I think the polling error here is pretty obvious, Hillary's numbers with Democrats pretty much match the polling numbers, they just didn't factor in anywhere near enough independents. Bernie winning that group 70-28 is pretty much the difference.
It's been called for Bernie now.
Can they bring in the coin tosses or card tricks? You know..... democracy.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
People are so focused on Trump that they aren't giving full recognition to the Sanders insurgency. Lower-middle class white voters have basically turned against the establishment in both parties. Michigan was probably one of the greatest comebacks in primary history. This is a trend with roots going back 40 years, and there is no reason to assume that it will go away.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to peter12 For This Useful Post:
People are so focused on Trump that they aren't giving full recognition to the Sanders insurgency.
Yeah... because Trump is winning and Sanders is losing.
Sanders did way better then expected in Michigan, but somewhat lost in the popular narrative from yesterday is that he fell further behind in the delegate count.
Yeah... because Trump is winning and Sanders is losing.
Sanders did way better then expected in Michigan, but somewhat lost in the popular narrative from yesterday is that he fell further behind in the delegate count.
Sanders has said that higher-than-expected participation by voters favors his campaign — especially among the younger voters that have fueled his stronger than expected challenge to Clinton.
A record 2.5 million people in Michigan voted with 97 percent of precincts reporting — shattering the previous two-party primary record of 1.93 million set in 1972. The turnout far exceeded state election officials’ 2 million-vote turnout projection.
“We always do well when the voter turnout is high and we do poorly when the voter turnout is low,” Sanders said in a speech in Florida ahead of that state’s hotly contested primary on March 15.
He predicted in a hastily-arranged second appearance after it became clear he would win Michigan that the upset victory here would be a springboard to victories in other states outside of the deep south, where Clinton has dominated among older African-American voters.
“What tonight means is that the Bernie Sanders campaign, the people’s revolution that we are talking about, the political revolution that we are talking about, is strong in every part of the country and frankly we believe that our strongest areas are yet to happen,” Sanders said.
“We’re going to do very, very well in the West coast and other parts of this country.”
The Following User Says Thank You to troutman For This Useful Post:
Meh, Sanders can say whatever he wants to but I expect him to fall further behind in the delegate count until March 26, then he'll have a couple good weeks where he'll make small cuts into Clinton's lead before dropping back again.
Last night was actually the first time I pondered whether Bernie could end up as an independent candidate. His path is still extremely difficult, and while he might be able to take this to a convention, since he'll almost certainly be behind in the two key metrics (delegates and popular vote), winning a convention also seems highly unlikely. With exit polls consistently showing Democrats want someone to continue Obama's path and not a radical departure like Bernie wants (70% last night for instance), winning the superdelegates seems highly unlikely as well
But he does so well with independents, in a three way race with Hillary and Trump (or Cruz), I think he could dominate independents so much it might give him a chance if he can pluck off the working class whites. So it'll be interesting if he loses a convention to see if he goes third party. If it never gets to a convention I doubt he runs though.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
I think the support for both Sanders and Trump is incredibly dangerous for their sides if they aren't the winners of their nominations.
I'm betting a significant number of their supporters stay home on election day if they can't vote for their guy. With a larger effect being on the Democrat side.
I could see Trump going independent, but I can't see Sanders doing it.
In some weird fantasy world where the GOP nominates Kasich, you could see, I guess, a bunch of former Sanders people voting for him simply because they hate Hillary and he comes across like an "aw, shucks" honest midwestern dude. Although, once the Dems hammer his pro-life record, maybe not.
The obvious more likely scenario is that a bunch of former Bernie people vote for Trump, aka the "we don't care what you're for! Rage against the machine!" vote.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
I think the support for both Sanders and Trump is incredibly dangerous for their sides if they aren't the winners of their nominations.
I'm betting a significant number of their supporters stay home on election day if they can't vote for their guy. With a larger effect being on the Democrat side.
I could see Trump going independent, but I can't see Sanders doing it.
Although isn't Sanders actually an Independent Senator right now?
Could there end up being a four-person race I wonder? That would really make things interesting.
In some weird fantasy world where the GOP nominates Kasich, you could see, I guess, a bunch of former Sanders people voting for him simply because they hate Hillary and he comes across like an "aw, shucks" honest midwestern dude. Although, once the Dems hammer his pro-life record, maybe not.
The obvious more likely scenario is that a bunch of former Bernie people vote for Trump, aka the "we don't care what you're for! Rage against the machine!" vote.
He's an independent senator but running for the Democratic ticket. I don't see him running independent Nader/Perot style.
He was an independent. He is now a card carrying member of the democratic party...given he's running for the nomination that is obvious. I don't see him running as an independent if he loses the nomination. I think he's very much made his point on what a good chunk of the disgruntled supporters of the party want to see in a democrat.
The Following User Says Thank You to ernie For This Useful Post:
