It's just been announced by Real Clear Politics

[Blue_In_AK]

that Sanders has outperformed Obama's 2008 showing in Alaska. Feeling the Bern.

[BlueStreak]

1. Everybody interested in democracy and Democratic principles should recognize

that without the party-level dirty tricks and the party-crony super-delegates, this would be a dead heat right now. Moreover, Clinton's momentum is going downhill and Sanders' is clearly on the rise.

The Party is on course to make one of its worst moves ever.

Another reality, those Southern states where Clinton picked up her votes are very unlikely to be in the Blue total on election night. Sanders has by far the stronger numbers in the states we must carry to win the election.

[Blue_In_AK]

3. I honestly think it's possible that Sanders could carry Alaska

in the general if he were the nominee. Even in 2008 Obama was close here before McCain picked Sarah, which skewed Alaska more to that side (this was back before Sarah lost her marbles). With Bernie doing better in the caucus than Obama did, and with no other extenuating circumstances, I can see him winning here. Hillary? No way.

[strategery blunder]

4. Fun fact. Bernie received more votes in UT Dem caucus than Trump did in the UT Republican caucus.

By, oh, I think the ratio was just shy of 5:2. And we all know how many more Rs are in UT than Ds.

Mormons might have a reputation for conservatism, but they also have a history of religious persecution, and I don't think Trump's rhetoric about banning Muslims from entering the country, and building a wall and making Mexico pay for it, did him any favors in Utah.

If we nominate Bernie, the GE map could turn out to be very interesting. Might help downticket races too, which we desperately need. But we won't have those kinds of unexpected pickup opportunities if Hillary is the nominee.

[mythology]

28. He also attacked Mitt Romney who is very popular in the state.

But I'm not sure I agree with you about Sanders helping downstream tickets. There is a lot of him blasting the Democratic Party. Clinton can't use that, but the Republicans can. It's going to be a little awkward that the Republicans can use Sanders' own words like it would be hypocritical of him to run as a Democrat and the party is ideologically bankrupt.

There's also for all of his large rallies and his vast small donor base, he's not driving turn out like those would suggest. Maybe that changes in the general (primaries/caucuses do have weird rules), but why isn't Sanders pushing for more of his voters to vote early? Obama did in the 2008 primary and GE and again in 2012 to great success. Clinton is doing it with pretty good success in this primary. Is there something in the Sanders campaign that is blocking them from turning pre-election support into votes? I don't know, but it seems likely, that something either structurally or philosophically is impeding that.

[strategery blunder]

33. Look at open primaries

Clinton has generally won registered Ds in such primaries, while Sanders has usually won independent voters in such primaries by significant margins.

I know there are exceptions to that generalization, but it has been a pattern.

Of course Clinton has done even better in closed primaries, and unlike some Sanders supporters, I won't be pushing the "Hillary can only win in the South" meme. I just believe that an extended primary, where as many Democrats (and, yes, people who intend to vote for the Democrat in the general, even if they may be registered I) as possible can have a meaningful voice in whom they will be voting for come November, is good for the health of the party.

I believe Sanders has a far better shot at winning independent voters than does Clinton, which may result in some pleasant surprises (IN was one such surprise for Obama in 2008). I'm not specifically making predictions in that department, only noting possibilities that would not be possible under Clinton at all. Clinton is either loved or hated, there is no in between, no mushy middle, with unfavorables around 50%. Only Trump is worse in that department, and (terrifyingly) not by much.

And yes, we need those independent voters to elect not only the nominee, but to make Congress more palatable as well. Much of their ire and disgust should rightfully be directed at Congress.

Also, you will not see this reflected in the results because the reported results are basically the number of elected delegates to county conventions for each candidate, but I have seen reports that turnout in today's WA caucus surpassed that of 2008, an exceptionally high-turnout year. Bernie's margin of victory here has also surpassed Obama's (albeit with 15% of the result yet to come in as of this writing).

[yeoman6987]

30. Yeah but Trump came in 3rd in Utah.

The important question is did Sanders beat Cruz who won the state?

[strategery blunder]

34. Why did Trump come in 3rd in Utah?

That question is just as important.

Because if the answer turns out to be a large and intense anyone-but-Trump vote within the Republican party, and Trump is the nominee, he might not "inherit" the support that had gone to his rivals in the caucus.

If Cruz is not their nominee, the question you posed loses some of its potency.

[arikara]

32. Did she really lose her marbles?

From what I read in Game Change she never had any to begin with. But they intensively managed her and were successful in keeping that fact that she was nuts hidden for awhile at least. Do you have some insight on it from the AK point of view?

[Blue_In_AK]

35. She might have had some issues before,

but, if so, she kept them cleverly concealed. I met her in 2006 when she was running for gov. and she seemed perfectly normal. She wasn't a bad governor and got a lot done working with the Democrats in the legislature. When she gave that speech at the Republican convention, she sounded completely different than we had EVER heard her. You should Google the governor debates from 2006 - you'd be shocked at how reasonable she sounded. I didn't vote for her, of course, but we kind of liked her before 2008.

[arikara]

39. She is an interesting person

in the sense of the old Chinese curse "may you live in interesting times". Did you hear that she's now doing a pilot for a Judge show on tv? Very bizarre, no?

[Blue_In_AK]

40. Extremely.

She has zero judicial experience.

[CentralCoaster]

5. Remove the dirty tricks, superdelegates, and make the MSM fair? Sanders would be winning this.

It wouldn't even be close, IMHO.

Feeling hopeful!

[brooklynite]

7. Clinton is still ahead by about 2 MILLION votes...

Forget about Superdelegates. You're saying That ALL of Clinton's victories are tainted by "dirty tricks"?

[BlueStreak]

11. Most of those come from the Red states she will not win in November

And it is disingenuous to compare caucus counts with voting primary counts. Obviously the caucus numbers will be lower because caucusing requires a commitment of 4-6 hours typically.

After today, Sanders will have won 15 states and Clinton will have won 20 states. It is very plausible that by the time this is done, Sanders will have won more states than Clinton, with the vote total not being that much different.

People need to think long and hard about this. Clinton's negatives are almost as high as Trump's and that is before the real attacks begin. Don't be surprised to see legal actions started against her (by Republicans) after the convention. She carries a huge load of baggage.

[brooklynite]

12. Most of THOSE came from real Democrats (many African American)...

...who's opinion is equally valuable.

[BlueStreak]

15. Well, the opinions may be equally valuable but their votes are not

Sorry, that's just the way it is. A Democratic vote in SC, TX, MS and lots of other places just doesn't matter.

This is about winning the White House. We ought to be going with the candidate that has the strongest support in the states we must win.

[Hortensis]

22. Lol. You do realize that millions of minorities have not

voted yet? Like in NY, TX, PA, CA, all highly diverse states. If I wanted Bernie to win, I would be tearing my hair over "supporters" like you suggesting that minority blocks aren't needed to elect Democrats, that it's a white thing. Btw, no one agrees.

[AgingAmerican]

29. The breadth of her support is very narrow

She would get slaughtered in the general if she is dependent on some minorities and older women for all her support.

[BlueStreak]

42. The key really is the millennials. This will be interesting.

Trump isn't strong with them. Sanders is the only candidate getting consistently strong support from the under-35. If Hillary is going to be the candidate, she had better have a strategy for having Sanders solidly on the team to bring that bloc with him.

If she foolishly "does the Clinton thing" which is to triangulate to the far right, she will lose, period. You can't out-bat-shit-crazy-right-wing Donald Trump. There is no room on the insane right. The opportunity is with the progressive agenda.

But I think we all know where this is headed. Once she gets the nomination, Mr. Bill will convince her to move far right.

[Hortensis]

45. Surely a strange observation, but

believe what you want.

[BlueStreak]

36. I was referring to the red states that have already voted

Sadly blue votes in red states just don't mean anything. Sorry, that's the way it is. I am a white guy in Indiana, and my vote actually counted in 2008 when Obama won, but it won't count this year. Indiana will vote for Trump Hillary by a wide margin. They are mostly morons here.

I'm not saying that people in "can't win" states shouldn't vote. Obviously we should make our voices heard as much as possible. But the point here is about WINNING THE DAMN ELECTION. And I think there is a very good case to be made that, leaving policy differences aside, we have our best chance of winning the WH running with Sanders.

A month ago, I did not believe that. I always knew that Hillary had loads of baggage. But I was concerned that Sanders would get hit with the "Who? That commie?" card. But the fact is that he is getting his message out there and people are responding in a big way. Certainly the Kochs will try the "Commie" card, but Sanders is building quite a bit of immunity by owning it. He turns it to an advantage. "Yes, I am a social democrat, and here's what that means in terms of how your life can be better ..."

[BlueStreak]

13. Here are Clinton delegates from states she has almost no chance of winning in November

These are states she won. There are also delegates from states that Sanders won but neither will carry in November:

S Carolina: 39
Alabama: 22
Georgia: 73
Tennessee: 44
Texas: 147
Louisiana: 37
Mississippi: 32

That's 394 delegates from states that just aren't going to do anything for us in November. I mean no disrespect to the Democrats living in those states, as I live in such a state that hasn't had its primary yet. But the reality is that those 394 really mean nothing.

You take those 394 off the table, and also take away the Sanders delegates from "can't win" states and this is absolutely a dead heat. Obviously those aren't the rules for nomination. But even the strongest Clinton supporter should at least acknowledge there is a problem here. When all is said and done, Sanders is going to be stronger in the states we must win to take the White House.

[StevieM]

18. Using that rationale we should have picked Clinton over Obama eight years ago.

Seriously, this argument is the same exact one that Hillary supporters made in 2008.

[BlueStreak]

21. That's simply not true

It may have been a similar argument, but the numbers are nowhere near the same. The only states that Obama won in the primaries where he had no practical chance of winning in November were

Mississippi: 20
Wyoming : 7
Texas: 99
Louisiana: 34
Alabama: 27
Utah: 14

That's 201 delegates over the ENTIRE primary field.

And in 2008, Clinton won 122 delegates from states she had no chance of winning in November:

W. Virginia: 20
Indiana: 38
Tennessee: 40
Oklahoma: 24

Take all those "can't win" delegates off the table and Obama still wins the nomination comfortably in 2008. If you take them off the table in 2016, it is very much a dead heat.

[StevieM]

24. You missed a few states.

Last edited Sat Mar 26, 2016, 10:37 PM - Edit history (1)

Obama also won in Idaho, South Carolina, Georgia, Wyoming and North Dakota.

We did win in Indiana and we'll never know how Clinton would have done there. But the fact that the nominee won means that it was potentially winnable.

Not that I agree with this argument, in any event.

From my point of view, a precedent was set in 2008 that the pledged delegate winner would be the nominee. That was the overwhelming reason why Obama was proclaimed the rightful winner. I don't see how we can abandon that position in the very next election.

But then again, I suppose we could. I just don't think we should.

In the end, I just don't see the super delegates overruling the pledged delegates to give the nomination to a candidate who wasn't a Democrat until recently, and who labels himself a Socialist.

But if Bernie is the nominee he will have my vote. I hope that you will vote for Hillary in the GE if she is our candidate.

[BlueStreak]

37. I am not saying we should change the rules

But I would just like to see Clinton supporters acknowledge there is a whole lot of risk in running Clinton with all her negatives. And I would also like to see the Party and the major media stop their efforts to rig this for Hillary.

I expect Clinton will be the nominee. That is a very dangerous situation, IMHO, because her negatives are almost as high as Trump's. And there are a lot of idiots that are naturally attracted to the big-mouths and bullies. The candidate trying to have an intelligent discussion (Hillary in that case) starts at a big disadvantage.

[Mary Mac]

46. its her turn eight years years later

But Bernie is showing strength, aussi. Just like Hil gave Obama some battering. "It's All In the Game," to quote a former vice president. Great song.

[StevieM]

14. On the other hand, if those states weren't holding caucuses Bernie's numbers wouldn't be nearly as

good in those states, even if he still won them.

Your point about Hillary's red state victories is the exact same ones that Hillary supporters made about Obama's victories in those states in 2008. The argument was not accepted.

[BlueStreak]

17. The rules are the rules

I am not asking anybody to change the rules. But there have certainly been dirty tricks against Bernie that have affected some of this. Moreover, I am simply asking for Clinton supporters to acknowledge that there may be a serious problem here. The way the party has rigged the system with superdelegates, it is theoretically possible for a candidate to not win a single "blue state" in the primaries, but still win at the convention.

Clinton is winning in some of the blue states, but in the end, Sanders will probably win a majority of the states we must win in Novemnber.

[StevieM]

19. Clinton and Sanders will both win states like New York and California.

Clinton won the swing states of Ohio and Florida decisively. Sanders narrowly won Michigan. Wisconsin is a toss-up. Clinton won Nevada, Sanders won New Hampshire, Clinton won Iowa by the slimmest of margins.

Not that I think any of this matters. I don't see these results as relating to the ultimate general election results.

I think both candidates would be good presidents.

[BlueStreak]

23. I will vote for either one, but my point is about November strength

My point is that there are different ways to look at it, and the case for Clinton really isn't as strong as the major media and her supporters here want to make it sound. All I can say is if the party puts her on the ballot, she damned well had better win in November. The worst possible outcome is to have to go down in flames with another centerist, corporatist "New Democrat" candidate that nobody gets excited about.

[StevieM]

25. Well, I wasn't a big Obama fan eight years ago, but I have come to like him a lot.

Maybe you will like Hillary if she becomes president.

If nothing else, I am sure you will be glad to have secured the Supreme Court for 20 years (assuming we can trust Merrick Garland).

Of course, both candidates will struggle if there is a Republican Congress. Hopefully we can vote them out of power, the gerrymandering not withstanding.

[BlueStreak]

38. Despite her shortcomings, I do not question Hillary would be better than Trump as POTUS

My issue is electability. I think some folks are grossly underestimating Hillary's negatives and grossly overestimating the intelligence of the American public not to elect a person like Trump.

[StevieM]

43. I see what you are saying.

Last edited Sun Mar 27, 2016, 12:00 PM - Edit history (1)

I think the party and the super delegates are aware of Hillary's vulnerabilities. But I think they have concluded that any candidate taking the label socialist will ultimately lose, once he is hammered over that relentlessly.

I just don't see how it is being rigged for Hillary. Bernie is on the ballot, getting media coverage, and had lots of money to spend. Even if there is DNC bias, I just don't see where it has mattered.

I think the reason why so many people lined up for Hillary early is because she had incredible poll numbers early in the race, much better than she had versus Obama in 2008. Back when she was Secretary of State her numbers were sky high. Then she get crucified over her emails and Benghazi and they took her numbers way down. The reason why many Bernie supporters don't like her are not the same reasons why she lost the support of independent swing voters.

Obviously that is over now, and yes, I acknowledge the challenges that has created for her. I admit that if Elizabeth Warren had run against her she most probably would have lost.

Hillary's strong lead in the beginning is why only four people chose to run against her. Two of them dropped out early. Bernie sucked up all the anti-Hillary oxygen in the race (along with plenty of supporters who just liked him a lot, setting aside how they felt about Hillary). That left little room for O'Malley, who faded early. So we were down to a two person race after only one state had voted. But still...back in 2008 John Edwards also didn't make it to Super Tuesday. He left after 4 or 5 states, depending on whether you counted Florida.

My point is that in both races we got down to two finalists, with the voters having a choice. And both times I think that a fair fight was offered to the two finalists. I realize that many Bernie supporters don't see it that way, but I just don't see anything that the establishment has done, out of the ordinary, that has changed the outcome of the race. I don't see their behavior--whoever exactly "they" are--as being different from what we saw under Gore vs. Bradley, Kerry vs. Edwards or Obama vs. Clinton.

To be fair, though, eight years ago many Clinton supporters were screaming about DNC bias under Howard Dean in favor of Barack Obama. So it is a recurring theme, I guess.

It's not that Hillary supporters are unaware of her negatives, since the Banghazi and email stories were pushed. It's just that there will always be something that the GOP throws at us. If Wes Clark had been the nominee in 2004 the Swift Boat Veterans would have targeted him, in an equally dishonest way. So we are counting on Hillary to ride out the attacks, like any successful candidate must. Admittedly, that might not be a chance that some voters would be willing to take. And remember, the Democratic Primary voters making this choice are not just the Hillary faithful. They are also the voters that are looking at both candidates and ultimately choosing Hillary.

As I said, I think the assumption is that Bernie's identification as a socialist will ultimately be a huge negative, outweighing all other negatives. That may or may not be true, but it isn't exactly a crazy conclusion, given how hard it has been to elect a candidate simply because they call themselves a liberal.

[Mary Mac]

48. i really think Bill needs to give a speech for her

Like the one he gave for Obama in Charlotte. I'd also like to see more outreach to Asian Americans.

[musiclawyer]

50. And such conventional wisdom is wrong

Hillary is running a 20th century campaign in the 21st century and is doomed. Either sooner or later. She can't win squat without the u35 demo and they will sit out or vote green or write Bernie in. The pat response is 90% of democrats will vote for her. Assume it's true, which I doubt. Then I assure 100% or Republicans won't vote for her and the independents and decline to state who dictate everything in the general will mostly sit out vote Trump. Hillary and the DNC are a disaster in the making.

[StevieM]

56. In every election the Democrat and Republican candidates get 8-10 percent of

the other party's voters. I disagree that 100 percent of Republicans will vote against her.

And I think that under 35 voters will turn out in decent numbers and vote for her by a wide margin.

Ultimately we will find out on Election Day.

[yeoman6987]

31. That is amazing. Clinton 20 to Sanders 15

I had no idea they were that close. This may go to convention as well as the Repugs. Could be a very exciting Summer.

[BlueStreak]

41. The media has been painting this as over before it started

The Dem system is rigged with the super-delegate system. There is no way to have a situation such as the GOP might face where a candidate may not win on the first ballot. In a 2-person race with an insider versus an outsider, it is fait accompli. Unless Sanders ends up with hundreds more delegates than Clinton, the SDs are going to vote for the establishment candidate. The SDs are almost all party insiders.

[yeoman6987]

44. YeahI think the super delegate thing is a horrible thing

It is more a popularity thing or who can do what for whom type of thing. I think the DNC should get rid of them or at the very least let 1 super delegate per state get a vote. That way 50 votes are up for grabs instead of whatever obscene number it is.

[BlueStreak]

52. The GOP wishes they had Superdelegates this year

I bet they do that next time out.

[speaktruthtopower]

8. This is true

[brewens]

27. If not for the "liberal media" blackout on Bernie, he'd be doing a lot better. It works

on people. It's like the way they work religion. It's Hillary, Hillary, Hillary, everyone knows she will win, everyone believes, you should believe too! The big bosses running the media did not want his message getting out for good reason, at least for them.

If his popularity after a short time out there had been fairly recognized and he'd gotten the coverage he deserves, it would be a lot different. How well he is doing despite all the roadblocks speaks volumes.

[redstateblues]

54. Media "blackout"

That's ridiculous. Hillary hasn't gotten any free media compared to trump. The media loves a horse race

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. I think he has outperformed in both states so far

[brooklynite]

6. Alaska: a critical State in the Democratic March to 270 Electoral Votes...

[blm]

9. Enjoying this with you, Blue.

(())

[Ruby the Liberal]

10. Thats awesome!

Congrats on the huge turnout, Alaska!!

[ChairmanAgnostic]

16. But that's because Hilllary supporters were wrongfully forced

to attend caucuses on concrete PAVED PARKING LOTS. Teh horror! It was a Berning conspiracy to keep her voters off of asphalt. Where they excel.

Forget the idea that they RN out of space because 70-80% of the people turning out love the Bern.

If anyone really doesn't get it, this is snark.

[demwing]

20. Well really, what would you expect?

After all, Barack Obama is no Bernie Sanders

[left-of-center2012]

26. HRC's primary wins will go to the GOP in the fall.

She'll need Bernie's supporters to pull off a win come November.
Clinton supporters might want to start playing nice.

[Mary Mac]

47. yeah yall be gracious.

Nt.

[bvar22]

49. It is time for Hillary to withdraw from this election.

Her early wins were from name recognition only.
They certainly couldn't be to her conservative, Wall Street "policies".

In the name of Party Unity, Hillary supporters need to abandon their loser candidate and throw their support behind Bernie, the one who has the best chance of beating ALL Republicans by WIDER margins in the General Election..The Supreme Court appointments demand tah we all do so rather than take a chance on Hillary.

Bernie has the momentum!

[redstateblues]

57. Hillary will be our next President

[bvar22]

58. If so, there won't be much of a honeymoon for her Wall Street/NeoCon policies.

Bernie has waken up too many Democrats to what we are supposed to be.

[MFM008]

51. And Alaska is such a reliably BLUE state

because a couple hundred people voted for Sanders or any democrat.

[Renew Deal]

53. 16 delegates

[Blue_In_AK]

55. I was speaking of percentages

not delegate counts. Obama won 75-25 in 2008, Sanders by 81-19 this year. I'm not sure if the delegates will split out in the same proportion as 2008 or if Bernie might get one more. Also attendance at Alaska's caucus was 110% more than in 2008 - 5,000+ in Anchorage compared to 2,500 in 2008 and similar in the outlying districts.