Who are you voting for?

[colourwheel]

 

1. He was born and raised there , he's a Brooklyn Boy.

 

Clinton was an elected Senator of the state of New York. Even though Brooklyn is a very large diverse city in the state, Brooklyn alone does not represent it as it's entirety.

 

 

As for Hillary being the nominee she is not there yet and I think people are taking for granted what can happen in New York. Bernie has a lot going for him in New York.

 

 

2. He has been having rallies that have been attended by multiple thousands and in some cases 10's of thousands. At one rally the NY police estimated the crowd to be approaching 30,000. When it comes to people attending his rallies he has been massively outdrawing Hillary . He has been holding his rallies in parks and arena's in order to fit the crowds (and even then having overflow) , Hillary has been holding her rallies in halls and theaters generally , like the Apollo theater in NY with a max capacity of 1500.

 

 

Well the New York Primary is this Tuesday. There has not been one poll done where Sanders has had any significant lead over Clinton in New York. Sure he might be able turn out "huge" rallies that create the perception that some how Sanders is favored to win New York. But huge rallies don't necessarily translate to votes and Clinton has known this since she started running her campaign.

 

 

3. Bernie has been beating the polls on a very consistent basis , generally between 5 - 15 points , but in some cases like Michigan (where he made up a 30 point deficit) , its been shown that when people get to hear him , his numbers just get stronger. And they have been hearing a lot of him for the last 2 weeks.

 

Seems like a good argument yet Clinton still has a significant lead in pledged Delegates as well as over 2.5 million more popular votes then Sanders has. If you add in the Super Delegates that are supporting Clinton, Sanders path to victory seems very bleak in my opinion.

 

 

4. By all indications he has strongest ground game going on in NY (flyers in mailboxes,phone volunteers , etc).

 

The primary there is in two days and still he is behind in all polling by double digits against Clinton. If he is still anticipating on winning NY, it would be interesting to see how the Sanders campaign tries to down play such an incredible loss for a state with the "strongest ground game".

 

 

5. Everyone keeps saying Hillary would be the first woman President and break the glass ceiling . Well OK but how about NY having a population of around 3.5 million jews , heavily democratic , heavily registered and Bernie is jewish . Wouldn't you think having the first jewish President would also be breaking a glass ceiling in America and that might be something that would be important to 3.5 million jews. Why no one in the media has been talking about this is beyond me , seems obvious it could be a factor in this primary.

 

Maybe it's just me but electing the 1st Jewish president doesn't seem to have the same ring as electing the 1st female president. Not trying to discount 3.5 millions Jewish people in America but to me electing the 1st Female into office would have much more of a significant historical value. For one thing people in America have not been commonly discriminated based on being a Jew when acquiring a position or a job.

 

 

Other than that the one thing Hillary has most in her favor is that its a closed primary and you had to register back in Oct of last year and Bernie didn't seem a contender back then and that plays heavily in her favor.

 

My point is I wouldn't assume anything right now.

 

Clinton has far more in favor of her then just that. In fact, I just see her as having more leadership qualities and being more willing to compromise, which is the only way to keep government moving.

 

 

My point is I wouldn't assume anything right now.

 

Was never assuming anything, but it's hard to argue with the political math that favors Clinton on legitimately winning the Democratic nomination. Especially seeing she has still been over all consistently leading by the popular votes, the Pledged Delegates, and the Super Delegates.

Edited April 18, 2016 by colourwheel

[HeyYou]

It has already been proven that the 'popular vote', and who actually gets elected, bear little relation to each other.

[Deleted54170User]

Right! The popular vote status.

 

 

Then there's the Electoral College votes.

[colourwheel]

 

It has already been proven that the 'popular vote', and who actually gets elected, bear little relation to each other.

 

In the Democratic primary the popular vote actually reflects the amount of pledge delegates unlike the Republican primary where in "some" states the winner takes all.

 

This is because each candidate is allocated some pledges delegates even if they don't completely win a state in a Democratic primary or caucus based on how many votes they acquired.

 

 

Right! The popular vote status.

 

Then there's the Electoral College votes.

 

For one thing this is the primary season not the General election. Ultimately the party chooses their nominee not the people. A political party acts like any private organization that utilizes state law to hold public elections.

 

The primaries and caucuses play a role in the nominating process but anyone who believes it's the people who really choose who the nominee is would be completely misguided.

 

Clinton is leading in both pledged delegates as well as over 2.5 million more people have voted for her over Sanders. Sanders has no legitimate argument to make at this point if he ends up losing in the end. By the looks of it Sanders path to victory is become more out of reach the closer Clinton gets to having 2383 delegates.

Edited April 20, 2016 by colourwheel

[Deleted54170User]

About this time before the Primary vote pour in from the absentee ballots a Dark horse arrives and sometimes knocks over the apple cart.

 

Yesterday there was some interesting news about some 472,000 voters who checked their party preference, thinking they were signing in as an Independant, only to discover they had signed on with the old George Wallace group.

 

Unlikely a big thing, but another shadow which falls upon us when voters, who are ancient and still 'demand' the right to vote and won't accept any help, who, even though they know who they are voting for unintentionally vote for the wrong party.

 

Will Clinton hang her head if her own older than her elderly fans fail her?

 

I hope that the polls are weeded of those votes from corpses too this time around. :tongue: Dead people casting their vote from the grave. Someone caught that a few years ago. This time? I wonder if the vote counters will have enough caffeine or will power and stamina to notice how many of the living dead vote in both? :cool:

[sunshinenbrick]

Supposing that, it actually does not matter what people vote and the nominees and presidency are perhaps moved by sleight of hand, then is it not what people do with what is that matters the most?

[colourwheel]

 

Supposing that, it actually does not matter what people vote and the nominees and presidency are perhaps moved by sleight of hand, then is it not what people do with what is that matters the most?

 

Was never saying that voting doesn't matter, just it's not the only factor when a party nominates a candidate. Usually the amount of public support one gets from the popular vote is a huge factor when a party decides who their nominee is.

[sunshinenbrick]

 

 

Supposing that, it actually does not matter what people vote and the nominees and presidency are perhaps moved by sleight of hand, then is it not what people do with what is that matters the most?

 

Was never saying that voting doesn't matter, just it's not the only factor when a party nominates a candidate. Usually the amount of public support one gets from the popular vote is a huge factor when a party decides who their nominee is.

 

 

Ha! Sorry, it was meant more as an 'open floor' question. I wasn't directing it at anyone in particular :smile:

 

But as you mention it, yes it would seem obvious that even behind closed doors, public opinion, narrative, and feelings surely come into account.

[Deleted54170User]

Supposing that, it actually does not matter what people vote and the nominees and presidency are perhaps moved by sleight of hand, then is it not what people do with what is that matters the most?

 

sunshinebrick please elaborate on what you ask, "then is not what people do with what is that matters the most?" Please be specific about, "what is that matters the most?" in your own opinion.

[sunshinenbrick]

 

Supposing that, it actually does not matter what people vote and the nominees and presidency are perhaps moved by sleight of hand, then is it not what people do with what is that matters the most?

 

sunshinebrick please elaborate on what you ask, "then is not what people do with what is that matters the most?" Please be specific about, "what is that matters the most?" in your own opinion.

 

 

It wouldn't be a question if I answered it :wink:

 

I suppose it is a question of principle over survival - do the needs outweigh the wants? I guess it could be about anything... jobs, housing, education... etc.

 

i.e. Only one president can 'win', so what do the 'losers' do with their time? Try change things? Or 'just do it' for the team?