Oponn Relationship, on 07 April 2016 - 02:30 AM, said:
It isn't during the general, and it probably leans toward Clinton in the primary (she was one of the state's senators after all). The Sanders camp definitely wants to see it as close though and they're doing their darnedest w/ the momentum they have. Clinton is hugely popular with unions though, and NY is I think the biggest union state. But what you're saying is Sanders lost to Clinton in states that would be considered "swing" during the general? And people are taking from that (bandwagon style) who they vote for in the primary? I'm not sure that means anything for the general, as both Sanders and Clinton could beat Trump or Cruz, who are both terrible terrible candidates.
Edit: all that said, Terez would likely have a better grip on this kind of nitty gritty primary stuff.
Here is the
Link
Site seems to be having some problems, copied a part of the article here
Quote
ON TO N.Y.04.06.16 8:30 AM ET
Bernie Sanders Wins Wisconsin, Changes Nothing
If he can take New York, then we’ve got a contest. If not, Clinton has it.
So it’s a nice night for Bernie. A little nicer than expected, in fact. What does it mean, to win Wisconsin, and where does it leave things?
Here’s what it means. Wisconsin is a significant state, no doubt of that. Winning there is a sign of potential regional, and therefore national, strength. At the same time, it’s worth remembering that it is not a swing state. If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, she’ll likely beat Ted Cruz there by seven or so points, and Donald Trump by more, maybe a good bit more. Barack Obama won there in 2008 and 2012 by 14 and seven points, respectively. It’s gone Democratic every time since 1988. It is to be sure one of those handful of blue states that Sanders could arguably win by more than Clinton could, but a win is a win, and it’s the 10 electoral votes that matter. In other words, what I’m saying is, to give the Sanders campaign credit, winning Wisconsin counts for more than winning the Alaska caucuses. But it doesn’t count in the same way that Ohio and Florida count.
I go into this because there’s been this quasi-taxonomic parsing lately of the value of each win, spurred, it must be said, mostly by Sanders—who used his victory speech Tuesday to claim “momentum”—and his supporters. He tried to dismiss Clinton’s Super Tuesday wins as happening in irrelevant “conservative” Southern states. It is true that most of them happened in states that are going Republican in November, with the glaring and important exception of Florida. On the other hand, those states are not “conservative” when it comes to Democratic voters, and Sanders knows it. It was a cheap shot, made the worse by Tim Robbins’s execrable dismissal of South Carolina as Guam, a dismissal he and other Sanders supporters would surely call racist if the situation were reversed.
Sure, Clinton’s wins in Alabama, Tennessee, and some other states are what you might call valueless. [UPDATE: the preceding sentence originally included Oklahoma, which was wrong—Sanders won Oklahoma.] But Sanders has valueless wins, too—the aforementioned Alaska, and Nebraska, and Idaho, and Wyoming, and so on. I propose we just call that fight a draw. Meanwhile, of the six genuinely purple states that have voted so far, Clinton has won five of them (Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia, and Nevada), while Sanders has won one (Colorado). And when it comes to Super Tuesday, in point of fact, not all of Clinton’s non-Florida wins were without value. Georgia at least is gettable, in a Clinton-Trump scenario; Nate Silver tells us so. And in fact, if Trump really collapses, South Carolina will be close. Obama lost it by 11 last time, which isn’t that much for an ex-Confederate state. And one poll says even Utah could fall.
Help
