Democratic primary map if every state had an open primary (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 28, 2024, 03:59:07 PM
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 Election
  Democratic primary map if every state had an open primary (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Democratic primary map if every state had an open primary  (Read 1176 times)
BundouYMB
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 910


« on: May 14, 2016, 07:14:46 PM »

I agree CT would be the only state to flip, but I imagine Clinton's lead would actually be slightly bigger in terms of delegates. Washington would probably have been extremely close. While individually the flyover states individually don't have many delegates, Clinton collectively would have netted maybe a dozen more in all of them.

Remember that almost all southern states already had open primaries, so Clinton's margins there wouldn't be affected. Even Mississippi, where she won 83% of the vote, was an open primary.
Logged
BundouYMB
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 910


« Reply #1 on: May 14, 2016, 07:21:00 PM »

Oklahoma would've flipped because Dixiecrats could vote for Trump

Take out every single "conservative" in exit polling and Sanders still wins by 8 or so (52-44). His share of the vote doesn't actually change; Clinton's merely increases due to the lack of all those (real) protest votes.





Also, probably something like this (assuming that all of the existing party registrations and loyalties that come with them still exist; i.e.: places like KY where lots of conservadems are still going to be voting in the Democratic primary due to local primaries on the same ballot).

Missouri, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa would have flipped as well.



Missouri already had an open primary. That's why it was close in the first place.
Logged
BundouYMB
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 910


« Reply #2 on: May 14, 2016, 07:53:48 PM »

Caucuses tend to amplify the minority in a given state: I believe that in this case, IA was in fact Sanders' state to lose and that the caucus there actually benefited Clinton (independent of any potential delegate allocation issues that also may have helped).

Um... what? Why would caucuses be inherently likely to amplify the minority? The types of people who are in the minority vary state to state.

Caucuses amplify the sorts of people who can afford to take a day off to spend all day at a caucus. The types of people who can afford to do that have been disproportionately favorable to Sanders (despite Clinton overall doing better with wealthier voters, most of the voters disenfranchised by caucuses are poor, racial minorities -- her real base and best demographic.)

Are you saying that you think in white heavy states you think racial minorities are over represented by caucuses? Where do you get that idea?
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 0.027 seconds with 10 queries.