New York, As Expected
[guest post by JVW]
The results from New York are pretty much in by now and they shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone who was paying attention as the Empire state primaries have been won by the two “local” favorites (one local hailing from Illinois by way of Arkansas, and the other local being a part-time resident of Florida too).
On the Democrats’ side, Bernard Sanders handily won the 18-29 vote and then absolutely got whomped in every single other age group. He also is on the way to losing the black vote by a three to one margin, pretty much in line with his showing in that key demographic in other states. Sanders and Clinton right now appear to be closely splitting the white vote in New York, so her margin of victory will almost entirely be based upon her winning margin among black and Latino voters (the latter of whom are favoring her by roughly a 65/35 ratio at the moment). The epitaph for Bernie Sanders’ campaign will be that it was a social trend for clueless young white leftists, and got swamped by the old school party machine.
The GOP results are what they are.
– JVW
This sad and depressing election year.
JVW (9e3c77) — 4/19/2016 @ 9:18 pm“The GOP results are what they are,” in that (in a closed primary) a VAST majority of Republicans cast their votes for (ahem)
Donald Trump.
How would you dismissively characterize the idiots driving *that* “social trend”?
Leviticus (1dd53f) — 4/19/2016 @ 9:26 pmI think JVW tries to avoid writing about Donald Trump. More power to him. I tried that for a while.
Patterico (86c8ed) — 4/19/2016 @ 9:32 pmBlack men: 2:1 for Clinton.
Black women: 4:1 for Clinton.
Latino men: not available
Latino women: 2:1 for Clinton.
Family income under $30,000: roughly 4:3 for Clinton
(interesting one)
Single men: almost 2:1 for Sanders
Married men: 11:9 for Clinton
Voters claiming no religion: 4:3 for Sanders
By 60% to 36%, NY Dems say that Clinton is honest and trustworthy. By 81% to 14%, NY Dems say Sanders is honest and trustworthy.
JVW (9e3c77) — 4/19/2016 @ 9:33 pmCruz will stop an outright Trump win with his California firewall strategy! You just wait and see.
Cruz FTW (f2eaa4) — 4/19/2016 @ 9:40 pmHave I told you guys (more than a dozen times) that Fail Safe is my favorite movie ending?
nk (dbc370) — 4/19/2016 @ 9:52 pmHow would you dismissively characterize the idiots driving *that* “social trend”?
Decadence, plain and simple. America is in decline as evidenced such divers things as gay marriage, limousine liberalism and Detroit, and we have lost all standards including whom we pick to be the leader of The Free World.
nk (dbc370) — 4/19/2016 @ 9:58 pmTerrible ground game by Cruz. He really got out-hustled. That was a very disappointing lackluster showing.
Cruz needs to stick to hustling political-insider super delegates because when it comes to the normal citizen voter, Cruz is a disaster. Geez, he couldn’t even beat the pathetic Kasich. I’m a big fan of Ted Cruz but he just can’t be sold to the masses.
jcurtis (c6356b) — 4/19/2016 @ 10:05 pmCruz should not brag about his wins in CO, ND, WY, etc.—any state where he won but the voters didn’t have much say. Strategically, he should just take those wins quietly and point out where he actually won with voters.
However, jcurtis, your pessimism not withstanding, the upcoming states look great for Cruz! Can you imagine how many delegates he’ll get out of NJ, CA, WA, OR, CT, MD, PA … to name but a few?
Trump is toast.
Cruz FTW (f2eaa4) — 4/19/2016 @ 10:11 pm– Mike Judge, “Idiocracy”
So it goes.
Vonnegut would rise from his grave to deny that he was a conservative. He was.
“Live by the harmless untruths that make you brave and kind and healthy and happy.”
“Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before.”
Ag80 (eb6ffa) — 4/19/2016 @ 10:14 pmSanders is a great candidate for naive, gullible people who cannot count. That, plus the fact he’s running against a felon, explains why he’s done as well as he has.
Arizona CJ (da673d) — 4/19/2016 @ 10:18 pmBased on this map it appears that the heavily Orthodox neighborhoods in Brooklyn broke for Cruz.
The word you’re looking for is simply “delegates”. They are neither super nor “insiders” except in the sense that they are committed Republicans. Ordinary delegates, chosen in the usual way by the Republicans who participated in the process. And who else should be choosing them?
Only the ordinary New York voter. One of those “New York values”, by the way, is an extreme Christophobia. It’s particularly evident among non-Orthodox Jews, but also among New Yorkers in general. It’s just one of the ways that, as one of my high school teachers put it, culturally the Hudson is as wide as the Pacific.
Milhouse (87c499) — 4/19/2016 @ 10:20 pmCruz has got a ways to go in winner-take-all NJ with 51 delegates, too. To be fair. But he can do it. I know he can! You can do anything you set your mind to, man.
Cruz FTW (f2eaa4) — 4/19/2016 @ 10:23 pmMilhouse, they are super delegates. That they might be really, really, really good loyal Republicans is possible. It’s beside the point.
jcurtis (c6356b) — 4/19/2016 @ 10:35 pmNew York hasn’t voted for a republican for president since ’88. So what they think really doesn’t matter in the long run.
BradnSA (2312b5) — 4/19/2016 @ 10:36 pm@jcurtis, @Millhouse: All’s fair in love and politics. Ted Cruz’s strategy of offering free BJs from his stable of groupies & hookers to caucus goers and/or state GOP officials has been having an effect.
Cruz 2016!
Cruz FTW (f2eaa4) — 4/19/2016 @ 10:38 pmThey are not super delegates. They are ordinary delegates, just like all the others. You simply have no idea what you are talking about.
It’s Trump who’s offered delegates airfare, lodging, and who knows what else, probably free vacations at his properties or something.
Milhouse (87c499) — 4/19/2016 @ 10:56 pmAnother day, another troll. And a Trump supporter only in the sense that he wants Trump against Hillary. Because that would really make Hillary inevitable.
nk (dbc370) — 4/19/2016 @ 11:09 pmThey do have New York values, after all.
ThOR (a52560) — 4/20/2016 @ 12:12 amBy 60% to 36%, NY Dems say that Clinton is honest and trustworthy. By 81% to 14%, NY Dems say Sanders is honest and trustworthy.
I don’t see how sane people can answer the first question in the affirmative without rolling their eyes upon hearing the word “yes” come out of their mouth.
A large percentage of liberals have got to be one of two things: Either the easiest targets for con artists and hustlers or the ones most likely to be con artists and hustlers themselves.
If researchers in human behavior have ever done a study on the political leanings of most embezzlers and swindlers, it would be surprising if the results didn’t reveal that most penny-ante criminals are of liberal persuasion or definitely favor “progressive” politicians as a way to smooth the pathway of criminality
Mark (bc2df9) — 4/20/2016 @ 12:57 amHowever, jcurtis, your pessimism not withstanding, the upcoming states look great for Cruz! Can you imagine how many delegates he’ll get out of NJ, CA, WA, OR, CT, MD, PA … to name but a few?
Cruz will win WA and OR, no question. Those are two godawful states for Trump. CA is looking to be damn close.
ZZ (3776b4) — 4/20/2016 @ 3:49 amWell they are New York Repulicans, which means they are pretty liberal overall.
Patrick Henry, the 2nd (9d1989) — 4/20/2016 @ 4:37 amExcept for the states like Texas, Wisconsin, Kansas, and Oklahoma where actually voters are BIG fans of Cruz.
Patrick Henry, the 2nd (9d1989) — 4/20/2016 @ 4:42 amIf only the voters were smarter, they would have chosen my preferred candidate. No one has ever said that before, ever.
carlitos (c24ed5) — 4/20/2016 @ 5:16 amTap dance. The headline; Cruz mathematically eliminated from playoffs.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 4/20/2016 @ 5:53 amThat’s where you guys lose me. The anti Trumpers scream that Trump isn’t a conservative and isn’t really a Republican. So that means he’s a liberal, right? Then how can liberal states like WA and OR vote for the “conservative” Cruz when they have a nice little liberal to vote for?
Hoagie ™ (e4fcd6) — 4/20/2016 @ 6:32 amI don’t see how B follows from A. What is it about New York Repunblicans that makes you think they ought to be more liberal than, say, Arizona Republicans? It is absolutely invalid to reason that since New Yorkers are more liberal than Arizonans, therefore NY Republicans are more liberal than AZ Republicans.
It’s like saying that since Mexicans are shorter than Swedes, therefore Mexican professional basketballers are shorter than Swedish ones. Or that since black men encountered at random on the street are more likely than white ones to be criminals, therefore black men you meet on a college campus or in the workplace are more likely than white ones to be criminals. It just doesn’t follow. In each case the smaller population is by definition not representative of the larger one, so the statistics of the larger one are not transferable to the smaller one.
Which isn’t to say that you’re wrong in this specific instance. NY Republicans may well be more liberal than most Republicans, but for reasons unrelated to the fact that NYers generally are more liberal than USAns generally. The term “Rockefeller Republican” does spring to mind, though I can’t see any of those voting for Trump. Those would be the Kasich voters. I don’t know who the Trump voters are.
Milhouse (87c499) — 4/20/2016 @ 6:47 amExcept that he isn’t. Such a headline would be a typical Trump lie.
Milhouse (87c499) — 4/20/2016 @ 6:48 amFor certain definitions of playoffs, how exactly is Cruz not eliminated? His surrogates have moved the goalposts to contested convention lately, despite their being too proud and stupid to coordinate such a thing with Governor Kasich. Is that what you mean? Because How can Cruz mathematically win this thing?
carlitos (c24ed5) — 4/20/2016 @ 6:54 amAgain, the fact that WA and OR are liberal states does not imply that WA and OR Republicans are liberal. And while WA’s primary is semi-open (a declaration is required, but there’s nothing to prevent someone from lying) OR’s is closed.
Milhouse (87c499) — 4/20/2016 @ 6:56 amWhat definitions? So long as Trump doesn’t have a majority on the first ballot, Cruz can win. There are no other definitions.
Milhouse (87c499) — 4/20/2016 @ 6:57 amSo where’s Trump going to end up – 1190 or so?
carlitos (c24ed5) — 4/20/2016 @ 7:07 amcarlitos (c24ed5) — 4/20/2016 @ 6:54 am
They’re not stupid. Or at least not entirely. I think Cruz may be afraid that he may be perceived as in third place in some primaries. He was, in New York, even without much of a Kasich campaign. Cruz knows his only chance is if he is the sole alternative to Trump. (And it is actually not that much of a chance.)
Of course, framing things that way makes more votes for Trump than would otherwise be the case.
Cruz may be too frightened of seeming to be in third place, or he’s afraid he can’t play it both ways, and thinks that if he allows that he is in third place in the East, the claim elsewhere that he is “the” alternative to Trump will vanish. And his candidacy will be circling the drain – the bubble burst.
Maybe then he’ll be in third place in California, and he won’t get special consideration on the second ballot at the convention. So he’ll let Trump get delegates he might not get, just so long as he doesn’t have to concede that someone else might also be an alternative to Trump.
So he has one theme which he uses everywhere: He is the only person who can defeat Trump. That’s actually the only way he can win primaries.
Sammy Finkelman (366297) — 4/20/2016 @ 7:21 amCarlitos – by the math, 1237 is the only relevant number.
It was special to see jcurtis concern trolling and playing with Perry so well. Surreal.
JD (fbcc5a) — 4/20/2016 @ 7:42 amA number below 1237 might be enough, because Trump could get at least some uncommitted delegates.
Here’s Rush Limbaugh on the significane of the number 1,237:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/04/20/cruz_sticks_to_yesterday_s_narrative
The results in New York in the Republican primary were approximately:
Trump: 60% – higher than he’s gotten in any state.
Kasich: 25%
Cruz 15%
In delegates, Trump is said to have gotten 90, and Kasich 3, and two I guess are undecided. There were a total of 95 Republican delegates at stake: 3×27 = 81 + 11 = 92 plus 3 party officials who must cast their votes on the first ballot for the statewide winner (even if Trump had gotten less than 50% statewide – that just gives him all 11 at large delegates.)
The percentage for Hillary vs Bernie later were said to be 58-42, rather than 57-43.
About twice as many actual votes were cast in the Democratic primary in New York as in the Republican primary. (statewide) Bernie Sanders’ 42% represents more actual votes than Donald
Sammy Finkelman (a5988d) — 4/20/2016 @ 1:55 pmTrump’s 60%
That’s where you guys lose me. The anti Trumpers scream that Trump isn’t a conservative and isn’t really a Republican. So that means he’s a liberal, right? Then how can liberal states like WA and OR vote for the “conservative” Cruz when they have a nice little liberal to vote for?
Because it’s the Republican primary, and for the most part the Republicans in the NW aren’t the kind of Republicans that go for Trump. They’re a lot more similar politically to the states Cruz has done well than the states Trump has done well.
Plus, most of the Dems and Independents who would be friendly to Trump and might try to vote in the R primary already went all in on Bernie.
ZZ (3776b4) — 4/20/2016 @ 5:23 pmThe Trump campaign is putting out a claim that Trump is headed for 1400 committed delegates. I assume papertiger absorbed that.
Gerald A (7c7ffb) — 4/20/2016 @ 5:36 pmI’m sorry. The statement was that WA and OR are liberal states. The statement was not the democrats in WA and OR are liberals so I naturally assumed the implication was the people are liberal in general, both parties, perhaps the dems a little more than the Republicans. My mistake. Then what does the fact that WA and OR are liberal states then imply?
Hoagie ™ (e4fcd6) — 4/20/2016 @ 6:34 pmAnd that is an invalid assumption. It rests on no facts whatsoever.
Nothing more than what it says. It’s a fair statement in itself, because there are facts to support it, but there are no facts to support any supposition that the Republicans in those states are more liberal than Republicans elsewhere. Your fallacy is exactly the same as the fallacy in the assumption that since the average black IQ is lower than the white one, therefore black physicists are less intelligent than white ones.
Milhouse (87c499) — 4/20/2016 @ 8:38 pm