Support NeoGAF

[Dicer]

This is the new coin flip isn't it?

Actually no, Mass state law...

‘Within 150 feet of a polling place as defined in 950 CMR 53.03(18)(c), no person shall solicit votes for or against, or otherwise promote or oppose, any person or political party or position on a ballot question, to be voted on at the current election.’

He was at 4 different polling places...

 

[boiled goose]

Decent night, but not the night I was hoping for. If Rubio lost MN and Kaisch won VT, this would've been legendary. But now I think everyone's in until the 15th.

Rubio might stay till florida. If he loses there, he has to bow out.

 

[MThanded]

Here's what concerns me - the states that Hillary is running away with are states that are indisputably red in a general election.

In firmly blue states - Vermont, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Colorado - Bernie is winning big. Massachusetts is the exception, and even then it was very close.

Look at Obama's primary wins.

Get back to me.

 

[B-Dubs]

Here's what concerns me - the states that Hillary is running away with are states that are indisputably red in a general election.

In firmly blue states - Vermont, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Colorado - Bernie is winning big. Massachusetts is the exception, and even then it was very close.

That doesn't matter at all. Those blue states will go blue no matter what.

Also, look at the states Obama won in 2008.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Decent night, but not the night I was hoping for. If Rubio lost MN and Kaisch won VT, this would've been legendary. But now I think everyone's in until the 15th.

So it's been pointed out that the allocation of delegates for Rubio's "big win" are:
Rubio 14, Cruz 13, Trump 11

Lol.

 

[plagiarize]

Here's what concerns me - the states that Hillary is running away with are states that are indisputably red in a general election.

In firmly blue states - Vermont, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Colorado - Bernie is winning big. Massachusetts is the exception, and even then it was very close.

I'm not understanding your concern. You think Clinton will lose in any of those states in November?

Clinton's wins in the south aren't suggesting that she'll win Texas or anything, but they're absolutely showing her strength with women and minorities and those are groups the Democrat will need to win in order to win in November.

 

[UberTag]

But if they want a chance of nominating someone right leaning and electable through the primary process... they've got to take the sort of positions that'll get those voting groups to go independent.

Turning away some of those lobbies would be good for the entire country. It's not like they're going to go Democrat if the Republicans decide to snub them.

 

[Zophar]

This is the new coin flip isn't it?

Ugh, I don't want to deal with sore losers for months. Not good for liberals with so many threatening to sink the ship when Bernie loses.

 

[giga]

Here's what concerns me - the states that Hillary is running away with are states that are indisputably red in a general election.

In firmly blue states - Vermont, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Colorado - Bernie is winning big. Massachusetts is the exception, and even then it was very close.

What's your point

 

[Battersea Power Station]

Yes, but that Aaron Rodgers' Hail Mary means less if the Packers are down by 20.

In politics, a Hail Mary is worth 52.

 

[danm999]

So it's been pointed out that the allocation of delegates for Rubio's "big win" are:
Rubio 14, Cruz 13, Trump 11

Lol.

MARCOMENTUM.

 

[Orthogonal]

So it's been pointed out that the allocation of delegates for Rubio's "big win" are:
Rubio 14, Cruz 13, Trump 11

Lol.

Closing that gap.

 

[UberTag]

Here's what concerns me - the states that Hillary is running away with are states that are indisputably red in a general election.

In firmly blue states - Vermont, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Colorado - Bernie is winning big. Massachusetts is the exception, and even then it was very close.

That should scare people just a bit if we're headed towards Clinton vs. Trump in the general.

 

[boiled goose]

I'm not understanding your concern. You think Clinton will lose in any of those states in November?

I can see a Trump challenge in NH.

 

[noshten]

Actually no, Mass state law...



He was at 4 different polling places...

Bill is above the law

 

[Maengun1]

Here's what concerns me - the states that Hillary is running away with are states that are indisputably red in a general election.

In firmly blue states - Vermont, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Colorado - Bernie is winning big. Massachusetts is the exception, and even then it was very close.

Others have already chimed in, but that's a positive to Clinton. The firmly blue states are firmly blue for either of them in the general, she's doing better in states that are red/purple and will be close in November.

 

[metalslimer]

Here's what concerns me - the states that Hillary is running away with are states that are indisputably red in a general election.

In firmly blue states - Vermont, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Colorado - Bernie is winning big. Massachusetts is the exception, and even then it was very close.

This doesn't make any difference whatsoever.

 

[Pineapple]

I'm not understanding your concern. You think Clinton will lose in any of those states in November?

I guess my concern is enthusiasm and turnout come November.

In the firmly Democratic states, we're seeing Sanders win, despite the fact that Hillary is going to be the nominee.

Hillary's running up the score in states that Democrats won't win in a general election.

That should scare people just a bit if we're headed towards Clinton vs. Trump in the general.[/QUOTE]"]

That should scare people just a bit if we're headed towards Clinton vs. Trump in the general.

Yes, that's what I'm worried about.

 

[plagiarize]

Actually no, Mass state law...



He was at 4 different polling places...

Read the rest of the document. Notice how it often says 'during an election or primary' in other places, but how it only says 'election' in the part you've quoted.

 

[superdeluxe]

Here's what concerns me - the states that Hillary is running away with are states that are indisputably red in a general election.

In firmly blue states - Vermont, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Colorado - Bernie is winning big. Massachusetts is the exception, and even then it was very close.

And what? Those states tend to go blue in the general. What's the point here?

 

[Prompto]

So it's been pointed out that the allocation of delegates for Rubio's "big win" are:
Rubio 14, Cruz 13, Trump 11

Lol.

This is hilarious

 

[Movement]

Here's what concerns me - the states that Hillary is running away with are states that are indisputably red in a general election.

In firmly blue states - Vermont, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Colorado - Bernie is winning big. Massachusetts is the exception, and even then it was very close.

Why does that concern you? I take that information as meaning Hilary will fare better in those semi swing red states that could be taken be the Democrats in November. The blue states are not suddenly going to vote conservative/Trump.

Edit - very late to the party.

 

[Battersea Power Station]

The newest conspiracy?

Oh Lord, it's back to the conspiracy theories again. I'm sure that the vote or two that might have theoretically flipped in that precinct would have given the state to Bernie for sure.

I don't think you guys know what conspiracy means. There's no conspiracy here. If Bill Clinton is promoting Hillary (and I don't know how you can make the case that he's not), he's breaking the law by doing so within 150 feet of a polling place. Does it matter? No. The state called him and "reminded him" to knock it off. But it's not a conspiracy.

 

[Rubenov]

Rubio might stay till florida. If he loses there, he has to bow out.

Rubio will get destroyed in Florida. Latest polls:

Trump +16
Trump +20
Trump +19
Trump +12

 

[And_Gignac]

Well, hrmmmm

CLINTON(S) FOR PRISON

 

[Velcro Fly]

general will come down to the swing states

you could probably give out like 400 electoral votes right now and be safe with almost all of them

 

[Dr_LucienSanchez]

The people on NeoGAF who follow politics on a regular basis tend to get wrapped up in election victories, seat counts, appointments, district gerrymandering, etc. Bernie's campaign has been less about winning the Presidency than it is about starting a political movement. So especially for the people who aren't Bernie supporters, there isn't a lot of appreciation for things that don't contribute to a victory. Specifically, a lot of people don't think that Bernie's movement means anything because he is unlikely to win the nomination. More than a few are resentful that people are energized around the issues he brings up because it makes Clinton's road to the Presidency a bit more bumpy.

I also think that a lot of people are just not on board with the issues that Sanders is bringing up. It's one thing to say you support all these socialist economic policies when they're far off ideas. It's another to actually support a politician who has/had a chance of bringing them forward.

I do think it's a bit annoying that after years of reading GAFers lament about the fact that socialism etc isn't taken seriously, that there's such a large group that feels very threatened by Sanders's campaign and are eager for him to drop out. I mean, if I remember correctly, Bernie Sanders was very popular here before his campaign for President. I first learned about him on GAF. It was kind of disappointing to realize that a lot of the policially engaged GAFers are so strongly against his candidacy.

This is a really great post.

And like another poster mentioned, the weird sports-like mentality that some seem to have towards politics is mildly disconcerting, to say the least.

 

[Horns]

Hillary looks to have had the biggest night from either side.

 

[Zornack]

I don't think you guys know what conspiracy means. There's no conspiracy here. If Bill Clinton is promoting Hillary (and I don't know how you can make the case that he's not), he's breaking the law by doing so within 150 feet of a polling place.

Bill's mere presence is a promotion of Hillary?

 

[boiled goose]

Why does that concern you? I take that information as meaning Hilary will fare better in those semi swing red states that could be taken be the Democrats in November. The blue states are not suddenly going to vote conservative/Trump.

Trump can beat Hillary in NH.
Not sure about Colorado.

Clinton mere presence is a promotion of Hillary?

I mean I think this is a practical non issue deserving of a wrist slap and nothing more.. but he was not just there. Was was talking to voters and what not. Let's keep the conversation honest.

 

[subrock]

Listen to Gutter_trash, he called the Liberal majority in Canada before anyone lol

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day

 

[A Human Becoming]

Actually no, Mass state law...



He was at 4 different polling places...

That's really bad. Nothing will come from it of course.

 

[captive]

Today is a good day for both sides, man (unless you're Rubio, Kasich or Carson, I guess).

But goodnight.

shockingly i know several republicans that would not consider the result today a good day.

 

[MThanded]

I guess my concern is enthusiasm and turnout come November.

If the firmly Democratic states, we're seeing Sanders win, despite the fact that Hillary is going to be the nominee.

Hillary's running up the score in states that Democrats won't win in a general election.



Yes, that's what I'm worried about.

Purple is barack. Yellow is hillary.

 

[MrDaravon]

I don't think you guys know what conspiracy means. There's no conspiracy here. If Bill Clinton is promoting Hillary (and I don't know how you can make the case that he's not), he's breaking the law by doing so within 150 feet of a polling place.

And has been already pointed out on this page the law excerpt quoted only applies during an election, not a primary. You could make a good case for it being in very poor taste, but no laws are being broken.

 

[Piecake]

That wasn't my implication. Has Bernie won anything worth spiking?

Are you being purposely obtuse? I obviously wasn't talking about that specific example, but the general sniping and antagonism between Bernie and Hilary fans.

And yet somehow you are surprised or saddened that some Hilary fans did not rise above the general level of discourse and be the better person? You somehow found it necessary to shame these people? And imply, even if unintentional, that bernie fans would not do such a thing?

Please...

 

[Zornack]

Actually no, Mass state law...



He was at 4 different polling places...

Aren't primaries not elections?

 

[giga]

Trump can beat Hillary in NH.
Not sure about Colorado.



I mean I think this is a practical non issue deserving of a wrist slap and nothing more.. but he was not just there. Was was talking to voters and what not. Let's keep the conversation honest.

4 electoral votes won't decide anything.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Here's what concerns me - the states that Hillary is running away with are states that are indisputably red in a general election.

In firmly blue states - Vermont, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Colorado - Bernie is winning big. Massachusetts is the exception, and even then it was very close.

This exact wording has probably been beaten six times over, but take a look at Obama's 2008 map.

 

[danm999]

I guess my concern is enthusiasm and turnout come November.

If the firmly Democratic states, we're seeing Sanders win, despite the fact that Hillary is going to be the nominee.

Hillary's running up the score in states that Democrats won't win in a general election.



Yes, that's what I'm worried about.

Err, Virginia? Nevada?

She's also double digits ahead over Sanders in Ohio, Florida, North Carolina.

At this point you can make the argument Hillary is the candidate that will deliver the swing states that decide the election, unless you think Trump is gonna win NY or something.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Aren't primaries not elections?

Primaries are not elections. Nobody is being elected to anything.

 

[Josh5890]

general will come down to the swing states

you could probably give out like 400 electoral votes right now and be safe with almost all of them

http://www.270towin.com/

Yea. It will come down to ten states.

 

[Movement]

Trump can beat Hillary in NH.
Not sure about Colorado.

Sure? I doubt it. I truly predict a record turnout election and Trump/Republicans be absolutely destroyed.

 

[And_Gignac]

Purple is barack. Yellow is hillary.

Wait at Obama slaying the worldwide primaries. What kind of king.

 

[PopcornMegaphone]

Aren't primaries not elections?

No, they are not

 

[Damaniel]

I don't think you guys know what conspiracy means. There's no conspiracy here. If Bill Clinton is promoting Hillary (and I don't know how you can make the case that he's not), he's breaking the law by doing so within 150 feet of a polling place.

Conspiracy theory might be a bit strong, but it's definitely making a mountain out of a molehill. Go ahead and throw the Hillary votes out of those precincts - she'd still win. Maybe he shouldn't have been there, but arguing that it made any difference to the overall race sounds like sour grapes to me.

Also, primaries are not elections in the legal sense. Bill knows exactly what he can and can't do.

 

[Maitiú]

If the cost of government functioning is compromising with the far right, is this really desirable? To me, that's the worst part of Obama's presidency. He compromised his ideals to make the wheels turn. I get that this is analogous to the Tea Party on the right, but it's damn disappointing to consider another 4-8 years of compromise just to eke out minor victories in the courts and through executive action.

No, it's not desirable at all. But it's all there is, with or without Sanders as President. I'm betting my vote that Hillary will be able to wrangle more change in the direction I want than Sanders. and whoever wins the presidency in November, Republican or Democrat, will only see 4 years. I imagine a fruitless, emotional Sanders presidency will swing the voters right, and Republicans will have the house, Senate, and Whitehouse in 2020.

 

[boiled goose]

shockingly i know several republicans that would not consider the result today a good day.

me too haha.

There is a small fraction of conservatives that consider themselves the intellectual conservatives that would prefer an establishment pick like rubio.

I am loving their realization of what their party really is.

No, it's not desirable at all. But it's all there is, with or without Sanders as President. I'm betting my vote that Hillary will be able to wrangle more change in the direction I want than Sanders. and whoever wins the presidency in November, Republican or Democrat, will only see 4 years. I imagine a Fruitless, emotional Sanders presidency will swing the voters right, and Republicans will have the house, Senate, and Whitehouse in 2020.

I actually disagree here.
Let's take minimum wage for example. Sanders says 15. Clinton says 12.5 I think.
Now republicans will oppose both and dems will have to compromise. If you start from 15 you might get 12. If ask for 12.5 you will get 10.

This was Obama's problem. His first offer was already a compromise and then he got railroaded.

That said, I do think Hillary will be more effective and ruthless than Obama, which is why I supporter her in 08.

 

[plagiarize]

And has been already pointed out on this page the excerpt quoted only applies during an election, not a primary. You could make a good case for it being in very poor taste, but no laws are being broken.

Again, I'm no expert. That's just how I'm reading it.

This is a process for an organization to pick a candidate for an election. They can do whatever process they want, so it doesn't seem too surprising that the restrictions would be a lot less lax than on an election.

 

[A Human Becoming]

The people on NeoGAF who follow politics on a regular basis tend to get wrapped up in election victories, seat counts, appointments, district gerrymandering, etc. Bernie's campaign has been less about winning the Presidency than it is about starting a political movement. So especially for the people who aren't Bernie supporters, there isn't a lot of appreciation for things that don't contribute to a victory. Specifically, a lot of people don't think that Bernie's movement means anything because he is unlikely to win the nomination. More than a few are resentful that people are energized around the issues he brings up because it makes Clinton's road to the Presidency a bit more bumpy.

I also think that a lot of people are just not on board with the issues that Sanders is bringing up. It's one thing to say you support all these socialist economic policies when they're far off ideas. It's another to actually support a politician who has/had a chance of bringing them forward.

I do think it's a bit annoying that after years of reading GAFers lament about the fact that socialism etc isn't taken seriously, that there's such a large group that feels very threatened by Sanders's campaign and are eager for him to drop out. I mean, if I remember correctly, Bernie Sanders was very popular here before his campaign for President. I first learned about him on GAF. It was kind of disappointing to realize that a lot of the policially engaged GAFers are so strongly against his candidacy.

Missed this from earlier: incredibly well said.

4 electoral votes won't decide anything.

Did you blank on the 2000 election? Gore would have won with a New Hampshire victory.