The Map the Clinton Campaign Doesn't Want You (or SuperDelegates) to See

[tomm2thumbs]

Last edited Mon Mar 28, 2016, 09:23 PM - Edit history (4)

KEY:


Light Green are Bernie wins
Light Blue are Hillary wins
Green/Blue are Hillary wins, at roughly 5% or less
Blue/Green are Bernie wins, at roughly 5% or less

Hillary mixed win margins:
5.3% difference
0.3% difference
1.8% difference
0.2% difference
1.4% difference

only mixed win for Sanders was Michigan at 1.5%



* Note: Bernie's mixed win state was Michigan. Hillary mixed win states were Nevada, Iowa, Missouri, Massachusetts, and Illinois (Clinton's home state)






I have adjusted the map as I was told it was deceptive, and fixed a .3 percent typo. Thanks for your input.

[tomm2thumbs]

1. Bernie's home state is coming up - New York!!

and some very promising progressive Democratic ones as well, with lots of time to introduce the candidate to those who have not yet been involved in the primary process.

[dchill]

32. People (including the all-seeing media), fail to note that fact.

They play it up as "Hillary's State"- from her carpetbagging Senator days. She named their Post Office!

[tomm2thumbs]

59. I think New Yorkers be able to discern the one from Brooklyn vs. out of state

mom and dad are from there so it goes without saying

(yes, why then did I say it?)

[oldandhappy]

2. Fascinating. This is really fascinating.

Very interesting for both candidates. No wonder it is so hard to get anything done. Thank you for the post. And please up-date and report regularly as we go along! Thanks.

[SCantiGOP]

84. And totally misleading

Use two colors and see what the map looks like, and don't arbitrarily cut off Clinton's "real" wins at over 5% but Sanders' at 1.5%. This is a purposefully misleading and inaccurate portrayal.
Clinton has so far garnered over a million more votes than Sanders. That is a fact.
Deceit does not lead to credibility or support for your candidate.

[oldandhappy]

85. I am wondering if the 'total votes' thing

will interest clinton in voting issues. Gore had total votes and lost the election. Possible to have total votes and not all the delegates. Hope this is of concern to everyone but that is my pollyanna side, smile.

[TexasTowelie]

3. Interesting

that the state that Clinton won by a 5.2% difference (Illinois?) is also colored blue-green when the legend states "Mixed Green/Blue are Hillary wins, but at 5% or less." Since the other states that are colored blue-green were close margins, then Michigan should also be colored in a similar fashion. Therefore, keeping in mind the inaccuracy I pointed out in both sentences this map is biased and meaningless.

[LuvLoogie]

6. Oh shhhh...

He ran out of blue pixels. It's not like there is any self delusional motivation for calling a 1.5 margin a solid Bernie win, while calling a 5% margin a "mixed win" for Hillary.

Man, they're gonna crash like a drug-amped jihadist 24 hours after getting captured.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

21. Ever hear of rounding?

[TexasTowelie]

50. When the OP says 5% or less

then it should mean 5% or less, not that I'm going to round down because it suits my purpose. The OP has since corrected the map and adjusted the percentages (to 5.3% or less) to fit with the map colors and changed the color for Michigan. The map is still meaningless in many other aspects though and reflects the author's bias. from the choice of percentages to the choice of map colors to indicate states that had close races. The dark green and the light blue states should be reversed so they correspond with the colors used where the margin of victory was not as close and from a visual perspective it is misleading if you aren't observant of all of the details.

BTW, I have a degree in mathematics so I definitely know something about rounding and how to inject misleading bias into graphical representations.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

73. I see you are a computer geek too.

I am a systems programmer supporting the z/OS operating system on an IBM z13 mainframe. I got in when you didn't need a degree in anything if you had a natural aptitude. Most people have no idea what I'm talking about because a computer to them is a PC or micro-based server and an operating system is Windows, or Linux.

[Kittycat]

36. Be careful re IL

A lot of voters here are still upset about polls closing without ballots. Or closing despot orders to remain open.

[TexasTowelie]

67. I won't deny that it isn't an issue and I don't want for anyone to be disenfranchised from voting.

However, is there any data that actually suggests that it Sanders that was affected more adversely than Clinton? I don't know whether the ballots missing were from suburbs/college towns that would favor Sanders or from inner city areas that would favor Clinton. Typically the shenanigans about not having ballots available are more likely to occur in minority neighborhoods so if that is the case, then Clinton would likely have a larger margin of victory. However, without having more information such as the areas affected I'm inclined to believe that it affected each candidate equally.

[Kittycat]

69. Not ballots missing. Literally no ballots & they stopped registration.

IL offers Same Day voter Registration/grace. Widely advertised, because it's a more recent opportunity for voters.

And yes. They were predominately Sanders counties. Mine was nearly 60%. they just closed up and went home, extended hours be damned. Same in other counties. Some never received dem ballots later in the day after running out several times. Others only received partial. (Local only, federal only)

One county had a judge stop extended because of ballot delay, for a continuance of voting the following Monday so the county could get more ballots and paperwork together. Several provisions had been put in place to insure integrity, but our AG Lisa Madigan argued a stay, and overruled the right to vote. Which meant anyone who had been turned away that night because of no ballots, or because of no registration paperwork, couldn't do so. The judge in that case had already stated that it was likely sanders supporters who were predominantly disenfranchised in that case.

In Springfield some republican races were also impacted, and one of the candidates is filing suit there. But it was mostly democratic districts hurt.

Several counties were overseen by republican clerks, but there's been little/no follow up or response from the state level on the issues or concerns from voters.

Lisa Madigan is a Clinton Supporter (see her Twitter wall day of election), her mom is a delegate, and her dad is a Superdelgate and speaker of the house and party chairman. Welcome to IL. For extra fun and reading, you should check out our fabulous gerrymandered districts.

[TexasTowelie]

71. I can't speak to everything that you mentioned,

but we have plenty of gerrymandered districts in Texas also including the fajita strip districts running from Austin all the way down to the Rio Grande Valley. Austin was carved into three Congressional districts in an effort to prevent a Democrat from getting elected, but Lloyd Doggett has managed to win despite the Legislature's manipulations.

I don't know what they can do to make elections fairer. From paper ballots to electronic voting all methods of voting can be manipulated. While the lack of paper ballots is disturbing there is also the issue of cost and trying to anticipate how many voters will show up for an election. With budgets running tight they make the best guess estimate of turnout and sometimes they are just wrong. I'm in a rural county that has electronic ballots, but there was a decent wait (20 minutes) when I went in at about 8:30 a.m. and again at noon. Believe me when I state that there were many complaints about our voting process resembling a third world country.

[Kittycat]

72. I don't doubt it.

I'm just saying, it was clear here. No one has denied it. Many even apologized dismissing it as just being overwhelmed or it not being intentional (including the locations closing up). That's not good enough.

[tomm2thumbs]

4. 'The Inevitable Map' -- doesn't appear to look so much any more

that word... oh that word

[LuvLoogie]

5. Did you make this yourself?

Running out of Blue pixels? Or is that the map you don't want to see yourself?

Too funny.

[TexasTowelie]

15. Yes he did.

He edited it to adjust Michigan the small win by Sanders, but didn't adjust for Clinton's larger margin of victory in Illinois. If he decides to edit again, then I hope that changes the colors to dark green for Michigan and light blue for the four states that Clinton won by narrow margins. Otherwise the choice of colors suggests something misleading from a visual perspective.

It's also misleading that Sanders is somehow ahead when it is based upon the area of each state since Sanders is winning states with large land areas, but less voters. It's sort of like the area graphs showing bars indicating huge percentage changes between two months but only point out two points such as 16,000 and 18,000 on the DJIA while not showing the entire range of the bar down to zero. As I said, the map does not really much when those considerations are noted.

Imagine what the map would look like if the size of each state were based upon population like this map does:

[JDPriestly]

18. Imagine what it would look like if the states were colored and sized to reflect how

likely it is in each state that the majority will vote for a Democrat.

[TexasTowelie]

38. I'll play that game with you.

Based upon how the states voted in 2012, Sanders would get these states:

CO, HI, ME, MI, MN, NH, VT and WA = 62 electoral college votes (8 states).

Clinton would get these states:

FL, IA, IL, MA, NV, OH and VA = 103 electoral votes (7 states).

Look which states are more likely to get you a win in the Electoral College though.

In addition if you backtrack to the 2008 election results Clinton would also pick up North Carolina which has another 15 electoral votes which would increase her total to 118 electoral votes.

We could debate about the other states that haven't hold elections or that one candidate or the other could flip a state, but it would be pure speculation. The determination of president is dependent upon electoral votes rather than what color that state is on the map.

But it was a fun exercise.

Correction: I undercounted Massachusetts (poor handwriting while I was jotting everything down and need to add 7 more EVs.

[JDPriestly]

68. But keep in mind that Hillary barely won in Mass., Nev., Illinois and Iowa while

Bernie won landslides (15 points more at the least in Colo., Hawaii, Maine, Minn., Vt. and Washington) in many of the states he won.

Bernie's voters will vote in November. Bernie would take every one of the states that are Democratic and that he won. Hillary's voters are less enthusiastic and older and not as sure to vote in big enough numbers in November. I am assuming what I think is likely and that is that a lot of Bernie voters will not vote for Hillary, but Hillary voters will vote for Bernie. I have that impression pretty strongly.

The reason I think that is that I think that Bernie voters are protest voters in many cases. Many of them are voting for Bernie because he is the only candidate that comes near talking about the issues they are most concerned about. That is what I gather from my friends.

I am in California.

[TexasTowelie]

70. She may have won by small margins in the states you mentioned

because she was running against another Democrat. I certainly would not count Colorado in Bernie's column since Obama only won by small margins in his campaigns.

Hillary would more than likely win all of the states that you mentioned Bernie winning in a landslide with maybe the exception of Colorado. In the South Hillary also stands a chance of taking Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas and Georgia. Bernie has absolutely no chance of taking those states and he may also lose Ohio and Michigan (states with Republican governors). If Bernie loses CO, OH, MI, NC and VA then it is almost certain that he will not win the general election.

Hillary's voters will also vote in November. While some of Bernie's voters will sit out the election (based upon what I read on DU) hopefully the others will snap to their senses and realize that the Republican candidate is worse. My sister in Georgia supports Sanders, but if Hillary wins the nomination she might not send money or campaign for her, but she will vote for her rather than see either Cruz or Trump win. I have to say the same thing about myself if Sanders is the nominee--I won't campaign for him since I don't know anybody where I live and I won't send money since I don't have any money to send, but I would vote for him solely because I've lived in a state that has been red for over two decades and I know what damage Republicans can do.

I'm also concerned about the damage that Bernie and Hillary can do, but I also don't want a political revolution. I didn't want a revolution in my 20s when Republicans were in the White House and I certainly don't want one now since I paid into the system and I am hoping to get approved for disability. While I don't necessarily like the status quo which is what would remain if Hillary wins, I think that Bernie would disrupt the economy and jeopardize the SSDI benefits I paid for while I was employed. It is a matter of being pragmatic vs. being idealistic for me. I expect that I will live close to the poverty line for the remainder of my life, but I at least hope that I can regain some independence because living with my brother already drove me to the point of insanity once. If Sanders or one of the Republicans is put in charge, then it would probably cause turbulence in the markets or the current safety net and I might be trapped living with my brother forever which I can't handle much longer. Needless to say, my life and whether I will be around the next 15-20 years might depend on the results of this election.

[JDPriestly]

77. The economy is in dire trouble now. I believe that Bernie is the only one who can

save the remnants that remain of it.

That is why I support him.

I have lived in several different other countries, and Hillary's foreign policy will be even more disastrous than her economic policy. She does not have a clue as to what to do in our current situation.

Here in Los Angeles, college graduates work in food service -- as waitresses, etc. and they are not all wanna-be actors. It's just really hard to get a job. The jobs are in low-wage economies of other countries.

Hillary is to a great extent responsible in my view for the mess in Syria and Libya and the Middle East in general. She was apparently key in persuading Obama to deal with that situation by arming people we knew nothing about.

There is a reason for the fact that Americans who live overseas voted in such large percentages for Bernie. They know what messes our country makes. They know Bernie can do better.

Hillary cannot save your SSDI. Bernie can and is far more likely to save it.

I'm on Social Security. I do not trust Hillary with my Social Security, not for one minute.

[TexasTowelie]

79. We'll have to agree to disagree.

College graduates have ended up in food service for quite awhile. My best friend from college was in food service because when we graduated the oil economy went bust in Texas. I graduated with a degree in math and a minor in chemistry in 1987 and I was applying for jobs that paid only $4 - $5.50 an hour. Another lady I knew received her JD and ended up waiting tables.

There is a possibility that Bernie might save the economy and make it better, but I also see the flip side of higher taxes which would encourage the flight of capital and jobs by corporations. The platitudes about economic inequality aside, I don't believe that Bernie has any ideas about how to fix the economy either. He has demonized virtually everyone connected with economic and political experience so that qualified individuals aren't going to want risk their reputations to join his administration. Academics have their theories about economics, but reality is different from theory and we need only look at Greece to see what happened when an academic was put in charge of economic policy (even though nobody could have fixed that mess). Social Security and disability will be difficult enough to sustain in a status quo situation, but if tax policy drives away the higher paying jobs then it will be completely unsustainable very quickly.

Maybe Bernie's ideas would work in the long run, but I see so much short term shock and possibility of unintended consequences that I prefer a known quantity even if there are flaws with her foreign policy. So on one hand there are Republicans who have pledged to end the social safety net, Hillary who will keep it about the same for better or worse, and then there is Bernie who will change things so radically that it will cause significant turbulence in the economy. Most of the people that I know would be at great risk if Bernie's economic policies were adopted. While I don't want to see anybody die or suffer elsewhere in the world, I have more concern about the people that I know compared to what might happen to people affected by foreign policy.

[JDPriestly]

80. The trade agreements, especially the TPP will cause far more damage to our economy

than higher taxes on individuals would.

I lived in several different countries in Europe.

Bernie is not going to do anything other than investigate and possibly if warranted prosecute banks and those who work fraudulent schemes without the assistance of Congress and the American people.

There is nothing to fear and everything to gain from a Bernie presidency.

He is a relatively frugal guy, will do a great job managing the money of the US and auditing the various departments.

He will make a wonderful president.

If Republicans and conservative Democrats are afraid of Bernie, it is because they have not been listening to him or thinking about what he has been saying.

Democratic socialism is not about nationalizing businesses. It is about building an infrastructure in which everyone thrives.

Here in Los Angeles there are so many homeless people. Many houses were foreclosed and have been repurchased. I think another housing boom is taking place in my neighborhood.

Under the conservative, laissez-faire economic policies that have governed our country since Reagan, we have lost a lot of economic ground. That is, our technology has improved by leaps and bounds, but the economic lot of Americans has by no means kept pace. Our infrastructure is in terrible shape.

In fact, here in Southern California we have a nuclear reactor at San Onofre that had to be closed due to serious problems. It sits there on the beach, a monument to the failing infrastructure in America.

I have been riding the train between Los Angeles and San Diego to visit family quite frequently over the past few years. At peak ours, passengers sit on the floor of the train or stand. It's not a local commuter train. It is a two hour trip between Los Angeles and San Diego. This is untenable. I have asked the conductor why in the world they don't add another car. He has told me that they don't have another car and can't afford one. Now that may not be the reason. It's possible he just told me that because he did not know the real answer.


But these are just a couple of examples of public investment that is direly needed in the US. We need public transportation. Here in Los Angeles, it can take hours to get from the West side of town to the East side, and the distance is really not that great. It's just that we do not yet have the public transportation for commuters.

The shape of our country is deplorable. Europe has higher taxes, but has spent its money wisely. We have spent ours on our military. While we need a strong defense, we do not use our military strength wisely. Why should Americans have to do without and spend on the military in order to protect oil wells of the major corporations when those corporations do not pay the taxes that they should pay to cover the costs of that military?

Bernie will bring fresh thought to these problems. I'm looking forward to his presidency.

In contrast, Hillary is a rather uninspired, pedestrian thinker and candidate. We can do better. And Bernie is better in every respect.

[TexasTowelie]

83. From what I've read

he has problems managing his own finances considering what he earned during 25 years in Congress and his estimated net worth. I don't trust him to spend money wisely more than I would trust any other politician. I wouldn't describe adding trillions of dollars in government spending as a frugal policy either.

Please don't speak to me about being homeless because I was living in a homeless shelter back in 2014 and could easily end up there again. I quite literally am living in the bottom 1% and I am completely dependent on the generosity of my brother to afford the basics such as toiletries and medical supplies--what little assistance that I'm getting is going to dwindle since my brother was laid off from his job about 10 days ago. More than likely we are going to have to move and I will have to reestablish residency to get into an indigent care program again--that means 3-4 months without insulin, neuropathic or anti-depressant medications. It will also mean that the appeal of my case with SS will likely be delayed if we move more than a few counties away.

As far as nuclear energy is concerned I don't like the fact that Bernie felt that it was perfectly fine to ship nuclear waste from Vermont to Sierra Blanca in Texas. His cooperation with George W. Bush on that fiasco has been almost completely overlooked on DU.

Bernie's tax proposals are questionable as far as the amount of income they would generate and would have immediate negative consequences if they were adopted. I also don't believe that many of the savings in health care that he proposes will ever be materialized--people in the medical community, pharmaceutical or insurance industries are not going to accept the pay decreases he envisions and even if they did then it would also mean less revenue available for the government in taxes that have mostly likely been ignored in the economic analysis.

There is not going to be any serious prosecution of the bank fraud from 2008, the statute of limitations has passed for many of the crimes that were committed and the Justice Department does not have the resources (either financially or in terms of intellectual prowess) to do anything about it.

I'm in a difficult situation and no politician is going to do anything that will benefit me positively in the short term. While Hillary might be pedestrian in your viewpoint, from my viewpoint I see plenty to fear from a Sanders' presidency. I don't have to be enthusiastic about a Hillary presidency, but when I compare the choices I prefer Hillary over Bernie. I don't believe he would do anything with the intention of hurting people in my position, but it is the unintended consequences that are frightening.

[JDPriestly]

81. These two videos explain why we should vote for Bernie. When p

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017345615

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017345490

When people are so afraid of the power of the economic elite, the very rich, to ruin our economy, ruin the lives and destroy, devastate the livelihoods of millions and millions of Americans (which has already happened in great part, by the way -- perhaps irreversibly), then it is absolutely imperative that ordinary Americans take back the economy. That's what a vote for Bernie can achieve.

What I read in your post confirms my belief that very wealthy people have been allowed by the rest of us to accumulate so much of the wealth and power in our country that they can frighten us into acquiescing to their will and interests. It's sort of like economic rape. And all too many of us are afraid to resist and say no to that economic rape.

I hope that all of the Hillary supporters change their minds.

And I am not, by any means, accusing Hillary of economic rape.

I am accusing a very powerful, very wealthy group of threatening economic rape of America. To a great extent that rape has already taken place. The empty factories across our nation attest to the damage and pain that economic rape has inflicted on us.

[blackspade]

28. The caption should say "Democratic" not "Democrat"

That drives me crazy.

[TexasTowelie]

40. Yes, I agree.

It is annoying. I just found a reasonably looking image to make the point within a reasonable amount of time. I certainly wasn't going to draw my own map based upon population.

[blackspade]

78. Ah, Gotcha.

I thought you might have done it in ArcGIS or something.

[Renew Deal]

7. They probably don't want you to see it because it's BS

What color are the states Bernie won under 5%? And why are the close Hillary states "mixed green" when her color is Blue? Because this is misleading BS.

[MisterP]

8. a state or two ahead of Obama, actually

and the unpledged are gonna see one candidate 10 points behind the other against Trump, playing to Trump's right, dependent on dissipating momentum and turnout, distrusted, behind the competition, and willing to go full Samson on the party in order to secure a few elated photoshoots in Philly

and the map needs a color for "gross fraud that's pissed off several Cabinet departments and is going to the Supreme Court"

[kjones]

9. Nice to see your guys double standards for Hillary carry over into your "statistics" too...

at least you're all consistent in your inconsistencies.

So, in other words, even when you skew it so that Hillary needs over 300% more
the margin of a win than Bernie does to have it "count" for her on this map, she still
seems to be doing pretty well. Especially considering how small and white Bernie's
wins are.

[TexasTowelie]

10. If you want to remain accurate on your map

then you need to color Illinois completely blue since she won by over 5%. BTW, thanks for confirming that you made the map.

[tomm2thumbs]

14. is this info incorrect

let me know and I can adjust

[TexasTowelie]

17. Do you have a typo in your OP then?

Last edited Mon Mar 28, 2016, 02:33 AM - Edit history (1)

You said that one of Clinton's victories was by 5.2%--by your own standards that state should be colored solid blue instead of a mixed color. If it wasn't Illinois then which state was colored incorrectly? You made the map and typed up the OP so it is your responsibility to represent things correctly or have observers point out the inconsistencies in your OP.

[tomm2thumbs]

23. I will certainly adjust for you because you are my fellow Democrat

[TexasTowelie]

62. Thank you.

I commend you for taking into consideration the points that were made and where it is reasonable to do so (IOW, I don't expect you to use a map that skews the area of states by population size).

I believe that if we are going to start interpreting data that we should try as hard as possible to stay accurate and not inject any misleading factors into our considerations; otherwise, it means that critiques will occur.

I'm a mathematician and it is irritating to read an article then see someone misinterpret data, develop an argument or draw a conclusion that the underlying data does not support. It's similar to the correlation does not mean causality scenario.

[tomm2thumbs]

65. true enough

And I should have measured-twice/cut-once on the figures. I was trying to make a point in my OP about narrow margin states, and was going to do all whole-numbers but ended up using the decimals because two of them were below 1 percent so it would have shown 0% if I had not, but I did miss the .3 vs. .2 in rounding so appreciate the fix.

[TexasTowelie]

22. I went ahead and checked the election data.

The state that is colored incorrectly is Nevada. Clinton won by 5.3% points so it should be colored solid blue (source data: http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/nevada )

[tomm2thumbs]

26. thanks, I had started with just rounded percents and added the details later

I adjusted the figures

[Csainvestor]

43. She won Illinois by 1 Point

She won Illinois by 1 Point, she also won Massachusetts by 1 point.

[TexasTowelie]

66. I agree with both of those statements.

The state where Clinton won by over 5% was Nevada and I admit that I was wrong about Illinois. The author of the OP adjusted his graphic to read 5.3% or less so that he could keep Nevada with the same color as IA, IL, MA and MO.

[LovingA2andMI]

11. SHARED!!!

On Independent Underground News & Talk Facebook Page. Good Job!!

[Old Crow]

12. I'm a huge Bernie supporter.

And I hate to be a wet blanket: But I find this map confusing as heck. Sorry: Just being honest.

I'd take another crack at it, personally.

On edit: So I can offer something more constructive than just a complaint, here's a graphic from The Guardian that I think was really well done. (It's about a third of the way down the page: The two-column chart showing delegates won, with the quantity of delegates corresponding to the darkness of the shading.) Perhaps you can glean something from this chart and figure out a way to adapt it for your national map. Just a thought; thanks.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2016/mar/25/us-election-2016-delegate-tracker-trump-cruz-kasich-sanders-clinton

[tomm2thumbs]

20. thanks!!

[Kittycat]

45. I do like this map, but...

I agree. There were some great maps put up last week, and I mentioned a proportioned shading based on win%. Initially I had suggested by % vote, but your comment on pledged delegate win would be more accurate. Alaska is a perfect example on wholesale why. There where 6 districts HRC wasn't viable in, that is going to skew the PD further to Bernie, beyond proportional to state.

[pnwmom]

13. Yeah, Bernie won some caucus states with less than 6% of eligible voters participating.

States like WA and Maine and Kansas.

That's so impressive.

[Old Crow]

16. You know, the snide remarks from the Clinton fans...

began on Day 1 and haven't stopped yet, I see.

This inability to appreciate or even acknowledge the achievements of the Sanders campaign, and the enormous dissatisfaction with establishment politics among the electorate, is emblematic of the entire Clinton campaign.

Really? Should Hillary get the nomination, I'm supposed to enthusiastically get in line and cast my vote for a campaign that has spent the last six months sneering at my values?

[pnwmom]

49. I am not impressed, no. As a resident of a caucus state that voted

to switch to primaries -- and was overruled by our state party, which got the voter-approved referendum overturned by a judge (saying that the parties get to make their own rules) --- I don't regard our caucuses as legitimate expressions of our voters' will.

And I never will.

We have 3 times as many people here participate in our "beauty contest" primary even though all of the delegates are chosen by the caucus.

This is manifestly unfair.

Why do you think I should support the vote of a caucus comprised of less than 6% of eligible voters that doesn't even try to represent the views of the people in the state?

[tomm2thumbs]

19. at the percent you mention, it should be EASY to win a caucus then for Hillary

curious why she didn't easily win them as they are so easily win'able

[pnwmom]

52. Because caucuses represent the views of the people at the extremes

of both parties.

And only party activists and people with little to do are willing to put themselves through the several hour long process to vote in a caucus.

[tomm2thumbs]

54. so does this indicate she is a moderate?

[pnwmom]

55. Within the Democratic party, she is more mainstream than Bernie.

They are both on the progressive side of voters overall.

[tomm2thumbs]

58. I like the fact that Obama got his big start due to caucuses imho

I think it lets non-establishment people get in the mix. I do wish they counted the actual voter attendance, because perhaps the argument that someone won more votes would be a reasonable measure for one side or another to make, and it entirely prevents that

[pnwmom]

60. They DO count attendance. They just choose not to report it, at least not right away.

Another unfair practice of caucuses.

In my caucus, everyone filled out and signed paper forms, so it was better than Iowa in that way. And at the end they were all put in an envelope for delivery to wherever.

Of course, this means there is no such thing as a secret ballot. if someone lived in a small town and didn't want their boss or spouse to know who they voted for, tough luck.

[Cheese Sandwich]

27. I heard turnout was very high in the three states you named.

They said record breaking or the second highest ever after 2008.

[pnwmom]

53. Yes! Our turnout came close to our record breaking 2008 turnout of 5.3 %. Woo-hoo!!!

Do you consider that impressive? I don't.

Our primary, which allocates zero delegates thanks to our power-hungry state party, had three times as many participants.

http://www.electproject.org/2008p

[Cheese Sandwich]

61. Obama did great in caucus states. I don't recall people complaining then.

Actually do recall one person complaining about Obama supporters showing up for caucuses.

It seems several people are on this talking point about popular vote and about how caucuses suck. And that tells me that Hillary is not as confident as people claim.

[pnwmom]

63. Were you in WA then? Obama got 22 more delegates than he would have

Last edited Mon Mar 28, 2016, 02:55 AM - Edit history (5)

if the delegates had been chosen in the primary that we held a couple weeks later and involved almost three times as many voters (but didn't allocate any delegates).

I wasn't complaining because I liked Obama. I liked them both. And I hadn't gone to the caucus, because I didn't really care which person won. But I could recognize that it wasn't fair.

More than 691K voters turned out for the primary, and only 246K for the caucus, but all the delegates were allocated by the caucus. Even though the voters had called for and strongly approved a primary system.

Does that seem fair to you?



www.king5.com/news/politics/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-caucuses-on-the-26th/102731154

The Washington State Democratic Party estimates turnout could near the 2008 record turnout of 246,000.

www.talkleft.com/media/2008caucusreport.pdf

Example 1: On February 9, Washington held its statewide caucus and an estimated 245,000 caucus-goers -- 5.3% of eligible voters -- chose Obama over Clinton by 67.5% to 31.2%, a whopping 36-point margin. Ten days later, WA held a primary attended by 691,381 [15% of eligible voters, ie, almost 3 times the caucus turnout] and Obama won by 51.2% to 45.7%. [Citizens of WA voted-in a State-run Primary. However, the Party-run caucus results are still the legal results.]
Washington allocated its 78 pledged delegates at a ratio of 2:1 [67% to 33%] and Obama got 52 versus Clintonís 26. He gained 26 delegates. If the pledged delegates had been allocated according to the primary results, Obama would have won roughly 41 delegates compared to Clintonís 37. He would be gained only 4 delegates. Bottom line: The caucus vs. primary election benefited Obama by a net 22 delegates -- 14.5% of the 152 pledged delegates separating the two.

[AlbertCat]

31. Bernie won some caucus states with less than 6% of eligible voters participating.

So the Dems didn't come out to bother to vote for Hillary then. Is that what you mean to say?

[Kittycat]

48. They wouldn't even crawl over broken glass for her in some places

Several pcts she wasn't even viable.

It's hard to win hearts and minds with superpacs & clusterbombs.

[pnwmom]

57. So that is the standard now? n/t

[AlbertCat]

75. So that is the standard now?

Well, the DNC has been mucking things up for a while now. Years of Repug Lite, that obviously doesn't work, and milquetoast candidates tend to tamp down enthusiasm.

[pnwmom]

56. Caucuses NEVER get many voters to turn out. They are designed to limit participation.

This is why MOST of the states, starting in the 70's, replaced caucuses with more inclusive and representative primaries, with much higher participation rates.

See for yourself.

http://www.electproject.org/2008p

[noamnety]

82. Bernie supporter here - and thank you.

Despite him doing well in the caucus states, I think you are 100% correct on your stance here. And if I remember from an old post of yours, you were working to get rid of them in your state.

Even though you weren't successful, and even though we're I think we are supporting different candidates - we agree on that and I really am grateful that you were trying to fix a broken system.

[pnwmom]

86. Thank you. I would think any progressive would support the most inclusive system

but on FB I just had a friend who considers himself a strong progressive tell me that a 6% caucus turnout is good because it means only the most informed voters are participating.

That sounds like a version of voter suppression to me.

Another friend posted about the distances many rural voters have to drive -- i.e., three hours each way -- to get to a caucus site. How is that fair?



To add insult to injury, at my caucus they passed out envelopes for donations to help defray the costs of the caucuses, even though voters in my state strongly supported a referendum that set up a Presidential primary -- which we pay for with our taxes. Then the Dem party leaders went to court to overrule the citizens' vote. So all our delegates are chosen at the caucuses -- and then they have the nerve to ask us to pay for it.

I returned the envelope with a note inside explaining why I'm not interested in contributing.

Not that they care.

[noamnety]

87. I would have been fuming if I'd been you.

What reason did the leaders give for wanting to overrule the vote for primaries?

Three hours of driving to get to a caucus site ... all the hours it can take once you are actually there ... it's eerily similar to all the obstacles republicans put in place in states where it's technically legal but virtually impossible to get an abortion.

[pnwmom]

90. They want to limit participation to Democrats. Except all we had to do

was fill out a form with our info -- name, address, phone, supported candidate - and affirm that we were only voting in the Democratic caucus. And that wasn't due till the actual day of the caucus.

Oh, yeah -- they also say this builds morale and participation in the party. Obviously I disagree.

So the Rethugs get to vote by mail in a primary (all our elections are by mail now -- or we can drop them off for free at secure boxes in many locations) and Dems have to spend hours at caucuses, sometimes having to drive hours to get there -- if they can.

And the beauty contest Dem primary gets 3 times as many participants -- but doesn't count for any delegates.

[Firebrand Gary]

24. What a crock!

Hillary won Nevada, Iowa, Massachusetts, Missouri and Illinois, yet your deceiving map tries to imply otherwise.

[pnwmom]

64. +1. n/t

[oberliner]

25. Illinois is Hillary's home state?

Does that mean New York is Bernie's home state?

[SFnomad]

29. Faux "News" couldn't have done much better with this map. n/t

[tomm2thumbs]

35. actually Faux 'News' would rather have Hillary in the general

they believe they (Republicans) can beat her as her negatives are so high

[tomm2thumbs]

30. Hillary herself made it very clear [VIDEO]

"Obviously people are going to look at the results... but I think that it's also important to look at where the delegates came from, how many people actually elected those delegates, what the kind of outcomes were, who has a bigger base to build an electoral majority on..."

Can't have her both ways

[AlbertCat]

33. it's also important to look at where the delegates came from,

Wait.... I thought only the numbers mattered...y'know, it's just math....

[tomm2thumbs]

51. the defensive reaction doesn't appear to reflect a sense of extreme confidence in remaining contests

hmmmmm...

[Csainvestor]

34. Hillary won MA and IL by 1 POINT

She won ma in 08 by 15 points. Polls had Hillary winning IL by 30 points one week before the election, but she won IL by 1 point.

Out of the south Hillary is running a horrible campaign.

[truedelphi]

46. It is very important for the Hillary campaign that we all have short

memories regarding the science of exit polling.

Notice how Clinton supporters diss exit polling. Yet Jimmy Carter used exit polling results in the Ukraine to get the UN involved in one of their elections. (Back in 2004, I think it was.)

[MattP]

37. So who has more votes?

So every state is Bernie state unless she blows him out by over 5.3 percent?

[dogman]

44. Raw votes are not all reported in caucus states.

They elect delegates which are reported. No one is telling except those making it up.

[rpannier]

39. I think it's interesting how many Republican/Republican leaning states

go in the 1st 29 states

Wash, Alaska and Hawaii just went for 30-2
Then it's mostly northeast and upper Midwest with 4 mountain states, DC and California tucked in there as well

[MattP]

42. Ca is like many states in one

[rpannier]

47. Very true

and I want it to stay that way
Not interested in dividing it into 5 or 6 different states to appease some libertarian clown

[tomm2thumbs]

41. I don't understand the problem, if Bernie has no chance to win, everyone should be ignoring this

nothing to see here, there's no point. Afterall, Bernie is doomed to lose so why waste another keystroke

[Darb]

74. How Gumby like.

Bernie get color combos at only 1.5% and Hillary gets color combos at 5.3%? Nice contortion.

This map looks like Hillary is winning. And from what is left, it looks like she is going to win.

[Lil Missy]

76. And yet Hillary is overwhelmingly winning. n/t

[Uncle Joe]

88. I would say Arizona has a cloud over it.

Arizona 'voter suppression' petition among fastest to reach 100,000 signatures

PHOENIX - The recent Arizona 'voter suppression' petition was among the fastest to reach 100,000 signatures to the White House.

If you're unfamiliar with the petition, it alleges voter suppression in the Arizona Presidential Preference Election, held last week. After the petition reached its signature goal of 100,000 online signatures, the White House is expected to issue a response.

According to this spreadsheet, the petition ranks among four of the most popular petitions on the website. The petition was started Tuesday and reached the goal Thursday morning.

READ: White House to respond to petition alleging voter suppression in Arizona

The petition asked the White House to investigate possible voter fraud and suppression of Democratic voters specifically:

http://www.12news.com/news/politics/arizona-voter-suppression-petition-among-fastest-to-reach-100000-signatures/106017800

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511595648

Thanks for the thread, tomm2thumbs.

[tomm2thumbs]

89. thanks for the post regarding Arizona petition