As of today. So says my math, once the supers are removed.
http://www.cnn.com/election/
That is not insurmountable, but it’s tough.
Of note: Louisiana: A real primary. Clinton trounced Sanders there, but, if you look at the raw vote totals, Sanders got twice as many votes as Rubio. I find that encouraging, even though I know it’s essentially meaningless. In New Hampshire, Sanders won big, but Trump got more votes than Clinton. In 2008, we never failed to notice that both our top two would have swamped the GOP field. This year it’s different, so … I’m noticing that meaningless result.
Any other thoughts on the results?
Please share widely!
kbusch says
I’ve been wondering about the larger-than-usual Republican vote totals and the smaller-than-2008 Democratic ones for a while. Specifically, one reason: if Sanders is going to bring about transformative change, he’d better bring a big mass of people with him.
But putting that aside, I think the GOP vote totals may partly be due to the greater drama on the Republican side. The Democratic candidates are thoroughly sane people having a thoroughly sane debate about policy. Boring.
Rubio and Cruz are sort of weirdly interesting. Cruz is a rather good debater. Will Rubio grow up in time to win a second state? That’s without mentioning Trump. So it is like a fun television show. Everyone wants to know, “How will it end?”
The other side of this, though, is that large parts of the Right are extremely pissed off about Obama. Also, if one watches conservative media enough, one knows that the end is near. An alliance of Russia, Iran, and ISIS orchestrated by Obama is about to flood our inflation-ravished country with Mexican agents who will force us into bathrooms of transgender terrorists before gruesomely killing us.
Sufficiently scared, one might just take the effort to vote for the man who might save us.
johnk says
FiveThirtyEight. State by state expectations to meet the target number.
stomv says
the Sox would only be down two right now.