Did Clinton do as well as expected on ST?

[Landslide Lyndon]

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.

[Blair]

Why are Bernie bots claiming that Hillary's victories in southern states don't count because 'muh Confederacy' and 'muh red states'. Obama won the majority of red states in the 2008 primary IIRC, and its states like Texas, South Carolina and Virginia where HRC needs to be getting her vote out in.

It's like these stupid allegations of voter fraud-no matter what happens it will never be enough

[BlueSwan]

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.

[Landslide Lyndon]

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.

[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

Minnesota isn't a swing state.
And you conveniently forgot Virginia where your idol got his ass kicked.

Minnesota is - 5 out of the 8 Districts in the House is the Reps. In the general the Dems have got from 47 to 52 % Votes - It has always been a narrow victory & could flip anytime with a strong candidate.

Virginia is a swing yes, you are right!

[SillyAmerican]

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.

At this point, it's fairly clear that Clinton will win the Democratic party nomination. The real question is how strong a candidate will she be going forward? And on the GOP side, how strong a candidate will Clinton be running against? If the presumptive outcome takes place, and this becomes a Clinton vs. Trump battle, I think we'll all end up looking back at the many indicators which now show Clinton to be a much weaker candidate than many would have hoped for...

[Gustaf]

There isn't really a discussion here. Sanders got crushed. He is basically performing like Romney v Obama within each racial group. That wasn't enough to win in a general election electorate and it's sure as hell won't cut it in a Democratic primary.

[SingingAnalyst]

I think Clinton did better than expected. I did not expect her to win MA, but she did (narrowly). I respect Sanders staying in the race, but I think it's time to get used to the idea that Clinton will be the Dem nominee (and, the way things are going on the GOP side, she will probably be elected President).

[afleitch]

There isn't really a discussion here. Sanders got crushed. He is basically performing like Romney v Obama within each racial group. That wasn't enough to win in a general election electorate and it's sure as hell won't cut it in a Democratic primary.

‘But I know this black guy who DJ’s sometimes in a bar in Dumbo and he’s definitely voting for Sanders...’

Let’s be honest, Sanders is a liberal Trump.

Evidently Sanders is 100 times the man Trump is, but a shift in the electorate allowing for an increasing bloc of ‘millennial’ voters, the rise of the religious ‘nones’ to becoming an actual voting bloc on par with the voting power evangelical right (which is so far taking a beating) and the rise of the ‘angry’ white liberal who chastises the party for not being liberal enough is essentially a ‘reactionary left’ mirror to the ‘reactionary right’ of the GOP.

They are politically opposite and personally one is far more welcome than the other but in terms of potential alienation from their respective parties, dismissal and mistrust of the party machinery, or of the centre ground and the inability to connect with voters outside of their bubble and be exasperated at why these people don’t connect with them and some of the ‘media against us’ conspiratorial hot air, they are functionally the same.

There is a undercurrent that in some outlets has even become exposed to the surface (like the cesspit Daily Kos has become), that blacks and latinos ‘don’t know what’s good for them’ and if they did would vote for Bernie. ‘Whitesplaining’, even with good intentions is cringe-worthy and least and at most, insulting.

Sanders has a problem. It is very real. It won’t go away by making vague appeals to GE matchup polls or back of the envelope calculations that he might have won ‘minority’ voters in Vermont. He has a problem with non-whites, non-liberals, women and the over 45’s.  The Democrats need to win the election with the same coalition that swept Obama to power. Even if black turnout drops the continued drift of latino voters by default to the Democrats should keep things on par.

If anything we are seeing a reversal of the 2008 primary; Clinton is continuity Obama and carries his coalition (except the youth). Sanders appeal is becoming limited to white voters like Clinton in 2008, except they are young and angry and not old and bitter.

[Illiniwek]

I am a little disappointed too. I wanted Oklahoma, and obviously not to get destroyed in the caucus states. But I think the night still qualifies as a Clinton win, just not a deathblow to Sanders.

[Boston Bread]

Let's dismiss this notion that Sanders only does well among white liberals. Only the white bit is true - whether they were liberal or not was more or less irrelevant.

[Mehmentum]

Let's dismiss this notion that Sanders only does well among white liberals. Only the white bit is true - whether they were liberal or not was more or less irrelevant.

Margin among white voters by state:

Arkansas: Clinton +27
Georgia: Clinton +17
Texas: Clinton +16
Tennessee: Clinton +15
Virginia: Clinton +15
Alabama: Clinton +12
South Carolina: Clinton +8
Iowa: Clinton +3

Massachusetts: Sanders +1
Nevada: Sanders +2
Oklahoma: Sanders +20
New Hampshire: Sanders +24
Vermont: Sanders +73

Lets dispel the notion that Sanders does well among whites.  He does alright with them, but he loses them as much as wins them.

[Xing]

Clinton did better than expected in the South, but worse than expected in CO, MN, and OK.

[KingSweden]

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.

Minnesota is - 5 out of the 8 Districts in the House is the Reps. In the general the Dems have got from 47 to 52 % Votes - It has always been a narrow victory & could flip anytime with a strong candidate.

Virginia is a swing yes, you are right!

Incorrect. Minnesota has three Republican Reps, not five. Emmer, Paulsen and Kline.

[Gustaf]

Let's dismiss this notion that Sanders only does well among white liberals. Only the white bit is true - whether they were liberal or not was more or less irrelevant.

Margin among white voters by state:

Arkansas: Clinton +27
Georgia: Clinton +17
Texas: Clinton +16
Tennessee: Clinton +15
Virginia: Clinton +15
Alabama: Clinton +12
South Carolina: Clinton +8
Iowa: Clinton +3

Massachusetts: Sanders +1
Nevada: Sanders +2
Oklahoma: Sanders +20
New Hampshire: Sanders +24
Vermont: Sanders +73

Lets dispel the notion that Sanders does well among whites.  He does alright with them, but he loses them as much as wins them.

Good job! I was wondering about this just now. With the numbers he's pulling among minority voters he needs to do a lot, lot better among white voters than he is.

[Boston Bread]

That leaves out MN, CO though, where I'd guess whites were Sanders +28 and 24.
Also Sanders definitely won Iowa whites. Unless he got 80% of the barely existant non-white vote.

[Mehmentum]

That leaves out MN, CO though, where I'd guess whites were Sanders +28 and 24.
Also Sanders definitely won Iowa whites. Unless he got 80% of the barely existant non-white vote.

I'm just going by the exit polls.  Unfortunately, they didn't bother exit polling the caucuses on Super Tuesday.

We can quibble on those minor points all you want, that doesn't change my argument.  Sanders wins whites in some places, but Clinton wins whites in others.  Sanders' success with whites is inconsistent and highly exaggerated.

[Ebsy]

In terms of delegates, Clinton met or exceeded expectations while Sanders clearly did not meet his. How that could be construed as Clinton losing and Sanders winning, I'll never know.

[Wiz in Wis]

That leaves out MN, CO though, where I'd guess whites were Sanders +28 and 24.
Also Sanders definitely won Iowa whites. Unless he got 80% of the barely existant non-white vote.

I'm just going by the exit polls.  Unfortunately, they didn't bother exit polling the caucuses on Super Tuesday.

We can quibble on those minor points all you want, that doesn't change my argument.  Sanders wins whites in some places, but Clinton wins whites in others.  Sanders' success with whites is inconsistent and highly exaggerated.

I think we need to stop making comparisons between Caucuses and Primaries. Bernie Sanders got roughly the same number of "votes" in both Minnesota and Tennessee... Caucuses are much lower turnout affairs that disproportionately inflate turnout among the highly polarized. Now that the caucuses won't get the intense coverage/resources that Iowa/Nevada did, Sanders will over-perform, both because of demographics and the undemocratic structure of Caucuses.

Caucuses need to go away. They are worthless.

[Wiz in Wis]

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.

Minnesota is - 5 out of the 8 Districts in the House is the Reps. In the general the Dems have got from 47 to 52 % Votes - It has always been a narrow victory & could flip anytime with a strong candidate.

Virginia is a swing yes, you are right!

Again... lets review this logic

MN - Bernie winning around 23% Now - Caucus... not really a sign of strength. Obama won 66% in 2008 Caucus, while only winning 58% in the neighboring Wisconsin primary. In the general, he won Wisconsin with 56%, and Minnesota with 54%.
COLO - Bernie winning around 19% NOW Caucus... see point above
NH - Bernie wins 22% Yes - but only 4 electoral votes

Iowa - Hillary won by 0.2% Caucus... see above
Nevada - Hillary winning by 5.5% Caucus... see above
Virginia - Hillary won by 29% - Yes, and 13 electoral votes.

Also, if Minnesota is a swing state by your definition, so is Georgia. No GOP presidential candidate has won Minnesota since 1972. In fact, since 1932, the GOP has carried it only 3 times. 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.

[Virginiá]

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.

It's amazing how you are so consistent in not knowing what you are talking about. Just because a state votes for the losing primary challenger doesn't mean the winner will have trouble taking the state. It's a matter of preference of a very, very small amount of the state's electorate. For example, Obama won big in states where he lost the primary by large margins. Obama lost the New York primary by almost 20pts and yet he went on to win the state twice by the largest margins since 1964's Lyndonslide.

If you would consider historical trends, contemporary voting patterns and recent elections, you wouldn't be making so many dumb 'predictions'

[100% pro-life no matter what]

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.

Minnesota is - 5 out of the 8 Districts in the House is the Reps. In the general the Dems have got from 47 to 52 % Votes - It has always been a narrow victory & could flip anytime with a strong candidate.

Virginia is a swing yes, you are right!

Again... lets review this logic

MN - Bernie winning around 23% Now - Caucus... not really a sign of strength. Obama won 66% in 2008 Caucus, while only winning 58% in the neighboring Wisconsin primary. In the general, he won Wisconsin with 56%, and Minnesota with 54%.
COLO - Bernie winning around 19% NOW Caucus... see point above
NH - Bernie wins 22% Yes - but only 4 electoral votes

Iowa - Hillary won by 0.2% Caucus... see above
Nevada - Hillary winning by 5.5% Caucus... see above
Virginia - Hillary won by 29% - Yes, and 13 electoral votes.

Also, if Minnesota is a swing state by your definition, so is Georgia. No GOP presidential candidate has won Minnesota since 1972. In fact, since 1932, the GOP has carried it only 3 times. 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.

Umm. No.  Minnesota's PVI is D+2, while Georgia's is R+7.  Most of y'all fail to understand the concept of PVI and almost come up with close states for a comfortable Democratic win.

[MT Treasurer]

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.

[NeverAgain]

I was expecting about this. I was predicting better among MA whites, but that probably was less punditly and more personally.

[Nichlemn]

It doesn't really matter. It's not good enough for Bernie to meet or slightly exceed expectations. He needs to fundamentally turn the race around. And now, with a sizeable number of delegates locked in, he has to do significantly enough to make up a lot of lost ground as well.     

The race is over so far as regular campaigns go. Bernie needs a black swan like an indictment or death to have any chance at being nominated.