Hillary Clinton
Related: About this forumDouble checking the upcoming Tuesday primary polls, and holy crap, Sanders is in danger of not....
....getting ANY delegates in Mississippi!
The latest poll (last week) in Mississippi has Clinton leading 65-11 (lots of undecided, though). If he doesn't get up to 15%, Clinton will get ALL of the delegates.
In Michigan Clinton is ahead by 57.8 to 37.8.
book_worm
(15,951 posts)it being one of his worse states. Possibly 18-20 percent. As a reference Obama won Mississippi 61-36 in 2008 with the delegate count divided 20-13. It is likely that Bernie will come out of Mississippi with 6 or fewer delegates.
George II
(67,782 posts)....(but with about 25+% undecided) just two days before the primary.
But I suspect that anyone in Mississippi who is undecided that's watching this debate so far tonight will think twice before voting for him.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Undecided in Mississippi most likely means not sure yet if they are going to go vote or not.
Nonhlanhla
(2,074 posts)Loki
(3,825 posts)n/t
Tarheel_Dem
(31,233 posts)fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Response to George II (Original post)
denverbill This message was self-deleted by its author.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)Or is it just the ones that don't feel the Bern?
George II
(67,782 posts)....write off the DEMOCRATS in states that don't vote Democratic simply because they're "red states"?
PS, this is the Hillary Clinton Group, thank you.
denverbill
(11,489 posts)Hekate
(90,645 posts)denverbill
(11,489 posts)You asked whether Democrats should just ignore Mississippi in terms of primaries. I would say this.
Howard Dean pushed the 50 state strategy when he headed the DNC. I support the 50 state strategy. If the DNC does not support the 50 state strategy, the weight of votes given to states should be proportional to the DNC's support of candidates in those states. If the DNC is not going to give equal money to candidates running in Mississippi to attempt to compete there, who gives a damn about winning in Mississippi, because it ain't going to happen.
It's not that Mississippi or Democrats in Mississippi don't matter. It's that without even a modicum of effort by the DNC to try to win there, it's pretty damned ridiculous to treat those votes as important to winning in 2016.
I apologize for posting my original post in the HRC group, but I felt like I owed you an additional reply.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,233 posts)about the presidency. Turning out Democrats in a primary, is never a bad thing. How dare you.
denverbill
(11,489 posts)Even though Democrats should be winning more and more seats if the DNC ever made a remote attempt to compete in these states.
Indeed how dare I suggest that Democrats attempt to compete in all 50 states instead of just sending money to 'safe' districts. Because god knows the status quo is just fine.
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,233 posts)Hekate
(90,645 posts)Hekate
(90,645 posts)But thank you for your input.
Nowadays I think the African American vote would be a Democratic Party force to be reckoned with in Mississippi.
sheshe2
(83,746 posts)William769
(55,145 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)SharonClark
(10,014 posts)Setsuna1972
(332 posts)The only question left how will the angry Bernie supporters insult the voters in those two states