Republican Party Officially Funding an Accused Child Molester for US Senate

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Monday December 04, 2017 · 8:50 PM PST

2017/12/04 · 20:50

The RNC has decided to support the Roy Moore campaign via the Washington Post.

www.washingtonpost.com/…

President Trump led an aggressive charge Monday on behalf of embattled Senate nominee Roy Moore, with the Republican National Committee rejoining Moore’s side in Alabama weeks after cutting ties with him following allegations of sexual misconduct.

Before dawn, Trump took to Twitter to declare his strongest support yet for Moore. By day’s end, the RNC was back in his corner and America First Action, a pro-Trump group, said it would spend $1.1 million to try to push Moore across the finish line.

Every person who has the chance should spend the next week repeating the following sentence on TV, radio, or wherever.

The Republican Party is officially supporting an accused child molester for US Senate.

ad nauseam…

I can tell you right now, it will set the right’s hair on fire and the best part is that it is factually correct. Cannot deny it.

Update: Oh yeah, and they are funding it.

CONFIRMED Ã¢ÂÂ RNC is getting back into Alabama on behalf of Roy Moore https://t.co/Px7jOdy5rI
Ã¢ÂÂ Sam Stein (@samstein) December 5, 2017

Breathless CNN Reporter Unwittingly Makes Case that Sessions is Possibly Commiting Obstruction

jsamuel

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Friday June 16, 2017 · 10:32 PM PDT

2017/06/16 · 22:32

As I listened to CNN last night, I heard a report by a breathless reporter about Rosenstein. He was saying that Rosenstein should be recusing himself within the next couple if days, if not hours. I was a bit annoyed by this because I don't think the reporter knows what Rosenstein is thinking and was just hyping the story. However, that isn't what really bothered me. What bothered me was his reasoning.

First he said this was because of the potential for him to be a witness to Comey's firing. That I get, but under this logic Trump could just keep commiting crimes in front of anyone he wants off the case. I think that is why Rosenstein has said he would recuse himself if he became a subject (not a witness).

Anyway, the real interesting part was his second reason. He reported that Rosenstein might be feeling pressured to recuse himself because Sessions "on the 5th floor" was angry about the appointment of the special prosecutor. The weird thing was that the reporter was arguing that this was Rosenstein's fault for appointing Mueller... like it was a bad thing. He said that this had made things bad at the DOJ and this puts his position in jepordy. He said it made things bad because it expanded the investigations. He went so far as to compare Rosenstein to Alberto Gonzalez shortly before he resigned.

Here's the thing. If Sessions or his compatriots truly are going after Rosenstein for appointing Mueller (contrary to the reporter's argument), this could be potential evidence of obstruction by Sessions or those around him. This shouldn't be used to attack Rosenstein unless you think the investigation needs to be dropped.

Opinion: Sequence of events points to Trump/lawyers trying to remove Rosenstein from the equation

jsamuel

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Friday June 16, 2017 · 9:59 AM PDT

2017/06/16 · 09:59

I admit that this is my own thoughts on this topic, so take it with a grain of salt. However, the recent stream of stories over the last couple of days has led me to see a pattern that I think is important to point out, even if it turns out to be wrong. Here is my concern at the moment…

1. (The true source of the leak is unknown, but this is a potential source.) Trump, his lawyers, and the WH (perhaps the VP and his team) purposely leaked that he was under investigation. He would have known this as the FBI would have informed him that he was now a target.

2. They used this leak to then attack the FBI for leaking, further attempting to undermine Mueller and Rosenstein.

3. Trump then attacks Rosenstein on twitter, attempting to highlight Rosenstein’s potential conflict of interest. This conflict of interest only exists if it is KNOWN that there is an investigation into Trump for obstruction related to Comey’s firing. That is, the accusation of a conflict of interest is that Rosenstein wrote the memo related to Comey’s firing. If this is not under investigation, he has no conflict of interest. If there is, he might.

4. They leak (who I am not sure) that Rosenstein has considered recusing himself to further encourage him to do so.

I believe the end game in this scenario is to remove Rosenstein from the equation without having to fire him (e.g. Friday Night Massacre). Perhaps the hope is (or they know) that the person under him, Rachel Brand, either will fire Mueller or will not know how to properly oversee the investigation?

Republicans aren't accusing Comey of "leaking," they are really accusing him of Snitching

jsamuel

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday June 08, 2017 · 3:05 PM PDT

2017/06/08 · 15:05

Both Republican politicians and Trump’s lawyer are trying to scream “Squirrel!” This is to take our eyes away from the basic facts in Comey’s testimony today. One key element of this is the attempt to turn around his testimony to be some sort of incrimination of Comey for “leaking.” By definition, leaking refers to classified information, which was purposely not in the memos. Therefore, it cannot be a “leak” in the normal use of the word.

In reality, they are attacking Comey for snitching. He gave information to the press that makes the president look bad. They are trying to obscure the picture by trying to make it seem like this was somehow illegal or highly inappropriate. However, it is an obvious case of whistle-blowing. When you’re guilty though, you call it snitching. In other words, Comey is guilty of not being loyal to Trump’s and Paul Ryan’s Family. The GOP is showing itself to be a legalized form of an organized crime ring. Most of that involves changing the law so that illegal behavior becomes legal (see the House of Reps. passing a bill to undo Dodd-Frank). Trump is just helping them take this to the next level.

Democrats need to stop ignoring the MATH

jsamuel

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday November 10, 2016 · 5:53 PM PST

2016/11/10 · 17:53

I am now out of the younger age groups separated in polling. This means I need to start pointing out things than may not be obvious younger people, or those who may not have put much thought into the nature of how geography influences American politics. My main point here is that Democrats, if we want to have any chance of winning the White House, the Senate, or the House HAVE to learn the MATH. The MATH says we HAVE to appeal to rural Americans. I don’t care if they are white, black, Hispanic, or otherwise. But we have to appeal to rural Americans. The MATH says so. Ignoring this will just leave us in a losing position forever. I will outline how the MATH influences the Senate, House, and Presidency.

The Senate

The country was set up so that small states would have as many Senators as big states (long story). Well guess what? There are many more rural dominated states than urban dominated states. Based on a the image below, there are 18 urban dominated states and 32 rural dominated states (some are debatable). What does that mean? A party that dominates urban areas and gets creamed in the rural areas will have a very hard time holding the United States Senate. This is just MATH.

Red = Rural dominated states, Blue = Urban dominated states (some debatable)

The House

The natural geographic distribution of cities leads to concentrations of populations in some places while large swaths of the landscape are sparsely populated. This does not in itself lead to an imbalance of representation in the House. However, it does make this balance easy to manipulate. By drawing House districts that concentrate the urban populations together in a small proportion of districts, it is possible to create many more rural districts. By dominating state legislatures after the 2010 midterm elections, Republican dominated state legislatures (many in rural dominated states) were able to upset this balance by Gerrymandering their state’s districts using exactly the tactic outlined above. They also were able to Gerrymander state legislative districts in a similar manor. We are stuck with this until after the 2020 election, but only if Democrats are able to take over state legislatures in 2018 and 2020. The reality of the situation right now is that the way House districts are drawn, the House will be made up of mostly rural dominated districts. Again, its just MATH.

The Presidency

Similar to the problems with the Senate, the President is selected by the Electoral College, which also is tilted towards benefiting rural dominated states. States with very low populations get 3 electoral votes regardless of their population. States with slightly more population get 4 electoral votes. States with slightly more get 5 electoral votes. However, states with huge populations get more, like California which gets 55 electoral votes. This seems pretty fair. However, this does lead to a math problem for states with larger populations. Wyoming has a population of 582,658 people and 3 electoral votes. That works out to about 1 electoral vote for every 195,000 people. California has a population of 38,332,521. That works out to 1 electoral vote for every 700,000 people. This shows that the rural voters of Wyoming have 3.5 times the representation in the electoral college as the more urban voters of California. On top of this, since there are so few urban dominated states, this means that the states with both urban and large rural populations make up the middle ground and can lead to the popular vote being won by one candidate and the electoral college being won by a candidate that over-performs in rural areas. This is just MATH.

We can’t ignore the MATH. Democrats must make great efforts to appeal to rural voters. Urban voters are of great importance, but we must build a coalition that includes rural voters. It’s just MATH.

From a Sanders Supporter: Thank you Hillary Clinton

jsamuel

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Wednesday November 09, 2016 · 8:14 AM PST

2016/11/09 · 08:14

As much as everyone might have thought Hillary Clinton wanted to be President, I’ve always been of the opinion that she actually had a tough time deciding to run in 2016. I’m pretty sure that she would have been happy to retire from politics and not go through a grueling campaign. However, we begged her to run, in part because she had amazing poll numbers at the time. I was relieved when she announced she would run because I was concerned we didn’t have a good second choice. This campaign was hard for her and she did her best to win for us, not for herself.

So, thank you Hillary Clinton for tying to win for us.

We should not simply say evil/racism/hate won. It didn’t. It is clear from some of the results that Clinton lost counties in the Midwest that went for Obama. These areas where the margin of victory/failure occurred are evidence that this wasn’t all about race. These areas switched their votes because their concerns were not being addressed.

I don’t want to redo the primary. However, I think we definitely need to look at how we all failed to win the presidency and both houses of Congress. No one knows if Sanders would have won. I would argue that he would have performed better in Wisconsin and Michigan, where we ultimately lost (he lost PA, but the primary race was over by then). Clinton cleaned up in the south where we got zero electoral votes in the general. All across the country, Sanders overperformed in the rural areas while Clinton did best in the urban areas. We lost the general in the rural areas. Sanders did best with young voters. Millennials didn’t turn out the way we needed them to in the general. All of this points to things we need to work on in the future.

If we ever intend to win Congress, we have to be attractive to rural Americans. We cannot rely on urban areas to carry us. Gerrymandering has made it so that we can win the urban areas with big numbers, but still loose most of the House. The natural division of states means that there are more rural dominated states than urban dominated states, making winning the Senate very difficult. We need to concentrate on improving our results with rural Americans.

We cannot rely on demographic changes to carry us. The changes are occurring too slowly. They are too concentrated in particular areas (much like the urban vote). We need to stop concentrating on defining our coalitions and campaigns by what race our supporters are. This will always be a central part of the internal campaign, but should NOT be how the campaign is presented to the public. Much of this is the media’s fault, but I would also argue that Sanders avoided this successfully, while Clinton did not. We must define our campaigns by a central theme that appeals to rural Americans and urban Americans if we want to have any chance of winning.

These are my first thoughts on how to go forward. I expect this to drop down the list of other people’s contributions today, but I felt the need to speak my mind and hope it might provide guidance to some people in the future.

Sanders tied nationally with Clinton among Registered Democrats in new Ipsos/Reuters Poll (48-49)

jsamuel

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Friday April 08, 2016 · 3:08 PM PDT

2016/04/08 · 15:08

A new Ipsos/Reuters poll shows Sanders tied with Clinton (48-49) among registered Democrats. This is encouraging for Sanders as the race heads towards several closed primary states.

Sanders wins when independents are included. This poll is released as many national polls show a strong tightening between Sanders and Clinton nationally. The Huffington Post tracker now has Sanders only 2.5 points behind Clinton nationally and shows a strong trend towards Sanders. These polls were taken mostly before Sanders’ win in Wisconsin.

Sanders out raises Clinton by nearly 2 to 1 in March (44M-23.5M), Beats her total for 2016 primary

jsamuel

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Saturday April 02, 2016 · 12:17 PM PDT

2016/04/02 · 12:17

Multiple news sources are reporting that Sanders raised $44 million while Clinton raised $23.5 million in March for their campaigns. That is a nearly 2 to 1 margin of fundraising for Sanders. Clearly his campaign shows no signs of slowing down while this is a 22% decline in fundraising for Clinton compared to February where she received $30.1 million for her campaign.

Based on opensecrets.org data, Sanders has now matched or eclipsed Clinton’s total campaign fundraising for the 2016 primary.

Light blue = Total funds raised for each candidate’s campaign up through March (not including March)
www.opensecrets.org/...

When the new March totals are added, this puts Clinton at about $183.4 million and Sanders at $183.8 million, giving him an approximate $400,000 lead. We’ll have to see exact numbers with the official records.

1st time ever, Sanders leads Clinton in REGISTERED DEMOCRATS Nationally in Reuters Poll (49-48)

jsamuel

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday March 29, 2016 · 10:44 PM PDT

2016/03/29 · 22:44

For the first time ever, Sanders leads Clinton nationally among registered Democrats in Reuters tracking poll (49% to 48%). Although Sanders has previously led with other groups, this is the first time he leads with registered Democrats, which could be critically important as he heads into critical closed primary states where he will not be able to rely on the independent vote.

polling.reuters.com/…

He also for the first time ever hit 50% support among Democrats on March 27th when he led Clinton 50% to 44%.

polling.reuters.com/…

Sanders won AZ on election day 61% to 39% in Phoenix, Voting problems may have caused him to lose AZ

jsamuel

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday March 29, 2016 · 2:37 PM PDT

2016/03/29 · 14:37

At first I thought this was kind of sour grapes, but it turns out this is a big problem. Clinton got a 13 delegate net gain over Sanders in Arizona. That is no small gain. She did this because she won the early vote by a roughly 61-39 margin. However, when election day came around, very few people were allowed or able to vote due to major irregularities. In particular, Maricopa County, where Phoenix is located, only had about 30,000 people vote on election day despite the expectation that perhaps several 100,000 people should have turned out to vote. This was evident with long lines and 5 hour wait times. The normal 400 polling places were shut down to just 60 for this election.

Some have argued that even though there were such problems, it probably hurt Clinton more than Sanders. However, the vote totals in Maricopa County show that while Clinton may have won the early vote around 61-39, Sanders won election day by 61% to 39%. Maricopa County has over 50% of the population in the state and is likely pretty representative of the rest of the state.

They are still counting now and Sanders has already come up from 39.8% statewide to over 41% statewide, giving him another delegate and one less for Clinton based on statewide numbers alone (11 net gain). He could also gain a couple more delegates from some congressional districts while the provisional ballots are (or aren’t) counted.

I am so angry right now. I think it is possible that Sanders could have won Arizona or at least she may have only won by a couple delegates, but Clinton may have ended up with a big delegate haul because of the voting problems.

There is some discussion of this at the Sanders reddit site.

Many are calling for a revote or an additional day of voting:

Maricopa County Supervisor Steve Gallardo said another day of voting should take place "because there were a number of people that were disenfranchised."

"They did everything they were supposed to do," Gallardo said. "They registered to vote on time. They looked up to find out where they needed to go. They showed up on time. Unfortunately, they were not able to make it all the way up to the polling booth for a number of reasons."

www.nbcnews.com/...

A Simple Statistical Argument that Sanders' Wins are More Due to Their Region than Primary/Caucus

jsamuel

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Monday March 28, 2016 · 6:10 PM PDT

2016/03/28 · 18:10

Several big names have been arguing that Sanders has done well in caucuses, but not primaries. This includes Kos recent front page post and some over at 538.

Bernie Sanders Continues To Dominate Caucuses, But He’s About To Run Out Of Them

All five of Sanders’s wins this week came in caucuses. The problem for the Sanders campaign is that there are only two caucuses left on the Democratic primary calendar.

I would like to say that I very much respect and appreciate their work, but I think they are missing the forest through the trees on this one. Their argument looks persuasive at first glance, but I have argued that it is just as easily, if not more so, explained by regional differences. However, I think this argument has been largely ignored. So, I have used simple statistical analysis and graphs to give people visual and numeric support showing that my argument is better supported by the data.

The regional argument

States outside the South/Southwest are strongly statistically different from the rest of the states so far. In other words, the simple statistical analysis shows that Sanders is winning more delegates in states outside the south/southwest. This strongly supports a regional argument.

The obvious issue here is that all southern states were primaries while many of the northern states were caucuses. So let’s take a look at these while isolating variables in two ways.

Isolate a region and compare caucuses and primaries
Isolate primaries only and see if there is a difference between regions

Isolate a region and compare caucuses and primaries

Caucuses vs Primaries in states outside the South/Southwest

In this example, the caucuses and primaries are not statistically different when looking at states outside the south/southwest only. However, Vermont is the clear statistical outlier among the primaries. Once this is excluded, the two groups are barely statistically different. So, even if Vermont is excluded from the group, the difference is not very strong compared to the difference seen between regions. This suggests that the regional argument is stronger than the caucus vs primary argument. Although it could pretty easily be said that Sanders will have a hard time winning by 70 or 80% of the vote in primaries going forward like he did in caucuses. However, he doesn’t need to do that in most cases as he needs to win about 57% of delegates going forward and all states but New Mexico (maybe Maryland) are outside of the South/Southwest.

Isolate primaries only and see if there is a difference between regions

Here we see that Sanders won delegates in states outside the south by a much greater margin than those in the south, resulting in a strong statistical difference between regions. Even when Vermont is excluded, the regions are still strongly statistically different. This again suggests that the regional argument is stronger than the caucus vs primary argument. This suggests that Sanders might be much more likely to win primaries in the remaining states since all but New Mexico (maybe Maryland) are outside the south/southwest.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the regional argument better matches the data than the caucus vs primary argument. Obviously race plays a role in different regional results, but recent states and some exit polls have shown that racial preferences change from region to region. This simple analysis is important because it shows that, while there will be less caucuses going forward, Sanders can expect to perform much better than some in the media are arguing is possible since the vast majority of the states are not in the south or southwest. While Sanders does have some of his biggest delegate wins in caucus states, he also has done well in enough primaries outside the south/southwest to suggest he can win these with significant margins or have close losses.

This also suggests that this statement is troublesome:

Sanders had a strong week, and this has been a crazy year in politics. But there’s nothing in the recent results to suggest that the overall trajectory of the Democratic race has changed. Clinton was and is a prohibitive favorite to win the nomination.

538 — Harry Enten

The problem is not that this week changed the dynamics of the race, although it certainly gives Sanders some strong momentum. It is that we have misunderstood the dynamics of the race since the beginning. Clinton’s campaign and the media have put far too much emphasis on race as the driving factor of this election. It is a factor, but so is age, sex, and region. In fact, I believe the recent results (where Sanders won in some heavily minority states and areas) show that the overwhelming difference between some of the states is their region. However, caucus vs primary also play a role.

Updating an Optimistic but Possible Path to the Nomination for Bernie Sanders

jsamuel

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Sunday March 27, 2016 · 2:20 PM PDT

2016/03/27 · 14:20

A couple of days ago I wrote a diary called “An Optimistic but Possible Path to the Nomination for Bernie Sanders.” In it, I outlined a possible path to the nomination for Sanders that relied on an optimistic, but realistic view of how he could win more pledged delegates than Clinton by the end of the primaries. Below I outline how Sanders’ wins in WA, AK, and HI affected this. He blew past my optimistic expectations in two of the three states, but fell a little short in Washington based on current estimates. However, he could end up meeting the delegate goals for the night when all the math is done.

A key difference between my estimates and those at 538 is that mine have been adjusted based on past performance and several factors that are important to consider. Thus, you will find that my estimates for yesterday were much closer to the final results than 538 was.

Before I list the results and future expectations, I would like to address the lone post at 538 regarding whether or not last night changed the dynamics of the race.

Sanders had a strong week, and this has been a crazy year in politics. But there’s nothing in the recent results to suggest that the overall trajectory of the Democratic race has changed. Clinton was and is a prohibitive favorite to win the nomination.

538 — Harry Enten

Here is my beef with this statement. The problem is not that this week changed the dynamics of the race, although it certainly gives Sanders some strong momentum. It is that we have misunderstood the dynamics of the race since the beginning. Clinton’s campaign and the media have put far too much emphasis on race as the driving factor of this election. It is a factor, but so is age, sex, and region. In fact, I believe these results (where Sanders won in some heavily minority states and areas) show that the overwhelming difference between some of the states is their region. Sure, caucus vs primary and open vs closed all play a strong role as well.

States where Sanders has outperformed 538’s model:
Washington	Caucus	Northwest
Utah	Caucus	West
Illinois	Primary	Midwest
Kansas	Caucus	Midwest
Idaho	Caucus	West
Alaska	Caucus	Northwest
Hawaii	Caucus	West
Colorado	Caucus	West
Vermont	Primary	Northeast
Oklahoma	Primary	Midwest?
Maine	Caucus	Northeast

So what have we specifically misunderstood? Clinton was always going to outperform 538’s estimates in the South and Sanders was always going to do much better than 538’s estimates elsewhere. If you look at 538’s list of states where he has outperformed their estimates and where Clinton has outperformed, there is a clear pattern where she has outperformed in southern states while he has outperformed elsewhere. There is a state here or there that brakes that pattern (particularly Ohio), but each of those could be viewed as special circumstances. In Ohio, I believe the reason this state broke the pattern is because John Kasich, as the sitting governor and obvious choice over Trump, won many independent and perhaps some Democratic votes that would have otherwise gone to Bernie Sanders. This would also explain the terrible turnout in the Democratic primary in Ohio.

True caucus vs primary plays a big role, but if that was the only factor here, Sanders would never have tied Clinton in delegates in Illinois and likely would have lost big in Michigan as well. Instead, regional differences can explain major differences between the results in southern states and elsewhere. While it is true that race has played a huge role in the south, when the region changes, those racial differences seem to have a much smaller affect. For example, exit polls and wins in states like Michigan, Alaska, parts of Washington, and Hawaii (Illinois as well, although a delegate tie) show that Sanders performs much better with minorities in regions outside of the south. The media has neglected to conduct exit polling in many of these states, making these differences harder to see. However, the exit polls in Michigan confirmed this. The argument that he didn’t win minorities in states like Alaska and Hawaii (went 70-80% for Sanders) is just denial given their very high minority representations.

Anyway, here are the updated numbers based the (now less) optimistic potential path to the nomination for Bernie Sanders:

Sanders’ Possible Path (with clinton at 296 delegate lead via 538)
State	Clin Del.	Sand Del.	Sand Net Gain	Actual	Clin lead	Actual	DATE	Factors (+/- for Sanders) (Regional/caucus/primary type/Momentum)
Alaska	5	11	6	10	290	284	3/26	++ Caucus/Northwest (Closed but same day reg)
Hawaii	10	15	5	9	285	275		++ Caucus/West? (Closed, but same day reg)
Wash	20	81	61	47?	224	228		+++ Caucus/Northwest/Open
Wisconsin	31	55	24		200		4/5	+++ North/Open/MO (Open and same day reg)
Wyoming	3	11	9		191		4/9	++ Northwest/Caucus/MO/Closed (Closed, no same day reg)
New York	125	122	-3		194		4/19	Closed/MO/Northeast/Clinton Home (Closed, no same day reg)
conn	23	32	9		185		4/26	++ MO/Northeast (Closed, but day before reg for indies in person)
Delaware	11	10	-1		186			MO/Closed
Maryland	48	47	-1		187			MO/Closed
penn	85	104	19		168			+ Northeast/MO/Closed
Rhode Island	8	16	8		160			++ MO/Northeast (Closed, but Dems and indies can vote)
Indiana	37	46	9		151		5/3	+++ Midwest/MO/Open
Guam	4	3	-1		152		5/7
W VA	6	23	17		135		5/10	++ Midwest/MO (Closed, but Dems and indies can vote)
Kentucky	17	38	21		114		5/17	+ Midwest/MO/Closed
Oregon	14	47	33		81			++ Birdie/MO/Northwest/Closed
Virgin Islands	4	3	-1		82		6/4
Puerto Rico	35	25	-10		92		6/5	- Caucus/Closed/Demographics
California	206	269	63		29		6/7	++ MO/West (Closed, but Dems and indies can vote)
Montana	3	18	15		14			++ Northwest/Open/MO
New Jersey	61	65	4		10			+++ Northeast/MO/Openish (Closed, but voters can change party at time of voting)
New Mexico	16	18	2		8			Southwest/MO
South Dakota	5	15	10		-2			+++ Northwest/MO/Openish (Open, but Republicans can’t vote)
North Dakota	3	15	12		-14			++++ Northwest/MO/Caucus/Open
DC	12	8	-4		-10		6/14	- South/MO/Closed

For the actual column, I used 294 instead of 296 since this is what www.thegreenpapers.com have for their numbers, but I left my original estimates alone. The exact delegates from Washington are still being worked out, but a 47 delegate lead for Sanders is pretty conservative, it could be a bit higher. Some have also put Sanders’ lead in Hawaii at 11 rather than the 9 I used here, but my understanding of the math and the AP say 9 is likely more correct. Therefore, Sanders is close to being on track according to this path.

Edit: I realized that New York does not have early voting, so I updated to reflect that but did not modify my estimates. However, i think this is a big potential factor in Sanders’ favor. I think he actually could end up with more delegates if everything goes his way, but still expect a narrow loss.

Newer
Older

RSS