guess who has that advantage in New York.

for early/absentee voters is abhorrent to me.

And yes!!! My extreme gratitude for all those Hillary people working hard to GOTV!

...by some as an example of "election fraud." I've seen it all over DU already.

Which makes no sense.

I have zero use for people who claim to be Dems, yet hate any Dem that isn't one of them.

block of radicals that flits around the left from party to uninvolved to party to unaffiliated to uninvolved, including the Democratic Party, tossing all who disappoint them (everyone ultimately) under that handy bus and continuing on.

One social scientist summarized a main difference between the far right and far left as that the far right hates everyone who isn't like them while the far left hates "themselves." These are defining characteristics.

We see it in action in those Democratic Party members who leap to blame the party and its ("conservative&quot liberals for everything wrong with America, and elsewhere.

The "self hate" orientation, of course, isn't just for the American left but for America itself since it is their country. They're the ones who react to every post about troubles in foreign nations with knee-jerk claims that the U.S. is the cause, no local factors allowed to elbow their way onto mental stages permanently taken over by an evil American corporate-government-CIA-military worldview.

We may think we have no use for them, but they know we are doomed if they do not save us. It is their unique ability to see, and despair over, all they are a part of that allows them the special wisdom and virtue others all lack.

Isn't that fantastic? And I suspect the number is actually significantly higher.

Right on about the inverse relation between knowledge relation and potentially dangerous behavior, but for the more zealous ones which comes first -- the lack of knowledge or the propensity for cultish attachment to a leader that requires denial of information?

As you say, we so don't need those who don't like the reality of representative government! Very fortunately for us, those with that problem are few enough (and incapable of allying for long if at all with others) that they usually lose and end up sidelined for another generation or more. Thousands of posts here alone have made it clear that, when fired up by a leader, some recognize no limits in pursuit of what they want.

You know, it may be that large chunks of the right are moving leftward somewhat right now. They still disapprove of and distrust the left on the whole, but a reliable poll I forgot to copy showed a large majority of conservatives not all that worried about "big government," or whatever the term was -- but in any case an eye-grabbing rejection of 40 years of mass media indoctrination.

In my opinion the lack of any candidate that can unify them has both led to the rise of Trump, and also to the potential defection of those voters that would rather vote for Hillary, than let The Donald lead their party. There is also a segment that really seems to understand that the Tea Party core of congress collect huge salaries and do nothing for them. Hillary is much more progressive than voters might like, but she doesn't vilify the voters of the right, and has a reputation of working hard and getting things done. Exactly what is needed to keep moving forward.

The only problem I see in making huge progressive progress right now, is the indoctrination of the right for the past two decades (at least) by people like Rush and Glenn Beck. They have frightened a large chunk of their listeners into thinking that life, as we know it, will end if the horrible "liberals" aren't removed from government. I think they are really afraid for their children's futures, due to the asshats spouting trash for ratings. Beck may be a true believer, but I don't think most of the others are. Those frightened and angry voters will be the hardest to move.

the deep south/Bible Belt. It's pretty easy to sort them out -- hard-core social conservatives such as you worry about are typically smiling and agreeable one-on-one and reserved in mixed groups, but hostile and aggressive behind the backs of people like me. They do run in packs. I chose to back off some involvement in one group because our son was getting a contract with the school district in our small city and we were all worried they would make the connection; if made, they unquestionably would have gone after him. We can't move them, but I'm guessing Trump and Cruz are splitting them -- guessing because after we've been a few years in this county we are merely polite when we meet.

Typically moderate traditional conservatives, otoh ,are friends or capable of being friendly and working together. Even if they still firmly disagree about the value of government programs and I'm firmly for big solutions, we can talk genuinely about our concerns, most of which are shared. Not that we talk politics a lot, even among better friends, but we know we can talk and agree, as well as disagree. I've avoided asking people who they may vote for for some while; because they're who they are I know they must be unhappy with what's happening to the GOP.

And one of the keys to getting along in a society still formed by its village background (have to get along for life!) is not revealing very much about any non-mainstream beliefs. I suspect there must be significantly more liberals and progressive conservatives than I realize, or perhaps even they do. LOL.

This is an EXTREMELY conservative county. I am literally the first liberal and my husband the first Jew some have knowingly met. I know that because they were each bemused enough at that thought in this age to say so.

One guy shows up with several hundred "surrogate" votes... Yeah, I believe this was legit... The methods of chicanery from the other side are endless...

They're so damn evil and corrupt that they'll go to great lengths to steal the smallest and least important Democratic primary in the nation in order to gain a delegate or two even though she's ahead by 250 pledged delegates! Makes perfect sense!

Enjoy

WayneEdH ?@WayneEdH 20h20 hours ago

Bernie gets ZERO Net Delegates in Wyoming!
Plus HRC has +4 superdelegates in WY.
#ImWithHer

that were all mailed to a central location in the preceding weeks? You do know that about a third of those ballots were for Bernie?

Most caucuses prevent those who are disabled or elderly, or have three jobs, or have dependents of children to take care of, from voting.

Shows that when everyone is allowed to vote, Bernie doesn't win by such big margins.

Has been doing a huge push in getting those

The HRC campaign really needs to grow their base, but they seem to only be polarizing it.

will vote with Clinton after primary

Quite a few of Sanders voters are either crossovers from the republican party or independents who don't necessarily see republicans as any worse than democrats.

As your very own OP argues, that block has a significant impact on the outcome, so why do you dismiss them so quickly now?

what matters in material terms is what's going to happen in the next 17 days.

They can't have ONE person bring in 625 surrogate votes. One person one vote.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511692371#top

and were the reason Obama won twice.

Are you aware that Romney carried the majority of white voters, both men and women? African American and Latino voters are a key part of the Democratic coalition.

Fickle independents are not.

That's dangerously short sighted and emblematic of the mediocre Campaign Hillary has been running so far.

Yeah, Bernie's weak with black voters, so he and the campaign are clearly working hard to fix it instead of writing them off. Hillary is weak with independents, crossover voters, and young voters and the strategy to this point seems to be dismissive of them--calling them disloyal, immature, or blindly bigoted in some way. That's a strategy of throwing out the most energized among the voters.

She has been flat or trending down for her whole campaign. How will that bode in the general?

Most of the independent Sanders voters will stay home or cross over for the Repukes.

Sad, but 100% true.

A lot of Independents are wingnuts who are ashamed to be associated with the Republican party (can't blame them on that one)

A lot of Independents are leftwingers who hold their noses and vote D in the general election.

And a fair number of them are squishy centrists, have no coherent ideology, or are "I vote the person not the party" types.

Polling indicates Clinton is crushing Trump and Cruz in the fall. She would lose to Kasich, but so would Sanders. Fortunately, he has zero chance of being their nominee.

Clinton, for starters.

she's not liberal compared to Bernie Sanders, but Bernie Sanders is the extreme left in Congress.

She actually dismissed those concerned about the 1st amendment by saying:

on issues that actually matter to ordinary voters, i.e. job creation, education, labor rights, taxing and spending, she's a liberal

if domestic spying and encryption are your litmus tests for being a liberal, then you'll love Ted Cruz and Rand Paul.

Domestic Spying is a question of the 4th amendment:

ask people in poor urban centers where encryption and drone strikes rank on their issues list.

...is to say that voters in poor urban areas don't see it as very important?

And your response to the fact that Hillary Clinton is on the wrong side of civil liberties is that "poor urban people don't care"? That is beyond fucked up. Discussion of the issues can apparently be refuted by saying poor urban people don't care. wow.

I didn't mention drone strikes. I am talking about respect for civil liberties of American citizens by those hoping to represent them in government. If you don't see that as an important issue then we really don't share the same values at all. And if that's an accurate representation of how the Democratic party thinks, they're breaking their oaths of office to preserve protect and defend the constitution.

enough bend you wind up getting a break.

Example: France ex post the terror attacks there last year.

spyware, ransomware, hackers, bots, etc are a much bigger risk to most people's privacy than the government is.

yes, there is always the issue of the government misusing that authority. so there need to be safeguards.

as I said, a complex area.

Just as civil rights for minorities are not a "complex issue".

The French terrorists attacks didn't use encryption and warrantless wiretapping would not have prevented the attacks. How would "bending" to allow the government more access have helped? Remember that the French and Belgian law enforcement and intelligence agencies knew the attackers were dangerous and affiliated with jihadists:

Either there is good encryption or there isn't. Whether you call it a government backdoor, or something else, encryption with a hole in it will eventually be broken by others. Maybe criminals or maybe governments like China or Russia. But it will happen.

And the problem is that good encryption is available. If we mandate some government backdoor, then all we will do is make sure people who aren't technologically savvy won't have encryption.

It has been shown over and over again that the Democratic candidate must win the Black vote to win the presidency.

Why on Earth would the black vote want Trump to win?

I don't think so. I doubt very much that they would come out in enough numbers to ensure a Bernie win.

I don't think any voters can be taken for granted, I'm mocking an argument used over and over against Sanders' voters: "Toe the line or you're getting a republican." In fact, that was exactly greek tragedy's logic in response to my question. My comment that you replied to was actually making that point that such an argument won't have much pull among many of Sanders' voters.

She is losing the base.

"Idolize" and "Elect" are synonyms. No independents needed.

nt

Pretty similar state. Why was Wyoming so much closer?

the Union until women had the right to vote. Utah as about 3 million people, Wyoming has less than 600,000. Not really all that similar.

And is not dominated by Mormons.

Why do you think Wyoming was so much closer than Alaska?

It was much closer.


Don;t get me wrong.... still a commanding victory, but he needs to do a LOT better than that to have chance of winning to primary.

So Bernie won 56% of Democrats and Hillary won only 44% of Democrats.

He won other caucuses in the region by 50+ points.

Bernie is fantastic at turning out the Independent vote. It's a pity Hillary can't. Are you surprised that 56% of Wyoming Democrats prefer Bernie over Hillary? That's a 6 pt gain from WI. In WI Bernie tied Hillary with Democrats. Are you surprised that Hillary could only get 44% of DEMOCRATS even with absentee balloting being allowed? WOW. Why do you think Democrats are deserting her? Such a low approval among Democrats and she can't attract Independents. That's not good.

Bernie is very strong with independents. Much moreso than Hillary.

In Wyoming, though, I thought Bernie would do better. I was surprised that it was so close. In the end, it looks like it will be a delegate tie. I was expecting something similar to the bigger margin of victories in other western states.

It will be interesting to see what happens in New York, that's for sure. If Bernie can win there, that will be a game changer.

That's all that matters in states like Wyoming. Bernie didn't meet his target. Hillary exceeded hers.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats/

Those are Nate's targets FOR the candidates not the candidate's targets. It's his opinion and he hasn't been real good this election, has he? But if you want to rely on him that's certainly ok with me. Did you happen to notice that Bernie improved with Democrats by 6 pts since WI. Remember in WI Hillary and Bernie split the Dem vote 50/50. Not here...56/44. That's worrisome combined with the fact Hillary has shown she can't attract Independents. Not good.

he still wins, you always want to win. But it wasnt a 75/25 split.

This amounts to a decent headline, but in reality is a failure for his campaign, as he failed to gain delegates where he needed to

Do you know that we almost met the record of caucus participants that was set in 2008?

5.3% of registered voters was the record set that year.

Millions of voters here can't or won't jump the hurdles required to vote in the WA caucus. I looked into this because my son, an out of state college student, didn't qualify for a surrogate affidavit. He was not unusual.

This is why we have three times as many participating in the primary, even though our votes in the primary don't count for a single delegate, no matter who wins. The caucuses are designed to limit turnout. It's built into their DNA.

I am a staunch opponent of caucuses, and a staunch supporter of early voting, absentee voting, lots of polling places, and automatic voter registration.

In Norway, where I live now, everyone is automatically registered to vote at 18. Norwegians get their voter card in the mail a couple of months before the election. On the card is their polling place, but early voting starts on July 1 - election is in September. You need ID to vote - that's relatively new, after pressure from international election observers. Anything with your name, picture and date of birth is acceptable (driver's licence, passport, credit card etc.) If you live in an institution, one of the employees can verify your identity for you, as they do early voting in nursing homes, hospitals etc. In other words, Norway's system is designed to make it as easy as possible to vote. The American system is the opposite, and I consider that quite shameful.

Even tho I hoped the margins were better I was always cautious for just the reasons the op mentioned. A closed process. These are Democrats voting for Bernie and the advantage Hillary supporters had with absentees won't be as easily available in NY. I don't think there's early voting either but not 100% on that. Also Wyoming is fairly conservative.

This is a great win!

Which is a group where Bernie runs particularly strong.

A victory is looking more and more likely. He doesn't need the percentages that Hillary does.

If he wins the state, then all bets are off.

Nothing is for certain.

Both candidate have work to do, definitely true for Bernie.

I'm sure we will come back and say IF ONLY we could have won 10-4 in Wyoming

Hint: He's not winning New York.

regarding Bernie's demise.

Hint: Keep it going

He'll lose by a similar margin in New York, if not worse. And NY is 3X as big as WI in terms of delegates.

He needs to win delegates in NY, not lose them.

Like his chances?

so yeah, Clinton will win, and Satan will order antifreeze for his car.

in a caucus state.

Point being:

Compare Wyoming to other western caucus states--Alaska, Idaho, Utah--that were open.

He ran up some decent delegate totals on her in those states.

Nada in Wyoming.

Now, in terms of primary voting in big mid-atlantic states, the closed primary will amplify her other advantages.

40% of Sanders voters are not registered Democrats.

Some of those will obviously have registered as Democrats in NY and PA, but a lot won't. Especially in NY, where the rules are specifically crafted to keep people from crossing-over.

If they win between 43.751% and 56.24% they get 7/14

Regardless of the delegate breakdown, it goes against the "True Democrats back Hillary" narrative.

How big would he have won Wisconsin if it was a caucus state?

I do think it means claims about inherent advantages for Sanders in the caucus system need to be tempered with that in mind.

in certainly played a role in Laramie county.

let that stop you on your journey to convince the world that 56-44 is a tie. Also, is the Wyoming caucus process over yet or is there more of the pyramid left to climb?

It's another chance to win delegates that has slipped through his fingers.

he was supposed to win 11 delegates to remain on track to win the nomination.

He fell 4 delegates short of where he wanted to be.

speech

math

unless the conversation is about physics, momentum is almost always a bullshit concept.

if an equities analyst refers to a company as a "momentum stock" they are bullshitting,

when sports announcers talk about "momentum" they are bullshitting--momentum belongs to the team that scored last.

when political pundits talk about momentum, they're acting like sports announcers.

Momentum does help raise money. But so do pushing conspiracy theories and inventing grievances.

keeps money flowing, volunteers motivated, and voters willing to vote. Sanders clearly has it at the moment as evidenced by closing national and state polls. If he wins in NY, momentum increases and voters who might not have voted for him will do so. Momentum is a psychological component of a political campaign that allows success to breed success.

if New York were close he wouldn't have tried his hail mary in Rome.

No dice.

As is the case in Wyoming, for the most part.

That Sanders won the majority of Wyoming Democrats is a profound victory.
Don't let the Hillarians downplay this win -- it is tremendous.

I'm originally from Wyoming; I was once a state committeeman and I worked for the last Democrat ever elected to Congress from that state.

I live in Denver now, but I have a lot of friends and family still living in Wyoming.

Wyoming is very conservative; even the Democrats are conservative.
Most Democrats in Wyoming would be Republicans almost anywhere else in the United States.

So, for a "socialist" like Sen. Sanders to win Wyoming is a pretty big deal.
Bernie Sanders shouldn't have had even a remote chance against a conservative, establishment Democrat like Hillary Clinton.

...extra points if you provide actual evidence.

Unless you make the other unviable it will be a 1-1 delegate split no matter what

Even if he won by the margins he won in Utah, Washington, or some of the other Western states.

He could have potentially swept all the delegates.

as much as non-Democrats.

I predict that your answer would be wrong.

I guess there are no "actual democrats".

The opposite happens all the time.

You will need more of that when Bernie loses.

That's a bit disturbing.

completely ignorant of recent American political history or just playing dumb. I won't hazard a guess which it is, but it might benefit you to consider the meaning of "party purity" and its concomitant demands.