Did Clinton do as well as expected on ST?

[Wiz in Wis]

Georgia went for Clinton in 92, almost did so again in 96, and was only a 5 point loss to Obama in 08. Again, if Minnesota counts, so does Georgia.

lol@this Atlas logic. "WV went for Clinton in 1996 and Joe Manchin won there in 2010, so I think it's more of a swing state than FL because FL went for Bush in 1992 and Rubio won by a bigger margin than Manchin!" No one cares how a state voted in the 80s or 90s. Also, Perot took lots of white voters away from Bush in the South. Clinton would have lost GA in 1992 had it not been for Perot.

Wow... I was pointing out that Minnesota was a NOT a swing state, given that it hasn't voted GOP in decades, and Obama won it handily both times he ran. If Minnesota is a swing state, then so are similarly leaning GOP states, and Georgia fits that. But the larger point is, Minnesota is not a swing state.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Georgia went for Clinton in 92, almost did so again in 96, and was only a 5 point loss to Obama in 08. Again, if Minnesota counts, so does Georgia.

lol@this Atlas logic. "WV went for Clinton in 1996 and Joe Manchin won there in 2010, so I think it's more of a swing state than FL because FL went for Bush in 1992 and Rubio won by a bigger margin than Manchin!" No one cares how a state voted in the 80s or 90s. Also, Perot took lots of white voters away from Bush in the South. Clinton would have lost GA in 1992 had it not been for Perot.

Wow... I was pointing out that Minnesota was a NOT a swing state, given that it hasn't voted GOP in decades, and Obama won it handily both times he ran. If Minnesota is a swing state, then so are similarly leaning GOP states, and Georgia fits that. But the larger point is, Minnesota is not a swing state.

They're not similar partisan leanings.  You need to shift the national PV to a tie before judging what swing states are.

[Nichlemn]

Georgia went for Clinton in 92, almost did so again in 96, and was only a 5 point loss to Obama in 08. Again, if Minnesota counts, so does Georgia.

lol@this Atlas logic. "WV went for Clinton in 1996 and Joe Manchin won there in 2010, so I think it's more of a swing state than FL because FL went for Bush in 1992 and Rubio won by a bigger margin than Manchin!" No one cares how a state voted in the 80s or 90s. Also, Perot took lots of white voters away from Bush in the South. Clinton would have lost GA in 1992 had it not been for Perot.

Wow... I was pointing out that Minnesota was a NOT a swing state, given that it hasn't voted GOP in decades, and Obama won it handily both times he ran. If Minnesota is a swing state, then so are similarly leaning GOP states, and Georgia fits that. But the larger point is, Minnesota is not a swing state.

MN has a CPVI of D+2, Georgia is R+6. It only has its winning streak because it was quite Democratic in the 80s (no doubt helped by Mondale being on the ticket multiple times). It definitely has a D lean, but it would quite probably vote Republican if they won the popular vote by more than a few points. In contrast, Obama couldn't win GA even with a 7 point national victory.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Clinton has it in the bag

When she faces Trump (or Cruz?), she will enjoy similar success.

The only thing that could stop her from becoming President now are:

(a) Severe Illness - she is 68;
(b) Terrorist attack favouring Trumpageddon;
(c) Jail time
(d) An intimate affair with Matthew Lewinsky;
(e) Trump finds her birth certificate;
(f) JC Penney has a 3 month sale on pant suits;
(g) Assassination;
(h) she wins a $1 3Bn lotto.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

It's cute how much this is like 2008 and the double-standard across the board. When Obama swept the South and the red-state caucuses it was a sign of strength and evidence of a superior delegate strategy. Now? I guess not.

[IceSpear]

It's cute how much this is like 2008 and the double-standard across the board. When Obama swept the South and the red-state caucuses it was a sign of strength and evidence of a superior delegate strategy. Now? I guess not.

I also love how MA/OK threw a wrench in the "Hillary can only win Confederate/red states, Bernie is dominant in liberal/blue states" narrative. Aside from WV, OK has the most DINOs per capita of any state in the US, and Bernie won them overwhelmingly. MA speaks for itself.

[Antonio the Sixth]

All right, here are some numbers. Bernie's actual margin vs his predicted margin based on 538's polls-only forecast.

Oklahoma: +10.1
New Hampshire: +8.4
Massachusetts: +6.2
Iowa: +4.2
Nevada: -1.3
Texas: -2.4
Vermont: -4.7
Virginia: -5.6
Georgia: -7.3
Tennessee: -9.3
Arkansas: -12.1
Alabama: -12.9
South Carolina -14.3

538 had no forecast for MN and CO, as there were no polls, but I would say Bernie beat expectations at least in the latter.

Still, overall, I guess Hillary did do better overall (though it's all thanks to the South).

[afleitch]

[quote author=Californian Tony Returns link=topic=231037.msg4949521#msg4949521
Still, overall, I guess Hillary did do better overall (though it's all thanks to the South).
[/quote]

Like Obama

[Likely Voter]

This hillary only wins red states meme will die very soon.  Sanders path goes straight through the Midwest and mountain West with states like KS, NE, UT, ID coming up in the next few weeks. AK too.   

[SingingAnalyst]

This hillary only wins red states meme will die very soon.  Sanders path goes straight through the Midwest and mountain West with states like KS, NE, UT, ID coming up in the next few weeks. AK too.   

The meme should die at once; Clinton won MA, in Sanders' backyard.

[IceSpear]

This hillary only wins red states meme will die very soon.  Sanders path goes straight through the Midwest and mountain West with states like KS, NE, UT, ID coming up in the next few weeks. AK too.   

The meme should die at once; Clinton won MA, in Sanders' backyard.

Earlier I saw someone saying that Clinton is a regional candidate since she only won Iowa and Massachusetts narrowly. I giggled.

[Antonio the Sixth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Like Obama

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).

I wouldn't call Hillary a "regional candidate" since she obviously has broad-based appeal, but it's clear her strength is unusually concentrated for a candidate who is so far ahead nationally. Basically, take away the South and the race is actually pretty close.

[Landslide Lyndon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Like Obama

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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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...

[Landslide Lyndon]

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...

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

[Antonio the Sixth]

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...

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

I mean, Bernie obviously won't win any of them, but unless he implodes nationally (which could happen, of course) I don't see Hillary breaking 65%.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Like Obama

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).

I wouldn't call Hillary a "regional candidate" since she obviously has broad-based appeal, but it's clear her strength is unusually concentrated for a candidate who is so far ahead nationally. Basically, take away the South and the race is actually pretty close.

Until we get to OH, PA, MI etc

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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...

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

Do caucuses help Bernie? He probably won the actual voters in Iowa.

[Antonio the Sixth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Like Obama

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).

I wouldn't call Hillary a "regional candidate" since she obviously has broad-based appeal, but it's clear her strength is unusually concentrated for a candidate who is so far ahead nationally. Basically, take away the South and the race is actually pretty close.

Until we get to OH, PA, MI etc

I hope Bernie stays competitive, so that we end up with a map that tells us what the relative strength of each candidate looks like nationwide. In this case we'll be able to tell how crucial the South was to Hillary.

[afleitch]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Like Obama

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).

I wouldn't call Hillary a "regional candidate" since she obviously has broad-based appeal, but it's clear her strength is unusually concentrated for a candidate who is so far ahead nationally. Basically, take away the South and the race is actually pretty close.

Until we get to OH, PA, MI etc

I hope Bernie stays competitive, so that we end up with a map that tells us what the relative strength of each candidate looks like nationwide. In this case we'll be able to tell how crucial the South was to Hillary.

Like Obama

[Antonio the Sixth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Like Obama

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).

I wouldn't call Hillary a "regional candidate" since she obviously has broad-based appeal, but it's clear her strength is unusually concentrated for a candidate who is so far ahead nationally. Basically, take away the South and the race is actually pretty close.

Until we get to OH, PA, MI etc

I hope Bernie stays competitive, so that we end up with a map that tells us what the relative strength of each candidate looks like nationwide. In this case we'll be able to tell how crucial the South was to Hillary.

Like Obama

If Bernie does as well outside of the South in the aggregate as Hillary did in 2008, I will be more than pleased with that.

[Antonio the Sixth]

LA becomes the first Southern State where Bernie outperforms his predicted margin.

Oklahoma: +10.1
New Hampshire: +8.4
Massachusetts: +6.2
Louisiana: +4.5
Iowa: +4.2
Nevada: -1.3
Texas: -2.4
Vermont: -4.7
Virginia: -5.6
Georgia: -7.3
Tennessee: -9.3
Arkansas: -12.1
Alabama: -12.9
South Carolina -14.3

Obviously Kansas and Maine were also overperformances for him, but no polls means that there's no way to quantify them.