This election season has been marked by two different, but related, failures of analysis. On the one hand, numerous zombie candidates who were basically dead men walking were treated with the utmost seriousness for far too long. On the other hand, there have been premature obituaries, for Trump, for Cruz, for Kasich, and even for Sanders.
Today is most likely going to be a good day for those who were once written off. Cruz looks poised to carry Wisconsin and put a price tag on Trump’s many recent stumbles. And Sanders, who is still all but mathematically eliminated, will almost definitely pull out a win.
Clinton’s campaign manager Robby Mook posted a piece last night that spells out some of the hard facts facing the Sanders campaign. It’s true that it cherry-picks some of the statistics, but his basic point is unassailable. Regardless of what happens in Wisconsin, in order to catch up in the pledged delegates “Sanders has to win the four remaining delegate-rich primaries — New York, Pennsylvania, California, and New Jersey — with roughly 60 percent of the vote.” And, even then, he’ll have to win over the superdelegates which is a basically impossible task for a candidate who still sees the DNC and the Washington establishment as enemies rather than future allies who he hopes to lead.
Still, as vanilla as this analysis is, it’s true as far as it goes:
Winning Wisconsin, where polls will close at 9 p.m. EDT, would give Sanders a fresh dose of momentum — and perhaps new credibility for his claim that he has a chance to catch Clinton in the delegate count and win the Democratic nomination.
As Yogi Berra said, “It ain’t over ’til it’s over,” and if Sanders wins Wisconsin, he’ll get some breathing room. It matters a lot whether he wins narrowly, as he did in Michigan, or he wins convincingly, like he’s won most caucuses and the primaries in Vermont and New Hampshire. That’s because a narrow win will only net a half dozen or fewer delegates, and that’s basically a loss for him at this point.
Back before all this started, I tried to identify states (other than New Hampshire) with primaries that Sanders might win. Massachusetts seemed promising, but he lost there. Oregon seemed like a good state for him. But it was Wisconsin that I thought would give him almost a surefire win, provided his campaign was still active at this point. I’ve actually been surprised about how competitive the polling has been there, but it seems likely that the demographics and progressive traditions of the Badger State will send him to victory, and possibly the thumping victory I originally expected. At this point, he needs bushels of delegates, not a small handful of them.
As for Trump, I am beginning to wonder if he can really pull this out. He sat down with Bob Woodward and Robert Costa and the results were just as shocking and bizarre as Sarah Palin’s latest appearance stumping for The Donald in Wisconsin. Woodward and Costa tried mightily to treat Trump like a serious candidate for the presidency, but that just wouldn’t work on any level. It only served as a case study in extreme narcissism worthy of a Nero or Caligula.
Trump’s problem is that most of his delegates are not going to be loyal to him on a second ballot in Cleveland, which means that he most likely will need to win this thing outright. I could be wrong about that. Eugene Robinson certainly thinks I am wrong:
If Trump comes to Cleveland a few delegates shy of a majority, I find it hard to believe the party is going to tell primary voters, “Thanks for your input, but we don’t care what you think.” Sorry, but I just don’t believe the GOP has the fortitude to divorce its angry, energized base.
If the polls out of Wisconsin are correct, Trump is going to lose some ground tonight in his quest to win an outright majority of delegates. Meanwhile, the betting market is giving a 63% probability that Trump won’t reach his goal and the convention will be brokered. Still, the same oddsmakers place Trump’s chances at 2:1, while Cruz is pegged at 4:1 and Kasich is languishing with 9:1 odds.
There are a lot of variables to consider in gaming this all out, but I can’t avoid the sense that the wheels are starting to come off the Trump cart.
I’m not ready to write his political obituary yet, but I’m finally coming around to the idea that Ted Cruz might actually win this thing. And, considering Cruz’s standing in Congress and with the Republican establishment, that was unthinkable at the beginning of this process.
One thing is for sure, this campaign will remain interesting for the foreseeable future.
Even if Bernie Sanders loses in Wisconsin … he wins big! Personal integrity.
○ Democrats and FTAs – A Win for Banks and Globalization
○ Ukraine’s Poroshenko Caught Up In Panama Papers
I don’t know what was so unthinkable about it. He is on the pulse of the base, his campaign showed organizational prowess from the start, his wife works for GS and he’d have no trouble fundraising, and Texas is a huge chunk of delegates.
Now I didn’t see Trump getting in the way, and after South Carolina I thought it might be over…but compared to the rest of the candidates it was clear he’d have a good shot. And even now, even with Trump winning primaries, Cruz is organizing the delegate slates going to the convention and coming out on top. Who knows how many sleeper Cruz delegates there actually are?
I always thought that the political scientists were overstating the case, but for them to be 100% wrong (so far) in the process is still stunning.
The present bankruptcy of the Republican officeholders, interest groups, and state party leaders in unprecedented unless you want to talk about the Whigs.
Who is the base?
Honest question.
That’s actually a good question. I’d say it’s a spectrum that runs from explicitly racist white guys at one extreme to (relatively) socially liberal, economic conservatives at the other.
The base is tilted toward the former now.
Honestly, I’m not sure anymore, but if you could draw a Venn Diagram with Cruz and Trump voters they’d definitely substantially overlap, with very little in their respective separate areas.
The Conservative Movement(TM) is where I’d start. I suspect Trump’s base cares about beating liberals (“we never win anymore!”) and racial white supremacy above all else. Cruz’s also cares about that, but they also believe in Conservatism. And I think that would be a rough sketch of the party overall, tbh.
Not the Trump supporters I’ve talked to. They are concerned about Washington ignoring them, honesty in politicians (Trump walking back on abortion hurt him here, not his position but changing his position), Wall Street bankers, and jobs jobs jobs. You are describing Cruz voters not Trump voters.
And, BTW, looking at that list of what Trump voters are looking for, no, they won’t vote for Hillary.
If that was the case they’d support Sanders.
You can dispute the data, but it exists:
80% of Trump supporters believe the government has gone too far to help minorities
If they were motivated only by racism they would support Cruz or Rick Perry or most any other Republican.
In some sort of reverse effect, many that I know to be racists beyond a shadow of a doubt, actually supported Ben Carson and Allen Keyes.
Don’t know about that poll. My discussions seem to be at least 50-50, not 80-20. Those who won’t support Sanders are the older Cold Warriors who believe Socialist=Vampire. They have visions of gulags and mass confiscation. They won’t vote for Hillary either, even if she has a dentist remove her fangs. You think I hate her? At least I don’t believe she is a bloodthirsty serial killer. They really do believe that, you know.
look at questions 32,35,36,37,38,39. You see agreement between Trump and Sanders supporters on six of ten questions. The other four questions are social questions which pretty much separate Republicans from Democrats.
Yes there is agreement on 32, 35, 37, 38, and 39. I don’t see the agreement on 36.
Anyway, yes, that is what separates Democrats and Republicans. Republicans want to blame minorities for their problems — problems caused by a neoliberal consensus backed by establishments in both parties. And that’s why they support Trump rather than Sanders. It’s why they’re Republicans even though they want minimum wage increases and higher taxes on rich people.
You are absolutely right about 36. I should have made written notes.
Will Trump voters move to Cruz? A lot are new registrants, no? Cruz as instant populist? With a Goldman’s spouse?
See my comment immediately above.
Cruz has been well positioned from the start.
But in an odd way where he is reminds of where Bill Clinton was in ’92.
In ’92 Clinton’s assumption was that his main competition would come from his left (Cuomo, Kerrey Harkin).
But when Tsongas won NH Clinton’s main opposition was to his right on some things. Clinton ran attack ads against Tsongas blasting him as too conservative. The Clinton people did not expect to be left of their opposition, but they took advantage of it.
Cruz was supposed to be the candidate of the social conservative. Trump cut into that, and Cruz’s margins in SC and across the South among evangelicals were far less than I would have expected.
But something began to appear in Maine – Cruz started winning establishment GOP votes.
Like Clinton, Cruz is occupying a very different space than he expected at the start.
But I think he will stop Trump.
Burying this in a comment.
Exit poll, 2:00 PM wave
Sanders and Crux by more than 10.
Per Real Clear Politics:
New York polling: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ny/new_york_democratic_presidential_primary-4
221.html
California polling: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ca/california_democratic_presidential_primary
-5321.html
yep. But the real point is that he can win both by 60% and still have no plausible route to the nomination. It’s a shame, but it’s the truth.
I would like a rotating primary/caucus schedule tbh.
Even if he isn’t winning every race 60-40 he can still prevent HRC from winning the nomination with out the SD’s, right? Meaning if he wins NY and CA on top of Wisconsin. Also, what happens if Bernie does win NY? That’s a problem, right? If you know what I mean.
Nate Silver on March 30th:
If Sanders wins both NY and CA by a 60 – 40 margin, he will win the majority of delegates, simply because that kind of victory in either place will be indicative of such a major change in the attitude of the voting population that places like NJ, CT, PA, RI, and possible DE will likewise be Sanders victories.
Add to that probable blowouts in OR, ND, SD, MT, and IN…
(Note: I do not think NY or CA will go to Sanders by 60-40, just point out that if they do, he will get the majority of pledged delegates going into the convention)
Well, if he wins everywhere by that number then, yes. But even then he’ll only have a narrow majority and he will be denied by the superdelegates. And we’re really in la-la land when we talk about him winning NY by 20 points.
Of course we are in la-la land if we’re talking about him winning NY or CA by 20 pts… but that was the scenario you posited. IF we were to pull off a miracle like that, he’d come to the convention with more pledged delegates.
I could see him winning California in a blowout. I don’t think he can do that in NY though.
In California, it’s about what the Latino vote wants to do.
If Sanders can win by large margins in WI and NY then the media will devour Hillary. May, probably will not be enough, but if people think losing New York won’t matter they are deluding themselves.
T
The media won’t devour Hillary because it’s corporate media and they want to crush Bernie. Trump they can cut a deal with, but not Bernie. Their masters want someone for sale.
Have to agree with Voice on this point. However, what we’re seeing in this election cycle is the limits of MSM power. The MSM cannot easily ignore wins like that and alternative media sources will devour her.
If the Panama Trade deal in light of the Panama Papers can go super-viral, HRC could be in for some rough weeks.
He better hit her on this during the debate, and hard.
ALL those NAFTA type trade deals facilitate the movement of capital (and restrict the movement of labor). Obama has passed several.
Yes, but HRC and Sanders are both on record for the Panama trade deal.
Miswording, it was you that pointed out elsewhere that Sanders was against this deal, not for.
Both on record: HRC for and Sanders opposed. HRC claimed it would create jobs in the US. I posted the Bernie’s floor speech in a comment to my “Pity” diary. He nailed this one.
Original comment (ambiguous itself!) was about ambiguous grammar.
EDIT:
Yes, but HRC and Sanders are both on record
forabout the Panama trade deal.The “for” at first glance looks like both supported it.
yes
If he wins the elected delegates or very near, he wins his primary goal, which is to change the election process. He can be shut out by undemocratic means, but he will have proven that a small donation funded honest politician not owned by wall street can win, even if he, personally, an old white Jew, does not. IMHO, a younger non-white main line Christian candidate would have wiped the floor with HRC.
Both Matters, and Doesn’t. That’s positively Clintonesque.
Very nice speech by Tim Robbins in WI:
Back of the envelope — unless something changes drastically, Trump will win the northeast and mid-atlantic states with convincing margins in most of those states. He probably won’t win any of the mountain states. That leaves him with 1100 delegates going into the final primary with California (and smaller states). If he wins California, he wins the nomination outright. If he doesn’t, I don’t see any way he horse-trades himself into that position.
Bettors have Trump down to 55%; I think that sounds about right, but maybe his odds are better. There’s no polling to operate on, but California instinctually feels like a Trump-friendly state in the Republican primary. This is especially true given the Pete Wilson-esque platform that he’s running on.
I agree that instinctively it feels like CA is Trump territory.
Republicans are almost laughed at here. Extreme ones ARE laughed at. It must piss them off.
We will see.
.
Ive said it over and over again, Ted Cruz is very very smart. He has gamed this out and knows what he has to do. It might not be enough. But it might be.
Is the convention choice in the GOP really a matter of the delegates, who are tied to the campaigns (and not GOP leadership)?
It’s hard for me to imagine GOP leadership wanting to select a different candidate from Trump if Trump has the most votes. Not that some wouldn’t want to, but it’s hard to imagine leadership having the guts to do that. On the other hand, if it’s simply a matter of the delegates, then I guess Cruz could happen.
Politically, I can’t possibly imagine how it would be helpful to the GOP to alienate a huge block of their voters in order to select a candidate who is just as likely to suffer a crushing defeat as Trump.
But, please proceed…
Apparently the Trump and Cruz teams are working together to try to thwart the GOP rules committee from retroactively changing the rules to make Kasich’s nomination possible. (Present rules say nobody can be nominated unless s/he has won at least 8 states.)
Here’s a good primer on how Cruz could win, and probably win easily if Trump doesn’t hit his target.
Something appears to be wrong with this comment thread, too. Nobody has yet insinuated that Booman has a hidden agenda and is trying to undercut Sanders in advance of the Wisconsin voting.
blow me
Say something thoughtful about Booman’s posts. He’s hosting this site and has no obligation to let you, me or anyone else post comments.
I’m honestly not sure whether I agree with you or Eugene. The math and makeup of the delegates suggests Trump’s not going to pull it off. The math I’ve been tooling around with suggested he needed Wisconsin in addition to running the table from Maryland to Rhode Island. Then he’d need California.
Add the organizational incompetence with delegate selection, and it’s hard to figure how he gets to 1237 or picks up enough at the convention.
But, all that said, how can you take it away from the guy who got the most votes and give it to the guy he beat?
And, from an electability perspective, it’s not like Cruz is especially popular in GE polls.
Digby has been arguing from the beginning that Cruz had a real shot at the nomination.
If they’re going to ignore the vote, might as well go all the way and choose someone who hasn’t been beaten up by this campaign already. Koch wants Paul Ryan. Seems like their best bet. Far as I can tell, they’re doomed either way.
Seems Bernie gave an interview and had too many ” I don’t know,” answers. Not good.
Holy guacamole, he sits down with a friendly newspaper and flubs it that badly? That was brutal. he’d better hope Trump says something awful to distract attention from it.
For those who haven’t seen it yet:
http://m.nydailynews.com/opinion/transcript-bernie-sanders-meets-news-editorial-board-article-1.2588
306
Says who?
Diary Slamming Sanders Betrays Deep Ignorance of the Fiancial Crisis and Remedies for Them Or they’re just ignorant and repeats HRC campaign issued talking points.
I don’t know anyone who has read this interview transcript, Bernie or Hillary supporter, who doesn’t find it stunningly bad. He had no coherent answers for what he’s been thinking about for 25 years. Maybe he was dog tired; maybe he was unprepared. But by any measure, it was a bad interview.
Also the NYT, no friend of Bernie’s… This looks like a manufactured twitter storm.
New York Times scribe Peter Eavis scolds those who have attempted to use Bernie Sanders’ April 1 NY Daily News interview to claim Bernie is uninformed on the issues.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/07/upshot/yes-bernie-sanders-knows-something-about-breaking-up-banks.
html?
They could have read the actual legislation that Sanders filed almost a year ago to break up the banks….Too much like work?
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-files-bill-to-break-up-big-banks
Has a link to the bill or the summary if you are so invested in the issue.
Doesn’t this actually make the whole NY Daily News affair even more troubling? I mean, if he had prepared draft legislation on the topic, why couldn’t he respond properly in that interview?
Maybe he had a bad cold or something. Who knows?
Indeed. I am very, very troubled that he did not know the NY subway no longer takes token, too…
Two people who actually KNOW the subject well took time to write a rebuttal for the very concerned people who now sound like they did not trouble to actually READ those two gentlemen’s separate reassurances (helpfully linked here).
Tim Fernholz argues it’s because he doesn’t think he can get the Senate he needs to make the appointees necessary. His argument in favor of that is because Sanders knows the policy (he’s given speeches on it with explicit details). So why muddy the water? Because of lack of political power.
I don’t really agree. But that’s his argument.
I think the opposition thinks they have found “The Scream”. Don’t think it works this time, however. But it might drown out Panama.
Terrible performance, going right to many of the issues I have with his candidacy. Seems he hasn’t thought through his big proposals.
uh huh
uh huh
Trump is playing GOP voters for chumps. And they love every bit of it.
By Greg Sargent April 5 at 8:53 AM
THE MORNING PLUM:
The big news of the morning is that Donald Trump has finally revealed how he’ll force Mexico to pay for the Great Trumpian Wall that he would erect along our southern border. In a memo to the Post, Trump said he’d threaten to cut off “remittances” sent home from Mexicans abroad (meaning those in the U.S.) as leverage to force a $5-10 billion payment for that wall. Experts doubt the legal and practical viability of this scheme.
But the details don’t matter in the least. What really matters is the story Trump is telling, which is that economically struggling Americans are getting fleeced by illegals and the elites who are gaming the system in their favor (and on behalf of other various villains); that only Trump is politically incorrect enough to say so; and that only Trump is tough enough to do something about it.
A new Quinnipiac poll helps shed more light on this dynamic: It finds that an enormous majority of Trump supporters think “the government has gone too far in assisting minority groups.”
………………..
Today’s Quinnipiac poll also finds that 78 percent of Trump supporters say they are “falling farther and farther behind economically,” a larger percentage than any other candidate. Meanwhile, 85 percent of Trump supporters say that “America has lost its identity.” This suggests the possibility that the “economic anxiety” often described as the source of Trump’s success does matter, but it’s one side of the coin, while the resonance of Trump’s suggestion that he’d turn back the demographic tide through sheer force of will is the other. As Wonkblog’s analysis of recent polling data concluded, Trump supporters tend to believe their “losses are being caused by other group’s gains.”
Trump supporters tend to believe their “losses are being caused by other group’s gains.”
The sort of grievances that demagogues exploit. The sort of grievances that provide justification for all sorts of crimes and outrages.
In 2008, Obama had 51% of pledged delegates, Clinton had 49%.(Pledged, not superdelegates.) WOndering how close to that result we’ll see in 2016….
With 92 percent returns in, CNN is reporting 56.3 percent Sanders, 43.4 percent Clinton. That’s a good showing, but not the 60/40 or better split Sanders needs to run the table with for the rest of the primary campaign in order to win on pledged delegates.
Finally, some fresh polling for Pennsylvania:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_presidential_prima
ry-4249.html
I come out closer to Robinson on Trump. Unless they give Trump some incredible “deal,” I don’t see how his ego allows for him to be pushed aside, nor do I think his supporters would stand for it.