February 23, 2016

We cannot win a general election with a candidate who is widely distrusted and disliked

We Democrats like Hillary (well, at least the Democrats over 50 like her), but that's it. Outside of over-50-year-old Democrats, Hillary is disliked and disbelieved. Maybe Hillary can win the nomination with the support of over-50-year-old Democrats, but that is not a demographic that will win a general election.

February 23, 2016

The list grows! Sanders leads Alaska, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, West Virginia, Vermont, and is

ahead in the betting market for Minnesota, and the polls are closing and tight in Oklahoma, Missouri, Wisconsin, and beyond!

Alaska - (Sanders 48%, Clinton 34%)

Colorado - (Sanders 49%, Clinton 43%)

Maine - (Sanders 56%, Clinton 41%)

Massachusetts - (Sanders 47.5%, Clinton 44%)

Minnesota - (Sanders 59% chance, Clinton 41% chance)

Missouri - (Clinton 47%, Sanders 42%)

Oklahoma - (Clinton 46%, Sanders 44%)

Vermont - (Sanders 83%, Clinton 9%)

West Virginia - (Sanders 57%, Clinton 29%)

Wisconsin - (Clinton 45%, Sanders 43.5%)

The race also looks favorable in Kansas, Nebraska, Idaho, Washington, Wyoming, Utah, Hawaii, and Arizona.

This list is growing! Keep fighting! Keep donating! Keep phone banking!

February 22, 2016

Sanders beat projections in Iowa and New Hampshire, and fought a closer race in Nevada than Obama

versus Clinton in 2008.

This story that the Sanders movement or its supporters have "failed" is nonsensical crap.

Let's not forget, the DNC rigged the debates to cut off Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee and Lawrence Lessig at their knees before the Iowa caucus. Martin O'Malley's candidacy survived but was mortally wounded by this gamesmanship. Sanders thrived despite these shenanigans.

Sanders was down by 55% a year before Iowa's caucus, down by 15% just a month before the caucus, and was down by over 5% on the day of the caucus:



The high priests of the establishment's conventional wisdom crowned Clinton with over a 70% chance of winning:



Sanders beat the shit out of those conventional expectations. The difference was a tiny fraction of one percent (the tightest caucus in history) and only a two voter-allocated-delegate distinction.

In New Hampshire, the success was even more dramatic. Sanders was 40% behind a year before the election, 7% ahead a month before the primary, and 14% ahead on primary day:



Sanders -- again -- crushed this projection with the actual vote by beating Clinton with a 22% margin and by winning 15 voter-allocated-delegates to Clinton's 9 (Sanders victory was beyond the maximum projected by the establishment's wisdom and Clinton's failure was worse than even their worst case scenarios).

Clinton's campaign had long bragged that ethnic voters in Nevada would make that state her firewall. In 2008, Clinton beat Obama by 5.7%. The polls had Sanders down by 55% a year before the caucus, down 13% a month before the caucus, and down by 3.5% on the day of the caucus:



Yet again, the Clinton campaign came with a pocketful of gamesmanship and shenanigans. Despite this, Sanders fought to a closer percentage than Obama (5.3% in 2016 versus 5.7% in 2008).

The suggestion that the Sanders movement or its supporters are not turning out is bullshit. Don't believe it.

Over the next 50 days, 31 more states will vote. Sanders has an excellent chance at winning a majority of those states (including Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Vermont, Kansas, Nebraska, Maine, Michigan, Alaska, Wisconsin, Idaho, Washington, Wyoming, Utah, Hawaii, and Arizona). There are a number of additional states that look very close so this list could grow.

Hillary was the first lady of Arkansas and her husband is beloved in his native Arkansas so expect her to do well in states that border Arkansas. Also, Clinton performs best in the old Southern Confederacy states that vote Republican in the general election. There are a lot of Arkansas-bordering states and Southern Confederacy red states on the calendar from February 28 to March 1. Expect Clinton to do well in these Southern Confederacy red states (but expect Sanders to do well in Colorado (Sanders 49%; Clinton 43%), Massachusetts (Sanders 49%; Clinton 42%), Minnesota (there isn't recent polling but a poll a month ago indicated a margin-of-error race and Sanders is a 2-to-1 favorite in the betting markets), and Vermont (Sanders 86%; Clinton 10%).

After the Southern Confederacy red states, there is a batch of 8 states from March 22 to April 9, and Sanders could easily go 8-for-8 during this stretch.

Keep up the hope. Keep up the faith. Keep up the fight.

February 22, 2016

DU would would support Clinton if Sanders is denied the nomination; others would support Jill Stein

I am a Democrat.

Sanders has (1) a good path forward to the nomination, (2) a better platform, (3) more personal appeal as a candidate, and (4) a better chance at beating the Republican nominee.

If the Democrats nevertheless foolishly nominate Clinton, I will go down with our ship (because I'm a Democrat). Then, I will pick myself up, brush off my jacket, and start working on Warren 2020.

Democrats should know that Clinton's triangulation strategy is not calculated to hold young Democrats or to win over liberal or progressive independents. This is especially true given that Jill Stein offers a very progressive alternative:

* a single-payer Medicare for all public health plan
* job creation by switching to 100% renewable energy by 2030 and by expanding public transportation
* promoting a living-wage ($15/hour federal minimum wage) and workers' rights to unionize
* abolish corporate personhood and Citizens United
* end the wars and drone attacks, cut the military 50%, close foreign military bases, stop arms sales to dictators

These are the type of ideas that Clinton mocks but which majorities of Democrats support. I'll stick with Clinton, but others will support a candidate who promotes a platform that reflects Democratic values. There are some who would rather go down fighting for what they believe than settling for a candidate who mocks what they believe and who is unlikely to win in any event.

February 22, 2016

Republican primary is a 1980 rerun. What if Trump plays the Reagan role? What if they cheat Trump?

Under either scenario, Sanders is our better choice.

The 1980 Republican primary had Republican establishment candidates such as senate minority leader Howard Baker, senator Bob Dole, CIA director/former RNC chair George H. W. Bush, and well funded ex-governor of Texas John Connally, and they lost to oddball former actor Ronald Reagan who won with a message that appealed to blue collar workers in both parties who felt like the system was rigged against them.

In 2016, Trump is playing Reagan's role in a rerun of 1980.

If Trump gets the nomination, his change message is not as strong as Sanders' hopeful change platform, but Trump's change message beats Hillary's status quo message. The system is broken, and voters in both parties and independents all want change. If Trump offers change and Clinton offers status quo, she loses. If Trump and Sanders both offer change, Sanders' change is a better model that speaks more to the voters and their aspirations so it is unsurprising that Sanders beats Trump most convincingly in head-to-head polls.

If Trump is robbed of the nomination by the Republican establishment, his disaffected supporters will gravitate as much to Sanders as to Rubio. Sanders will capture the Reagan Democrats who might be attracted to Trump's promise of change (along with blue collar Republicans who want change). Clinton holds zero appeal to change voters, and she cannot capitalize on the opportunity to win over blue collar Republicans storming out of the Republican party after the party cheats Trump out of the nomination at a brokered convention.

February 21, 2016

Where is the race now and where will the race be on April 9? The data favors Sanders

Where is the race now?

Now, the race for voter-chosen delegates is tied.

Iowa

21 - Sanders
23 - Clinton

New Hampshire

15 - Sanders
9 - Clinton

Nevada (current projected allocation)

15 - Sanders
19 - Clinton

TOTAL

51 - Sanders
51 - Clinton

Where will the race be on April 9?

The demographics and scheduling of the contests over the next 50 days are interesting.

Clinton has a distinct advantage in states the tend to go Republican in general elections, and Sanders has an equal advantage in states that tend to break for Democrats (does this surprise anyone?).

Over the next critical 50 days, this demographic red-state advantage favors Clinton in the first part of this time period but then shifts to strongly favor Sanders in the last part of this period.

February 27 - March 1

Clinton's red-state advantage is strongest in the next 10 days. She enjoys a demographic red-state advantage in South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee (which borders her home state), Texas (which borders her home state), Virginia and her home state of Arkansas.

Clinton should have a red-state lock on Oklahoma, but Sanders is polling very strong in Oklahoma (Clinton has only a 46% to 44% lead) so that's a tossup despite the fact that it should be Clinton territory (it borders her home state).

Sanders looks very strong in Colorado (Sanders 49%; Clinton 43%), Massachusetts (Sanders 49%; Clinton 42%), Minnesota (there isn't recent polling but a poll a month ago indicated a margin-of-error race and Sanders is a 2-to-1 favorite in the betting markets), and Vermont (Sanders 86%; Clinton 10%).

March 5 - 15

There is not much recent polling in the early March states after Super Tuesday, and Clinton has a red-state advantage in several of those states plus a few contests involve states that border Clinton's home state of Arkansas. Notwithstanding these "should be" advantages for Clinton, the early March races are a mixed bag where it is not clear whether she can meet the expectations in a part of the primary calendar that ought to be tilted to her favor. She looks strong in Florida, red-state Louisiana (which also borders her home state), and red-state Mississippi (which also borders her home state).

But these early March contests also include Kansas and Nebraska (which even in-the-bag-for-Clinton polling analyst Nate Silver puts in Sanders' column based on demographic analysis and national polls), Maine (Sanders 56%; Clinton 41%), Michigan (which looks strong for Sanders based on the state-by-state cross-tabs within the national polling), and Missouri which should favor Clinton (it shares a border with her home state) but the last polling showed a tight race).

There is not much recent data in Illinois (Sanders is gaining but "undecided" is still in the lead), North Carolina, and Ohio (Sanders has narrowed the gap to 5% in the most recent poll), and these contests are a month away. It will be interesting to see how the race develops in these early March contests over the course of the next month.

March 22 - April 9

This is where Sanders breaks out. While Clinton owns a red-state advantage and home-state-neighbor advantage in many contests over the next month, that advantage evaporates for the 18 days that conclude the next phase of the campaign, where Sanders looks likely to win 8 out of 8 contests to pull into the lead.

Sanders is well ahead in Alaska (Sanders 48%; Clinton 34%), and multiple polls indicate that Wisconsin is a margin-of-error race with Sanders surging. Similarly, according to Silver's analysis (which has been nothing but favorable to Clinton), Idaho, Washington, and Wyoming "look favorable for Sanders." He has extrapolated the state-by-state cross-tabs in the Morning Consult national polling, the the analysis favors Sanders by a comfortable margin in Utah and Hawaii and by a narrower margin in Arizona.

Conclusion

By April 9, 34 states will have spoken.

By April 9, Sanders will likely have won at least half of these 34 states (my current estimate includes New Hampshire, Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Vermont, Kansas, Nebraska, Maine, Michigan, Alaska, Wisconsin , Idaho, Washington, Wyoming, Utah, Hawaii, and Arizona).

There are many close states that could also tip in Sanders direction, and so Sanders could easily win more than half of the first 34 states.

Hang on tight. Do not give up hope. We are on a good path to move America forward to a more peaceful, just, fair, and equal place!

February 21, 2016

"Bernie Sanders Makes Progress, But Hillary Clinton Remains The Favorite"

link; excerpt:

Sanders has cut into the Clinton’s advantage with Latino voters. In the 2008 Nevada caucuses, Clinton won Latinos 64 percent to 26 percent. This year, the entrance poll had Sanders winning Latinos 53 percent to 45 percent. I’m a bit skeptical of those numbers, however, given that Clinton won in heavily Latino precincts in Las Vegas. The sample of Latino voters in the entrance poll was very small, a couple hundred respondents at most, so it’s possible those numbers are just off. (That said, David Shor of Civis Analytics argued that it is possible that Sanders won Latinos even as he did poorly in Latino neighborhoods because many younger Latinos — who are more likely to support Sanders — live in whiter neighborhoods.) ... Sanders was clearly competitive with Latinos, which really shouldn’t be too surprising: A recent SurveyMonkey poll found Sanders closing the gap among Latinos to just 3 percentage points, and a NBC News/Telemundo survey put Clinton’s lead with Latino voters at 17 percentage points. Clinton isn’t running away among Latinos. That could be good news for Sanders in states like Arizona, Colorado, Florida and Texas that vote in March. ... The Democratic electorate turning out in 2016 is more liberal than the one that turned out in the party’s last competitive primary eight years ago. Democratic voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada this year were far more likely to describe themselves as liberal than they were in 2008. In Nevada, 70 percent of Democrats said they were liberal compared to just 45 percent in 2008. Sixty-eight percent of Democratic voters identified as liberal in Iowa and New Hampshire.

February 21, 2016

"Hillary Clinton's Nevada victory - what's different from 2008?" (HINT - Sanders outperformed Obama)

link; excerpt:

In 2008, Hillary Clinton won the Nevada caucuses, beating then-Sen. Barack Obama 51 percent to 45 percent, and now, eight years later, she scored a repeat performance against her primary opponent, Bernie Sanders, this time by a slightly narrower margin, 52 percent to 48 percent.

What's different eight years later, and what do those difference say about the the race ahead?
...
Potential trouble ahead for Clinton
Clinton may have done well with some key groups, but the data also show that there are some warning signs on the horizon for the Clinton campaign. Despite going to Nevada early and spending a good deal of time there in comparison to Sanders, Clinton didn't perform as well as she did eight years ago with a few demographic groups, in particular Hispanics, young people, and independents.

Hispanics
Sanders captured 53 percent of the Hispanic vote this year in contrast to Clinton's 45 percent. This represents a substantial decline in support for Clinton among Hispanics compared to eight years ago. In 2008, Clinton got 64 percent of the Hispanic vote, compared to Mr. Obama's 26 percent.

Young people
Clinton did not win young people in either 2008 or 2016. But eight years ago she captured 33 percent of those under the age of 30, compared with just 12 percent in Saturday's contest.

Independents
Nevada limits its caucus to registered Democrats, but same-day registration is available. Among those caucus goers who identify as independent, Sanders did well, capturing more than 70 percent of the vote, compared to Clinton's 23 percent. While Clinton lost independents to Obama in 2008, at that time she was able to capture 33 percent to his 47 percent. As in the case of Hispanics and young people, among this important constituency we see that Clinton's support has dipped.

February 20, 2016

The last Nevada poll before the caucus: Sanders 49% over Clinton 47%

Link to Overtime Politics Nevada Poll.

February 20, 2016

Washington Post: "Hillary Clinton’s polling this year looks a lot like 2008"

link; excerpt:

Here's how Hillary Clinton's lead is faring in this year's average vs. how it evolved in 2008. ... About five months before the New Hampshire primary (which was a month earlier in 2008), Clinton's lead was at about 15. This cycle, that was a big plunge; in 2008, it was pretty much where she'd been. Then the lead in each cycle grew a bit, putting her back up into the 20-point range with about three months out. Then, quick drops, usually after voting happened. In 2008, the giant plunge came right after Iowa.

On Feb. 20, 2008, Clinton was already trailing Barack Obama, as she would permanently. This week, we saw a major poll for the first time putting Bernie Sanders in the lead.... Thanks to what happened with that yellow line in 2008, Clinton should know what to watch out for.