Nor do I think it is safe to assume that non-white voters will continue to vote overwhelmingly for Clinton, even as Sanders climbs in polls, buys more ads in their states, and becomes more familiar to them. Aside from the fact that the Clintons have spent decades pandering for votes from these communities, and are hence familiar, there is no logical reason based on candidates’ identities or policies why the split should be so greatly in Hillary’s favor, and indeed the gap is already starting to narrow. (By saying this I do not mean to carry water for the hint that white people’s votes somehow are less valuable, the Clinton supporters’ parallel to the GOP’s opposite assumption.)

“A simple model [by Alan I. Abramowitz] based on two predictors — the racial composition of the Democratic primary electorate and a dummy variable for region — explain over 90% of the variance in Hillary Clinton’s vote share in this year’s Democratic primaries through March 8.”

This model accurately predicted Bernie’s win in Michigan.

The model shows that Clinton will win 3 states (FL, IL, NC) and Bernie will win 2 states (MO, OH) on March 15.

Unfortunately for Berniebots, using this model, Hillary will still add 88 to 118 pledged delegates to her lead and Bernie will need:

67 – 68% of the remaining delegates to win the nomination (if committed superdelegates are included now).

58 – 59% of the remaining delegates to win the nomination (if superdelegates are distributed by winning percentage, as wishfully proposed by Berniebots).

58 – 59% of the remaining delegates to win the nomination (if superdelegates are not included, yet.).

Bernie will need to beat Hillary by an average of 18 to 36 points for the 28 remaining caucuses and primaries.

None of these scenarios is likely. For any of these scenarios, Bernie will be in an even worse shape than he is today.

Bernie is done. Hillary has won.

“A Simple Model for Predicting Hillary Clinton’s Vote in the March 15 Democratic Primaries”
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/a-simple-model-for-predicting-hillary-clintons-vote-in-the-march-15-democratic-primaries/

I’m not playing at anything. I just think that getting some better resolution in your model would not be that hard– male v female at least. Also party affiliation and the effects of closed and open primaries, and maybe some other bits of detail.

I think you have to acknowledge that the assumption of uniformity in the first place has implications. You’re saying “there’s a status quo”, and Bernie or Hillary is doing something to change that. But as I pointed out earlier, they are indeed making choices in campaigning practice in each State, which are designed to affect the outcome, for that State. Is there a teleconnection between Hispanics in Michigan and those in California?

Politics isn’t beanbag. It isn’t exactly science, but there is a difference between factual, rational analysis and dodging facts and reason in aid of some self-serving narrative.

We have seen that with climate change and other issues, and if the idea is to promote scientific and rational thinking, you can’t run away from some disagreements.

Aren’t you making a political statement with your ethnic model?

“Why is winning a bad strategy?”
Heh. Well, I’ve got nothing against hyperbole… if there’s a point to it.

Sometimes you have to hold your nose if you’re going to vote for a candidate, but they should always be held accountable. Simply nipping at their heels won’t do the trick either. The real possibility of loosing large chunks of arse, however, will help keep them sober.

This business of marching in lock step to the polls and then pulling a Rip van Winkle when your candidate wins is for the birds.

Let me tell ya, sometimes the winning Democrat has been worse than a Republican. Why? Because when a Democrat wins and does something egregious the response is just like yours — don’t go after them because the GOP will be worse.

The issue with incarceration is a case in point. When the Democrats decided to embrace racist policy, they told black voters “screw you, you have nowhere else to go.” And they were to some extent right. (I am talking about incarceration here). Many 3-strikes laws were passed under Democratic governors in the 90s, for example.

In New York the Working Families party is a step towards a Labor Party, which would go a long way. The DFL in Minnesota also helps some.

Zebra, I get the sense you’re seeing this from the end result, rather than thinking through how we got there. That is, you have to understand there’s a whole history of attacks on the Labor movement that went on for 50 goddamned years. For example Taft-hartley was a very, very shrewd move, because absent outlawing unions altogether, it stunted their growth.

The point I (and I think some others would make) is that you have to build a movement and if you’re going to do it within the Democratic Party, fine, but you have to acknowledge that there is a problem.

Fuck me, nobody thinks winning is bad. But the position that the electorate is just the way it is is ahistorical. Political movements exist to change people’s minds. By your reasoning nobody should have supported Truman’s inclusion of the civil rights plank in 1948 because Strom Thurmond — who actually did take away electoral votes — existed, and you shouldn’t offend Southern Democrats if you want to win.

Electorates do not change by magic. The issue is building the basis for victory that lasts. One reason the Democrats got hit hard in 2010 was that a lot of voters who were excited about them two years earlier stayed home. And one reason that the South is so heavily Republican is that the Democratic Party gave up for more than a decade. The effects of decisions made years ago are with us right now, and that is one. (This is why Dean’s 50 state strategy was so important and helped Obama win). One reason the Democratic organization in say, Oklahoma is small is the national party said, “Welp, we can’t win, fuck it. You need money? HAHAHAHAHA. Don’t bother.”

You want to know why right wing people got elected? School boards. City councils. County boards. I saw this in action in Florida. I mean come on, where the heck do you think all these bright young Republicans come from?

In most relatively conservative states — even ones with a very strong Left tradition — there’s almost nobody doing that kind of stuff at the local level. And there was almost nobody for years, so the GOP was the only game in town. And the evangelicals especially were all about retail politics. ALEC isn’t the beginning of the strategy, it’s the end goddamned result.

You want to know why abortion rights are under attack? Because no Democrat was willing to say “Yes, abortion on demand, because when the hell else would you want one, when you don’t demand it?” Nobody in the party was willing to craft a legislative strategy, and you’re left depending on the courts, and what the hell (politically speaking) do you think is going to happen then? Do you think it makes people feel connected to the law in any real way? It took 20+ years for anyone in the party leadership to wake up and smell the coffee, and they are playing catch-up now at best.

Winning national elections is part of it, but it’s the end of a process, not the beginning. I think that’s the disconnect between us.