It means that instead of needing to win 34% of remaining pledged delegates, Hillary would need to win 35%.

This is because of how pledged delegates are allocated -- they will be splitting them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511892222

Democratic

5.2% Reporting

Delegates Allocated: 7/92

Delegates
H. Clinton 53.3% 29,418 7
B. Sanders 46.7% 25,810

Read more: http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president#ixzz47dYG3UPk

I have no idea who will win. But I know we vote differently than two counties to my East. I also know that Exit polls used to be reliable before touch screen machines. So we will just wait it out.

That's why when you're watching returns. it's important to see they areas they're coming from.

In my state, if I remember correctly, which I may not, Hillary took two wealthy areas and another one and Bernie took all the others, which were middle, working, and rural class.

While there are general trends overall, it's not always consistent county to county, precinct to precinct, even with like demographics. If that was the case, we would have seen far more support for Hillary our west and in Northern and central IL for Hillary. I'm from IL, so more familiar with demo here, and the massive problems on Election Day that people don't like to talk about.

The exit polls favored Sanders 56 to Clinton 44. If there is a big difference between the exit polls and the final election results, we need to be asking why. Until the advent of electronic voting, exit polls were remarkable reliable and used by news outlets all the time.

That was a big reason for the difference in exit polls and final results in Arizona.

Clinton won huge in the early voting, Sanders won the day of election voting, where exit polls happen.



If Indiana has early voting, exit polls are going to miss a large number of voters, and be very unreliable

Exit Polls are worthless there.

I've never seen any evidence to support this. Do you know of any?

Early voters tend to be older and that was Hillary's demographic

Hillary had a large lead when the early votes were released

Bernie Won the day of voting votes

http://www.trivalleycentral.com/casa_grande_dispatch/area_news/early-voting-in-arizona-favored-democrats/article_5699d734-7d6e-11e4-be1a-1fd8fccaaeb8.html

That article from November 2012 has nothing to do with what happened in our primary

A big difference is a sign of fraud. Not that the Clinton folks would commit fraud, or anything, goodness me, no.

states to implement electronic voter registration databases seems to have occurred in tandem with that change. Coincidental? Hard to believe.

hence why they USUALLY predict the winner, not always.

lets see how it plays out! its only a 4 point miss from the other midwestern states surrounding them

Unfortunately.

who have been voting strongly for Hillary.

They are a sample and sampling method and rigor determine their inherent margin of error. There is no substitute for sampling everyone = the voting.

ABSOLUTELY the exception rather than the rule in other countries.

Only in the USA do exit polls miss the mark by wide margins. That's because of election fraud CODE written right into the electronic voting machines and tabulators.

HuffPo is misleading Americans by stating this, making it seem matter-of-fact that exit polls are garbage science.

Hell, I see comments right here, people who ought to know better by the way, reinforcing this false premise.

Exit polls are WORTHLESS in states with widespread early voting.




that is not to discount any election fraud that happens, but in a state like Arizona where 30-50% of electorate votes early, it can account for the wide variation.

counted in exit polls, and they tend to be heavily older voters. And in this election, older voters have strongly supported Hillary

In states that have a known history of heavy early voting, pollsters do telephone surveys before the election.

They factor those numbers into exit polls.

With your heightened knowledge of this junk science known as "exit polling", perhaps you should direct your pointed observations to the news services that employ exit pollsters, such as HuffPo, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, etc.

Tell them they're wasting good money on exit polling.

No need for you to tell this to pollsters doing republican exit polls in 2016, however: I've heard they're doing a pretty good job with those races.

where one of the candidates gets many more young voters, and one gets many more seniors. And seniors are being undercounted in exit polls because they are more likely to vote early/absentee.

looking tough for HRC

because of Demographics (few black voters) and the open primary.

However, even in the event that he won by as much as 15% (which he won't), that would only increase the number of pledged delegates she needed in the rest of the primaries (to reach half) from 34% to 35%.

So that is why she didn't spend any money in the state on ads. Her money is better spent elsewhere.

That Vermont ponzi scheme is under FBI investigation and he was a big supporter of the key players.

And for some reason he's not willing to answer questions about this.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/antoinegara/2016/04/14/how-an-alleged-ski-resort-ponzi-scheme-exploited-a-growth-plan-once-championed-by-bernie-sanders/#7dbebd2cb172

“The most popular sport in America is complaining about the federal government. What you are seeing here is a marriage and partnership between private business and federal, state and local government.” Those were Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders’ words in October 2012 when it came to a once-glittering economic development plan to revive the northeast part of his state.

A bi-partisan partnership between private business and federal, state and local government to be sure, but also allegedly a sophisticated multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme, according to a 52-count complaint unsealed Thursday by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The alleged Ponzi scheme ties an EB-5 investor program championed by Jay Peak Ski Resort, a popular 78-trail mountain in Vermont’s Northeast Kingdom, which raised over $350 million from foreign investors to expand its facilities and create local jobs. The EB-5 program, supported by the State of Vermont and both of its Senators, Bernie Sanders and Patrick Leahy, offered foreigners the opportunity to invest between $500,000 to $1 million in developments that projected returns of 2% to 6% and a pathway to U.S. citizenship within two years.

SNIP

For years, Jay Peak was championed by Democratic and Republican officials including Senators Sanders and Patrick Leahy, in addition to Governors Jim Douglas and Peter Shumlin, as a smart marriage between foreign investors, business and government. Senator Leahy is one of the strongest supporters of EB-5 programs in Washington. Shumlin, at great lengths, highlighted the Jay Peak program in his gubernatorial address after re-election in 2013.

The Sanders campaign did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment, nor did Stenger.

AND ANOTHER:

http://digital.vpr.net/post/bernie-sanders-wont-talk-about-alleged-corporate-corruption-his-home-state#stream/0

Bernie Sanders Won't Talk About Alleged Corporate Corruption In His Home State

Virtually every prominent Vermont politician condemned the alleged multimillion-dollar fraud in the Northeast Kingdom after federal authorities charged the developers last week, but Vermonters have yet to hear what Sen. Bernie Sanders thinks about it – or how he might vote on a key reform bill.

Sanders, a Democratic candidate for president, has been silent about the fraud allegations and the federal EB-5 program, even though he endorsed the EB-5-funded projects as an example of good government in the past.

Sen. Patrick Leahy said last week that he hopes Congress will help him pass a bill to reform the federal EB-5 program that allegedly allowed Jay Peak owner Ariel Quiros and CEO Bill Stenger to dupe hundreds of foreign investors out of millions of dollars.

Leahy said his bill would help prevent that kind of fraud, but Vermont's other senator hasn't weighed in about Leahy's bill or the fraud allegations that surfaced nearly a week ago.

After landing at the Burlington airport Tuesday evening, Sanders briefly addressed reporters about his loss in the New York primary, and he refused to answer any questions about the EB-5 issue.

investigation

are you throwing leahy under the bus too?

as you know hc has hired the same criminal attorney she has used in the past....i am sure that must be personal money tho,hopefully not campaign funds

HEre people vote on everything from what color the grass should be to who should be the vice-president of catching dogs. Other countries also have much shorter and less complex election campaigns. I grew up in a differnt country form the US and frankly I'm surprised the exit polls here are ever right given the complexities involved.

...are the gold standard for detecting election fraud.
EXCEPT in the USA, where exit polls are sometimes later "adjusted" to coincide with..**cough** cough***....the vote tabulation.
When exit polls showed John Kerry winning massively in Ohio in 2004, and Rove's manipulation of the vote had Bush winning, the exit polls were adjusted to fit the final result. Can't have science getting in the way of politics.

the last regular poll had them at 50-46 but the indy crossovers could tip the scale...

but still lingers.

think they know something ?

that despite what the polls have said, the demographics of the state (fewer African American voters) and the open primary would predict a Bernie win.

Not sure if it changed since you looked at it, but that is the headline at your link right now.

thanks.

That might balance out Bernie's success with voters who voted today.

this may not even be close for Hillary!

It's not even prime time.

Sanders 79,397 50.1
Clinton 79,191 49.9

with 23% of precincts reporting

sanders 100,801 50.7%

clinton 97,902 49.3%

7:21 PM CT

With 43% Precincts reporting, we are ready for a final margin call. We are calling Sanders 52.5% - Clinton 47.5% for Indiana.

- Virginia: Clinton 63% - Sanders 37% Call made with 11% reporting
- Vermont: Sanders 88% - Clinton 12% Call made with 10% reporting
- Georgia: Clinton 68% - Sanders 32% Call made with 16.5% reporting
- Oklahoma: Sanders 51% - Clinton 45% - Other 4% with 18.9% reporting
- Tennessee: Clinton 62% - Sanders 38% Call made with 20% reporting
- Alabama: Clinton 74% - Sanders 20% - Other 6%** Call made with 15% reporting
- Massachusetts: Clinton 51% - Sanders 49% Call made with 35% reporting
- Arkansas: Clinton 68% - Sanders 30% - Other 2% Call made with 10% reporting
- Texas: Clinton 64% - Sanders 36% - Other 1%** Call made with 10% reporting
- Colorado: Sanders 58% - Clinton 42% Call made with 17% reporting
- Minnesota: Sanders 59% - Clinton 41% Call made with 48% reporting
- Nebraska: Sanders 57% - Clinton 43% Caucus call made with 75% reporting (all reported at once)
- Louisiana: 74% Clinton, 20% Sanders. Call made with 19% reporting.
- Maine: 63% Sanders, 37% Clinton. Call made with 13% reporting.
- Michigan: 51% Sanders - 48% Clinton - 1% Other Call made with 21% Reporting.
- Mississippi: 84% Clinton - 15% Sanders - 1% Other Call made with 45% reporting (Michigan was too exciting)
- Florida: 66% Clinton - 32% Sanders - 2% Other Call made with 46% Reporting (waited for all polls to close)
- North Carolina: 57% Clinton - 40% Sanders - 3% Other Call made with 10% reporting
- Ohio: 60% Clinton - 38% Sanders - 2% Other Call made with 20% reporting
- Missouri: 51% Sanders - 48% Clinton - 1% Other call made with 16.2% Reporting.
- Illinois: 50.5% Clinton - 49% Sanders - .5% Other Call made with 73% reporting. (TOO CLOSE!)
- Arizona Dem: 62% Clinton - 37% Sanders - 1% Other call made with 9% reporting.
- Arizona Rep: 48% Trump- 24% Cruz- 14% Kasich call made with 10% reporting.
- Alaska 85% Sanders - 15% Clinton call made with 15% reporting.
- Washington 77% Sanders - 23% Clinton call made with 19% reporting.
- Wisconsin: 56.5% Sanders - 43.5% Clinton call made with 23% reporting.
- New York: Clinton 57% - Sanders 43%. Call made with 31% reporting.
- Delaware: Clinton 60% - Sanders 40%. Call made with 14% reporting.
- Rhode Island: Sanders 54% - Clinton 46%. Call made with 33% reporting.
- Pennsylvania: Clinton 57% - Sanders 42%. Call made with 19% reporting.
- Maryland: Clinton 66% - Sanders 32%. Call made with 11% reporting.
- Connecticut: Clinton 51% - Sanders 48%. Call made with 55% reporting.
- Indiana: Sanders 52.5% - Clinton 47.5%. Call made with 43% reporting.

but keep those $27 a rollin in!

At what point does the fact that one candidate does better in open vs closed primaries become a point of interest/investigation?

I'm guessing that would include caucuses too?

Some states may want democrats and not independents or republicans picking their candidate.

Illinois has an open primary and Clinton won. Several states had an open primary and she won... So there's that.

That might be a factor worth considering.

even though Gore had the popular vote...

democratic party machine turning out the vote for her.

I read 35% of the absentee ballots were Democrat that are not in the exits.

He will never catch up, and trying to convince SD with bullying and far out polls is laughable.

Even things that aren't bad but some might consider these things to be bad.

BREAKING NEWS: TED CRUZ SUSPENDS PRESIDENTIAL BID
Texas senator drops out of race following major defeat by Trump in Indiana
http://www.foxnews.com/

Exit polls only miss by wide margins when the voting machines are fiddled-faddled with. Exit polls that haven't been fiddled-faddled with have, historically, been very accurate.

But the reality is they are never wrong. Only vote tallies are wrong through cheating and electronic vote hacking. Bernie won by 12% not 5%. Only exit polls show the truth.