Did Clinton do as well as expected on ST?

[BlueSwan]

Honestly, as a Clinton supporter, I'm slightly disappointed by the Super Tuesday results.

Yes, she did rack up the margins in the south.

Yes, she did win Massachussetts (although in a squeeker in votes and even in delegates).

Yes, she posted acceptable results in Vermont given the circumstances.

However, given the way the polls had moved dramatically in her favour since Nevada, I had set my hopes up for a complete dismissal of Sanders. I didn't expect Clinton to outright win CO, OK and MN, but I absolutely did NOT expect her getting trounced there. She lost CO and MN by almost 20 points? She lost super conservative Oklahoma by 10 points. That was disappointing to me. Had those three states been close, I would have been happy. Now, it seems like the status quo of the campaign is being maintained. Sanders is still a very very long shot, but he is still in and still relevant.

It will be interesting to follow the media narrative. As far as I can tell, so far the media narrative on Super Tuesday is in Clintons favour. Let's hope it stays that way. Democrats needs to unite behind Clinton to beat Trump and regain the senate.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

Texas showed that she still has a decisive edge with Hispanics. Precinct data in Nevada also showed this, but people would rather hold up a flawed exit poll instead. The demographics have set her up for a sizable majority of pledged delegates, and her lead is only going to expand.

[Virginiá]

Honestly, as a Clinton supporter, I'm slightly disappointed by the Super Tuesday results.

Yes, she did rack up the margins in the south.

Yes, she did win Massachussetts (although in a squeeker in votes and even in delegates).

Yes, she posted acceptable results in Vermont given the circumstances.

However, given the way the polls had moved dramatically in her favour since Nevada, I had set my hopes up for a complete dismissal of Sanders. I didn't expect Clinton to outright win CO, OK and MN, but I absolutely did NOT expect her getting trounced there. She lost CO and MN by almost 20 points? She lost super conservative Oklahoma by 10 points. That was disappointing to me. Had those three states been close, I would have been happy. Now, it seems like the status quo of the campaign is being maintained. Sanders is still a very very long shot, but he is still in and still relevant.

It will be interesting to follow the media narrative. As far as I can tell, so far the media narrative on Super Tuesday is in Clintons favour. Let's hope it stays that way. Democrats needs to unite behind Clinton to beat Trump and regain the senate.

At least VT, OK and MN were expected, though, yea?. I admit I wish she cut his margins more but after all, Sanders does have formidable resources now and his own powerful voting blocs.

Either way, she still won big tonight if you ask me. She should be celebrating.

[IceSpear]

Tonight basically just confirmed what we already knew. The only way you'd be disappointed is if you were one of the people that got a little too hype and thought she'd win everything besides VT, which was always unrealistic. The only things that particularly surprised me were Bernie's margins in CO/OK. Her delegate lead is still pretty close to insurmountable. And Mass was considered a fairly likely win for Sanders a few days ago.

[DINGO Joe]

Invincible is still Invincible

[Crumpets]

With the exception of Oklahoma, I'd say yes. The media may try to spin double-digit losses in Colorado and Minnesota as setbacks, but those are easily offset by her win in Massachusetts and her completely dominant performance in the South.

[Blair]

With the exception of Oklahoma, I'd say yes. The media may try to spin double-digit losses in Colorado and Minnesota as setbacks, but those are easily offset by her win in Massachusetts and her completely dominant performance in the South.

Pretty much this. Winning in Oklahoma would have bee good for Clinton, and I feel the night is about average for Clinton. As long as she can tie up Ohio, Florida and Illinois she sould be okay

[Antonio the Sixth]

She underperformed outside of the South, but did about as well or better than expected there. Still well within her comfort zone.

[Boston Bread]

The race is where it was before. Clinton is the clear favourite. The results were just more polarized than expected.

[Panhandle Progressive]

INEVITABLE CLINTON

[Holmes]

Well she was never going to win Minnesota. The only two places that could have produced upsets were Massachusetts and Colorado, and one of them did. For what it's worth, Sanders underperformed Obama in Minnesota and Colorado, and three white state caucuses aren't gonna be enough to overcome Louisiana, Mississippi and Michigan in the lead up to March 15th.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Can we please stop rewriting history by saying Hillary winning MA is an "upset"? She was leading comfortably in all the most recent polls.

[RFK Jr.’s Brain Worm]

She lost big in MN, CO, and OK (I didn't expect the last one to be as big). She did, however, win Massachusetts, which is a big moral victory as well as winning the other Southern states (excepting OK). I'd say she had a good night overall.

[Shadows]

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.

[Crumpets]

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.

Yeah, screw Virginia. Amirite?

[Boston Bread]

Sanders did overperform the last CO, MN polls massively, but same for Clinton in the south. CO, MN are not nearly as big prizes. If it happened in PA, OH, IL I would reconsider.

[Lyin' Steve]

Vermont, Minnesota, and Colorado were always going to be big losses for Clinton unless Sanders utterly collapsed.  The press got a little carried away after Sanders got murdered in South Carolina and started wondering whether he could win any states other than Vermont, but that was just overreaction that's probably been forgotten.

Oklahoma was lean Sanders, Massachusetts was a toss-up.  Like the other two toss-ups, Clinton managed to eke out a victory.

The winner/loser results by state don't really show much of anything.  The race stayed at the status quo.  Bernie can keep the race going for a while but has little chance of winning, while the Clinton camp showed its professional operation once again by narrowly winning its third toss-up state.

The real story is how badly Bernie got killed in the southern states.  He lost by 2-1 margins in Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Arkansas, and by close to 3-1 margins in Georgia and 4-1 in Alabama.  While Clinton was always expected to win those states, she significantly outperformed in terms of delegate math.  Sanders winning Colorado gets him 33 delegates to Clinton's 24.  Oklahoma is 20-16.  Minnesota is 42-24.  But Clinton's victory in Alabama, for instance, gives her 37 delegates to Sanders' 4.  Arkansas is 18-7.  Georgia is 66-23.  Texas was 122-48.  Other than Vermont, when Bernie won he won small.  When Hillary won she won big.

Bernie may be able to beat Hillary in the midwestern and western states coming up, but where is he going to crush her?  Where is he going to get his 75-25 wins that he needs to significantly cut into Hillary's 195-delegate lead?  What big states is Bernie going to win?  New York is Hillary's home state, she will beat Sanders by 80-20 there with the support of all of NYC.  Illinois and Michicgan's demographics are similar to SC on the Democratic side.  California and Florida's are similar to Texas.  Bernie almost certainly needs to score knockout punches on Hillary in most of the big states but other than Pennsylvania and Ohio, most of them look similar to states that Sanders has already not only lost but lost by impossibly wide margins.

This is why Hillary not only did as well as expected but far exceeded expectations tonight.  Her tiny victory in Massachusetts is nowhere near as consequential as the fact that she beat Sanders 65 to 33 in Texas.  Those results tell us that Maine will probably go for Sanders but California and Florida will probably go for Clinton.  And unless Bernie can change that, it's game over.

[IceSpear]

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.

[Trapsy]

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.

Last time I checked the objective was to win delegates, its a 50 state process because soooo. This red state or blue state argument is really really really bad.

[Ogre Mage]

I don't think many people expected Sanders to win Vermont and nothing else.  That certainly wasn't my expectation.  And I wasn't surprised by his big margin of victory in Minnesota and Colorado.  The demographics of the Democratic base in those states are fertile territory for him.  I was surprised by his solid win in Oklahoma but there are always going to be some surprises.  This is a race for delegates and Clinton was the unquestioned winner there because of the shellacking she delivered across the South (except OK) where the biggest delegate rich prizes were.  In the one significant delegate-rich state in Bernie's backyard -- MA -- she managed to pull off a narrow win.  And she crushed with African-American voters across the south and with Latinos in Texas so she can make the argument her coalition looks like the full spectrum of the party.  She now has a pledged delegate lead which will be extremely difficult to overcome.  

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I don't think many people expected Sanders to win Vermont and nothing else.  That certainly wasn't my expectation.  And I wasn't surprised by his big margin of victory in Minnesota and Colorado.  The demographics of the Democratic base in those states are fertile territory for him.  I was surprised by his solid win in Oklahoma but there are always going to be some surprises.  This is a race for delegates and Clinton was the unquestioned winner there because of the shellacking she delivered across the South (except OK) where the biggest delegate rich prizes were.  In the one significant delegate-rich state in Bernie's backyard -- MA -- she managed to pull off a narrow win.  And she crushed with African-American voters across the south and with Latinos in Texas so she can make the argument her coalition looks like the full spectrum of the party.  She now has a pledged delegate lead which will be extremely difficult to overcome.  

I was worried it was a possibility, but I guess I just overreacted to the scale of his loss in SC.

[Shadows]

Vermont, Minnesota, and Colorado were always going to be big losses for Clinton unless Sanders utterly collapsed.  The press got a little carried away after Sanders got murdered in South Carolina and started wondering whether he could win any states other than Vermont, but that was just overreaction that's probably been forgotten.

Oklahoma was lean Sanders, Massachusetts was a toss-up.  Like the other two toss-ups, Clinton managed to eke out a victory.

The winner/loser results by state don't really show much of anything.  The race stayed at the status quo.  Bernie can keep the race going for a while but has little chance of winning, while the Clinton camp showed its professional operation once again by narrowly winning its third toss-up state.

The real story is how badly Bernie got killed in the southern states.  He lost by 2-1 margins in Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Arkansas, and by close to 3-1 margins in Georgia and 4-1 in Alabama.  While Clinton was always expected to win those states, she significantly outperformed in terms of delegate math.  Sanders winning Colorado gets him 33 delegates to Clinton's 24.  Oklahoma is 20-16.  Minnesota is 42-24.  But Clinton's victory in Alabama, for instance, gives her 37 delegates to Sanders' 4.  Arkansas is 18-7.  Georgia is 66-23.  Texas was 122-48.  Other than Vermont, when Bernie won he won small.  When Hillary won she won big.

Bernie may be able to beat Hillary in the midwestern and western states coming up, but where is he going to crush her?  Where is he going to get his 75-25 wins that he needs to significantly cut into Hillary's 195-delegate lead?  What big states is Bernie going to win?  New York is Hillary's home state, she will beat Sanders by 80-20 there with the support of all of NYC.  Illinois and Michicgan's demographics are similar to SC on the Democratic side.  California and Florida's are similar to Texas.  Bernie almost certainly needs to score knockout punches on Hillary in most of the big states but other than Pennsylvania and Ohio, most of them look similar to states that Sanders has already not only lost but lost by impossibly wide margins.

This is why Hillary not only did as well as expected but far exceeded expectations tonight.  Her tiny victory in Massachusetts is nowhere near as consequential as the fact that she beat Sanders 65 to 33 in Texas.  Those results tell us that Maine will probably go for Sanders but California and Florida will probably go for Clinton.  And unless Bernie can change that, it's game over.

I am not gonna respond to your arguments for obvious reasons

My point is you are making as ridiculous a claim as Illinois & Michigan has the same demographics as South Carolina, you are making an INSANELY stupid argument. Go check the data before making assertions

[Shadows]

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

[Likely Voter]

Hillary's path to victory is to hold the states she won in 2008 and add on the Southern (heavily African American) states Obama won, leaving Sanders with some (mostly smaller) states in New England, the Midwest and the Northwest.

And so far that plan seems to be working. She started off trading IA (which Obama won) for NH (which he lost). She won NV again, then picked up SC.

On Super Tues she re-won TX, AR, TN and MA. Lost (again) in CO, MN and VT, and picked up Obama 2008 Southern states of AL, GA, VA. The only place where things have gone off from the plan was OK (which she won in 2008).

But as long as she continues to hold most of her 2008 states and win half of Obama's, she can't lose.

[RFK Jr.’s Brain Worm]

I think it's something of a wash. I certainly didn't expect Bernie to win as big as he did in MN, CO, and OK. But, Hillary racked up huge wins (bigger than I expected in Alabama) in the South and managed to win Massachusetts. I'd give her the momentum at this point, but I don't think that either candidate did vastly better or worse than expected.

Now, Ted Cruz? There's someone who overperformed, but that's for another thread.