Was the winner this year!

Well at least the first part.....

Second part is not absolute and the third, well, PUMA.

You have all of these interesting questions posed in exit polls.

However, the most important question in an exit poll is, "Who did you vote for today, Hillary or Bernie?"

CNN's exit polls revealed that Hillary had a 4 percent lead.

Something is rotten.

Something is not right.

All Democrats were united when Bush's exit polls didn't match the final result.

If we don't have free and fair elections, we have nothing.

I'd love to hear the excuses you gave your math teacher.

I find it impossible to believe that CNN would release a New York exit poll--that was completely bunk.

That doesn't make sense.

I am interested in what you are saying though, and I'd love a link to read more. Thanks.

asked me who I voted for, I'd probably lie. None of their business. Exit polling is inexact. Actual votes count.

If someone doesn't want to participate in an exit poll, they opt out. Simple as that.

Yes, hundreds of people exited their polling location and decided to lie to the pollster.

That's ridiculous.

I realize that you guys are scrambling to make this ok, but you need to come up with better talking points.

"They lied to the pollster."

In real life I have only heard Rethugs say they would lie to a pollster. Laughing out loud and rolling on the floor!

especially to pollsters. Seriously...it was a primary and even if Bernie won he still would lose.

Are you suggesting that suddenly, hundreds of people just decided to lie to CNN exit pollsters in New York?

Are you guys are seriously singing from the same songbook with this crazy?

Nutty.

are accurate indicators that something is off with the final result.

Democrats and those on DU used to unanimously agree on this point--when Bush rigged elections.

Now, apparently a rash of New Yorkers suddenly transformed into serial liars the second that CNN started answering them questions in their exit poll.

Oh, you guys!

The adults want to have a serious discussion about this glaring and obvious discrepancies--while the kids at the card table think that the people who were polled--were LYING.

His issues are good ones and he needs to keep talking about them.

He does need to stop the attacks and soften the tone a bit.

He also needs to start talking about what a disaster a Trump/Cruz administration would be
for everybody.

Bashing Hillary after that just made things worse for him. Has he learned anything from this experience? Only time will tell.

Many of Bernie's ideas have merit, but it's not acceptable for a presidential candidate to make promises without ever taking the time to think through at least two possible outcomes or consequences of those promises.

I don't think it ever occurred to him that hundreds of thousands of people (including New Yorkers) would lose their jobs as a result of some of his plans. And maybe that's OK, but at least have an answer ready for how those people would be back to work and better off in the long run.

He goes on and on about people losing manufacturing jobs due to bad trade deals, but I guess it's OK if they lose their jobs due to Bernie singlehandedly (and illegally?) shutting down the companies and entire industries that he doesn't like?

His 'bros have already done that.

An invented term that means nothing but carries some magical charge.

for speaking fees there is a strong case to be made that she is corrupt.

When Hillary intervenes for UBS bank and Bill then gets paid $1.5 million in speaking fees from that bank there is a strong case to be made that Hillary is corrupt.

When Obama tells Hillary to NOT hire Sidney Blumenthal to the State Dept and she finds a way around it by hiring him to her foundation instead there is a case to be made that she is unqualified and untrustworthy.

The list goes on and on....

is the whole "pay to play" corrupt culture in DC, beyond Clinton and beyond the Democratic Party.

The Clinton are the embodiment of that system. So how does one criticize the system the candidate embodies, without criticizing the candidate?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

You don't think we have a government and system that suffers from systemic corruption, and is far too influenced by big campaign backers, lobbyists, corporate pressures, cronyism, the elite golden revolving door, astroturfing,etc.

You don't think our politics and government policies have been negatively affected by that?

You don;t think it's a problem that the political center of gravity has been pushed so far to the right?

You don't think over-sized corporate and banking monopolies create problems?

You believe the Clintons are above all that and are pure as the driven snow?

If you don't, then ignore what Sanders is pointing out. He's wrong, and we have a well-tun system that works for everyone, and is not skewed in favor of the upper class and powerful special interests....and we should cointinue to do things exactly as we've been doing since 1980.

Hillary is not a perfect candidate. Neither is Bernie. But when he makes a big deal out of saying his opponent is all those things but then is unable to specify anything, it sounds like a lot of empty, sound-bite talk.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

It gets to that nice little Catch 22....

She represents a system that is not working for the majority. If we stay with the status quo -- and allow the same level of systemic -- SYSTEMIC -- corruption of things like a campaign with bundlers from the industries that need to be clamped down on...then we will continued our downward slide.

Pointing that out requires speaking up about it. We can't pretend it doesn't exist, or -- in the case of a primary -- avoid mentioning how that system affects the candidate and campaign.

Bernie's major drawback has been his own sense of restraint -- there ARE examples of how directly or indirectly she has been shaped by that system and acted accordingly....I think if you talked to him off the record in a locked room, he could go on and on about it.

Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.
In English: the wealthy few move policy, while the average American has little power.

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

The Democratic National Committee has rolled back restrictions introduced by presidential candidate Barack Obama in 2008 that banned donations from federal lobbyists and political action committees.

The decision was viewed with disappointment Friday morning by good government activists who saw it as a step backward in the effort to limit special interest influence in Washington. Some suggested it could provide an advantage to Hillary Clinton’s fundraising efforts.

“It is a major step in the wrong direction,” said longtime reform advocate Fred Wertheimer. “And it is completely out of touch with the clear public rejection of the role of political money in Washington,” expressed during the 2016 campaign.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dnc-allowing-donations-from-federal-lobbyists-and-pacs/2016/02/12/22b1c38c-d196-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html

I also agree with those who say Sanders has no realistic plan to change this and does not work well with others.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

They're reduced to piddling observations of various supposed gaffes (hot sauce, dominoes), nonsense about a pending indictment, and ridiculous theories about voter fraud.

They have run out of things to offer (their offers are castles in the air in any case), and are clearly in the bitter recrimination phase of their sputtering campaign.

My attempts to engage with Sanders' supporters were so often met with canned responses until the Vatican junket. They could not dig into the playbook and it made a difference.

That George Clooney is such a Bernie Bro.

and that prevented him from making any further inroads--it hardened the electorate.

He was always going to lose NY ...and many more next Tuesday.

I'm not surprised that those comments were a bridge too far.

threats against him. She was furious that he was looking good. The system is rigged and I've said it several times today on here. She is corrupt and will win no matter what...and that no matter what, means a lot to a lot of people. Unity my ass.

Each time he takes the bate he loses. It's hard to resist and there's always the danger of a successful swift boat. I'm not proud of her technique but it seems to be effective.

It is time he fired Tad Devine and other advisers who are making themselves rich off of Sanders Campaign.

I think he has been positive throughout until recently and it has gotten him far. Hopefully he will go back to campaigning the way he wants to campaign now.

Probably not the best GOTV effort...

Obviously bought by big money and misguided by her own admission on Iraq and by her fondness for Kissinger and Nutinyahoo.