If Iowa and Massachusetts were virtual ties...

[Garrett78]

...so was Michigan. And Michigan represents the first diverse, populous blue state primary of this campaign. Some are claiming that Michigan proves Clinton can't win outside of the Deep South, but the sample size is way too small. And it's important to not conflate the Democratic electorate of the Deep South with the overall electorate of the Deep South.

Time will tell how much Clinton struggles outside of the Deep South. Just as time will tell how successful Sanders can be outside of New England and small caucus states that lack diversity. For now, we have 1 data point (Michigan) where the candidates were separated by a mere 20,000 votes (out of more than 1 million ballots), so we can't make any determinations one way or another.

We aren't going to learn much from Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Delaware, etc. But March 15 (Ohio, Illinois, Missouri, Florida and North Carolina) and Arizona on the 22nd will offer more data points. In April, there's New York, Maryland and Pennsylvania. Those are the states that will determine which narrative is true (Clinton can't win outside of the Deep South vs. Sanders can't win delegate-rich states that are relatively diverse).

[giftedgirl77]

1. No, MA was stolen duh.

It was Iowa & Nevada that were virtual ties. But in the hypocrisy of BernieBroLand whenever Sanders loses it's a tie or evil underlings from the Clinton Campaign. When he wins it's fate & the will of super smart political savvy individuals.

[Garrett78]

5. Yeah, Nevada was definitely not a tie.

I don't get caught up in the conspiracy stuff. I have no problem with folks saying Iowa and Massachusetts were virtual ties, because they were. And so was Michigan.

In MA, Clinton won by 17000 votes with more than 1.1 million votes cast.

In MI, Sanders won by 18300 votes with more than 1.1 million votes cast.

[bvf]

17. You should demand an investigation.

Get back to us with that, y'hear?

[giftedgirl77]

20. Holy shit was the sarcasm really that great???

[bvf]

21. Don't sell yourself short.

There's nothing sadder to see than that.

[giftedgirl77]

22. Lol, what I described happens here daily.

[bvf]

23. Yeah. Due to a couple of people skirting time-outs.

[Lizzie Poppet]

26. "BernieBroLand"

All I need to know about a poster in a single, grotesquely-constructed word.

Buh-bye.

[giftedgirl77]

28. Don't like it don't care.

👎

[bvf]

31. Go ahead. Say what's really on your mind.

It'll be worth it.

Or, bite your tongue, like a good little... whatever you are.

[seekthetruth]

30. Well.....

....and voters who support a true progressive. Supporting fracking these days just isn't very "progressive"....

[etherealtruth]

2. I posted this elswhere regarding the results in Michigan

(I voted for Sanders, but it was essentially a flip of the coin decision for me ... the net sums of Sanders / Clinton's positives and negatives are essentially equal to me)

Looking at the voting patterns in Michigan Sanders won the rural white vote handily .... Clinton won the urban and suburban vote as well as the votes of people of color.


This map illustrates the breakdown of how people in Michigan voted. Its very interesting and (at least in Michigan) highlights an urban vs rural divide.
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/michigan

The very scary part is how well Trump did in both urban and rural areas of Michigan (with the exception of our nut job west coast area that went heavily for Cruz)

[Garrett78]

3. I think both Trump and Cruz have a pretty low ceiling.

I think both have a loyal following, most of whom I would call batsh*t crazy. But I simply can't see either of them becoming POTUS.

[etherealtruth]

6. I pray you are right

....and agree wholeheartedly with the bat sh*t crazy

[Zorra]

4. "Ya gotta believe" ~ Tug McGraw, relief pitcher, 1969 World Series Champ NY Mets.

[FlatBaroque]

25. you gotta believe #LGM

[Mufaddal]

7. Good one

[Garrett78]

9. The difference being...

...that Michigan was much more of a shock than those other 2 and has almost as many delegates as those other 2 combined. So, in that sense, Michigan is more consequential.

But Michigan was just as much of a tie as Massachusetts. A separation of 17000-18000 with more than 1.1 million people casting votes.

[Mufaddal]

10. The actual difference being

That the polls in Mass saw Hillary with a net 6.7 lead, but her actual win was narrow--Bernie over-performed, Hillary under-performed. The polls were very far apart in MI with a net 21.4 lead for Hillary, and we saw a narrow win by Bernie. Bernie hugely over-performed, Hillary significantly under-performed.

[Garrett78]

12. That impacts the narrative, yes.

But it doesn't have much impact on the delegate math, except in the sense that winning MI gives Sanders more hope of winning states with similar demographics (like Ohio, Missouri and Pennsylvania).

[Dem2]

8. 18,350 votes out of 1.2M cast

Final numbers are finally in.

[Garrett78]

11. Yeah, very similar to Massachusetts, as I posted above.

What makes the Michigan result so interesting is that it bodes well for Sanders's chances of avoiding a blowout on March 15 (in Ohio and Missouri at least). While the delegate math heavily favors Clinton, March 15 presents a crucial opportunity for Sanders to keep the race reasonably close. Because he does have a good chance of winning a majority of the delegates in the 8 contests that follow March 15 (how much of a majority may depend, in part, on what happens March 15).

[Dem2]

15. I agree, next Tuesday is going to be fun to watch

It's nice when the outcome is not certain.

[DCBob]

13. Hillary will win with "virtual ties" the rest of the way.

Bernie needs to win several states big to close the gap. I dont see many if any states like that down the road. Its more likely Hillary will win some big.

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. I can agree to that, but the Clinton campaign can't.

For one thing they have argued long and hard that Iowa and Massachusetts were wins for her, it's too late to put that Genie back in the bottle. And if they ever chose to call all of the close contests virtual ties, than that just leaves Clinton with one state outside of the South that she clearly won: Nevada, and even that win wasn't exactly a resounding one.

But yes, we are about to all learn a whole lot more...

[krawhitham]

16. Iowa was the only virtual tie

When you lose because of 6 coin flips, that is a virtual tie. If they split those 6 coin tosses instead of losing them all Sanders would have been the "winner" of Iowa

That is a virtual tie.

[Arkana]

18. No. Hillary claims MA and IA as victories,

and Sanders beat her by more than she beat him in both those states in Michigan.

[thesquanderer]

19. Winners of "virtual ties" win nothing but bragging rights...

...but bragging rights can significantly shift the conversation.

I also posted about this at http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511455490

[FlatBaroque]

24. Both Iowa and MA were a result of dirty tricks

so was Nevada.

[AnotherVoter]

27. States don't matter but...

Sometimes people like to count how many states were won. I'm not saying that's a useful metric.

If we now are in the habit of putting virtual ties aside (Massachusetts, Michigan, and Iowa):

Clinton: 9 states (Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, South Carolina, Nevada)

Sanders: 8 states (Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Colorado)

[BernieforPres2016]

29. Except that Bernie has never referred to Massachusetts as a virtual tie

He used that term for Iowa, where the 0.2% difference was 1/10 of the difference in Massachusetts. And many think Bernie would have actually won the popular vote in Iowa had he pushed for a recount.

[Garrett78]

32. I don't give a rip what the campaigns say. That's just posturing.

As far as I'm concerned, IA, MA and MI were all virtual ties.