Discussion for article #246944
“Discussion: X Projected to Win Nebraska Caucuses”
Another banner TPM headline.
Pathetically lame TPM. Really lame.
4 Likes
Better a generic title than the “Dewey Defeats Truman” title on the Kansas thread, or the Minnesota one the other day.
In any event, Josh just gave an explanation (such as it is) here:
10 Likes
Ooops.
Of note: the combined populations of Kansas and Nebraska are only slightly more than the population of Louisiana alone. It look as though Bernie will take Kansas and Nebraska by about 10-20% whereas Hillary will take Louisiana by about 40-50%. Since all three state are about equally red I would say that Hillary is the overall winner tonight.
Also, it appears likely that Hillary has ceded most of the small caucus states to Bernie while concentrating, instead, on the larger primary states. This is a good strategy for both candidates really. Bernie wants to continue to pick off a few states here and there in order to stay relevant. Hillary, on the other hand, probably sees these caucus states as being way too much work for their delegate yield.
She had to put out a lot of resources to fight for, effectively, a tie in Iowa. Iowa was important to her because it set the narrative for the primary season. None of these other caucus states would be worth that much effort for her, though, so I can see why she would willingly hand them to Bernie.
12 Likes
I agree with that assessment.
OTOH, as a Bernie supporter, I’d say the issues he’s raising are relevant whether or not he’s winning the delegate count. He needs to stay in to the end and I think he will. If the MSM could get over its fixation with Drumpf and his penis size, maybe Bernie’s message would get through now and then.
5 Likes
It’s nice to see Bernie smiling so broadly, he doesn’t do enough of it.
7 Likes
A win is a win… but 538 says he may well miss the target (see Harry Enten’s 9:09 PM entry).
Obviously I cant speak to any other districts, but the turn out at my caucus site was pretty impressive. They actually overflowed the secondary overflow site to the point the fire marshal made them set up a third caucus site in the parking lot.
Edit: That said I’m not sure how I feel about the new caucus set up instead of the old primary model. I know a couple people who would have participated in an in and out primary set up, but because of work or other commitments couldnt take off the three or so hours for the caucus process. My wife, for example, works nights and stopping in at the polling place to vote after or before work is doable, a three hour meeting at what is basically her midnight to 3AM is a bit more difficult.
8 Likes
We have no creepy whacky face on our side. Two sane, nice smiles exuding adult intelligence, unlike the other side. I’m actually proud 
10 Likes
I just looked at the delegate count for each state. Kansas: 33, Nebraska: 25, Louisiana: 51. I’m not even going to make an attempt to figure out the delegate math, but it looks like, even with losing two states, Hillary is going to get more delegates out of today’s primaries/caucuses.
2 Likes
Drumpf and his penis size make for much better TV. Cable news is about ratings; nothing more.
I guess my point was that Bernie will have more overall influence on the eventual Democratic platform if he wins in a few states. He knows that he can’t take Hillary head on where she’s powerful. Were he to divide his resources more equally, he would probably lose nearly everywhere. By concentrating all his resources on the few states he can win, he can lose the primary more strategically so as to maintain some influence within the Democratic Party.
2 Likes
Your guess is probably right. Slightly more delegates in the two states that Bernie is winning (combined) compared to the one Hillary’s winning – but she’s winning by a much bigger margin in Louisiana than Bernie is winning by in Nebraska. The only complication is that we have no numbers yet for Kansas (as to why that is…I’m baffled). But even if Bernie wins big there, it looks like Hillary will still come out near-even or ahead in tonight’s delegate count.
Possible. Of course that would on fuel the rage in some Sanders boosters.
Which is where the delegate math is going to grind hard on Sanders having a viable path to the nomination. That is if Michigan breaks like polling suggests it will for Clinton, and be a bellwether for how upper midwest rust-belt states will play out.
Meh. People who get mad at someone for going by the rules that have been set in place for a long time now, aren’t worth my time. She has a strategy and she’s working it. Don’t hate the player; hate the game.
7 Likes
Agreed. The number of Sanders supporters who are shocked and outraged for example of “super delegates” must have been too young or too asleep to remember the same kerfuffle in 2008, or not know the history why the “super delegates” system was introduced after the 1972 nominating disaster.
7 Likes
Yup. the same proportional delegate assignment that makes it hard for the frontrunner to definitively clinch the nomination early in the calendar also makes it very hard for the trailing candidate to catch up. Nature of the beast.
3 Likes
Here’s what 538 says:
Harry Enten 9:58 PM
If you’re looking for good news as a Sanders’s fan, look no further than Kansas. Sanders won 23 delegates to Clinton’s 10 in the state. Not only did Sanders win, but he outperformed his FiveThirtyEight target of 19 delegates. Of course, he’ll need a lot more wins like that to have a realistic shot at the nomination.
4 Likes
Thanks, I see the Kansas number are up now. It looks like Bernie won Kansas by about 35 points. Hillary will still probably win by more than that in Louisiana. Still, despite the fact that the delegate split may be pretty equal overall (and Hillary might even get a few more overall) I’m guessing the Sanders campaign is pretty happy with the outcome. My guess is they have a good shot in Maine tomorrow too. But this all amounts to “staying alive” rather than actually starting to gain ground in any very meaningful way. A Bernie win in Michigan, on the other hand, could be a lot more consequential.
3 Likes