Exit polls had clinton +4

4/20/2016 8:18:44 AM

It matched pre-election polls pretty well according to 538.

What exit polls? CNN? I didn't watch at all last night.

4/20/2016 8:23:47 AM

^yeah CNN announced a close race, then 30 or so minutes later announced a Hilary win. Someone fucked up.

4/20/2016 9:12:22 AM

Bernie Babies out in full force today. Wonder what the excuses will be when he drops PA next? I thought the tide had shifted, as opposed to nearly every election (aside from MI) going as expected.

4/20/2016 10:06:00 AM

^
you know this attitude drives people away from your candidate?

im voting on issues/integrity, but the gross behavior by Clinton supporters will definitely lose her votes.

4/20/2016 10:18:31 AM

The tide has shifted. Just because some states have massive voter supression systems that dont let people vote doesnt mean they didnt support sanders.

4/20/2016 10:20:17 AM

if you believe reddit, which you absolutely shouldn't, it's driving people to vote trump

4/20/2016 10:20:39 AM

Lol, Reddit.

^^ you're just delusional now.

[Edited on April 20, 2016 at 10:24 AM. Reason : X]

4/20/2016 10:23:46 AM

Not a homer for either candidate but the disparity between the two candidates in open primaries versus closed primaries should be a concern. Im in favor of an open primary since I register as independent. I wonder if there would even be a primary race at this point if every stated used this system (which seems more democratic in my opinion).

4/20/2016 10:31:08 AM

Instead of just namecalling, hillary supporters should explain why they think bernie supporters are delusional.

Its not much of a stretch to suggest that a bunch of independents who support an independent senator would suddenly be registered democrats. The vote totals we are looking at in ny and some other states represent registered democrats who were able to take off work, travel to their home precinct and not be turned away at the last minute. Its a very exclusive group of people. States that just let people vote have overwhelmingly supported bernie.

4/20/2016 10:39:43 AM

And if you are an independent in NY you had to register as a democrat/republican back in October 2015. Considering Bernie didnt really make a move until the beginning of the year how many independents simply didnt bother to register as democrat because they thought Hillary had it in the bag?

4/20/2016 10:59:41 AM

Quote :

"Not a homer for either candidate but the disparity between the two candidates in open primaries versus closed primaries should be a concern."

that's silly. god forbid should a party look to its party members to select a candidate for the party.

if you register as an independent, you should know what you're signing up for. it is not the fault of the NY democratic committee that Bernie decided to shift affiliations for media exposure. declaring a political party means having convictions. it means believing in something. you don't declare independent because you're undecided. you declare it because you don't believe in what the other parties believe.

this whole thing is just another tick mark in the populist movement to shed all personal responsibility for decisions. "I shouldn't be held responsible for registering as independent because I didn't think it all the way through" is a shitty excuse to enact change.

should we also be concerned by the disparity between the two candidates in caucus primaries vs. non-caucus primaries?

[Edited on April 20, 2016 at 11:28 AM. Reason : efforting to be nicer]

4/20/2016 11:20:38 AM

^
yes because caucuses are dumb as fuck and super frustrating. I participated in two levels of caucuses in CO, Bernie benefitted here, and I would love for us to move toward an open primary.

4/20/2016 11:24:25 AM

I agree. I'm just not sure many other Bernie supporters would agree with you.

4/20/2016 11:25:49 AM

a party should have control over how they choose a candidate, the problem is there aren't enough parties

4/20/2016 11:30:16 AM

Also our taxes pay for primaries. So at the least, they should be open to independents.

4/20/2016 11:32:12 AM

Quote :

"Look at the map. Sanders won like 95% of the geographic area."

Counties are people too, my friend

4/20/2016 11:33:33 AM

http://www.vox.com/2016/4/19/11465392/bernie-sanders-superdelegates

Anyone want to explain how this flip-flop is OK?

4/20/2016 12:30:02 PM

its not a flip-flop, its maybe hypocritical if you don't agree that someone can both speak out against something as being unfair while at the same time utilizing that thing

i don't think this is even being hypocritical though, Vox just has a really misleading headline and summary. On MSNBC they talked about available pledged delegates and after that discussion it was prompted what would Sanders do if in the hypothetical they closed the pledged delegate gap and they said they would go to superdelegates and convince them to look at momentum and the polling for who would be the better candidate

[Edited on April 20, 2016 at 12:41 PM. Reason : .]

4/20/2016 12:34:24 PM

nah, Vox gets it right

Quote :

"It is, however, a bit unseemly for Sanders to blast New York's primary for barring independent voters only to have his campaign manager go out and say they're explicitly planning to use superdelegates to overturn the will of the voters."

4/20/2016 12:42:00 PM

dude, its only 6 minutes and they link to it, that is not an accurate summary at all

its "a bit unseemly" only if you didn't listen to the context (and still not a flip-flop)

4/20/2016 12:43:46 PM

4/20/2016 12:45:44 PM

4/20/2016 12:46:45 PM

Quote :

"But what turns this into an unusually difficult argument for Sanders is that early in the race, Sanders's supporters feared this is how Clinton would steal the election, and so they mobilized their supporters to demand that the superdelegates abide by the will of the voters. Even today, some Sanders supporters (wrongly) think Clinton's lead is the unfair result of superdelegates ignoring the voters and backing her campaign."

4/20/2016 12:49:20 PM

I don't agree with what Weaver said.

4/20/2016 12:51:38 PM

Quote :

"its not a flip-flop, its maybe hypocritical if you don't agree that someone can both speak out against something as being unfair while at the same time utilizing that thing "

it's kind of like claiming to be strong on guns while at the same time acquiescing to the gun lobby so you can get elected.



[Edited on April 20, 2016 at 1:07 PM. Reason : .]

4/20/2016 1:04:29 PM

Quote :

"it's kind of just like claiming to be strong on guns while at the same time acquiescing to the gun lobby so you can get elected."

FTFY

4/20/2016 1:09:59 PM

Quote :

"I don't agree with what Weaver said."

why not?

4/20/2016 1:10:12 PM

^^
i already explained to you why the gun thing is wrong though

btw Hillary approved more gun sales to foreign countries than Rice did. is that acquiesing to the gun lobby?

^
He said they would pursue superdelegates at the convention even if they lose the pledged delegate and popular vote. I don't agree with that. I might if something happens between now and then. Like if she ends up behind in national polls by 5-10%.

[Edited on April 20, 2016 at 1:12 PM. Reason : .]

4/20/2016 1:11:12 PM

Quote :

"btw Hillary approved more gun sales to foreign countries than Rice did. is that acquiesing to the gun lobby?"

is this really what you've sunk to? you can't think this is a real argument, can you?

[Edited on April 20, 2016 at 1:18 PM. Reason : .]

4/20/2016 1:14:50 PM

No, I'm honestly curious. Why is that okay?

4/20/2016 1:17:46 PM

do you think the vetting of sales to foreign militaries is more or less strenuous than sales at gun shows?

4/20/2016 1:19:04 PM

Probably, but what does that have to do with what I asked?

4/20/2016 1:22:05 PM

Its almost like the superdelegates committed to hillary so early that they allowed the media to create a narrative that has influenced voters.

4/20/2016 1:31:04 PM

No matter what happens at this point, there will be a large progressive presence at the national convention. There is the opportunity to vote single payer, free tuition, $15 minimum wage, etc into the national platform. Although not sure if it would sway Hillary into promoting those things.

4/20/2016 1:48:32 PM

Quote :

"He said they would pursue superdelegates at the convention even if they lose the pledged delegate and popular vote. I don't agree with that. I might if something happens between now and then. Like if she ends up behind in national polls by 5-10%."

i'm assuming that you are not liking it because of the popular vote thing, but doesn't that ignore caucus states?

(my position is that i'm okay with it regardless, but i am fine with superdelegates being a thing)

[Edited on April 20, 2016 at 2:02 PM. Reason : /]

4/20/2016 2:01:21 PM

Mostly the pledged delegate thing. Idc about the popular vote in a close race with caucuses involved.

4/20/2016 2:07:02 PM

Quote :

"if you register as an independent, you should know what you're signing up for. it is not the fault of the NY democratic committee that Bernie decided to shift affiliations for media exposure. declaring a political party means having convictions. it means believing in something. you don't declare independent because you're undecided. you declare it because you don't believe in what the other parties believe"

This would be great if there were enough parties that I could find one that matched my social and fiscal views. I would gladly sign up "with conviction." Instead, what we have are two parties that are both deeply flawed both in platform and representatives.

I register as independent because I dont blindly follow a party's platform. I vote on the person who is leading the party or who is running in the party's name. Hence, I should be able to choose the person that I think could best lead the country. Not the party that could best lead the country. Because lets be honest, the party as a whole is completely dysfunctional.

4/20/2016 2:10:02 PM

^do you also think you should be able to vote in apple shareholder meetings because, while you haven't bought any of their stock, you still use their products?

Quote :

"i'm assuming that you are not liking it because of the popular vote thing, but doesn't that ignore caucus states?"

no. I read this morning (and damned if I can't find it right now) that even if you went to a popular vote representation of caucus states, her lead would still be the same in total popular votes.

[Edited on April 20, 2016 at 3:01 PM. Reason : .]

4/20/2016 2:59:42 PM

i'm curious what the numbers are

still fine with it though

4/20/2016 3:10:26 PM

^^
We fund primaries and other party activities, so essentially we do have stock in them.

But either way it's not a good comparison. Democrats and Republicans have created a duopoly where other parties and independent candidates can't enter the system. At least open primaries give us more of an option.

[Edited on April 20, 2016 at 3:10 PM. Reason : .]

4/20/2016 3:10:33 PM

does apple get any tax breaks/incentives from the government? if I'm paying taxes that in any way support apple, I should be able to vote in their shareholder meetings by this logic

Should democrats be allowed to vote unfettered in Republican primaries so that they can vote for the shittiest candidate possible? just think, if a 1st term democrat president doesn't have a primary challenger, should all democrats not be allowed to go vote in the primary for the incumbent's challenger?

again, this is symptomatic of the recent populist trend of people wanting to do things unfettered by the consequences of prior decisions

[Edited on April 20, 2016 at 4:33 PM. Reason : .]

4/20/2016 4:28:01 PM

Open primaries do allow for manipulation, but it's rare, and I'll take that chance over not allowing 38% of the country to vote for the candidate they want.

4/20/2016 4:36:14 PM

Investigation opened by NY attorney general. Says he will do every in his power to restore people's votes if they were denied illegally.

https://twitter.com/AGSchneiderman/status/722880473043587073

4/20/2016 4:40:36 PM

Quote :

"Should democrats be allowed to vote unfettered in Republican primaries so that they can vote for the shittiest candidate possible? just think, if a 1st term democrat president doesn't have a primary challenger, should all democrats not be allowed to go vote in the primary for the incumbent's challenger? "

every primary should have a challenger

4/20/2016 4:50:43 PM

Quote :

"Should democrats be allowed to vote unfettered in Republican primaries so that they can vote for the shittiest candidate possible?"

If you can find some data that actually shows this behavior is common and has had a material impact on an election then Ill consider the issue. Until then, it shouldnt have any merit when discussing the pros/cons of open primary. Do you also worry that aliens are mind-controlling Trump to bring about the annihilation of the human race?

4/20/2016 5:20:17 PM

Quote :

"If you can find some data that actually shows this behavior is common and has had a material impact on an election then Ill consider the issue"

I was going to do it this cycle, and I know a handful of people who actually did.

I think that behavior is more likely than aliens and butt rays or whatever the fuck you're trying to compare it to.

4/20/2016 5:35:11 PM

^ thats great. Im sure you made a meaningful impact on the NC primary results with your handful of votes. So Trump ended up with 6 more votes than he would have if you voted for Hillary. You really showed them!

I know a handful of people that believe aliens visited Earth in the past and added their DNA to ours through cross-breeding.

4/20/2016 5:38:39 PM

LOL @ thinking open primaries won't result in people going out of their way to sabotage an opposing party's chances.

4/20/2016 5:58:35 PM

do you not realize how many primaries are already open or semi-open

4/20/2016 5:59:45 PM