Re: 2016 Election
 

Clinton has a clear lead in the total popular vote, primary wins in major blue states such as Massachusetts and Illinois, and primary wins in important swing states such as Ohio, Florida and Virginia. I suppose that she'll need to win 397% of the vote in order to please some people.

What's best of all is that Republicans are hoping that Sanders will win so that they can have a red-bait campaign. There is much potential to increase Sanders' unfavorables; in contrast, they've been attacking Clinton for over two decades and don't have any tricks left for this campaign.

This commentary is worth a read: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...it-bernie.html

Re: 2016 Election
 

So it's preferable to pretend that New York is a tight race when that claim is factually inaccurate or that Sanders is wildly popular when he has received far fewer votes?

Re: 2016 Election
 

I'm a Clinton supporter, if I was voting today I'd vote for her. My comment was about the interesting dynamic whereby the WFP encouraged folks, for many years past, to register WFP, now they're stumping for Sanders; but they've effectively syphoned off a large tranche of prospective Sanders voters, registered WFP (who don't vote in the Democratic primary.)

So I wasn't attempting to engage in partisan polemics, I was just musing "this is interesting, isn't it!"

Re: 2016 Election
 

'Musing' about what's 'interesting' isn't harmonious with the compulsion inherent in:

knee+jerk and the predictable reaction it elicits (from the Warrior on the Road)

Re: 2016 Election
 

Yet again, you miss the point. Yes, the polls show that New York is an easy win for Clinton. The point is IF independents were allowed to vote, then it would be a tighter race.

The point is that there are obviously some that view it as an interesting topic for discussion even if you don't.

As an aside, I find it interesting that is seems like every state has wildly different rules for primaries/caucuses and they all seem far more convoluted than they should be.

Re: 2016 Election
 

States rights.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Actually I think it's the State Democratic Party's rights (all 50 of them)....and they're like private clubs, not Gov't. entities

Re: 2016 Election
 

My comments re: the challenges to Clinton's legitimacy and the tediousness of said remarks were not in reference to you and your position.

I have noticed a pattern among some of Sanders' most diehard supporters:

-They ignore the fact that Clinton would be the leading contender for the Democratic nomination even if there were no superdelegates

-They attempt to claim that her leads are limited to red states, when she has been winning larger blue and purple states

-They ignore the fact that Sanders has been most successful in those have small populations (i.e. don't represent many people) and/or use a caucus system (i.e. the least purely democratic selection process that is available in the US primary system), which just adds to the hypocrisy of the claims of unfairness

The reality is that Clinton is the most popular candidate this time around, and by a wide margin. That doesn't make her ideal, but it does correspond to her being a legitimate nominee by her party.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Here's an unintended consequence with regard to California (which votes on 7 June)....

The Democratic Primary is open to all who've registered by whenever the cut-off date is - as either Dems or independents (which the registration form labels 'No Party Preference').
However, on its back - the registration form lists a spate of specific political parties one can tick off. At the top of that list is "American Independent Party".

The LA Times just uncovered the fact that almost 1/2 million voters registered for that party - a huge proportion assuming it was synonymous with registering as an "independent" ie "No Party Preference"

Turns out:
1. Members of the party to which they signed up not only aren't allowed to vote in the Ca. Democratic Primary but.....
2. The American Independent Party is a Conservative, right-wing, Christian Party formed in the 60's to provide support to George Wallace. :eek: in his Presidential bid

Re: 2016 Election
 

Ignoring reality is not a new phenomenon. There was Clinton's PUMAs in 2008 and the whole of the GOP in 2012 for starters.

But to the larger point supporters and campaigns will always try and spin things in a positive way.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Someone forgot to pay the registration renewal for Trumps jet.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/20/ny...smtyp=cur&_r=0

Re: 2016 Election
 

You can't legislate stupidity. I mean, what was it about the word "party" that they didn't grasp?

Re: 2016 Election
 

Maybe there's a deficient gene in the Trump DNA
Forgetting about registration seems to run in the family :lol:

Re: 2016 Election
 

To be fair, it may be a matter of skimming rather than stupidity. Our lives are filled with paperwork, and we don't read most of it.

Re: 2016 Election