-up on my part - I was fixing it as you were posting.
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,613
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: May 14, 2016, 07:20:33 PM »

I don't see how Nevada wouldn't go for Clinton under an open primary if New Mexico and Arizona would.

Indeed. Even the caucus was essentially open since anybody could just show up, declare himself/herself a Democrat and vote.

I don't see how Nevada wouldn't go for Clinton under an open primary if New Mexico and Arizona would.

Yeah, that was a screw-up on my part - I was fixing it as you were posting.

Missouri is also an open primary.
Logged
BundouYMB
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 910


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: May 14, 2016, 07:21:00 PM »

Oklahoma would've flipped because Dixiecrats could vote for Trump

Take out every single "conservative" in exit polling and Sanders still wins by 8 or so (52-44). His share of the vote doesn't actually change; Clinton's merely increases due to the lack of all those (real) protest votes.





Also, probably something like this (assuming that all of the existing party registrations and loyalties that come with them still exist; i.e.: places like KY where lots of conservadems are still going to be voting in the Democratic primary due to local primaries on the same ballot).

Missouri, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa would have flipped as well.



Missouri already had an open primary. That's why it was close in the first place.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: May 14, 2016, 07:23:47 PM »

Oklahoma would've flipped because Dixiecrats could vote for Trump

Take out every single "conservative" in exit polling and Sanders still wins by 8 or so (52-44). His share of the vote doesn't actually change; Clinton's merely increases due to the lack of all those (real) protest votes.





Also, probably something like this (assuming that all of the existing party registrations and loyalties that come with them still exist; i.e.: places like KY where lots of conservadems are still going to be voting in the Democratic primary due to local primaries on the same ballot).

Missouri, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa would have flipped as well.



Why would Iowa flip? The caucus was already open. I don't see why he'd do better in a primary. If anything she'd probably expand her margin.

I'm guessing the case for MA/MO is same day registration? MO was close enough that it could've been determinative, but I don't think it would've been enough to flip MA.
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: May 14, 2016, 07:31:38 PM »

I don't see how Nevada wouldn't go for Clinton under an open primary if New Mexico and Arizona would.

Indeed. Even the caucus was essentially open since anybody could just show up, declare himself/herself a Democrat and vote.

Well, I disagree with his specific premise but not the overall result. New Mexico is way more non-white than Nevada.

NV: 26.5% Latino
NM: 46.3% Latino

NV: 51.5% White
NM: 38.9% White

I don't see how Nevada wouldn't go for Clinton under an open primary if New Mexico and Arizona would.

Yeah, that was a screw-up on my part - I was fixing it as you were posting.

Missouri is also an open primary.

This seems to be the model everyone is calling for, especially on the Democratic side. So, how would this year's map have looked if every state had an open primary with same-day registration?
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: May 14, 2016, 07:44:47 PM »

Why would Iowa flip? The caucus was already open. I don't see why he'd do better in a primary. If anything she'd probably expand her margin.

I'm guessing the case for MA/MO is same day registration? MO was close enough that it could've been determinative, but I don't think it would've been enough to flip MA.

I think Sanders would have won IA in an open primary. The OP said open primaries with same-day registration: IA was an open caucus. I think not only would he have turned out a few more voters, but I think even with the exact same electorate, he would have won (the nature of the caucus delegate allocation system was believed by many to have given Clinton an advantage in more areas than Sanders, even though it supposedly wasn't as bad as 2008...based on what I know about the process, I don't see how that's true, but w/e). Sanders likely turned out more bodies in IA than Clinton did.

Furthermore and while it may be an exception rather than a rule, I do not believe that a caucus always gives one candidate or another (in this particular cycle, Sanders) an advantage even without the delegate allocation issues. Caucuses tend to amplify the minority in a given state: I believe that in this case, IA was in fact Sanders' state to lose and that the caucus there actually benefited Clinton (independent of any potential delegate allocation issues that also may have helped).



And yes, same-day registration on the other two. However, I'm operating from the perspective here that voters would have been able to register at any point up until the day of the primary (MA cuts it off one month before the election). Granted, I'm not sure if states with same-day registration allow people to register past a certain point but before the day of the primary (i.e.: do they cut traditional registration methods off two, three or four weeks before the primary, forcing anybody else who wants to register to vote to do it on the day of the primary and at the voting location?).
Logged
BundouYMB
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 910


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: May 14, 2016, 07:53:48 PM »

Caucuses tend to amplify the minority in a given state: I believe that in this case, IA was in fact Sanders' state to lose and that the caucus there actually benefited Clinton (independent of any potential delegate allocation issues that also may have helped).

Um... what? Why would caucuses be inherently likely to amplify the minority? The types of people who are in the minority vary state to state.

Caucuses amplify the sorts of people who can afford to take a day off to spend all day at a caucus. The types of people who can afford to do that have been disproportionately favorable to Sanders (despite Clinton overall doing better with wealthier voters, most of the voters disenfranchised by caucuses are poor, racial minorities -- her real base and best demographic.)

Are you saying that you think in white heavy states you think racial minorities are over represented by caucuses? Where do you get that idea?
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: May 14, 2016, 08:06:15 PM »

Caucuses tend to amplify the minority in a given state: I believe that in this case, IA was in fact Sanders' state to lose and that the caucus there actually benefited Clinton (independent of any potential delegate allocation issues that also may have helped).

Um... what? Why would caucuses be inherently likely to amplify the minority? The types of people who are in the minority vary state to state.

Caucuses amplify the sorts of people who can afford to take a day off to spend all day at a caucus. The types of people who can afford to do that have been disproportionately favorable to Sanders (despite Clinton overall doing better with wealthier voters, most of the voters disenfranchised by caucuses are poor, racial minorities -- her real base and best demographic.)

Are you saying that you think in white heavy states you think racial minorities are over represented by caucuses? Where do you get that idea?

I'm not talking about racial minorities. I'm talking about which candidate is the minority and has an inherent disadvantage in a state based on how it would vote with maximum turnout. Among each devout camp and within the confines of such a small sample size like what we see in caucuses, enthusiasm deviates a lot less than it does in the respective camps at-large. In states with completely lop-sided caucus results, this may not hold as true and there are other factors at work, including some that you have mentioned (hence my "tend to amplify" comment). In states where it's relatively close in sentiment and turnout is relatively low, I believe that the less popular candidate gets a boost.

Also, caucuses don't usually take "all day". This is a tiresome talking point. Most have been handled in 2-3 hours and during the evenings and weekends, which doesn't impact nearly as many people as it would if it actually took all day or was held in the middle of a weekday.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.063 seconds with 13 queries.