Comments on: The Rest of the Democratic Primary https://gregladen.com/blog/2016/04/02/the-rest-of-the-democratic-primary/ Wed, 06 Apr 2016 00:33:43 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.6 By: Who won the Wisconsin Democratic Primary? – Greg Laden's Blog https://gregladen.com/blog/2016/04/02/the-rest-of-the-democratic-primary/#comment-469066 Wed, 06 Apr 2016 00:33:43 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/?p=22332#comment-469066 […] good news for Sanders: My prediction of 55 delegates for Sanders and 31 delegates for Clinton appears to be on […]

]]> By: Desertphile https://gregladen.com/blog/2016/04/02/the-rest-of-the-democratic-primary/#comment-469065 Sun, 03 Apr 2016 15:18:26 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/?p=22332#comment-469065 I hope you are wrong.

In most elections there are many thousands of ballots cast in New Mexico that are not counted. It makes me wonder why elections are even bothered with.

]]> By: zebra https://gregladen.com/blog/2016/04/02/the-rest-of-the-democratic-primary/#comment-469064 Sun, 03 Apr 2016 14:59:57 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/?p=22332#comment-469064 #2,#6,

One would hope that for the general election, there would be swarms of young people, financed by many small contributions, seeing to it that voters get to vote.

Probably the most important use of such resources ever, given how hard the Republicans are working to suppress D voters.

]]> By: Greg Laden https://gregladen.com/blog/2016/04/02/the-rest-of-the-democratic-primary/#comment-469063 Sun, 03 Apr 2016 14:50:09 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/?p=22332#comment-469063 Hank, if we do enough down ballot, and up ballot, work, there is a high chance of a blue Senate and a blue House is within the range of possibilities.

]]> By: Greg Laden https://gregladen.com/blog/2016/04/02/the-rest-of-the-democratic-primary/#comment-469062 Sun, 03 Apr 2016 14:49:11 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/?p=22332#comment-469062 Kevin, it depends on whether or not the disenfranchised voters are a random or a biased sample of the voters wrt Sanders vs. Clinton.

]]> By: Hank Roberts https://gregladen.com/blog/2016/04/02/the-rest-of-the-democratic-primary/#comment-469061 Sun, 03 Apr 2016 01:21:06 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/?p=22332#comment-469061 Far more important — how’s the House and Senate looking?

]]> By: Kevin O'Neill https://gregladen.com/blog/2016/04/02/the-rest-of-the-democratic-primary/#comment-469060 Sat, 02 Apr 2016 22:45:07 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/?p=22332#comment-469060 RealClearPolitics lists 3 NY Dem. Pres. primary polls:

Quinnipiac 3/22 – 3/29 693 LV 3.7 54 42 Clinton +12
Emerson 3/14 – 3/16 298 LV 5.6 71 23 Clinton +48
Siena 2/28 – 3/3 368 RV 6.2 55 34 Clinton +21

It will be interesting to see if the recent Quinnipiac poll is a sign that Sanders is closing the gap – or just a statistical blip. It’s more recent and does have a larger sample size than the other two combined.

]]> By: Brainstorms https://gregladen.com/blog/2016/04/02/the-rest-of-the-democratic-primary/#comment-469059 Sat, 02 Apr 2016 20:45:20 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/?p=22332#comment-469059 The Got-Zero-Plans Party slogan:

“We can only win by cheating, but fortunately, we’re good at it!”

]]> By: Kevin O'Neill https://gregladen.com/blog/2016/04/02/the-rest-of-the-democratic-primary/#comment-469058 Sat, 02 Apr 2016 19:43:30 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/?p=22332#comment-469058 You lost a ‘7’ — “Clinton will win the day on five. In total, Clinton is predicted to take 886 delegates, and Sanders 90.”

Wisconsin may be a bit of a wildcard; little is known about how the GOP passed voting restrictions are going to impact the primary, but as many as 300,000 WI voters are at risk of being disenfranchised – overwhelmingly Dem. voters. Of course not all of them would vote in the primary anyways, but that’s a significant fraction of all Wisconsin eligible voters (7%).

]]> By: Hank Roberts https://gregladen.com/blog/2016/04/02/the-rest-of-the-democratic-primary/#comment-469057 Sat, 02 Apr 2016 18:15:12 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/?p=22332#comment-469057 Time to remember how money corrupts — in particular by financing the most extreme people out at all of the edges to draw strength away from the center where compromise can happen.

Time for any group to think hard about where the money coming to them really originates and whether they’re being funded not to support their ideas but to disrupt the chances of anything workable happening.

It’s an old tactic. It’s what the tobacco companies did when fires from smouldering cigarettes became a public issue — they funded a fire marshals organization to campaign for fireproof chemicals to be added to everything _except_ cigarettes. And they funded the chemical companies that could turn their waste products into stuff salable as additives for fireproofing. So we got: toxics in everything, and cigarettes that continued to smoulder.

You wouldn’t believe this shit if it wasn’t for good reporting:
http://media.apps.chicagotribune.com/flames/index.html

Well, now, think about other areas of political action where it’s easy to fund groups to fight with each other — fund the fringes, fund the most self-confident and most combatitive and least cooperative people. Tear the issue apart.

Just a few people — wholly sincere, entirely deeply convinced they’re right and everyone else is wrong — can disrupt any group effort.

Where’s their money coming from?
I hope they’re wondering — asking themselves whether they’re being used.

http://assets.amuniversal.com/59104fa0b0f101333c90005056a9545d

]]>