Final Pre-Caucus Poll Has Trump With A Huge Lead

The charts above are from The Des Moines Register / NBC News / Mediacom Poll -- done between January 7th and 12th of 705 registered Iowa voters likely to attend the GOP caucus, with a 3.7 point margin of error.

Bernie Sanders Wins Big In Nevada

I was hoping to report the results of the Nevada primary -- the number of delegates each candidate won there. But it looks like Nevada is having as much trouble reporting results as Iowa did. Even though they started the caucuses much earlier in the day than Iowa did, they still don't have a majority of the precincts reporting 10 hours later.

The one thing we do know is that it looks like a big win for Bernie Sanders. It's looking like he will likely wind up with over 40% of the votes.

Hopefully, tomorrow I'll be able to tell you how many delegates went to each candidate. As I write this, Bernie has won 13 delegates and the other 23 have yet to be decided.

Thank goodness that South Carolina and the Super Tuesday states all have primaries -- not caucuses. We should have the results from them in a reasonable amount of time.

Two Differing Polls Show How Fluid The Race Is In Nevada

The chart above reflects the results of the Data for Progress Poll in Nevada -- done between February 12th and 15th of 766 likely Nevada caucus voters, with a 3.4 point margin of error.

The chart above reflects the results of the Point Blank Political Poll in Nevada -- done between February 13th and 15th of 266 likely caucus voters, with a 5.6 point margin of error.

Cable news commenters have remarked about how hard it is for polls to predict the outcome of the Democratic caucus in Nevada. The two polls above show this is true. One has Sanders leading, while the other has Steyer leading.

Why is this? One reason is the small samples used in the Nevada polls (making it important just who they questioned). Another is that many voters seem to be having trouble making up their minds. And then their is the unique nature of the Nevada voting -- with each early voter making up to 5 ranked choices. If their first choice is not viable enough to qualify for delegates, then the vote-counters go to the second choice (and so on).

Since delegates are not awarded on just the first choice of voters, it makes it difficult to see how delegates will be awarded -- and it could be very late before we know who won how many delegates in the state.

Iowa Democratic Party Leadership Should Be Ashamed

I had planned to use this space to report the results of the Iowa caucuses. That is not going to happen now.

It's not going to happen because the Iowa Democratic Party has demonstrated an unbelievable level of incompetence. The leadership of that state party has shamed themselves, and made the party look like it cannot even hold a simple election where results are reported in a timely manner.

They created an app that did not work on caucus night. That's inexcusable. That app should have been tested and then retested several times. And they should have had a telephone back-up system that was adequate to step in if the app failed (as it surely did). There were precinct chairs that waited on the phone for hours to report their results. That's also inexcusable.

There is only one conclusion we can reach after the debacle in Iowa. The leadership of the Iowa Democratic Party is incompetent.

When the Iowa Democrats meet in their state convention, they need to elect new state leadership -- leadership that is competent.

Will Iowa Have A Clear Winner? (Probably Not)

Iowa will send 41 pledged delegates to the National Democratic convention. Today, the process of choosing those delegates begins.

The media seems to think a candidate must win in Iowa to be viable. That is not necessarily true. While Walter Mondale, Al Gore, John Kerry, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton won in Iowa and went on to get the party's nomination, others got the nomination without winning in Iowa -- like George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis, and Bill Clinton.

Will there be a clear winner in Iowa this year? There is a good chance there won't be. Four candidates are doing fairly well in the state (Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Pete Buttigieg). It is very possible that those four get the most votes and split the 41 delegates between them.

If that happens, the voting will have to move on to other states to find a race favorite -- maybe all the way to Super Tuesday on March 3rd (when 14 states votes).

Shocking New Iowa Poll Has Warren & Buttigieg Leading

The chart above reflects the results of the new Iowa State University / Civiqs Poll -- done between October 18th and 22nd of a sample of 598 likely Democratic caucus attendees in Iowa, with a 5 point margin of error.

The shocking part is not that Elizabeth Warren is leading in Iowa. Other polls have also shown that. It is that Pete Buttigieg has jumped over both Sanders and Biden to rest in second place. Buttigieg trails Warren by 8 points, but leads Sanders by 2 points and Biden by 8 points.

Democratic Party Changes Won't Help Sanders In 2020

(Photo of Bernie Sanders, from cnbc.com, is by Aaron P. Bernstein / Getty Images.)

Bernie Sanders finished about 3,000,000 votes behind Hillary Clinton in the 2016 race for the Democratic presidential nomination, but he showed surprising strength for someone who swears he's not a Democrat (and doesn't want to be one). But if he runs in 2020 (and it is looking like he may do that), he may find it tougher going. That's because of changes in the Democratic Party nominating process.

In 2016, Sanders did best in states that had caucuses instead of primaries. He may not have had as many supporters as Clinton, but his supporters were passionate and sure to show up at a caucus. That gave him an advantage in those caucus states -- an advantage that he did not have in primary states (where Democrats just needed to take a few minutes to vote instead of taking hours to attend a caucus).

But the Democratic Party, in order to get as many people as possible to participate in their nominating process, has encouraged states to conduct a primary instead of a caucus -- and four states have complied. Four caucus states (all of whom Sanders won in 2016) have discontinued their caucuses and will hold a primary in 2020. They are Nebraska, Idaho, Minnesota, and Colorado.

Iowa has kept its caucus, but it has also made changes to broaden the number of people who can have a voice in their process. They will now include absentee ballots of people who can't (or don't want to attend the caucus). This change will make their results more like a primary.

I hope Sanders decides not to run in 2020, but if he does, he's not going to be helped by scantily-attended caucuses.

Vermont Paper Begs Bernie To Stay Out Of 2020 Race

(This photo of Senator Bernie Sanders was found at Politico.com.)

One of the big questions facing Democrats is whether Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) will try again to use their primary/caucus system to run for president (even though he is not a Democrat and does not want to join the Democratic Party). I think he should stay out of the Democratic Party's nominating process. I'm not alone.

A Vermont newspaper (The Barre Montpelier Times-Argus) is also urging Sanders to stay out of the 2020 race. Here is their editorial:

Bernie Sanders should not run for president. In fact, we beg him not to.

That is an unfavorable opinion, especially among most Vermonters and progressives who support the platform that has come to define him. But at this point, there are more things about another Sanders run at the White House that concern us than excite us.

In this space, we have repeatedly hit the senator on where his loyalties lay: Vermont or a bigger calling? We have asked him to make a choice, which he would argue was his recent re-election to Congress. But in his previous run for the presidency, Sanders, an independent who ran for the White House as a Democrat, missed dozens of votes that likely would have helped Vermonters. And, while he handily defeated his challenger, can Vermonters point to Sanders’ record and say definitively, “This is what he’s done for us?”

While he makes regular visits “home,” you are more likely to catch Sanders on Colbert, CNN or MSNBC than you are to see him talking to reporters here in Vermont. Evidently, microphones here don’t extend far enough.

But that’s not our greatest concern. We fear a Sanders run risks dividing the well-fractured Democratic Party, and could lead to another split in the 2020 presidential vote. There is too much at stake to take that gamble. If we are going to maintain a two-party system, the mandate needs to be a clear one. There is strength in numbers, and if anything has been shown in recent years, it is that unless tallies are overwhelming, there can always be questions or challenges raised over what “vote totals” really mean: popular vote vs. Electoral College results.

For us, this comes down to principle over ego. It is one thing to start a revolution, but at a certain point you need to know when to step out of the way and let others carry the water for you.

Sanders is a self-described socialist and a New Deal-era American progressive, who is pro-labor and emphasizes reversing economic inequality. He has developed a noteworthy following.

And, there have been progressive candidates, many of whom have been running under Sanders’ “revolution” banner (and with his endorsement) who are spreading the tenets of Sanders’ decades-old agenda: Rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure; reversing climate change; creating worker co-ops; growing the trade-union movement; raising the minimum wage; pay equity for women workers; trade policies that benefit American workers; making college affordable for all; taking on Wall Street; health care as a human right; protecting the most vulnerable Americans; and tax reform.

As a platform, it is massive. As a candidate, Sanders is exhausting.

All signs point to another run, even with accusations this week that Sanders’ campaign staff, during the 2016 run, engaged in sexist remarks, as well as claims of poor treatment and lower pay for women.

According to the New York Times this week, “Now, as the Vermont senator tries to build support for a second run at the White House, his perceived failure to address this issue has damaged his progressive bona fides, delegates and nearly a dozen former state and national staff members said in interviews over the last month.

“And it has raised questions among them about whether he can adequately fight for the interests of women, who have increasingly defined the Democratic Party in the Trump era, if he runs again for the presidential nomination in 2020,” a Times article notes.

In an interview Wednesday night on CNN, Sanders said he was proud of his 2016 campaign. “I’m not going to sit here and tell you that we did everything right, in terms of human resources,” he said. “I certainly apologize to any woman who felt she was not treated appropriately, and of course, if I run we will do better the next time.”

Asked by Anderson Cooper if he knew about the staff complaints, he said, “I was a little bit busy running around the country trying to make the case.” That response alone is inexcusable and insulting.

In recent weeks, a Facebook group for Sanders campaign alumni has become a sounding board for complaints about harassment, lewd comments and gender discrimination. Politico first reported on the claims.

And while none of the staff accusations have been levied against Sanders himself, his personality is abrasive. He is known to be difficult to work with. The 77-year-old can be bombastic and prickly. He can be dismissive and rude in his arrogance. You are either with Bernie Sanders or you are not.

That no-nonsense approach and his politics are endearing to many. But it is as extreme, on the other end of the spectrum in its policy elbow-throwing and idealism, as what we face today from the right in their standard bearer, Donald Trump.

Taken together — ego, electoral math, a tired message and a prickly media darling — Sanders is convincing himself that he’s the person who can win the White House in 2020. We are not convinced he should.

Another Iowa Poll Among Democrats Is Released

The chart shows the results of the Focus on Rural America / David Binder Research Poll -- done on December 10th and 11th of 500 registered voters likely to attend the Iowa Democratic Caucus in 2020. The margin of error is 4.4 points.

The poll showed four possible candidates in double-digits -- Joe Biden (30%), Bernie Sanders (13%), Beto O'Rourke (11%), and Amy Klobuchar (10%). They were followed closely by Elizabeth Warren (9%), Kamala Harris (7%),  and Cory Booker (6%). No one else got above 3%.

I found it interesting that the poll asked those who supported Sanders or Clinton in the 2016 caucus who they now support. If you thought the Bernie Sanders supporters (represented by the green bar on the chart) would all eagerly be in his camp again, you would be wrong. They are all over the place. Bernie could still win them back in the next few months, but right now only 30% of them support him.

Democrats Change Party Rules To Please The Berniecrats

(This caricature of the Democratic donkey is by DonkeyHotey.)

Many of Bernie Sanders supporters claimed that their candidate lost in 2016 because the Democratic Party rules were not fair. It wasn't true, but I guess it made them feel better. The truth was that most Democrats simply preferred Hillary Clinton as their nominee rather than a candidate ashamed to wear the Democratic Party label.

The biggest gripe the Berniecrats had was the SuperDelegates. They were upset that most SuperDelegates supported and voted for Clinton. They claimed that allowing SuperDelegates to support the candidate of their choice was unfair, and they wanted the party to do away with the SuperDelegates.

Last Saturday, the Democratic Party gave in to those Bernie supporters and changed the party's primary rules. They hoped the rule changes would satisfy those voters and keep them in the party. The two biggest changes are:

1. The party keeps SuperDelegates, but they will not have a vote in the first round of convention voting. SuperDelegates will vote only if no candidate gets a majority of pledged delegate votes in the first round (an event that is very unlikely).

2. The party is urging states to abandon the caucus system and go to a primary system -- or to count the absentee ballots at the caucus of those unable to attend. And it looks like several states will follow the party's wishes and moved to a primary vote system.

The crazy part of all this is that if these rules had been in effect in 2016, Bernie Sanders would still have lost and Hillary Clinton would still have been the nominee. With SuperDelegates, Clinton had 2,842 delegate votes, while Sanders had 1,865 delegate votes. But if you take away all the SuperDelegate votes, Clinton would still have won the nomination -- with 2,205 pledged delegate votes to 1,846 pledged delegate votes for Sanders.

The Berniecrats are celebrating the party changes, and I guess that's OK if it keeps them as Democratic voters. But actually the rules may hurt Sanders more than it helps (if he were to run again). That's because he did much better in caucus states than in primary states -- and several states are in the process of changing from a caucus state to a primary state.

Secular Caucus Had Another Overflowing Crowd At The Texas Democratic Party State Convention

The picture above is from an excellent article in The Texas Observer by David R. Brockman. It shows the crowd gathering for the Secular Caucus at the Texas Democratic Party Convention. The crowd grew even larger than this, and by the time it started, there were people lining the walls and standing just outside the door. It was a GREAT turnout -- just like two years ago at the initial Secular Caucus.

Guess how many states have a secular caucus at their state convention (of either party)? The answer is one -- Texas! That makes me very proud of my state and my party. The secular movement is growing in all 50 states, but the Texas Democratic Party has welcomed secular voters (humanists, agnostics, atheists, and others) into their party.

NOTE -- As some of you may have realized, the old guy in the blue shirt down front is me. And sadly, the photo looks just like me.

Democrats Should Close Primaries And Ban Caucuses

I'm probably going to anger a lot of my left-wing brothers and sisters with this post, but I've promised my readers that you will always get my real opinion on this blog.

I think open primaries and caucuses are a mistake -- and the Democratic Party needs to do away with them. Party decisions, on both candidates and rules, should be the decision of party member -- not the general public. And it certainly shouldn't be the decision of those who are embarrassed to wear the Democratic Party label, or actively support and vote for the party.

I know that the argument those on the other side of this issue make is that open primaries and caucuses bring in new members and makes the party larger. I think that's nighter disingenuous or just wishful thinking. It certainly did work out that way in 2016.

A non-party member ran for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, and he got the support of many people who were not Democrats. Did they join the party, work for the party, or even vote for the party. Sadly, NO. Many of them stayed at home or voted third party, and a significant portion (who took part in caucuses) didn't even bother to register to vote. It did not help or build the party, and the candidate they supported has once again made it clear he is NOT a Democrat (but just wanted to use the party for his own ends).

It is not hard to join the Democratic Party, and the party is very welcoming of new recruits from across the political spectrum. And anyone who wants to help the Democratic Party achieve it generally progressive agenda should join the party. But those who are ashamed or embarrassed to call themselves Democrats should not be allowed to participate in party decisions.

And I'm not the only one who believes that. Markos Moulitsas Zuniga (commonly referred to as "Kos", and pictured above in a photo by Paul Chinn in the San Francisco Chronicle) has written the following on his own blog, Daily Kos:

In my proposed agenda for a new DNC Chair, I argued for closed primaries. Predictably, this generated anger from the Bernie Sanders side of the primary debate, as the issue remains untethered from the primary wars. 

But let me share a crazy story, as told to me by a DNC delegate:

In Nebraska, Kansas and several other caucus states there was a rush of new voters. They were allowed to caucus as long as they registered to vote the day of the caucus. But in several states, they had to follow up with the state to complete their voter registration due to proof of ID requirements. Most failed to do so. Despite asking people repeatedly, in some caucus sites more than 70% of the new caucus goers found themselves not even registered to vote on election day so they couldn't vote.

In Kansas, about 40,000 people participated in its caucuses, out of 446,000 registered Democrats. Already, you see how undemocratic and unrepresentative caucuses are. But get this—you didn’t have to be registered to vote in Kansas to participate in the caucus! And as the delegate above notes, up to 70 percent of caucus goers didn’t bother to register at all. 

Sanders won the Kansas caucus 68-32. He won the Nebraska caucus 57-43. It stands to reason that a disproportionate number of unregistered voters were Sanders supporters. And they did nothing to help build the party, nor to even elect a saner fucking government than the one we got. That may have been their prerogative, operating under existing rules, but nothing says the party has to enable that.

A party’s job is to build the party. It’s a candidate’s job to win non-affiliated voters. But the party’s job is that—to build the party. Allowing non-registered voters is fucking insane, and I can’t believe anyone thought it was a good idea. If a candidate is that fucking good that people outside the party want to vote for him or her, then great! It’s easy to register to vote to cast that vote. 

But in the same vein, it’s also easy for that voter to JOIN THE PARTY. I still can’t, for the life of me, understand why this is controversial. No other organization allows you to vote for its leadership without being a member. Why should the party be different, when, in particular, it costs nothing to join? If saying “I’m a Democrat” is too high a bar for you, then you don’t get to pick Democratic leadership. It’s that simple. 

But I’d go even further. I would bring the entire primary process in house, remove it from the state’s election calendar. I would hold it by mail. People would register at their state party’s website, then either download or get mailed a ballot. I’d love to dream about an all-internet election, but those fucking Russians (and lingering digital divide issues, particularly with the elderly), so let’s do all-mail for now. 

This would allow the Democratic Party to control the calendar. States would be scheduled based on the party’s interests, not those of Iowa and New Hampshire. This system would expand voter participation by making it dead-easy to vote. And the costs would be a fraction of the cost of a traditional caucus, and really, choosing a party’s leadership shouldn’t be something states should pay for. Let a private organization take care of its own business, on its own dime. 

State parties would have contact information for its voters, giving it a powerful fundraising and GOTV tool. Everyone talks about building up state parties, but that shit costs money, and no traditional national DNC will be able to afford it. But hey, give the Kansas Democratic Party a list with 450,000 registered Democrats (or even half that, if only half decide to vote in the primary), and that’s a powerful new tool for local party building. 

And yes, you’d still have people whining about not being able to participate in primaries, because they don’t want to JOIN an organization they want to influence. That’s fine, they can whine away. But a party’s job is to build itself, not to indulge in those who are too cool or iconoclastic to join the organization. 

Of course, that’s all pipe-dream stuff. No DNC candidate will adopt that platform, because it’s far too radically different than the current system, and things always move slower than we wish they did. Heck, Iowa and New Hampshire have retained their first-in-nation status in the face of hostility from all other 48 states and DC. But it underscores my belief in the core mission of the party—and that’s to build itself, make itself stronger, and do so not just at the national level, but in every state, DC, and territory.

That’s how you build a party that builds a bench, creates electoral infrastructure, drives a narrative, and supports the development of our future elected leadership. Drive-by primary or caucus supporters provide none of that. 

Clinton Wins N. Jersey, N. Mexico, And S. Dakota

Five states held a primary Tuesday night, and one held a caucus. These were the last states to vote in this primary/caucus season. Only the District of Columbia is still to vote, and they will do that next week. Here are the results of the first five states to vote -- New Jersey, New Mexico, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Montana. California polls closed very late, and I will address those results in another post.

NEW JERSEY PRIMARY
Clinton...............63%
Sanders...............37%

NEW MEXICO PRIMARY
Clinton...............52%
Sanders...............49%

SOUTH DAKOTA PRIMARY
Clinton...............51%
Sanders...............49%

NORTH DAKOTA CAUCUS
Clinton...............26%
Sanders...............64%

MONTANA PRIMARY
Clinton...............46%
Sanders...............49%

This was a very good night for Clinton. She won New Jersey, New Mexico, and South Dakota, while Sanders won the only caucus. As I write this, Montana is too close to call with Sanders having a small lead. This outcome gives Clinton more than a hundred delegates over the 2383 needed for the nomination -- and that's before the California results come in (where she is assured of another 200 delegates, at least).

Most Americans Think The Nominating Process Was Fair

Bernie Sanders and his supporters have been complaining for months now that the Democratic Party's nominating process was not fair -- that it favored his opponent. But most Democrats disagree with that. About 59% say the process was fair, while only 38% say it wasn't. Both candidates knew the rules before they declared their candidacy, and neither candidate was favored by the party's officials or its rules.

While the Republicans have different nominating rules (with some state being winner-take-all, while all states were proportional for the Democrats), Republicans also believe their process was fair -- and by the same margins (59% to 38%).

But while Democrats believe the process was fair, a substantial majority likes the idea of open primaries/caucuses (where anyone can vote in the party's elections). About 63% favor open primaries/caucuses, while only 35% would like them closed (where only party members could vote).

The Republicans also like the idea of open primaries/caucuses, but by a much smaller margin (52% to 47%).

These charts were made from the results of a new NBC News Poll -- done between May 30th and June 5th of random national samples of 3,168 registered Democratic voters and 2,544 registered Republican voters. The margin of error for Democrats was 2.3 points, and for Republicans was 2.7 points.

Hillary Clinton Wins Big In The Virgin Islands Caucuses

The Virgin Islands held their Democratic caucuses on Saturday (June 4th) -- and the big winner was Hillary Clinton.

Clinton got 92% of the vote on St. Croix, and 88% of the vote on St. Thomas -- the two biggest islands. Sanders won 54% of the vote on smaller St. John.

There were seven pledged delegates up for grabs in the Virgin Islands. It looks like Clinton will probably get six of those delegates. She already had four out of the five unplugged delegates (super delegates), so it looks like once the results are official, Hillary Clinton will claim ten out of the Virgin Islands' twelve delegates. That would move her to within 61 delegates of clinching the nomination.

Current Vote Totals In Democratic Primaries And Caucuses

From RealClearPolitics.

Sanders Wins Wyoming - But Splits Delegates With Clinton

The state of Wyoming held its Democratic caucus on Saturday. It was widely expected that Bernie Sanders would win it by a very large margin -- because it is a caucus and because he has done that in other western caucuses (like Utah and Idaho).

But that didn't happen. Sanders did win the Wyoming caucus (which had about 8500 voters participate), but the margin was disappointing (55.7% to 44.3%). And even more disappointing is the fact that he didn't cut into Hillary Clinton's large lead in delegates.

The two candidates split the 14 delegates up for grabs, and each received 7 delegates. Add in the four super delegates, and Hillary Clinton will have 11 Wyoming delegates to 7 for Bernie Sanders. That's not good for Sanders. With the number of outstanding states dwindling, he needs to start cutting into Clinton's delegate lead significantly. Splitting delegates just gets Clinton closer to the nomination.

Here is how the delegate race stands currently (according to Bloomberg Politics):

PRIMARY/CAUCUS DELEGATES
Clinton...............1287
Sanders...............1037
difference...............250

TOTAL DELEGATES
Clinton...............1756
Sanders...............1068
difference...............688

It takes 2383 delegates to win the nomination, and there are still 1941 delegates to be awarded. Hillary Clinton will need 627 (32.3%) of those delegates to win the nomination. Bernie Sanders would need 1315 (67.7%) of those delegates to win the nomination.

Alaska, Hawaii, And Washington Hold Presidential Caucuses

Alaska, Hawaii, and Washington held their Democratic caucuses on Saturday and, as expected, Bernie Sanders did very well. Sanders has done well in caucuses in this campaign. He dominated the caucuses in all three states last night. Here are the results:

ALASKA

Clinton...............18.4%
Sanders...............81.6%

HAWAII

Clinton...............29.2%
Sanders...............70.6%

WASHINGTON

Clinton...............27.2%
Sanders...............72.6%

Sanders picked up more delegates than Clinton did tonight, which means he did cut into her delegate lead -- but not enough. Here are the current delegate totals:

Clinton...............1712
Sanders...............1004

That means Clinton has to get 671 more delegates to win the nomination. Sanders needs 1379 more delegates. Since there are 2,049 unallocated delegates, Clinton needs 32.7% of those unallocated delegates, while Sanders needs 67.3% of those delegates. Sanders has a Herculean task ahead of him -- especially considering Clinton is expected to do well in Wisconsin, New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland (which are coming up soon).

Alaska, Hawaii, And Washington Democrats Vote Saturday

The Democratic presidential nominating race marches on. Democrats in three more states will decide their presidential preference this coming Saturday, March 26th -- Alaska, Hawaii, and Washington.

Alaska has 16 delegates up for grab, while Hawaii has 25 and Washington has 101 delegates. Those states will send more to the convention, but those are the delegates that will be decided on Saturday.

All three of Saturday's states will be having a caucus, instead of a primary. That would seem to favor Bernie Sadners over Hillary Clinton. So far, in this year's campaign, Sanders has done better in the small state caucuses and Clinton has done better in the large state primaries.

But Sanders needs to do more than just win these three states. He needs to win them by a huge majority, so he can take most of the delegates at stake. Splitting the delegates with Clinton does him no good at this point. He needs to start cutting into the substantial delegate lead that Clinton currently has -- and he needs to do it before the large state primaries of April (like Wisconsin, New York, Connecticut, Maryland, and Pennsylvania).

Here are the Bloomberg Politics delegate totals for Clinton and Sanders:

CAUCUS / PRIMARY DELEGATES
Clinton...............1223
Sanders...............920
difference...............303

ALL DELEGATES
Clinton...............1690
Sanders...............946
difference...............744

(NOTE -- The caricature of Clinton and Sanders above is by DonkeyHotey.)

Democratic Delegates Chosen In Arizona, Utah, And Idaho

(This graphic image is from the New York Times.)

Last night, three more states made their presidential choice known in the Democratic race. They are Arizona (primary), Utah (caucus), and Idaho (caucus). Arizona had 75 delegates up for grabs, while Utah had 33 and Idaho had 23. Hillary Clinton went into the night with 1630 delegates, and Bernie Sanders had 870 delegates.

Here is how the voting went in those states:

ARIZONA

Clinton...............57.9%
Sanders...............39.6%

UTAH

Clinton...............25.1%
Sanders...............74.1%

IDAHO

Clinton...............21.2%
Sanders...............78.0%

Sanders has won two out of the three states, but it's only another moral victory -- since that didn't help him to close the huge delegate gap. Clinton's big win in Arizona helped her maintain her delegate lead.