it is only July 2015. I think it is much too early to give these predictions.

Nate Silver is an idiot. Undersampling a lot of undersamples doesn't make a case.

Plus, he's way too fuckin' early - try after September where the numbers are closer to accurate.

Remains the Summer of Sanders.

able to tell a good story, and often times even, his predictions are based on a bit of luck as his models show just slightly over a pick'em. Read his book. You will learn from the wizard himself that big data, while important isn't exactly all powerful.

BTW, it wasn't Nate who presented the analysis of Bernie's surge being over, it was one of his people working on Nate's website.

He is someone who is right and wrong.

That does't make him an idiot.

eom

or he could win everywhere else or some other scenario could play out. There are many possibilities.

I knew that Iowa and New Hampshire were not representative of other Democratic primaries, but I had no idea they were quite so unrepresentative.

Last edited Thu Jul 9, 2015, 12:40 AM - Edit history (1)

White liberals form the same percentage of the population in California as they do in North Carolina, 26%. But liberals form 50% of the voters in California, keeping it very blue. People of color appear to comprise a little less than half of CA liberals. I would have thought it would be a higher percentage.

The LA Times ran a story today with the headline, "It's official: Latinos now outnumber whites in California."

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/1780/article/p2p-83948649/

Latinos are the largest ethnic group but there are still more whites, Asians, and African Americans than Latinos.

rich and many govt programs.

some may think they aren't liberal because they eat meat or shop at certain places and other things which are about personal lifestyles .

Orange County, the county south of Los Angeles and San Diego are very conservative and those areas are still city areas. Then you get away from the cities and lots of conservatives.

But it still doesn't make sense to me that it's that low considering the election results.

If you're surrounded by people who would be "liberal" nationally, then you'll think yourself "moderate".

As for CA, it has the same urban/rural divide as many other states. The rural areas are neon red. The urban areas are neon blue. There's just WAY less people in the rural areas. (There's some urban areas and rural areas that defy this pattern, but it's a decent starting point)

There's no way that white liberals are as common in North Carolina as they are in California, in the general population. Among Democratic primary voters, it's a different story. Note that, in North Carolina, whites are in the minority in the Democratic primary. In California, they're a slight majority.

really appalling level of support from minority voters are Lee Atwater's grandchildren that are now supporting Hillary or some such foolishness.

But the issue is that, even among the liberalist of the liberalies, Sanders' support is not that much stronger than Hillary's. He's got 47% liberally liberal support to her 43%. And this is the ONLY component of the Dem base that he beats her in. In everything else, she is winning and winning big.

Branching out is not an option for him. He's got to or he needs to hang it up.

eom

The man is running for the Democratic nomination. Right now, out of the MYRIAD constituents that encompass the Democratic base -- minorities, women, college educated folks, gays etc, -- Hillary is winning in ALL of them. The ONLY group that he wins with is liberals and as I noted, this is not some strong and stirring defeat. He is barely squeaking by -- 47% to 43%.

Sanders has SOO much work to do. And plugging your fingers in your ears and pretending that discussing the man's really huge and glaring weaknesses is "racist" or that doing so is calling Sanders a "racist" or this is all some pro-Hillary conspiracy is so stupid. Glad that he seems to be too smart to do that.

and that is a huge IF

Does that translate to winning the general election?

I dont know. Nobody knows for sure yet.

Based on what we know now, probably not.

But much can change between now and then and a HUGE part of that change MUST be Bernie reaching out to POC and telling them what they need to hear.

What kind of president would he be? How much success would he have getting his policies implemented??

There have been lots of threads here about Sanders' actual legislative achievements and they are very, VERY thin gruel.

I've seen this movie before. If you want to see the GOP win BIG....just run Bernie in the general election and set the party back 10 years. It would be a huge defeat in the same mold as George (I loved him) Mc Govern and Barry Goldwater. Deep down in our hearts, we just don't want to go there.

he knows he has very little chance of that. it's more to discuss certain issues. and maybe get some outside support on Senate bill she might want to pass.

But if he doesn't, the people still win for having had the issues spoken about so much and so forcefully.

'We are going to win New Hampshire. We're going to win Iowa, and I think we're going to win the Democratic nomination, and I think we're going to win the presidency,' Sanders told ABC News.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3143306/Bernie-Sanders-predicts-U-S-President-continues-rise-polls.html#ixzz3fSQPgbVc
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Much as I like the message, Bernie's got to get out into other neighborhoods.

Because I am numerically literate. So don't pay any attention to me ... or, the most accurate pollster in recent elections.

I'll correct myself and learn to ignore you entirely.

Don't you let this place get you down. Just like another person said downthread, damn near everything you've said has been born out. The attempts to shut you up just prove it. And these folks may try their hardest to stop the conversation here, but just like Tarheel_Dem said in the AA forum, just because the conversation is going on HERE doesn't mean it's not happening. Polls and after polls and article after article have done nothing but expand on what the black posters here have been saying. And the efforts by some DUers to shut it down says a hell of alot more about them than it ever will about you.

If you decide that you must keep coming here, then you keep speaking. The conversation won't stop. Look at posters like DanTex, Cali_Dem and DemocratSinceBirth. They are keeping the conversation going too. Glad that you guys are here to keep this place honest and real.

On a side note, I simply cannot be the only person here who finds it precious and adorable that the same crowd that lied that Obama called himself a "moderate Republican" when anyone with a shred of reading ability or honesty can see he did nothing of the sort, have clapped and cheered when he was also called a "lightweight lying con man," a "piece of shit used car salesman," a "Trojan Horse," a "fascist corpo-Dem" and is working his hardest to cut Social Security are also the same crowd that will simply brook no discussion WHATSOEVER about Sanders' abysmal support in minority communities?

This is not an opinion that they are trying to stop. These are the facts and nothing but. Which makes their howls of "stop calling him a racist" all the more hypocritical as hell. The fact that these folks will applaud smears of the current president but scream bloody murder when minority posters to discuss LEGITIMATE POLICY concerning Sanders is one reason so many have headed out and never come back.

He marched with Martin Luther F'ing King!!!!!!

You actually made this point before he did, at least here, and you used the same logic.

So NOW will people listen to you?

They will call me a dishonest reverse racist divisive force and alert on any and all of my posts that contain the word "Bernie" ... unless, of course:

This guy, appears ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1187&pid=18000

I dont know what it will take, I really dont.

If this many so called liberals (white of course) are this clueless about this, about white privilege and how that plays into all this, etc. then we have a really long ways to go, dont we.

As for Carlton, well, you do what you must.

Losing the first caucus and primary would be inconvenient for the inevitability narrative. So gotta lower those expectations now.

he was right. And he's been right about many other predictions with political races. While I may not like his predictions all of the time, I tend to think he's pretty good at this job.

Hillary is likely the Dem nominee. With that in mind, she will win over any GOP nominee.

course things can change, and it is still early. Nate has made changes when things change also

dounds like Bernie is being taken seriously by the machine

"But he's campaigning in areas close to his home state of Vermont ... and it has nothing to do with the demographics of the places he is appearing" narrative ...

As I was planning a trip back east, it dawned on me ... That argument would work ... before the days of air transport and telephones. A campaign event could be held (with a minimal amount of logistical prowess) anywhere in the continental United States, from anywhere in the continental United States, and the candidate could be back home to watch his/herself on the 11:00 p.m. news.

And the "campaigning in early primary states" BettyEllen, fails for similar reasons ... one (or two) day(s) out of an early primary state measured against appearing in a place where your demographics are weak, is a day or two, well invested ... unless, you don't think (or don't care whether, or don't want to risk whether) it will make a difference.