Most of the polls had her with a lead in the mid-teens. The Bernie camp/anyone trying to talk up the 'Clinton is doomed!' hypothesis has a habit of cherrypicking her biggest leads last summer and contrasting them with her smallest ones now.

I'm not even sure HOW the Bernie campaign/surrogates could spin it at this point, aside from the superdelegate issue. Taking them out of the equation though, if she wins 200 odd next week and even with a DRAW in California she still only needs a handful from every other state to win. Superdelegates are just icing on the cake.

Oh she won 75% of the African American vote!! :o

 

That article before said her lead with them had collapsed!!!

 

It just shows New Yorker's aren't stupid and see through empty promises and an inability to enact policy, with clear examples of being bought by the NRA like a career politician, whilst unable to show those claims against the one he's racing against.

God the comments section on Huffington Post is a chore to read. I've never seen so many stubborn cry babies in my life. Instead of congratulating Hillary on her win, there are people saying she's cheating and others saying they will vote Green or write Bernie in as an independent just to make sure that she doesn't win. Might as well vote for Trump in that case, the vote will be the equivalent...

 

"Well if I don't get my own way I'm going to cross my arms, stamp my feet, and make sure that you Hillary supporters are crying come November" is what they might as well say.

Edited April 20, 20169 yr by Oliver

Huff Post is ridiculous. Absolutely the worst, most biased coverage I've come across regarding the Democrats. I honestly cannot comprehend how any liberal could think not voting, voting for a third party or huffing off is more productive than supporting Hillary over Trump or Cruz.

I honestly cannot comprehend how any liberal could think not voting, voting for a third party or huffing off is more productive than supporting Hillary over Trump or Cruz.

 

Well, you are right of course, that is the logical way to play it, but a lot of left-wingers who likely have had the first properly left-wing option for President in their lives getting torn away from them aren't going to be thinking too logically right now. Hopefully by November they'll have calmed down - especially when seeing what the other options are. Although I'm sure a few will still take righteous non-voting stances and let EVERYONE KNOW about it.

Ah that's pretty disappointing to wake up to, I saw an exit poll saying it was 52-48 as well. Seems to have been a lot of voting controversies as there were in Arizona but 16 points is hard to argue with even considering. GG

 

On the other side, Trump getting 60% of the vote after never previously managing over 50%. Home state advantage I guess.

Ah that's pretty disappointing to wake up to, I saw an exit poll saying it was 52-48 as well. Seems to have been a lot of voting controversies as there were in Arizona but 16 points is hard to argue with even considering. GG

 

On the other side, Trump getting 60% of the vote after never previously managing over 50%. Home state advantage I guess.

 

It was to do with a range of democrat's registered party affiliation changing without them knowing and people finding out they were never signed up to vote. A lot of the Sander's supporters I've seen on comments automatically blame Clinton and her cheating so they can't vote, but there are probably just as many Clinton supporters who were affected by this as well.

 

A lot of Sander's supporters (as well as himself) are complaining about New York being a closed primary meaning independent voters couldn't vote. They knew of the rules for the primaries beforehand (even if they were new voters they had until the end of March which was only a few weeks ago) and should have switched to Democrat before the October deadline, but no they didn't and are now complaining. Well I haven't seen them complaining when Sanders won a variety of closed primaries and caucuses so it's only when he loses. :rolleyes:

 

As a side note I don't even think non-democrats should be able to vote for the democrat nominee.

Edited April 20, 20169 yr by Oliver

The issue with the October deadline is that his name recognition was still extremely low then (as I posted before, this deadline was before even the first debate). All the other states with closed primaries had deadlines which were far more reasonable for independents who wanted to switch to Democrat to vote for Bernie (and he's still lost nearly all of them anyway! So not a lot of Bernie Sanders closed primary wins to complain about :lol:) - in New York a lot of the people who typically don't associate themselves with the Democratic Party but wanted to vote for Bernie Sanders would have never heard of him before the deadline and therefore had no way of knowing they were going to want to register as Democrats.

 

People having their party affiliation mysteriously changed is very dodgy whether or not it actually affected the outcome anyway (you're probably right it affected Hillary's support as much as Bernie's, but there's no real way of knowing this).

Well, you are right of course, that is the logical way to play it, but a lot of left-wingers who likely have had the first properly left-wing option for President in their lives getting torn away from them aren't going to be thinking too logically right now. Hopefully by November they'll have calmed down - especially when seeing what the other options are. Although I'm sure a few will still take righteous non-voting stances and let EVERYONE KNOW about it.

 

Well, I suppose I can understand the appeal of a little HYPERBOLE and CAPS LOCK FURY. I just think the Bernie campaign in general is doing a really good job at damaging Clinton (a lot of is fair game of course, she is very deeply flawed) and a lot of that is intractable for those young, idealistic voters. Hillary is the candidate I would be supporting anyway as I'm far from being as liberal/left wing as Bernie so I suppose I have bias on that front too, but I've just found his campaign that little bit MORE distasteful.

Meanwhile, Trump now looks to have a real chance of clinching the 1237 delegates he needs to get the nomination outright.

On balance that's probably a good thing though, in terms of strategy for the general and likelihood of HRC beating him.

While I tend towards the left-wing, I can't forgive Bernie's support for the lunacy that is guns in America. The right to kill other people is not very left-wing...

While I tend towards the left-wing, I can't forgive Bernie's support for the lunacy that is guns in America. The right to kill other people is not very left-wing...

 

Yup with actual evidence of the fun brigade buying him.

 

He is little more than a glorified politician. He id desperate to win.

 

If his vampaign was a movement he could quit now and start at the state and local level and actually um DO IT. Rather than be an inffectual bluster president.

But he's still going to win though, right? Because momentum?

While I tend towards the left-wing, I can't forgive Bernie's support for the lunacy that is guns in America. The right to kill other people is not very left-wing...

 

Is this over how he voted over the shootings at Sandy Hook? Where he voted the gun companies are not liable for deaths caused by guns? Because, they shouldn't! I'm anti guns but you can't blame a company for an individual's misuse of a product. To turn it and act like Sanders is pro guns is ludicrous.Until you properly ban a product you can't sue a company for producing the products that our second amendment protects.

 

With that being said... I prefer Bernie. But, I'm also fine with Clinton winning the nomination. I am in full agreence that the Sanders supporters that are planning to write in his name or will support a republican candidate over her are full blown ignorant. But, you have Clinton supporters saying the same thing. In the big picture we just need one of them to win in order keep things going on the right track, and I really wish some of my fellow Dems would SEE THAT.

Edited April 20, 20169 yr by Tyler

*.* that you're full blown Dem these days baby!

Michael should change his name to George Osborne with the size of that embarrassing climbdown/u-turn.

That's because the majority of republicans and the candidates they put up are dumb af. They literally are only worried with themselves and Jesus and most of them don't even know how to properly read their bibles, much less our very own constitution. Politics ran over religious emotion is the #1 way for your country to fall in the shitter.

 

With that being said I have identified as Democrat since I first voted in 2008. I did have some interest in Ron Paul who was an interest in the Republican Party, but we all know he is libertarian. That was the republicans one chance to properly showcase what their party was intended for and they ruined it. To bloody hell with them I say, tbh.

Edited April 20, 20169 yr by Tyler

If I was American, my instinct would be to support Sanders. I might even feel that, with Trump or Cruz as the likely opponent, now was the best chance of getting someone like him elected.

 

Two things would make me hesitate. First, a Sanders v Trump / Cruz contest could make it more likely that a third (or even fourth) serious candidate could intervene. That could lead to a centre-right candidate being elected instead of a Democrat. Second, I would worry that Sanders would struggle to get anything particularly radical past Congress. Even if the Democrats somehow won a majority in both houses, I suspect a number of them would block many of Sanders' proposals. That might lead me to end up voting for Clinton on the assumption that she would at least manage to make some progress.