But not totally unexpected.

Emerson is a crap pollster. They're the ones who are showing Clinton ahead by 48 points in New York (hint: she's not).

Sanders will win Wisconsin, guaranteed. The question is whether Clinton will hold his margin down enough to claim a strategic win there, even if it's a tactical loss.

….has me a little nervous because it's Schumer territory.

Every time I'm in the street though, I see people with that Bernie enthusiasm registering others to vote. Always great to see them.

ties to the state, and was very, very popular here.

Sanders will provide a credible challenge, but just like I don't see Wisconsin being much different from 2008 (Clinton loses by 15%), I don't see New York being much different from 2008 (Clinton wins by 15%).

I live in the Hudson Valley, with connections to folks all over the state. The whole eastern part of the state is Bernieland.
Folks in the northeastern part of the state, from Newburgh north to the Canadian Border, have heard of Bernie for a long time, because the NPR affiliate here has had him on their news program, Capitol Connection.
Here in my neck of the woods, I have seen many dozens of Bernie yard signs, bumper stickers and buttons. I saw my first Hillary yard sign today, on the way to work.

I don't think that Clinton has much of a following here. And from what my friends all over the state have told me, it seems that the bulk of her support is in the central area of the state in the rural areas. Rochester and Buffalo are more Bernie cities.

I don't know, but from the cross section that I see, Bernie is gonna take NY by storm.
Let's see how many he draws at his rally tomorrow. Too bad I have to be at work, or I would be there.

She won one county in 2008 because people were hoping to get rid of her as Senator, and get someone real in. That's all.

I guess you didn't see the turnout for the opening of Bernie's HQ in Brooklyn last Saturday, nor did you see the Bernie marches in the past couple of months.
LI and Westchester have few Democrats. They are mostly Republicans there, and she may take those three counties, and Staten Island, which is VERY conservative, but not the boroughs of Brooklyn, Queens, Manhattan, and the Bronx.
I'm sorry, but friends and family that I have in those areas are telling me this.
Base what you will on polls and NY Times articles, but the NY Times has stated that they endorse Clinton, so they are spinning stuff for her, and against Bernie.
That election in 2006 is ancient history. She ran against the idiot who was the DA of Westchester, by god. Pirro has been a failure since she was DA there.
Those two elections might as well be ancient history.

I guess that you are either new to NY, or don't follow things much.

None.

Forget it.

You must live in Bensonhurst, Bay Ridge or Fort Hamilton. Those are the areas that I would expect the most support for her. They are the most conservative

here. She did very well with them against Obama--which was quite an achievement.

You don't know Brooklyn very well.

After NY I hope the party can start unifying behind HRC and focus on the real threat - Trump.

That ain't happening.

Hillary winning NY or the party uniting?

I wouldn't be so sure about NY either

...about HRC of course because I am a supporter, but also about the unity.

Donald Trump should scare all Democrats, Independents, and even many Repugs into voting for Hillary. The alternative is unthinkable.

Like Begala said that would be the slogan of a Hillary GE campaign. Fear doesn't unite or inspire.

Whatever about Trump's awfulness he is inspiring thousands of people - including Dems in some states - and lots of independents, to get out and support him.

Hillary inspires very few people with her fear Trump tactic.

And of course Trump can run to the left of Clinton on multiple issues (eg campaign finance, universal health care) and the group that Hillary inspires the most are right-wingers that have waited decades for a chance to vote against her.

Plus the scorched earth campaign she's run ensures that many many many thousands of progressives will stay home or vote green if she's the nominee.

I have to disagree in the strongest terms.

Hillary will be a historic president, like Barack Obama was a historic president. I am beyond enthused to support her.

It's not just about his appeal, it's about the vast number of independents and republicans, and growing numbers of progressives that actively dislike Hillary, or won't vote for her simply out of fear. People that view her as dishonest - at best - and who, if they sit through months of negative ads and fear-mongering, would rather just tune out and not vote at all or vote against her... that block is at least as strong as the block of people that will vote against Trump, possibly - I'd say probably - stronger.

And of course, Trump can largely inoculate himself against Clinton, because people distrust her foreign policy "experience" and he can to some degree say he opposed Iraq, and Libya, and that she is to some degree responsible for things like ISIS, because of Iraq and Libya...

And of course, he's self-funding, at least he's convinced everyone he is, and can legitimately say that she is taking money from pretty much all the bogey men of the progressives, give or take, making them less likely to be energised.

And of course she has scandals - which many voters believe to be legitimate, including many on the left.

And of course she's burned endless bridges in the Progressive community, and is still doing it on a daily basis, and so are her supporters online... and her surrogates in the media.

And her campaign chairman owns one of the biggest lobbying firms in DC, which makes money off of weapons manufacturers and big pharma and even Saudi Arabia... none of which are popular on the left... or the right in many cases... more drag on her...

So, while we on the left love to demonise Trump, and think the whole world agrees, it's simply not the case that that's enough to make Hillary viable... because it's not a bubble... She's - IMO and in many people's opinion - a poor poor candidate, sure how many states has she lost a 30+ pt lead in in just a few weeks... there's certainly nothing to say that she won't continue that trend against Trump... and god knows she's gonna make a lot more gaffs between now and Nov... and they really HURT her... Trump's gaffs make him more of the beloved outsider...

I honestly think she'd lose and badly to Trump... but obviously you'll disagree.

Try I have roots in Brooklyn back to NINTEEN OH TWO! (1902).
I still have lots of family and friends there, even though I live an hour and a half away. It's still my home.

You actually thought Clinton was unpopular here. That's never been the case.

Stale, huh?
I call that ageism!

And i do political campaigning here every year and I can tell you Hillary will win this borough.

Which, I guess with your roots, you can be.
Every year since the 1670s? That is quite a long time. Did you know Asser Levy?
You must be Dutch.
I think that you are mistaken. This year is not a year for establishment candidates.

You are not.

And i am not dutch but a mixture of Irish, Italian, welsh, and English. And no i am not establishment thank you.

Wanting Sanders to win Brooklyn is nice but those of us who live here and campaign here will tell you he will not win here.

You have roots back to the 1670s and have no Dutch roots.
Okay, I guess that Italians, Irish, Welsh, and English were there then.
NOT!

And I am on the ground there on the weekends.

Borough Park, Canarsie, Midwood, East Flatbush, Ozone Park, Parts of Brighton Beach and Coney Island. I have family in each of those neighborhoods. As a matter of fact I am frequently the Synagogue's "goy boy" in my friends Temple on Shabbos, when I stay with him.
I guess that makes me Jewish by osmosis.

I prefer to live in reality.

I don't know what you do here but i am campaigning on a daily basis. Hillary has almost all of the civil organizations and Democratic Clubs.

H. Kissinger was that popular in Brooklyn.

Though I'm from the Great Lakes, am in California now,

and I can tell you that HRC is nowhere out here.

As a Vietnam vet, I have to ask how you can support someone

with such scary foreign policy non-credentials?

Veteran For Peace

Fascinating.

by 17%, winning every single county but one.

No independents get to play in our primary here.

P.S. Good luck in Pennsylvania's closed primary, where 70% of the voters will be 45 or older, 33% older than 60.

prayers to the Indictment Fairy answered.

our government. I would prefer she not have broken the law to her being indicted and Sanders get the nom.

If she did break the law, though, she should be indicted.

…..much of Manhattan is feeling the Bern.

I assume that Wall Street and the upper east side maybe not. But their kids are.

For sure all the areas around universities and colleges are from Columbia to Hunter to NYU.

Midtown? Murray Hill? Tribeca?

I even doubt there is much bern in Chelsea or the East Village...

Bernie might get Zuccotti Park, but only if they allow tents back in...

....about the LES. One of the most progressive places in NY. Tribeca is still full of artists and they're feelin' it.

Chelsea is changing it's demographic but they know it's because of the 1% pushing them out.

So not sure where you get your assumptions. It's good to walk around and actually talk to people.

It ain't even what it used to be 10 years ago. Just like Chelsea and Tribeca, it's full of people working for financial services and corporate powerhouses. The people you think live there have all moved out to the outer boroughs a long time ago. They occasionally come to visit, and this is probably why you get the wrong impression of the Manhattan demographics, but it would be refreshing to talk to people who actually live there rather than the visiting Williamsburgers.

……I live in Manhattan. Third generation, deeply bound up with the history of NY. There are still plenty of creatives in the LES and Chelsea and plenty of middle class people on the west side, but for sure they are under assault by the interests of the global 1%. I'm active in several community organizations that are trying desperately to save local businesses, long term neighborhoods and traditional architecture. So do spare me your lecture-y tone.

There's no denying that the rich will for sure go for Hillary and her real estate development/Wall Street "demographic" but there's still plenty of us pre-gentrifiers, artist collectives, old timers and students, who recognize her for who she represents. There was an ice-cream event just last night in Washington Sq. Park for Bernie. There's always something for him somewhere, ever since he declared. Never see a thing for HRC. Never. And, BTW, there are also plenty of techies who themselves realize they are now being priced out of their apartments. Haven't you noticed all the high end retailers who are now also being rent-jacked out?

The NY primary is in flux. It's not a slam dunk for her. And upstate has never been in the tank for HRC.

See you at the polls.
Have a good day.

And I am not at all sure how solidly you pre-gentrifiers are behind Bernie. Plenty of women and gay rights supporters are in the Hillary camp. And I am not at all sure that the pre-gentrifiers, artists and students, even if viewed as a politically homogeneous group, constitute majority in LES and Chelsea.

But I guess we will see soon enough...

From "The Tempest", Wm. Shakespeare, may not mean what you think it means. Are you supporting Mrs. Clinton? That's a personal question, no response expected.

Those trapped in the past are doomed to repeat their errors.

Best of luck to you.

but you've un-offended me. Thanks.

All I see are Bernie Sanders stickers and the occasional Trump sticker. I haven't seen a single Hillary Clinton sticker yet. Hell, after Bernie stickers, I see more Obama '08 and Obama '12 stickers than anything else.

Judging from what I see around here Hillary Clinton isn't that popular. Or, if she is, nobody is openly admitting to supporting her.

I can't really tell you where exactly she won. But the likely answer to your question is: Yes, popular. in about 83% of NY State.

...so the process isn't clean.

We can help reduce disenfranchisement by spreading Voter ID info:

http://bringit.wisconsin.gov/do-i-have-right-photo-id

Ahead by 6 points on March 23; Down by 4 on March 30.

“April is the cruelest month, breeding
lilacs out of the dead land, mixing
memory and desire, stirring
dull roots with spring rain.”

― T.S. Eliot, The Waste Land

and suppressing the vote. Wonder how few locations they will open and how few ballots they will have.

Everyone better check their voter registration.

I've not heard anyone mention the need to win Wisconsin. And they count pledged delegates in their math. Is it news, or is it propaganda? Maybe both.

I can't wait for this old stodgy media to be gone.

Bernie has a mountain to climb, but remember the words of the Hitchhikers Guide: nothing is impossible, only very highly improbable.

From here on in, pretty much every state is going to be called a "must win" state for Sanders. And that's basically true. He doesn't need to win every one, but the vast majority, and by big margins often.

Luckily, the primary season had all the Southern states in the first half. The remaining states are much friendlier for him. Still, get used to that "must win" language. He definitely needs to win Wisconsin. I'm confident he will.

If they can't win in Wisconsin, how will they compete in large states with many more African Americans and Latinos?

in large diverse states to catch up to her. There is no clear path.

he's our only hope.

So, there's that. I don't know why all these people want HRC.

I really have no idea. She has done nothing for anyone except herself.
She showed her true colors in 2008, and she hasn't changed.*

*see all the lies she tells about Sen. Sanders.

I can't say I will support her in the GE.
I'm a lifelong Dem, she isn't. She will have to earn my vote.
Sen. Sanders has already done so.

Many lower-income people disagree with your assessment, particularly the poorer folks in large, diverse states.

They have reason to be skeptical about politicians promising free stuff.

They have not been well represented in DC for at least forty years. (While there are some good congresscritters out there, their number is too few to have much effect in the areas where that influence is most needed.)

I find it bitterly ironic that the candidate who did far more to create that cynicism, benefits the most from it.

As for me, I fall into the low-income category myself, but I'm not a PoC. I know well that Bernie would not be able to get much accomplished until 2020 at best, barring a wave election the likes of which the country hasn't seen since 1932 (even Raygun with his electoral college landslides still had to deal with a Democratic congress).

It's the kinds of things that Hillary would deign to accomplish with the current Congress that scare me.

And yes, I acknowledge that the violence ushered in by Trump scares me even more, so don't lump me in with Bernie or Bust quite yet please.

ETA: Oh, yes, and ironically the polling does show that in a Bernie vs. Trump GE, a 1932 style election is within the realm of possibility, not likely perhaps, but then again Bernie going from 4% in the polls to still slugging it out with Hillary as we head into April was not likely either.

The state with the most PoC in the Union?

For the last couple of months the argument been PoC didn't support him.

Now it's just African Americans?

Okay...can y'all create a running thread on who doesn't support him this week?

was about African Americans, who have not been supporting Bernie in great enough numbers for him to carry states with large proportions of them.

circuitous route, via Asia, compared to those whose ancestors came to the U.S. more directly from Africa. Although they probably did so sooner than those whose ancestors left came to the U.S. from Africa via Europe, so...

Um... Yeah... So... Pacific Islanders and people with Japanese ancestry are... 'white', in the way that matters, you see?

Personally, I'm just glad that I don't see the New York Times' coverage of the Democratic primary and caucuses results displaying a map of 'More blacks' and 'Fewer blacks' in its 'how Democrats voted' sections any more.

Including all the absurd crap from the Republican circus this year, that is the most personally offensive thing I've seen relating to politics this year.

They still display it for past contests: (Scroll down a bit on the right).

They didn't do anything like that in 2008, when an African American was a major candidate. Reeks of both racism and 'let's include this to show how Bernie Sanders doesn't have African American support.'

their access to news sources that aren't mainstream media is not as significant as middle and upper class constituents.

HD Antenna only? There has been exponentially less Bernie coverage compared to Hillary coverage in the mainstream media. If you go back a month, there had been almost no coverage of Bernie.

Actually, my assertion has a greater possibility than your assertion.

And they've all been nationally broadcast.

Since the close contest in Iowa, Hillary and Bernie have had similar amounts of coverage, though Hillary has had more negative coverage because of the Rethug email attacks. Donald Trump has had more coverage than all the other candidates put together.

doesn't make sense. But they've been doing it for years, voting against their own interests.

No one is promising free stuff, another RW meme. It doesn't belong here.

I guess we shouldn't vote for him?

I don't count 'free' tuition as free stuff.

Free tuition helps the nation. An educated populace helps the nation.

I think of JFK when I think of free college.

Wish I'd had it instead of the lousy $200 I got from the feds.
Didn't even cover tuition much less R&B.

At the very beginning of the process? You know, before anyone knew who Bernie was? Again, it is not an issue with African-Americans or any minority, it WAS an issue of name-recognition. Those of us paying attention already get that.

And Hillary had much stronger support from African Americans.

To insist it is a matter of name-recognition is an insult to African Americans, because then you have to explain why black people in these states are too ignorant to know about Bernie, but white people aren't.

The reason Bernie did so well in caucuses is partly because of the caucus format, which leads to a low turnout, but of unusually motivated voters; and partly because of the demographics of those states. Hawaii, Washington, and Alaska have low numbers of African American voters.

weekend helped cut that.

It IS a tie and that still is good for Sanders. But it's misleading to call this a lead.

Statistically what this result means is that there is a 95% chance that the true result of the overall population surveyed is within 6.3% of the result of this particular sample of surveyed voters.

That is why it can't be called a lead. If they took another sample of the exact same population of voters, they are just as likely to get a result that puts HRC ahead.

Within the margin of error it is "too close to call."

or else he actually loses ground in terms of delegates.

Clinton got thumped here in 2008, so anything about 43% for her is gravy

A tie won't do it for him.

You are correct that margin of error means that the actual figure has a 95% chance of being within that number of points of the figure stated.

However that does not mean that another sample out of the same population would be just as likely to get the opposite result in terms of who is in the lead.

Basically, you're not allowing for the fact that not all scenarios within the margin of error have an equal likelihood of occurring. The farther into the MOE deviation you go, the less likely you are to see that result.

A good article on the topic in general is at :

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/10/one-last-encore-great-statistical-tie-fallacy

Given the likelihood of voting at various ages, I'd say the poll is skewed towards younger voters...

...gone into overdrive. Obviously Bernie's data base was hacked. The same company that manages Bernie's data base manages the data base of New York voters. The same irregularities are showing up in other states. Wisconsin needs to be on the alert

Go here: http://www.inquisitr.com/2930677/are...-like-arizona/

Michigan challenges you

Washington state challenges you too

and to make the Badger state the great democratic stronghold it used to be

...to reduced the number of people disenfranchised by Governor Scott Walker (R-WI).

We can post this link to Twitter and Facebook:

http://bringit.wisconsin.gov/do-i-have-right-photo-id

I hope they are not counting cell phones or Bernies going to have another blow out!

Looks to be pretty easy from here.

And Bernie has mo... MOMENTUM!
Actually we call it Bernmentum!

Shoot me for making that sexist comment, but it is a striking outfit. Usually her clothes sense sucks.

#BernieOrBust

I saw her in a yellow one the other day, and it was very flattering.

and if saying someone looks good is 'sexist', this old feminist pleads guilty...She looks great.

Go Bernie!