Clinton, Trump win Arizona; Sanders, Cruz Win Idaho, Utah
And John Kasich will always have Ohio, but can only win in a brokered convention.
After big wins Tuesday in Arizona’s presidential primaries, Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton’s excitement were tempered by big losses in Utah and Idaho.
Winning in Arizona, however, struck major blows to their opponents and to GOP leaders trying to stop the real estate developer from securing enough delegates to lock up the nomination.
Trump’s victory gave him all of Arizona’s 58 delegates and inched him closer to the 1,237 needed for the nomination.
Copyright 2016 Liberaland
74 responses to Clinton, Trump win Arizona; Sanders, Cruz Win Idaho, Utah
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Suzanne McFly March 23rd, 2016 at 07:09
It seems like these primaries have become tedious. How many are even paying attention to them, we may as well have Hillary and rump start debating now, and I am a Bernie supporter.
allison1050 March 23rd, 2016 at 08:06
I think it may be the non-stop babble of speculation that you’re tired of listening to which is what made me finally realize last year that even though my teevee was on so was the mute..I dump teevee when I realized that’s what was happening and being cheap I couldn’t tell myself why I should may my cable provider. This season the speculation has been going on for 2 very long years and it’s still not November! Reading suits me better.
Larry Schmitt March 23rd, 2016 at 09:03
I stopped watching TV news years ago. I would much rather read, either a paper or online. If there’s something I have to hear, I can do that too.
allison1050 March 23rd, 2016 at 09:32
I feel exactly the same Larry. I didn’t realize how often I muted it until my sister began flying here regularly and I’d be online reading and as soon as a commercial came on I’d turn the mute on without having to look but began to forget to unmute and she’d have to tell me to. But last year I was exhausted from the incessant speculation and I finally cracked about the and the cost of having a provider constantly raising the cost every freakin’ year.
Budda March 23rd, 2016 at 09:36
I watch TV for sports and weather….mostly and yes, I mute so much that eventually I realize I am not listening much less watching and turn it off. You can watch any sport with the sound off and still appreciate the game.
allison1050 March 23rd, 2016 at 09:41
I’m strictly internet for everything and have been loving it. I have Netflix.com and Acorn.com. MSNBC/Comqast has blocked uploads of all of their shows but most days I can listen to Maddow’s full podcast on YT and there are a host of other programs on YT also and reading the many different news sites is free.
Larry Schmitt March 23rd, 2016 at 09:58
I almost never listen to sports on TV. They talk too much, and they’re always plugging something. It’s not just the lineup or the pitching change, it’s the Geico Lineup, or the Pep Boys Pitching Change. Everything is a commercial.
Suzanne McFly March 23rd, 2016 at 22:00
Between school and work, I read too much to be able to do it to relax. I am burned out on reading and all it does after 5 PM is put me to sleep. I need m TV to relax, it is one of my bad habits I guess.
allison1050 March 24th, 2016 at 06:07
When I was still working I had a little teevee in my bedroom and used it to put me to sleep.
Suzanne McFly March 24th, 2016 at 11:24
Yeah, I have my TV through the night most of the time. I have to have the volume on real low because I have dreams about what is being said on the TV, I have crazy dreams sometimes lol.
allison1050 March 24th, 2016 at 18:29
Oh nooo!
Suzanne McFly March 24th, 2016 at 20:17
The next day I think….hmmm, what were my dreams telling me? Am I going nuts? lol. I wish I could recall one, but after a little time passes I forget, but they are absolutely absurd and impossible to actually happen.
allison1050 March 24th, 2016 at 21:21
;o))
DogsRgoodpeople March 23rd, 2016 at 17:44
I know but, in a nutshell , the more points Bernie racks up , the more Hillary, every democrat ( and Republican) in congress must take note. We are n o t satisfied with the status quo.
And Suzanne,my dad would remind you, don’t forget Harry Truman ……..
Suzanne McFly March 23rd, 2016 at 22:11
I know, I am just burnt out on it all. I love how Bernie and pulling Hillary further to the left though, so maybe in the long run it will be worth it.
NW10,PATRIOT! ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ March 23rd, 2016 at 07:53
Last night amounted to a wash in delegates for Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, and left the math for Bernie to break even, let alone overtake Hillary a daunting task. Bernie should do well on Saturday, but then up next are New York and Pennsylvania, both states with plenty of delegates where he would need 70% margins, which isn’t happening.
Glen March 23rd, 2016 at 10:49
Keep in mind, Sanders doesn’t strictly need to get a majority of the pledged delegates. His task is primarily to prove that he’s truly a viable candidate, and that means keeping up with Clinton, rather than surpassing her. He needs to keep Clinton from getting a sufficient number of pledged delegates to lock up the nomination prior to the convention. If he can do that, and can maintain his “lead” in opinion polls for the general election (and gain momentum, and keep defying polls as he did in, for example, Michigan), a lot of the superdelegates are going to be open to being convinced.
The current difference between Clinton and Sanders in pledged delegates is about 300. There are 720 superdelegates.
And the most recent polling by Quinnipiac has a Clinton vs Cruz or Trump with Clinton only up by a few points, whereas for Sanders it’s more than 10 points in both cases. Against Kasich, Clinton loses by 8 points, while Sanders runs toe-to-toe.
CNN/ORC numbers show a similar effect, albeit with different actual margins – Clinton defeats Trump comfortably but ties with Cruz. Sanders mops the floor with both (and beats Kasich by 6 points, where Clinton ties).
RCP’s aggregated information has Sanders beating Cruz in every poll this year, and only one poll has suggested Trump could beat Sanders (and it dramatically contradicts all of the other polls). Meanwhile, for Clinton, a similar picture occurs against Trump, but multiple polls have suggested that Cruz can beat Clinton. The RCP averages show Clinton +1.4 against Cruz, and +9.2 against Trump… but it has Sanders +8.7 against Cruz and +16.4 against Trump.
Oh, and Kasich maintains a strong lead against Clinton in RCP averages, while Sanders comes out slightly ahead (+0.6).
I highly doubt that those superdelegates will remain fixed on Clinton if Sanders’ numbers keep going up (as they’ve been doing) and Clinton’s keep going down (as they’ve been doing). Clinton’s Fav/Unfav split has dropped from -5 to -12.5 in the last 3 months. Sanders’ has been strengthening in that time, being at +4 or so at the start of the year and being up to anywhere between +9 to +24 (depending on the poll). The only other candidate with a split as strong as Sanders’ is Kasich… and that’s mostly because of Kasich’s low profile – he has a good 45% of those polled having no opinion (Sanders’ equivalent is about 15%).
Short version of what I’m saying: Sanders just needs to keep himself “in the game”, and build momentum. If he can do that, he has a good chance of becoming the nominee even if he doesn’t win on pledged delegates.
jybarz March 23rd, 2016 at 11:06
I think you’re right. One pundit said that Sanders can win the independents in a big way than Hillary. Hillary might be well ahead than Sanders, but Dems primaries are mainly Dem voters. The Dems need the independents badly to win the general election. The super delegates can and will change when the independents are in the maths. They did for Obama.
tracey marie March 23rd, 2016 at 12:07
Nope, all the bernie fans needed to do was register as green or dem…they did not so they whined. If they sit out they will get nothing but derisive “I told you so” from the people.
jybarz March 23rd, 2016 at 12:29
Many GOP supporters will not support Tramp and definitely not Hillary, but they will for Bernie.
That’s why CNN and few others find Bernie do better than Hillary against everybody in the GOP with large winning margins in the GE.
NW10,PATRIOT! ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ March 23rd, 2016 at 12:30
Why would the Democratic nominee need GOP supporters to win? All the Democratic nominee needs are Hispanics/Latinos, women, and Black voters, who are NOT going for Bernie. All Bernie has won thus far are states with majority white voters.
jybarz March 23rd, 2016 at 13:58
You’re talking about primary.
In the GE, Hillary voters will vote for Bernie too.
Majority of Independents would vote for Bernie, but not Hillary
Some conservatives, who won’t vote for Trump and definitely not Hillary, will vote for Bernie.
Independents are 10 to 12% of all voters.
tracey marie March 23rd, 2016 at 23:16
more like 5%
Glen March 23rd, 2016 at 23:52
[citation required]
jybarz March 24th, 2016 at 01:02
“All told, then, 47% of Americans identify as Democrats or lean to the
Democratic Party, and 41% identify as Republicans or lean to the
Republican Party.” Just 10 percent of Americans can be identified as
“pure independents.”
http://cookpolitical.com/story/6608
Glen March 24th, 2016 at 06:10
And then, when you factor in that “lean Dem” independents will only vote if they like the Democratic candidate, you realise that it’s not just about winning the truly neutral independents, but about “getting out the vote” in the general election for the “lean Dem” independents, too.
jybarz March 24th, 2016 at 13:06
True. Bernies is more inspiring and would get more people to vote than anyone from both parties.
tracey marie March 24th, 2016 at 14:35
Of course they are not to be ignored, they are Americans who deserve a voice as well.
tracey marie March 23rd, 2016 at 12:39
lol, go with that because cnn said so, obviously the voters disagree with you. 2.7 million more votes for hillary.
jybarz March 23rd, 2016 at 13:45
In the GE, which is what we are talking about:
Bernie = Virtually ALL Dem voters including Hillary voters will vote for Bernie too
+ Independents (majority won’t vote GOP especially Tramp and mostly won’t vote for Hillary)
+ Conservatives not likely to vote for Tramp, but definitely not Hillary
tracey marie March 23rd, 2016 at 14:27
cnn, the bastion of your truth when you agree with their guesses, but cheaters and hillbots when you disagree. puleeze.
Glen March 23rd, 2016 at 22:07
It’s quite funny how you keep resorting to ad hominem and personal attacks, when jybarz has been nothing but polite. For all of your claim that it’s Sanders supporters who are nasty, you’re the one who spends all of your time going on the attack. Food for thought.
tracey marie March 23rd, 2016 at 22:16
puleeze, there was no attack just facts
Glen March 23rd, 2016 at 23:02
In what world is your previous post “just facts”? There isn’t a single “fact” in your post, nothing but an attack on jybarz for having his opinion.
tracey marie March 23rd, 2016 at 23:08
facts…bernie will not be president he does not have the votes or the delegates, period.
tracey marie March 23rd, 2016 at 23:14
wah!
jybarz March 23rd, 2016 at 23:05
I said CNN and others, one pundit and many other pundits
tracey marie March 23rd, 2016 at 23:14
ohhh, those “others” that are unnamed.
jybarz March 23rd, 2016 at 13:12
In the GE:
Bernie=
Whites
+ Minorities
+ Majority of Independents
+ GOP preferring him over Tramp
Hillary=
Whites
+ Minorities
+ Some Independents
NW10,PATRIOT! ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ March 23rd, 2016 at 12:30
Sounds largely like wishful thinking not based on actual delegate math.
Glen March 23rd, 2016 at 22:03
Care to base your assertion on something more than your own opinion? Do you have any facts, any evidence, to back up your suggestion that it’s wishful thinking? Or do you prefer to ignore evidence and instead base your opinions on faith, while accusing others of the same?
Do you deny that Sanders can get the nomination with fewer pledged delegates? Do you deny that superdelegates will favour the candidate with the best chance of winning? Do you deny that the current pledged delegate lead is only 300 while the total number of superdelegates is 720?
Do you deny that opinion polls have consistently shown Sanders performing better in one-on-one matchups against republicans? Do you deny that opinion polls consistently have Clinton with a significantly negative fav/unfav split?
Which part of my claim do you believe is “wishful thinking”, exactly?
tracey marie March 23rd, 2016 at 23:09
wah, a berniebro without a clue.
tracey marie March 23rd, 2016 at 12:41
and yet Hillary has 2.7 million more votes then any of them. Opinion polls do not usurp actual votes.
Glen March 23rd, 2016 at 22:00
More votes amongst primary voters. The super delegates’ existence is positive for one reason – to keep Democrats from shooting themselves in the foot.
I’m actually just now reading an interesting article, that makes a fascinating argument: that the states where Clinton has been winning are the states where very early voting has been happening. Almost all of the states with caucuses (which don’t have early voting) have been won by Sanders (and the only ones with more than a slight margin are American Samoa and Northern Marianas). Clinton has been winning almost exclusively in the Primary states. The only Caucus states that Clinton won were Nevada (by just over 5%) and Iowa (by 0.3%). In all of the other Caucus states so far, Sanders hasn’t gotten less than 57% of the vote (Nebraska had him with 57.2% of the vote).
Among the states that hold primaries, the following are the ones that don’t permit early voting (based on “ballotpedia.org”, which I believe is a list for the general, I assume it’s also true of the primaries): Alabama, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Virginia. Removing the south-east states where Clinton has consistently done well (Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Virginia), you have one state that went strongly for Sanders, one that Sanders won by a small margin in a big upset, and one that was a virtual tie (but opinion polls had Clinton up by 7 points a week prior).
I don’t know how accurate the assertions are (the numbers provided are from my own investigation, not from the article, which is here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/sanders-currently-winning-democratic-primary-race-ill-prove-to-you_b_9528076.html), but it’s certainly an interesting assertion, and if the numbers behind the scenes back them up, it’s much more reason to think that Sanders may get the nomination if he can maintain a position of about 300 fewer than Clinton in delegates.
tracey marie March 23rd, 2016 at 22:18
lol, he does not have the delegates or the voters.
Glen March 23rd, 2016 at 23:02
I see… you make a convincing argument.
tracey marie March 23rd, 2016 at 23:07
poor glenn, whining like a baby
tracey marie March 23rd, 2016 at 23:09
math is hard for you
Glen March 23rd, 2016 at 23:14
I have a PhD in mathematics. And despite being Australian, I clearly have a much clearer understanding of both politics and the specifics of the nomination process in US politics.
If you disagree, please, explain to me specifically which part of what I’ve said is wrong. You can’t just keep shouting “majority of votes” and then throw ad hominems at everyone who puts forward detailed arguments for why majority of votes isn’t the only relevant factor.
But hey, you can’t even get my name right while looking directly at it. Perhaps I’m being unfair, expecting you to understand nuance.
And yes, you’re “just the facts”, right? If you can’t put together two sentences with an actual argument in them, then perhaps I’m arguing with the wrong person. At this point, you’re sounding more like the right wingers that come onto the site.
tracey marie March 23rd, 2016 at 23:17
Then try basic addition, you are also not an american.
tracey marie March 23rd, 2016 at 23:18
you think too highly of yourself mister snarky and egomanical bernie fan.
Glen March 23rd, 2016 at 23:27
I’m only snarky because of your attitude. If you were being polite, and engaging in discussion about the arguments instead of throwing ad hominems everywhere and refusing to say anything more than “majority of votes” on the topic (and then accusing others of not understanding “math” when they point out the flaw in your thinking), then I’d be happily discussing things with you. Much like the first post I posted, which maintained a simple “here are the facts I think you might not have considered, what are your thoughts” attitude.
And I love how you throw the phrase “bernie fan” out there as part of your insult. It demonstrates that you’re truly not interested in actual discussions in this discussion section. You just want to demonise those who disagree with you. Gee, I wonder who that reminds me of…
tracey marie March 23rd, 2016 at 23:35
uh huh, another berniebot trait, everyone else is to blame. never take responsibility for your scolding ways and snarky attitude.
Glen March 23rd, 2016 at 23:49
Are you for real?
I will give you one bit of credit – that was two sentences.
I will happily take responsibility for things I do wrong. I have not done anything wrong in this discussion. When you start taking my arguments seriously, rather than calling me names, I’ll take you seriously. Until then, I’m done with this farce. Your entire contribution to the discussion is “Clinton has the majority of votes and the most delegates, therefore she’ll win”. Which shows a remarkable amount of ignorance about your own political system.
You want to prove me wrong? You want to actually have a chance at swaying my opinion? Put forward a real argument. Something that isn’t so simplistic that you could hear it from a 6 year old. Something that shows an understanding of the nuances of your political system. Perhaps something that provides a reason why Clinton’s superdelegate supporters aren’t going to switch to Sanders that isn’t just a 6 year old’s argument about Sanders being a “loser”.
If you can do that, I’ll take your arguments seriously, and engage in real debate. And who knows – maybe I’ll change my mind. Or maybe you’ll change yours. Because that’s what happens when a real debate happens. So far, the Bernie supporters, and I (note how I don’t actually put myself into that camp), have been maintaining a polite discourse in which we put forward arguments. Obewon took the time to actually put forward facts (even if they were the same facts I’d already addressed). Even NW10, who is known to be rather… undiplomatic, has put a few actual facts in his posts. You’re the only one here who refuses to actually engage in real debate, while throwing ad hominems everywhere around you.
Heck, you can’t seem to even put all of your thoughts into a single post – you repeatedly post multiple one-sentence posts replying to the same comment (even though there’s an “edit” button), within a minute of each other. Try pausing for a minute, collect your thoughts, and put forward a reasonable argument. Then re-read what you’ve said before posting, to make sure you’re putting the best form of the argument forward.
To do otherwise makes you no better than thought-bubble-racist Trump.
jybarz March 23rd, 2016 at 23:58
Berniebot, Berniebro?
Has anyone here called Hillary supporters Hillarybot or Hillarybros?
Maybe someone should.
You implied Glen is a dork in maths, but when he surprised you that he in fact has a PhD in Mathematics then you think he’s bragging. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/512086e52335d027fea8321dc67ab98b7e0dde977f22ee0e59c2a6655fcea46c.gif https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5c996ea971a86224de070b85ed7d93714d23d23d4c02f3449863217b22edcca3.gif https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/96049ecca4686764e8b2f25a0bcd087827df39c884af07d25d991066778f8098.gif https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1bd4200b9eb883db56518ce29cb17581f05a9463a60fb905683ac7f8db2d4c80.gif
tracey marie March 24th, 2016 at 14:37
You and others have said worse, hillary bot, hellary, no morals, low moral, idiots….the list is endless. So yeah, I decided to post just like you and them.
tracey marie March 23rd, 2016 at 23:42
lol, of course that’s true, I read it on the internet.
Glen March 24th, 2016 at 00:08
Can you point out a single instance of me getting any piece of evidence wrong?
As I said, I have a PhD in mathematics. To get a PhD, you need to learn to be able to sort the wheat from the chaff, as they say. You need to be able to investigate sources, and determine which things are true, and which are fanciful claims. Which is why, when I read that article I linked above, I went looking for evidence to support their claims. Frustratingly, US bodies running the caucuses and primaries don’t publish the breakdowns by vote type (regular, mail, etc), so I can’t confirm all of what I’d need to, which is why I put it as “an interesting argument” and not “fact”. But the actual numbers for caucus vs primary supports the argument enough for me to take it seriously as a possible argument. Similarly, I don’t just accept the assertion that Clinton always wins among non-white voters (Nevada shows that Sanders can win among hispanics, for instance). And of course, this filter applies in all cases, so I also filter out the nonsense said in an attempt to dismiss Clinton.
Apparently, you don’t have the same filter.
Obewon March 23rd, 2016 at 22:31
Total Clinton 1,690 (-593 of 2,383 to win)
Superdelegates HRC-467
Total Sanders 946 (-1,497 of 2,383 to win)
Superdelegates Sanders-26
Pledged delegates HRC 1,223, Sanders 920
2,383 needed for nomination · 2,129 still available https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Hillary+Clinton+number+of+delegates+won&eob=m.09c7w0/D/3/short/m.09c7w0/
tracey marie March 23rd, 2016 at 22:34
thanks obe.
Glen March 23rd, 2016 at 23:04
Superdelegates aren’t pledged, they can change their position. If Clinton doesn’t get to a majority (2383) without the superdelegates, it goes to the convention, and Sanders can still win if he wins over the superdelegates.
If you don’t understand this, then you don’t understand how the nomination process works.
tracey marie March 23rd, 2016 at 23:08
why would they chose the loser…you know #2
Glen March 23rd, 2016 at 23:23
You sound a lot like Trump, now. The superdelegates will choose who they believe is the best chance of winning the presidency. And they’ll factor in more than raw votes during primaries.
The primary doesn’t ask “which candidate would you vote for in the general election”, it asks “which candidate is the one you like most”.
As pointed out by others, Clinton supporters will almost certainly support a Sanders presidency, and will likely “show up” at the polls. Sanders supporters amongst Democrats may very well refuse to vote if Clinton wins the nomination. And before you suggest something about Sanders supporters, it’s not that they’re nasty, it’s that Clinton isn’t particularly well-liked. That’s the primary reason why Sanders is getting so much support, despite being a Jewish Atheist Social Democrat (that calls himself a Socialist) who isn’t a big fan of Obama.
And independents are moving much more strongly in favour of Sanders, which is why he does better in all of the opinion polls vs Republicans (which is remarkable considering that he’s far to the left of Clinton, and by normal reasoning, the “moderate” would normally be the one that gets support from independents). Do you suggest that the Democratic party shouldn’t factor in the independents when deciding who should be the nominee? Should they do as the Republicans have been doing, and focus everything on the base instead of expanding the appeal of the party?
Let me ask you this – if the tables were reversed, and Sanders had a lead of 300 in pledged delegates, and the vast majority of current support from superdelegates, would you honestly be telling everyone that Sanders had the nomination locked up, that he deserves to be the presidential nominee even if you prefer Clinton? Somehow, based on your behaviour so far, I suspect not.
tracey marie March 23rd, 2016 at 23:42
uh huh, they will chose the winner, the one with the most votes and that is not bernie. offs, you are one long winded ranter aren’t you
Glen March 24th, 2016 at 00:12
Clinton won the popular vote in the 2008 primaries. Obama was about 100 ahead of Clinton on pledged delegates. Only one third of the superdelegates backed Clinton.
Tell me again how they’ll choose the one with the most votes?
tracey marie March 23rd, 2016 at 23:10
He isn’t voiable, he is already bargaining for something. 2.7 million less votes. Next time he will catch up, the bernie bro wail.
Glen March 24th, 2016 at 00:39
*fewer votes.
Viability isn’t about the number of votes in a primary. It’s about the general election. But please, keep throwing phrases like “bernie bro wail” at me, because it’s so much easier than actually forming a real argument.
And maybe learn to spell basic words like “viable”.
allison1050 March 23rd, 2016 at 09:37
We don’t really know WHO won Arizona since the state closed 70% of the polling stations, even the WaPo has written an article about it!
Larry Schmitt March 23rd, 2016 at 10:51
I just found that article. Last election Maricopa County had about 200 polling places, this time they had 60. Lines around the block. They claim it’s also because a majority of voters get early ballots mailed to them. A majority? I would want some proof of that.
allison1050 March 23rd, 2016 at 11:19
I’d want proof also. I’d also like to know how many standing in those lines voted for this idiot just because of the letter behind her name.
tracey marie March 23rd, 2016 at 11:50
Idiot…the dumbass berniefans did not reregister to vote under the green or dem party…they whined and played victim.
DownriverDem March 23rd, 2016 at 13:01
Why is it that Bernie wins caucuses and Hillary wins the primary elections?
tracey marie March 23rd, 2016 at 13:39
white people.
Glen March 24th, 2016 at 00:23
Nevada says hi.