April 5th WISCONSIN primary. The establishment tyranny ends today

[EcksDee]

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;50080042]Party registration closed on March 25th for NY. Tbh that was more than enough time for people to choose their party. I have no sympathy for people who didn't take the time to register before the deadline, there's more than enough advanced notice.[/QUOTE]

Party registration shouldn't even be a thing. Especially for America where the political-media system is so completely fucked up.

[editline]6th April 2016[/editline]

[QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;50080740]Recent polls from PA and NY have shown sanders down 10 points and 6 points, respectively. He should do very well.[/QUOTE]

still a few weeks for him to make up points. Considering he made up like a 17 point deficit in Wisconsin or something like that?

[EmperorScorpious]

To be fair, if people are serious about voting, they shouldn't wait until the last minute to look up this kind of stuff.

I did all my registration and voting stuff the moment I turned 18, not a couple months prior to when I decided to vote.

(actually I was allowed to register at 17 because my birthday was two weeks prior to the election, but that's beside the point)

[EcksDee]

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50080921]To be fair, if people are serious about voting, they shouldn't wait until the last minute to look up this kind of stuff.

I did all my registration and voting stuff the moment I turned 18, not a couple months prior to when I decided to vote.

(actually I was allowed to register at 17 because my birthday was two weeks prior to the election, but that's beside the point)[/QUOTE]

Consider voter apathy though, the US has an average turnout of like 20% in primaries because people have lost hope in the system as a whole. So the more obscure and difficult to understand the government makes this system the more they're able to maintain the status quo in the form of Clinton or Trump (Though Trump would make everything worse so I'm not sure if that applies as 'status quo').

[ZachPL]

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50080921]To be fair, if people are serious about voting, they shouldn't wait until the last minute to look up this kind of stuff.

I did all my registration and voting stuff the moment I turned 18, not a couple months prior to when I decided to vote.

(actually I was allowed to register at 17 because my birthday was two weeks prior to the election, but that's beside the point)[/QUOTE]

I mean I knew I had to registered by march 25th, but when they said registered I thought like many others that it included declaring a party.

I never even heard or saw anywhere that you had to declare your party by october.

I've been registered to vote since like 2009 now.

[EcksDee]

[QUOTE=ZachPL;50080984]I mean I knew I had to registered by march 25th, but when they said registered I thought like many others that it included declaring a party.

I never even heard or saw anywhere that you had to declare your party by october.

I've been registered to vote since like 2009 now.[/QUOTE]

Which means that you, a potential voter, are being disenfranchised because of a broken and confusing system. A staple of democracy is to make sure as few people vote as possible

Wilkommen auf Amerika, may i haben zie papieren

[sb27]

[QUOTE=EcksDee;50080914]Party registration shouldn't even be a thing. Especially for America where the political-media system is so completely fucked up.

[editline]6th April 2016[/editline]

still a few weeks for him to make up points. Considering he made up like a 17 point deficit in Wisconsin or something like that?[/QUOTE]

Party registration is a thing, so that for example a bunch of Republican supporters can't collude and go to a primary held by the Democrats and spoil the primary by voting for a joke character.

[Revenge282]

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;50081244]How often does this happen in places with open primaries?[/QUOTE]

Less than once

[EcksDee]

[QUOTE=Revenge282;50081367]Less than once[/QUOTE]

There was the case of republicans voting for Obama in some places but, the impact was negligible.

[gman003-main]

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;50081244]How often does this happen in places with open primaries?[/QUOTE]

Trump himself was registered as a Democrat, which he claims is so that he could vote in New York primaries, for more conservative candidates, because the state as a whole pretty much always went Democrat and voting in the state-level primaries had more impact than voting in the general elections. This is reportedly a pretty common thing, but those reports are from pro-trump sources and may be false.

Not exactly "spoiling the election by voting for a joke candidate" but it's still trying to manipulate one party into electing a candidate less in line with its values.

[Missing User]

[QUOTE=Bradyns;50080415]Can't believe he got 56.5% with a 13.3% margin.[/QUOTE]

Still not good enough. He's still falling short in 538's projected wins. 700 delegates is a huge gap to close and he needs a big day in NY to make a stake.

Prediction: he wont. Hillary has that on lockdown.

[AlexConnor]

[QUOTE=Code3Response;50081573]Still not good enough. He's still falling short in 538's projected wins. 700 delegates is a huge gap to close and he needs a big day in NY to make a stake.

Prediction: he wont. Hillary has that on lockdown.[/QUOTE]

Super-delegates aren't the same thing as pledged delegates, if Sanders can close the 250 delegate gap and win the popular vote then it would be political suicide for the super-delegates to override voters wishes.

[Big D Duchovny]

[QUOTE=Code3Response;50081573]Still not good enough. He's still falling short in 538's projected wins. 700 delegates is a huge gap to close and he needs a big day in NY to make a stake.

Prediction: he wont. Hillary has that on lockdown.[/QUOTE]

Superdelegates aren't in the 538 projection, he's only accounting for pledged delegates, assuming superdelegates will switch in case of a popular win for Sanders.

[cody8295]

[QUOTE=Code3Response;50081573]Still not good enough. He's still falling short in 538's projected wins. 700 delegates is a huge gap to close and he needs a big day in NY to make a stake.

Prediction: he wont. Hillary has that on lockdown.[/QUOTE]

[url]http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats/[/url]

[QUOTE]Wisconsin: Bernie Sanders target was 48 delegates, he won 48 delegates[/QUOTE]

[Dr. Darkly]

Hillary is afraid.
[t]http://a.pomf.cat/whfaxz.png[/t]

[benzi2k7]

[QUOTE=DarklytheGreat;50082817]Hillary is afraid.
[t]http://a.pomf.cat/whfaxz.png[/t][/QUOTE][video=youtube;hkl1bWg3JAU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkl1bWg3JAU[/video]

[Da Big Man]

Man all those car manufacturers should be fucked over for not being held accountable for hit-n-runs done with their vehicles. Barbarians

[AtomicWaffle]

I feel like them directly attacking Bernie Sanders is just going to backfire in the long run.

[Big D Duchovny]

[QUOTE=DarklytheGreat;50082817]Hillary is afraid.
[t]http://a.pomf.cat/whfaxz.png[/t][/QUOTE]

Bernie's campaign really needs to watch its tone, ehh.

[Aztec]

[QUOTE=benzi2k7;50082828][video=youtube;hkl1bWg3JAU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkl1bWg3JAU[/video][/QUOTE]

This seems like the worst possible strategy ever imaged. This will give sanders yuuuge publicity.

It might work but I really think it has a higher chance of backfiring

[Missing User]

[QUOTE=cody8295;50082278][url]http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats/[/url][/QUOTE]

I'm talking about this

[t]https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/sliver-clintonvsanders-1.png[/t]

Clinton winning NY by only +6 would be a blessing for Sanders.

[Aztec]

[QUOTE=Code3Response;50083672]I'm talking about this

[t]https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/sliver-clintonvsanders-1.png[/t]

Clinton winning NY by only +6 would be a blessing for Sanders.[/QUOTE]

That's not the revised one though. It's outdated (or am I mistaken)

[fruxodaily]

[QUOTE=benzi2k7;50082828][video=youtube;hkl1bWg3JAU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkl1bWg3JAU[/video][/QUOTE]

if she goes through with this, voters will see through her bullshit and vote for him, this is on par with GOP wanting to overrule voters and put Cruz or someone else as the runner if Trump "wins" the primaries

[editline]7th April 2016[/editline]

[media]https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/717866569951481856[/media]

[media]https://twitter.com/GOP/status/717873955353280512[/media]

GOP got Sanders back, that's a rare sight

[OmniConsUme]

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;50083745]if she goes through with this, voters will see through her bullshit and vote for him, this is on par with GOP wanting to overrule voters and put Cruz or someone else as the runner if Trump "wins" the primaries

[editline]7th April 2016[/editline]

[media]https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/717866569951481856[/media]

[media]https://twitter.com/GOP/status/717873955353280512[/media]

GOP got Sanders back, that's a rare sight[/QUOTE]

They fucking hate her, They actually can stand Sanders more than her!

[benzi2k7]

bernies current rally crowd in PA is insane

[video=youtube;2o9O-3SyHac]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2o9O-3SyHac[/video]

[gman003-main]

[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;50083910]They fucking hate her, They actually can stand Sanders more than her![/QUOTE]

No, they're just pretty sure Hillary will get the nomination, and are trying to detach some conservative-leaning Democrats from her.

The Republicans have been convinced Hillary would be their opponent pretty much since 2012. Why do you think they went after her so hard for the email thing? Whether you think it's a serious problem or not, it's abundantly clear that the Republicans were using it to try to tear down their most likely opponent.

Of course, they were also completely taken surprise by people not wanting a third Bush to be president, so whether they're [I]right[/I] about Hillary being the inevitable winner is irrelevant.

[Mr._N]

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;50083745]if she goes through with this, voters will see through her bullshit and vote for him, this is on par with GOP wanting to overrule voters and put Cruz or someone else as the runner if Trump "wins" the primaries

[editline]7th April 2016[/editline]

[media]https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/717866569951481856[/media]

GOP got Sanders back, that's a rare sight[/QUOTE]

Whenever she gets scared, she always falls back on attacking his record on guns. She pulled this shit right before Iowa too.

[Missing User]

[QUOTE=Aztec;50083701]That's not the revised one though. It's outdated (or am I mistaken)[/QUOTE]

The new one looks worse (shows Sanders winning NY +4)

[fruxodaily]

[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;50083910]They fucking hate her, They actually can stand Sanders more than her![/QUOTE]

probably bc GOP thinks Sanders is an easy target, just one socialist jab and a few ads with misinformation and they'll start gaining up on him, of course, both Trump and Cruz have a terrible history and Sanders campaign is probably working to dig up as much filth as they can find

[cody8295]

[QUOTE=Code3Response;50084109]The new one looks worse (shows Sanders winning NY +4)[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't be surprised if he meets that goal, but I'd be pumped 00

[Durandal]

[QUOTE=Code3Response;50084109]The new one looks worse (shows Sanders winning NY +4)[/QUOTE]

If he managed to win somehow I'd shit a brick. Not even lying. That'd be crazy unprecedented upset if he managed to get her in her own home state. He'd be lucky if he lost in single digits.