The meaninglessness of pointing out that the Deep South is solidly 'red'

[Garrett78]

Of course the Democratic Party nominee isn't going to win Mississippi in the general election. Or Georgia. Or Alabama. And so on. Or Idaho or Wyoming while we're at it. But why does that matter? It's not as though there aren't many solidly blue states where Clinton will beat Sanders (and would beat the Republican nominee), and it's not as though the Democrats in those southern states are drastically different (on the whole) from the Democrats in non-southern states (it's just that there are fewer Democrats in some of those southern states than there are in some of the non-southern states). You can't compare the overall electorate in Mississippi with the overall electorate in, say, New York. Not when we're talking about Democratic primaries/caucuses.

Even if one wishes to argue that Clinton can't win the general election (in spite of her being a heavy favorite according to the oddsmakers), it makes no difference in terms of her nomination prospects. Her margin of victory in southern states is devastating to Sanders, because delegates are allocated proportionally. Since Democrats don't have winner-take-all primaries/caucuses, Sanders has to somehow win by equally large margins in numerous non-southern states in order to have a chance. Outside of Vermont, which only has 26 delegates as I recall, Sanders isn't winning by margins comparable to Clinton's in those southern states. And, again, many solidly blue states (with a relatively high number of delegates) that are Clinton-friendly have yet to vote.

So, I really don't understand the point folks are trying to make when they point out that the Democratic nominee will not do well in the Deep South come November (duh!).

*Note: I'm not a Clinton supporter, but I am a fan of logic and I'm reading a disturbingly high number of irrational (or just plain meaningless) comments.

[JaneyVee]

1. All attempts to expand our base gets met with purity tests and backlash.

We should be at least making an attempt to turn red states purple, not keep a niche group of progressive purity pledges.

ETA: VT only 16 delegates.

[Live and Learn]

2. Who tried to expand the base? Low turnout was a DWS plan to support Hillary. nt

[BreakfastClub]

4. True. A self-proclaimed socialist is not going to expand the base. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

8. Expanding our base is great, contracting it is what is actually happening and that's not great....

Democratic turnout has fallen drastically since 2008, the last time the party had a contested primary, with roughly three million fewer Democrats voting in the 15 states that have held caucuses or primaries through Tuesday, according to unofficial election results tallied through Wednesday afternoon.

It declined in almost every state, dropping by roughly 50 percent in Texas and 40 percent in Tennessee. In Arkansas, Alabama and Georgia, the number of Democrats voting decreased by between a quarter and a third.

The falloff in Democratic primary turnout — which often reveals whether a candidate is exciting voters and attracting them to the polls — reached deep into some of the core groups of voters Mrs. Clinton must not only win in November, but turn out in large numbers."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/03/us/politics/hillary-clinton-voter-turnout.html

So turnout is low, the base is contracted, not expanded. As rhetoric 'efforts to expand the base' sounds just fantastic. But the reality of the cycle so far is one of low turn outs in the very States we are discussing. If Democratic turnout in the South is that much lower than 08, then the South is not in fact all that thrilled with Hillary nor with Bernie. Expanding the base would mean higher turnout, not lower. Right now, neither candidate is acting as a box office draw in the way I'd like to see. I have not seen Bernie's new voters turnout as I'd like and also these States that are being presented as ultra passionate about Hillary are not turning out the numbers for her, so the passion is not as passionate as it is being presented. Clearly she's more popular there than Bernie but also clearly not popular enough to drive strong turnout at the polls.

We need turnout and increased voter roles. We are not seeing either thing from either candidate in a way that pleases me.

[Garrett78]

14. That's far too simplistic.

The Dems have a 2-person race this time around (meaning there are only 2 get-out-the-vote campaign efforts going on in each state), and the Dems have had far less media coverage than the Reps this time around. And - this is the biggest point I wish to make - a low primary turnout doesn't translate to a low general election turnout. Even the weather and when states held their primaries in '08 vs. when states are holding them this year could be impacting turnout. Not to mention we have a pretty small sample size given how many solidly blue states have yet to hold their primaries.

Sure, turnout may end up being down compared to '08, but it's a completely different dynamic. Coming off of 8 Bush years and with 2 establishment candidates running neck and neck (along with Edwards and others running), it can be expected that turnout would be down. That's not really a reflection on Clinton so much as a result of numerous variables mentioned above. And it bears repeating that low turnout in the primary doesn't translate to low turnout in the general.

Put it all together and the turnout numbers simply don't mean much at this juncture.

[msongs]

3. if sanders was winning those states his underlings would be deliriously happy. nt

[SheenaR]

17. Underlings

Cute... If your side posted that it would get alerted.

[Number23]

5. It's almost as idiotic as the desperate, paternalistic, and beyond stupid contention that blacks

aren't voting for the man because we've been "tricked" and "deceived" by Clinton "lies" about Sanders.

I have said a thousand times here that man's supporters would be one of his greatest liabilities. And even still, I'm still shocked EVERY SINGLE DAY at the crap they come up with to justify his dismal his lack of support.

[SheenaR]

18. Very simple

With no ill will or disrespect towards you or any community

Has Clinton or her surrogates lied about Sanders during this campaign? Yes. Indisputbale.

Could people read those lies and use that as a basis for voting for a candidate? Yes. Absolutely.

Why is it bad for Sanders supporters to point this out, when they are pointing it out to every single race and demographic?

I can see how it could seem patronizing. But when it its broken down like that, is that not at least a plausible reason for Sanders supporters to approach it in that way? (Note, they most likely could be doing it far more effectively. But the message isn't as corrupt and insulting as you imply)



EDIT: #23... Just trying to converse with you about an issue important to both of us

[Number23]

19. So it's okay with you for DUers to harp and carp endlessly about the stuff that Clinton did in 08

but the second anyone wants to talk about the crap that Sanders is or is not doing NOW, suddenly it's "lies" and other crap? Why is racism only allowed to be discussed when it's coming in one direction?

Do you seriously not hear how you sound? And you're right, it's not "corrupt and insulting" it's a hell of alot worse.

[grossproffit]

20. This!

[SheenaR]

22. I tried.

You did not answer my message. And you decided to continue your course of action.

I hear how I sound. I did not mention one thing about racism from either side. I used a logic sequence to display why your characterization was flawed with its broad strokes of generalization.

Enjoy your day. Sorry for getting in your way.

[Number23]

24. I specifically mentioned racism and you jumped up to respond. If your post was not about

racism then why did you respond to me?

I specifically noted the idiotic contention from many here that black people are being "tricked" into supporting Clinton and you responded with "well, Clinton has lied and used tricks and why is it so bad to point this out?'

Now you want to act as though this conversation isn't about race! I really don't have any time or interest in this.

[SheenaR]

25. I explained where the concept of being "tricked"

came from vis a vis all issues including race in this campaign.

Very logically I may add.

I have no further interest in talking to you either.

[Vattel]

39. Having a rational discussion with some people is impossible.

But you did a good job trying. Your points were spot on.

[SheenaR]

43. Thank you n/t

[bravenak]

28. Glad you said it.nt

[Number23]

55. Having a rational conversation with some people here is impossible

Especially when they are burning calories acting as though they can't understand what people are talking about.

[bravenak]

56. Oh the faux confusion...

All that 'link please?" 'Link to this thing I see happen fifty times an hour?"...
I refuse to take this place seriously.

[dreamnightwind]

6. It matters exactly because of proportional vs winner take all

The primary is proportional, but in the general election, most all states are winner-take-all. The winner-take-all southern states will typically give no delegates to the Democratic candidate. An exception might be Arkansas for Hillary.

So we are nominating a candidate due to votes in states that will not give us anything in the general election. Political suicide.

Now, I support and encourage us to run hard in all 50 states, even in losing we win some people over and build bridges to possible future electoral successes.

But winning the more conservative states in the primary that she can't win in the general election is the road to winning the nomination and losing the general election.

[onenote]

7. And what evidence do you have that Clinton can't win blue and purple states

Do you think she'd lose California and New York to Trump?

Virginia -- one of the quintessential purple states -- she comes in first with more votes that Trump got winning the repub side. And a great many of those votes for someone other than Trump? Not going to Trump in the general. We have acrimony here on DU between the supporters of our two candidates, but there is little acrimony between the two candidates and whichever one gets the nomination will strongly urge their supporters to back the party's nominee. Do you think that Rubio, having called Trump a "con man" and having seen the permanent damage to Christie's reputation that followed his endorsement of Trump, is gong to push hard for a Trump victory? Having Trump lose would be the best thing for Rubio, who would then be positioned to run in 2020.

The repubs are tearing themselves apart. We can take advantage of it. Or we can emulate it. Which seems like a smarter move?

[w4rma]

21. Trump is more favorable in New York than Clinton is. Trump has lower unfavorables in New York

than Clinton does. Clinton will, at the very least, have to spend resources in New York.

[Garrett78]

13. That's a fallacy that I already addressed in my post.

It's a fallacy to suggest that Clinton winning red states in Democratic primaries means she will lose blue and purple states in the general election.

[Zorra]

30. If she is nominated, which swing states do you project she will win? nt

[Garrett78]

31. The ones Obama won.

Clinton really only needs to win either Ohio or Florida in order to reach 270 electoral college votes. The likelihood of that happening depends in part on who her opponents are. At this point, chances are good that there will be 2 right wing contenders who will split the right wing vote, making it all but a guarantee that Clinton will become POTUS. As things stand, she's a heavy favorite to become the next POTUS.

[Zorra]

40. Nobody has won any electoral college votes yet, and Clinton is no Obama.

Clinton is very unpopular among the left. You already know this.

If Clinton is nominated, her success in the GE will largely depend on a high minority turnout nationally, especially among Latinos.

Conversely, she will need a another very low white voter national turnout. I don't know if you've noticed the head counts in the primaries so far, but white republican voters are turning out in record numbers all over the place, while Democratic turnout is down very substantially.

Among progressive Democrats, Clinton is the least popular Democratic candidate ever. Millennials are not in love with her, and I know that you know full well how intensely she is disliked by the Greens and independent left.

Bernie, on the other hand, will need, primarily, a large turnout of African Americans supporting him if he is nominated. Also, if Bernie is nominated, a substantial number of the Democratic party right will defect to the republicans, just like they did when they elected Reagan.

The oddsmakers are apparently counting on old, invalid formulas to base their calculations on. I imagine they never in their wildest dreams calculated the rise of Bernie Sanders. Because their methods of computing are no longer valid. The rules of the game have changed over the past year.

I've been wondering, do most Greens want Clinton to win the nomination and GE, so that their numbers will increase due to disaffected, disgusted Dems leaving the Democratic party? Bernie has brought new members into the Dem party, at least temporarily. If he is nominated, he would surely siphon away many votes from the presumptive Green candidate, Jill Stein. So, what is the majority Green's "position" here? Do what is best for the country by nominating Bernie, or hope Clinton is nominated, and the Democratic party implodes, while the Greens absorb the refugees?

I'm a bit confused by seeing you here, quasi-cheerleading for Clinton.

[Garrett78]

44. Not cheerleading; just encouraging reality-based thinking.

I said months ago that the Democratic race would essentially be over by mid-March if no other establishment candidate, such as Biden, entered the race. I was stunned then and I'm even more stunned now by the number of people who think Sanders might win the nomination. It's one thing to root for Sanders and against neoliberalism. It's another thing to live in a fantasy world, or to not understand the realities of the US political system, to not understand basic delegate math, to not understand the role of demographics, etc. But I digress..

I think you're overestimating Clinton's unpopularity (among Democrats) outside of Democratic Underground. After all, like it or not, Clinton has been voted the most admired woman in the US more times than anyone else. http://www.gallup.com/poll/187922/clinton-admired-woman-record-20th-time.aspx

As for turnout, I'll repeat what I wrote elsewhere in this thread. The Dems have a 2-person race this time around (meaning there are only 2 get-out-the-vote campaign efforts going on in each state), and the Dems have had far less media coverage than the Reps this time around. And - this is the biggest point I wish to make - a low primary turnout doesn't translate to a low general election turnout. Even the weather and when states held their primaries in '08 vs. when states are holding them this year could be impacting turnout. Not to mention we have a pretty small sample size given how many blue and purple states have yet to hold their primaries. People can't both make a big deal out of turnout *and* claim that Clinton's wins in southern states are unimportant, because of course those southern states have fewer Democrats than, say, New York and Pennsylvania.

Sure, turnout may end up being down compared to '08, but it's a completely different dynamic. Coming off of 8 Bush years and with 2 establishment candidates running neck and neck (along with Edwards and others running), it can be expected that turnout would be down. That's not really a reflection on Clinton so much as a result of numerous variables I already mentioned. And it bears repeating that low turnout in the primary doesn't translate to low turnout in the general.

Put it all together and the turnout numbers simply don't mean much at this juncture.

[Zorra]

68. I guess we'll find out soon enough, November is 10 months away.

Turnout is critical, and yeh the southern states are a write off for Dems this year, never really an issue for me, except that a significant chunk of Clinton's overall voter base is concentrated in the south, making a number of the rest of the primary states fair game for Bernie. Mid atlantic and midwestern states with significant urban populations will be tough for Bernie to win. The left coast is a tossup.

Here's the key element in why low voter turnout in the Democratic primaries will most likely portend a low turnout for Dems in the GE if Clinton is nominated - Bernie brought a whole bunch of new, energized voters into the party to vote for him. Many left independents and disaffected left Dems voted for Bernie in the primaries also. There is nothing the Clinton campaign can do to woo these voters into their camp. This increases the probability of depressed Dem turnout numbers in the GE even more. There's just no way the kids are gonna vote for Clinton in any numbers.

If I'm overestimating the general dislike for Clinton, maybe it's because I live in a rural area of a SW red state, among a mix of Hispanic, Native, and White Americans. There does not seem to be much enthusiasm for Clinton here among any group. Bernie is pretty popular though, and I suspect he very well may win the primary here. I think where I live is somewhat representative of the rural west in general, maybe a bit more liberal.

But I did see the first Hillary for America bumper sticker I've ever seen around here a few days ago.

Maybe it's the start of a movement. Are you Ready for Hillary 2016?

peace

[Recursion]

49. Clinton is enormously popular on the left

More popular than Sanders, for that matter, among people who identify as "liberal" and "very liberal".

[brush]

26. You're ignoring that we won in '08 and '12 without those states in the general election.

It's not ancient history that memory is lost. Obama won twice without them and we can win in '16 without them.

They are only important now for DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES and who gets the most delegates from them on the way to the nomination to run in the general election.

[SidDithers]

9. DU rec...

the primary votes of Democrats living in "red" states are just as legitimate as the primary votes of Democrats living in "blue" states.

:thumbsup


Sid

[Bluenorthwest]

10. Of course and their dismal turnout rates are just as legitimate as subjects of discussion as their

primary choices. 5 of the Southern States that Hillary clobbered Bernie in had drop off in turnout ranging from 25% to 50%. The States Bernie has won, turnout is also down. This is a Democratic Party problem, and for each candidate a special sort of problem, if your most dedicated districts do no show up in strong numbers for you, that dedication is not all that useful. NH, Bernie got the most votes of any candidate ever, fantastic. Turnout, down and that's not at all fantastic.
In each State, we have a victorious candidate and a Party that is not pulling in the numbers. So as a Bernie supporter some States make me very happy that he won them, but as a Democrat I am not happy with the turnout.

[treestar]

11. THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^^

They are in essence saying the Democrats of those states don't matter and shouldn't get a say in who our nominee is, because they are surrounded by Republicans in their own states!

[Goblinmonger]

32. Not really. We don't decide the president by popular vote.

If we did, then certainly they are equal.

The electoral college means that the democratic voters in South Carolina are relatively meaningless. Whomever gets the nomination for the Dems won't win South Carolina.

I've said well before I was a Sanders' supporter, that we shouldn't have the first primaries in the states that we do. We should be focused on those states that are purple to see who they want. Let's make sure the flip the states we can. Conversely, California shouldn't be early because pretty much Dems will win that one.

[KingFlorez]

12. It's loserspeak and nothing more

[Chichiri]

15. Actually, we might - MIGHT - have a shot at Georgia and SC

...if HRC and Drumpf are the candidates. African Americans love her, and despise him. It would depend on a MASSIVE GOTV, but I honestly think we can do it.

[Garrett78]

16. North Carolina is more achievable, but I don't disagree.

If Trump is the Republican nominee (I'm not yet convinced he will be) or if a prominent right winger runs as a 3rd party candidate (or if Trump does out of anger over not being nominated at the convention), Clinton could possibly win MS, GA and SC (given that Obama didn't lose all that badly to Romney in those states).

[DemocratSinceBirth]

37. If they steal the nomination from Trump and he goes 3rd party we could easily see a repeat of 92...

If they steal the nomination from Trump and he goes 3rd party we could easily see a repeat of 92 with HRC winning southern and border states that now appear out of reach...

I could see a 47-33-20 election in our favor with over 400 Electoral College votes.

[Garrett78]

47. It's actually in the GOP's best interest to have that happen.

If that happens, the GOP will be able to say, "Clinton doesn't have a mandate. A majority of the country rejected her." False as that may be, that'll be the narrative. And by having 2 right wing wackos running for POTUS, they'll have better odds of winning the turnout battle, which makes holding onto House and Senate seats more likely. I don't think the thought of having Clinton in the White House for 4 (or possibly 8) years really bothers the GOP all that much, as they can obstruct and blame her for all that goes wrong and stoke the sexism of their base (just as they've stoked the racism of their base). Their biggest worry, I suppose, would be Clinton having the opportunity to nominate several new SCOTUS justices. Now, if they lose control of the Senate and lose seats in the House *and* Clinton becomes POTUS, then they'll be concerned.

[Goblinmonger]

33. Obama ran against McCain and lost SC.

But, yeah, Clinton can win it.

[Waiting For Everyman]

23. It's the meme and fallacy pushed by camp HRC that

no one can win without having the black vote in their pocket, as she claims to.

The black vote matters most in the South, which matters very little in the General Election for Dems because those states are rarely if ever carried by our party.

It's refuting that fallacy that she pushes. It's just another divisive idea that she puts out there, which means nothing but yet causes a lot of dustup which is what it's designed to do. It's phony spin.

[brush]

27. Black vote matters most in the South? Guess you've never been to New York, Chicago, Cleveland . . .

other big cities outside the South.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

35. Could you please tell your interlocutor

Could you please tell your interlocutor that despite being 12.5% of the population African Americans provided Barack Obama 26% of his vote in 012 and the last Democratic president to win a plurality or majority of the white vote was Lyndon Johnson and that our party would be absolutely lost without them?

[brush]

36. I agree with you. You must have meant to respond to the same poster that I did.

It's no longer possible to win the presidency with just the white vote.

Those days are long over — the country doesn't look like Iowa or New Hampshire anymore.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. It was more of a rhetorical question. That poster seems to ignore me.

[Garrett78]

50. If the Deep South was the only place Clinton could be expected to accumulate delegates...

...you might have a point. But there are many blue and purple states that she is going to win. States with a high number of delegates and a high percentage of POC.

[OZi]

29. My understanding is it matters because of the electoral college.

Superdelegates are supposed to factor in electability based on winnable states and red states should be considered unwinnable.

IMO, a candidate winning in southern states tells me they are the more conservative of the candidates. That may explain a certain level of snark that people just aren't expressing properly.

[Garrett78]

34. Superdelegates are just elected officials who are backing a certain candidate.

In 2008 it was Obama who won many of the southern states. It's a matter of demographics and perceptions of electability. Clinton has name recognition and is perceived as more electable than Sanders. She's also perceived as someone who can wrangle with the opposition. Anyway, the Democrats taking part in southern state primaries aren't drastically different than Democrats on the whole. It's not as if Clinton is only winning or only will win in the south--if that was the case, Sanders would win the nomination with ease.

Obviously Clinton will need to win non-southern states in the general election, and she will. Does anyone seriously think she wouldn't win CA or WA or IL or NY or PA or MD and so on? She'll also beat Sanders in many of the blue and purple states that have not yet held their primaries--this primary contest is going to turn into a blowout (the superdelegates won't play a role like they did in '08).

[alarimer]

41. The point is that all votes should be cast before any nominee is selected.

They have purposely done this so the more conservative Democrats win.

[Garrett78]

45. All votes will be cast before the convention, so no need to worry about that.

I was referring specifically to the claims that Clinton winning 'red' states is in some way a knock against her chances of winning either the nomination or the general election. And in my OP I explained why those claims are silly, to put it mildly.

[wildeyed]

42. They are just salty

that they are losing and that a few deep blue, majority white areas can't dictate the agenda to the rest of the party. Not all Sanders supporters, of course, but some of them really need to get out more.

[Garrett78]

46. The only deep blue state that's held a primary so far is Vermont.

So, neither candidate has even had a chance yet to show what they can do in states with a higher percentage of Democrats.

[jwirr]

48. To me the only point I can see is that winning only red states

makes her more likely to not get elected. She may be nominated with mostly red states but that should make us all afraid of her. We need someone who can get elected.

[Garrett78]

51. But why would anyone think she'll only win red states?

That's what I don't get. Obviously she wouldn't be the nominee if she could only win those states, so talking about her chances in the general election would be pointless. You can't become the nominee just by dominating in the southern states.

But the only deep blue state that's voted so far is Vermont. If people are expecting Sanders to win Illinois, California, Maryland, Pennsylvania and so on, I think they are going to be mighty disappointed.

[jwirr]

62. Wait and see. So far she has done no better than Bernie.

And he has big followings in most of those states you named. And that is not her only problems.

[Garrett78]

63. She has done no better in non-southern states, but that's meaningless.

1) very few non-southern states have held primaries/caucuses so far (most of those that have are either red or purple states)

2) very few solidly blue states have held primaries/caucuses so far

3) very few swing states have held primaries/caucuses so far

4) most of the states with a relatively high number of delegates have demographics that significantly favor Clinton

5) Democrats in southern states such as Georgia aren't drastically different (as a whole) than Democrats in northern states such as Illinois

6) the polls would have to be off by monumental, unprecedented margins to think Sanders is likely to win the solidly blue and purple states that are upcoming

[jwirr]

64. As I said - wait and see.

[TheFarseer]

52. I'm a Sanders supporter and I agree with you.

For what it's worth. Although I agree less when we get to the 2nd paragraph

[Garrett78]

53. With which part exactly?

The part about Clinton's odds of winning the nomination? The part about how oddsmakers favor Clinton in the general? Here's a link regarding the latter: http://www.oddsshark.com/entertainment/us-presidential-odds-2016-futures

[TheFarseer]

60. It doesn't matter what states you win.

[Garrett78]

61. Huh?

Are you saying it doesn't matter which states a candidate wins? Or do you think that's what I'm saying?

[TheFarseer]

65. I'm saying it doesn't matter what states you win

And I thought that was your main point. Last time I try to agree with anyone on this site!

[Garrett78]

66. Well, what I'm saying is more nuanced than that.

Saying it doesn't matter which states you win would suggest that all states are equal in terms of impact, and that's obviously not true. For instance, of the 4 states voting this weekend, Louisiana is the most important in that it has the most delegates.

[TheFarseer]

67. Well sure, all things being equal it doesn't matter what states you win

Obviously states with more delegates are more important than states with less delegates. For this weekend it looks like

Nebraska: 25
Kansas: 33
Louisiana: 51
Maine: 25

Bernie might have an advantage in KS and NE based on how well Obama did vs. Clinton in 2008 but realistically I don't have a clue what will happen tomorrow and I'm in Nebraska! I have a hunch Bernie will win Maine and lose Louisiana. So Bernie might lose the biggest state but could still win the weekend depending on margins.

[Flying Squirrel]

54. What you said is misleading and untrue.

Her margin of victory in southern states is devastating to Sanders, because delegates are allocated proportionally. Since Democrats don't have winner-take-all primaries/caucuses, Sanders has to somehow win by equally large margins in numerous non-southern states in order to have a chance.

Two points. First, the more reliably blue states get more delegates proportionally in the Democratic nomination process. For example, Georgia and Michigan have roughly the same population (GA actually has about 100,000 more), yet GA only gets 102 delegates while MI gets 130.

So, Hillary got 72.5% of GA's delegates, (74) but Bernie only needs 56.9% of MI's 130 delegates for that same number of 74. If MI and GA were the only two states, Bernie would need 68.5% of MI's delegates for a simple majority over HRC -- not 72.5%.

Second, only 1,021 delegates have been allocated and there are 3,030 left. If there were only 2,025 left (half the total) then yes, Bernie would have to beat Hillary by the same percentage of delegates. But since only a fourth of the delegates have been awarded, that changes the math. Although Bernie has only taken 40.4% of the delegates so far, he does not need to take 59.6% of the remaining delegates to win; he only needs to take 53.3% of them (1,614 out of 3,030). 1,614 + 412 = 2,026.

[Garrett78]

57. Your math fail has already been made clear in the thread you started.

Setting aside the likelihood that Clinton will win Michigan (and Illinois and Ohio and Pennsylvania and Maryland and California and so on), you need to understand that 74 Michigan delegates for Sanders would mean 56 Michigan delegates for Clinton. That's a margin of only 18. Compare that with Clinton's margin of victory in Georgia.

[Flying Squirrel]

58. Your false claim of math fail has also been noted

I correctly noted in my separate thread that Sanders would need 67.7% of MI delegates, which works out to 88, to tie HRC if GA and MI were the only two states, which they aren't. In other words, I anticipated that someone like you would come along and try to say my math was wrong, which it is not. GA and MI are not the only two states. 56.9% of MI's delegates does add up to 74 delegates. The comparison was between two states of equal population to illustrate why blue states are more important in the nominating process. In no way was I claiming that if Bernie won 56.9% of MI delegates, it would perfectly offset GA. That's why I noted that if those were the only two states, which they aren't, he'd need 67.7% in MI to perfectly offset GA. To be perfectly clear what I was actually saying: That some states that have equal populations do not have equal numbers of delegates, because blue states get more.

In reality, as noted in the other thread, Sanders would only need 53.3% in MI to be on track to win the nomination, unless the superdelegates are willing to overturn the popular voting process.

Bye now.

[Garrett78]

59. It isn't that certain states are more important, per se.

It's that states with more delegates obviously have the potential to have a greater impact. *Potential* is the key word there, because a blowout victory in a state with 50 delegates is going to have more impact than a narrow victory in a state with 100 delegates.

What you wrote in your thread is this:

When does 56.9% = 72.6%?
A: When you have two states of roughly equal population (Georgia and Michigan) but one is a red state and one is a blue state; and it's the Democratic nomination process.

With 71.3% of the popular vote, Hillary Clinton won 72.6% of GA's delegates: 74 of them.

To match that total of 74, Bernie only needs to win 56.9% of Michigan's 130 delegates. He could probably do that with as little as 55% of the popular vote.

Your commentary later on about a hypothetical where GA and MI are the only 2 states doesn't change the fact that you were incredibly misleading in the first part of your post. While 56.9% might garner Sanders 74 of Michigan's delegates, his margin of victory in Michigan (18 delegates) would pale in comparison to Clinton's margin of victory in Georgia (44 delegates). So, either Sanders has to have an equivalent margin of victory in another state or he has to consistently win states with a lesser margin in order to make up the difference. It seems you may grasp that, but your post was misleading.

But it's a moot point anyway, because Clinton is a heavy favorite in most blue and purple states.