2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum10 fully false narratives suddenly coming out of Michigan
Progressive Man @WeNeedHillary 4h4 hours agoHillary Clinton vs Bernie Sanders: 10 fully false narratives suddenly coming out of Michigan http://buff.ly/1nxaGFP
Heres a look at the eleven most popular claims about Michigan and the rest of the democratic race, ten of which are False or Mostly False:
Democrats changed their minds at the last minute because of the final debate or trade deals or some other reason False. Hillary won the registered democrat vote in Michigan by 16%. But three quarters of the registered independents in the state who voted in the democratic race voted for Bernie. No Democrats changed their minds in Michigan. Bernie won because registered independents came out of the woodwork to take advantage of Michigans open system. Hillarys popularity with Democrats is still what it was.
Tons of republicans voted for Bernie just to trip up Hillary False. Last night, CNN reported on-air that just three percent of the people who voted in the democratic primary were registered republicans. That relative handful might have been enough to narrowly flip the state, but it doesnt explain the nearly twenty point polling gap. The republicans werent the culprit in the Michigan democratic primary. The independents were.
Democrats assumed Hillary was going to win Michigan, so they voted on the republican side just to mess with them True. Seven percent of the people who voted in the republican primary were registered Democrats. This is likely to stop, now that Hillarys supporters can see they just cost her a state by assuming things.
Bernie did well with the urban black vote False. Exit polls suggest Hillary got around two thirds of the urban black vote, meaning shell have major advantages in cities like Chicago and Cleveland.
Hillary only won the day due to superdelegates False. While everyone was obsessing over Bernie winning Michigan by 2%, Hillary was simultaneously winning Mississippi by 66%. She won the majority of last nights overall delegates across the two states because she won the majority of the overall popular vote. Democrats are awarded delegates in proportion to their margin of victory in every state.
Independents can hand the nomination to Bernie Mostly False. Four of the March 15th states are some degree of open or semi-closed, meaning independents may be able to make an impact but not as much as they did in Michigan. And the fifth state, Florida, is fully closed. So Hillary will win the overall vote on March 15th easily, pulling even further ahead. And after that date, there are only three more open primaries remaining in the entire country. This was mostly a one trick pony.
Michigan proves Bernie can make a comeback False. Michigan proves that even when Bernie has an unexpectedly great day for himself, he falls even further behind in the race. He would need to win, on average, about 60% of the total vote going forward in order to come back. Last night he only got about 51% of the vote in his best state, and only about 17% of the vote in the state he lose. In other words, regardless of the headlines, last night put Bernie that much closer to being mathematically eliminated. And again, thats before even looking at the superdelegates.
Bernie is going to make his big comeback by winning California at the end False. Like all states, California awards its delegates proportionally. Demographics suggest that even if Bernie won California, it would be close. That means the delegates would be almost evenly split, as they were in Michigan. As the race goes on, close wins by the distant second place candidate only work in the frontrunners favor.
Hillary is only winning red states, so shes in trouble for the general election False, and this is the most strangely nonsensical argument coming out of the Bernie camp to date. In the general election Hillary will win all the blue states, because the republican candidates have veered too far red. If anything, Hillarys extreme popularity among blue voters in red states suggests shell be able to flip a few of the slightly-red ones in the general election as well.
Democratic polls cant be trusted going forward Mostly False. This is only true for the open primary states, and there arent many of those remaining. Hillary got exactly the percentage of registered Democrats in Michigan that the polls said she would. So in closed primary states, where only registered Democrats can vote to begin with, the polls can still be counted on to be accurate.
read: http://www.dailynewsbin.com/opinion/hillary-clinton-vs-bernie-sanders-ten-false-narratives-coming-out-of-michigan-debunked/24055/?utm_content=buffer53d22&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Xipe Totec
(43,890 posts)"Hillarys extreme popularity among blue voters in red states suggests shell be able to flip a few of the slightly-red ones in the general election as well."
The fact is, HRC has won in Red states due to low democratic turnout in those states, not high. If the numbers in the GE match, if Democrats turn out in proportionally lower numbers in GE in those states, then it will be a slaughter for Democrats in those states.
bigtree
(86,005 posts)Jeff Gauvin @JeffersonObama 5h5 hours ago
Obama lost the big states to Clinton in 08 & had less total votes, but won the delegate battles. Clinton is winning both despite media memes
The extreme republican candidates drive Democratic GE turnout.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)sheshe2
(83,846 posts)That would be the cats meow!
bravenak
(34,648 posts)sheshe2
(83,846 posts)tularetom
(23,664 posts)Opinion once again presented as fact.
Each of these primaries is a story unto itself and there are many factors which contribute to the result thereof.
There was a vote in Michigan. Sanders got more votes than Clinton. Most polls take before the vote indicated Clinton would get many more votes than Sanders.
There. Those are the facts. Everything else is spin.
bigtree
(86,005 posts)...spinning about 'spin' on an internet board full of spin.
bigtree
(86,005 posts)...more than Hillary.
...facts.
surrealAmerican
(11,362 posts)If you can vote in either primary by registering as an "independent", why would any voter choose to register as anything else?
What is the point of party registration in an open primary state?
mythology
(9,527 posts)why would you not?
In Massachusetts I could register as an Independent and then select a ballot for several parties. But I'm a Democrat. I'm not going to vote in a Republican primary in an attempt to "screw" with the results. So why not represent the party?
seattleite
(79 posts)Pretty desperate.
bigtree
(86,005 posts)Great response, bigtree!
seattleite
(79 posts)Have a nice evening.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)And, an end to the electoral college.
We could call it Democracy.
bigtree
(86,005 posts)...non-Democrats, faux Democrats, and republicans driving our nomination.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)bigtree
(86,005 posts)...not Greens, Naderites, Paulites, or any other splinter candidate looking to divide our party.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Do you consider Sanders the (Gasp!) Socialist a "splinter" candidate out to divide the party?
BTW, what is a "faux Democrat"? One who doesn't or won't be "loyal" to the label?
bigtree
(86,005 posts)...the most effective political coalition available to advance our progressive ideals through the democratic process.
I'd call Sanders an opportunistic Democrat. The rest of what I wrote was in reference to voters.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Hillary being a prime example of "opportunistic".
I also consider, Bernie a helluva lot more progressive than Hillary...as most Socialists usually are.
noretreatnosurrender
(1,890 posts)Judging by your comment it looks like you don't have much respect for Independents. Um, you do realize that if Hillary were the nominee she would need to win the votes of those "culprits" right?
sheshe2
(83,846 posts)Thanks!
democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)There is no party registration at all there. Which, as an aside, is really annoying when you work for a political organization that wants to do voter targeting.
Did you mean 3% were self-identified Republicans?
Either way, I think you are absolutely right that there is no way Bernie could have won because of strategic voting by Republicans. Why would Republicans, who have a hotly contested race on their side, cross over to vote for a candidate who had been largely written off.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)The horrors!
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)BlueMTexpat
(15,370 posts)I congratulate Bernie and his supporters on his victory last night,
But by itself, it is no game-changer.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)compared to Super Tuesday. And he has significant growth potential among AA's in Illinois, where HRC will be hurt by her long-standing ties to Rahm. She can't very well campaign with the guy who tried to hide the Laquan Mcdonald police murder video.
TheDormouse
(1,168 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)bigtree
(86,005 posts)...isn't a 'roust.'
Laura Marlin @GiGicmka
@nytimes I call it a "virtual tie" in Michigan. Isn't that what Bernie has said when Hillary wins?
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)RCP Average for MI Shows 20+ Clinton Lead
David Blais @realDavidBlais
Pollster estimate for MI Democratic Presidential Primary: Clinton 57.4%, Sanders 39.1%
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511442674
20+ Lead!!!!! This is election morning, the day of no lead whatsoever, in fact a loss which is now being parsed by the same folks who were pushing that gigantic lead narrative so hard.
False narratives indeed. It's like a cottage industry among Clinton supporters.
John Poet
(2,510 posts)Republicans in Michigan, registration is non-partisan.
So how did ANYONE "win the registered Democrat vote" in Michigan, when there is
NO SUCH THING?
great white snark
(2,646 posts)Nicely done bigtree, thanks for sharing.