Latest New York Poll states the obvious: Clinton leading Sanders by double digit numbers one week pr - Polidicks

[quote]Hillary Clinton is maintaining her double-digit lead over Democratic presidential rival Bernie Sanders in New York, ahead of the April 19 primary, according to a new poll. [B]Clinton leads Sanders 51%-39% among New York Democrats, according to a Monmouth University poll released Monday. The poll found Clinton and Sanders effectively tied among white voters -- 48% for Sanders, 46% for Clinton -- but the former secretary of state leads the Vermont senator 62% to 22% among African-American, Hispanic and other non-white voters[/B] Clinton's support appears to be broad-based throughout the Empire State, with about[B] 50% support in Manhattan, the Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens, as well as the suburbs of Nassau and Westchester counties and upstate New York.[/B] Sanders' best showing is upstate, with 44%, and worst among voters in Brooklyn and Queens (36%) and Manhattan and the Bronx (35%), according to the survey. "I'm sure the Clinton camp was hoping for a much bigger lead in her adopted home state, but any such advantage appears to be limited against Sanders," said Patrick Murray, director of the independent Monmouth University Polling Institute, in a memo accompanying the poll results. --- Sanders' campaign manager Jeff Weaver had downplayed expectations for the Brooklyn native earlier Monday. "I think Sen. Sanders is going to do very very well here. It's possible he could win, but we don't need to win, to win," Weaver told CNN's Chris Cuomo on "New Day." [B]The Monmouth poll surveyed 302 likely Democratic voters between April 8-10 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 5.6 percentage points.[/B][/quote] [url]http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/11/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-poll-new-york/index.html[/url]

Why do minorities vote for Hillary?

Bernie stands no chance they said. The majority won't vote against Clinton they said.

[QUOTE=SGTSpartans;50118409]Why do minorities vote for Hillary?[/QUOTE] Because she's a minority (woman). Plus she's had a long term relation with building up minority votes as her core. Along side the fact that most minorities are fairly conservative Democrats, which is what Clinton is.

It's really amazing that Sanders is even up by so much when you have pretty much entire state government rallying behind Clinton, it being Clinton's home state, and her leading him by so much in pledged delegates. I still think a lot can change in a week but I'm not getting my hopes up for a win.

I knew that polls will keep saying clinton will win New York. Plus this is a CNN source, so... yeah.

[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;50118425]I knew that polls will keep saying clinton will win New York. Plus this is a CNN source, so... yeah.[/QUOTE] The source is CNN but the poll is not.

I really hope Bernie pulls a win out of his ass here so the "Clinton's home state" narrative ends up humiliating Clinton.

[QUOTE=SGTSpartans;50118409]Why do minorities vote for Hillary?[/QUOTE] Because A: Bernie is an old white liberal man who is appealing to mostly young white liberal men B: Minorities can emphasise with Hillary, a woman, as women have historically (and continue to, today) suffered disadvantage in many aspects of their life, much like many minorities continue to do C: She is the wife of the 'first black President', as Bill Clinton was seen as a President who started from circumstances similar to what many African-Americans are born into, and both he and Hillary have a long history of advocating for ethnic minorities

note: this is pre-debate poll The only thing that will change is the margins will get closer. [editline]12th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=sb27;50118442]Because C: She is the wife of the 'first black President', as Bill Clinton was seen as a President who started from circumstances similar to what many African-Americans are born into, and both he and Hillary have a long history of advocating for ethnic minorities[/QUOTE] And then shitting on them.

Bernie has done the same things as Clinton but for longer and more consistently.

[QUOTE=SGTSpartans;50118409]Why do minorities vote for Hillary?[/QUOTE] because they're low information voters [editline]12th April 2016[/editline] Only 302 people surveyed for this poll? Eh, let's see what happens, I'm confident Bernie will do better

[QUOTE=cody8295;50118480]because they're low information voters [editline]12th April 2016[/editline] Only 302 people surveyed for this poll? Eh, let's see what happens, I'm confident Bernie will do better[/QUOTE] Bernie's closed bigger gaps with less time. He's dumping a ridiculous amount of money into this one. Here's hoping.

[QUOTE=cody8295;50118480]because they're low information voters[/QUOTE] Is this a way of trying to imply that minorities are less-intelligent than Caucasians, and you're correlating intelligence with voting for Sanders? That's not very nice of you.

Get out there and phone bank or somethin

[QUOTE=sb27;50118508]Is this a way of trying to imply that minorities are less-intelligent than Caucasians, and you're correlating intelligence with voting for Sanders? That's not very nice of you.[/QUOTE] information =/= intelligence? It's well known that different economic classes, different ages, etc, all have different levels of involvement in elections due to spare time, income, education, and access to information.

[url=http://www.atlredline.com/i-m-with-her-i-guess-1769742021]This article[/url] by a Clinton-voting New Yorker has some interesting points. I think it's pretty patronising to dismiss Clinton's support among minorities as due to 'low information voters'. If Sanders' message hasn't sufficiently resonated with these groups, then that's his fault, not the voters'.

[QUOTE=A B.A. Survivor;50118470]Bernie has done the same things as Clinton but for longer and more consistently.[/QUOTE] Clinton has been well known in politics on the [U]national stage[/U] since Bill's campaign in the early 90s. Most people never heard of Sanders until 6 months ago. You can't be so ignorant as to see the problem here with that.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50118584]Clinton has been well known in politics on the [U]national stage[/U] since Bill's campaign in the early 90s. Most people never heard of Sanders until 6 months ago. You can't be so ignorant as to see the problem here with that.[/QUOTE] So you mean to say that because Hillary is more well-known, she deserves the presidential nomination?

[QUOTE=A B.A. Survivor;50118619]So you mean to say that because Hillary is more well-known, she deserves the presidential nomination?[/QUOTE] Not that she deserves it but that she's more likely to get it than Sanders - I support Sanders but Clinton is a familiar name even to those who don't follow politics and those people are going to go with the name they know.

[QUOTE=A B.A. Survivor;50118619]So you mean to say that because Hillary is more well-known, she deserves the presidential nomination?[/QUOTE] That's not what he's saying at all, actually.

[QUOTE=A B.A. Survivor;50118619]So you mean to say that because Hillary is more well-known, she deserves the presidential nomination?[/QUOTE] Did you misread or just naive? [editline]12th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=cody8295;50118480]because they're low information voters [/QUOTE] Source?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50118421]Because she's a minority (woman). Plus she's had a long term relation with building up minority votes as her core. Along side the fact that most minorities are fairly conservative Democrats, which is what Clinton is.[/QUOTE] Women are [b]not[/b] a minority. While groups who had been disadvantaged in the past are often minorities women could not be any stretch of the imagination ever be considered a minority in the US, they are a majority.

This article is posted on the Clinton News Network, so I'd take this with a grain of salt.

[QUOTE=A B.A. Survivor;50118619]So you mean to say that because Hillary is more well-known, she deserves the presidential nomination?[/QUOTE] Except he didn't say that at all.

[QUOTE=Elspin;50118667]Women are [b]not[/b] a minority. While groups who had been disadvantaged in the past are often minorities women could not be any stretch of the imagination ever be considered a minority in the US, they are a majority.[/QUOTE] I'm talking about a minority in terms of cultural disenfranchisement, not in population numbers. Keep in mind that it was less than a hundred years ago women were given the right to vote. There's wage gaps for women, women historically were barred from certain occupations due to their gender, etc.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50118644] Source?[/QUOTE] Well I mean, poor folks have less free time for politics or research because they need to focus on not going hungry etc, and minorities have much higher poverty rates, so in turn minorities are lower-information voters

[QUOTE=Yadda;50118681]This article is posted on the Clinton News Network, so I'd take this with a grain of salt.[/QUOTE] Again, CNN is the news provider but the poll was [U]NOT[/U] done by CNN. [editline]12th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=phygon;50118689]Well I mean, poor folks have less free time for politics or research because they need to focus on not going hungry etc, and minorities have much higher poverty rates, so in turn minorities are lower-information voters[/QUOTE] Okay, so come back when there's actual sources backing this up. Until then it's just Cody and yours opinion.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50118421]Because she's a minority (woman). Plus she's had a long term relation with building up minority votes as her core. Along side the fact that most minorities are fairly conservative Democrats, which is what Clinton is.[/QUOTE] Bernie should end his ads in NY with "I'm Bernie Sanders, and by the way, I'm Jewish." [QUOTE=CatFodder;50118564][url=http://www.atlredline.com/i-m-with-her-i-guess-1769742021]This article[/url] by a Clinton-voting New Yorker has some interesting points. I think it's pretty patronising to dismiss Clinton's support among minorities as due to 'low information voters'. If Sanders' message hasn't sufficiently resonated with these groups, then that's his fault, not the voters'.[/QUOTE] TLDR for the article: "I like Bernie more than Hillary, but I'm voting for her anyway because not everyone is voting for Bernie and Hillary is going to compromise more." How is that an argument? "Well, sure, he has a lot of voters, but it's not [I]everyone[/I], and he said he would have everyone!" If you're not going to vote for him because other people like you aren't going to vote for him, that's just a self-fulfilling prophecy. As for the compromising, whether you think that's a good thing or not depends on your political views. Also, this paragraph made me laugh. [quote]But I don’t understand liberals who hate Hillary Clinton. [B]She is authentic[/B]; she is naturally bad at running for office and that painfully shows through at almost all points. But maybe you would be bad at campaigning too if you had been subjected to over two decades of vicious and often contradictory political attacks. [/quote] "You'd be bad at campaigning too if your husband was the president for 2 terms and you had previous experience campaigning yourself!"

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50118692]Again, CNN is the news provider but the poll was [U]NOT[/U] done by CNN. [editline]12th April 2016[/editline] Okay, so come back when there's actual sources backing this up. Until then it's just Cody and yours opinion.[/QUOTE] You mean to say that news networks are immune to cherrypicking? Let's consider that for a moment, every single poll conducted in New York with regards to the Democratic Primaries has been conducted with a sample size less than 1000. [img]https://i.imgur.com/59qXeRr.png[/img] Clearly this must be a gold standard in polling, for a State that houses 8.4 MILLION people, wouldn't you say?