Democrats award most of their delegates by congressional district in Wisconsin and in other states. Usually that doesn’t matter much because the share of delegates each candidate gets in a state winds up closely matching their statewide share of the vote anyway. Sometimes, however, a candidate gets lucky or unlucky because of rounding.
Right now, Sanders looks to be getting a bit unlucky in Wisconsin. There are six delegates available in each of the 1st, 6th, 7th and 8th congressional districts. He leads Clinton in each one, but is splitting those delegates 3-3 with her in each case because his lead isn’t quite large enough for a 4-2 split. That could change as more votes are reported, of course.
Clinton is polling +10. That’s not saying Sanders can’t win. In a big state like New York I expect the polling to be pretty good, but there is still the question of whether even good polls give accurate results, and I think the answer for this election is no. Anyway, if Sanders does win New York then I can only assume some major media outlet editors will have Star-Trek-supercomputer-style meltdowns trying to figure out how to cover a huge upset without mentioning Sanders’ name.
What amused me yesterday was apparently Sanders’ campaign suggested that superdelegates could switch and help him overcome the gap and suddenly Clinton’s campaign was all about “let the people decide”.
He can win, but cannot afford to be complacent. Let’s be honest, if he does win, it’s going to be close. He closed similar polling spreads before, but this is also a closed primary, not a caucus or even an open primary. Sanders does well with independents, but they cannot save him here. The Sanders campaign really has to turn up the volume, and I’m worried that voters will see Sanders’s winning streak and get comfortable and not show up at the polls.
I don’t know about Bernie, but some small left wing groups felt that that the Brady bill disproportionately affects black people more than white people. I only know about this because of Manic Street Preacher songs (in particular Ifwhiteamericatoldthetruthforonedayit’sworldwouldfallapart), and the band are openly socialist.
seriously though, chugging liters of dr pepper is considered normal, yet when Tony Montana jams his face into a mountain of cocaine, it’s meant to signify that he has a problem with stimulants
He is running hard — and hitting her hard — in New York, and she is clearly frustrated with his easy appeal to voters under 35. She even suggested for the first time (in public, anyway) that the septuagenarian from Vermont was feeding a simplistic, cynical line of argument to turn young voters against her.
Yeah, those under-35s falling for simplistic arguments. It’s really crass to exploit 34-year-olds who don’t know any better.
Either the chain chugging Diet Dr Peppers is an attempt to court the @donald_petersen vote, or it’s a veiled attack on Bloomberg.
I do wonder what Clinton can do, though. Independent lefties just don’t trust her, and never will. And getting frustrated with Sanders’ campaign for pointing out things she’s done/supported/voted for etc? I don’t think that constitutes personal attacks - that’s a legitimate discussion. Okay, not coming across as really patronizing might help - but I don’t think there is anything she could say that would sway my opinion of her. Her choice of running mate if she’s the candidate is really about it.
Right? It’s bad enough when you’re denigrating 18-20 year-olds for being enfranchised and taking part in the political process, but it’s downright denialism when you’re denigrating 30-35 year-olds as naive. I would be the first to argue that 30 doesn’t bring with it any special sagacity, but we’re hardly wide-eyed dreamers at this point.
“There is a persistent, organized effort to misrepresent my record, and I don’t appreciate that, and I feel sorry for a lot of the young people who are fed this list of misrepresentations,” Clinton said, a few minutes after talking herself hoarse at a rally here. “I know that Sen. Sanders spends a lot of time attacking my husband, attacking President Obama. I rarely hear him say anything negative about George W. Bush, who I think wrecked our economy.”
How is it misrepresenting your record to talk about how many votes you “regret?” Also, I hate to break it to you, but G.W. Bush stopped being relevant the second Obama was sworn in. Keep up with the times.
Also: What a softball interview. When are you going to ask her the same questions the NY Daily News asked Bernie? I don’t want to read idle musings and introspections about her campaign. If we’re going to ask Bernie for specifics, you have the woman right there! Ask her for specifics! Your job isn’t to make her feel comfortable.
If medical science can advance a little more then in a decade we might be seeing Clinton running again and denigrating those people under 50 who just don’t get her.
As a dog painting enthusiast from another country, I would argue that he became substantially more relevant.*
* Politifact would rate this sentence mostly false.
