2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWatch out, New York! The Sanders late surge trend strikes again!
Sanders always improves his numbers in the week before the election, usually by a lot. I call it the "Sanders late surge trend." Sure enough, it happened again tonight in Wisconsin. It looks like he's going to win by about 13 points. The Real Clear Politics final poll average gave him a 2.5 point lead, so he beat that by 10 points.
This happens in state after state after state (outside the South, and the South is done voting). Look at the list of past state results I have here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511617438
Even the Clinton campagn can't deny it! This was on MSNBC a couple of days ago:
John Heilemann, managing editor, Bloomberg Politics.
I will say, and this is something the Clinton campaign will admit privately, is that if Bernie Sanders gets to spend time in a state, on the ground, for sustained periods of time, on the air with advertising, on the ground with rallies, he is consistently proving that he is moving votes. And that she has benefitted to a large extent from these multi-state primaries where he doesn't have enough time to go there and spend time there. Here in Wisconsin, he's had time, he's moving votes. And her worry is that, with two weeks between Wisconsin and New York, the same thing will happen there. And if he were to win in New York, the symbolic, even by one vote, the symbolic blow to her campaign would be huge.
What that means is that in order for Clinton to win a state, she needs to be way up in the polls a couple of weeks in advance, and sometimes even that isn't enough. For instance, in Illinois, she was up by 40 POINTS in the polls a week before the primary, and she ended up only losing by one point! Or Michigan, where Sanders beat the final poll average by 22 points!
The two latest New York polls have Sanders down 12 points and 10 points, with two weeks to go. If the trend of virtually every state outside the South holds true, he will narrow that gap, and it's just a question of by how much. I can't say for sure he'll win, because a lot can happen in two weeks, but at a minimum I think it's going to be close.
(And yeah, New York is a closed primary - advantage Clinton. But it's also a rare state with no early voting - advantage Sanders, due to the mentioned Sanders late surge trend.)
daleanime
(17,796 posts)Land Shark
(6,346 posts)roguevalley
(40,656 posts)Land Shark
(6,346 posts)AgerolanAmerican
(1,000 posts)paulthompson
(2,398 posts)paulthompson
(2,398 posts)Oh, and once again, Nate Silver was way off. His "polls plus" predictive numbers gave Hillary a 25% chance of winning Wisconsin when it wasn't even close. A week ago, he gave her an 85% chance of winning the state! And no, that's not just the poll average, he's got a second set of "polls plus" numbers that include his own fudge factor.
His predictions are off in a Clinton direction time after time because he still hasn't noticed that the Sanders late surge trend exists, even though it's the most remarkable polling trend in the entire Democratic primary season! It's totally unheard of for a candidate to make up such numbers in the last days before voting, and do it so consistently.
AgerolanAmerican
(1,000 posts)it doesn't have any good way to measure all those people who sat out election after election seeing no difference between the candidates who are now coming out in huge numbers for Bernie - those voters are unpersons in their formulae, yet in the real world they exist
paulthompson
(2,398 posts)That's part of it. But I think another big part is that people do decide to vote for him at the last minute.
Why? Sanders has a plus 11 like/dislike rating, and Clinton has a minus 15 like/dislike rating. That's an incredible difference as elections go! Many Clinton voters just aren't that into her and support for her for "strategic" reasons, like thinking she has a better chance of beating Trump. But then they finally decide to vote for someone they actually like.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)He needs time with the electorate.
Weaver just now on CNN: "Don't destroy the democratic party to"...see your candidate win. (Weaver had been interviewed earlier and CNN showed the clip. Just thought I'd mention it.
Hearing Clinton plans to go negative in a big way is even better news for Sanders than the Wisconsin win, in my opinion. She's playing right into his hands. He's the most honest and trustworthy politician in a couple of generations and everyone knows it. Going negative will just mak her look bad. It shows her campaign is seriously worried.
Red Oak
(697 posts)Last one at camp weathervane, please turn out the lights.
Lone_Wolf
(1,603 posts)People around here have long, bad memories about $hillary. She promised upstate 200,000 jobs which never materialized. People are also concerned about her coziness with Big Oil and Gas and fracking.
If Bernie can get roughly 40% of the votes downstate, I think she's toast.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)The media thinks that if they keep publishing their crap numbers that it will demoralize Bernie's supporters. It hasn't been working.
Based on what I've seen this primary season, I believe Sanders is already ahead (slightly) of Hillary in New York state. Probably something like 52-48.