WI - Marquette University: Sanders up 4, Cruz up 10

[Holmes]

If this result bares out on election day, Trump's path to a majority on the first ballot becomes significantly more narrow.

It would require him to win every delegate in New York, which isn't too crazy, and West Virginia, and also win Indiana, Maryland, and do good in Oregon and Washington - obviously winning those would be best but they're proportional so it's not the end of the world if he loses them. Also win over half of the delegates in California.

[ElectionsGuy]

[IceSpear]

This is an underwhelming performance for Sanders if true. Frankly I don't understand why the Clinton campaign doesn't contest the state more aggressively, a win in Wisconsin will completely discredit Sanders as a serious candidate, at least in the eyes of the media.

Well the harder that try the bigger deal it is if they lose.  Sanders it out spending them significantly and has 3 events in WI today alone. Clinton has no more events in WI before the primary. If it is close they can spin it as a win. 

I think they are looking more at NY and PA to be the knockout. Sanders has to win at least one to prove he is viable.

Losing SC by nearly 50 points was supposed to discredit him in the eyes of the media. Then losing MA was supposed to. Then losing every March 15th state was supposed to. They're clearly not going to give up on the horse race narrative, and Bernie has no intention of dropping out until the final votes are cast. That's fine for him, he's well within his rights to do so, but that's why Hillary is only putting in a token effort. A narrow win for her there would change things as much as her narrow win in MA did (i.e. not at all.)

[Shadows]

I don't get where this Clinton not contesting is coming - She is heavily campaign - She has several small meetings, meeting business owners n small gatherings. There's not much excitement and neither does she get much crowd, so it makes no sense for her to do large rallies.

Even Chelsea was there - There's 5 days to Wisconsin - I am hoping for 10-15% atleast - Let us see!

[IceSpear]

I don't get where this Clinton not contesting is coming - She is heavily campaign - She has several small meetings, meeting business owners n small gatherings. There's not much excitement and neither does she get much crowd, so it makes no sense for her to do large rallies.

Even Chelsea was there - There's 5 days to Wisconsin - I am hoping for 10-15% atleast - Let us see!

I read he's outspending her 10:1.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

CLINTON, all she has to do is win MD, Pa & Ca, and DC, and that is her strategy, because the remaining contests, except for KY and IN, of course favors Sanders.

[cinyc]

I don't get where this Clinton not contesting is coming - She is heavily campaign - She has several small meetings, meeting business owners n small gatherings. There's not much excitement and neither does she get much crowd, so it makes no sense for her to do large rallies.

Even Chelsea was there - There's 5 days to Wisconsin - I am hoping for 10-15% atleast - Let us see!

According to Morning Consult yesterday, Sanders is outspending Clinton on Wisconsin media buys this week by greater than 10:1.  And someone on the news today said that Clinton has no plans to go back to Wisconsin before next Tuesday.  Both are a mistake if the Marquette poll is correct.  But Hillary's internals must tell her something else.

[Maxwell]

Look, I could see a Trump victory if it were only, say, Cruz +2 with 15% undecideds. But it's Cruz+10 with 9% undecided.

[IceSpear]

I don't get where this Clinton not contesting is coming - She is heavily campaign - She has several small meetings, meeting business owners n small gatherings. There's not much excitement and neither does she get much crowd, so it makes no sense for her to do large rallies.

Even Chelsea was there - There's 5 days to Wisconsin - I am hoping for 10-15% atleast - Let us see!

According to Morning Consult yesterday, Sanders is outspending Clinton on Wisconsin media buys this week by greater than 10:1.  And someone on the news today said that Clinton has no plans to go back to Wisconsin before next Tuesday.  Both are a mistake if the Marquette poll is correct.  But Hillary's internals must tell her something else.

Or just recognizes her lead is insurmountable and is saving her money for the GE. That's what her SuperPAC has done.

[Matty]

Look, I could see a Trump victory if it were only, say, Cruz +2 with 15% undecideds. But it's Cruz+10 with 9% undecided.

trump won undecideds in michigan and illinois, so I don't see the 9% being too significant.

[Wisconsin+17]

Wow.

Cruz looks like he's going to be hitting every single small town in Wisconsin for the CD sweep. 42 looks very possible now.

[cinyc]

I don't get where this Clinton not contesting is coming - She is heavily campaign - She has several small meetings, meeting business owners n small gatherings. There's not much excitement and neither does she get much crowd, so it makes no sense for her to do large rallies.

Even Chelsea was there - There's 5 days to Wisconsin - I am hoping for 10-15% atleast - Let us see!

According to Morning Consult yesterday, Sanders is outspending Clinton on Wisconsin media buys this week by greater than 10:1.  And someone on the news today said that Clinton has no plans to go back to Wisconsin before next Tuesday.  Both are a mistake if the Marquette poll is correct.  But Hillary's internals must tell her something else.

Or just recognizes her lead is insurmountable and is saving her money for the GE. That's what her SuperPAC has done.

That might explain the media buys, but it wouldn't explain why Clinton has no more planned events in the state. 

Clinton advertised heavily in Arizona - not as much as Sanders, but the ratio wasn't 10:1.  The only thing that has changed since Arizona is Sanders won more contests, 2 of which Clinton didn't bother to advertise in, and the other of which was a relatively cheap one TV market state (Hawaii), where she did.

[Maxwell]

Look, I could see a Trump victory if it were only, say, Cruz +2 with 15% undecideds. But it's Cruz+10 with 9% undecided.

trump won undecideds in michigan and illinois, so I don't see the 9% being too significant.

It absolutely is too much - Trump only won a very thin plurality of undecideds in Illinois and didn't win undecideds in Michigan.

[Holmes]

I don't get where this Clinton not contesting is coming - She is heavily campaign - She has several small meetings, meeting business owners n small gatherings. There's not much excitement and neither does she get much crowd, so it makes no sense for her to do large rallies.

Even Chelsea was there - There's 5 days to Wisconsin - I am hoping for 10-15% atleast - Let us see!

According to Morning Consult yesterday, Sanders is outspending Clinton on Wisconsin media buys this week by greater than 10:1.  And someone on the news today said that Clinton has no plans to go back to Wisconsin before next Tuesday.  Both are a mistake if the Marquette poll is correct.  But Hillary's internals must tell her something else.

Or just recognizes her lead is insurmountable and is saving her money for the GE. That's what her SuperPAC has done.

That might explain the media buys, but it wouldn't explain why Clinton has no more planned events in the state. 

Clinton advertised heavily in Arizona - not as much as Sanders, but the ratio wasn't 10:1.  The only thing that has changed since Arizona is Sanders won more contests, 2 of which Clinton didn't bother to advertise in, and the other of which was a relatively cheap one TV market state (Hawaii), where she did.

Well, she launched her first New York ad today and kicked off her campaign for NY in Harlem this morning. She'll probably fundraise some more, spend time in New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and probably Connecticut in the coming weeks instead of spending more a few more days in Wisconsin, which would only net her a couple of more delegates either way.

[Matty]

Look, I could see a Trump victory if it were only, say, Cruz +2 with 15% undecideds. But it's Cruz+10 with 9% undecided.

trump won undecideds in michigan and illinois, so I don't see the 9% being too significant.

It absolutely is too much - Trump only won a very thin plurality of undecideds in Illinois and didn't win undecideds in Michigan.

9% isn't that much. cruz winning 60% of them would affect the race by maybe 1-2%.

[Maxwell]

Look, I could see a Trump victory if it were only, say, Cruz +2 with 15% undecideds. But it's Cruz+10 with 9% undecided.

trump won undecideds in michigan and illinois, so I don't see the 9% being too significant.

It absolutely is too much - Trump only won a very thin plurality of undecideds in Illinois and didn't win undecideds in Michigan.

9% isn't that much. cruz winning 60% of them would affect the race by maybe 1-2%.

I don't know what the  you are getting at - were you agreeing with me earlier? You do realize this poll says Cruz is up 10, right?

[Seriously?]

Why are Republicans so happy? Shouldn't they be hoping Kasich wins here and not Cruz? Cruz is hardly more electable than Trump. On the Democratic side, I'll be surprised if Sanders does any worse than this, and he'll probably do better.

Why would I want what is basically a Democrat as the nominee of my party? I don't care who Kasich could beat. He might as well be Hillary Clinton on too many issues. Plus, you and I have the same chance of that bum getting the nomination on the first ballot.

[ElectionsGuy]

Why are Republicans so happy? Shouldn't they be hoping Kasich wins here and not Cruz? Cruz is hardly more electable than Trump. On the Democratic side, I'll be surprised if Sanders does any worse than this, and he'll probably do better.

Why would I want what is basically a Democrat as the nominee of my party? I don't care who Kasich could beat. He might as well be Hillary Clinton on too many issues. Plus, you and I have the same chance of that bum getting the nomination on the first ballot.

LOL WUT. So you'd rather lose than win with an electable candidate? This is why the GOP base is batsh*t insane these days.

The reason they're so 'batsh**t insane' is because they keep losing with the 'electable' candidates. You know, McCain, Romney, Dole...

[Xing]

Why are Republicans so happy? Shouldn't they be hoping Kasich wins here and not Cruz? Cruz is hardly more electable than Trump. On the Democratic side, I'll be surprised if Sanders does any worse than this, and he'll probably do better.

Why would I want what is basically a Democrat as the nominee of my party? I don't care who Kasich could beat. He might as well be Hillary Clinton on too many issues. Plus, you and I have the same chance of that bum getting the nomination on the first ballot.

Kasich is "basically a Democrat"!? LOL! No wonder Republicans are stuck with Trump or Cruz...

[Landslide Lyndon]

Why are Republicans so happy? Shouldn't they be hoping Kasich wins here and not Cruz? Cruz is hardly more electable than Trump. On the Democratic side, I'll be surprised if Sanders does any worse than this, and he'll probably do better.

Why would I want what is basically a Democrat as the nominee of my party? I don't care who Kasich could beat. He might as well be Hillary Clinton on too many issues. Plus, you and I have the same chance of that bum getting the nomination on the first ballot.

Kasich is "basically a Democrat"!? LOL! No wonder Republicans are stuck with Trump or Cruz...

In 2020 Ted Cruz will be considered a RINO.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Don't know if mentioned but here is the gender breakdown:

Men:
Cruz 40%
Trump 35%
Kasich 18%

Sanders 54%
Clinton 40%

Women:
Cruz 39%
Kasich 25%
Trump 24%

Clinton 48%
Sanders 46%

[Maxwell]

Why are Republicans so happy? Shouldn't they be hoping Kasich wins here and not Cruz? Cruz is hardly more electable than Trump. On the Democratic side, I'll be surprised if Sanders does any worse than this, and he'll probably do better.

Why would I want what is basically a Democrat as the nominee of my party? I don't care who Kasich could beat. He might as well be Hillary Clinton on too many issues. Plus, you and I have the same chance of that bum getting the nomination on the first ballot.

LOL WUT. So you'd rather lose than win with an electable candidate? This is why the GOP base is batsh*t insane these days.

The reason they're so 'batsh**t insane' is because they keep losing with the 'electable' candidates. You know, McCain, Romney, Dole...

You think they had a better shot with Huckabee, Perry, Forbes, or Buchanan?

Not to mention Santorum, Gingrich, Bachmann, Cain, or Paul?

[yankeesfan]

Don't know if mentioned but here is the gender breakdown:

Men:
Cruz 40%
Trump 35%
Kasich 18%

Sanders 54%
Clinton 40%

Women:
Cruz 39%
Kasich 25%
Trump 24%

Clinton 48%
Sanders 46%

Yikes, look at the 11 point gender gap for Trump, even before today's comments.

[Seriously?]

Why are Republicans so happy? Shouldn't they be hoping Kasich wins here and not Cruz? Cruz is hardly more electable than Trump. On the Democratic side, I'll be surprised if Sanders does any worse than this, and he'll probably do better.

Why would I want what is basically a Democrat as the nominee of my party? I don't care who Kasich could beat. He might as well be Hillary Clinton on too many issues. Plus, you and I have the same chance of that bum getting the nomination on the first ballot.

LOL WUT. So you'd rather lose than win with an electable candidate? This is why the GOP base is batsh*t insane these days.

Yes. I would rather lose. The party has lost its soul. And if it basically steals the nomination away from a conservative, I am not willing to hold my nose and vote for more of the same GOP-e Democrat-lite uni-party nonsense.

Kasich is not electable. He's unknown. Huge difference at this stage in the game. The MSM will go put their pom-poms on for Hillary! in the general election and destroy him. Just like they did with Dole, McCain, Romney, etc., etc., etc.

Plus, as I have stated earlier. Any poster on AF has just as good of a mathematical chance to win the Republican nomination on the first ballot as Kasich does. He should have done the right thing and dropped out a long time ago.

[Seriously?]

Yes. I would rather lose. The party has lost its soul. And if it basically steals the nomination away from a conservative, I am not willing to hold my nose and vote for more of the same GOP-e Democrat-lite uni-party nonsense.

Kasich is not electable. He's unknown. Huge difference at this stage in the game. The MSM will go put their pom-poms on for Hillary! in the general election and destroy him. Just like they did with Dole, McCain, Romney, etc., etc., etc.

How will you react if Trump or Cruz loses in a landslide? Will you guys nominate a Michelle Bachmann/Herman Cain ticket in 2020?

How would you feel if you were a Democrat and neither Hillary! nor Bernie were given the nomination in the convention? Instead, they gave it to someone else. I think you'd be pissed as well. The Sanders folks are going ballistic over alleged voter irregularities in states where he loses by 20 points.