Wednesday, June 8, 2016

Hillary News & Views 6.8.16: "Stronger Together"

What more is there to say, really?

Guest post by rugbymom


So here we are, almost at the end of this long strange primary journey. I’ll get to a recap of last night’s races and of Hillary’s speech in Brooklyn (with full video of the speech, in case you missed it).
First, however, just a reminder that the voting is not quite complete. Our friends in DC still haven’t had their chance to add their voices officially into the process, and will do so next Tuesday, with 20 pledged delegates at stake. (Twenty of DC’s 26 superdelegates have already endorsed Clinton, two for Sanders, and four still undeclared.) It’s not unusual to have one or two small states at the end — in 2008 it was SD and MT out there alone at the end (June 3), right after PR (June 1). But with the behemoths of CA and NJ yesterday, the DC vote really does seem like an afterthought. And it’s especially unfortunate to have that last stand-alone contest be in our nation’s capital, a majority heavily African-American district that has so little say even in its own governance, much less the governance of the whole country. (Correction: CPT Doomcomments below that per the latest census, DC is now only 48% African-American.) So everything we say today, and all the celebrating we do, has an asterisk.
Clinton’s final pre-primary event Monday night, somewhat overshadowed in the news by the unexpected AP call, was a celebrity-packed fundraising concert at the Greek Theater at Los Angeles’ Griffith Park. Kossack demolade has done a stunning (and photo-rich) diary full of enthusiasm (and great t-shirt slogans). 
Now, on to the results, as of 6:30 this morning: four wins have given Clinton a clear majority of the pledged delegates, as well as of the popular vote in all the primary contests, and a solid mandate going into the general election. Now for the details, in roughly the order in which they came in:
New Jersey rolled out almost exactly as the guys over at Benchmark Politics anticipated, with large margins for Clinton especially in Essex County (Newark). The close-to-final tally is 63.3-36.7, with a likely delegate split of 75-47 (4 still unallocated due to incomplete returns in one district, according to Green Papers). Nate Silver had an interesting comment about New Jersey:
New Jersey Is As Diverse As The Entire Democratic Party
Clinton is well ahead in early returns from New Jersey, which has been somewhat overlooked despite having 126 pledged delegates, making it the 9th-largest Democratic contest. But New Jersey is also interesting for another reason. Based on its racial demographics, it’s the state most representative of the Democratic electorate as a whole, containing about the same proportion of white, black, Hispanic and Asian and “other” voters as Democrats have nationwide. Clinton has won almost all of the states that score highly by this measure, including Illinois, Florida, Virginia and New York. The closest thing to an exception is Michigan, which Sanders won.
South Dakota: This was the surprise of the night. The minimal polling in South Dakota led people to expect a narrow Sanders win. It resembles other states that he won quite easily, including neighboring North Dakota: mostly white (9% Native American), mostly rural. But from the earliest returns, it was clear that Clinton was doing better than expected, and she ended up with a narrow win, 51-49%, and an even split of delegates, 10-10. Interestingly, she captured pretty much the entire eastern half of the state, while Sanders took the western half. I don’t know enough about South Dakota to analyze that, but perhaps one of you can comment more.
North Dakota: Despite their demographic similarities, the Dakota twins produced very different results. As Harry Enten commented at 538.com:
In my preview before tonight’s races, I wrote that North Dakota and South Dakota provided us a chance to see how big an advantage Sanders gets in a caucus compared with a primary. That’s because the two states are demographically and politically very similar. Well so far, Sanders is leading in North Dakota, which held a caucus today, by 32 percentage points. Clinton is ahead in the South Dakota primary by 7 percentage points.
The final result in the North Dakota caucuses was 64-26 in Sanders’ favor, with a large “uncommitted,” and a delegate split of 13-5. That’s a bit worse for Clinton than the 538 targets, which were 11-7, but given the rest of the evening, it didn’t matter.
New Mexico: Clinton began the night strong here, but in the end it was a somewhat closer win than some polling indicated, 51.5-48.5, with a delegate split of 18-16. 
Montana: As expected, Sanders won Montana, although not by as much as some anticipated. The final numbers were 51-45 (4% “no preference”) and a delegate split of 11-10, a better take for Clinton than her 538 target of 8.
California: Results here are still incomplete, but the networks and the NY Timeshave called the state for Clinton, with the Times headline reading, “Clinton wins California, bolstering claim to nomination.” Counting ballots in California is complicated because so much of the voting is by mail, and those ballots are counted centrally. (Why?) The earliest returns, presumably early mail-in ballots, gave Clinton a lead of about 25 points, significantly higher than the 10-point spread predicted by the early voting “exit polls.” As expected, the day-of-election in-person returns reduced her lead significantly. And the last mail-in ballots still have not been counted — anything postmarked by election day and received by Friday will get counted — so we will not have final results for several more days. The current tally shows Clinton with a 56-43 lead; CNN has partially allocated delegates at 238-155 (82 left to allocate). That is already more delegates for Clinton than her 538 target of 236.
Where does that put Clinton on delegates? By my count (which matched Green Papers before last night), she has 2,168 pledged delegates, with more to come, well beyond the 2,026 needed for a majority, and 399 more than Sanders so far. 
If Clinton’s lead in California holds, she’ll have won the top seven states with the biggest batches of pledged delegates. She’ll also have carried 10 of the top 11. In other words, she wins the states where the voters are, which is why she is the presumptive nominee.
One question on everyone’s mind was whether the early AP call of the race Monday evening would affect voter turnout — and if so, in what way.  Nate Silver thinks it may have:
Nate Silver 10:50 PM
Did Early Call Of Race Discourage Democratic Turnout?
It’s possible that the networks’ call of Clinton as the presumptive Democratic nominee on Monday night discouraged Democratic turnout.  So far in New Jersey, with 88 percent of precincts reporting, there have been about 765,000 votes counted. That compares with1.14 million votes in 2008. And in South Dakota, there have been about 40,000 votes counted with 78 percent of precincts reporting, whereasalmost 100,000 Democrats voted there eight years ago. Turnout in the Democratic primaries this year has been somewhat lower overall compared to 2008, the last competitive Democratic primary, but tonight’s declines are larger than usual.
The lower turnout does not, however, seemed to have hurt Clinton, as some feared if her supporters became complacent and decided they didn’t need to actually vote. It may, as Nate Silver theorized, reflect a sense among Democratic voters that it’s time for the race to wrap up and the party to unite around its nominee.
When Clinton took the stage in Brooklyn about 10:15 pm, in front of a wildly enthusiastic crowd, she looked emotional and radiant. Here’s the full video:
As we’ve come to expect, Clinton emphasized that “Tonight belongs to all of you,” thanking “all of you” — not just the people in the hall, but all of us, everyone who contributed to the victory through donations or volunteering or just talking with neighbors and friends. She reinforced that message with a tweet:
She also graciously congratulated Sanders on his “extraordinary” campaign and for bringing new people, especially young people, into the party. Using a litany of “We all want. . . ,” she listed the things that unite us, incorporating some of Sanders’ signature issues such as reining in Wall Street. She mentioned Trump briefly, repeating that he’s “temperamentally unfit” to be President, and after describing his insults to Judge Curiel and to a disabled reporter, insisted that “We are better than this.”
Throughout her speech, and in her tweets during the evening, Clinton highlighted the historic significance of the moment: the first woman ever to secure a major party nomination for President. (I don’t recall her emphasizing the “first woman” as much in her 2008 run; it seems like a different strategic choice, and one that has served her well.) Before she spoke, she tweeted this:
In speaking, she invoked the generations that have come before, from the 1848 Seneca Falls Convention, through her own mother who was born the day Congress passed the Nineteenth Amendment. And she closed by saying “You are writing the next chapter. . . .” again emphasizing that this isn’t just about electing one person as President. She did note that there’s still one more glass ceiling to crash through, and that the end of the primary cycle means the beginning of a new phase of work.
So here we are, on the other side (with that asterisk) of the first phase of the campaign. Listen to the speech, and whatever small or large part you played in this victory — financial donations, phone banking, wearing your swag even when you were afraid you’d get criticized, talking with friends and family, canvassing — claim it and celebrate it. We are, as Clinton said last night, stronger together. Then think about what you can do in the next phase, between now and November.
One final comment: I’ve seen some comments in various diaries in the past couple of days that show (sometimes in quite vivid and harsh language) people’s frustration with Senator Sanders, his staff, and his supporters. While that’s understandable, it doesn’t strike me as either kind or helpful at this point in the process. I encourage this community to take to heart Hillary’s own gracious words. Let the process play out, and let people find their own way through their understandable disappointment. Those who supported Clinton in 2008 (or Dean in 2004) can empathize; those who supported Obama in 2008 can recall that he gave Clinton that same kind of space and time. Give the Sanders people some leeway, without comment or demands from us. We welcome individuals here as they choose to come, and I expect more will. There is no need to push or demand or express anger at what has been, or what could have been. (If you find yourself snapping out one of those comments or replies, find the “Cancel” button rather than publishing it.) If you see that type of comment, consider replying with a gentle reminder to the writer to calm down. We are better than that, and we will be stronger together. 
*** SUPPORT HILLARY CLINTON ***
(originally posted at Daily Kos)

2 comments:

  1. now we can reap the good things from Bernie's race. His supporters aren't all serious lefties, he had the gun righter wing position and the protectionism righter wing position, but his Randian ideas never got play so no one voted for him to cobble the fed and reduce the ability to adjust to financial crises,

    but by far

    most of his supporters were there for his message, the one we share. And so they can't object to her policies as too left, that is impossible.

    There is too much wealth in the top 1% and there does need to be income redistribution, on that we agree and can claim that the 45% he got are with us.

    To start with ACA is income redistribution, redistributes to lower income the most and increases the number eligible for government insurance. It also helps the middle class, the small businesses by making insurance affordable, and helps people relocate to better opportunities without fearing loss of coverage.

    Their ideas on expanding Social Security aren't the same, but hers won't be seen as too generous by Sander's voters. It'll bring up the retirement income of women who worked in low-pay women's jobs and it'll expend coverage for blue collar workers who wore out their bodies or whose jobs were outsourced and they earned less at the end of their working life.

    Her ideas on building America will be felt by everyone, not industrial parks, educational parks, with grounds and shared facilities, child care, community work shops and arts building, community sports fields, patrolled and safe and inviting. I cannot see a Sander's supporter objecting to those investments of tax dollars.

    The race to the top with green energy won't annoy them, and Obama will explain why fracking with strict requirements and citizen agreement is the path to green energy, the way to reduce coal and the transportation of oil that has endangers our environment during the period of transition. He'll also explain how the simple slogans that sound smart come with a cost of their own.

    Hillary will wear many hats, she'll also be our stickler in chief, the rules we have need to be enforced and guess who she's got in the Senate, and who she'll want writing new legislation to fill in the loopholes, her deputy stickler-in-chief

    you guessed it?

    the real deal, Elizabeth Warren

    Thank you bernie, you're a prickly dick, but ya did good!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I like to read your site a couple times a week for new thoughts.  I was wondering if you have any other niches you write about?   Cheap auto insurance in Houston

    ReplyDelete