The 2016 US Election (Part II)

[The Romulan Republic]

How so?

Their must be some 2008 reference I'm missing here.

[Soontir C'boath]

TL;DR version: Sanders/Trump will likely have to rely on mainstay party voters in New York since the deadline to change party affiliation was back in October 9th. Deadline for new voters was back in mid-March so no same day voting and the like. It's actually rather sobering to see that New York has some rather shitty election rules compared to other states. So in the end, people who do want to vote for Sanders/Trump may actually find themselves in a rut come 4/19.

Think Progress

New York’s Upcoming Primary Is ‘Closed Shut’ To Certain Voters
BY EMILY ATKIN APR 7, 2016 9:13 AM

Devin Cannon’s voter registration has been marked “independent” for as long as she can remember.
This means she’s never been allowed to vote in a major party presidential primary election in New
York, which operates on a closed primary system.
But this year, she wanted to change.
“I truly did not feel that I belonged in either party,” she told ThinkProgress via email. “And suddenly
Bernie Sanders came along.”
Cannon knew she had to switch her party a捩桷liation to Democrat if she wanted to vote for Sanders,
the independent U.S. senator from Vermont who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination.
She also knew that she had to change her party by October 9, 2015 — more than six months before
the election happened. New York’s October deadline is the earliest change-of-party deadline in
America.
Not wanting to miss her chance, Cannon said she mailed a change-of-party form to the Monroe
County Board of Elections in August. But when she checked on the status of her registration last
month, she was told her form wasn’t received until late October. She would be ineligible to vote for
Sanders in the spring.
“I hung up feeling completely defeated and confused and honestly just started crying,” Cannon said.
Cannon’s situation is most likely a product of human error — the registration may have gotten lost in
the mail, for example. Monroe County Board of Elections commissioner Thomas Ferrarese said it’s
unlikely her form got backlogged or lost. “We’re very sensitive about processing everything on time,”
he said.
Mistake or otherwise, experts say New York’s strict closed primary rules — which state that only
registered Democrats can vote for Democratic presidential candidates, and only registered
Republicans can vote for Republicans — coupled with its uniquely early change-of-party deadline will
prevent more people than Cannon from voting for their preferred candidate.
And in an election year driven by widespread appeal for non-establishment candidates, the fallout
from the muddled process may be greater than ever.
Expecting Problems On Election Day
Cannon probably isn’t the only New Yorker who will experience problems on April 19, the state’s
upcoming Election Day. More than 3 million people — about 27 percent of the state’s voters — were
registered outside the Republican and Democratic parties as of April. In a presidential campaign
marked by popular non-establishment candidates and high independent voter turnout, those voters
could swing the primary results signi栮敬cantly.
Susan Lerner, the executive director at Common Cause New York, says it’s likely at least some of those
people will get turned away at the polls due to confusion about the early change-of-party deadline.
“We think that there are going to be some number of people who are going to show up at polling
places on April 19 expecting to be able to vote because they’re registered, and they won’t be able to,”
Lerner told ThinkProgress. “People don’t understand that they have to register very far in advance.”
We think that there are going to be some number of people who are going to show
up at polling places … and they won’t be able to [vote].
There are a number of reasons why some New York voters might get confused, and think they’re able
to vote when they aren’t, Lerner said. For one, voters might just not know about the strict process —
they may think New York has open primaries, or same-day voter registration, like other states.
“They’ll think that New York, like other states, has same-day registration or an open primary,” she said.
“And we’re not even close to open … I like to say we have a closed-shut primary system.”
In addition, some registered voters who switched parties after the October 9 deadline may not have
received clear con栮敬rmations that their party change would not count for the presidential primary
4/7/2016 New York's Upcoming Primary Is 'Closed Shut' To Certain Voters | ThinkProgress
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/ ... l­primary/ 3/6
They have the power base, and what they seek to do is preserve their power base.
election. Thomas Connolly, the deputy director of public information at the New York State Board of
Elections, told ThinkProgress that individual counties are in charge of sending out con呃Ȁrmation
notices to voters, and there’s no state law mandating what those notices should say.
Many voters have already expressed frustration and confusion about the change-of-party deadline,
Connolly said. He said he’s been getting “dozens” of voter complaints about this every day — far more
than usual.
“A lot of people have called and complained and criticized us for not doing more to publicize this
deadline,” he said. “But there’s only so much we can do with the resources we have. The public
information o퀠ce is literally two people.”
Rosemarie Clouston, who manages the voter hotline at Election Protection, told ThinkProgress she’s
also received complaints from registered independents in New York who want to be able to vote in
the primaries.
“It’s not new for this election, but unfortunately folks are trying to vote in this election, getting caught
up by the law, and are not able to vote for the people they wanted to vote for in these primaries
because of this,” she said.
Why Is The System Like This?
The October 9 deadline to change parties only impacts New Yorkers who were already registered to
vote beforehand. New, previously unregistered voters had until March 25 to 呃Ȁle registrations, and
they could choose whichever party they wanted.
But in other states, the process for all voters — registered or not — is a bit more 傤exible. At least 16
states have completely open primaries, where anyone is allowed to vote in the presidential
nominating contest, regardless of party a퀠liation. Ten states have semi-open primaries, where partya퀠liated
voters are restricted to their party’s primary but independent voters can choose which
nominating contest they’d like to vote in.
The main argument for open primaries is that they’re more accessible. The main argument against
them is that they’re subject to so-called “party crashing,” when people from another party conspire to
manipulate the contest and vote en masse for a bad or unelectable candidate.
Party crashing doesn’t happen much for large parties like Democrats and Republicans. But in New
York, where smaller parties like Green and Working Families have actual in傤uence in the state, a
closed primary may protect them from outside manipulation.
“That’s kind of part of why the closed process is there — it doesn’t allow the larger parties to steal
minor parties’ nominations,” Ferrarese said. “I think that’s a safeguard that protects the minor parties
4/7/2016 New York's Upcoming Primary Is 'Closed Shut' To Certain Voters | ThinkProgress
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/ ... l­primary/ 4/6
that a lot of people don’t realize.”
Lerner, however, said she believes the state’s closed primary system allows political parties, not
voters, to be the “dominant force” of elections in the state.
“The closed primary system means that all election administration and election law is determined in
terms of what is best for the two major political parties and the people that run the parties,” she said.
As for why New York has such an early change-of-party deadline, Lerner said she believes the political
parties want longtime, faithful voters.
“They don’t see it as advantageous to have extraneous voters suddenly joining their party to suddenly
vote in a primary,” she said. “They have the power base, and what they seek to do is preserve their
power base.”
Bad News For Sanders, Trump
When it comes to New York’s fast-approaching presidential primary election, Lerner said potential
voters from both parties would likely be impacted by New York’s strict election rules. But she said that
people voting for “the two non-establishment candidates” — Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and billionaire
Donald Trump — would bear the brunt of the confusion. That’s because voters for those candidates
were more likely to have been previously una䕕liated with a political party, or more likely to have
wanted to switch parties to vote for their preferred candidate.
Sanders supporters even set up a page back in October raising the alarm about the change-of-party
deadline for independents and voters registered with more liberal factions like the Green Party or the
Liberal Party.
So far, it seems true that non-establishment candidates like Trump and Sanders tend to do better in
open primaries, where people can vote in whichever party’s primary they choose.
I’ve yet to come across [a voter registration] that’s been maliciously changed. There’s
always been a legitimate reason.
In the current Republican battle between Trump and Sen. Tex Cruz (R-TX), Trump has done better in
open primary contests while Cruz has done better in closed contests, according to a Fox News
analysis. And the New York Times reported that Sanders’ statewide victories have been “fueled by his
large vote margins among independents,” who may be restricted from voting in closed primaries.
And when it comes to New York’s complicated voting laws, Sanders supporters seem to be the ones
complaining most loudly. Allegations of fraud and willful manipulation of voter registrations in New
York have been widespread on the Sanders for President Reddit page, where voters have been
posting personal stories of sketchy dealings with their local board of elections.
State Board of Elections o䕕cial Thomas Connolly told ThinkProgress he’s been receiving complaints
4/7/2016 New York's Upcoming Primary Is 'Closed Shut' To Certain Voters | ThinkProgress
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/ ... l­primary/ 5/6
I get it. But again, you’re yelling at the wrong person.
about alleged manipulations of voter registrations, particularly from Sanders supporters. But he said
that each one he’s followed up on has been because a mistake on the voter’s part — usually because
they didn’t fully understand New York’s complicated election law.
“It really comes down to simply a lack of awareness of the sometimes convoluted nature of New York
State election law,” he said. “I’ve yet to come across [a voter registration] that’s been maliciously
changed. There’s always been a legitimate reason.”
Fighting For Change, But Going Nowhere
What Connolly said he most wants to convey to frustrated voters is this: He understands, even
sympathizes, which their concerns. But he’s not in charge of what the law says.
“I understand that people aren’t happy,” he said. “People aren’t happy that New York State has a
closed primary. People aren’t happy that the deadline is so long, and they say it’s unconstitutional,
and I say listen, you’re not the 䏓耀rst person to think this.”
“I get it,” he added. “But again, you’re yelling at the wrong person.”
If you’re unhappy with New York’s election law, the right people to yell at are in the state Legislature.
And as it turns out, Lerner has been yelling at the state Legislature for years — though to little avail.
Every session, she said, there are bills to reform elections, bills to move the deadline to change party
registrations, and bills to make primaries more open. But they always fail, every time.
The frustration in Lerner’s voice was palpable. She seemed defeated — she doubted that the growing
popularity of independent candidates like Sanders and Trump would motivate people to lobby for
more accessible elections in New York. But, she said, if people really do want to change the laws, they
have to call their legislators — not the board of elections.
“If people actually started to complain to people who could change it, maybe that would work,” she
said. “Embarrassing the legislators by having outraged voters actually calling their legislators, rather
than the board of elections, might actually start to make a difference.”

[The Romulan Republic]

That's one of the main reasons I'm skeptical of Sanders' chances their. He's going to have to rely on either swinging Clinton voters in large numbers (doubtful), or getting higher turnout from supporters who were already registered as Democrats.

Its not necessarily insurmountable, given how polls seem to show Clinton's lead drastically narrowing. But the rules are definitely set in a way that makes it an uphill fight for him.

[Raw Shark]

Calm the fuck down and take a step back from name-calling, and also observe my criticism regarding their=there, you easily-excitable kid.

Well, aren't you a smug, condescending asshole?

That's me in a nutshell, yeah, but the their/there thing bugs more people than me, I'm pretty sure. Sorry for overreacting; had a shit day including a dumbass redneck chewing my ear about Trump for the entire duration of The Ride That Ate Forever.

Edit: You also seem to be assuming Drumpf will be the Republican nominee. As the Republicans are almost certainly going to a brokered convention, that seems premature.

If he's not the nominee, he's likely to run as an independent for the lulz, which would completely shit the bed. Cruz doesn't have a prayer in the general except when he's down on his knees talking to his magical sky fairy, unless Donny Jingles gets bored and wanders away to go snort coke off a whore's vagina or something.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, I'll admit, its hard to imagine the Democrats losing if Drumpf runs independent and splits the moron vote.

The only question is weather or not that will happen.

Part of the reason I doubt the Democrats winning, though, is I keep having this thought that can basically be summed up as "what if Hillary gets indicted part way through the election?"

[The Romulan Republic]

In other news, the Bern will take a brief break from campaigning to accept an invitation from the Pope to speak at a Vatican conference on social issues.

www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-35999269

Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders has accepted an invitation from the Pope to the Vatican.
Mr Sanders, who is Jewish, accepted an invitation to Rome for a conference at the end of next week.
The Vatican visit is four days before the primary contest in New York, a competitive battle between him and front-runner Hillary Clinton.
Mr Sanders said he was not sure whether he would meet the Pope but he was a big fan of the pontiff.
The Vermont senator said they share the same views on inequality.
"He's trying to inject this sense of morality into how we do economics... and we need that absolutely desperately."
He will attend a conference on social, economic and environmental issues and give a speech on 15 April, his campaign said.
Pope Francis in NYCImage copyrightGetty Images
Image caption
Pope Francis said the Church should be more compassionate to 'imperfect' Catholics
Mr Sanders and Pope Francis have similar views on fighting income inequality, he said, and he was "very moved" by the invitation from the Vatican.
He said he and the pope disagree on women's rights and gay rights, but Pope Francis has "injected a moral consequence into the economy".
The senator from Vermont is trailing Mrs Clinton but gaining momentum after a string of wins, most recently in the Wisconsin primary.
In the last few days, a mostly civil fight between the two became more personal as Mr Sanders accused his rival of not being "qualified" to be president.
Pope Francis said on Friday that the Catholic Church should be less strict and show more compassion to "imperfect" Catholics.
He called on the Church to be welcoming to gay Catholics but did not change the Church's views on LGBT families and marriage.

Well, this sure gives Bernie some good PR and a chance to look Presidential.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

So ... a common myth Sanders supporters like to cling to is the notion that if superdelegates were to decide the nomination in favor of Clinton (in the case of Sanders taking the lead in pledged delegates,) they'd be defying the "will of the people."

By at least one analysis: Myth busted.

The tl;dr version is that thanks to the way Sanders has been gaining delegates (huge wins in relatively small caucus states), he actually has a smaller share of the raw votes (42% of the popular vote) than his current share of delegates (46% of delegates.) Even if he were just pass Clinton in pledged delegates, she'd have won more of the popular vote; and thus, would be able to make the case to the superdelegates that she should be the nominee based on her share of the popular vote.

In order for Sanders to make a similar case to the superdelegates, he'd have to win 60% of the vote in the remaining contests ... which would be a coup that would stagger the imagination.

In other news, the Bern will take a brief break from campaigning to accept an invitation from the Pope to speak at a Vatican conference on social issues.

(article snipped)

Well, this sure gives Bernie some good PR and a chance to look Presidential.

Actually, not really.

Sanders wasn't invited by the Pope. He was invited by the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, which is independent from the Holy See. If anything, Sanders' attempt at mischaracterizing the nature of his invitation has invited the ire of Margaret Archer, the president of the very institution that invited him.

On Friday, Archer slammed Sanders’ “monumental dishonesty,” telling Bloomberg that Sanders was the one who had made the first move regarding the meeting “for obvious reasons.”

“I think in a sense he may be going for the Catholic vote, but this is not the Catholic vote and he should remember that and act accordingly — not that he will,” Archer said. It was not clear to what "dishonesty" Archer was referring, and requests for comment to her office were not returned.

So, right now, it makes Sanders look like ... well ... something.

[The Romulan Republic]

Actually, I haven't, as far as I recall, seen anything from Sanders claiming that it was an invitation from the Pope himself. That's what I've gotten from the media coverage.

If that's an error on the part of the media, it seems wrong to blame Sanders for it.

And if she had a problem with his motives for requesting the meeting, why did she decide to invite him in the first place?

As to the popular vote totals... we'll see who's ahead in the end. If one person gets the pledged delegate totals but another the popular vote... well, that would be an interesting dilemma, and probably mean a very ugly convention. It might give the super delegates some cover against allegations of being undemocratic, though, if they handed it to Clinton.

[The Romulan Republic]

To be fair, I do see "Sanders wins pledged delegates, Clinton wins popular vote, super delegates use that as justification to choose Clinton as nominee" as a disturbingly plausible possibility. And one that would leave a lot of hard feelings post-convention, fairly or not.

[Gaidin]

With only two caucuses left how does he get the delegate ratios he needs to win that without getting the popular vote ratio he needs as well?

[Napoleon the Clown]

It would take winning 2% more than it would take for him to surpass Hillary in delegate count alone. It's not especially likely, but we've got two absolutely enormous states coming up when it comes to population.

It's not terribly likely, but it's not inconceivable that he could end up getting the popular vote and the delegate counts. Bare minimum, we should allow every state to give their citizens a chance to be heard.

[Omega18]

With only two caucuses left how does he get the delegate ratios he needs to win that without getting the popular vote ratio he needs as well?

Basically Sanders could conceivably still catch up in pledged delegates with around 57% percent of the vote in the remaining states on average. By contrast he needs to win closer to 60% in order to actually likely win in total votes this primary season unless there is a further increase in the voter participation ratio than you would expect from the earlier states, with the estimate already accounting for the portion of the remaining states which are primaries. (The catch is a significant portion of Sander's earlier big victories in delegates came from caucus states where basically fewer people end up voting compared to primaries.)
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ber ... delegates/

(Of course getting just the pledged delegate lead is certainly easier said than done especially with states so inherently favorable to Hillary as Delaware and Maryland as part of the remaining schedule.) Having said this, my very strong preference would be for Hillary to win outright in pledged delegates to avoid the potential reaction from Bernie supporters to any scenario where Sanders comes into the convention with more pledged delegates and still loses.

[Flagg]

It would take winning 2% more than it would take for him to surpass Hillary in delegate count alone. It's not especially likely, but we've got two absolutely enormous states coming up when it comes to population.

It's not terribly likely, but it's not inconceivable that he could end up getting the popular vote and the delegate counts. Bare minimum, we should allow every state to give their citizens a chance to be heard.

Yeah, and if he's behind when everyone has voted he should sit down and shut up. But I have a feeling that Mr. "noun, verb, and WALLSTREET!!!" will try to contest it.

[The Romulan Republic]

It would take winning 2% more than it would take for him to surpass Hillary in delegate count alone. It's not especially likely, but we've got two absolutely enormous states coming up when it comes to population.

It's not terribly likely, but it's not inconceivable that he could end up getting the popular vote and the delegate counts. Bare minimum, we should allow every state to give their citizens a chance to be heard.

Yeah, and if he's behind when everyone has voted he should sit down and shut up. But I have a feeling that Mr. "noun, verb, and WALLSTREET!!!" will try to contest it.

Why? It would be utterly pointless. If he enters the convention with neither the pledged delegate majority nor the popular vote majority, I have a very hard time imagining him swinging enough people to him to win, barring Clinton somehow being charged with treason or something. All it would do would be to risk the general election, which I don't think Sanders wants to do, based on his own statements.

I mean, maybe he'll be that dumb, and I'd think a lot less of him if he was, but I'll believe it when I see it.

Anyway, Wyoming just went to the Bern, by about 56 to 44 apparently. Not as much as I'd hoped for from a western caucus state, but at worst only slightly short of the average he needs for a lead in pledged delegates, and it keeps his winning streak alive before New York.

Not a great day, not a terrible one.

Nothing very notable left now before New York, besides a debate and a Vatican trip.

[Omega18]

In other news Sanders dramatically under-performed the numbers he was projected as needing from Wyoming's caucus by 538 with only 55.7% of the vote which will apparently mean a tie in delegates for the state at 7 to 7. While only slightly below the overall average Sanders would need to win in the remaining races overall, the problem is 538 assessed that such it is such a demographically favorable state for Sanders that 538 had him winning by a margin of 57% and winning 11 of its 14 delegates.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/its ... delegates/

While fortunately for Sanders Wyoming only represents 14 pledged delegates, this represents a net under performance of 4 delegates in Wyoming which means he's going to have to make that up in the remaining states. It also suggests that Sanders might not perform as well in states such as Montana or South Dakota as 538 had expected. While obviously its dangerous to read too much into the results, its also true that Sanders was the only candidate to visit the state (on a recent stop) but still only got 55.7% of the vote.

[Omega18]

Anyway, Wyoming just went to the Bern, by about 56 to 44 apparently. Not as much as I'd hoped for from a western caucus state, but at worst only slightly short of the average he needs for a lead in pledged delegates, and it keeps his winning streak alive before New York.

Not a great day, not a terrible one.

Uh, it was way short with Sanders tying in delegates in a state which was supposed to be his most favorable state on the primary calendar remaining with fivethirtyeight projecting him to win by a 57% margin and Sanders picking up 11 of the 14 delegates in a scenario where Sanders actually makes up the pledged delegate gap by the convention. (There were even a few Sanders partisans out there suggesting Hillary's wouldn't meet the 15% viability threshold so Sanders would get all the delegates.)

Given relatively few delegates were at stake and and the outcome is still a percentage win for Sanders so he can spin it that way its perhaps not a terrible day for Sanders, but it certainly was a lousy one with you look at the math and reasonable expectations for the state.

[The Romulan Republic]

56-44 is "way short" of 57?

Falling below expectations is certainly disappointing, but the polling has never been terribly reliable, I didn't think Clinton would be below 15%, and that's eventually going to cut both ways. Its also irrelevant to the question of how close Sanders was to the average he needs.

It would be a serious mistake to assume (though I don't doubt many Clinton partisans will) that because Wyoming was supposed to be his "best" state, Sanders will therefore do worse than this in every subsequent state.

And saying that calling it a win is "spin" is dubious. He won the vote, he'll probably close the delegate gap very slightly (like one or two delegates), so objectively he isn't losing ground. At worst, he needs to start gaining ground faster. You could say it makes the road ahead tougher because he didn't get as high a percentage as would be ideal, but I wouldn't call it a loss.

[Gaidin]

56-44 is "way short" of 57?

Margin. Not percentage. A +57 margin puts him at somewhere in the 80's for percentage but I'm too lazy to do the numbers right now because Omega is getting this shit backasswards.

Which brings up a point of order. The source he's getting that crap from is 538 saying "This is what Sanders probably needs to holy crap win the Delegates" period full stop. They in no way have made a prediction on Wyoming last I checked as there's no standing polls for Wyoming up there.

[Omega18]

And saying that calling it a win is "spin" is dubious. He won the vote, he'll probably close the delegate gap very slightly (like one or two delegates), so objectively he isn't losing ground. At worst, he needs to start gaining ground faster. You could say it makes the road ahead tougher because he didn't get as high a percentage as would be ideal, but I wouldn't call it a loss.

You're simply factually mistaken on delegates barring any last minute surprises its going to be a straight 7 to 7 tie. At this point any states other than basically arguably New York, and perhaps more clearly Delaware, and Maryland which end up at tie in delegates are strategically speaking a win for Hillary in terms of her coming away with the Democratic nomination. (You could throw in DC in there as well.) Sanders has to make up the gap and states where he fails to do this are a problem for him. The reality that the demographics looked so favorable for Sanders in Wyoming compared to the results should also not be very encouraging for his chances.

[Dominus Atheos]

I really need to figure out how online betting markets work. I have strong suspicions of how this election is going to go, and it's so far removed from peoples current expectations that I think I can make some money if I wager on it.

I think people would give 5:1 odds that Trump gets a plurality of delegates, Cruz wins the nomination on the 2nd (or more) delegate vote, and the Democrats win a majority of the House of Representatives in November. I seriously am ready to bet $200 that that happens if I can get good odds.

I don't suppose there are any takers on this website?

[Omega18]

Margin. Not percentage. A +57 margin puts him at somewhere in the 80's for percentage but I'm too lazy to do the numbers right now because Omega is getting this shit backasswards.

Actually assuming no third party candidate Sanders would need 78.5% of the vote to hit that target.

Which brings up a point of order. The source he's getting that crap from is 538 saying "This is what Sanders probably needs to holy crap win the Delegates" period full stop. They in no way have made a prediction on Wyoming last I checked as there's no standing polls for Wyoming up there.

The point was based on demographics including how white the state is and the fact the state was a caucus where Sanders has mostly performed better, it was supposed to be his most favorable remaining state in terms of primary outcomes. Its certainly true that 538 didn't say he actually would hit that number and I thought I was fairly careful in not saying that, but the issue is Sanders certainly was expected to do way better than merely 55.6% percent of the vote even if there wasn't any actual official public polling. (Which in terms of delegate outcomes is an outright tie unless some unexpected wrinkle in the calculations shows up at that last moment.)

[Gaidin]

The point was based on demographics including how white the state is and the fact the state was a caucus where Sanders has mostly performed better, it was supposed to be his most favorable remaining state in terms of primary outcomes. Its certainly true that 538 didn't say he actually would hit that number and I thought I was fairly careful in not saying that, but the issue is Sanders certainly was expected to do way better than merely 55.6% percent of the vote even if there wasn't any actual official public polling. (Which in terms of delegate outcomes is an outright tie unless some unexpected wrinkle in the calculations shows up at that last moment.)

Unless she's got her ground game much more in hand after the object lesson of Nevada I expect the unexpected wrinkle to be the State Convention and the fact that her delegates will be less motivated to go and Bernie's will be high tailing it to the place and he'll probably get that ~80% of final delegate count that way.

[Omega18]

Unless she's got her ground game much more in hand after the object lesson of Nevada I expect the unexpected wrinkle to be the State Convention and the fact that her delegates will be less motivated to go and Bernie's will be high tailing it to the place and he'll probably get that ~80% of final delegate count that way.

I'm assuming this was meant to be sarcasm with Sanders only picking up a tiny number of delegates this way with it probably being less of an issue in some other states. The smaller number of delegates involved with the second step of the process in Wyoming also seems less likely to lead to any surprises with Hillary's campaign following up to make sure they show up if it can actually alter the delegate outcome given state specific rules.

[Terralthra]

You're confusing 538's "this is what Sanders would need to poll in this state, were he to be winning nationally and on track for a majority of delegates" with "expected polling." Sanders did not win Wyoming by as much as we'd expect if he were the clear national choice of the Democratic party.

[Flagg]

I really need to figure out how online betting markets work. I have strong suspicions of how this election is going to go, and it's so far removed from peoples current expectations that I think I can make some money if I wager on it.

I think people would give 5:1 odds that Trump gets a plurality of delegates, Cruz wins the nomination on the 2nd (or more) delegate vote, and the Democrats win a majority of the House of Representatives in November. I seriously am ready to bet $200 that that happens if I can get good odds.

I don't suppose there are any takers on this website?

I'll bet using pubes as currency.