2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSanders has already won most of the West and North states; will he also carry most Central states?
West Coast: Sanders (at least 4 out of 5 states on the Pacific)
Alaska - Sanders
California -???
Hawaii - Sanders
Oregon - Sanders
Washington - Sanders
North: Sanders (at least 8 out of 14 remaining states on the northern border)
Idaho - Sanders
Illinois - Hillary
Indiana - Sanders
Maine - Sanders
Michigan - Sanders
Minnesota - Sanders
Montana - ???
New Hampshire - Sanders
New York - Hillary
North Dakota - ???
Ohio - Hillary
Pennsylvania - Hillary
Vermont - Sanders
Wisconsin - Sanders
South: Hillary (give her credit, she swept the 13 states of the Old South)
Alabama
Arkansas
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Louisiana
Mississippi
Missouri
North Carolina
South Carolina
Texas
Tennessee
Virginia
Central: Sanders (leads Hillary 8 to 7 out of 18 states with 3 decided next week)
Arizona - Hillary
Colorado - Sanders
Connecticut - Hillary
Delaware - Hillary
Iowa - Hilary
Kansas - Sanders
Maryland - Hillary
Massachusetts - Hillary
Nebraska - Sanders
Nevada - Hillary
New Jersey - ???
New Mexico - ???
Oklahoma - Sanders
Rhode Island - Sanders
South Dakota - ???
Utah - Sanders
West Virginia - Sanders
Wyoming - Sanders
Democrats Ascendant
(601 posts)Why leave out the East, or refer to it as Central??
Also, nice dig there calling it the Old South....
Edit: Oh, I see. #BernieMath
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)That tells the real story. Oh, you can add in NY, PR, DC, VI, probably NM to HRC. CA will likely be hers too, but she will have enough delegates before those votes are counted. Not a chance in hell Bernie will sway the first super and he may very well lose one or two that he has. Most people don't take lightly to insults.
mythology
(9,527 posts)He's only won 4 open primaries: Vermont, Wisconsin, Michigan and Indiana.
Clinton has won 11 open primaries: South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee, Georgia, Texas, Virginia, Mississippi, Illinois, Missouri, and Ohio (a semi-open primary). Also while it doesn't count for delegates, she also won the Washington state primary.
It's a myth that Sanders wins open primaries. He wins caucuses and states that have low numbers of black and/or Hispanic voters. He also has done well in states with higher Native America or Pacific Islander populations.
YouDig
(2,280 posts)MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Helped along by minimal debate exposure and lack of funds initially. Since then...and frankly I don't think anything else much matters...he's got the momentum.
onenote
(42,796 posts)In the first two months of the nominating process, Clinton won 20 contests to 15 for Sanders.
During the second two months, Clinton won 7 contests and Sanders won six.
Since May 1st, Sanders has won 3 and Clinton two, although also took the non-binding primaries in WA and Nebraska during that period.
In the Month of May, Sanders has won states that will give him 132 delegates (127 pledged and 5 super). Clinton has won states that will give her 135 delegates (108 pledged and 27 super).
In short, Sanders momentum is carrying him farther from the nomination, not closer.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)inconvenient, but it's a fact. A Senator from Vermont and a 2 decade Presidential Candidate and a recalcitrant DNC and pick and choose debates...I'd say coming from 5% to around 50% indicates something some would call momentum.
I've heard all the yada yada that rallies don't matter. Speeches don't matter. HRC does neither. Why? Now he's known, people like him and are listening to him. The further away from the public...We, the People...HRC stays, the better she does.
Really.
demwing
(16,916 posts)And the further away she stays, the better we do as well.
onenote
(42,796 posts)Maru Kitteh
(28,344 posts)"He wasn't even known for half of the time thus far."
He won a lot of early states. Did he just appear in a fucking dream to those voters or what?
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)However, the early states he won were mainly in the NE...you know, who knew who he was.
If one read the news and polls, it was clear...again, to some...that he was not widely known in the South and that most people tend to go with the known vs. the unknown. That's not my assessment...just bearing out what's known.
And your last statement reflects on only yourself.
Maru Kitteh
(28,344 posts)enough maybe? Did he come to the voters of Iowa in a dream? How could they possibly have known him?
You said half of this time he wasn't known.
We've had 48 contests. In the first 24 we had
Iowa - "virtual tie" declared by Sanders
Colorado - Sanders
Minnesota - Sanders
Oklahoma - Sanders
Dems Abroad - Sanders
Kansas - Sanders
Nebraska - Sanders
Michigan - Sanders
This excludes your Northeastern excuse states.
What else ya got?
Sanders didn't win, because more voters liked Hillary Rodham Clinton. That's just it. That's it. That's all. It's not a conspiracy or a mystery or even mildly puzzling. Millions of us were ready to support Hillary before she even announced, millions more came on board after, and we voted.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)rather overdramatic. Nor did I mock you. That would be bad taste.
Let me try and rephrase. then I'm done. Sanders has not been a household name for more than a Very Few Months...as opposed to 3 decades. Simplified.
Maru Kitteh
(28,344 posts)and you didn't really mean what you said to be taken for reals? I don't understand.
You said he wasn't known for about half of this time, and the states he won were mostly in the Northeast.
I demonstrated this to be false.
Then you moved the goalposts. Now it seems it's the fact that Senator Sanders has not been notable for 3 decades despite the fact that he's been in Washington DC longer than Hillary Clinton is supposed to, what? Afford him some kind of political gimme? Like a handicap on the golf course or bumpers in the gutters at the bowling alley?
All those non-NE states that voted for him in the first half of the contests so far . . . did they know him?
madokie
(51,076 posts)ACTUALLY!
The truth be known that is
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"give her credit, she swept the 13 states of the Old South..."
A new and improved format of "Hillary won the Confederacy", eh? Clever. Clever, indeed.
Democrats Ascendant
(601 posts)Beacool
(30,253 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)1770 to 1500.
Sid
HappyinLA
(129 posts)States by Population (in order 1-20)
California - Hillary leads in polls
Texas - Hillary
New York - Hillary
Florida - Hillary
Illinois - Hillary
Pennsylvania - Hillary
Ohio - Hillary
Georgia - Hillary
Michigan - Sanders
North Carolina - Hillary
New Jersey - Hillary leads in polls
Virginia - Hillary
Washington - Sanders
Massachusetts - Hillary
Arizona - Hillary
Indiana - Sanders
Tennessee - Hillary
Missouri - Hillary
Maryland - Hillary
Wisconsin - Sanders
Looks like 14 to 4 in Hillary's favor with 2 to go.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)a win over the Royals, and it'll draw the same gate ... because it's a win!!!!
Vote2016
(1,198 posts)Democrats Ascendant
(601 posts)Vote2016
(1,198 posts)Democrats Ascendant
(601 posts)Just more #BernieMath
Vote2016
(1,198 posts)Garrett78
(10,721 posts)These binary maps are terribly misleading, as I explained months ago: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511460282
And it's Sanders, not Clinton, who has done best in the 'reddest' parts of the US. Also, caucuses greatly suppress the vote.
Vote2016
(1,198 posts)now as it was before it got stale and moldy.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Do you get that they give no indication as to what the margin of victory was in each state? Do you get that they give no indication as to how many people voted in each state? Do you get that they give no indication as to whether the state held a primary or a vote-suppressing caucus?
You're essentially arguing that Wyoming carries the same weight as New York, yet it's my argument that is "unpersuasive?"
BobbyDrake
(2,542 posts)She's got a bigger winning margin this year than the winning margin Obama had 8 years ago.
Vote2016
(1,198 posts)beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)actually count...votes, delegates and super delegates
june 16th cant come soon enough
CobaltBlue
(1,122 posts)They were the only voting-age group which nationally carried in 2004 for John Kerry?
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)back to the young voters
young voters are at best unreliable...believe me, the election of a trump will have PROFOUND effect on THEIR lives more than any of us others....if they wish to sit and not vote....or go full in with TRUMP....well they will be living with results for the rest of their lives,,,and they would be deserving of it
this is the real world and decision have consequences...if young voters don't mind the consequences of a trump...the 3 supreme court judges he will most likely name and the dismantling of what we democrats have put together for 70 years
....I say go for it
I do have better faith in them....
CobaltBlue
(1,122 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the system is rigged!
onenote
(42,796 posts)and Sanders has won 11. Three states plus DC remain to be decided.
Of Clinton's 12 wins in states carried by Obama, two were in caucuses. Of Sanders 11 wins in states carried by Obama, five were in caucuses (and when a non-binding primary was held in one of those states, Clinton carried it handily).
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)The people have spoken
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)to explain the flaws in it.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,716 posts)It is one of the most transient states in the nation.
BTW, did somebody move Nevada and Arizona from the western part of our nation to the central part?
What a mess...
Vote2016
(1,198 posts)beachfront properties.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I saw that and thought I'd better buy a Parka, Boots and a Snow Shovel.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,716 posts)Thanx for asking.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,716 posts)*presidential candidate
B Calm
(28,762 posts)States carried by the Republican in all four elections
States carried by the Republican in three of the four elections
States carried by each party twice in the four elections
States carried by the Democrat in three of the four elections
States carried by the Democrat in all four elections
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,716 posts)PBO carried FL, VA, and NC in 08, VA and FL in 012.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Let's carefully avoid asking the same question in regards to Sanders. One can only imagine the tortured rationalizations that would follow...
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)demwing
(16,916 posts)mythology
(9,527 posts)out of Sanders totals right?
B Calm
(28,762 posts)But I wonder how many of those Bernie states she'll carry in the GE.
book_worm
(15,951 posts)Also primaries where more actual voters voted in Nebraska and Washington state went to Hillary. Sure they don't count, but it just shows you that if more people vote she wins (usually).
Also you have a funny classification of states.
I go by regions: New England, North Atlantic, Border States, Old South, Farm States, Industrial Midwest, Plains States and Pacific States.
For instance, Many people in Missouri think it is a Midwestern state while others in Southern Missouri believe it is a Southern State. It was classified during the Civil War as a border state that didn't leave the Union, so don't think it is really considered part of the "Old South."
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,716 posts)Renew Deal
(81,886 posts)Garrett78
(10,721 posts)I wrote about this back in March: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511460282.
Those maps are so obviously misleading that promoting them is pure propaganda. Nobody can fail to see the flaw in those maps. Nobody over age 7, that is.
Not to mention the fact that caucuses suppress the vote in a big way. They simply aren't accessible for a lot of folks.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Thank you!
Tarc
(10,478 posts)How about we try again with legitimate regional breakdowns...
Northeast: 4 Sanders, 5 Clinton, 2 remaining
Central: 7/4/2
South: 1/13/0
West: 6/2/4
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Since they treat all margins of victory the same.
Since they don't indicate how many people voted in each state.
Since they don't account for how caucuses suppress the vote.
Since they're so obviously misleading that they're nothing more than a propaganda tool.
Quayblue
(1,045 posts)I am borrowing this for later usage.
senz
(11,945 posts)which we Dems used to refer to as "low information."
Interesting.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Here's a post I made back in March:
Since there are so many posts about Clinton's reliance on "deep red" states in her race against Sanders, I thought I'd start a new thread to address this issue. So, to get a general idea of which states are the 'reddest', I'm going to post Romney's approximate margin of victory in each state he won in 2012. Where the margin is basically the same, I will look at the exact percentage difference and rank accordingly.
1) Utah: 48 points
2) Wyoming: 41 points
3) Oklahoma: 34 points
4) Idaho: 32 points
5) West Virginia: 27 points
6) Arkansas: 24 points
7) Nebraska: 23 points
8) Kentucky: 22 points (22.7)
9) Alabama: 22 points (22.3)
10) Kansas: 22 points (22.2)
11) Tennessee: 20 points (20.5)
12) North Dakota: 20 points (19.8)
13) South Dakota: 18 points
14) Louisiana: 17 points
15) Texas: 16 points
16) Alaska: 14 points (14.0)
17) Montana: 14 points (13.5)
18) Mississippi: 12 points
19) South Carolina: 11 points (10.6)
20) Indiana: 11 points (10.5)
21) Arizona: 10 points (10.1)
22) Missouri: 10 points (9.6)
23) Georgia: 8 points
24) North Carolina: 2 points
So, can the Red State Meme be put to rest now?
Tarc
(10,478 posts)The group that Sanders put little effort into courting beyond South Carolina.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)which progressives now refer to as "low information."
Interesting.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Sanders is the one who has done best in the 'reddest' parts of the US, as I made clear in my reply to senz. The "Clinton has stronger appeal in red states" meme was false when people pushed it back in March, and it's a false meme now.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I was waiting the go to, and equally false, stock response ... " Why) Are you calling Sanders a racist!!!"
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)How many of these is she going to get in the GE?
1 or 2 (in a stretch)?
Clinton gonna win Texas? BUll Shit
Shinny object ....Shinny object
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)Garrett78
(10,721 posts)A person can complain about them on DU without that even remotely suggesting that Clinton is complaining about them. Nobody posting here represents either candidate.
So, what's wrong with caucuses? Caucuses suppress the vote. Many working people, parents, persons with disabilities, people who wish to keep their vote private and others simply aren't able or willing to participate in a caucus. Even the meaningless Washington primary had higher turnout than the Washington caucus. As well as a much different result.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Darb
(2,807 posts)Doesn't mean shit and you know it.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Hmmm.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)See post #35.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)and your "old South" is condescending and offensive. SouthEast would be more appropriate.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Bernie will win California.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)so Bernie represents about 31% of the number of people represented by Hillary (by state)?
You can create convoluted logic if you want, but Hillary has this one won. She deserves to win and clearly is the choice of the majority.
Yelling loudly does not produce more votes. Arbitrary choice of geography does not produce more votes.
Actually, Hillary has more...
-individual votes
-delegate votes
-total money raised
-endorsements by unions
-endorsements by newspapers
-endorsements by Democratic leaders
By all metrics, this was a slaughter - and Bernie lost badly. If there was a mercy rule this primary would have been called a month ago when it became obvious that he could not win. It's been good to keep Hillary on TV and helped GOTV, so a sparring partner is useful, but this primary was never in doubt.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Similarly, the states Hillary won in your "Central" category have significantly more people than the others.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,716 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)But even taking it at face value, it is still deceptive.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,716 posts)All I will say is the seminal poster doesn't cover himself or his profession in glory.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)but Connecticut and NY in different ones.
This is quite amusing.
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)voters in that region seem to trend together in terms of their primary preferences.
4 out of 5 states on the Pacific coast have voted, and all 4 voted for Sanders. That's a fairly easily defined region.
13 out of 13 states in the Old South have votes and they all voted for Hillary. That's a fairly easily defined region.
12 out of 14 states remaining states on the northern border (not including Washington and Alaska which are already in the West Coast region), and Sanders has won 2/3 of those states that have already voted so Sanders will win a majority regardless of how the remaining 2 states vote (and Sanders is well ahead in those two states so it is most likely Sanders will win 10 out of those 14 states). That's a fairly easily defined region.
15 of the remaining 18 states have voted, and Sanders has only a 1 state advantage with 3 states yet to vote. These 18 states added together account for less than a quarter of the Democratic voters so it does not lead to further division into multiple sub-regions (if you are trying to identify geographically definable regions where the voters have shown similar voting patterns in the primary as in the west coast, northern border, and southern regions). You can call these 18 states whatever you want, but if they are not on the west coast or on the northern border or part of the Old South, calling them "the Center" makes as much sense as any other label.
As far as putting NY and Connecticut in different regions, NY is on the northern border of the US and Connecticut isn't. As far as putting NY and Idaho in the same region, they are both on the northern border of the US.
You can divide the states into whatever regions you prefer, but you are missing the point if you fail to note that
(1) Hillary is not very popular on the west coast,
(2) Sanders is noticeably stronger than Hillary in the states that share a border with Canada,
(3) Hillary's support is concentrated in the south and Sanders has won almost twice as many states as Hillary (20 to 11) outside of that region, and
(4) in the 18 states that don't border the Pacific and don't border Canada and are not part of the Old South, there are patches where Sanders does better and patches where Hillary does better.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Elbridge Gerry would be proud.
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)near one another?
Do you see no pattern on the Pacific Coast states or the Deep South states or in the states that border Canada or in the Western Plateau and Mountain states?
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)They give no indication of the margin of victory. They give no indication of population size. They give no indication as to whether the state held a primary or a vote-suppressing caucus.
You're using the same tactic Bush people used following the 2000 debacle. A binary map (red and blue counties instead of states) to give the impression that Dubya's support was far more widespread than it was.
I went over this months ago: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511460282
Not to mention that it's Sanders who has done best in the 'reddest' parts of the US.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,716 posts)CENSUS MAP
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)favored in the 5 out of 9 regions and Hillary is favored in just 4 of 9 regions that are all contiguous to one another:
Pacific on your map: Sanders (at least 4 out of 5 states with 1 voting next week)
Alaska - Sanders
California -???
Hawaii - Sanders
Oregon - Sanders
Washington - Sanders
Mountain on your map: Sanders (at least 4 out of 8 states with 2 voting next week and Sanders far ahead in Montana)
Arizona - Hillary
Colorado - Sanders
Idaho - Sanders
Montana - ???
Nevada - Hillary
New Mexico - ???
Utah - Sanders
Wyoming - Sanders
West North Central on your map: Sanders (3 out of 7 states with 2 voting next week and Sanders far ahead in North and South Dakota)
Iowa - Hilary
Kansas - Sanders
Minnesota - Sanders
Nebraska - Sanders
North Dakota - ???
South Dakota - ???
East North Central on your map: Sanders (3 out of 5 states)
Illinois - Hillary
Indiana - Sanders
Michigan - Sanders
Ohio - Hillary
Wisconsin - Sanders
New England on your map: Sanders (4 out of 6 states)
Connecticut - Hillary
Maine - Sanders
Massachusetts - Hillary
New Hampshire - Sanders
Rhode Island - Sanders
Vermont - Sanders
Hillary won 3 out of 4 West South Central states in your map, she swept the 7 East South Central and Mid Atlantic states and won 7 out of 8 South Atlantic states.
Cutting up the map as you suggest does not change the fact that Hillary's support is geographically limited, and she has lost a majority of contests outside of her region of support:
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,716 posts)My mom was a successful litigant in a med-mal case that cost millions of dollars to litigate and settle... Her attorney* is a member of the prestigious Inner Circle Of Advocates, of which John Edwards used to be a member. I am aware of every lawyerly sleight of hand in the books... Respectfully, your obscurantist arguments may be novel to the other denizens of this board, but not to me...
You can move Nevada from the western part of the nation to the central part of the nation. You can portray Florida as part of the old south despite it being one of the most transient states in the nation. You can put Idaho in the same region as New York. You can say a win in populous Texas is tantamount to a win in sparsely populated Alaska...
But
Drum roll please...
...
at the end of the day people vote and not regions or acreage.
P.S. Her mom was an attorney in Texas and she knew Gerry Spence and the great Racehorse Haynes.
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,716 posts)One of my favorite depositions was from my mom's general physician, not the one whose negligence caused her to lose her leg. He said to the lawyer deposing him "you're like a pitcher, first you throw the ball over the plate, then you throw it on the side..."
C'mon... You take a simple proposition, throw smoke in the air, and hope people get so confused they don't see what is right before their eyes.
People vote, not regions or acreage... Surely you are not going to tell me to disbelieve that.
BTW, I love counsel, just not opposing counsel. My mom's counsel was righteous...
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)ever (I presume you agree that is indisputable), after next Tuesday she will have lost more states than any Democratic candidate since the invention of the modern primary system (I presume you agree that Sanders is favored in Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota and wins in two of those three states will give him more state wins than Hillary had in 2008), and this election is very different from 2008 because the division in party this year is based on ideology and there was not a big ideological difference between Obama and Hillary in 2008 so the rift was personal (which is easy to fix) and not ideological (which is harder to fix because it is based on people's core beliefs).
I believe that Hillary is capable of beating Trump, and I believe she is capable of losing to Trump.
If Hillary has the wisdom to fix the rift in the party by encouraging a progressive platform, by supporting party reforms, by choosing a uniting VP candidate rather than a VP candidate who will exacerbate the rift, by insisting the convention be inclusive, she can unite the party and win.
If Hillary lacks that wisdom, we can buckle in and hope to take the House and Senate in 2018 and perhaps the Presidency in 2020, but 2016 will be an epic fail.
That's what I believe.
PS - Sorry about your mom's leg.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,716 posts)She fell at 78 years old and broke her hip... She threw a clot , which despite the orthopedist having multiple opportunities to diagnose it never did, and she consequently lost her leg from the complications. In a period of sixty days this seventy eight year old woman had a hip pinning, a femoral-popliteal bypass, and a below the knee amputation. She eventually received a prosthesis and could walk with a walker. She lived to 90 !!! but she was never independent again...
Corporate defense lawyers are arrogant , especially med mal defense attorneys, probably because they win 90% of their cases that go to court because there is such a bias in favor of physicians that they can never be wrong... Florida has caps...They are an abomination but that's a topic for another day... They could have settled the case for $250, 000.00 for pain and suffering which is chump change for a limb... They didn't settle and ended up spending millions to litigate and settle the case. It was a eight day trial...
My mom's attorney has won 8 figure verdicts which is big for Central Florida... One of her clients was a laborer with a common law wife and three children who was developing an aneurysm. He didn't have medical insurance and when he presented to the emergency room the ER physician sent him home and told him to get insurance. Several days later the aneurysm developed and it killed him... That was a $50,000,000.00 verdict !!!
My mom's attorney was rich but a justice warrior. She spent her weekends of the Summer of 08 registering Haitian americans to vote in the working class suburbs of Orlando.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)They give no indication as to the number of people who voted in each state (Wyoming carries the same weight as New York, right?). They give no indication as to the margin of victory (who cares that Michigan and Massachusetts were essentially ties, right?). They give no indication as to whether the state held a primary or a vote-suppressing caucus (or both, as in the case of Washington).
The quantity of states argument is so ridiculous that it's hard to believe anyone actually makes that argument. I almost have to assume we're being punked, except that absurd arguments are par for the course around here.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,716 posts)Remember this map from 00:
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Actually, the one I recall seeing was even worse. At least that one has a few different shades for each color. The one I remember was strictly red or blue. And of course it appeared to be almost entirely red--never mind that Gore received more votes.
16 years later and we're seeing bush-league tactics (pun intended) on display in this thread.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Still trying to cut the base of the democratic party out of the picture I see.