PPP: Clinton leads 10 of 12 Super Tuesday and beyond states

[Ebsy]

Why is it thought that Sanders will win the caucuses? Just because Clinton did terrible in caucuses in '08? Or is it something about those states? I mean he did lose, or at best draw, the only caucus we've had so far.

We won't really know until Super Tuesday. In many ways, Iowa went the opposite of what people were expecting, and it is the only caucus state we have had.

[Gass3268]

Why is it thought that Sanders will win the caucuses? Just because Clinton did terrible in caucuses in '08? Or is it something about those states? I mean he did lose, or at best draw, the only caucus we've had so far.

We won't really know until Super Tuesday. In many ways, Iowa went the opposite of what people were expecting, and it is the only caucus state we have had.

Yeah, people thought Hillary was going to win in the high single digits and she ended up tying.

[RBH]

I didn't realize how unrepresentative Super Tuesday States were this time around: it's basically the Confederacy!

The US primary system really is a joke.

The Florida/Ohio Super Tuesday on 3/15 is gonna be a lot of fun. If FL and OH could coordinate future primaries in the same day, it'd be a good tag team primary day.

But yeah, SEC day on 3/1 seems like more of a Republican thing than a Democratic thing.

[ElectionsGuy]

Why is it thought that Sanders will win the caucuses? Just because Clinton did terrible in caucuses in '08? Or is it something about those states? I mean he did lose, or at best draw, the only caucus we've had so far.

In general, I've always thought that the more ideological candidates do better in caucuses, because in a caucus you have to stick out your loyalty and be politically active. That's why I think candidates like Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Barack Obama, etc. won in the past and Ted Cruz/Bernie Sanders will have advantages in them this time.

[RBH]

One thing people are "forgetting" about IA polls is that the 15% viability forced O'Malley supporters to pick a side between Clinton and Sanders. I've seen a lot more reasons to believe those supporters picked Sanders than picked Clinton, narrowing margins in already close race.

As for an actual one-on-one caucus... it sounds like a good arrangement to see what kinda chops both sides have in regards to organizing their supporters to caucus. If Clinton's side actually gets people to caucus in some number, it'll be like Happy Gilmore learning how to put. It'd also give Team Clinton reason to not hire Mark Penn again, and that'd be a huge win.

[Mehmentum]

Why is it thought that Sanders will win the caucuses? Just because Clinton did terrible in caucuses in '08? Or is it something about those states? I mean he did lose, or at best draw, the only caucus we've had so far.

In general, I've always thought that the more ideological candidates do better in caucuses, because in a caucus you have to stick out your loyalty and be politically active. That's why I think candidates like Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Barack Obama, etc. won in the past and Ted Cruz/Bernie Sanders will have advantages in them this time.

Romney 2012 actually did pretty well in caucuses.  He won NV, WY, AK, WA, ME, and ID, and Romney is like the definition of the boring mainstream candidate.  McCain or Romney won most of the caucuses in 2008.

[Shadows]

Just in case people are confused by the titling of these numbers, 9 states polled are from Super Tuesday, 1 is from March 5th, and 2 are from March 8th. Some glaring omissions from this list (because caucuses are trickier to poll) are the 5 caucus states that Sanders is generally considered very competitive in. Without context, it seems like Clinton is sweeping every states, but factoring in the caucuses you have a pretty even split between Clinton and Sanders. If Sanders were to make up the 2 point deficit in Oklahoma (not a tall task) and carry the caucuses as well as the states he's currently leading (Vermont and Massachusetts), these early March states would split with Clinton winning 9 states and Sanders winning 8 states (not factoring in Samoa or Dems Abroad).

Super Tuesday (3/1):
Alabama
Arkansas
Colorado (Caucus)----State not polled by PPP
Georgia
Massachusetts
Minnesota (Caucus)----State not polled by PPP
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Virginia
*American Samoa

3/5:
Kansas (Caucus) ----State not polled by PPP
Nebraska (Caucus) -----State not polled by PPP
Louisiana
Maine (Caucus) -----State not polled by PPP

3/8:
Michigan
Mississippi
*Democrats Abroad

You know what the funny part is -

Maine, Nebraska & Kansas are supposed to be strong states for Sanders. He could win all 3, maine with a big margin. Interesting they polled only Louisana where Clinton will do well.

In Super Tuesday, Sanders will win Vermont, Mass with a 7% lead for Sanders is a shocker(Expected a close contest in Mass). They ironically did not poll 2 of Sanders strongest states - Minnesota & Colorado.

PPP is incredibly pro Hillary & Sanders here should comfortably win atleast 4 states including Vermont where he gets 85% votes & thus 100% of the delegates.

Oklahoma is only Clinton +2 in a PPP Poll (pro-Clinton), so it a toss-up. There is a genuine chance that Sanders will win 5 out of 11 states, which IMO is very good. After that 3 out of 4 states he can win.

Mid-March the entire Southern part is Clinton Country & Clinton will win & then you go into the west & north-west in end march & april beginning, Sanders is unexpectedly to get a string of victories.

4 out of 11 will be a result which IMO is not an out-right defeat in a difficult demographic, 5/11 will be fantastic.

[ElectionsGuy]

Why is it thought that Sanders will win the caucuses? Just because Clinton did terrible in caucuses in '08? Or is it something about those states? I mean he did lose, or at best draw, the only caucus we've had so far.

In general, I've always thought that the more ideological candidates do better in caucuses, because in a caucus you have to stick out your loyalty and be politically active. That's why I think candidates like Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Barack Obama, etc. won in the past and Ted Cruz/Bernie Sanders will have advantages in them this time.

Romney 2012 actually did pretty well in caucuses.  He won NV, WY, AK, WA, ME, and ID, and Romney is like the definition of the boring mainstream candidate.  McCain or Romney won most of the caucuses in 2008.

I'm not saying one candidate is favored to win all of them, but that ideological candidates tend to perform better. If you look at states like WY and WA in 2012, you'll notice Paul and Santorum did better than Primary states around them.

[Ebsy]

Clinton did terribly in caucuses in 2008 because she made no effort to win them, choosing instead of focus on delegate heavy states, many of which she did win. But, Obama won by such lopsided margins in caucus states, he wracked up delegates leads she couldn't hope to catch. Whatever you think about Clinton, her campaign is avoiding the mistakes they made last time in regards to this, as Iowa shows. She doesn't actually need to win caucus states, just keep down Sanders' margins so that he doesn't cut heavily into her superdelegate lead.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Why is it thought that Sanders will win the caucuses? Just because Clinton did terrible in caucuses in '08? Or is it something about those states? I mean he did lose, or at best draw, the only caucus we've had so far.

In general, I've always thought that the more ideological candidates do better in caucuses, because in a caucus you have to stick out your loyalty and be politically active. That's why I think candidates like Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Barack Obama, etc. won in the past and Ted Cruz/Bernie Sanders will have advantages in them this time.

Romney 2012 actually did pretty well in caucuses.  He won NV, WY, AK, WA, ME, and ID, and Romney is like the definition of the boring mainstream candidate.  McCain or Romney won most of the caucuses in 2008.

That's because his opponents had no money to organize. And even then he lost many of them to Santorum (Colorado, Kansas, North Dakota).
In 2008 as long as there was a competitive race McCain didn't win any caucuses. They were split between Romney and Huckabee.

[/]

FINALLY SOME SUPER TUESDAY POLLS

FINALLYYYYYYYYYY

But yeah, really great numbers for Sanders. If he's leading in Massachusetts, then he's pretty much safe in Minnesota and Colorado. Those three, added to Vermont (heh) and possibly Oklahoma, give him a healthy five of the Super Tuesday states.

Very exciting.

[psychprofessor]

Just in case people are confused by the titling of these numbers, 9 states polled are from Super Tuesday, 1 is from March 5th, and 2 are from March 8th. Some glaring omissions from this list (because caucuses are trickier to poll) are the 5 caucus states that Sanders is generally considered very competitive in. Without context, it seems like Clinton is sweeping every states, but factoring in the caucuses you have a pretty even split between Clinton and Sanders. If Sanders were to make up the 2 point deficit in Oklahoma (not a tall task) and carry the caucuses as well as the states he's currently leading (Vermont and Massachusetts), these early March states would split with Clinton winning 9 states and Sanders winning 8 states (not factoring in Samoa or Dems Abroad).

Super Tuesday (3/1):
Alabama
Arkansas
Colorado (Caucus)----State not polled by PPP
Georgia
Massachusetts
Minnesota (Caucus)----State not polled by PPP
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Virginia
*American Samoa

3/5:
Kansas (Caucus) ----State not polled by PPP
Nebraska (Caucus) -----State not polled by PPP
Louisiana
Maine (Caucus) -----State not polled by PPP

3/8:
Michigan
Mississippi
*Democrats Abroad

You know what the funny part is -

Maine, Nebraska & Kansas are supposed to be strong states for Sanders. He could win all 3, maine with a big margin. Interesting they polled only Louisana where Clinton will do well.

In Super Tuesday, Sanders will win Vermont, Mass with a 7% lead for Sanders is a shocker(Expected a close contest in Mass). They ironically did not poll 2 of Sanders strongest states - Minnesota & Colorado.

PPP is incredibly pro Hillary & Sanders here should comfortably win atleast 4 states including Vermont where he gets 85% votes & thus 100% of the delegates.

Oklahoma is only Clinton +2 in a PPP Poll (pro-Clinton), so it a toss-up. There is a genuine chance that Sanders will win 5 out of 11 states, which IMO is very good. After that 3 out of 4 states he can win.

Mid-March the entire Southern part is Clinton Country & Clinton will win & then you go into the west & north-west in end march & april beginning, Sanders is unexpectedly to get a string of victories.

4 out of 11 will be a result which IMO is not an out-right defeat in a difficult demographic, 5/11 will be fantastic.

this isn't some conspiracy, the article clearly states they only polled primaries between the 1-15th. with ppp's poll out of north carolina today as well, it looks like 15th may be the final nail...i'd like to see polls out of ohio and florida to make a determination.

[Comrade Funk]

Yawn. Luckily the primaries extend throughout the USA and not just the CSA. Not to shabby for both candidates (expected really). Should be fun unlike the GOP primary where we know Trump will demolish the frauds behind him.

[CatoMinor]

Clinton leads almost everywhere, yet these are supposedly great numbers for Sanders. Such logic.

Almost everywhere*

*Except states left out where Sanders is more than likely close or leading.

[DrScholl]

Clinton leads almost everywhere, yet these are supposedly great numbers for Sanders. Such logic.

Almost everywhere*

*Except states left out where Sanders is more than likely close or leading.

Based on actual polling data we have, Clinton is doing well. Assumptions of "well, Sanders is probably leading in *blank*" are useless in comparison to the polling data being discussed now.

[RBH]

Those 12 states divvy out 122 PLEO (party leaders/elected officials) and 201 at-large seats.

If you split those out by state..

Clinton 194 (74 PLEO/120 At-Large) [60%]
Sanders 129 (48 PLEO/81 At-Large) [40%]

Sanders nets all 16 Vermont delegates (11 for the district, 2 PLEO, 3 at-large, all split via statewide vote) if Clinton can't get to the viability percentage in VT (15%). If she got just 15%, she gets 2 delegates (both from the district pot) and Sanders gets 14.

There's 50 PLEO/ALs in CO/MN. If Bernie won 60/40 in both states, that'd move the overall Clinton lead out of PLEO/ALs to 214-159 (57/43)

And that's just 343 delegates out of the 1076 being split up in those 14 contests. Splitting 1076 by a 60/40 margin would give one side 200+ more delegates than the other.

[There's a lot of delegates in Texas for a state that never goes Dem in statewide races. Taking it by 20 points is really damned helpful for the sake of delegates. If there weren't around 15 TV markets in Texas, i'd recommend a certain campaign put money in Texas and not Oklahoma. A tie in Texas and a loss in Oklahoma is a lot more valuable than a tie in Oklahoma and a loss in Texas]

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It's well known that the early March states will be some of the best states for Hillary. We don't need a Hillary hack pollster to take money from the Hillary camp to cherry-pick which states of those to poll to make her look good. This is just propaganda.

[Lief 🗽]

It's well known that the early March states will be some of the best states for Hillary. We don't need a Hillary hack pollster to take money from the Hillary camp to cherry-pick which states of those to poll to make her look good. This is just propaganda.

Stop polling states where Sanders is losing PPP, you're hurting widdle jfern's feelings

[RBH]

It's not cherrypicking if there's a discernible standard in play. They polled 12 of 12 primary states and 0 of 5 caucus states.

It's not like they polled for the Nebraska caucuses but not for Kansas, polled for Mississippi's primaries but not Louisiana's primaries.

If March is Clinton's best month and she takes 8 states by 20 points, then Bernie's gonna have to have a really great April/May to make up for that March, isn't he?

[Famous Mortimer]

American Samoa and Democrats Abroad won't get any coverage. Democrats Abroad won't even be done voting for a week. Sanders will win Democrats Abroad though.

[RBH]

there's gotta be quite a few "Democrats are center-right compared to all the parties here in Europe" voters in the Abroad primary.

Clinton actually beat Obama in American Samoa in 2008. And they had a total popular vote of 285. As for a popular vote this time? Apparently American Samoa is having a rough time with the incremental minimum wage increases there, maybe that impacts the popularity of somebody there.

[DrScholl]

It's well known that the early March states will be some of the best states for Hillary. We don't need a Hillary hack pollster to take money from the Hillary camp to cherry-pick which states of those to poll to make her look good. This is just propaganda.

Are you serious? How is it propaganda to poll states that are coming up next in the primary? Get real.

[SillyAmerican]

Maybe, but a few weeks can make all the difference...

[Panhandle Progressive]

It's well known that the early March states will be some of the best states for Hillary. We don't need a Hillary hack pollster to take money from the Hillary camp to cherry-pick which states of those to poll to make her look good. This is just propaganda.

Are you serious? How is it propaganda to poll states that are coming up next in the primary? Get real.

I agree. I bet if Bernie were leading (by the same/similar margins) it wouldn't be considered propaganda. Hillary is gonna dominate Bernie next month and I'll be glad to see it! #canwininNOV

[DS0816]

Obviously, Sanders needs to improve on these numbers, but they're not that bad for him. If he is winning in MA, and could conceivably win OK, he'll survive Super Tuesday. Those MI numbers also don't look as bad for him as I thought they would. He almost certainly needs to do better than a 20+ point-loss in TX and VA, though.

I actually don't buy into the numbers.

The momentum is going in his, not her, direction.

Michigan, for example, is not likely to be decided by ten points.