[US Election 2016] Democratic Primary Megathread II

[The Romulan Republic]

You know, if Bernie had done an ad blitz months ago and directly appealed to blacks in the South, he may be in the lead now. Going negative was a terrible move.

Back before Super Tuesday, Sanders' campaign was still building steam, and focussing its resources in the states where he had the best chance to build early momentum, I believe.

And if you are implying that Sanders is responsible for the negative tone the primary has taken, you are very, very wrong. Clinton has thrown more than her share of mud.

[UED]

You know, if Bernie had done an ad blitz months ago and directly appealed to blacks in the South, he may be in the lead now. Going negative was a terrible move.

Yeah, he should probably have tried harder for the South than he did. If he actually did solidly in the south, I think it'd be a lot closer right now, which would at least be interesting to see what happens.

He would have definitely won in Missouri and would have maybe not won, but at least dramatically increase his numbers in the South. Since delegates are shared proportionally, he could have a lot more delegates than he has atm.

[Ngelmish]

You know, if Bernie had done an ad blitz months ago and directly appealed to blacks in the South, he may be in the lead now. Going negative was a terrible move.

Yeah, he should probably have tried harder for the South than he did. If he actually did solidly in the south, I think it'd be a lot closer right now, which would at least be interesting to see what happens.

It's hard to blame him for using his resources strategically, especially given that he was relatively cash-strapped in the early stages of the primary and absolutely needed strong showings in Iowa and New Hampshire (the test for basically anyone wanting to run against Clinton).

I think what hurt him more over the long-run was his insistence on doubling down on his messaging style: Whenever he did talk to predominantly minority communities, he insisted that the problems they wanted him to talk more personally about were economic and pivoted into his standard pitch. He's not necessarily wrong, but it read as condescending and dismissive to a crucial group of voters who were just starting to form opinions on him. Add to that his very inconsistent backpedaling (implying that Clinton only won in the south because it's very conservative once again sounds dismissive and isn't an accurate representation of southern Democrats) and the fact that he didn't even spend token money in a lot of those races and the disadvantage builds up. And that one's squarely on him and his team, whoever came up with that strategy was wrong.

[AiliailiA]

*snip*

*snip*

Tell me, is it wrong that Clinton is STILL THE MOST LIKELY TO WIN the nomination?

No, of course not. I've said as much myself.

Is it wrong that a narrow win for Clinton in NY wouldn't change that much either way?

Probably not, although a narrow win (especially when their is some reason to call the legitimacy of the result into question) in a state that should have been a landslide for her would not be a resounding endorsement.

OK, well the post I was responding to wasn't taking sides it was just about how significant the NY result would be for either candidate's chances. I wasn't taking sides either, just criticizing the analysis as being ... as I said, banal. Obvious.

Polling long ago showed NY being strongly for Clinton, now it's a lot closer. But there's no other reason NY "should" have been a landslide for Clinton. The "home state advantage" just washes out when considering she hasn't been there that long and Sanders was actually born there. High rates of college graduates, black population not far above average, industrial job losses upstate and being a strongly Democratic state are all favorables for Sanders.

Before you blow up at the mention of race, I should make clear that I don't endorse the "minorities support Clinton" broad-brush (and it's wrong considering any OTHER minority than African Americans), but results so far show a kind of avalanche effect when the black vote tops 50% of the primary votes. Most of those states were in the South and they're done with ... but there's still Maryland so if I'm wrong you can prove it to me.

Anyway I don't expect that to be a factor in NY.

As to the crap going on with voter registrations in NY, I hope the state manages to provide a provisional ballot for everyone who says they should be registered Democratic, and I hope the court later requires that their eligibility be confirmed and their vote counted.

And actually, if that turns out not to be possible (eg applications to register were literally destroyed) it might be best to count the provisionals anyway (a de-facto open primary). It's dodgy to change the rules soon before or even after the election, but that would be as close as possible to a fair election. Well other than holding a new poll at some later date, I suppose.

[AiliailiA]

New York polls closing in 20 minutes, I believe.

Good. This one has felt like the longest wait between primaries ... Wyoming being so small it arguably is the longest wait.

I'll call a bigger-than-polling win for Clinton of 16%: Sanders 42, Clinton 58 after elimination of minor candidates and spoiled ballots.

Because of the registration crap: if that's sorted out later it will come back to a 14% gap.

[The Romulan Republic]

Polls just closed.

CNN estimated 52/48% in Clinton's favour based on exit polls. They haven't called it. That's close. Closer than the polls would have suggested. Looks like my "second Illinois" prediction might have been right on the money.

If it stays that close, with all the shenanigans that are alleged to have occurred, the legitimacy of the winner (either way) may be in serious doubt.

[Camicon]

Polls just closed.

CNN estimated 52/48% in Clinton's favour based on exit polls. They haven't called it. That's close. Closer than the polls would have suggested. Looks like my "second Illinois" prediction might have been right on the money.

If it stays that close, with all the shenanigans that are alleged to have occurred, the legitimacy of the winner (either way) may be in serious doubt.

4% is not an insurmountable lead. It's also far closer than it ever should have been, for Hillary.

[Corrian]

20% lead for Clinton on Google right now, but 1% isn't worth talking about.

Interestingly, Trump already won New York at 1%.

[Grand Britannia]

20% lead for Clinton on Google right now, but 1% isn't worth talking about.

Interestingly, Trump already won New York at 1%.

Trump stronk.

[UED]

And now... It begins...
Only 1% of vote has been counted.

[Galloism]

20% lead for Clinton on Google right now, but 1% isn't worth talking about.

Interestingly, Trump already won New York at 1%.

I think Trump won New York yesterday before anyone actually voted.

[UED]

20% lead for Clinton on Google right now, but 1% isn't worth talking about.

Interestingly, Trump already won New York at 1%.

Trump stronk.

Top 1%???!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

[The disunited states]

The bern got berned.

[Neu California]

Live results can be seen here: http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/new-york

[The Romulan Republic]

20% lead for Clinton on Google right now, but 1% isn't worth talking about.

Interestingly, Trump already won New York at 1%.

CNN called it for him the moment the polls closed.

[Galloism]

20% lead for Clinton on Google right now, but 1% isn't worth talking about.

Interestingly, Trump already won New York at 1%.

CNN called it for him the moment the polls closed.

That's only because people would have gotten upset if they called it yesterday.

[The Romulan Republic]

The bern got berned.

Rather premature gloating, don't you think? Even leaving aside possible fraud and voter suppression issues effecting the results, CNN's estimate has it as a close race, and it hasn't been called yet.

[Corrian]

Jesus, New York City county has 15,000 precincts on this county map.

[Major-Tom]

The bern got berned.

Rather premature gloating, don't you think? Even leaving aside possible fraud and voter suppression issues effecting the results, CNN's projection has it as a close race, and it hasn't been called yet.

In fairness, I don't realistically see Sanders pulling New York when NYC seems to already be going heavy Hillary.

[Major-Tom]

20% lead for Clinton on Google right now, but 1% isn't worth talking about.

Interestingly, Trump already won New York at 1%.

Probably because he's at 71% of the vote lol.

[UED]

Rather premature gloating, don't you think? Even leaving aside possible fraud and voter suppression issues effecting the results, CNN's projection has it as a close race, and it hasn't been called yet.

In fairness, I don't realistically see Sanders pulling New York when NYC seems to already be going heavy Hillary.

Sanders can erode most of the current lead. That said the race itself is leaning towards Hillary. I can compare this race here with the one in Ohio. Clinton will carry strong in the heavily populated NYC. The bulk of the rural areas will go to Sanders. That said if Clinton wins big in NYC, its over for Sanders in New York.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-i ... mp-clinton

Hillary is gaining a commanding lead in NYC, Sanders is doing decently among upstate reporting so far. How does that work out in county delegates if he wins a lot of smaller areas?

[The Romulan Republic]

Rather premature gloating, don't you think? Even leaving aside possible fraud and voter suppression issues effecting the results, CNN's projection has it as a close race, and it hasn't been called yet.

In fairness, I don't realistically see Sanders pulling New York when NYC seems to already be going heavy Hillary.

Its at over 60% for Clinton last I saw, but with only 2% in. So in other words, like one Clinton county just came in.

If I had to guess, I'd say Clinton wins, but by single digits, maybe under five percent (and with a cloud over the legitimacy of the results).

[Major-Tom]

In fairness, I don't realistically see Sanders pulling New York when NYC seems to already be going heavy Hillary.

Its at over 60% for Clinton last I saw, but with only 2% in. So in other words, like one Clinton county just came in.

If I had to guess, I'd say Clinton wins, but by single digits, maybe under five percent (and with a cloud over the legitimacy of the results).

6% in, and she's now at 62%. NYT is what I'm using personally.

[The Romulan Republic]

Its at over 60% for Clinton last I saw, but with only 2% in. So in other words, like one Clinton county just came in.

If I had to guess, I'd say Clinton wins, but by single digits, maybe under five percent (and with a cloud over the legitimacy of the results).

6% in, and she's now at 62%. NYT is what I'm using personally.

I've got CNN on. I hate them, but at least they do fairly up to date election results sometimes.