So. FL, MO, NC, OH, and IL vote on Tuesday. My predictions.

[Recursion]

(Sorry, dropped this originally in GD by accident.)

FL: 246 delegates

FL is southern, but less black and more hispanic than the cotton states that Clinton has been dominating in; the data about Sanders's support among Hispanics is ambiguous to me. Clinton is polling 35 points up (as compared to the 20 she had been polling up in MI). FL voted Obama in 2008 and 2012.

FL is also a closed primary, which is bad for Sanders. I think this is going to be a Clinton blowout like the rest of the deep south has been, along the lines of 68-30.

NC: 121 delegates

NC is southern, 70% white, 20% AA, and in many ways similar to TN, which Clinton carried 2 to 1. Clinton is polling 20 points up. NC voted Obama in 2008 and Romney in 2012.

NC is an open primary, which is good for Sanders. Assuming the MI turnout model problem is universal (and I think it is for open primaries), I think Clinton very narrowly takes this, 50-48 or so, with the delegates as basically a wash.

OH: 159 delegates

OH is rust belt. 82% white, 12% black. In many ways similar to Michigan, which Sanders won by 2 points recently. Clinton is polling 20 points up, like she was at this point in MI. OH voted Obama in 2008 and 2012.

OH is an open primary, and I think it will see a MI-like bump for Sanders, which will put him just over the top, to 50-49.

IL: 182 delegates

IL is also rust belt. 70% white, 15% black. Also has many similarities with Michigan, but now has the central place in the Lakes economy that MI used to have. Clinton is polling ahead by 40 points. Voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012.

Clinton has some personal attachment to IL but no particular political history there like Obama had. Illinois is an open primary, and I think will see the same kind of turnout effect that MI did, but in this case it won't be enough to get him over the top there. I call close Clinton win, just over 50/50.

MO: 84 delegates

MO is either midwestern or Plains or southern depending on whom you ask. 85% white, 11% black. Voted for McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012. Hasn't been polled (that I can find) in a loooong time.

MO is an open primary, which is again good for Sanders, and demographically and economically it is a better state for him, closer to KS and NE, which he won.

If there's any state where Sanders is poised to make a Michigan-type upset on Tuesday, it's MO. Unfortunately they only have 84 delegates, but I think this could really be a stunner. I predict something like 55-45, Sanders

TLDR:

I predict Clinton wins IL, NC, and FL getting 444 total delegates; Sanders wins MO and OH getting 348 delegates.

My prediction for IL is the one I feel weakest about, and I'm willing to guarantee it's going to be a squeaker no matter what

[Cali_Democrat]

1. My prediction: Hillary wins all 5 of the states

Could I be wrong? Sure....but I think even Bernie supporters will acknowledge that Hillary will win more delegates on Tuesday so Hillary will only expand her lead.

This race feels a lot like 2008, except Hillary is the one with the lead while Bernie is trailing.

With proportional allocation, it's pretty much impossible for Bernie to make a comeback.

[Recursion]

3. I think Clinton's significantly weaker in the midwest than the polling suggests

I guess the operative question is whether MI was a fluke or represents a real problem with the turnout model; I think it's the latter for open contests.

(Obviously I could be totally wrong here too)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. Here is a demographically based turn out model by one of the leaders in the field

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/a-simple-model-for-predicting-hillary-clintons-vote-in-the-march-15-democratic-primaries/

I will be interested to see how it matches up versus traditional polling.

BTW, Abramowitz's model nailed Michigan.

I have two concerns about the model. There are no controls for open versus closed primaries and it might be overly deterministic.

[Recursion]

12. I think the open vs. closed distinction is crucial

And also gets to (part of) Clinton's commanding leads in the cotton states (which are closed for the most part).

Obviously I don't have Abramowitz's specifics but I'm glad to see he seems to agree with me at least in broad strokes.

Your "determinism" point is also interesting. My understanding is it's an open question among political analysts whether (or at least how much) campaigns actually matter. That's the alternate explanation for Michigan: the debate pushed Sanders way up.

I think all told I fall more towards the deterministic side of things, so I tend not to instinctively reach for explanations like that, but it's at least worth considering.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. On Tuesday we will know if Abramowitz's model, conventional polling, or neither is right.

Re: my "deterministic" observation. Abramowitz's model assumes white and non-white voting patterns are consistent, regardless of region...I believe they are more consistent than not but not wholly consistent.

We'll see.

[Recursion]

21. Interesting times, as they say (nt)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. In political modeling small moves among large groups can have a large impact.

For instance PBO received 39% of the white vote and 71% of the Hispanic vote in 2012. If he would have won 67% of the Hispanic vote he still would have cruised to re-election. If he would have won 35% of the white vote he would have lost.

[Garrett78]

95. That looks about right to me.

I've been saying that MO and OH are Sanders's best opportunities. The demographics in those states are more similar to Michigan's than the demographics of Illinois. And the #1 rule of political real estate is demographics, demographics, demographics.

[stevenleser]

131. Either you or Cali_Democrat could be right. There are also a few important things to remember

1. Michigan had not had a contested Democratic Primary since the 1992 campaign and the polling agencies need those kinds of past experiences to accurately shape their models, particularly regarding turnout. Without that experience you are liable to get the kinds of mistakes we saw.

2. It's also possible that Michigan is unique for a number of reasons, Detroit being there, the Flint crisis, etc., and thus the results there will not translate to any other rust belt states.

If you are right and rust belt polling is ALL off by a similar factor, you will be correct. However, if either one or two above factor into the situation (or both), we could see a Clinton sweep of all the states by a wide margin.

[Recursion]

4. But your last point is a good one

With proportional allocation, it's pretty much impossible for Bernie to make a comeback

Agreed. Sanders's shot is to go into a convention with neither of them having a majority of pledged delegates, and lobbying the supers. And God help DU if that happens.

But there's a case to be made; Sanders's map means he could well win more states, and since state party officials are overrepresented in the supers...

[vdogg]

5. I don't think that is much of a problem

If the supers decide to go with the person with the most pledged delegates and the majority of the popular vote, what is there to be upset about? I could see if they're both tied that being an issue, but as you said, Hillary's delegate lead is nearly insurmountable. As long as she leads in pledged delegates by the time all states have voted, it's really a moot issue whether she technically crossed the threshold or not.

[Recursion]

6. We'll see

I'd rather not find out.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. The candidate that goes into the Convention with the most popular votes and pledged delegates...

The candidate that goes into the Convention with the most popular votes and pledged delegates will be the nominee... The lion's share of Hillary's delegates on the floor will be African American, Latino, and women. No way does the party take the nomination out of their hands. It would be a bloodbath.

[Chan790]

23. So would a Clinton nomination out of a brokered convention.

Literally the only way we hold the White House in that scenario involves Hillary withdrawing and stating that she would refuse the nomination if they still nominated her...and I can't see Hillary doing either of those things.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. She is going to the Convention with the most popular votes and the most pledged delegates.

I know you and your associates believe you are better than everybody else, god knows based on what, but that doesn't give you and them the right to take the vote out of anybody else's hands.

[Chan790]

67. I don't think it matters.

If this goes to a brokered convention and Hillary ends up with the nomination, I have every expectation that a majority of those indies that Sanders picked up along the way will vote against Clinton in the GE as a "f**k you, you're never going to be President" to her for winning the nomination. Also, that they're a decisive margin. You're a Clinton supporter...if Sanders ends up with the nomination, you'd vote for him. I cannot say the same thing about the majority of the Sanders supporters I know.

You and I don't have to like it...but at least one of us realizes I'm speaking the truth. Independents and disaffected liberals that feel the Democratic party is out of touch with them and their issues have no reason to vote for a Democrat that doesn't speak for them and who the feel is being foisted on them in a brokered convention.

I really do believe that if Clinton cannot win the nomination outright, she has an obligation to withdraw because holding the White House is more important than your wants or hers or mine...and that's the only action that insures a Democratic victory in November, whereas a Sanders withdrawal does nothing for us.

So, yes...I believe sanity presents us an obligation for Clinton to do the right thing and withdraw.

As for..."god knows what" since I've explained it thrice now and not one Clinton supporter can tell me why I'm wrong...I'm going to chalk it up to willful blindness to the obvious, in this case.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

73. The person with the most popular votes and most pledged delegates wins.

The person with the most popular votes and most pledged delegates wins. I worked for Ted Kennedy in 1980 and god knows I really wanted him to win. He came into the Convention with less popular votes and delegates but wanted the delegates released from their legal obligation to vote for whom they were pledged because he argued there was a shift in sentiment during the course of the election, but his ploy failed miserably. I was disappointed. In retrospect I shouldn't have been; the vote is sacrosanct.

I really do believe that if Clinton cannot win the nomination outright, she has an obligation to withdraw

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

[Recursion]

94. What if those are different people? (nt)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

96. Please elaborate...

The person with the most votes and pledged delegates wins.

[Recursion]

98. But it is not a given that the person with the most popular votes and the person with the most

pledged delegates will be the same person.

In fact they may very well not be.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

100. I can not foresee a scenario where the person with the most delegates doesn't have the most actual...

I can not foresee a scenario where the person with the most delegates doesn't have the most actual votes. In 2008 Barack Obama had the most pledged delegates and who had the most popular votes was disputed because of Florida's and Michigan's status. Hillary Clinton conceded the issue because a fight would have split the party and alienated African Americans who are the foundation of the Democratic party. I can say with absolute certainty if she comes into the Convention with the most popular votes and pledged delegates she is not going to be denied or let herself be denied the nomination. We are getting ahead of ourselves but if such an attempt was tried it would make the contested conventions of yore look like a birthday party.

[Chan790]

116. I think they may be and still not matter...

that person will likely be Clinton, but if she can't avoid a brokered convention she's likely the less electable of our candidates. Possibly even the only one who is unelectable entirely.

Isn't that what the DLC-aligned pragmatics and centrists have been telling us for years? Electability is more important than getting the ideal candidate we want. It's time for those "pragmatic" Democrats to put their actions behind their words and toss-over their preferred candidate Hillary for the one that stands the best chance of winning the GE.

[mythology]

105. So we have moved from complaining that Clinton is "stealing" the nomination

To supporting Sanders "stealing" it in a scenario where Sanders is behind in delegates and popular vote.

[firebrand80]

8. We would see the "Bernie states are more important" argument

I imagine some Internet warriors will add up the delegates from certian cherry-picked states, combine that with recounting states that Hillary "stole" and use that to claim Bernie is the "true" winner.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. After next Tuesday Clinton will have won the three key swing states from 08 and 012.

VA, NC, and FL.

[Dawgs]

60. We heard the same thing ALL last week before Michigan.

Can you we at least fucking vote first? Jebus Christ.

[BillZBubb]

61. That's a nonsense argument.

She may win the Democratic primaries in those states, but that does not extrapolate into a general election victory. In fact, Hillary will get nearly ZERO electoral college votes from the states whose primaries she has won in the South.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

70. She most definitely will be competitive in NC, FL , and VA in the general election.

And if you think the Vermont independent can turn Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Kansas blue in the general elections there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion.

In the last two presidential elections North Carolina, Florida, and Virginia have went Democratic 5 out of 6 times. Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Kansas haven't went Democratic at the presidential level for over fifty years.

That's a nonsense argument.

Whose argument is nonsense now?

[4Q2u2]

79. Yes

I predict that a Democrat will win in the Democratic primary in all 50 States.

[Recursion]

16. Oh that's only the start of what we'll see. We'll also see paeans to the importance of supers

and how crucial it is that the party leadership have some say in this issue. Only it will be from the Sanders camp.

[Number23]

129. It's funny to me that the people who whine the loudest about super delegates are pretty quiet about

open primaries. I think that having Republicans vote for the Dem nominee is far more problematic than having super delegates.

[Chan790]

19. What is to be upset about...

is that it's a problem.

That candidate is likely to be Clinton...and a lot of those independent Sanders supporters will say "Fuck that shit!" and immediately decide to vote Republican in the GE purely to spite her and deny her the Presidency.

If it's that close without an deterministic result going into the convention, our only chance of holding the White House is for Clinton to withdraw...and she won't. Even if Sanders withdrew, I would expect the indies that backed him to give Clinton the finger and vote against her to deny her the Presidency. It's both personal and ideological for them...but they have no loyalty towards a Democrat that doesn't support their issues.

[Stallion]

92. Ha! That's Not Going to work

The Super Delegates are mostly Democratic officeholders who don't want to run with a Democratic Socialist at the top of the Ticket

[reformist2]

25. You need to ignore the superdelegates in your assessment about who can win.

Because if it comes down to it, the superdelegates are not going to go against the will of the elected delegates, or all hell will break loose.

[Recursion]

26. All hell may well break loose, is what I'm saying (nt)

[BeyondGeography]

27. Not too much longer and we'll be seeing these signs

Bernie will be Bill and the people holding the placards will be in their 60s.

[Jitter65]

2. I'll place a huge bet in favor of your predictions. They look good to me. nt

[Orangepeel]

7. Seems reasonable. I'm wondering if Kasich on the ballot will be a factor in Ohio

Apparently, he's pretty popular. Some independents and/or democrats might choose to vote in the republican primary to vote for him over Trump.

But even if so, I don't know whether it will favor one candidate over another or be a wash.

[aspirant]

11. Are you looking to take over where for Nothing Nate stepped in it?

[Buzz Clik]

37. What's your prediction?

Other than "Feel the Bern"....

[aspirant]

46. I don't predict, I'll let the propagandists do their thing.

[Buzz Clik]

48. Ah. The consummate curmudgeon: always complaining but contributing nothing. Ok.

[aspirant]

52. One can slowly drown in their unscientific, unverifiable numerical predictions

[Buzz Clik]

56. Yeah, we get it. You don't like polls.

[aspirant]

59. I'm happy you finally understand my "contribution"

[Adrahil]

77. Ah yes! If a model is ever wrong, it's useless. Climate science is a LIE!!!!!

FFS... I can't stand this kind of bullshit.

Nate Silver is a data wonk. But read his damn stuff. He constantly caveats that data can be predictive but sometimes predictions are WRONG. That doesn't make the process of modeling useless or propaganda, anymore that climate models are "propaganda" if they predict something that doesn't happen.

They are models, not reality. And sometimes they are wrong.

[aspirant]

78. Science, E=MC2 how often does this model change?

[Adrahil]

81. All scientific theories are models.

F=ma worked for centuries. Until it didn't. E=MC^2 is great, but doesn't a great deal of quantum phenomena.

Models are partial representations of a thing. They are not the thing itself.

Climate models are models.

I do engineering modeling for a living. They are extremely useful. And sometimes wrong.

[aspirant]

82. If everything is a model and ever changing, then we only have predictions and

not pure scientific fact

[Nitram]

88. In a sense, you're right asp, there are no "pure" scientific "facts"

But in reality, science works. It's a matter of how long a model has been working, and how accurate it has been over time. Plus, the diversity and robustness of the evidence backing it up. Like the theory of Evolution.

[Garrett78]

93. Bingo. It's the same argument evolution and AGW deniers use.

Science evolves with new information, while "God's laws" never change. Therefore, science is bunk. That's the silly argument commonly used by the Christian Right.

[Adrahil]

91. Correct. Mostly.

Some data are facts. All predictions are predictions. And most are inaccurate to some degree (often too small to matter).

[Nitram]

101. I don't share your confidence in "facts", Adrahil.

While I intuitively accept the existence of facts, the history of science suggests that what is viewed as a fact can turn out to have been based on the particular scientific paradigm that was operating at the time. For example, it was considered a fact that planetary orbits were circular by the first scientists to accept the heliocentric theory of the solar system. It wasn't until it was discovered that planetary orbits could only be predicted if their orbit was elliptical that the idea of circular orbits as fact fell into disfavor.

Measurements that are taken as fact suffer from the inaccuracy of the instruments used to take the measurements. Even small changes in the accuracy of instruments can change the way we understand the universe.

Just for the record, I am trained in science and consider the scientific method the most powerful tool for understanding the world around us that has ever been created. That said, my work in the philosophy of science has strongly influenced the way I think about facts, hypotheses and theories.

[Adrahil]

115. Well, here's what I mean.

Data are facts in that they are what they are. They are measurements, observation, with all that goes along with that. We can say the data is what it is (that is, it is a fact that my measurement was THIS), but that's it. Scientific theories do not represent "Truth." They are a model. And like all models, they are incomplete.

And that's the point, right? No matter how good or predictive your model is within a domain, there is always the chance that it will be wrong, perhaps very wrong if a factor not accounted for emerges, or if some assumptions were wrong. But that does not invalidate the model as a concept. We know, for example, that F=ma is not actually True, but for 99+% of all practical applications, it may as well be.

But I think we are in basic agreement on that subject.

[Nitram]

117. Yes, we are in agreement, Adrahil.

It's a topic that interests me. One about which there are a lot of mistaken ideas even among working scientists who haven't looked into how science really works. Unfortunately, it also leads to the notion among creationists and climate change deniers that if there is a shadow of a doubt that a theory or a set of data are 100% certain, then the theory must be false.

[Adrahil]

119. Absolutely! Fascinating.

I am an engineer, rather than a theoretical scientist, and my professional life revolves around models, both deterministic and stochastic. It's a powerful perspective!

[Nitram]

123. You might find Thomas Kuhn's book, "the Structure of Scientific Revolutions" as interesting...

...as I did when I first read it decades ago. It changed the way I thought about science.

[ieoeja]

104. /geek=on/ Irony alert: that is not the actual formula. Real formula: E=1/2(mc^2-mv^2)

In practice, E=mc^2 works because v (velocity) is negligible compared to c (speed of light). But it is not actually the correct model.

If you have ever wondered why (c) is the speed limit in our universe, solving the above equation for mass where (v) = (c) yields a division by zero giving infinite mass.

M=2E/(c^2-v^2)


/geek=off/

[thesquanderer]

120. statistics are not "unscientific"

Statistics is a science of probabilities.

Some polls are scientific, some are not. The easiest way to tell is to to see if they have provided a margin of error.

Of course statistical predictions can be wrong. (Part of the science of statistics even provides an estimate of how likely they are to be wrong.) That doesn't make them useless.

Something that provides the correct answer most of the time is still useful, compared to having no guidance at all and assuming that every outcome is equally likely.

[Nitram]

121. Right squanderer, there is a big difference between a scientific poll and an unscientific one.

While a scientific poll is more likely to be accurate, there is no guarantee it's results are correct.

[aspirant]

128. Results must be available and verified to label it scientific

"trust us" is not science

[aspirant]

127. Wrong

Science must be verifiable and data must be released to verify

[thesquanderer]

130. Yet science can also be wrong.

Science is merely our best understanding with the data available at the time.

[aspirant]

132. "with the data available"

Bingo. Call any pollster and demand the names and contact #'s of all poll participants so we can verify and then see what they say.

[marions ghost]

13. About NC

Unaffiliated voters now outnumber those registered as members of one of the two major parties in more than half of North Carolina's 100 counties. Registration data from the State Board of Elections show unaffiliated voters have surpassed Republicans in 36 counties, and Democrats in 19.

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article10069646.html#storylink=cpy

--------As usual it's close in NC. I predict a nail-biter.

There is a lot of dissatisfaction with local and state politics in NC so that should bring out more voters.

[Recursion]

14. And NC's been having that Mondays thing, right?

That could be a winner for Sanders if he can hook into it, which is always the problem.

[marions ghost]

24. NC opposition to the status quo is

sensitized and and organized.

"Status Quo" has worked against every progressive objective EVER achieved in NC and is hurting the state badly. Third Way is not working in NC against the Kochs.

The 2010 gerrymandering rudely jerked NC to the right. That isn't fixed yet. NC folks are seeing exactly how the Koch-backed elements hijacked the state.

I hope NC is feeling the Bern.

[Gwhittey]

22. I wonder if

federal inmate number 29396-058 better know as Patrick Cannon an establishment Mayor of Charlotte who last year was convicted of corruption will hurt Hillary. What do you think? I mean there is a investigation going on by FBI and FBI where the ones to take down Patrick Cannon.

[marions ghost]

31. The most interesting buzz from Charlotte

is that Gov McCrony seems to have become persona non grata there, no matter how many Panthers games photo ops he collects...and everywhere he goes you can still see that telltale trail of coal ash...

I don't think Cannon will affect Hillary vs Sanders much. He's history.

Sanders should have the edge over Clinton with anyone in NC wanting more honesty and transparency in government, never mind what their party affiliation is.

[Jarqui]

17. If it plays out as you say, I'd be over the top delighted

To me, that's the dream scenario - the outside best Bernie could possibly hope for.

Nate has Ohio >98% and FL, NC & Il >99% (like he had Mi <99%).

In the south, Hillary has consistently outperformed the polls so NC and FL are all but in the bag.

Your prediction might be two Michigan upsets in one night depending on where Missouri is in the polls.

Projecting some over-performance of the polls which Hillary has done everywhere in the south and some under performance from Michigan effect in the north, Hillary projects to gain 190 delegates.

If he can get her under a gain of 150 delegates, he'll have done really well, under 120, very well and under 100 - incredible.

[Recursion]

20. Missouri isn't anywhere in the polls; that's the thing

It hasn't been polled, I'm not kidding, since August (even Silver has pointed out his method is essentially worthless for MO because of that).

Your prediction might be two Michigan upsets in one night depending on where Missouri is in the polls.

That's why I'm posting it, so people can mock me if I'm wrong or I can gloat if I'm right.

In the south, Hillary has consistently outperformed the polls so NC and FL are all but in the bag.

FL isn't even a question, to me. NC... I don't think Sanders will win. But I think he will outperform.

That's why I highlighted MO as the news cycle lead. It's going to seem like it was out of nowhere, because it hasn't been polled since Jesus was a Lance Corporal.

[Jarqui]

29. I've tried to look at this objectively. I think you have too.

I do not think anyone should mock you given how far off the polling has been in these primaries. It's not easy and we're all having to guess some because the information is so scant or poor quality.

i think Nate is really sticking his neck out asking for trouble with these >98% and >99% predictions - the polls have not been that good. Just on that alone, I don't think he should go that high. I suspect we'll see an article before the primaries are out on how he's "adjusting his modeling in primaries" to deal with this. The odds are in his favor that it will work out as he says but I think the polling data is so suspect that the chances of him being wrong is greater than a fraction of 1%.

The pollsters claim their margin of error is +/- 5% or so but the polls of polls is often out closer to 10 points in the south and was off by 22 pts or so in Michigan. That is messed up. That is certainly not something we see in the general election. +10% or +12% is typically "safe" or ">99%" but in these primaries +/- 10-20% seems to the margin of error (which is almost nuts)

So thank you for sticking your neck out a little.

If Bernie can keep the losses down, I think the demographics turn for him after Mar 15th and it could get very interesting.

[Recursion]

30. Late March and April are going to very good for Sanders, and here's the thing:

The thing is, the primary structure assumed that a well-moneyed establishment candidate could drive all of the money away from an insurgent by dominating in the South. The thing is, that hasn't happened, and hell Sanders takes more money after a loss than after a victory. Dude has the cash right now to keep going until the convention if he wants to, and I don't see how that's stopping.

[Jarqui]

45. The Clinton campaign thought they could bury him in the early primaries.

Maybe Michigan is Bernie's Iowa, where folks woke up and said "we're done with the Clinton lyin', Bernie can win!" (that's not necessarily probable but Michigan certainly got some folks talking, thinking and fact checking Hillary's lies in the media - which hasn't hurt Bernie's cause and flipped a state for him).

If Bernie were to hold Hillary close to a delegate draw in these upcoming Mar 15th states, she's probably going to loose the primary. The momentum will have shifted and she won't be able to get it back for sometime to come. So she's got something at stake on Mar 15th too and they know it. We can expect every dirty trick they can imagine and then some.

And you're right. Bernie can get $5 mil whenever he needs it with a five second pitch at the podium. He does not have a big money problem. Hillary has got to keep doing fundraisers
http://hillaryspeeches.com/scheduled-events/
(new Clinton code word for fundraiser to cover their tracks ... "conversation" ... isn't it insulting they think we're all that stupid? What that really reveals to me including things like David Brock or her lame lies is the people surrounding her are not very smart. A lot of folks see through this pathetic stuff. These same clowns want to move into working at the White House ... Here's a free tip: don't publish the fundraisers schedule you dumbasses!! - of course that takes up nearly the whole schedule ...)

[aspirant]

40. "sticking your neck out"

What's the purpose of a guess and does anybody's guess make you feel better?

Are we such loose cannons that we must cling to made-up numbers?

This is pure emotional propaganda and inputting guessing games into our lives to try to influence our feelings is cruelty.

Their are many out there trying their damnest to work for their candidate and here we are in the DU ivory tower playing guessing games, how posh.

[Jarqui]

63. On Mar 15th, the Clinton campaign will begin to press Sanders to get out of the race.

They're going to win that day. They've made some rumblings already. They're going to really try to make the pitch that it's over - to discourage Sanders supporter like their "inevitable" campaign in prior months. That is in part because the primaries that follow are not as favorable for Hillary. Hillary will have got all the southern support she is going to get - which is where she really won her lead.

This is a little like a sporting event in that folks are going to want to know the score. Once the score is known to that point, then what's the path forward? How do you rebut Ciinton's inevitable pitch if you haven't looked?

As for "sticking your neck out", some are bookmarking comments in this thread.

One could say "well, wait until the results are in!". There's some merit to that because we have to shadow box the problem. But there's also some merit to looking ahead because the campaign and those who support it are going to have to say something promptly on or about March 15th in response. If one hasn't looked ahead or thought about it, then the quality of their response, which at that moment will be pretty important, is less likely to be very convincing or good and won't be based in all the available good facts.

It's not simply trying to make anyone "feel better" or "pure emotional propaganda". The effort is for Sanders campaign to help keep the support he's got working for his cause after what is likely to be a disappointing night for those in the trenches. It helps prepare folks for that night - so it's not a big shock. If you don't like it, I suspect the page down or page back key works on your keyboard as i certainly see no harm done.

[aspirant]

74. emotions

"It's not simply trying to make anyone "feel better" or "pure emotional propaganda". The effort is for Sanders campaign to help keep the support he's got working for his cause after what is likely to be a disappointing night for those in the trenches. It helps prepare folks for that night - so it's not a big shock. If you don't like it, I suspect the page down or page back key works on your keyboard as i certainly see no harm done."

"pure emotional propaganda"
1) A "disappointing night" doesn't involve emotions? How can you be disappointed if someone hasn't thrown made-up numbers into your life?
2)"a big shock" Is that what an election is about, controlling shocks?

"If you don't like it" I am free to choose my actions, thank you.

This is a Revolution, not a temporary roller coaster. The true believers are in this to make change and fight for years to come, no matter what.

[Jarqui]

84. I don't think looking at the facts and commenting on them is "propaganda"

It's an opinion based upon the facts on the state of the race. When I last checked, this is a particular forum for discussing issues related to the Democratic party primaries. I think we're on topic in that regard. And your intrusion to try to muzzle our discussion is not likely to work.

"Propaganda" ? I think the discussion is trying to keep things more realistic and down to earth while acknowledging the polls are not very good for primaries this year. We're kind of comparing notes and kicking things around - not spinning crap to convince someone of something. Just trying to come up with rough bookends on the potential outcome.

Sure there are emotions. But pure propaganda in what we're talking about? That's silly. We're kicking around delegate ranges of how it might turn out. That's all. Do you really understand the meaning of the word? Sure doesn't look like it to me.

"The true believers are in this to make change and fight for years to come, no matter what."
I've been at it since the 60s so no fucking kidding. Did you stay up all night coming up with that? I'm living in the present and this campaign is what is happening right now. So like many, I'm going to focus on that and we can worry about the "years to come" some other time - like we often do AFTER elections. Right now, we need to keep our eye on the ball. You can run along and worry about your propaganda for "the years to come" and we can carry on worrying about the campaign that's going on right now. Sounds like a good plan to me.

[aspirant]

89. What "facts"

"the state of the race" doesn't show facts, just PREDICTING a winner, all guesses.

My opinions are just as valid as your guesses and I am free to voice my opinion as you are, no muzzling involved.

You write "not very good" polls but certain people use these unverifiable junk polls as propaganda and "just kicking things around" is naive.

"pure propaganda" Let's hear your complete definition where it never ever includes emotional manipulation. This a joke, right?

"we can carry on worrying" I'm not worrying about anything, you are. You choose to ride the roller coaster, I choose to pursue the the Revolution's goal, CHANGE and not get bogged down in the minutia.

"Right now we need to keep our eyes on the ball" How long did it take you to put together that pearl?

[Jarqui]

97. Polls are facts

Which states have voted and which have not are facts.

What is going on in the race are facts (ie the AP article outlining things Clinton claimed in the FL debate that they feel are not true or accurate or the results of the debate that might affect the polls).

Demographics are facts.

What are the candidates doing in advertising are facts.

Is a given primary a pure vote or is it a caucus is a fact.

Which states are they campaigning in and by or with who are facts.

Whether the state primary is open or closed and when registration ends are facts.

The number of delegates award in the election for each state are facts.

When the various primaries take place are facts.

The tally of the delegates for each candidate are facts.

The number of delegates required to win is a fact.

You pathetically asked "what facts?". The above are some examples of facts that each of us probably considered in developing our thoughts on those facts. Again, so many facts, it's perplexing that you'd even have to ask.

If you really think those facts or our discussion about them is propaganda, maybe we should feel sorry for you because with an apparent problem with basic vocabulary, you do not appear to be up for this level of discussion.

When the folks on 538.com or Daily Kos or a GOP forum discuss among themselves polls and projections, etc, do you really believe that back and forth discussion is "pure emotional propaganda"?

It is not "pure emotional propaganda" to discuss those facts and where the upcoming state contests might lead us openly on a forum. That is a back and forth discussion of the facts and an opinion expressed by each of the two in that discussion on where those facts might lead us on March 15th expressed between two posters on this site who looked at those facts.

In the middle of that nice discussion, you weigh in with your clueless bullshit allegation about propaganda.

In trying to apply the term "pure emotional propaganda" to our discussion, it's really beyond debate that you do not really understand the word "propaganda". I'm sure it's obvious to many wasting their time reading this that you just don't. And it appears that you're just trolling for an argument using words to you do not fully understand to make unfounded allegations.

[aspirant]

111. No, "polls" are not facts, they're guesses

Thread title = "My predictions" the crux of the conversions

"pure propaganda" Let's hear your complete definition where it never ever includes emotional manipulation. This a joke, right"? You must nave forgotten to define it, shall we try again or do we just "feel sorry for you"

Post 29
1) " we're all having to guess some"
2) " asking for trouble with those >98% and 99% predictions"
3) " the polls have not been that good"
4) " I think the polling data is so suspect"
Post 63
1) " we have to shadow box the problem"
2) " looked ahead...their response...is less likely to be very convincing or good and won't be based on all the available good facts" Propaganda??????
3) " helps to prepare folks for that night so it's not a big shock" So your predictions prevent heart attacks
Post 84
1) " It's an opinion"
2) " polls are not very good for primaries"
3) " comparing notes and kicking things around" You don't kick around facts, they stay motionless.
4) " potential outcome"
5) " how it might turn out" definition of a guess

Your taking your facts and making your PREDICTIONS that's "pathetically" subjective

When you confuse future guesses with real outcomes, then we truly have " clueless bullshit allegations"

Again, help me understand the definition of "propaganda" and if it ever includes emotions.

[Jarqui]

113. You've completely convinced me that helping you

"understand the definition of "propaganda"" is not possible.

[thesquanderer]

75. I agree. If he ends up only increasing his deficit by about 100, that would be tremendous.

This Tuesday is expected to be pretty brutal to him, things turn for the better from there on out. It will be tough no matter what, but if he can manage to limit his delegate deficit to only about 100 more than it is today, that's about as good as it gets, and leaves him with about the best shot he has.

[PyaarRevolution]

32. Florida for Sanders.

It's going to be a win, might even be 10 points or more because I think his support among Hispanic Americans will carry it unless closed means something different than I think.
Closed primary means that if you're an independent or a Republican you can still switch to Dem. on primary day right?

[Buzz Clik]

35. Marking this prediction.

See you Tuesday night.

[PyaarRevolution]

39. I only make that prediction on the condition that closed means what I said above.

That you can be an independent or a Republican and register Democrat primary day.

Bernie's general attitude has always been favorable to the Hispanic community and they see that. Mentioning the Amacali Farm Workers fight for a higher wage will definitely help him I think, especially when you consider the noise from the debate audience and the amount of press that story has gotten.

[Buzz Clik]

43. A closed primary means only registered Democrats can vote. You changing your prediction?

[PyaarRevolution]

47. I'm not changing anything.

I said I ONLY hold to that prediction if those who are Republicans OR Independents can re-register as Democrats that primary day or before.
When the KS caucus happened I was independent and allowed to re-register as a Democrat for the caucus but you can't stay independent for it. To my knowledge I thought that would still be considered closed. Am I incorrect in that assumption?

[Buzz Clik]

51. You'll be interested in this:

Party changes must be made by the end of the 29th day before the primary election.

http://www.flaglerelections.com/Voter-Education/Closed-Primary-Elections

There's power in information.

[PyaarRevolution]

58. That 29th day must be a specific Florida thing.

Because I was able to change my affiliation in KS the day of at the primary polling place. I don't hold to my prediction because Florida doesn't hold the same conditions I had in KS.

[Recursion]

36. Yeah, no. FL is Clinton.

It's a close primary and Sanders is on tape praising Castro.

This also makes a general for Sanders difficult because we've depended on FL, but I think he can bring back some of the midwest and high plains. It's a longshot, but so are both of our candidates.

[DinahMoeHum]

38. "Closed primary" means you can only vote in your party's primary

IF you have registered as such.

ie.
if you're registered as a Democrat, you can only vote in the Democratic primary
if you're registered as a Republican, you can only vote in the Republican primary
if you're registered as an Independent, STOP, you CANNOT VOTE IN THE PRIMARY.

[PyaarRevolution]

41. Not even if you re-register as Democrat that day?

[Jarqui]

49. Registration for FL ended Feb 16th nt

[PyaarRevolution]

62. Glad I don't live in Florida.

I wonder if the state Democrats there have a really crappy attitude towards those who join the Democratic party around the primaries

[RockaFowler]

114. It's a Florida Rule

This goes for Republicans, too

[Buzz Clik]

33. You have HRC adding ~100 delegates to her lead.

With about 2300 delegates remaining after Tuesday, the gap in delegates will be about 13-14% of those remaining.

That's a steep climb.

[Recursion]

34. I do

I've said upthread, I think Sanders's only hope is a brokered convention, barring some kind of meteor strike. (That's why the talk against the supers from most of the rest of the Sanders camp seems off-key to me: we need them.)

[JonLeibowitz]

85. I think you are mostly right in this thread

I would only say that the supers need to be talked about negatively right now because otherwise her lead is insurmountable. If the end result is a delegate split I expect the conversation to switch to electability. God help us if there is another Clinton scandal.

[alcibiades_mystery]

42. I don't think Illinois will be close

56-44 Clinton.

[PyaarRevolution]

53. Bernie might carry Chicago.

I don't know about the rest of the state. Given the fact Chicaco has WCPT I imagine any negative ads Hillary runs will be clarified VERY quickly online and OTA because of the aforementioned radio station. They also have strong Unions in that city plus Rahm's name is grass in that city. I haven't even addressed the possible voter fraud that won Rahm the primary this last go round.
Chuy's support of Bernie(unless I'm mistaken) will help him tremendously for Chicago.

[alcibiades_mystery]

57. You think Bernie will carry Chicago?

OK, then.

[Recursion]

66. That's why we post these threads

Hell, my neck is out not much less than Pyar's is at this point.

That said: I can't see Sanders winning Cook County whatsoever.

[Recursion]

65. Sanders will lose Chicago dramatically

If he wins IL (which is a real possibility) it will on the strength of the south and west turnout.

[PyaarRevolution]

69. Rahm is a giant poison pill.

Any association that links Hillary to Rahm will be a millstone around her neck. There is so much momentum towards getting Rahm out because of the schools, the shootings, all of these weigh heavily on the Black community around Chicago.
Unless the campaign is running NO ads linking or implying a link of Rahm to Hillary I see the Black community coming out in droves to primary for Bernie.

[lunasun]

90. Oh yeah what am I thinking? Some key polling places where Bernie is polling well will not open until

everyone is at work and school because voter fraud like last year when that happened
Yes Garcia has a big ad out for Sanders .

Again the big Hispanic push, like in the mayor race, is Machine you don't run us and are not good for our city
and the tactics they use every time to win prove it

[ieoeja]

106. Sanders has dominated in rural regions. Suburbs and cities have been Hillary's.

The official Democratic slate of candidates is a thing in Chicago. And they slated Hillary. Winning against the slate is difficult, though not impossible.

That Rahm necklace might hurt her.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

54. Because of the Michigan polling debacle folks are disregarding all polls...

That makes me as much sense to me as taking up smoking because your uncle who smoked four packs of cigarettes a day died at ninety when he was hit by a car.

[ieoeja]

110. First Bernie campaign ad I saw in Chicago was on Wednesday.

Assuming the same was true of the other suprise victories, then the polls would have pre-dated the start of Bernie's campaign in all of those states. Which could explain why the polls were off so badly in all those states.

Also, Michigan wasn't the only state with a dramatic difference between polling and results. It was just the most dramatic.



Hillary is using the standard "early and often" strategy. I wonder if the Bernie campaign have concluded:

Candidates get a bump in the polls when a new ad resonates. But people get really sick and tired of seeing that ad over time. It loses its resonance. So we will wait and do a last week ad blitz.

We see some of this every election. Candidates without money have to wait til the last minute to do their ads. But the lack of money limits the size of their ad blitz. Bernie is doing the same thing, but with lots of money for a much bigger blitz.

[DCBob]

50. That would probably be Bernie's best case scenario.. but just puts him in a much deeper hole.

Hillary would gain about 100 delegates giving her a total lead of well over 300. That is a huge lead to overcome.. nearly impossible unless some bombshell drops. Absent that she can cruise to the nomination.

[Recursion]

55. I agree with both points

That is Sanders's best case, but I also think it's the most likely case, and I think it doesn't help him very much.

nearly impossible unless some bombshell drops

I'm outright saying, as a Sanders voter, that he simply can't win a majority of pledged delegates. Which is why I find my fellow Sanders voters' denigration of unpledged delegates.... to put it politely, "confusing".

This man's only play is to go in as a minority candidate against a plurality candidate into a contested convention. Period.

[DCBob]

71. If contested and Hillary has the lead.. she wins.

The Supers will put her over the top.. that's their role.

[Recursion]

72. At the risk of going all mysterious.... we'll see

I do take your point. Sanders is a long long long-shot. And I'll work my ass off for Clinton come crunch-time. But I think there are going to be fireworks at both conventions.

[cemaphonic]

112. It's a 2-person race

It's pretty much a guarantee that there will be a majority among the pledged delegates. And if it somehow ends up as a dead heat, I think it's a safe bet that the supers break toward the establishment candidate.

[Attorney in Texas]

64. Hillary wins the Bible Belt (FL, NC); it's close elsewhere (MO, OH, and IL). The corrupt Chicago

machine is unsurprisingly supporting the turn-a-blind-eye establishment to keep their status quo so it will be interesting to see if that machine can blunt the force of the grassroots in IL.

Like Harry Reid made the difference by going all in for Hillary in Nevada, Claire McCaskill is going all in for Hillary so it will be another interesting status quo establishment versus grassroots fight in MO.

OH is the Republican Waterloo that will make or break OH governor Kasich's campaign and push Trump to the nomination or stop Trump's momentum. This is affecting the Democratic primary (I know Democrats and liberal independents who are voting for Kasich because they are so offended by Trump and fear that Democrats are not enthusiastic enough as compared to his supporters and will be unable to stop him in November), but it is not clear to me whether this benefits Hillary or Sanders (I know of both Sanders supporters and a Hillary supporter who are voting Kasich).

I suspect FL will be closer than the rest of the Bible Belt and NC will be closer than FL and MO, OH, and IL are coin toss races (I won't be surprised if either candidate wins) but I don't think either candidate will likely sweep all three.

I predict with with great confidence that this will be the last week for a long, long time where Hillary nets more delegates than Sanders!

[Buzz Clik]

76. Nice talk about Chicago.

[Attorney in Texas]

80. The corruption embodied by Rahm Emanuel is not what the PEOPLE of Chicago are all about.

[SheenaR]

122. You are right

Mayor Daley was the most honest man ever

And no dead people voted JFK in 1960.

Long live the ethics of Chicago

[jcgoldie]

68. I'm in Illinois and...

Just a hunch because Michigan proved we can't trust similar polling in an open primary but... I don't believe Bernie has a chance here and I don't believe it will be that close. Despite the racial breakdown which is close the national average, the African American vote in Chicago makes up a massive portion of the total democratic vote here. I live downstate which is mostly conservative... I suppose its possible some of them crossover in the open primary format to vote against Clinton as it seems they did in Michigan, but I don't see that coming close to the black vote in Cook County.

As a disclaimer I plan to vote for Clinton, but my wife plans to cancel me out with one for Sanders. We'll be supporting either candidate in November enthusiastically.

[OkSustainAg]

83. I see Bernie

out performing all the pundits again everywhere. I called Michigan for Bernie here on DU. The tide has turned in Bernie's favor.
People are beginning to see that there vote can overcome the media and corporations.

[Nitram]

86. Thanks for sharing your predictions and your reasoning.

[Recursion]

87. Glad to. I could very well be wrong, but I like to get my thoughts out there. (nt)

Last edited Fri Mar 11, 2016, 11:50 AM - Edit history (1)

[closeupready]

99. Bernie will outperform, consistent with what he's done in every race so far.

I mean outperform in terms of doing better than most anyone predicts.

[Scootaloo]

102. I think IL is in play

Mostly thanks to the Clinton-Rahm connections.

[jillan]

103. I predict Bernie will win IL. Rahm is despised in Chicago. Not just for the coverup of McDonald's

murder but for taking money out of the public school system and reallocating it to his pet projects.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-rahm-emanuel_us_569bfd55e4b0ce496424d903



The majority of the population of Illinois is in the Chicago area.

[SheenaR]

107. Bernie

Will win MO and OH. Book it..


Hillary will win FL and NC with some room to spare and IL will be a little closer.


Hillary will come out with more delegates, yes this is true.


Bernie then wins the next 8 states beginning his chipping away. He will gain a good amount in WA and WI


NY April 19 becomes the next big Tuesday.

After this week, I don't see more than 5 states she wins the rest of the way. Probably less. I'll take my chances that with him winning state after state his margins will grow.

[OriginalGeek]

108. I voted early in FLorida

for Bernie.

[morningfog]

109. Since it makes no difference, I'll go bold. Bernie takes MO, NC and OH. Hillary takes FL and IL.

The margins on each are relatively close:

MO - B 54%
NC - B 51%
OH - B 52%

FL - H 53%
IL - H 52%

Total delegates on the day: B - 345, H - 346. H +1.

I can dream, right?

[marions ghost]

118. Like it

Dream on....

[TheDormouse]

124. Don't forget that MO is an AR neighbor (as was TN)

that gives Clinton an edge, since she was First Lady of AR for years.

[TheDormouse]

125. also, don't forget Dem primaries are NOT winner-takes-all

unlike GOP primaries.
So Sanders will get some of the delegates in each contest, allocated in proportion to the percentage of votes for him, even if Clinton gets more votes overall in the state.

[AgerolanAmerican]

126. on Florida

Florida is not deep South. It may be on the southern end of the country, but it in general is completely different in character to the rest of the South. North Florida is similar to Georgia but the bulk of the population south of that has no Southern identity.