It sure sounds like they are losing on Tuesday.

for sure.

Busy somewhere hosting a $500,000 a plate dinner to honor something somewhere and being paid for appearing...

she will have to find another hollywood patsy

campaign. It will be 9 out of 10 states in a row that she lost ...A NY LOSS IN HER "HOME" STATE WILL BE DEVASTATING and they know it.

Bernie won his home state 87% to 12%...says a whole lot about the man and her losing NY says even more about her. No one likes her.

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

i think he was talking with mike papantonio. he basically said if she loses ny its over.

I wonder how the convention would go if he continues the winning streak but doesn't win the nom? The arugument would be that he should be the nom since now that the people know who he is, he's the one they want. I doubt that ANYONE thinks the early states would vote the same way if they were able to vote again now.

.

even with a moderate win will get him big increases in the western states. if he wins big in ca he jumps ahead in delegates.

yes, agree. if they hadnt blacked bernie out and stacked the early primaries in her favor, he would be ahead in a lockout for her.

look at the long history of US interventions in Latin America and elsewhere.

She'll likely ask her pal Henry Kissinger for his suggestions.

She will lose the GE for sure, no independent will vote for her and a lot of dems won't either. Also with her as the candidate the R's will have a field day and she will drive the R's out to vote against her, I don't understand why they can't see this happening...She cannot possibly win the GE... They just can't really be that fucking stupid can they??

According to what other posters in this group say.

Barack Obama took only 40.3% to Clinton's 57.4%

But let me get this straight.

Bernie is pretty much expected to do better than 40%?! He's going to beat what Barack did? If he does, I think that would be impressive!

It's not that fair, but go ahead and picture the Bernie we see and know right now and then compare him to the 2008 Barack Obama phenom -- the fresh, young face, with impeccable speech writing and delivery, with his Harvard pedigree as a constitutional scholar and editor, best-selling book author, with his sense of humor, his warmth and charm, ability to quip on the fly, with his amazing ground game of around-the-clock grassroots supporters, with his revolutionary high-tech social media gurus, with his mix of small donors and big-money donors, with a picture perfect family, with his lean, handsome, smooth-skinned good looks and daybreak smile?

But even Barack could not best Clinton in New York. And if he could not, who could?

She has a powerful political machine -- it's a virtual ground-eating juggernaut. Too bad some little old man and his idealistic supporters are able to throw so many cogs and wrenches into it and hold some ground or on some days take a teency, tiny bit of ground from her, when she should have eaten up and turned over miles and miles of ground by now.

And with the aid of a strawberry-vodka smoothie.

I am so annoyed that the new meme is that if he doesn't win in a landslide on Tuesday in the state where SHE was a Senator for 6 or 8 years or whatever, that he is supposed to pack it all in.

Whereas, he SHUT her OUT in Vermont, didn't give even one delegate up, but somehow that performance doesn't count against New York (that she supposedly owns, but doesn't own, no expectations for her to do better than about 55% in her "home" state).

The expectations and onus for a blowout should be on HER, not on him. Period.

But of course, most of her campaign staff is based there, the ones who apparently get paid to post on Twitter and social media, pretending to be regular supporters. But I digress.

I posted a piece from the New Yorker after the WI election and in that piece they said that if the race was close in NY (single digits) that Hillary's campaign donors might start asking questions about her viability. They mentioned that NY was a closed primary, Hillary having served as the state's Senator, all the establishment support from NY politicos and the media, etc. They also mentioned she won NY by 17 pts in 2008. I had to admit those were some pretty big advantages for her. At the time this piece was written she was leading in NY by some 20-25 pts. With all of her advantages going against Bernie I was pretty much in agreement with them.

The polls are a lot tighter now than they were which could still mean that the close election they talked about where Hillary wins is still a possibility. But it's also possible that Bernie could win a close one. Either way I think it's extraordinary how far Bernie has come. Whatever happens in NY all of his supporters should be very proud of their candidate and of themselves. Taking on a corrupt establishment is not for the faint of heart but the rewards far outweigh the negatives.

will the delegate count shift much? If we assume they divide the NY delegates, how much would he have to win by in the remaining states? That is always the topic I see discussed on the cable networks, and unfortunately didn't take stats in college!

but more importantly, continue the momentum. wins in ri, ct, pa will chip away further.

a lead in pd will not be possible until june 7. but if he takes the momentum and wins big in ca, its all over.

Its NEW YORK, for fuck's sake. It is the epicenter for aging, well-off fancy dog, expensive condo boomers who look down their noses at everything west of the Holland tunnel, sneer at "kids" and "hippies" and consider talk of the minimum wage a "distraction".

If she cant make it there, she... You know the rest.

otherwise it is considered that Clinton won by a landslide.