The real Primary Race starts AFTER March 15th.
From President Clinton's former advisor Bill Curry:
But things aren’t as they seem. Sanders is doing better and Trump worse than the media thinks. Each race will now shift; whether enough to stop Clinton or Trump depends on strategy, execution, luck and other things impossible to poll. Elites may hold on for one last round but these insurgencies threaten their long term survival. Since their survival threatens ours, that’s great news.
Clinton owes some of her early success to the frontloading of Southern states. Super Tuesday is a scheme hatched in the ’80s by a bunch of white, male, mostly Southern Democrats who thought a regional primary would help “centrists” like themselves get a leg up on liberals. But they forgot, not for the first or last time, about African-Americans, lots of whom live in the South and vote Democratic. In ’88, Jessie Jackson and Al Gore split the region, thus allowing Northern social liberal Mike Dukakis to slip through the net.
This year Super Tuesday finally worked as planned; hindering a progressive, aiding an insider. There was a twist: African-Americans who now dominate the party in the South made it work. I doubt they prefer Clinton’s neoliberalism to Sanders’ democratic socialism. The win owed more to loyalty to Obama and other trusted leaders, and to Hillary’s skills and connections. By Saturday, eight of the 11 states of the old Confederacy had voted. In them she won 68 percent of the vote. Ten of 39 states outside the South had voted. In those states Sanders took 57 percent of the vote. On March 15, the Confederacy will be all done voting. The race begins then.
More: http://www.salon.com/2016/03/08/hillarys_inevitability_lie_why_the_media_and_party_elites_are_rushing_to_nominate_the_weakest_candidate/
= new reply since forum marked as read
ILLINOIS votes ,march 15th
bernie is in excellent position to win here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511483152
we have never had same day registration before...many many young people will benefit from that....voters the polling does not measure at all
mo is also within moe
Demographically-speaking, each state in the Deep South is more reflective of the overall Democratic electorate than each of the states Sanders has won (with the lone exception of Michigan). As I wrote following the Michigan primary, Michigan represents the first reasonably diverse, populous "blue" state primary of this campaign. Some are claiming that Michigan proves Clinton can't win outside of the Deep South, but the sample size is way too small. And it's important to not conflate the Democratic electorate of the Deep South with the overall electorate of the Deep South. Or the predominantly white electorate of New England (home to Sanders) with the overall Democratic electorate.
Time will tell how much Clinton struggles outside of the Deep South. Just as time will tell how successful Sanders can be outside of New England and small caucus states that lack diversity. For now, we have one -- ONE -- data point (Michigan) where the candidates were separated by a mere 18,400 votes (out of more than 1.1 million ballots), so we can't make any determinations one way or another (especially given that it was an open primary, which - unfortunately - is ripe for manipulation). We aren't going to learn much from Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Alaska, etc. Aside from the fact that hypocritical posters will ignore that those are the reddest of 'red' states (Kansas, Oklahoma and Nebraska anyone?). But March 15 (Ohio, Illinois, Missouri, Florida and North Carolina) and Arizona on the 22nd will offer more data points. In April, there's New York, Maryland and Pennsylvania. Those are the states that will determine which narrative more closely resembles reality (Clinton can't win outside of the Deep South vs. Sanders can't win delegate-rich states that are relatively diverse).
It's worth noting that most of the remaining primaries/caucuses are closed, and Clinton won 57-41 among registered Democrats in Michigan.
I would like to think most folks understand the obvious flaw in simply tallying the number of states won, yet numerous posters seem to think that's a perfectly valid form of comparison. Likewise, suggesting that Sanders being likely to win a majority of the remaining 29 states (a prediction that I think has merit) equates to him being likely to win the nomination is rather foolish. I shouldn't even have to point out that some states have *way* more people/delegates than other states--so, no, not all states are equal. Sanders could win 16 or 17 of the remaining 29 states and still get crushed.
Speaking of tallying the number of states won, I want to address the simplistic electoral map I've seen posted more than once. You know, the ones where Sanders-won states are 1 solid color and Clinton-won states are another solid color. I don't think simplistic, black and white thinking is something to promote or aspire to. I vividly recall a map that was quite popular among Bush supporters following the 2000 election. It showed a map of the US in which each *county* was red or blue depending on which candidate (Bush or Gore) had won a majority (or even just a plurality) of that county's votes. The map, of course, was overwhelmingly red. Hopefully you all can immediately understand the enormous flaw with this perspective. Counties with more cows than people are given the same weight as every other county, including Los Angeles County and Cook County (the 2 most populous counties in the US). Also, it treats a 0.1% margin of victory the same as a 40% margin of victory. This is why there are a variety of cartograms. Wikipedia defines a cartogram as "a map in which some thematic mapping variable – such as travel time, population, or Gross National Product – is substituted for land area or distance. The geometry or space of the map is distorted in order to convey the information of this alternate variable." In the case of the 2016 Democratic primaries, some states that have voted so far would be made much smaller and others would be made much bigger. And instead of showing a state in a single solid color, it would show the state in various shades/mixes of the 2 candidate colors. You can view some examples below. The map in the lower right is likely the most accurate representation of the 2004 presidential election results, but I suspect many are put off by the unfamiliarity of it. "The US doesn't look like that," one might say. Politically, yes it does.
" target="_blank">
