Notoriously unreliable breakdowns until they're matched up to real votes though. He'll win the state but not sure the exits tell us much yet.
Now watch him win 55-45
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
Now watch him win 55-45
If that's correct, Hillary should win Wisconsin overwhelmingly. Somehow I think Bernie will win by some distance.
Those are about the figures for Dem anti-establishment sentiment in pretty much every state, including ones Bernie wins (was even less than that in Michigan).
Bernie is politically experienced though. It just illustrate the difference between the two sets of electorate.
I don't remember Missouri at all, but the one I do remember that was catastrophically off was Ohio. Illiinois was narrow enough that you can excuse the pollsters. Ohio ended at a 15-20 pt difference and the polls had it within 5-10 I think.
As a side note, there are reports of long lines of voters due to WI's voter ID laws. Thanks feck for Donald Drumpf. Against Jebby or Mittens, these laws can be the difference between winning and losing the G.E.
Missouri and Illinois were both marked from early exits as 3 point Bernie wins from memory, nothing major. Ohio was definitely off but then no-one expected quite how well Hillary would do with the early voting there (which is another point, not actually sure how those votes could be represented in exit polling).
Don't think they're doing a bad job or anything, just very hard to get it right before voting's even finished, and does give some interesting early data nonetheless.
Major cockup by Bernie today - the NY Daily News asked him about how he would "break up the banks" and he didn't have a coherent answer. Also came across as a bit unprepared about Israel/Palestine.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...retty-close-to-a-disaster-for-bernie-sanders/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...retty-close-to-a-disaster-for-bernie-sanders/
It's all about perspective.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/07/u...s-something-about-breaking-up-banks.html?_r=1
Thought it was quite shocking. He should be able to answer such a question in great detail given that its a prominent part of his platform.
Polls incoming.
Sanders wins again.
Was this result expected? Or a bit of an upset?
Was this result expected? Or a bit of an upset?
Cruz/Sanders win
So contested convention and Cruz will win the nomination I reckon.
Perhaps the GOP will be so relieved that Trump isn't their nominee that they'll rally and propel Cruz to victory in November.
Perhaps the GOP will be so relieved that Trump isn't their nominee that they'll rally and propel Cruz to victory in November.
Expected to win, question was the margin.
I asked because I saw on 538 that Clinton had a 83% chance of winning a week back
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/wisconsin-democratic/
That's just one site.. and the % to win doesnt show how much the lead was.. just that they think she'll win.
Last edited:
I hope she has other attributes and skills. Certainly political analysis aint one of them.
I think it was a bit of an upset because a week ago Clinton was leading by 7 points.
Clinton is leading by 700 points overall though. This is basically over.
That was when it was based on a single recent poll. 538 guys were saying at the time they had it as demographically friendly to Sanders and thought he was the favourite.
God she is fecking pathetic. Absolutely fecking brainless twat.
Clinton is leading by 700 points overall though. This is basically over.
It's nonsensical to count superdelegates... they're unpledged, mate.
Pretty sure he wrote this himself.
Lets not kid ourselves. Trump can't put together a paragraph on his own. That is way beyond him.
Pretty sure he wrote this himself.
He is however the kind of person who might open a quotation and not close it.
Well, after today she still leads in pledges over 200, with 6 closed primaries coming up between 19-26. NY alone doles out 247.
This was officially over after March 15. It's the hope that kills.
I'm sure you've been saying that this is over since way before then. Weirdly, it seems to worry Clinton, whose folks have come out and said that the gloves are off. It might not be you, but somebody is sweating over these developments.
Not that Sanders is a lock, or even nearing a lock... Just saying the same thing I've been saying since early autumn: this is no foregone conclusion.
I'm willing to put money where my mouth is. Care for a bet?
And what folks? The fact that the first ad they ran in NY was a pivot to Trump speaks volumes. The back and forth over debate date and what not is just posturing.
You are correct about one thing though. It was over after March 1, but March 15 put it beyond doubt.
I don't really have the money for frivolous bets... and it's not as if I'm putting Sanders up as the likely nominee, I'm just saying it's not over.
What folks, I do not know. I was on the Sanders reddit and several people said that CNN had an interview with a Clinton campaigner or something stating that they were losing patience with Sanders and that they would be going into proper attack mode. Sadly, threads on reddit go a bit too fast for me to be able to relocate it and find the exact wording, but it doesn't really matter. Hillary pivoted ages ago, she's had to pivot back because she recognises that it ain't over.
Anyway, Bernie's been fighting a great campaign, with the DNC and the media doing their level best to marginalise him in the whole primary process. Hillary keeps shedding votes, he keeps amassing them, and she's virtually doing the political equivalent of taking the ball to the corner flag to stall for time. Whether it will be enough, time will tell. I just wish people wouldn't be making these strong statements about it being done. We've been inundated with that kind of certainty ever since her coronation last summer, and pundits and their assessments have been woefully wrong thus far.
@Eriku yup, CNN correspondent said - Clinton campaign had run out of patience and would go into attack mode...move to 'disqualify' Sanders and worry about bringing the party back together later.
Ah, cheers.
Anybody else think that this sounds like a stupid-ass move? Clinton's already got bad favourables, and now she's going to up the nasty in trying to halt the sympathetic senator's progress?
I'm no political genius, but it sounds like it's bound to back-fire, at least in this election climate.
I'll frankly admit, on a personal level, I don't connect with Bernie due to my past experience with fringe politics. However, it doesn't mean I don't respect him or think his heart is in the right place. Yet, as Colbert once said, 'facts have a liberal bias', and in this cycle, the facts have a Clinton's bias.
I'd rather we just kept up doing our normal donations... It's not as if I'm projecting a Bernie nomination with any degree of certainty.
The media may not have gone tremendously negative against him (though I wouldn't say kid gloves), but having virtually no coverage is damaging in its own way. Bernie's main obstacle has been a lack of profile, and the media blackout made this an uphill battle.
He's become more negative? Clearly somebody's swallowing Clinton talking points.
If you can't tell that the coverage is slanted in order to promote a Hillary nomination, I don't know what to tell you. And to say the facts favour Clinton's worldview is utter nonsense,.
Anyway, I think this dialogue's exhausted, I don't see us bridging the gap in worldviews here. To each their own, I may be entirely in the wrong, I'm just calling it like I see it. I wish I could say that I respect Clinton, or trust her to be a decent democratic nominee, but sadly I can't :\
The media may not have gone tremendously negative against him (though I wouldn't say kid gloves), but having virtually no coverage is damaging in its own way. Bernie's main obstacle has been a lack of profile, and the media blackout made this an uphill battle.
He's become more negative? Clearly somebody's swallowing Clinton talking points.
If you can't tell that the coverage is slanted in order to promote a Hillary nomination, I don't know what to tell you. And to say the facts favour Clinton's worldview is utter nonsense,.
Anyway, I think this dialogue's exhausted, I don't see us bridging the gap in worldviews here. To each their own, I may be entirely in the wrong, I'm just calling it like I see it. I wish I could say that I respect Clinton, or trust her to be a decent democratic nominee, but sadly I can't :\
This part, at least, is provably untrue even from Sanders' own point of view.
Everyone's read this article but here it is again: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/us/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0
NYT said:
You can run the argument that he started out too positive and only now has become "normal". I would probably even agree with that. Or you can run the argument that it wasn't necessary then but it is necessary now. Or that Americans deserve to know, or whatever. But you can't seriously be watching the campaign without coming to the conclusion that Sanders has become markedly more negative recently. Sanders himself doesn't believe that. He himself initially rejected the arguments he's currently running as being too negative.
I need sleep, will grudgingly respond tomorrow at some point.
Cheers, good night
- and sorry for rekindling the discussion that I think you were winding down. Just thought it was an important clarification because I've seen that argument elsewhere, which I think is clearly patently untrue.- Status