Changed voter registrations and electronic voting machines!

This is actually quite common.

Also entirely common, politicians in his position always insist they are going to win with tremendous conviction. But good performances don't mean people should take political posturing seriously. He may be unfortunately narrow in his vision, but I see no reason to believe he did not understand his chances perfectly well.

I'm not as fond of him as I used to be.

He likes the cheering, I think. Been warned against since the days of the agora. You get a taste for that adulation, and you throw all good sense and perspective out the window. At least, you do if you're a weak person, as Sanders increasingly appears to be. His will be a sad little footnote to history.

if you don't suggest you are going to win, why would your supporters show up?

Last edited Wed Apr 20, 2016, 08:50 AM - Edit history (1)

How did they expect him to win really? He just joined the party 9 months ago, hasn't contributed to down-ticket dems out of the huge sums he's collected, seemed to focus mostly on white votes, and his supporters have been calling Clinton, a lying, corrupt, corporate whore who is about to be perp-marched away in cuffs for months.

Not a winning formula.

Last edited Wed Apr 20, 2016, 08:49 AM - Edit history (1)

somehow thinking everyone would praise him for taking a higher path. But it came across more accurately like the political ploy it was

Besides, why would he think he was going to lose? That would be a strange strategy imo.

mostly by big margins. I get it - not the same volume of vote. So, sometimes that is a good thing - like senators by state. whatever.

I think you have to remember that the sanders campaign is being funded by people - a lot of people - who keep donating no matter what - and the deal is he values and respects that vote.

I challenge you to think of any enterprise you might take on that you make plain from the beginning is going to represent its investors and that their investment in you as their representative will determine the end of the game.

What do you want the man to do???? Would you walk away with the cash? That is what you are insinuating. And that is pretty darn immoral.

If so I think you didn't understand my post very well. He still has a chance was my point. How you got to taking the money and running...I have no clue at all.

I'm challenging the 'quit now' people. He can't quit! He is doing so much for everyone everywhere! Go Bernie!

People that complain, sure don't appear to like the democratic process very much.

not in that vast space upstate where the votes are sparse.

And even up there in the cities — Rochester, Buffalo and Syracuse, they voted for Hillary.

Guess yours was the same logic dominating the Sanders campaign. It was wrong.

Care to re-think this?

You don't head off to Pennsylvania midday on election day in a state if you think you're going to win it. No poll ever suggested he would win. These campaigns know exactly where they stand days before elections. What was odd is that normally candidates dampen expectations rather than raise them. Over-promising not only is foolish, it makes you look foolish. That's why serious politicians don't do it.

It was just more bloviating and bragadoccio. Big macher stuff to try to impress gullible followers.

If Nernie loses, it must be fraud.

Undemocratic, low turn out causes that he wins? Those are totally fair, of course.

Because there wasn't any.

and the CNN exit polling showed that Clinton only had a 4 percent lead against Sanders in New York.

Internal polling is the most accurate polling ever done. That polling drills down into specific cities/areas/counties and reveals a great deal of finely detailed data.

I think Sanders truly thought that it was a single digit race--and also that he was doing extremely well in many upstate counties. If a Clinton single-digit win had happened, combined with Bernie winning the majority of NY counties, he most likely would have won more delegates in New York.

So, there's a lot to process here. I'm processing it too.

Like---How can campaign internal polling AND the CNN exit polls show a very tight race within a few points, but the end result is a Clinton 15-point blowout.

Something seems off. It's a bit jarring.

And yet you're using it as a data point?

tonight. He also said that they were going to do better than what people were saying. Campaigns routinely do internal polling, right? If it wasn't internal polling--on what was Bernie's optimism based?

Yes, I'm making some guesses, but I don't think they're outrageous guesses.

It would be odd if their campaign didn't do internal polling.

Furthermore, isn't it evident that their campaign is gobsmacked? The end result is not what they were expecting. Those expectations had to be based on something solid.

Given that the CNN exit polling was close, I'm deducing that the campaign's internals most likely showed similar numbers.

Now THAT's conclusive evidence.

are disillusioned.

when they see glaringly obvious problems with an election result--is part of the Republican/Bush playbook.

You can't squelch discussion.

Your schtick won't affect what I think; and it certainly will have no bearing on the Sanders campaign.

You have fun spinning your wheels from your keyboard.

Noticing that the CNN exit polls (Hillary leading by a very slim 4 percent) doesn't match the final result--and finding that curious, is part of a healthy, normal discussion.

Calling people names when they discuss the giant chasm between CNN's exit polling--and the final result--is not only infantile, it's disingenuous.

Calling me "disillusioned" (which is a strange choice of words) isn't going to change the fact that many are questioning the results.

Exit polls don't lie.

Internal polling is as standard as it gets in campaigns.

Are you suggesting that Berne's campaign didn't do some internal polling in New York?

Bernie said throughout the week before yesterday's New York vote that his indications were that he was going to do well and that the race was close.

So, internal polling is some kind of unicorn now? LOL! You guys are silly.

He high tailed it out of NY hours ago!

He's had some positive surprises in the past and perhaps was hoping if he wished it, it would be so.

..I guess you don't get the email from Bernie. He has been saying for weeks that all we hoped for was to pull in a lot of delegates WHICH HE DID. We knew Hillary would win by a small percentage, which she did - but Bernie did great and the momentum is ongoing.

We should all be very proud.

Very nice interactive! Thank you for sharing.

and duly noted.

yellows are okay - they can handle it.

makes no sense.

I was speaking of the health dangers connected with florid, flushed coloring, and you responded:

BETTER THAN POND SCUM.

and then I had the time to think about it, and realized you were using a bad metaphor. Gaskets are not purple. So I tried to think of another color for you. Hope it was helpful.

Editing again so as not to clog the thread - purple is better than beige. which I mistook for pond scum! Silly me. So I then suggested tree puke. No?

Anyways, I do have to say, Hillary in beige was quite likeable tonight. Softened her up

It is quite the win over the 2 term home town senator when you look at it this way (which I do!!!) and she should be a little careful now. How, if she wants to keep touting her big wins, will she earn a coalition? I can't for the life of me see how she will do it. She can't throw her dirty money at them - so - then what?

No one has ever been challenged like this before.

And Congressional districts are set by population size, not county boundaries. In other words, one Congressional district may contain all or parts of several of the less populous counties where Bernie did well and the densely populated counties where Clinton did well may contain multiple congressional districts.

Posting, or re-posting misleading information suggesting that Bernie might come out ahead in delegates in New York does no one any good.

He won 6. She won 21.

Sorry that your candidate lost.

Nuff said.

Of course Bernie would predict a win in the hope of inspiring his supporters to get out and vote. If his supporters listened to the pre-election day polls, they might not have bothered to vote at all. I have no doubt in states that Hillary lost, her supporters were telling her voters that she had a better chance of winning than the polls suggested.

...but they had numbers -- exit polls like CNNs -- showing a much closer race (48-52).

Exit polls are expected to be extremely accurate. When he said "we'll do fine in NY" while he was speaking in PA, he was undoubtedly basing his assertion on a reasonable belief that the exit polls were reliable.

And they should have been. This notion of "re calibrating" in a "second wave" to match outcomes is just bizarre. (The bullshit CNN handed out.)

I really think he just wanted to keep it close

.....just saying, sanders is their golden goose regardless of him losing. Best to keep it all going as long as possible, duping the supporters, perhaps even duping sanders as its so easy to feed his EGO

would save him.


WRONG!

Is not based on truth nor facts. How many times do I gotta say it? BS is not reality based!