Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
16.5 said:
Say, you missed this post? Huh, odd.



What a terrible comparison.

Nbc send out an advance copy to uncle joe for his editorial comments then so he could throw together an ad, did they?

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...



Did they send copy? Do we actually know that? Not that It matters.
 
:thumbsup::thumbsup:

WooHoo!

I'm one of the few people here who had Clinton as my first choice and Sanders as second.

Montana might be a tie, probably not a blow out for either though only 4% of the vote in and we know that doesn't mean much.

I was surprised she will likely win S Dakota, but it looks like she will or at least it will be close. With 80% in she has N Mexico. NJ is a blowout for Clinton.
 
So things have changed a bit...

NJ... with 99% reporting. Blow out to HC

HC 63.2% BS 36.8% - Delegates will be split 79/80 to 46/47

SD... Closed right up, but still looks like HC's with 93% in

HC 51.4% BS 48.6% - Delegates will likely be split 10 each

NM is closing up, but called for HC with 81% in

HC 52.3% BS 47.7% - Delegates will likely be split 18 to 16

ND.... like most Caucuses has gone to Bernie with 100% in

BS 64.2% HC 25.6% - Delegates are split 13 to 5 in Bernie's favour

Montana is too close to call right now... Just 6% in

HC 48.4% BS 46.9%

Cal is also too early to call with just 8% but is looking good for Clinton

HC 63.2% BS 35.6% - If this stays about this level, HC could pick up 285 Delegates here
 
CA is huge surprise. I chose 51-53% in the poll thread, figuring Sanders had held so many well attended rallies.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I was surprised she will likely win S Dakota
Click to expand...


The big surprise is that SD is voting differently than ND. They have very similar demographics, but ND holds a caucus and SD has an election. I think that will translate well for Clinton in November.
 
Loss Leader said:
The big surprise is that SD is voting differently than ND. They have very similar demographics, but ND holds a caucus and SD has an election. I think that will translate well for Clinton in November.
Click to expand...

NATE SILVER 10:18 PM
“Fun” fact: South Dakota and North Dakota, which voted for different candidates in the Democratic primaries in 2008 and may do so again this year, have voted for the same candidate in every presidential general election since 1920. They did split their vote in 1892, 1896, 1912 and 1916, however.
 
Loss Leader said:
The big surprise is that SD is voting differently than ND. They have very similar demographics, but ND holds a caucus and SD has an election. I think that will translate well for Clinton in November.
Click to expand...

Yes and no... SD was a Closed Primary, and by and large actual members of the Democratic Party have been supporting her far more then Bernie, he has been doing well when Independents and others can influence the vote. Secondly we have seen that he does well in Caucuses, but where they have also had a primary afterwards, these have significantly been in favour of Clinton.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
CA is huge surprise. I chose 51-53% in the poll thread, figuring Sanders had held so many well attended rallies.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I went for 54-59%. It might drop down into that range, but I think I might have guessed low.Probably because of the Bernie supporters stayed home and cried in their beer over the AP announcement.
 
At 24% in Sanders now leads in Montana 48.2% to 47.1%

Clinton still leads 62.2% to 36.6% in California with 11% in.
 
Loss Leader said:
The big surprise is that SD is voting differently than ND. They have very similar demographics, but ND holds a caucus and SD has an election. I think that will translate well for Clinton in November.
Click to expand...
Same thing in WA State where we had actual primary to compare to the caucus.

It's not exactly a perfect comparison. Luchog who caucused for Sanders didn't bother to vote in the primary and who knows how many others also didn't vote.
 
I wonder how much my Hillary Clinton nut cracker or my Bull Clinton Meanie Beanie are going to be worth on eBay now. :p
 
PhantomWolf said:
No, polling is done by asking a representative sample of the people who are likely to vote in the primary who they are going to vote for, not every person.
Click to expand...

Why should that matter? If you believe in statistics, and you should, then they give the same answer.


Because the polls aren't asking every person, but rather a sample of the people and then extrapolating the results. There is a time when every person is asked, and that does determine the total number of delegates.
Click to expand...

The highlighted word is key. The largest source of discrepancy between polls and election results is due to the fact that polls represent the electorate's preferences (as well as propensity to vote) at a particular point in time, which is not election day. Have you ever noticed that exit polls tend to be much more accurate than pre-election polls?

Right now, the superdelegates are reporting their preferences before voting day. Those preferences could change, especially if any more negative information comes out regarding Hillary's chances versus Trump in the general election.
 
Clinton won South Dakota? I absolutely did not expect that. Nor Clinton only losing Montana by about 6, I expected a bigger defeat there. And it looks like all the California polls that had Clinton at +1-2 were off, she's currently at around +12-13.

A very strong day for Clinton. After D.C. she'll probably lead Sanders by 380 delegates. She has now won the seven (or is it eight?) largest states. She'll win the absolute vote by around 3.5 million. What more can be said? Democrats prefer Hillary.
 
No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the average American voter.

-16.5
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom