2016 | West Virginia Democratic Primary - Bernie "Just won't die!" Sanders Wins.
85 replies, posted
It's been called for Sanders.
Bernie might actually sweep this state as well.
[t]http://i.imgur.com/tKXKTz1.png?1[/t]
Uh what?
[QUOTE=Dr._Medic;50296590][t]http://i.imgur.com/tKXKTz1.png?1[/t]
Uh what?[/QUOTE]
Go home google, you're drunk.
That's Nebraska - Dems covered that ages ago.
Google is using the primary over the caucus for nebraska for no reason.
Bernie won the state so I'm not really sure why they are doing that.
[editline]11th May 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Bradyns;50296610]That's Nebraska - Dems covered that ages ago.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but it was updated today to reflect the democratic primary, which isn't counted at the convention, but is necessary by state law to be held alongside the GOP primary.
Wow, talk about a sweep for Bernie. The map right now shows only one county in WV going Hillary, and by less than 1%.
The popular vote is only 50-40, not exactly a landslide, but I do enjoy looking at this map.
Edit:
And now the whole map is teal, at least all the ones who've voted. Meaningless, but still makes me happy.
West Virginia
Bernie Sanders
Take me home
Country road
I love how Sanders has at least twice the amount of votes as Clinton in Logan, Mingo, and Boone County. Also notice the high other vote. This is in the heart of the coalfields.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/VhGdMbo.png[/img]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/XlI7QCQ.png[/img]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/68Gh0Kl.pngl[/img]
yeah but...
[url]http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/10/opinions/hillary-clinton-better-candidate-due-to-sanders-opinion-reyes/index.html[/url]
leave it to CNN to keep pushing a narrative
That's a substantial percentage of votes that went to neither candidate. Who'd they vote for?
[QUOTE=A B.A. Survivor;50296929]That's a substantial percentage of votes that went to neither candidate. Who'd they vote for?[/QUOTE]
Martin O'malley
To the mod who edited the title - really lost out on making a zombie remark on Sander's campaign :v:
[QUOTE=Glitchman;50296922]yeah but...
[url]http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/10/opinions/hillary-clinton-better-candidate-due-to-sanders-opinion-reyes/index.html[/url]
leave it to CNN to keep pushing a narrative[/QUOTE]
Jesus there pathetic can't they just say this candidate won this x county etc then again there not even trying to hide there basis
[QUOTE=Glitchman;50296922]yeah but...
[url]http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/10/opinions/hillary-clinton-better-candidate-due-to-sanders-opinion-reyes/index.html[/url]
leave it to CNN to keep pushing a narrative[/QUOTE]
That's something that people would mock [I]"Bernie Bros"[/I] on Reddit for doing.
[QUOTE=theevilldeadII;50296964]Jesus there pathetic can't they just say this candidate won this x county etc then again there not even trying to hide there basis[/QUOTE]
It is an opinion article. Their front page story is a little more objective.
[QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;50296996]It is an opinion article. Their front page story is a little more objective.[/QUOTE]
again they should'nt even make this story at all even if it's just a spin off one
[QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;50296996]It is an opinion article. Their front page story is a little more objective.[/QUOTE]
It's a laughably bullshit opinion though. The synopsis is Bernie's presence in the primary has elevated Clinton's image and made her a stronger candidate which is utter bullshit.
She will most likely win in the general election but if Bernie hadn't run at all I guarantee a lot of people saying they'll never vote for her wouldn't have had a problem.
[QUOTE=A B.A. Survivor;50296929]That's a substantial percentage of votes that went to neither candidate. Who'd they vote for?[/QUOTE]
Invalid votes.
I saw a picture of a ballot paper from one of the primaries. Not only did you have to vote for a candidate, but you had to vote for six delegates as well. I assume those invalid votes were from people who didn't fill out the ballot paper properly.
[QUOTE=sb27;50297034]Invalid votes.
I saw a picture of a ballot paper from one of the primaries. Not only did you have to vote for a candidate, but you had to vote for six delegates as well. I assume those invalid votes were from people who didn't fill out the ballot paper properly.[/QUOTE]
Are you sure about that? I don't know if it's different per state but the NY ballot said to pick 6 delegates but I knew from my own research that it wasn't actually required.
[QUOTE=A B.A. Survivor;50296929]That's a substantial percentage of votes that went to neither candidate. Who'd they vote for?[/QUOTE]
I believe a lot of them went to local candidate Paul Farrell.
[url]https://www.facebook.com/paulforwv/[/url]
[QUOTE=Glitchman;50296922]yeah but...
[url]http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/10/opinions/hillary-clinton-better-candidate-due-to-sanders-opinion-reyes/index.html[/url]
leave it to CNN to keep pushing a narrative[/QUOTE]
The title was changed as clickbait because "Hillary Clinton better Candidate due to Sanders" isn't as out there as "Why Hillary Clinton wins even when she loses"; look at the original URL.
The article talks about how Bernie Sanders basically molded Hillary Clinton into the Candidate she is today because of Bernie's focus on issues.
Legitimate question regarding the super delegates since the answers seem all over the place on the net:
At what point do superdelegates become "active" for a clinch scenario?
Does Clinton, at over 2200 when including superdelegates, just need to win a bit less than 150 and Sanders is basically effectively a suspended campaign, or would a clinch involving superdelegates only come into play after they are "set" after DC, thus giving Sanders a possibility of a very unlikely comeback via votes?
Basically, does the 2383 delegate count clinch currently "view" Clinton as someone with 2239, or with 1716 and needing 600 more to clinch before DC?
[QUOTE=The Duke;50297136]Legitimate question regarding the super delegates since the answers seem all over the place on the net:
At what point do superdelegates become "active" for a clinch scenario?
Does Clinton, at over 2200 when including superdelegates, just need to win a bit less than 150 and Sanders is basically effectively a suspended campaign, or would a clinch involving superdelegates only come into play after they are "set" after DC, thus giving Sanders a possibility of a very unlikely comeback via votes?
Basically, does the 2383 delegate count clinch currently "view" Clinton as someone with 2239, or with 1716 and needing 600 more to clinch before DC?[/QUOTE]
The superdelegates only cast their vote at the convention, in late July. Up to then, they've just said who they plan to vote for, and they can choose to change their mind at any time.
[QUOTE=The Duke;50297136]Legitimate question regarding the super delegates since the answers seem all over the place on the net:
At what point do superdelegates become "active" for a clinch scenario?
Does Clinton, at over 2200 when including superdelegates, just need to win a bit less than 150 and Sanders is basically effectively a suspended campaign, or would a clinch involving superdelegates only come into play after they are "set" after DC, thus giving Sanders a possibility of a very unlikely comeback via votes?
Basically, does the 2383 delegate count clinch currently "view" Clinton as someone with 2239, or with 1716 and needing 600 more to clinch before DC?[/QUOTE]
Clinton not getting all the normal delegates needed to "clinch" is bad for her. She was expected to get enough to end it before the convention. If neither Bernie nor Clinton get the majority of normal pledged delegates by then, then the superdelegates actually come into play. Until then they are just a number representing likely supporters should it ever come to the convention.
The superdelegates are all in Clinton's favor anyways.
If she doesn't get indicted, then she's already won.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;50297157]Clinton not getting all the normal delegates needed to "clinch" is bad for her. She was expected to get enough to end it before the convention. If neither Bernie nor Clinton get the majority of normal pledged delegates by then, then the superdelegates actually come into play. Until then they are just a number representing likely supporters should it ever come to the convention.[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately Clinton is more than likely to get that number just by calculating even 50 50 splits among the remaining states.
When do they ask superdelegates? Is the statistic outdated or does Hillary have a huge lead?
[QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;50297504]When do they ask superdelegates? Is the statistic outdated or does Hillary have a huge lead?[/QUOTE]Super delegates only vote at the convention itself. Everything before then is just speculation or those who have in the past said, "This is who I plan to vote for!"
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;50297531]Super delegates only vote at the convention itself. Everything before then is just speculation or those who have in the past said, "This is who I plan to vote for!"[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty certain the majority of them have openly endorsed Clinton in a formal capacity.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.