Hillary Clinton Won NY by a Landslide, But Does That Mean Voters Are Really Coalescing Around Her?
Bernie Sanders had hoped to score an upset in yesterday's New York primary, similar to what happened in Michigan. But that didn’t happen.
Some chalked it up to New York’s closed primary system and strict deadlines to change party affiliation.
Others see Hillary’s win in her home state as a sign that the party is coalescing.
Former Miichigan governor Jennifer Granholm, a Democrat, joined MSNBC today to weigh in on what the results of the New York primary mean for both parties.
Last night, Donald Trump won New York by more than 60 percent and took 89 of the 92 delegates awarded. Still, the GOP frontrunner, who has made numerous sexist remarks during the campaign, continues to have problems securing the female vote. A recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that nearly half (47 percent) of Republican female primary voters said they could not imagine voting for Trump. Two out of five male GOP primary voters said the same.
“We’ve got almost 70 percent of women in this country who cannot bring themselves to vote for Donald Trump,” Granholm told MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski.
It's a much different story for Clinton. Granholm believes that a huge turnout among female voters played a big role Hillary's victory in New York. "She won women by 20 points. She won African Americans by 50 points; Hispanic voters by 26 percent," said Granholm. "She’s putting together a new American majority and that is what’s very exciting to many Democrats.”
More consensus is generally a good thing, but there’s actually a paradox of unanimity.
“Unanimous agreement is still theoretically ideal, especially in cases when you’d expect very low odds of variability and uncertainty," said Derek Abbott onTED-Ed. "But in practice, achieving it in situations where perfect agreement is highly unlikely should tell us that there’s probably some hidden factor affecting the system."
