Let’s watch some returns.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
80 Comments
Bang. Gone. Rubio humiliated. Reality bites.
46 to 27 percent with 32% reporting. Looking bleak for Rubes.
If Trump sweeps the lot there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth; Missouri looks close.
Gee Kasich is uninspiring. Trump likely takes the rest; but is it enough?
How many hours since his, “I stay in regardless of what happens in the FL primary?” That’s gonna make it even harder in the future for anyone to believe anything he says.
Rubio has established himself as a big bag of feathers.
I think OH, IL, MO for Bernie, NC close, Florida blowout HRC.
No way on NC being close. I imagine NC is like VA, but with a higher AA population. Maybe the white vote is more towards Sanders to even it out, but it’ll probably be very similar.
I meant a close HRC win, not too close to call.
I understand what you mean, but I don’t think that she’ll win by a close margin there. I imagine it’ll be like VA — 65-35.
Currently 58 – 37. I have heard that late deciders broke for Sanders in all states but Florida and HRC started out with the early vote totals. Election nights are always excitng for me.
The first tiny fracture we’ve seen in her yuuge firewall, but too late to build on in the south.
Bad night for Sanders.
Fl (stuck at 84% reporting) is exactly what should have been expected.
NC was always going to be a HRC win, but with 29% reporting this is her weakest performance in a southern state off eight or more points from the others.
Ohio was a tough call. Could still end up a bit more northern than southern. It not, this is not a good sign for a DEM in November.
Still a lot of ballots left to count in IL and MO.
Well at least seabe was totally wrong about the margin. Hoping Bernie can hack off some more off her lead. Until HRC wins the nomination in terms of pledged delegates Im going to fight on.
Seabe’s estimated projection was completely rational. It’s where I set it as well — 65%/35%. Like VA and not like the 74%/26% SC blowout.
I also set a marker of less than 62% for HRC and more than 35% for Sanders as an indicator of something different in play from the other states in the south. The 55%/41% warrants some study.
not a good sign for a DEM in November
Total Republican turnout 50% larger then Democratic turnout in Ohio.
Sure, maybe they are voting for the home team with Kasich, but my guess is that even if he doesn’t get the inside straight and win a contested convention he’d still be a good bet to get the VP slot. On the other hand, general election turnout is probably 2-3X primary turnout and my guess is that R voters hit the primary harder than D voters do so maybe there is still hope.
In another not so good sign- in Florida, the total Republican turnout is almost 600K (37%) larger than the Democratic turnout. In the 2008 primary, the situation was reversed and Democratic turnout was larger than Republican.
The best interpretation would be that the difference is due to Trump turning out disaffected voters who don’t usually vote and won’t vote in the general once the establishment steals the nomination from him…
2008 was a “replace the inept moron” primary.
2016 is a “replace the ni**er” primary.
I wouldn’t expect Democrats to turn out en masse for these primaries for the same reason that I wouldn’t expect to see people with positive experiences writing yelp reviews.
The Squeaky Wheel principle, I guess.
They “want their country back”.
2016 is a “replace the ni*er” primary.
No, it’s not! Republican voters may be racist and loons but they aren’t so dumb that they don’t know that come next January Obama is out of office and there isn’t a ni*ger running as his replacement.
Replace, as in, put someone else in.
In 2008, there was a lot of energy in the Democratic primaries because Democrats were getting to vote for someone who would replace Bush. After 8 long years, the national nightmare was ending.
The same with Republicans this time around.
They want their country back. And just like with midterms, they’re coming out in droves to elect someone else so they can have their country back.
Or, to put it another way, if Democratic voters voted for president they way they do in midterms, there’d be a Republican in the White House right now.
So what? GOP primary participation was several times that of DEMs in ’12.
Primary voters are more engaged when they’re the “out party” (and it rises the longer they’ve been “out”) and less engaged when they’re the “in party” and there is a designated successor or the “in party” administration has been bad enough to demoralize the troops.
DEM primary engagement was higher in 2004 than it was in 2000 and higher still in 2008. Eight years of GWB demoralized the GOP — they knew they were going to lose in the general election, particularly after they got a look at the available candidates. They were hungrier in 2012. Had Jeb? been able to fly as the designated successor, there wouldn’t be record GOP turnout.
It’s down for DEMs because we weren’t supposed to have a primary. The successor had been chosen for us. Lord knows why anyone wants to return to the 1990s and now with the geriatric Clintons, but there it is.
We won’t know what the general election turnout is going to look like until the nominations are secured. The GOP did have an advantage, but they may have squandered it by failing to come up with anything but dreadful candidates.
Interesting demographics in Ohio, where Sanders lost by almost 14 points, compared to Missouri, where he lost by 1/4% or maybe didn’t. Sanders and Clinton, respectively, got almost exactly the same split of the black vote in both states. But whites were a considerably smaller percentage of Clinton’s vote in Missouri than they were in Ohio.
The same situation is seen if you compare Ohio with Michigan, where Sanders won a fairly narrow victory. Blacks split the same way for both in both states. But whites in MI went a lot less for Hillary than whites in Ohio.
So in these states, where Sanders won a third or close to a third of the black vote, you could say it wasn’t so much the black vote that won it for Hillary, as the white vote that won it, or nearly won it, for Sanders.
Also interesting that in Illinois, Sanders got somewhat more of the Hispanic vote than Clinton did. (In Florida he only got about 25%, but of course most Hispanics there are Cuban.)
Source: Washington Post
google “Why did Hillary Clinton lose Michigan but win Ohio? White voters.”
The white vote in MO was similar to that in MI and IL and the AA vote in MI and MO were more similar. The higher percentage of AA vote in IL (28%) compared to 21% in MI, MO, and OH is what cost Sanders a win.
The loser for Sanders in OH was white women. The M/F ratio in Ohio was higher at 42/58 as was the women’s vote for HRC — 63% compared to 51-55% in the other three. Could be the white women that she secured in ’08 who didn’t want to vote for a black man.
The DEM party is splitting on age, gender, and race. It’s becoming the party of old women and POC.
Sadly agree. My head’s never fully bought in, but I keep finding that my hopes go there anyway.
Bad night if the goal is to get Sanders nominated as the Democratic Party candidate for President.
If the goal is to initiate a Left Wing Movement in the US we don’t know if this was a bad night or not. Ask again in ten years.
🙂
Any chance of Rubio on the ticket just went “POOF!”
His speech sound like he knows it and is dropping out.
How could he not drop out? Who’s gonna pay to keep the lights on?
Sheldon Adelson must have cut the money train off.
Bingo;
“suspended”
He’s gone.
His ending prayer makes me ill lol.
Marco always finds a way to spin the unspinable.
Thanks for the thread! Much appreciated!
HRC looks like she will put the nomination out of reach for Bernie tonight.
She has won Fl NC and OH, the last one hurts him.
Trump looks to win Fl, NC but lose OH, still will increase his lead.
Much closer to HRC DJT general, will the establishment of GOP fall in line for Trump, or try like hell to torpedo him in the general.
How about we wait until the votes are counted? If HRC winning FL, NC, and OH was all it took to knock Sanders out of the race, I would have made that call hours ago in my diary.
It isn’t about knocking him out of the race, but the deeper hole he needs to climb out of in the delegate count. Just acknowledging how the numbers seem to be working out.
This is supposed to be the high-water mark for Sanders. And no, I don’t think he’s knocked out now. I’m just not sure if I’ve moved from reasoning to hoping.
Whoops. Disregard above. It’s supposed to be the high-water mark for Clinton. So expect a lot of Clinton people, official and unofficial, whining about Bernie not being a gentleman by continuing his campaign.
Yeah, the optics get bad for HRC. Its possible she might not win a contest from March 22-April 9.
Official Illinois results https://www.elections.il.gov/electioninformation/electionresults.aspx
It comes up as an error in my browser. Not really surprised.
Finally got through with another browser. All the corporate Dems won in Illinois, except for Duckworth. Looks like I’ll be voting (R) in Fall, except for Duckworth.
Kasich speech: SNORE!
Trump wins Florida and 99 delegates. Kasich wins Ohio and 66 delegates. Trump is leading in Illinois and NC total of 141 delegates to be assigned proportionally. Missouri and 52 Winner-Take-All delegates still TBA, Trump is leading for the moment but Cruz is only 2% behind.
They just called both NC and IL for Trump
Illinois was a 3-way split last I looked (still is as of time-stamp) and NC splits for Trump and Cruz. I’m not going to run the figures because it is a PITA so I’ll make a WAG and say 90 for Trump, 50 for Cruz, and 11 for Kasich out of Illinois and NC.
So as of now 189 for trump, 50 for Cruz and 77 for Kasich, for the night, with MO left to decide
Something like that, I wouldn’t put too much faith in my figures.
Illinois Republicans are smarter than Illinois Democrats.
by voting for Trump?
Yes, by rejecting the failed policies of more war and more outsourcing.
By voting for the guy who wants to bomb ISIS even more, while also killing the families of terrorists…and the guy who outsources his product manufacturing to China, and insources his labor using H1B visas.
No, sorry, Illinois Republicans voted for a hedge fund billionaire to run their state, and now they’re rocking how long without a budget?
Not smarter.
so instead they are voting for war crimes and massive tax breaks for the super wealthy?
Thank God that Kasich won Ohio. But I was hoping that Cruz would take another state or two off of Trump, and that doesn’t look likely to happen. Still some hope in Missouri, but he’s behind.
On the democratic side, a disappointing night for Bernie Sanders. Looks like his only hope for a win is Missouri, and that’s not enough.
Why would you thank God for their best general election candidate beating their worst general election candidate in any state? Trump will be easiest to beat. Cruz isn’t far behind. Kasich, were he to steal the nomination at the convention, could be a problem (except that the base would explode in anger and completely sink his chances).
Best for us is a contested convention. Not going to happen if Trump wins on the first ballot. Second best for us is Cruz. That guy won’t win anything. Trump would probably lose, but I don’t want to risk it, and the weaker he is in the primary the less risk I think he is.
A contested convention gives them the chance to fix this entire shitstorm by nominating someone other than Trump or Cruz.
I hope for it only because it will be entertaining and because the country doesn’t deserve a choice between Clinton and Trump/Cruz.
But I agree that Trump is worrisome and that he’ll be weaker if he can’t wrap this up any time soon.
Exactly.
Regardless of who becomes the GOP nominee, a brokered convention hurts the GOP. Especially if Trump doesn’t get the nod.
Hurting the GOP is important. Irreparably fracturing their already-fracturing coalition means that the Democratic party can start picking off voters and politicians.
First, you kill the GOP. Then you start making a new left party.
Too risky in my view. Hillary isn’t that strong a candidate. I’d say she’s about on par with John Kerry. Kasich might take her. I don’t want the GOP to be able to fix this mess. A brokered convention that stripped Trump would piss off about a third of their voters but I could envision Kasich beating Clinton anyway. I cannot imagine Trump beating her, especially since he pulls their coalition apart from the inside. Notice how many have already vowed to not vote / vote for a third party candidate / vote for Hillary. Notice too that the elites are beginning to call Trump supporters white trash. I’d love to see Trump win the nomination before the convention.
I can imagine it. Trump has completely ignored the existing political class and norms and his ground game is poor because he doesnt need it. As we saw against Obama and Sanders HRC is anything but a natural or nimble politician. If her political playbook tactics dont fit against his unorthodox style it could go very, very badly for her. So too Trump is clearly destabalizing the GOP. When one party coalition breaks up the other party’s also tends to do so because of our stupid binary system. Its unknown what things might look like when the dust settles.
Missouri is Winner-Take-All so all Cruz has to do is beat Trump by one vote to scoop the 52.
it actually isn’t, it’s by CD
Yes. Here are the current results, if they stand. There’s still precincts to come in in all CDs — I do believe.
“Yes” since it looks like none of the candidates are going to get over 50% of the statewide vote.
In the old days, ordinary DEMs/liberals didn’t pay much attention to the GOP primary contest. Didn’t root for or against any of their candidates because it was known that he would be a Republican and he would fight like hell in the general election.
If I stretched my mind back to ’68, which was, to put in mildly, a very difficult year for DEMs. However, there probably was some relief that they’ve nominated Nixon who a Democrat had beaten in ’60 and ’62. Doubt DEMs celebrated in ’76 because we remembered ’64 and that an incumbent has an advantage. DEMs may have preferred to run against Reagan instead of GHWB in ’80, but by ’88 thought he couldn’t possibly win. In 2000 DEMs were very much delighted that GWB was nominated instead of McCain.
IOW — Democrats that attempt to pick the weakest candidate to win the GOP nomination have a lousy track record. And that blinds them to the weaknesses of the candidates that they should soberly consider during the primary.
It was fun in ’08 to watch the GOP primary candidates flip-flop and splat, but none of them had a chance against even a half-assed DEM candidate because “time for a change” had set in big time after the Bush/Cheney administration. ’12 was amusing because none of their candidates came anywhere near close to being strong enough to deprive Obama of a second term.
If Democratic primary voters can reject the most honest, capable, and qualified candidate in favor of a warmongering, corporate lackey, I don’t put it past the total electorate to favor a racist loon.
Pleased to see that Rick Santorum is dead last in Illinois, behind Fiorina.
My precinct: 51.9 Clinton, 45 Sanders
Cruz over Trump
WRAL-TV has a fascinating precinct map of North Carolina. Interesting to see where Kasich carried a precinct.
Most interesting was Sanders’s results in mountains of NC and Clinton’s expected results in the heavily African-American precincts of the NC coastal plain.
At 85% it’s HRC 54.6% and Sanders 40.7%. So much better than the other southern states.
Yes, very interesting about those Appalachian counties, and he lost Cherokee County by three votes.
Mountain people are an independent bunch.
CNN just called Illinois for Clinton.
Sanders’ lead in Missouri has narrowed to under 5,000 votes. Still too close to call.
I find it interesting that Clinton barely made it over the finish line in Illinois, although she was born and reared in Illinois. Of course, Illinois is President Obama’s state.
94% of MO reporting, and Sanders still has a small lead, but I’m not optimistic, as the remaining uncounted votes are in Kansas City and St. Louis, both Hillary country. I think Bernie may not make it even in MO.
Hillary’s ahead by 2 points in IL but Chicago is mostly counted now. She’s been leading in Chicago by 8 points for some time now. Her lead in Lake County is about 1 point, where 42 precincts have not yet reported. Bernie may still get a net increase in Sangamon County (Springfield), where he has a 5-point lead with 15 precincts still to report.
Sanders still has a hairbreadth lead in MO with 99% counted. I think Kansas City will do him in. It’s the only place still counting. Hillary leads by about 7.6 there.
Dunno how many votes still to be counted, but CNN’s count now has Clinton ahead by 1,199. Still not calling it, and no matter who wins I wouldn’t be surprised to see a recount.
yup. He got shut out tonight.
Sanders is, I think, eligible for a recount in MO. I believe that state allows candidates who lose by less than one percent to request a recount, and Sanders’ loss appears to have been less than half of one percent (1,531 votes).
Actually about one quarter of one percent.
a recount would be pointless, the delegates wouldn’t really change and any “momentum” he would get out of winning would come too late
Before last nights results, Bernie needed to win the remaining contests by a 55-45 margin (ignoring superdelegates), so his likelihood of victory was very small. Yesterday’s results push the required margin to 59-41. A somewhat surprisingly strong showing for Clinton (not that she wasn’t predicted to win, just that the margins were larger than expected).