New York State Of Mind
Tomorrow's New York primary will be the decisive one, the pundits tell us. It will join a long list of other primaries and caucuses which were also deemed to be the crucial one which would decide the whole race: Iowa, Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin, and (of course) all the Super Tuesday states. All of these, in turn, were the decisive ones to watch, we were told. The fact that no decisive winner has emerged on either side is deemed irrelevant afterwards, of course, because by then we'll all be focused on the next big, definitive primary on the calendar. This will likely continue right up to California's (decisive) vote, in June.
The simple fact of the matter is that there are two Democratic candidates and two Republican candidates who are still relevant. This will likely be true all the way to the conventions, no matter how many delegates are won by the frontrunners. The battle between Ted Cruz and Donald Trump will still be contentious in Cleveland, and the fight between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders is still going to matter in Philadelphia. Both parties are struggling with the question of who they are and what they stand for, and on both sides this will likely continue long after the 2016 race is over.
Having said all of that, though, I'm still going to devote the rest of this column to predicting the horserace, as I've been doing all throughout the primary season. Part of the reason New York looms so large is the fact that we've had a two-week period of relative calm on the calendar, and also that no other state will be voting tomorrow. Next week will be more interesting, as many Atlantic seaboard states vote together, but for now New York is the sole focus.
Before I get to predictions, I've got to update my record. Two weeks ago, I called the Wisconsin race for Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz, although I was much more timid in my predictions on the margins. I hedged my bets by predicting both would win by only around five points, and both candidates impressively exceeded this: Cruz won by 13 points, Sanders by 12. I also snuck a prediction of victory in Wyoming for Sanders into one of my Friday columns, which turned out to be correct. This improves my score by calling two-for-two right on the Democratic side and calling the only Republican race right as well. Overall, this pushed my record up to exactly three-fourths correct for the whole season.
Total correct 2016 Democratic picks: 27 for 36 -- 75%
Total correct 2016 Republican picks: 30 for 40 -- 75%
Total overall correct picks: 57 for 76 -- 75%.
With the recordkeeping out of the way, let's take a look at the two primaries which will happen tomorrow night.
New York (Republicans)
This one's pretty easy to predict. Donald Trump will take his home state by a very large margin. The only real question is whether Ted Cruz can even manage second place here, or whether John Kasich will beat him. Cruz is no doubt kicking himself repeatedly for that "New York values" quip, as it now seems that every single Republican voter in the state fully remembers Cruz sneering at them, back in Iowa. The polling between Cruz and Kasich has been neck-and-neck, but unfortunately for both of them, it is also at only about half of Trump's overall support.
The big question for tomorrow night in the GOP is whether Trump completely sweeps the state or not. If he gets over half of the vote, he could walk away with every single delegate -- which would boost his lead over Cruz by almost 100 delegates. For both Cruz and Kasich, wresting even a handful of delegates away from Trump will be a victory (of sorts), because at this point neither Cruz nor Kasich is ever going to be able to amass more delegates than Trump. They're fighting for one purpose and one purpose only -- to deny Trump the 1,237 delegates he needs to win on the first convention vote. So peeling off five or ten delegates from Trump's haul tomorrow night will be about the best either Cruz or Kasich can hope for, at this point.
I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that Trump gets at least 90 delegates tomorrow night. He may not sweep every single delegate, but he's going to at least come close. Trump should wind up with a sum total of around 850 delegates, meaning he'll have fewer than 400 to go to reach the magic number. Whether he manages to do so or not, his big victory tomorrow night will tamp down all the talk of Trump "losing momentum." Trump will win New York big (huge, even), and he'll then be in good position to win most of the states voting next Tuesday as well.
New York (Democrats)
Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have been campaigning very hard over the past two weeks. Bernie's back from meeting the Pope, and Hillary's back from meeting George Clooney, and both will be fighting hard for every Big Apple vote right up until the polls close tomorrow.
Hillary has always had the most to lose here. If Bernie actually beats her tomorrow, then she will have lost her "home" state. Clinton can claim three states as home ground, and she's won two already (Arkansas and Illinois), but New York is the big one, since it is the state she represented in the Senate for eight years. To lose would be a big embarrassment for Clinton, and that's putting it mildly.
Bernie can claim home ground in New York as well (along with Vermont), since he was born here. But his ties are a lot less recent than Hillary's, and he's never won an election here. If he manages to do so tomorrow, it would be a bigger upset than beating Clinton in Michigan was, and it will produce a whole lot of angst within the party over the relative weakness of Clinton as a candidate. So Bernie's got the most to win tomorrow, and Hillary's got the most to lose.
However, I don't think it's going to happen. Bernie Sanders will likely fall short of upsetting Hillary Clinton tomorrow night. Bernie has been packing them in to his rallies, pulling audiences of 27,000 and 28,000 in the past week. The enthusiasm is still there, and lots of New Yorkers are feeling the Bern in a big way. But it's not going to be enough.
I say this for two reasons. The first is that New York holds a closed primary, meaning independents cannot vote for a Democratic candidate. Sanders has done a lot better in open primaries, because his support reaches deeply into the independent demographic. But they'll be shut out of the process tomorrow, which is going to hurt Bernie's overall vote total.
The second reason I don't see Bernie winning tomorrow night is that there has been almost no movement in the polls over the past two weeks. Clinton was up by ten points or better two weeks ago, and she is now up by almost exactly the same margin. Sanders hasn't moved the needle at all, in other words, even after all those impressive rallies. This may be because it is so late in the primary season -- many voters have already made up their minds by this point, and there's not a lot that would get them to change their view. Even holding a debate in New York didn't shift the numbers at all, so it's hard to see some sort of Sanders wave appearing at the last minute.
Of course, the polls could be wrong -- all of them. They certainly were in Michigan, please remember. But I don't think they will prove to be all that inaccurate tomorrow night. Usually an upset is preceded by a very late surge in the polls, mere days before the election. That has so far failed to materialize for Bernie. Maybe Sanders will outperform where the polls put him now, but I think the best he could manage would be to lose to Clinton by only five points or so (rather than by 10 or 15).
While Clinton does have a lot to lose in New York, if she wins it may be the end of any chance Bernie Sanders has to beat her in the overall pledged delegate count. This chance was slim (at best) heading into New York, but it could become nothing short of an impossible dream afterwards. I doubt Bernie is going to drop out of the race or anything -- I fully expect him to keep fighting, all the way to the end of the primary calendar. He'll be following in Clinton's footsteps if he does so, since this is precisely what she did back in 2008. Bernie's still generating a lot of excitement out there on the hustings, and he's still generating a huge amount of campaign cash, so there is really nothing stopping him from going the distance. Hillary Clinton likely won't hit the delegate count she needs until the very end of the race (California, perhaps), so she will not be able to make the pivot to attacking only the Republican candidates -- she's going to have to fight Sanders for every state, right up to the end.
So those are my predictions -- Trump in a landslide, with at least 90 delegates when the night is done; and Clinton wins the vote, but only by single digits. If you think I'm way off base, let me know about it in the comments, where (as always) you are free to share your own predictions with everyone.
[Previous states' picks:]
[AK (D)] [AK (R)] [AL] [AR] [AZ] [CO (D)] [FL] [GA] [HI (D)] [HI (R)] [IA] [ID (D)] [ID (R)] [IL] [KS] [KY (R)] [LA] [MA] [ME] [MI] [MN] [MO] [MS] [NC] [NE (D)] [NH] [NV (D)] [NV (R)] [OH] [OK] [SC (D)] [SC (R)] [TN] [TX] [UT] [VA] [VT] [WA (D)] [WI] [WY (D)] [American Samoa (D)] [American Samoa (R)] [Puerto Rico (R)] [Democrats Abroad (D)]
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Chris: I think your predictions are probably correct.
Today's anecdote (which is from Sunday, actually).
I was out picking up sticks in my front yard prior to our first mowing of the season.
30-ish black man approaches me and asks for $2 for bus fare so he could go visit his kids. I took him at his word and gave him the money. Then asked for his opinion of the election season to date:
"I think it's a fiasco. I don't trust none of the politicians. I just want a strong America. We don't want no something (couldn't make out the word) being shipped out. We just want jobs. We want to be able to go on vacation with our kids and have fun. We want financial freedom just like you guys want. (us guys meaning white people?) We want our borders protected and terrorists out of the country. I don't know if republicans or democrats -- which are the best ones to get this done. They all say the same stuff. I just want one leader that's strong that will handle this business. Or her business! God bless!"
@cw,
i think you're right on both counts. trump gets over 50% and sweeps the delegates, while clinton wins by less than five percent - possibly even less than one percent.
JL
Nothing to do with this article.
My "preferred" browser (Mozilla Firefox) just found yet another site that froze/crashed it.
Everyone, let's keep supporting CW so that we can continue ad free content.
Thank you, CW, and everyone who supports this site (yes, especially Michale).
Various comments on the actual article.
It wasn't just Cruz on NY Values. It was also his votes against Hurricane Sandy funding (my Dad fished blue fish out of his basement) and against continued funding for 9/11 first responders.
GOPers like Peter King have come out against him hard (that has influence in traditionally GOP strongholds like Staten Island).
If I'm predicting, Kasich comes in second, in large part, because of these other bits.
The "decide the race" comments misses important points.
NY really does matter, not just b/c it's in a "voting desert," but b/c it's really large. Fourth largest in the country.
On the Dem side, the SEC primaries did really "decide the race," so some extent. After the Southern primaries, Sanders path to a majority of pledged delegates narrowed tremendously. After that haul, his path to victory - really difficult.
In particular, Sanders has taken what, 8 of the last 9, 9 of the last 10? Add the populations of all of those states together and they barely surpass Florida's population.
Momentum, yes. Path to the nomination, not so much.
That said, I hope he continues so that Dems continue to build general election infrastructure. That was a huge advantage that Obama had over McCain.
Of course, that only works if Sanders is capable of being magnanimous in defeat. If he isn't, then he isn't nearly the person that his supporters think he is.
Clinton did it. Will he?
My "preferred" browser (Mozilla Firefox) just found yet another site that froze/crashed it.
I switched to Chrome a while back and have been very happy with it... It might be the one for you...
<I.Thank you, CW, and everyone who supports this site (yes, especially Michale).
Thanx ya, S2.. :D
Michale
I actually put this site together on a Netscape browser from over 10 years ago. One of the main reasons I hate ads, as well as all other whizzy things I can do without. Auto-reload is the one that truly bugs me (like Salon.com, they're the worst -- autoloads front page like ever 3 minutes or something ridiculous... grrr!).
Keep it simple! (the format, not the commentary... heh...)
:-)
-CW
Paula -
You feeling better? My wife's in the process of getting sick right now... being sick is a total drag...
Hope you're back on your feet soon!
-CW
I really hope that Bernie can pull another Michigan...
He deserves the win...
Michale
Yeah, I go to Chrome when I'm reading and I freeze. Not my first choice, though.
Salon and Drudge both auto-reload way too quickly. Annoying. Can't scroll through their set of headlines without it happening a time or two.
Salon and Drudge both auto-reload way too quickly. Annoying. Can't scroll through their set of headlines without it happening a time or two.
I know.. Annoying as hell... And if you have a slow connection (like I do at home) or a slow computer ( like I do in the shop) it's VERY aggravating.. :D
Michale
CW -
Can't find any fault with today's forecast.
Speak2 - 4
Firefox is my default browser and I have no problems with Salon or Drudge (other than the content, heh). Do you use the Ad Block add-on? Old operating system maybe? ... or older PC? I encountered a lot of freezes using Windows 7, particularly as MS pushed everybody over to Windows 10. Now that I've gotten 10 working cleanly (no small effort) on a faster machine with more memory, I rarely encounter any problems. That said, I do keep Chrome loaded for a few sites that can't handle Firefox or even the MS Browser....like some of my local utilities which seem to use ancient software running on clay tablets.
At Betfair over the last few days, Trump has recovered about half of what he lost during his last slump. He is now given roughly a 60% chance of winning the nomination (up about 10%) and a 17% chance of actually changing the White House drapes to "something really classy, you'll luv it." This seems to have occurred at the expense of Cruz, who has lost about what Trump has gained in both of the above markets. A contested convention is still considered more likely than not (about 80%) and a brokered convention about a toss up. (FYI, the latter market is very low volume and therefore somewhat dubious).
Clinton is also having a good week, with a 90% chance of gaining the nomination (about 5% off her high water mark) and a 70% of triangulating White House redecoration (tying her all time high).
Just for Michael. While Betfair has no Clinton indictment market, New Zealand's PredictIt market gives it a 22% chance of occurring before this New Year. PredictIt is pretty chump change (all trades resolve at win or lose 1 dollar and there is something like an $800 limit for any given investor, if memory serves me)...and it's apparently legal in the good ol' USA. Go nuts if you have inside info! There is also a Bitcoin prediction market dealing in similar Hillary Indictment Futures. Everybody probably has a few bitcoins under the cushions of their virtual sofa. :)
Just for Michael. While Betfair has no Clinton indictment market, New Zealand's PredictIt market gives it a 22% chance of occurring before this New Year. PredictIt is pretty chump change (all trades resolve at win or lose 1 dollar and there is something like an $800 limit for any given investor, if memory serves me)...and it's apparently legal in the good ol' USA. Go nuts if you have inside info!
No inside info... Just common sense by the name of Berger and Patraeus amongst others.. :D
Michale
[10] Chris: thanks for asking! Both hubby and I are on the mend. Not feeling full energy yet but no longer headachy or coughing. Catching up on work and projects now after dragging through last week (and spending work time commenting here :-)
NY primary a distraction but I have to get some work done! Back this evening!
http://observer.com/2016/04/comptroller-will-audit-new-york-city-board-of-elections/
Jeezus, how long have they had to prepare for this vote???
So typical.....
Michale
But Mr. Stringer—like Mayor Bill de Blasio—also wants an explanation of why the number of eligible Democratic voters in Brooklyn drop by more than 120,000 names between November 2015 and April 2016, “without any adequate explanation furnish by the Board of Elections.” A lawsuit has been filed seeking to restore the voting rights of eligible voters on the rolls.
Oh that's easy... They were BERNIE voters and Hillary is like Cruz. They play dirty...
Michale
Stig [14]
Yeah, I never went to Windows 10. Even went out of my way to remove it. I have a bizarre setup and a 5 yr old machine (my partition is forced by a smaller front end which is SSD and larger back end which is traditional HD). I'll upgrade this Summer and get full on SSD, which would allow me to do everything new.
I'm hoping I have your experience of many fewer issues.
Michale {18, 19]:
Way simplified, to the point of just plain wrong.
NY is a way messed up place (I spent a total of 21 yrs their, Brooklyn-born).
It's the only State (of those that tried) that was completely unable to set up a reasonable and proper recycling program.
NY's OTB may be the only "bookie" in the history of the world to actually lose money (this is decades ago).
In other words, this has nothing to do with Sanders/Clinton. It is basically poor at government, inefficient, and corrupt. Ugh!
That one has to switch parties six months in advance of the primary has been the rule in NY for a very long time.
The fact is, if you register as an independent or with a minor party, then you are choosing to forgo your right to vote in the Dem or GOP primary. That NY requires 6 mos to change is just bizarre, but nothing new. Heck, the Trump kids couldn't vote for their Dad because it didn't occur to them to switch their affiliation way back in October.
If Sanders supporters made the same errors, that is a crying shame, but it isn't a crime. If you live in NY, you learn to deal with this crap. If you don't like it, stay on the ball or move.
If Sanders had considered it (given that he is from NY), then he would have mobilized his supporters back in Sept 15. That he didn't is his bad.
Back in '08, I said that Obama's use of the rules to beat Clinton showed he was better suited to be the nominee than she was. Now I use the same argument to say that she is better suited to be the nominee than Sanders is.
The rules and gen'l NY nonsense is not new. Learn the rules or tough luck.
Remember before how I said how ya'all concentrate on all the GOP Primary antagonism and attacks as a way to cover the Dem's Primary problems..
Dems fear their primary has reached danger zone
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/276757-dems-fear-their-primary-has-reached-danger-zone
I guess that's just me being "ridiculous" and "not serious" again, eh?? :D
Michale
Oh, and the Comptroller's investigation into the NY BOE is long overdue. But hold the applause. I'd be surprised if anything that bites comes out of it.
In other words, this has nothing to do with Sanders/Clinton. It is basically poor at government, inefficient, and corrupt. Ugh!
And that would be a DEMOCRAT government, right?? :D
OK.. We'll go with your theory... :D
The fact is, if you register as an independent or with a minor party, then you are choosing to forgo your right to vote in the Dem or GOP primary.
Yea, Florida does the same thing.. I figured that was the norm all over...
Back in '08, I said that Obama's use of the rules to beat Clinton showed he was better suited to be the nominee than she was. Now I use the same argument to say that she is better suited to be the nominee than Sanders is.
So, in your opinion, those who are better at gaming the system are the better leaders..
So, then you must not have ANY problem with GOP Gerrymandering... eh?? :D
Michale
Finally, don't give me any de Blasio nonsense. NY had Pataki (R) before Cuomo (D); Giuliani (R) and Bloomberg (R/D/I) before de Blasio.
Heck, Tammany Hall is 19th Century NY.
This isn't partisan, and trying to go partisan with de Blasio shows superficial thinking on behalf of partisan instincts, not deep thought.
In NY, they do truly all do it.
So, then you must not have ANY problem with GOP Gerrymandering... eh?? :D
That's different, right?? :D
Michale
Gerrymandering:
No, those were the rules. I'm rather unhappy about the concept and want the rules to change. I don't actually blame those who won major power in 2010 for using the system to their advantage, except in the ways it shows them unfit for leadership roles in the U.S.
I would like to think that those who we think should be leaders would take a larger perspective. They represent us all. W was not the Republican President, O is not the Democratic President. They are/were the President of these United States.
They should remember that and value democracy and democratic values.
If they choose to gerrymander in an abusive fashion, they are unfit for office and should be voted out, even by their own partisan supporters.
Michale [22]:
Dems have always had a spineless, panic-y trait. It's exceptionally annoying to progressives, but it's always been there. It's one of the real flaws of their supporters.
I said the other day, that Sanders staying in the race, like Clinton in '08, allows Dems to build infrastructure in places that usually don't have that happen.
My concern is that I am not sure that I see Sanders being magnanimous in defeat. Clinton was in '08, urging her people to support Obama and totally defusing the PUMAs.
If Sanders doesn't do that, then he isn't nearly the stand-up guy that his supporters think he is and truly doesn't deserve their support.
Michale [24] -
Speak2 is right. In NY, corruption and sleaziness reach so far across party lines that it can't even be labeled partisan (both sides do it, to an astonishing level). It's like some sort of warped state tradition. Albany is a swamp, and has been for a very long time (no matter which party's in charge)...
Speak2 [28] -
Give it time. It took Hillary 3 weeks to even concede she had lost the race (this delay was part of what gave rise to the whole PUMA non-phenomenon in the first place). She fought to the bitter end, and beyond.
But you're right, her call for unity (belated though it may have been) and her actions at the convention truly did defuse the PUMA nonsense. But I'd be willing to bet Bernie will wind up doing the same. Remember, CA doesn't vote until June. We've still got a ways to go...
To everyone: new is column up, let's do NY returns-watching (and -commenting) there...
-CW
S2,
No, those were the rules. I'm rather unhappy about the concept and want the rules to change. I don't actually blame those who won major power in 2010 for using the system to their advantage, except in the ways it shows them unfit for leadership roles in the U.S.
You are an honorable person.. :D
I would like to think that those who we think should be leaders would take a larger perspective. They represent us all. W was not the Republican President, O is not the Democratic President. They are/were the President of these United States.
They should remember that and value democracy and democratic values.
If they choose to gerrymander in an abusive fashion, they are unfit for office and should be voted out, even by their own partisan supporters.
Here, here... Well said...
Michale
My concern is that I am not sure that I see Sanders being magnanimous in defeat. Clinton was in '08, urging her people to support Obama and totally defusing the PUMAs.
If Sanders doesn't do that, then he isn't nearly the stand-up guy that his supporters think he is and truly doesn't deserve their support.
That's one possibility..
Another possibility is that Hillary is such an evil rhymes-with-witch that not even the pope could forgive and forget..
:D
Michale
CW,
Speak2 is right. In NY, corruption and sleaziness reach so far across party lines that it can't even be labeled partisan (both sides do it, to an astonishing level). It's like some sort of warped state tradition. Albany is a swamp, and has been for a very long time (no matter which party's in charge)...
In other words, there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans.. :D
Michale
S2,
This isn't partisan, and trying to go partisan with de Blasio shows superficial thinking on behalf of partisan instincts, not deep thought.
In NY, they do truly all do it.
Not only in just NY... :D
Michale
Looks like Drudge co-opted your commentary title, CW.. :D
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.. :D
Michale