And yet is identical to trend graph of searches during the debate! And the news box is unchecked in the search.

 

A quick google search though shows tons of articles now talking about the blackout there was.

Edited February 2, 20169 yr by Virginia's Walls

I love following US elections but don't claim to be any expert on them. A pundit on BBC News said that Bernie should've made a better inroad in Iowa if he is to win the nomination. Is that correct? Is Iowa a liberal (in the American sense) state?

Yes and no.

 

It is more white and liberal and a college state.

 

However the trend is on his side and with more media coverage it's really 50-50 now.

To WIN the nomination Sanders probably needed Iowa, but he could definitely stretch the contest out for a while.

 

I could see him pretty much sweeping the board in New England (quite possibly including New York), and the West Coast and the Rust Belt could be good territory for him too. That said, ethnic minorities (especially black voters) still seem very secure for Clinton even after Sanders' surge in recent weeks, and it's hard to see how Sanders could get the nomination if he has such a poor showing with them.

 

This might be the saddest thing I have ever witnessed.

:'( I never expected feels in this topic.

Clinton's national lead over Sanders down to just 2% in the latest Quinnipiac poll - a massive swing from the 31% lead she had in December:

 

http://uk.businessinsider.com/poll-bernie-...2?r=US&IR=T

The trend was always pointing this way.

 

I was right.

 

He will have a landslide victory to nomination.

The trend was always pointing this way.

 

I was right.

 

He will have a landslide victory to nomination.

No, he's lost.

No, he's lost.

 

Clinton is still the favourite, but there's a path for Sanders now -- there really aren't THAT many states where black voters make up the overwhelming majority of the Democrat selectorate, yet increasingly it looks like that might be what Clinton is mainly relying on.

 

The theory that "Iowa was one of Sanders's best states" is based on the assumption that Sanders' ONLY appeal to is to highly-educated liberal white people (the "Guardianista" equivalents) but he wouldn't be getting close to 40% in national polls if he hadn't expanded his support base beyond that. Plus, apart from anything else, Iowa has one of the highest rates of pensioners of any state, which is pretty crucial since age seems to be the most crucial predictor of whether people go for Clinton or Sanders.

Edited February 5, 20169 yr by Danny

Clinton is still the favourite, but there's a path for Sanders now -- there really aren't THAT many states where black voters make up the overwhelming majority of the Democrat selectorate, yet increasingly it looks like that might be what Clinton is mainly relying on.

 

The theory that "Iowa was one of Sanders's best states" is based on the assumption that Sanders' ONLY appeal to is to highly-educated liberal white people (the "Guardianista" equivalents) but he wouldn't be getting close to 40% in national polls if he hadn't expanded his support base beyond that. Plus, apart from anything else, Iowa has one of the highest rates of pensioners of any state, which is pretty crucial since age seems to be the most crucial predictor of whether people go for Clinton or Sanders.

Well like you say - it's age that's Clinton's firewall, not (just) race. I still don't think the path is there anymore now. Clinton already has half of the 713 superdelegates (15% of the delegates in total), while Bernie has just 11, so he's running at a point where he'll need to be getting 60 percent of the elected delegates to get ahead of Hillary. He did so badly in Iowa relative to what he needed that it's already mathematically impossible for him to make up for it in New Hampshire to get to the cumulative total of where he'd need to be by that stage to be on track for nomination.

 

Essentially, it would need Bernie to be at a point where he was landsliding his favourable states and getting really solid 5-10 point wins elsewhere to make the delegate maths work. I just don't see there being enough of a view shift for him to be leading that much, that consistently.

Well like you say - it's age that's Clinton's firewall, not (just) race. I still don't think the path is there anymore now. Clinton already has half of the 713 superdelegates (15% of the delegates in total), while Bernie has just 11, so he's running at a point where he'll need to be getting 60 percent of the elected delegates to get ahead of Hillary. He did so badly in Iowa relative to what he needed that it's already mathematically impossible for him to make up for it in New Hampshire to get to the cumulative total of where he'd need to be by that stage to be on track for nomination.

 

Essentially, it would need Bernie to be at a point where he was landsliding his favourable states and getting really solid 5-10 point wins elsewhere to make the delegate maths work. I just don't see there being enough of a view shift for him to be leading that much, that consistently.

I still think Clinton will win the nomination, but I assume the super delegates who have stated a preference could yet change their minds. If, for example, Sanders was winning 60% of the vote in primaries (I don't think that will happen, but bear with me), would the super delegates want to use their power to overrule that result? Surely that is a surefire way of triggering a massive row within the party.

I don't know for sure, but what do you think Labour Party superdelegates made up of party grandees would've done if they had the power to overrule the Corbyn result?

 

(Not that Sanders is quite as bad, but we are talking about a man who isn't even a member of the Democrats here and who has basically zero endorsements so I imagine opinion of him in the Democratic upper echelons is roughly equivalent.)

We'll see whether Labour MPs choose to oust Corbyn, that being the nearest equivalent to the super delegates. There must be plenty of MPs who are reluctant to make a move because of the overwhelming nature of his victory.

Ah, that wasn't my question. There's a very different dynamic between preventing someone being chosen as the leader and actively ousting them once they already are the leader. The superdelegates will be in the former position.

But the super delegates will know how the elected delegates are split. So, the difference becomes one between vetoing a decision or overturning one that has already been made.

Which is still a different dynamic to actively ousting a leader. If Labour Party superdelegates had had the power to overturn Corbyn for Burnham (or rather, if the electoral college had still been in place), there's no doubt they'd have done it.

Been perusing several US election forums and reading the so-called "experts" comments and the general opinion is that Hillary will get the nomination but would lose the election to Rubio, but not to any other Republican.

DELETED

Edited February 7, 20169 yr by Common Sense

I don't know for sure, but what do you think Labour Party superdelegates made up of party grandees would've done if they had the power to overrule the Corbyn result?

 

(Not that Sanders is quite as bad, but we are talking about a man who isn't even a member of the Democrats here and who has basically zero endorsements so I imagine opinion of him in the Democratic upper echelons is roughly equivalent.)

 

Had to laugh at one comment I read. "He's too old, looks like he needs a Dr. any minute and probably won't know who he is in a couple of years so better pick his running mate well if he gets nominated."

Edited February 7, 20169 yr by Common Sense