CA-NBC/WSJ: Clinton +2 (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 10:31:50 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 Primary Election Polls
  CA-NBC/WSJ: Clinton +2 (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: CA-NBC/WSJ: Clinton +2  (Read 16419 times)
Eraserhead
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,405
United States


« on: June 01, 2016, 07:52:24 PM »

Sanders needs to consider this: if he damages the Democratic party by continuing his campaign, I wouldn't be shocked to see someone challenge him in 2018.

And win like 5% of the vote.
Logged
Eraserhead
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,405
United States


« Reply #1 on: June 01, 2016, 08:51:02 PM »

Sanders needs to consider this: if he damages the Democratic party by continuing his campaign, I wouldn't be shocked to see someone challenge him in 2018.

And win like 5% of the vote.

Hmm, I wouldn't be so sure. If Sanders does damage to Clinton and somehow hands Trump the presidency, I think a lot of Democrats would be on board behind the scenes to take out Bernie in Vermont.

So what? The man is more beloved than any other politician in the state and it's not even close. There is zero chance of him ever losing an election in Vermont.  You did see him deny Clinton viability there, right?
Logged
Eraserhead
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,405
United States


« Reply #2 on: June 01, 2016, 08:58:15 PM »

He didn't compete in Texas as well because there were a ton of other states voting, including some much more favorable and it costs a ton of money to compete in the air wars in Texas.

Let's dispel with the notion that Sanders didn't compete in Texas. He spent time and money there and withdrew only after he saw that he wasn't making any progress.

Or we could stop thinking about Hispanics as a monolithic group and accept that differences exist between states and areas.

Again, Clinton has carried Hispanics in every state but Illinois. From Connecticut to Florida and from Virginia to Arizona.
I see many saying that California's Hispanics might be more young and that's why it's plausible Sanders winning them. But young Latinos also supported Obama in 2008, yet still Clinton won them overall in California 67-32. I can believe that Sanders will overperform Obama but not by THAT much.

Also according to the 2008 primary exit poll California isn't an especially young state. The 18-29 voters were 16% of the electorate, just about the same as the entire US.



Not True... Bernie also won the Latino vote in Oregon, despite the lack of exit polls.

Although we don't yet have many county precinct returns available from Oregon, he won all 30%+ Latino counties, two of which an overwhelming majority of Anglos vote Republican (Malheur & Umatilla Counties). Additionally, precinct level results from Hood River County show that Bernie won 57-43 in 40%+ Latino precincts in more rural parts of the state. Additionally, the largest urban area (Marion Co.) with a large 25%+ Latino population, where again many Anglos vote Republican Bernie won 53-47%.

Results from the "Beauty Contest" in Washington State, with much lower voter turnout levels might be harder to discern, however we see similar results from >40% Latino Counties that are heavily Republican where Hillary dramatically underperformed versus her '08 results.

West Coast is quite a bit different from Arizona, Texas, Illinois, New York, and Connecticut, and California is even a totally different beast altogether.

He probably won the hispanic vote in Wisconsin as well.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
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 0.02 seconds with 14 queries.