How did Clinton do better in MD than in VA?

[Erc]

In Virginia, Clinton got 35% of the vote.  In Maryland, she got 37% of the vote.

Now, before yesterday, I'd have dismissed as lunacy any prediction that said Clinton would do better in MD than VA.

What happened?

I really find it hard to imagine that the white demographics are that much more favorable in MD to make up for the 10% difference in the black population (20% in VA vs. 30% in MD).

So how did it happen?

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

MD = closed primary

[Gabu]

MD = closed primary

Indeed.  Based on exit polls, Obama would have gotten only 56% in Virginia if it had been closed.

[Gustaf]

BRTD actually gets it completely right.

[Erc]

MD = closed primary

Indeed.  Based on exit polls, Obama would have gotten only 56% in Virginia if it had been closed.

That'd do it.  Thanks guys.

[Erc]

Of the upcoming contests,

WI, TX, VT are completely open.

OH & RI are partially open, though they may automatically reregister you as a Democrat.


So much for Clinton winning Wisconsin, then.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Of the upcoming contests,

WI, TX, VT are completely open.

OH & RI are partially open, though they may automatically reregister you as a Democrat.


So much for Clinton winning Wisconsin, then.

yah.

[Verily]

I doubt there is much difference between open and semi-open contests. Although Obama has been winning Republicans voting in the Democratic primary handily, they're never more than 5-6% of the vote. The only caveat is Vermont, where I suspect a great deal of residual Republican registration may vote in the Democratic primary. (I don't know if Republicans still have a higher registration rate there than they "should", but given Vermont's hard left turn over the past decade and a half, it'd be no surprise.)

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I doubt there is much difference between open and semi-open contests. Although Obama has been winning Republicans voting in the Democratic primary handily, they're never more than 5-6% of the vote. The only caveat is Vermont, where I suspect a great deal of residual Republican registration may vote in the Democratic primary.

Great stat and reply.  Truly appreciated.  I thought Republicans crossed over more than that.   

[Gabu]

I doubt there is much difference between open and semi-open contests. Although Obama has been winning Republicans voting in the Democratic primary handily, they're never more than 5-6% of the vote. The only caveat is Vermont, where I suspect a great deal of residual Republican registration may vote in the Democratic primary. (I don't know if Republicans still have a higher registration rate there than they "should", but given Vermont's hard left turn over the past decade and a half, it'd be no surprise.)

Only 5-6% of the vote, yes, but they also generally vote >70% for Obama, and every little bit helps.  If they were not there, that'd be that many less votes for Obama.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I doubt there is much difference between open and semi-open contests. Although Obama has been winning Republicans voting in the Democratic primary handily, they're never more than 5-6% of the vote. The only caveat is Vermont, where I suspect a great deal of residual Republican registration may vote in the Democratic primary. (I don't know if Republicans still have a higher registration rate there than they "should", but given Vermont's hard left turn over the past decade and a half, it'd be no surprise.)

Only 5-6% of the vote, yes, but they also generally vote >70% for Obama, and every little bit helps.  If they were not there, that'd be that many less votes for Obama.

How many open/semi-open primaries did he win by less that 6%?  I don't think he's raking in delegates from the crossover based upon Verily's reply.

[Verily]

I doubt there is much difference between open and semi-open contests. Although Obama has been winning Republicans voting in the Democratic primary handily, they're never more than 5-6% of the vote. The only caveat is Vermont, where I suspect a great deal of residual Republican registration may vote in the Democratic primary. (I don't know if Republicans still have a higher registration rate there than they "should", but given Vermont's hard left turn over the past decade and a half, it'd be no surprise.)

Only 5-6% of the vote, yes, but they also generally vote >70% for Obama, and every little bit helps.  If they were not there, that'd be that many less votes for Obama.

How many open/semi-open primaries did he win by less that 6%?  I don't think he's raking in delegates from the crossover based upon Verily's reply.

Missouri was an open primary, so I guess I see Gabu's point.

[Gabu]

How many open/semi-open primaries did he win by less that 6%?  I don't think he's raking in delegates from the crossover based upon Verily's reply.

There was Missouri as Verily said, and Texas looks like it could be a hard fight as well.

[Padfoot]

I'm not exactly sure about how Ohio's primary rules work but I'm fairly certain that you have to sit out two years worth of primaries in order to switch parties.   If I'm right then not too many Republicans will be voting for Obama in March.

[Smash255]

Of the upcoming contests,

WI, TX, VT are completely open.

OH & RI are partially open, though they may automatically reregister you as a Democrat.


So much for Clinton winning Wisconsin, then.

She wasn't going to win Wisconsin even if it was closed.  the black vote (albeit fairly small) combined with the Madison vote (where she will get clobbered) made Wisconsin basically impossible even under a closed Primary