If the polls said Bernie Saunders was supposed to lose Michigan last night by an even greater percentage than Christy Clark was supposed to lose Lotusland in 2013, how, exactly, did he win?
There is that matter of Michigan having more than a few union folks left over from all those rusting manufacturing plants that are pissed about things like the TPP that Sanders has campaigned, hard, against.
But I reckon those folks were locked in to all of the pollsters algorithms, up front.
So (again), how did Mr. Saunders win?
Well, it looks like it might be for exactly the opposite reason why Ms. Clark won (the general) three years ago.
The Yutes (according to Commandante Markos himself) actually voted:
...(The f)act is, the polling composite had Clinton leading 57-39, so significantly cutting into that margin would’ve been a victory. But outright winning? No pollster came remotely close to calling this one (for Sanders)...
...A big reason for the upset—the youth vote actually turned out! Per the exit polls, they made up 21 percent of the electorate, a larger percentage than 65+ (20 percent). The only state to match that level of youth turnout was Texas, but that vote went 64-34 to Sanders, while the Michigan youth vote went 81-18 Sanders. That was the difference, by far...
You got that Dippers?
Or, put another way...
Look very hard and very closely at what Mr. Eby did in Point Grey and 'Provincialize' the strategy.