Did Clinton do as well as expected on ST? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 09, 2024, 07:52:21 AM
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
  Did Clinton do as well as expected on ST? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Did Clinton do as well as expected on ST?  (Read 4841 times)
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,144
Greece


« on: March 02, 2016, 05:15:36 AM »
« edited: March 02, 2016, 05:22:26 AM by Likely Voter »

I also don't understand where is this ridiculous under-perform Obama thing is coming.Stupid logic. Obama's black votes are going entirely to Clinton, Obama won overall by 100+ Delegates & Obama did have significant Dem Support.

I did not see any results from MN or CO showing a Sanders win - The last 2 caucuses Sanders lost despite having a good chance of victory. MA Polls - Clinton was leading 5-7% in most polls recently conducted.

I was certainly surprised by almost 20% victory in MN, CO & 10 points in OK. Sanders significantly out-performed in CO, OK, MN but I think Alabama was a disaster & Texas-Virginia, etc should have been a bit better & would have given him 30 odd delegates (60 swing possibly).

Hillary did better in the Confederacy than expected but this is VERY BAD NEWS for the general as all these states will be Red States for sure.

So far, Hillary has won 3 swing states (VA/IA/NV) and Bernie has won 2 (NH/CO). Really not sure where this talking point comes from.


Battle-ground states

MN - Bernie winning around 23% Now
COLO - Bernie winning around 19% NOW
NH - Bernie wins 22%

Iowa - Hillary won by 0.2%
Nevada - Hillary winning by 5.5%

Looking at this, it does not seem Hillary is doing very well is Swing States

Minnesota isn't a swing state.
And you conveniently forgot Virginia where your idol got his ass kicked.
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,144
Greece


« Reply #1 on: March 02, 2016, 07:13:41 AM »

Why are Bernie bots claiming that Hillary's victories in southern states don't count because 'muh Confederacy' and 'muh red states'.
Yeah, it's a dumbass argument. If anything, this should indicate that Clinton will do better in the general than Bernie, as the vast majority of Bernie voters will show up for Clinton, while more centrist Clinton voters might not show up for Bernie and might even vote for the GOP instead of Bernie.

It's the same idiotic argument Clinton's campaign made in 2008 when Obama was trouncing her in places like Alabama, Kansas and Idaho, that these states don't matter because no Democrat would win them in a general election.
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,144
Greece


« Reply #2 on: March 02, 2016, 06:17:34 PM »

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Like Obama Smiley

Uh no, Obama also did extremely well in the West and Midwest. He broke 65% in 9 States, and only one of those was in the South (Georgia).


There hasn't been any states besides Iowa and Nevada from the Midwest and West.
So let's wait and see first.
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,144
Greece


« Reply #3 on: March 02, 2016, 06:24:35 PM »

There hasn't been any states besides Iowa and Nevada from the Midwest and West.

I guess Minnesota is now in the South and Colorado is in New England... Tongue

It's a caucus in a  state tailor-made for Sanders. I prefer to wait for Michigan, Illinois and Ohio.
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 0.026 seconds with 12 queries.