Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.

Of Polls and Polsters

by ARGeezer Wed Mar 9th, 2016 at 01:10:46 PM EST

SO WHAT WENT WRONG?

538 has been had the best record and, often, the most insightful commentary on politics with regard to public opinion in the USA. Yet today it posted the following:

What The Stunning Bernie Sanders Win In Michigan Means  By Harry  Enten  538

Bernie Sanders made folks like me eat a stack of humble pie on Tuesday night. He won the Michigan primary over Hillary Clinton, 50 percent to 48 percent, when not a single poll taken over the last month had Clinton leading by less than 5 percentage points. In fact, many had her lead at 20 percentage points or higher. Sanders's win in Michigan was one of the greatest upsets in modern political history. (My bold)

I believed Sanders was going to do better than the polsters were predicting, but then I AM a Sanders partisan and make no bones about it. I could be the proverbial stopped clock and it was just that time of day for once. But what happened with them? And even I had been beaten down and was surprised at the outcome. I expected it to be close, but for Hillary to win, if only by a point.


OTHER FORECASTS NOW IN QUESTION

The question I am asking myself now is whether this means the polls are off in other Midwestern states that are holding open primaries. I'm talking specifically about Illinois and Ohio, both of which vote next Tuesday. The FiveThirtyEight polling average in Illinois gives Clinton a 37 percentage point lead, while the average in Ohio gives her a 20 percentage point lead. If Michigan was just a fluke (which is possible), then tonight will be forgotten soon enough. If, however, pollsters are missing something more fundamental about the electorate, then the Ohio and Illinois primaries could be a lot closer than expected.

One thing may now be clear: It is still a long shot, and Sanders HAS to start carrying big states by significant margins, but Sanders does have a chance!

Display:
Part of the problem is well known. Far fewer Gen Xers and, especially, Millennials have land line phones and are thus hard to poll. This probably will require that some foundation fund an effort to actually survey those groups with a combination of knocking on doors and random interviews of the age group on the street. If a cell phone user gives a polling company their phone number, then the company could call them when doing surveys or set up a message based interview scheme. But there HAS to be a population large enough to enable the polling company to accurately determine what is a representative sample and not always be calling the same people - unless that is the point in a particular poll.

Bigger problem are finding and determining the propensity to vote in specific situations of large populations not as visible as the Gen-X and Millennial populations with cell phones. And then there is the problem of wealthy partisans funding such an effort with a view to manipulate the electorate to their ends and with no intent to even acknowledge that such information exists - which it may or may not presently.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Mar 9th, 2016 at 01:26:16 PM EST
At least one pollster in Sweden performs the questions on-line, but it is by invitation only and invitation is by snailmail to adresses. You miss the homeless and the internet-less, but a good chance to catch everyone else.

Then again, considering the cost of doing polling properly, polls role in driving opinion and medias willingness to publish garbage, I would not be surprised if some pollsters turned out to be making up the numbers as they go along.

by fjallstrom on Wed Mar 9th, 2016 at 04:49:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This actually isn't an issue anymore.  Pollsters call cell phones now, too.

Two basic things, as far as I can tell, happened in Michigan:

(1) Pollsters underweighted the youth vote by a factor of about two, and
(2) Bernie improved enormously among black voters.

Young people were thought to be something like 9% of the electorate and wound up around 20%.

Bernie's losing black voters about 85-15/80-20 in the South (off the top of my head).  Last night he improved that to 65-35.  The question thus becomes: Is there a divide between black voters in the Rust Belt and those in the South?  Mississippi suggests there's not really any structural improvement for him -- he clearly didn't break through there -- but that there might be a regional divide.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Mar 9th, 2016 at 06:56:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Can pollsters just call any cell they want, or can they only call to cells whose account owners have established a relationship with the pollster?


"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Mar 9th, 2016 at 08:26:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Only calling phones that have an established relationship would present a sampling problem.

As I understand it, there's a distinction to be drawn between automated polls and live polls.  It is the case -- or at least used to be -- that automated polls (PPP, SurveyUSA, Rasmussen, etc) were prohibited from calling cell phones because of the FCC robocall rules, but live pollsters (Marist, Quinnipiac, etc) are allowed to call whatever numbers they want.

The automated pollsters compensate for this by overweighting groups (young people, poorer people, etc) more likely to only use cell phones in their models.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Thu Mar 10th, 2016 at 07:57:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks for the clarification.


"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu Mar 10th, 2016 at 01:03:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There is definite reverberation from Sander's answer on "racial blind spots" in the latest debate. Many charge that, hey, there are white poor and affluent blacks as well. What is probably being missed is that Sanders thereby is deliberately addressing poor blacks, leaving the affluent blacks to Clinton and having unhappy whites anyway. Michigan shows that Sanders might start hitting his potential black electorate.
by das monde on Wed Mar 9th, 2016 at 10:06:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Possibly, but, again, we didn't see any real evidence of that in Mississippi.

My guess is that either Michigan winds up being an outlier, or that there's a cultural difference between folks in the Rust Belt and those in the South among black Americans.

There seems to be a similar kind of distinction among whites on the Republican side when comparing the South and the Plains.  Trump dominates the former, Cruz the latter.  There seems to be a cultural divide among GOPers along the Mississippi River.

(With the exception of Nevada, which is obviously a bit of an oddball state, being a sort of hybrid of Atlantic City and a poor man's South Florida.  I suspect we'll see a similar, albeit smaller, pro-Trump contingent in Arizona in the Phoenix area.)

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Thu Mar 10th, 2016 at 08:10:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Charles Blow
Northern blacks and Southern blacks are most likely processing Sanders quite differently. As I wrote in a February column:

There isn't one black America, but two: The children of the Great Migration and the children of those who stayed behind in the South. (Black immigrants are another story.) Having spent the first half of my life in the South and the second in Great Migration destination cities, I can attest that the sensibilities are as different as night and day.

Sanders's early, Northern activism for racial equality is likely to have more resonance with Northern blacks, and so is his largely urban and non-Southern roster of black surrogates. For instance, more Michigan primary voters said they trusted Sanders more than Clinton to handle race relations in this country. The opposite was true in Mississippi.

Part of this also has to do with what I call the political provincialism of the South: The favoring of regional candidates and the shunning of outsiders. Because of the time Clinton spent in the South, she has a Southern advantage.

by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Thu Mar 10th, 2016 at 08:35:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sanders needs to take a bold step or two to win more support from the "diversity coalition". Yesterday's debate question "Is Donald Trump a racist?" was an opportunity, but he chose to safely follow Clinton. Not quite a mark of a transformational leader.

Tactical, civility consideration (and fruitless semantics quibble potential) are worth thinking over, and Sanders had time for that. But verbal and body posturing matters as well, and it is worthwhile to practice to be a li-i-itle Trumpy. As it stands now, Trump can call anyone as he pleases while the Democratic opponents would not use a straight word on him.

by das monde on Thu Mar 10th, 2016 at 09:04:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I find Bernie has a surprising amount of edge wedded to his civility. He manages to deflate Hillary quite roundly. He has the benefit of not having to waste so much energy spinning. He comes off as a bristly curmudgeon who's finally found his groove on the national campaign trail, boosted by the considerable turnouts and the growing probability of having to face off eventually with the Great Orange Demon. A bigger contrast of political philosophy would be hard to imagine, pretty darn epic battle for (what's left of) America's soul.
It would be ironic if it were the South to thwart him by sustaining HTC, (unfortunately a strong possibility).
Her lies or his macho bluster, hella choice huh?


'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty
by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Fri Mar 11th, 2016 at 09:15:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Why give Trump air time in a Democratic debate asking the candidates about him?

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Mar 21st, 2016 at 10:26:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree Sanders has a chance. I use Who's On Track For The Nomination? | FiveThirtyEight to make sense of the results. Since delegates are proportionally distributed (as long as candidates meet the 15% limit), who wins the state matters for newspaper headlines but not so much for candidates.

Anyway, status right now:

Clinton 113% of target
Sanders 86% of target

A week ago it was 116% vs 83%.

by fjallstrom on Wed Mar 9th, 2016 at 04:39:49 PM EST
Can't remember where I saw it but they said that, post-Michigan, if he can carry Ohio and Illinois, then he has a chance. Otherwise all he's done is delay the inevitable

keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Thu Mar 10th, 2016 at 04:14:58 PM EST
He needs to carry them both and to get more pledged delegates than Clinton in both. Only getting one might not be the end for him, but it would make the remaining task harder. But winning both, by any margin, will keep the sense of momentum building.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu Mar 10th, 2016 at 08:18:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I submit that, even if he won both, he'd still just be delaying the inevitable.  It'd certainly be good for his narrative in the press (for whatever that's worth), but in the end it comes down to math.

The problem is that he's down roughly 220 (pledged) delegates.

That's a gap you could close in the Republican primaries, as winner-take-all states come into play.  Cruz is down a hundred or so to Trump right now, but a win in California could more than erase that.

But Dems have proportional allocations of delegates, so a 200-delegate lead is enormous.  Sanders needs to not only win, but win with huge margins the rest of the way.  And, unfortunately for Sanders, the states in which he wins big are much smaller than the states in which she wins big.

Winning Illinois and Ohio by a point or two wouldn't even put a noticeable dent in that.  And keep in mind that Missouri and Florida vote that day, too.  Especially given the likelihood that Hillzilla will win Florida going away, his deficit is probably going to increase on Tuesday.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Fri Mar 11th, 2016 at 08:31:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You're probably right, which means the overwhelming bulk of the citizenry is probably screwed.  The only difference between Rethuglicans and DLCers such as the Clintons is that, while Rethuglicans just piss on you and insist you think it's rain, DLCers drink enough beer beforehand that at least the piss is clear.
by rifek on Fri Mar 11th, 2016 at 02:17:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Lets put some numbers to this. By my count there is a pool of 4,051 pledged delegates available, of which 1,314 have been awarded to date. My minimum goal for Sanders would be that he gain at least half of the pledged delegates + ten. "Sanders Has Double Digit Lead in Elected Delegates!" would be a quite legitimate headline.

4051 - 1314 already awarded = 2637 remaining elected or pledged delegates. Half of that = 2025.5. To win he would need 2026. To have a double digit lead in pledged delegates he would need 2036. He already has 549, so, for the ten vote margin he needs 1487. 1487/2637 = 56,39%. That is not the Moon. He has won Colorado by 20% and Minnesota with 18% already. Granted that even winning Ohio and Illinois by 15% each on average would be swamped by Clinton's margin in Florida, Florida is the last state where she has the overwhelming advantage with blacks. And Bernie will take California, Oregon and Washington by large margins I expect and likely also Arizona and New Mexico. This time next week, even, Hillzilla will look more like a gorilla from the zoo.  

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Mar 11th, 2016 at 04:29:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sorry, just seeing this now.

So, yeah, as I said on FB that I had her winning Florida, North Carolina, Ohio and Illinois, with Bernie winning Missouri.

Instead, she swept all of them, and her win in Ohio was pretty much a blowout.

I don't agree that Bernie will win Oregon, Washington or, especially, California by large margins.  He'll probably lose California.  He likely won't win Arizona or New Mexico.  I'm inclined to give him Oregon and Washington by modest margins, but that's the one region of the country I really don't feel like I have a good feel for.

The math is now pretty much impossible for him.  It's dead-girl/live-boy territory, and it has been since Super Tuesday.  She's beating him soundly.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Thu Mar 17th, 2016 at 07:15:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
After the Tuesday after Super Tuesday I am more inclined to agree. I wanted some more actual results after Michigan before making more definite conclusions. Bernie needed to win Ohio, Missouri and Illinois. Sanders can stay in until the convention and probably will, but the best chance he has to be the nominee is if Hillary implodes or seems VERY unlikely to be able to beat Trump.

That is one reason I am happy to see Hillary start to focus on Trump. If she gets under his rather thin skin and he goes all out against her BEFORE the convention, we will truly see what she has got. If he has as much potency against her as some claim and others fear, better to find out now rather than later. I would prefer to at least keep the social agenda of the current centrists intact even if we cannot make progress on the economic front. And while I do not expect her to do anything too effective about Wall Street I would be pleasantly surprised to see her order prosecutions of financial fraud in the CEO and CFO ranks of major banks. I would happily believe it as soon as we get some convictions.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu Mar 17th, 2016 at 11:34:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
She'd have to implode via scandal.  Even if she's looking weak against Trump, she'd still have the most votes and delegates, so legitimacy issues keep her in.

She's unlikely to look terribly weak against him anyway.  Both she and Bernie have seen their numbers rise against Trump as the GOP primary has become more and more unhinged.  As has Obama, for that matter.

Regardless of who gets elected (even Bernie), I highly doubt you're ever going to see prosecutions for any sort of fraud among CEOs and CFOs of major banks for anything that happened during the mid-2000s.  Mostly because I think you'd find the CEOs and CFOs weren't generally the ones committing the fraud.

In my experience -- mostly antitrust work but some big financial fraud work, too -- the perpetrators don't tend to be the officers.  They tend to be the mid- to upper-mid-level guys.

Not universally true, but generally.

I do think you'll see those people go to jail more often simply due to the change in attitude at DOJ, which has been shifting toward a focus on jail time for white-collar crime.  They've changed from viewing it as a civil-type issue requiring fines to viewing it as a property crime requiring jail sentences.

I think she's proposed some good ideas for additional regulation to build on Dodd-Frank.  They'll never pass (at least in whole), in all likelihood, because we won't have enough votes.  But good ideas anyway.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Fri Mar 18th, 2016 at 08:13:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In my experience -- mostly antitrust work but some big financial fraud work, too -- the perpetrators don't tend to be the officers.  They tend to be the mid- to upper-mid-level guys.

Yeah, the high-level guys create the environment and look the other way, almost impossible to catch them on it.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Mar 18th, 2016 at 08:24:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Precisely.  It's a "Well, the numbers look good coming out of the (X) Division."  Ask no questions, tell no lies, etc.

Of course, the high-level guys undoubtedly became high-level guys by doing the same crap and not getting caught.  They were just smart enough to not put it in emails and phone recordings.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Fri Mar 18th, 2016 at 10:38:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
...adding:

Not sure why ARG listed CFOs, since CFOs don't really do anything but accounting, SEC stuff (in concert with general counsels) and collecting enormous paychecks.  Outside of cases like Enron and insider trading stuff (like the Apple backdating thing years back), they're not going to be heavily involved in the kind of day-to-day fraud we have in mind here.  

I'm sure there are examples where they are, depending on the company (finance would be the obvious potential exception).  They might well have a more active role in strategy in some places, but not generally.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Fri Mar 18th, 2016 at 10:55:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Enron was hardly a trivial example. And even a failed prosecution of a high ranked official, especially after having 'turned' an obviously guilty lower ranked official, would go a long way towards changing the climate of 'fraud is the business model'.

And I think you significantly minimize the scope for prosecution that has been ignored under 'regulatory forbearance'. A high profile investigation of the NY Fed with a covert agent or another insider who came forward, were it made clear that whistle-blowers will NOW be protected, not outed, with the skills of Carmine Segarra, could be quite devastating. Hell, a Democratic Senate could convene a special committee to investigate the New York Fed and have public hearings with Carmine as the star witness. It would be electrifying: regulatory capture illustrated - with a beautiful, passionate and articulate figure who was there.


"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Mar 18th, 2016 at 11:30:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Enron was hardly a trivial example. And even a failed prosecution of a high ranked official, especially after having 'turned' an obviously guilty lower ranked official, would go a long way towards changing the climate of 'fraud is the business model'.

I didn't say it was trivial.  I just said it wasn't the norm for what I think you have in mind.  And Enron's CFO did go to jail.  As did executives in the bid-rigging case involving municipal bonds (remember the Jefferson County bankruptcy?).

My point is that you can turn all the low-ranked officials you want.  The CEO-/CFO-types generally aren't the ones involved.

And I think you significantly minimize the scope for prosecution that has been ignored under 'regulatory forbearance'. A high profile investigation of the NY Fed with a covert agent or another insider who came forward, were it made clear that whistle-blowers will NOW be protected, not outed, with the skills of Carmine Segarra, could be quite devastating. Hell, a Democratic Senate could convene a special committee to investigate the New York Fed and have public hearings with Carmine as the star witness. It would be electrifying: regulatory capture illustrated - with a beautiful, passionate and articulate figure who was there.

This sounds great.  I'm all for it.  And I'm sure all six CSPAN viewers would find it riveting.  But this goes to the "What's really scary is what's legal" bit.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Sun Mar 20th, 2016 at 10:52:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"And I'm sure all six CSPAN viewers would find it riveting."

Millions of Progressives would find Carmine Segarra's testimony riveting. It would be like John Dean's testimony before the Ervin Committee all over, but with the New York Fed and the whole way our monetary system is run and (not) regulated as the subject being investigated.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Mon Mar 21st, 2016 at 11:06:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A bank CFO would normally be in charge of at least part of the treasury operations, certainly the management of the held-to-maturity book. London-Whale kind of stuff could happen under their purview.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Mar 21st, 2016 at 10:17:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sure, but the London Whale was stupidity, not fraud, no?

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Mon Mar 21st, 2016 at 01:49:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Stupidity, hubris and confusion at least. Fortunately for JPM, another unit of JPM unknowingly took the other side of some of his derivative bets, thereby reducing the damage. It was clearly a deliberate violation of Sarbanes-Oxley, the consequences of which are a testament to the lobbying power of Wall Street.


"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Mon Mar 21st, 2016 at 07:54:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yves at NakedCapitalism keeps hammering on about how high level guys have to regularly sign off on the quality of their internal monitoring so a failure there would make them personally liable. Sarbanes Oxley is the key word here I think. Don't ask me how practical that would be in the real world.
by generic on Fri Mar 18th, 2016 at 11:15:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yeah, in theory. In practice I suspect that they'll find some way to blame minions further down. Some sort of strict liability rule may work for civil penalties, but might run into trouble for criminal sanctions.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Mar 18th, 2016 at 11:23:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Then the civil penalties should be extended to a lifetime bar from serving in a position of fiduciary responsibility - for starters.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Mar 18th, 2016 at 11:34:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That would be a nice touch - though in Irish law I have a funny feeling it might fall foul of a right to earn a living.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Mar 18th, 2016 at 11:36:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Is there such a right explicitly or implicitly  guaranteed in the Irish Constitution? Even if there is a lifetime ban on positions of fiduciary responsibility does not prevent one from making a living - just from doing so with other people's money.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Mar 18th, 2016 at 12:49:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There's something complicated about it, I don't quite recall what. Might be common law.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Mar 18th, 2016 at 12:56:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
As long as they can carry out menial work their right to earn a living is protected...

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Mar 21st, 2016 at 10:14:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I do know that Michael Milken is effectively prohibited from ever again working in the financial industry personally. But he still got to keep $500 million in assets and cash. I think a million would have been quite sufficiently generous and certainly no more than $10 million. He did far more damage than that via the junk bond scandal, and $440 million might have gone a ways towards compensating some of the victims, preferably starting with the most vulnerable.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Mar 18th, 2016 at 12:54:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Does this mean that reckless drivers get to keep their licence in Ireland if they need to drive for their living? Or does the Irish Constitution have a special clause protecting bankers?
by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Fri Mar 18th, 2016 at 01:07:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No such right in the US.  We take away the ability to make a living above the poverty line with every felony conviction.
by rifek on Mon Mar 21st, 2016 at 10:18:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Right, that's all going to be civil stuff.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Sun Mar 20th, 2016 at 10:57:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Strict liability works in crim law all the time.  Look at a number of federal criminal laws (e.g. the environmental statutes) or the bad check statute we have here in Utah, which frankly something out of Kafka.
by rifek on Mon Mar 21st, 2016 at 10:15:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sanders crushes Clinton in Alaska and Washington Democratic caucuses | US news | The Guardian

Bernie Sanders won overwhelming victories in Washington state and Alaska on Saturday, narrowing Hillary Clinton's still significant lead in the race for delegates to win the Democratic nomination for president.

Sanders defeated Clinton in Washington's caucuses 75% to 25% and 79% to 21% in Alaska's, with about 38% and 72% of the states' precincts reporting.

"We knew from day one we were going to have a hard time politically in the deep south - that is a conservative part of the country," Sanders told supporters in Madison, Wisconsin. "But we knew things were going to improve as we head west.

"We are making significant inroads in Secretary Clinton's lead," he said. "We have a path toward victory."

Clinton won Arizona 57% to Sanders' 41%.
Oregon primaries are May 17.
California and New Mexico June 7.

by Bernard on Sun Mar 27th, 2016 at 07:14:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Those margins will get it done if he can keep winning to a similar extent.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sun Mar 27th, 2016 at 10:32:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Washington was a genuinely impressive win for Bernie, but he's running out of real estate.  I suspect he'll nab similar wins in Oregon, Montana, the Dakotas, and whatever else is left in the Plains and Mountain West.

He'll probably take Wisconsin as well.

I suspect Hillzilla will get fairly big wins in New York, Jersey and whatever's left of the Northeast.

California should be fairly close.  I'd guess slight edge to Clinton.  And I suspect she wins New Mexico.

At that point, I think we're done.  She'll win by a few hundred delegates.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Sun Mar 27th, 2016 at 10:33:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Depends on the amount of Disney shit.

by generic on Wed Mar 30th, 2016 at 10:47:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The animal omens favor Sanders. But he needs at least a tie in New York and New Jersey, a win plus some in California and big wins in most other states to even tie her in pledged delegates. Not impossible, but Clinton has better odds.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Mar 30th, 2016 at 02:06:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This is the only upside to these interminable marketing races, that the extra time can give more chances for something disruptive to emerge and mature.

For a black swan to turn white.

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Thu Mar 31st, 2016 at 08:11:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There are 2,968 delegates left, divided in half is 1,484.  Clinton is said to have 1,223 to Sanders 574. The winning first ballot 2,383.  In a closely contested campaign Clinton can get there, Sanders can't.  

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
by ATinNM on Fri Mar 11th, 2016 at 10:57:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
As always, I acknowledge that Sanders' task is daunting. I don't think it is impossible. There are more than three months left and a lot can happen. I will not concede that Sanders cannot get the nomination until he has not. Hillary might not be a complete disaster, but Bernie could be as good as it will ever get.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Mar 11th, 2016 at 11:15:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Question is: What happens to the Sanders organization when the campaign is seen to be a hopeless cause? If does appear to be a hopeless cause.  (I grant there's still a hope as a 3/11/16.)  Is it going to be another crash into apathy as what happened with Obama in 2008 - 2010  or are they going to continue the fight?

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
by ATinNM on Fri Mar 11th, 2016 at 01:11:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The Obama campaign held on to their systems and data and wanted to shut down the activists, as they had already implied more than they wanted to deliver and Obama had need of the system for 2012 and to assist whoever he wanted in 2016. Bernie is in a different situation. He wants, first and foremost, to bring about the change he has been advocating, preferably now by winning the presidency. I would expect him to want the campaign to continue to build support for his program and to influence the 2018 midterm and 2020 election.

If he loses the nomination, his organization, his volunteers and the data they have amassed would be quite a mantle to bestow on a suitable successor. That is what I would expect him to do. We will know the answer soon enough, should he not get the nomination. He could do what he could to help Hillary and to get a more progressive Congress and Senate. Both would help him push his agenda from the Senate. He ran this time because no other viable progressive emerged.


"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Mar 11th, 2016 at 03:30:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Getting a more progressive Congress and helping Clinton are two, very different things.  No DLCer wants progressive anything, and Sanders knows change will never happen with the DLC in charge.
by rifek on Mon Mar 21st, 2016 at 10:26:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Pardon my ambiguity. I should have said 'saddle' Clinton with a more Progressive House. I didn't expect her to like it any more than Obama liked the Democratic Progressive Caucus he had. Who likes a bad conscience that won't keep quiet in public?


"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Tue Mar 22nd, 2016 at 08:38:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A progressive rebirth is the DLC's worst nightmare.
by rifek on Wed Mar 23rd, 2016 at 10:32:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
by das monde on Tue Mar 22nd, 2016 at 02:37:37 AM EST
In Three-Person Race, John Kasich Came Fourth
in the Arizona primary on Tuesday [...]

Kasich won 52,462 votes (10.0%), with 94.4% of precincts reporting. That was significantly behind Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) 79%, who won 70,515 votes (13.4%), largely due to early voting.

According to the Arizona Secretary of State's office, early voting in the state's presidential preference primary began on Feb. 24 -- nearly a full three weeks before Rubio dropped out of the presidential race on Mar. 15

 
by das monde on Thu Mar 24th, 2016 at 03:09:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The Democrat Establishment Plan for a Three-Front Anti-Trump, Republican-Splitting, Anti-Left Campaign
(1) The Democrats (and the Clintons) don't want to give Sanders a thing. They don't want him personally to be part of the campaign, and they are willing to write off his supporters, in classic Democrat "they have no place to go" fashion [...]

(2) The Democrats (and the Clintons) would rather appeal to "moderate Republicans" than Sanders voters. This is sensible realpolitik if the number of moderate Republicans who would vote for Clinton is larger than the number of Sanders supporters who would sit this one out or vote Green [...]

by das monde on Tue Mar 22nd, 2016 at 02:46:43 AM EST
Bernie Sanders Just Received A Wall St Endorsement That Has The Industry Stunned
Greed is good," those are the three words which most people remember from the iconic 1987  movie titled Wall Street, which featured a character named Gordon Gekko played by Michael Douglas. The Gekko character was based on a few different people, but one of the main inspirations was an infamous corporate raider named Asher Edelman. Recently Edelman shocked a business show panel with his endorsement of the Democratic presidential candidate and avowed "Democratic Socialist" Bernie Sanders [...]

Edelman began his career as a corporate raider in 1961. In 1988, he taught a course called "Corporate Raiding - The Art of War" at Columbia Business School, using Sun Tzu's The Art of War as his textbook.  Edelman was considered Wall Street royalty in many financial circles.

by das monde on Wed Mar 23rd, 2016 at 07:05:47 AM EST
Aloha! Delegate deficit drops by 68 to 226. Bernie wins by 47% in WA, 41% in HI, and 63% in AK.
Looking forward, Bernie needs 987 delegates out of 1747 (56.5%) remaining to hit the 2,026 majority of 4051 total pledged delegates. That is down from 59% after Super Tuesday. The 538 demographic model suggests he would receive 51.3% (896) of delegates remaining if the race was tied. We need to bump that up by 5%.

538's model has not been so reliable, it has held races to close to the national average, compared to actual results where both Sanders and Clinton has overperformed in their strong areas.

by fjallstrom on Sun Mar 27th, 2016 at 05:17:43 PM EST
Dysfunctional Democracy: Then and Now, Left and Right
People of my vintage and my political persuasion tended to see Tricky Dick Nixon as the exemplar of crooked and shady politics, but Lyndon Johnson could have given Nixon a run for his money in the corruption, voter fraud, double dealing, and dirty tricks departments [...]

What Johnson did in Texas in 1948 was extravagantly, blatantly, and egregiously fraudulent. He stole an election, buying huge numbers of votes in Mexican-American and black districts that turned in pluralities in Johnson's favor that ran as high as 100 to 1, and where turn out was virtually 100% [...] Corrupt judges tampered with votes, and there were other irregularities sufficient to allow Johnson to overcome a huge gap in voter support, and to ultimately steal the election. That wholly corrupted outcome had a ripple effect of consequences, some good, some not so good. Had Johnson lost that election - as he should have - he would never have become Vice President, and Kennedy may never have made that fatal trip to Dallas on November 22, 1963. We might also never have had a Civil Rights Act of 1964, but we may have avoided the depth of our disastrous entanglement in Vietnam. Way leads on to way, as the poet said, and sometimes the ways are crooked, perilous, and riddled with consequences not intended nor even remotely imaginable.

When it comes to attempts to subvert the will of the people, Republicans have long been intent on proving that what Democrats like Daley and Johnson could do, they could do better. The got themselves a George W. Bush-engineered Supreme Court that could gut the voting rights act, freeing up lots of people like Helen Purcell, and Republican-controlled state legislatures to target demographic slices of voters and then make it harder and harder for those people to vote, especially minority groups and younger voters, and even more especially in college districts.

by das monde on Mon Mar 28th, 2016 at 02:36:01 AM EST
I found this interesting.

First:

Bernie Sanders Rocks the Bronx | | Observer

Ms. Clinton is still the top dog, carrying the endorsements of just about every elected official in New York State

And then at the end:

Bernie Sanders Rocks the Bronx | | Observer

The lone Bronx elected official supporting Mr. Sanders, Assemblyman Luis Sepulveda, said at the rally tonight that the Democratic machine had pressured him into endorsing the more moderate Ms. Clinton--and he had to say no, citing the devastation of the Iraq War. Bronx Councilman Ritchie Torres, who is officially neutral in the primary, also attended the rally.

"Bernie is a man of integrity," Mr. Sepulveda said. "Bernie is a man who's gonna lead this revolution."

by fjallstrom on Fri Apr 1st, 2016 at 10:16:04 AM EST
Arizona Secretary of State Confirms Election Fraud Happened in State Primary  Amanda Girard  usuncut.com

March 22. During yesterday's testimony at the Arizona state capitol in Phoenix, Secretary of State Michele Reagan was asked what her office was doing to investigate the claims that registration for thousands of voters had been changed from Democrat or Republican to independent. As US Uncut previously reported, thousands of voters were given provisional ballots, which aren't actually counted, due to their party registration mysteriously showing up in the system as "independent" or "no party declared."

Reagan answered "yes" when asked if she knew for certain voter registration had been changed prior to the primary election, then followed up by saying:

    "This was something that I know happens, and I know it happened to people in this room. It's not hearsay. It happened to someone in my own office. One of my employees was registered as a particular party, went to go vote, and I don't want to divulge his personal details, but it happened to him."

While Reagan didn't give confirmation that the voter database was hacked, as Anonymous has suggested, she did say the elections division was cross-checking all of the voters who cast provisional ballots and seeing how many had been registered as one party or another prior to the March 22 primary.

I find it hard to believe that a Republican did this. But it appears that Hillary's Arizona victory was due in some part to electoral fraud by someone.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Apr 1st, 2016 at 08:51:15 PM EST
Hillary Clinton's Support Among Nonwhite Voters Has Collapsed   Seth Abramson   HuPo

On February 27th, Hillary Clinton led Bernie Sanders among African-American voters by 52 points. By March 26th, she led Sanders among African-Americans by just nine points. And today, Public Policy Polling, a widely respected polling organization, released a poll showing that Sanders leads Clinton among African-American voters in Wisconsin by 11 points.

Clinton's 48-point lead in New York less than two weeks ago is now just a 12-point lead, according to the latest Quinnipiac Poll. That poll shows Sanders with approximately 300 percent more support among African-American voters in New York than he had in Mississippi earlier this month.

To understand the significance of what is happening we have to look at the trajectory of the various polls and other data points in time.

Meanwhile, in the only poll taken in Indiana, Sanders is said to be beating Clinton handily. Sanders is leading by 8 points in West Virginia. And the only polling done so far in Kentucky -- among nearly 1,000 students at the University of Kentucky -- has Sanders up on Clinton there by more than 70 points.
But what the latest Reuters polling underscores is that even Clinton's support in the South has collapsed.

....

In Illinois, Sanders won Latino voters 50 percent to 49 percent and lost African-American voters by a percentage (-40) midway between his recent, improved performance in Wisconsin and his March 1st performance in the Deep South (-73.5 average). These numbers were born out also in Missouri, where Sanders lost African-American voters by 35 points and nonwhite voters by 23 points. These data aren't surprising or disheartening for Sanders or his supporters -- indeed, the figures, taken together, are almost algebraic -- given that Sanders lost African-American voters by 73.5 points on March 1st, 40 points on March 15th, and was ahead in Wisconsin among this group by 11 points by March 31st.

In other words, nonwhite voting offers the media a clear and unambiguous narrative about Sanders -- an unmissable trajectory -- if only they're willing to see it. And the same dramatic trajectory -- albeit in the opposite direction -- is evident for Clinton.


It would seem that the billionaires who own the MSM really don't like Sanders.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Apr 1st, 2016 at 09:28:28 PM EST
Sanders wins most delegates at Clark County convention - Las Vegas Sun News

Nearly 9,000 delegates were elected on caucus day in late February, but only 3,825 showed up to Saturday's convention. An additional 915 elected alternates and 604 unelected alternates also turned out to support their favored candidate.

The final delegate count was 2,964 for Sanders and 2,386 for Clinton. That means the Sanders campaign will send 1,613 delegates to the state convention, while the Clinton campaign will send 1,298.

Judging from discussion on DailyKos both campaigns are accused of trying to disinform the delegates.

by fjallstrom on Sun Apr 3rd, 2016 at 05:45:01 AM EST
Or well, at least flips Clark County from 55/45 in Clinton's favor to 55/45 in Sander's favor.

Clark County, Nevada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is by far the most populous county in Nevada, accounting for nearly three-quarters of its residents. Las Vegas, Nevada's most populous city, has been the county seat since the county was established.

So if they all turn up fo the state convention then Sanders should win Nevada.

by fjallstrom on Sun Apr 3rd, 2016 at 05:57:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Winning Clark County pretty much means winning Nevada.  Add Washoe County (Reno, essentially), and you've pretty much covered the entire population.  The rest of it is basically a couple military bases and Mormon settlements.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Mon Apr 4th, 2016 at 12:51:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And a ranch every 400 square miles where it can be adjacent to BLM land. And the casinos have usually supported Democrats, but not necessarily those who work for them. More interesting will be if anything happens in Arizona re the primary results. I doubt it.
 

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Mon Apr 4th, 2016 at 02:36:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Hillary Clinton plan: Defeat Bernie Sanders, then unify party - CNNPolitics.com
As Sanders took a victory lap following a 14-point triumph in Wisconsin, Clinton took fresh aim at the Vermont senator as part of a three-part strategy before the New York primary on April 19: Disqualify him, defeat him, and unify the party later.

"Some of his ideas just won't work because the numbers don't add up," Clinton told a labor union audience Wednesday in Philadelphia. "In a number of important areas, he doesn't have a plan at all."

It's the latest chapter in Clinton's approach to Sanders. She's tried ignoring him, brushing him aside, gently dismissing his policies. The Clinton campaign has refrained from going nuclear on Sanders, aides say, in large part to keep at least some good will alive in hopes of unifying the party at the end of the primary fight.

No more, a top adviser told CNN. The fight is on. Extending an olive branch to Sanders' supporters "will come later," an adviser said.It's a new moment in this Democratic primary fight, with the Clinton campaign poised to dramatically escalate its criticism of Sanders in the coming days.

For someone who supposedly already won, she sure is taking chances with losing support in the general election.

by fjallstrom on Wed Apr 6th, 2016 at 04:53:25 PM EST
Just wait until the "anonymous sources with the Clinton campaign" start saying stupid things to the papers.

It wouldn't be the Clintons if they and their weird hangers-on didn't engage in a barrage of tone-deaf stupidity and unnecessary drama.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Apr 6th, 2016 at 05:27:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
...adding:

Although, to be quite honest, I don't absolve Camp Bernie of wrongdoing here either.  Bernie's team is full of morons like Tad "Superdelegates are terrible unless they flip it to my guy" Devine, and I've about fucking had it with being called a Nazi for having the gall to point out that Bernie's white papers don't add up and that general election polls mean shit this far out.

I'm additionally tired of being accused of "mansplaining" when I note that Hillary Clinton is an absolute fucking buffoon on foreign policy and that every blemish on Obama's foreign policy record is a result of him being stupid enough to think she's not an absolute fucking buffoon.

I'd like this fucking primary to be over with, like yesterday, so that I can focus on laughing at the Republican shitshow.  Both Dem candidates are garbage.  It's Awful Insider vs Clueless Outsider, and I don't really give a shit at this point as long as the one who wins the nomination wins the damned election, fills Scalia's seat and keeps Ted Cruz as far away from Obamacare as possible.

That's all I want.  Give me that and keep the deficit adequately high to continue the recovery, and everything else is just gravy.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Apr 6th, 2016 at 06:49:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]