Categories
open thread

Super Tuesday Open Thread

voteasyouplease_phixr
Wait, why is she using a gun to hammer the nails in?

The We Hunted the Mammoth Pledge Drive is on! If you haven’t already, please consider donating through the PayPal button below. Thanks!

Open thread! It’s Super Tuesday here in the US. Discuss today’s primaries, the evil that is Trump, politics in general.

 

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

253 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
katz
5 years ago

Just wanted to talk about how great that is and all.

I agree it’s great that Clinton has expanded her lead by 11 more delegates!

OoglyBoggles
OoglyBoggles
5 years ago

@katz

And it’s great to know that not only was it done by outperforming the polls by a large margin, it also means that the gap is closing! After all, I fail to see the utter crushings of defeat of Super Tuesday, with the reporters claiming the end of the line!

It also means that combined with Hillary consistently losing her standing in the national polls and the rate of which people have switched their supports to bernie, I can easily see a win.

Plus as a petty note your
candidate can’t seem to win tiebreakers without having her hubby practically toss the rules aside during Super Tuesday! Also CNN, stop trying to hide Bernie under one Clinton win.

Viscaria
Viscaria
5 years ago

Very uncomfortable seeing a female political candidate’s husband referred to as her “hubby,” particularly in the context of him supposedly helping her out in some way.

I’m not saying whether Bill Clinton did or didn’t help her in some way; or if he did, whether it was fair. I just find that phrasing very dismissive of women as individuals and not just extensions of men.

brooked
brooked
5 years ago

@OoglyBoggles

Clinton added to her daunting delegate lead, but, yes, Sanders can gain some momentum if he outperforms polls on March 8 and March 15. He needs to win at least one state, preferably more, and he needs to limit the blowout losses to Mississippi.

I personally don’t think he will pull that off but we’ll all find out together in nine days. If Hillary adds to her lead on March 15 then Sanders has no realistic way of overcoming a 200+ delegate deficit.

Even if he has blowout wins in Wisconsin and Washington (which is likely to happen), manages to win California (which is unlikely to happen), and win New York and Pennsylvania (which will not happen) it won’t be enough.

It also means that combined with Hillary consistently losing her standing in the national polls and the rate of which people have switched their supports to bernie, I can easily see a win.

They aren’t running for national poll wins, they’re running in Democratic primaries and caucuses.

sbel
sbel
5 years ago

@OoglyBoggles

So, Bernie won three states today. Just wanted to talk about how great that is and all.

3 states? Kansas, Nebraska, and…? Maine hasn’t voted yet, and he definitely didn’t win Louisiana.

It also means that combined with Hillary consistently losing her standing in the national polls and the rate of which people have switched their supports to bernie, I can easily see a win.

I think you’ll find that Bernie peaked around Feb 20 and has been losing ground in the national polls since then.

Plus what brooked said, national polls really don’t matter in a primary season.

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
5 years ago

I can’t tell if OoglyBoggles is a BernieBro or just acting like one in the world’s most confusing attempt to gotcha-troll us.

(Also, I totally missed Jeff K’s clarification from four days and two pages ago. Oops. Anyway: Ah, understood! Apologies, I think Oogly’s behaviour in this thread is making me dumber.)

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

I think Sanders is starting to show his true colours. At first I thought he was a decent bloke, albeit a bit out of his depth. However he completely dismissed some perfectly reasonable questions about cruelty in farming with a laugh and “Americans like bacon”. I can’t comment about what I think of that without breaching the comments policy and risking a visit from the Secret Service.

Now he’s done this:

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/06/politics/bernie-sanders-republican-debates-mental-health/

I was hoping Hillary would win because she’s highly competent and clearly the only credible candidate, but now I’m actively hoping she rubs Sanders face in it.

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
5 years ago

… At this point, I should really just go ahead and carve my Spongebob GIF on the moon, huh. Ergh.

Imaginary Petal
Imaginary Petal
5 years ago

Stupid and shitty comment by Sanders.

Just out of curiousity, are we really pretending as if the other candidates never said anything shitty?

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
5 years ago

Err… Who? I’m not. o.O If they never said anything shitty, they wouldn’t be politicians.

EJ (The Other One)
EJ (The Other One)
5 years ago

@M:

I absolutely do not have a giant space laser, but if I did then you could totally borrow it.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

@ IP

It’s tricky isn’t it? There’s unlikely to be an ‘ideologically pure’ candidate who’s never said anything problematic or stupid. Then we get into the whole ‘better is the enemy of good’ debate again. The thing with Sanders though is that his shtick is that he’s the decent guy; but clearly when you scrape the surface it’s just an act.

I’m still fuming over his farming comments though, so I’d better bit comment any further on what I hope happens to him.

Imaginary Petal
Imaginary Petal
5 years ago

It was mostly a response to Alan, who said this:

now I’m actively hoping she [Hillary] rubs Sanders face in it.

As if you couldn’t make exactly the same argument in the opposite direction.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

@ IP

It is tricky isn’t it? There’s unlikely to be an ‘ideologically pure’ candidate who’s never said anything problematic or stupid. Then we get into that ‘perfect is the enemy of good’ debate again. But Sanders entire shtick is that he’s meant to be the decent guy. Scratch below the surface though and we see that’s a lie.

I’m fuming with him because of his farming comments. Not just the comments themselves but the completely dismissive way he laughed off the questions. It showed that he was willing to openly treat people with contempt rather than piss off the big farming industry moguls. I’d be interested to see how much money they’ve paid towards his campaign.

Full disclosure: I’ve always thought Hillary was the better candidate anyway; she just oozes competence. But I thought Sanders might be like a US Jeremy Corbyn; someone who brings a bit of decency and thought back to politics. It’s the disappointment and betrayal as much as anything. At least the others didn’t pretend to be nice.

mockingbird
mockingbird
5 years ago

They aren’t running for national poll wins, they’re running in Democratic primaries and caucuses.

In all seriousness, one thing that worries me about the general election is that Clinton’s strongest showings have been in states that go red (with notable exceptions including Virginia, a lately “purple” state).

She could carry the democratic vote in all of the red states to no avail if enough of her potential electorate in the purple and blue-ish states are unmotivated enough to either not show up or write in on election day.

Full disclosure (again): I’m a Sanders supporter, but I’ll definitely vote for Clinton if it means voting against Trump or Cruz.

Editing to add: I’d missed some of Sanders apparent crappy comments. Between some medical issues and prepping for a probable international move, I’ve honestly only been grazing info this election.

Imaginary Petal
Imaginary Petal
5 years ago

@Alan

This, in my view, is the problem with a culture that focuses so much on the individual candidate rather than the ideology. I accept that every candidate will say stupid things, and no candidate will be perfect. The question is, do you believe Hillary will do something about factory farming that Bernie wouldn’t? Maybe you do, I don’t know. I see no particular reason to believe this is the case.

EDIT: In many ways, what Bernie’s voters believe matters as much as what Bernie actually believes. Bernie’s voters will expect certain things of him, and Hillary’s voters will expect certain things of her. If Hillary is elected president and there is no particular change in the next 8 years compared to the previous 8, I assume her voters would be ok with that. I don’t think Bernie’s voters would be happy with that.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

@ IP

The question is, do you believe Hillary will do something about factory farming that Bernie wouldn’t?

That is a question my friends and I have been discussing a lot since Sanders’ comments. It’s caused quite a split between my friends who work on Sanders’ campaign and my animal rights friends.

In practical terms we were wondering whether Bill Clinton’s role as ‘first husband’ will be a factor. Bill is pretty good on animal rights as you probably know (he’s a vegan now). But I think Hillary wouldn’t have been so crass and dismissive. The Clintons do have that ability to listen to people and at least give the impression that they appreciate their concerns (and personally I think they genuinely mean it, even if they can’t always deliver). Sanders can’t even bring himself to perform lip service when it might affect his standing with big business.

Imaginary Petal
Imaginary Petal
5 years ago

@Alan

Do you have any information on this “big business” angle? I’d be curious to know.

Imaginary Petal
Imaginary Petal
5 years ago

Listening to last nights Dem debate. Gene Kopf, father of the 14 year old girl who was severely injured in the recet Uber driver shooting, asked a very interesting question. I’m paraphrasing, but he asked: What will you do about our problem with mass shootings? And don’t talk about mental health and background checks, because that stuff doesn’t work.

Hillary’s response? Background checks! Gun show loop holes!

This is why I’m so unimpressed with her campaign. She doesn’t seem to have any ideas at all. It’s all an appeal to her experience. We all agree that she’s by far the most experienced candidate in this race, but when she opposes universal health care and free higher education, what does it matter how experienced she is if her experience is leading her in that direction?

And, to be fair, Bernie’s response to this question wasn’t much better.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

@ IP

His contemptuous response to the queries was that he was just concerned for American farmers. Now of course there are some small struggling US farmers but, as we’ve been discussing with the food policy thread, agricultural interests carry a lot of clout in US politics.

The irony is he missed a trick. He could have either said that cruelty in farming was something he wanted to address or, even if he just wanted to be cynical, he could have said that he recognised that such issues were important but he was sure that the majority of farmers did try to address these issues.

All he’s done with his response is to acknowledge that US farming is generally cruel but he doesn’t care.

So either he lacks political acumen or he’s just a shit. Seems to me it’s both.

katz
5 years ago

Mockingbird: While that’s a totally reasonable interpretation of the primaries, it turns out the poll evidence points the other way: 79% of Democrats say they’re satisfied with Hillary as a candidate, but only 62% with Bernie. (And the Republicans hate all their choices.)

guy
guy
5 years ago

This is why I’m so unimpressed with her campaign. She doesn’t seem to have any ideas at all. It’s all an appeal to her experience. We all agree that she’s by far the most experienced candidate in this race, but when she opposes universal health care and free higher education, what does it matter how experienced she is if her experience is leading her in that direction?

Because the policies she supports are to the left of the status quo, and her appeal is that her supporters believe she can make the policies she supports happen and Sanders won’t be able to actually accomplish even what Hillary is suggesting. Hillary has been fairly consistent about being slightly left of center and at making slightly left of center things happen. So there’s plenty of people who want Hillary to win despite wanting Sanders’s proposals to happen, because they don’t think Sanders winning will result in a better situation than Hillary winning.

EJ (The Other One)
EJ (The Other One)
5 years ago

Is it even possible to discuss gun policy rationally in America? What does it say that even very policy-wonkish people like Clinton have to fall back on talking points?

(I’m all in favour of universal confiscation of firearms; but failing that I’d settle for hard data and a discussion of legal liability, neither of which seem to exist.)

guy
guy
5 years ago

The NRA is really powerful and deeply entrenched, to the point that they actually managed to specifically prohibit the US government from collecting hard data. That is not an exaggeration.

So if you’re wondering why the Democrats only push tiny changes, it’s because they haven’t managed to even get those. Universal confiscation is not even remotely on the table.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

@ guy

So if you’re wondering why the Democrats only push tiny changes

That’s been another major point with my Sanders campaigning friends.

When the issue of electability and ‘not scaring the voters’ with anything too radical has cropped up, their view is that incremental change is something only privileged people can want. Their argument is that, for oppressed categories of people, they can’t afford to wait for things to happen in stages. Of course the counter argument is that it’s better to make accommodations to get at least some change rather than be cast out into the electoral wilderness.

It’s not unlike the debate within the Labour Party here between new labour and the Corbyn wing. Pragmatism is seen as a bit of an anathema to the more ideologically focused. Better to lose on your own terms than ‘win’ but having sold out as it were.

ETA: of course “a week is a long time in politics” so who knows what the voter mindset might be by the time of our next general election. I wouldn’t write Corbyn off. Sanders and Trump have demonstrated that, when the electorate is angry with the system generally, they may well vote for an ‘outsider’ on principle without regard to policies.

guy
guy
5 years ago

Given the voting pattern in this primary, I’m inclined to say that the counter argument seems more convincing to unprivileged people. Privileged people can afford to bet on a big change and risk getting nothing.

However, there is a legitimate problem with focusing on pragmatism; it can become an excuse for inaction. If they content themselves too much with little changes then they may pass up real opportunities for big ones. But we’re anticipating a Republican House until at least the next census, and a Republican sweep in this race could make that permanent.

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
5 years ago

@dhag & EJ

Unfortunately, there’s no way she could say what we’d all love her to say in the current political climate without totally torpedoing her campaign (or worse – much, much worse). Think about what happens every time a random woman mentions toxic masculinity, male entitlement or right-wing terrorism on Twitter, then multiply that by a factor of fuck.

Whether or not we agree with it, it’s a political and personal safety issue.

Dalillama
Dalillama
5 years ago

@guy

Hillary has been fairly consistent about being slightly left of center and at making slightly left of center things happen.

I suppose that by the standards of the current American Overton Window you could say that, but it’s certainly not true in any overall sense. Clinton is a moderate conservative, and always has been. Bernie Sanders, now, he’s (very) slightly left of center.

@EJ

Is it even possible to discuss gun policy rationally in America?

No. Not even a little bit. Part of the problem is that even many otherwise sensible people here still worship the Constitution with more fervor than their ostensible religion, and act as though every part of the Bill of Rights was handed down from the heavens and has always been interpreted exactly the same way by everyone.

EJ (The Other One)
5 years ago

@Dalillama:
That’s terrifying. I had, perhaps naïvely, assumed that Bioshock Infinite was fiction.

mockingbird
mockingbird
5 years ago

@katz – That’s interesting info.

My other main concern is primarily fueled by (admittedly) anecdata:

I know a good number of people who identify as independent but who (when they do vote) usually vote for one party, at least at the national level.

A surprising number of these borderline apoliticals have expressed fervent support for Sanders (…and some for Trump :-/ ) but have said that they’ll “just not vote” if he’s not the nominee.

Bottom line: I’m concerned that in a Trump/Hillary match up, Trump’s vote will = (registered Republicans who don’t like him but, regardless of their assertions during the primaries, will hold their nose and vote R) + (Republicans, R-leaning swing voters who are voting explicitly against Clinton) + (Trump’s otherwise non- or seldom-voting supporters whose unnervingly fascist posts show up in comments sections)
while
Clinton’s vote will = (Democrats / D-leaning independents who would have voted for anyone the Democrats put up, even Sanders + those who are explicitly voting against Trump) – (D-leaning and swing independents who will either abstain or write-in if Bernie’s not the nominee + seldom-voters who are neither scared enough by Trump nor excited enough by Clinton to bother voting)

tl;dr: Even factoring in polled positives and negatives, I’m concerned that there will be enough of an enthusiasm gap among independents and unmotivated voters to push Trump* over the finish line.

Edited to clarify: I’m not saying, “Bernie must be nominated or DOOOOM!” but that, ack – if Clinton’s the nominee (and I think she will be) there will need to be a real push to get out every single possible vote in order to defeat Trump.

* I have similar concerns regarding a Cruz/Clinton match up, though the “math” is a bit different.

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
5 years ago

@EJ

I take it you missed this, then? =P

EJ (The Other One)
5 years ago

@M:
That’s the best thing ever.

guy
guy
5 years ago

I suppose that by the standards of the current American Overton Window you could say that, but it’s certainly not true in any overall sense. Clinton is a moderate conservative, and always has been.

Well, I guess what I should have said is that Hillary has consistently been slightly left of the center of the American Overton Window. And this has remained true as the Overton Window has shifted.

mockingbird
mockingbird
5 years ago

@EJ – Bioshock Infinite was so resonant with many in the US because its themes hit so close to home.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

@ guy

It’s interesting to compare the US system with its emphasis on “checks and balances” with the UK system of “elective dictatorship”.

It seems strange to us that the legislature can scupper the executive so much in the US (as can SCOTUS). I can see the historical reasons for that. Here though the historical view has been that the party that’s been elected gets to call the shots (albeit with Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition challenging them in debate) and our courts are supposed to defer to “the sovereignty of parliament”.

That’s so entrenched that there’s a convention that opposition parties won’t vote against the government on an issue where they made a clear manifesto commitment; they’re supposed to abstain instead.

Things got quite interesting here when we had a coalition government last time. Our system really isn’t geared for that when compared to some European countries where that’s the norm.

ETA: well strange to me anyway, other people are probably better informed.

mockingbird
mockingbird
5 years ago

@Alan –

When the issue of electability and ‘not scaring the voters’ with anything too radical has cropped up, their view is that incremental change is something only privileged people can want. Their argument is that, for oppressed categories of people, they can’t afford to wait for things to happen in stages. Of course the counter argument is that it’s better to make accommodations to get at least some change rather than be cast out into the electoral wilderness.

Conversely, one of my arguments has been that a more “radical left” in the US would be beneficial because, even if its aims couldn’t necessarily be realized, their discussion and pursuit would be a needed counterweight to the increasingly radical right.

I mean, I was born in 1980.
My lifetime’s witnessed a steady shift right of the Overton Window*.

* With the notable exception of LGBT+ rights and some elements of gender equality, though there are definitely elements that have tried to wrest it back, especially in the last few years.

Dalillama
Dalillama
5 years ago

@Guy

And this has remained true as the Overton Window has shifted.

Which is a huge part of my problem with her.

brooked
brooked
5 years ago

@mockingbird

In all seriousness, one thing that worries me about the general election is that Clinton’s strongest showings have been in states that go red (with notable exceptions including Virginia, a lately “purple” state).

I wouldn’t worry so much about that.

Obama won the 2008 primary by winning similar huge margins in red states and winning caucuses dominated by progressives. And Illinois for obvious reasons.

http://study.com/cimages/multimages/16/2008_democratic_presidential_primaries_by_states_carried.jpg

He still decisively won the 2008 GE by winning traditional blue states and purple swing states that he lost in the primary.

http://www.andrewclem.com/Politics/Maps/2008PresElection.gif

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

Anyone know why, in the US, it’s red for ‘conservative’ and blue for ‘liberal’? It’s the other way round here (and even in the US I thought red was associated with the left. ‘Reds under the bed’ and all that)

guy
guy
5 years ago

It just is. Someone used the color coding on an electoral map for a news program and it stuck.

EJ (The Other One)
5 years ago

Archie Tse, the New York Times graphics editor who is often credited with inventing the modern colouring scheme of the parties during the 2000 election, claimed that it was because “Red” and “Republican” both start with the same letter.

Dalillama
Dalillama
5 years ago

@Alan
Historically, electoral maps in the U.S. have used blue to designate victories for one party and red for the other, but there was very little standardization as to which party got which color, and different networks used different arrangements (although there was a trend towards red for the party on the left, for the reason you note). In 2000, the controversy over the election results led to a lot more electoral maps on the news, and everyone converged on the CBS/ABC red for Republicans blue for Democrats scheme, which has remained a part of the political discourse ever since.

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
5 years ago

I kinda figured Republicans got red because they’re so cartoonishly angry all the damn time.

</only half-joking>

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

A quick google search shows that, apart from all the colours beginning with “deep”, there is a “DEbian red”. I can see how that could confuse the issue though.

Funnily enough, in NATO exercises, NATO forces are the ‘blue’ team and the opposing forces are the ‘orange’ team. Guess we don’t want to make it too personal.

Imaginary Petal
Imaginary Petal
5 years ago

I second everything Dalillama has said.

@SFHC

Fair point.

Dalillama
Dalillama
5 years ago

@Alan

Funnily enough, in NATO exercises, NATO forces are the ‘blue’ team

Yup; that’s been the case as long as there’s been a NATO; originally orange designated the Warsaw Pact nations, but since that’s not really a thing anymore they just use if for ‘the other side’. It’s so entrenched that ‘blue on blue’ is a common term for friendly fire incidents. Why those colors I have no idea and cannot conveniently find out.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

@ dalillama

Just to confuse the matter even further, coalition forces in Afghanistan and Iraq/Syria (that border is getting more nebulous by the hour) now use orange panels as ‘friendly forces’ markers to prevent blue on blue!

brooked
brooked
5 years ago

TW: Endless primary wonkery

As of now, Sanders has won every caucus (Colorado, Minnesota, Kansas, Nebraska and Maine) except Iowa (~tie), Nevada and American Samoa.

He’s only won three primaries (New Hampshire, Vermont and Oklahoma) and lost nine.

For non-Yanks:

Caucus: A type of meeting used by political parties to discuss various issues. A presidential caucus is a political meeting where participants indicate their preferred candidate for president and begin their state’s process of selecting delegates to their party’s national convention. Caucuses are usually the first stage in a multi-step process. One of two methods used to select delegates (other being a primary).

Caucuses are weird. It make selecting a party candidate a more communal, discussion based process with an event that involves several hours of debate and an open vote. Caucuses demand a very well organized local campaign and almost always favor the more ideologically “pure” candidate.

Outside of his home state Texas and Oklahoma, Cruz has only won caucuses because he has the best organization and his main base, the Evangelical right, dominate Republican caucuses.

People who argue that Sanders’ caucus wins means he has an distinct advantage among white voters are ignoring the fact that Obama won those same caucuses with bigger margins of victory. Democratic caucuses are dominated by progressives because so few voters are dedicated enough to put that work and time in to participate.

Participation is limited in more populous states and comical in the less populous ones. Seriously, Kansas’s results were Sanders 26.5k vs Clinton 12.6k.

While I understand the arguments against caucuses, I like that they give a progressive candidate a small foothold against an establishment candidate. Sanders’ problem is that you can’t win the Democratic nomination if you only have that foothold while (1) getting decimated in non-white voting and (2) repeatedly get your ass-kicked six ways to Sunday in major Non-New England primaries. For instance, Texas was a major disaster for Sanders and polls show him getting curb stomped in Florida.

Also, people who think the latter half of the primaries are going to favor Sanders more are ignoring the difference between closed and open primaries.

Luckily for Sanders, many of the March 8th and 15th elections are open or semi-open so Independents can vote for Sanders. Unfortunately for Sanders, many of the later key primaries are closed, which means only registered Democrats can vote in them. In blue states which have closed primaries, such as New York and Pennsylvania, Democrats are disproportionately female and the majority are moderates and liberals who voted overwhelmingly for Hillary in 2008.

As a geek, I can’t wait for the Michigan primary. It’s an open primary, so Sanders sorta pro-gun industry stance could help him in state rift with militias. There are lots of other reasons this will be a fascinating primary, but this has already crossed into Teal Deer territory.

sbel
sbel
5 years ago

@mockingbird

In all seriousness, one thing that worries me about the general election is that Clinton’s strongest showings have been in states that go red (with notable exceptions including Virginia, a lately “purple” state).

She could carry the democratic vote in all of the red states to no avail if enough of her potential electorate in the purple and blue-ish states are unmotivated enough to either not show up or write in on election day.

Yeah, but not a lot of purple states have voted yet. The two biggest ones are Ohio and Florida. They’re both voting on the 15th and they both look pretty good for Hillary.

According to Wikipedia, these were the closest states in the 2012 general election:

States where the margin of victory was under 5% :
Florida, 0.88% – Votes Mar 15, looks good for Hillary.
North Carolina, 2.04% – Votes Mar 15, looks good for Hillary.
Ohio, 2.98% – Votes Mar 15, looks good for Hillary.
Virginia, 3.87% – Primary went to Hillary.

States where the margin of victory was between 5% and 10% :
Colorado, 5.37% – Caucus went to Bernie.
Pennsylvania, 5.39% – April 26th Primary.
New Hampshire, 5.58% – Primary went to Bernie.
Iowa, 5.81% – Caucus, basically tied.
Nevada, 6.68% – Caucus went to Hillary.
Wisconsin, 6.94% – April 5th primary.
Minnesota, 7.69% – Caucus went to Bernie.
Georgia, 7.82% – Primary went to Hillary.
Arizona, 9.06% – Mar 22 Primary.
Missouri, 9.38% – March 15 Caucus.
Michigan, 9.50% – March 8th Primary, looks good for Hillary.

I’m not saying she can definitely win those states in the general or anything. I’m just saying there’s no evidence yet that she can’t win swing states in the primary. We’ll know more after tomorrow and the 15th, once more of them have voted and we’ve seen if the polls are accurate.

sbel
sbel
5 years ago

About “bluish” states, just delete North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, and Missouri from the list above and the rest are all the states that Obama won by less than 10%. The list is from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#Close_races

Where I said “looks good for Hillary,” I got that info from fivethirtyeight.com and realclearpolitics.com