Talk Elections

My home state! Write-up isn't posted yet, but saw the front page on twitter.

3/2-3/6

Clinton: 67%
Sanders: 25%

Trump: 32%
Cruz: 22%
Rubio: 21%
Kasich: 18% (or 19% can't read on the zoom in)

Link:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CdAAHUcUIAAXF7k.jpg

pretty good poll for cruz.

He seems to be polling decently outside the bible belt.

Can only imagine that Cruz has stolen some of Rubio's vote already

Well, Bernie won Kansas, so it's still a toss up.

- The Young Turks

Oh god Rubio is going to be so disappointed when his numbers tank to like 10% after his Michigan performance - Watch for Kasich!

Very, very interesting!

It seems that IL is up for grabs. Depending on tomorrow's results, those Rubio votes may easily consolidate around Kasich or Cruz. Trump is in real trouble here!

Remember the Maine! (And Nebraska)

I could see Trump or Kasich winning here. Surprised Kasich is in fourth, Illinois is a perfect state for him.

If Clinton actually wins by that much, I'll change my username to "Empress Hillary" LOL

Beating Obama's 2008 performance seems a tad bit too optimistic for Hillary, but it's plausible. I'd be surprised, but not shocked if she got that kind of result. If I were a betting man, I'd guess 57%-61% would be her range, but I've underestimated her before.

Um no they aren't saying that you hack. If this is the result the Democratic party is not winning this November.

Hmmm probably a little too positive for Hillary. I have no doubt she'll win it fairly easily, but if it's anything like that for her, Tender will be furious, the Blaxicasians strike again!  

And probably makes WI less of a sure thing for Sanders.

Where on twitter?

If she wins by anything near this much, I'll officially give up on Bernie's campaign.

Oh really? This is Cenk Uygur's article about how Bernie won Super Tuesday because he won Oklahoma and two caucus states, despite trailing by 200 delegates in the end. He also stated in a video shortly after ST that the race was 50/50.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/why-bernie-sanders-won-su_b_9363416.html

They're the biggest hacks in existence, dumber than Dick Morris, less accurate than Baghdad Bob, and as delusional as the Paulbots in 2012 that were convinced his Virgin Islands win would deliver him the nomination. I'll enjoy seeing their rationalizations and damage control when Hillary becomes presumptive nominee. They should be ashamed of themselves for misleading their impressionable young followers who don't follow the minutiae of elections closely enough to realize what Super Tuesday actually meant.

I'm confused by some of your statements. How at all are they "misleading" their audience by telling them facts about Clinton's obvious corruption. If you actually watched they don't believe that Sanders has this wrapped up like you like to frame it. They only say let the voters decide and not to announce that Clinton will win the nomination no question about it like you tend to imply. So actually it is you that is more biased. Clinton will have a very difficult time in the general, no one is going to be very enthused to vote for another Clinton dynasty. A lot of Sanders voters will either stay home or vote for the insane Donald Trump because they are tired of corrupt politicians. Clinton is not guaranteed to win in November at all.

This is pre-Rubio slip. Notice he's still at 21% - that won't last since he has to put all his eggs in the Florida basket.

Uh...I think you just changed the subject here. I couldn't care less if they talk about Clinton's "corruption" (lol). They may be entitled to their opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts. I never said that they stated Sanders had it wrapped up, I said they've stated multiple times that it was a toss up/50-50. Which they have. And it most certainly is not. Bernie has an extremely narrow path to the nomination that will likely get slammed shut in the next week. Hillary is at 95% odds in the betting markets, and that's taking into account people who think she could be indicted!

I'm not basing Hillary winning the nomination off fantasy. I'm basing it off facts. She's up ~200 delegates in a 100% proportional system. It doesn't take a mathematician or political science expert to realize that is very close to insurmountable barring extreme circumstances.

The general is irrelevant. We're talking about the primary here. Even if Bernie is more electable, it has no relevance to the fact that he has a negligible chance at winning the nomination.

If those Clinton/Sanders numbers hold, Illinois won't be a primary. It'll be a funeral for the Sanders campaign.

Wait is ProgCanada debating that TYT doesn't stink? lol

wow - could Clinton actually outpace obama's 2008 margin? if this lead holds, that's like a 50-60 delegate lead in Illinois alone on 3/15. Clinton could be up by 400-500 pledged delegates when the night is over. Add in the super delegates and she could be up by 800-900. I wonder if Sanders continues aggressively pursuing Clinton if 3/15 is a bloodbath? glorious poll, nonetheless.

The funny thing is that Hillary doesn't even need to dominate in any of these states. Bernie is the one that needs to net delegates here, not her. Why? Because he's already fallen well behind his benchmarks in the totality of the states that have voted so far, and needs to make up ground elsewhere. Even his original benchmarks had him essentially tying in OH/MO, and keeping it within single digits in FL/NC/IL. Which means that his adjusted benchmarks would likely have him winning OH/MO comfortably and making FL/NC/IL razor thin victories.

Really puts things in perspective, doesn't it?

P.S: In Bernie's original benchmarks, he was supposed to win Michigan by 5 points. Which means he'd likely need to win it by double digits now due to his deficit. So good luck with that to the people who will inevitably gloat and declare her to be in DEEP, DEEP TROUBLE if she wins it by "only" single digits.

It is her home state.

I saw TYT's coverage & they never said it's a 50-50 thing, they praised Sanders win but didn't point the losses. Everyone knows Clinton is a huge favorite, it you want every news agency to shout it out every single time, you have a problem. Going in a tirade against TYT is incredibly stupid.

I mean the entire MSM is a fraud, they count Super Delegates & give their numbers, there are some incredibly dumb people here, Clinton supporters, who count Super Delegates. No1 talks about them distorting facts or their dumbness. But when 1 progressive news agency justifiably praises victories of Sanders, all hell breaks loose.

As for TYT, they did an interview with Jill Stein, who is a progressive nominee. So they have no obligation to support Clinton, who is a milder form of most Republicans.

Apart from Southern states, Sanders did remarkably well in many states, throughout the country. I was happy with his performance bar maybe apart from 1-2 states. The whole benchmark thing is dumb & is for dumb people to follow religiously. For ex - He was never gonna get some of those numbers in Southern states like Texas & he will out-perform those numbers in many states & he has been doing.

There is a long way, if he is viable he is gonna win many delegates in Cali & beat Clinton, beat the Washington estimate,etc. If Sanders does not have a bad result in 15th march, we will have a close contest to the nomination.

Anyways this poll is probably an outlier & I don't expect Clinton to win this big. It she does, it's over for Sanders.

Also in a way it is the truth - Clinton did under-perform in Super Tuesday. Sanders was supposed to win only 1 state assuredly, have the forum said he won't win another. He was loosing in every poll in MA for the last 7-8 days, their was no reliable data on MN & Co.

Super Tuesday could have been a knock out punch. If he did not win CO & OH then this was over. He would be over. Clinton was the presumed nominee & he hung won 5, loss Mass by 1.4% odd & then won Kansas, Nebraska, Maine & would win Democrats Abroad tomorrow. And he will continue winning.

I see what Cenk did & he has openly said "He is a Bernie supporter" & "He is a progressive" & "He does not claim to be unbiased". If people are bashing him, they have serious mental issue comprehending basic stuff!

Having checked some previous numbers, around 53-57% of the votes are coming out of Cook County.

Looking at Cook, back in 08.. 59% of votes from Chicago and 41% from non-Chicago parts of Cook County.

Obama won Chicago by a 73-25 margin in that election, winning 36 wards. He carried 13 wards with over 90% of the vote. IIRC, most of the wards Hillary won over Obama were majority Hispanic.

I have a reasonable hunch that Sanders is just going to get crushed in parts of Chicago. I don't think that Sanders campaign is able or prepared to compete against 'organizations' in Chicago.

I don't know how the math adds up if Hillary rolls in Chicago/Cook, but it just seems like a bad fit for Bernie's campaign organization to really bring in support.

Florida is not her state and she's kicking ass.
Rubio is from Florida is losing.

Does this really count as a home state for Hillary? Like, do any Illinois people consider her to be an Illinoisan?

Bernie Sanders has been running a negative campaign, explicitly and implicitly trashing our beloved President all the way. Why is it surprising that President Obama's homestate would reject him so overwhelmingly?

Here are the actual articles.

Democrats: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-illinois-2016-democrat-president-primary-clinton-sanders-met-0308-20160308-story.html
Republicans: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-illinois-2016-republican-president-primary-trump-cruz-rubio-kasich-met-0308-20160307-story.html

It was 18% for Kasich.

This sums up my thoughts on this poll:

  I'm not totally surprised by the margin.  In a Democratic Primary in Illinois, you can figure about 67% of the vote will come from Cook County.  Cook County is not tailored to be a strong area for Sanders.  He will probably lose 90-10 in a lot of the Chicago Wards  Also, the Dems strongholds downstate tend to be more blue collar working class (e.g. manufacturing and mining areas) and I don't see them turning out for Sanders either.
  I'd venture to guess that Sanders strongest areas will be the better educated and higher income suburbs, but that will be nowhere enough to offset Chicago and downstate.

Ill_Ind