Comments on: Who won the Wisconsin Democratic Primary? (Final)

By: Kevin O'Neill

Kevin O'Neill — Wed, 06 Apr 2016 21:57:44 +0000

I think the spending issue is nothing more than a Clinton camp excuse. Clinton has near 100% name recognition and very few people don’t know her views or history. Sanders could outspend her 10:1 and not catch up in that regard.

Wisconsin is not the progressive state I grew up in. It’s closer to Arkansas than NY or CA. Your numbers for WI always seemed skewed to me. Similarly, I think your numbers for NY look skewed as well. I think Sanders will come much closer in NY than your model predicts.

By: Ellen

Ellen — Wed, 06 Apr 2016 21:02:22 +0000

Back when MN had their caucuses you laid out the pros and cons of each candidate and ended up caucusing for Bernie. The NY primary is coming up, and though I’m not in the undecided camp, I’m curious about what tipped the scales for you. Do you think you would still cast your vote the same way if the caucus was held today?

By: zebra

zebra — Wed, 06 Apr 2016 19:37:43 +0000

Greg,

Yes, I understand the idea behind your model. I go with the “no news”, because the simplest explanation for the variance we have seen so far (on both sides) is my tactics theory.

There is no “momentum”, and the basics haven’t changed; we would have to see much bigger differences.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Wed, 06 Apr 2016 12:55:40 +0000

Zebra, I think Sanders can and use this victory as a rallying cry because it looks like a good victory. But according to my model, which treats all contests the same, he underperformed. Again, only one datum point, but, had he over-performed THAT would have been impressive. Underperformance is either bad news or no news, not good news.

By: zebra

zebra — Wed, 06 Apr 2016 11:31:34 +0000

Greg,

Yes, money and time spent greatly differed.

“It’s the tactics stupid”. (Attributed to the Great Sage zebra, ca. 2016)

So far, I haven’t been surprised at all on how they are approaching this. The H campaign didn’t think they could deliver a knockout blow by winning, and the B campaign got a good return on their greater investment by maximizing the margin, because they have to keep the “momentum” spin going. Much less convincing had he only won by a few points.

How Walker got there in the first place, and remains, continues to elude me.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Wed, 06 Apr 2016 10:58:25 +0000

I don’t think that happened here. I’m pretty sure it is easier to vote in the primaries, though I could be wrong.

In any event, Sanders outspent Clinton by a large margin. Ieth uniform voret supression, the candidatethat spends 3:1, should have a strong advantage.

Walker has to go.

By: G. Kleiner

G. Kleiner — Wed, 06 Apr 2016 04:08:15 +0000

The discrepancy might well be due to the Supreme Court rolling back the Voter Rights Act, which allowed Gov. Walker to implement some bad voting regs in Wisconsin. I’m sure many voters were surprised today when they showed up to vote, only to find out they didn’t have the proper ID. The new voter rules impact mainly the poor, students, and people of color…just the way Walker and Co. intended it work. The voter fraud that is surfacing so far in AZ (http://www.thenation.com/article/there-were-five-hour-lines-to-vote-in-arizona-because-the-supreme-court-gutted-the-voting-rights-act/), MA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuEMOKSaTk0), and other states is quite troubling. So you might need to build that into your model, Greg.

By: StevoR

StevoR — Wed, 06 Apr 2016 02:40:28 +0000

Apparently – breaking news here via Aussie ABC online :

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-06/republican-cruz-and-democrat-sanders-score-wins-in-wisconsin/7303584

Bernie Sanders with Cruz winning the Republican contest.