Clinton won the Nevada caucuses and pretty clearly will win the nomination. I am deeply fearful of the outcome of this match up, for several reasons, but we must await the inevitable polls.
Here is my up-dated spreadsheet, giving 44 delegates to Trump:
| State | Pledged Delegates | Likely Trump | Actual Trump | Trump Vote % |
| New Hampshire | 20 | 7 | 10 | 35 |
| South Carolina | 50 | 41 | 50 | 32.5 |
| Alabama | 47 | 32 | ||
| Arkansas | 37 | 14 | ||
| Georgia | 76 | 40 | ||
| Massachusetts | 39 | 14 | ||
| Okalahoma | 40 | 20 | ||
| Tennessee | 55 | 28 | ||
| Texas | 152 | 86 | ||
| Vermont | 16 | 6 | ||
| Virginia | 46 | 17 | ||
| Louisiana | 44 | 16 | ||
| Idaho | 29 | 10 | ||
| Mississippi | 37 | 14 | ||
| Michigan | 56 | 21 | ||
| Puero Rico | 20 | 7 | ||
| Ohio | 63 | 63 | ||
| Florida | 99 | 99 | ||
| Illinois | 66 | 25 | ||
| Missouri | 49 | 34 | ||
| North Carolina | 72 | 25 | ||
| Arizona | 58 | 58 | ||
| Wisconsin | 42 | 30 | ||
| New York | 92 | 52 | ||
| Connecticut | 25 | 14 | ||
| Delaware | 16 | 16 | ||
| Maryland | 38 | 29 | ||
| Pennsylvania | 68 | 14 | ||
| Rhode Island | 16 | 6 | ||
| Indiana | 54 | 45 | ||
| West Virginia | 31 | 18 | ||
| Oregon | 25 | 9 | ||
| California | 169 | 145 | ||
| Montana | 24 | 24 | ||
| New Jersey | 48 | 48 | ||
| New Mexico | 21 | 8 | ||
| South Dakota | 26 | 26 | ||
| Nebraska | 33 | 33 | ||
| Washington | 41 | 14 | ||
| 1940 | 1208 | |||
| Caucus States | ||||
| Iowa | 30 | 7 | ||
| Nevada | 30 | |||
| Alaska | 25 | |||
| Colorado | 34 | |||
| Minnesota | 35 | |||
| North Dakota | 25 | |||
| Wyoming | 26 | |||
| Kansas | 40 | |||
| Kentucky | 42 | |||
| Maine | 20 | |||
| Hawaii | 16 | |||
| District of Columbia | 19 | |||
| Northern Mariana Islands | 6 | |||
| Virgin Islands | 6 | |||
| Utah | 40 | |||
| 394 | ||||
| Territorial Convention | ||||
| Guam | 6 | |||
| American Samoa | 6 | |||
| 12 | ||||
| Trump Total | 67 | |||
| Needed to Win | 1273 | |||
10 comments:
I'm afraid you're right. Now, given that it seems that Clinton's victory in Nevada was due to the Latino vote, and that her Southern Firewall seems to be working, would it be fair to say that identity politics is helping win the primaries for the Right of both parties?
I find all this all the more infuriating as Sanders is the one with the far better record on civil rights and race.
I can't for the life of me figure out what Clinton is garnering the black vote.
Enzo, according to the most recent five thirty post: "This year, the entrance poll had Sanders winning Latinos 53 percent to 45 percent"
I think Clinton's black vote is very weak among younger blacks. But we'll see. Certainly word is getting around about her bad record on race. But really, what's more important is movement building. And that's what Sanders is doing and it's important for him to stay in the race until the convention.
Ah, that's interesting Chris, thanks. The NYT figures I saw told a completely different story. Well if the firewall isn't holding then there may be some hope left for Bernie. But I fear the NYT is right overall:
Mr. Sanders did appeal to a good number of Hispanic voters: According to entrance polls by Edison Research, he was ahead of Mrs. Clinton among Hispanics. These numbers may not reflect the final vote tally, however, because Mrs. Clinton was performing strongly in heavily Hispanic neighborhoods around Clark County, which encompasses Las Vegas. Mrs. Clinton won 60 percent of the delegates in the 22 Latino-majority precincts that had reported results on Saturday night, according to her campaign aides.
Mr. Sanders fared poorly among African-American voters, earning support from only 22 percent of them, according to the entrance polls.
Professor Wolff, could you say more about why you're deeply fearful of a Trump-Clinton match up?
In response to Chris: Charles Blow, writing in the Times a couple weeks ago, said something along the lines of, "We blacks are tired of being scolded for not voting for Sanders, as it's supposedly in our best interest to do. We're perfectly capable of deciding what's in our own best interest, thank you, and we have a deep historical skepticism toward people who promise too much. We've been burnt too many times."
I remember thinking at the time that that was an unusually bad column of Blow's.
Same, David Auerbach. Okay, vote in your interest, so why is Clinton in one's interest and not Bernie?
Also, just as a matter of statistics, are't black voters being told to vote Hillary too? I don't see how his argument doesn't work in exactly an inverse way, unless we actually analyze whose policies, and visions, are better for the african american community?
Post a Comment