Poll: Clinton maintains commanding lead in New York

[onehandle]

Last edited Sat Apr 16, 2016, 09:13 AM - Edit history (1)

Source: CNN

(CNN)Hillary Clinton has opened up a 17 percentage point lead in the New York Democratic primary, according to a new poll, maintaining a double-digit lead over Bernie Sanders.

The Wall Street Journal/NBC News/Marist poll, released Thursday, finds the former secretary of state ahead of the Vermont independent senator 57% to 40% in the Empire State. Thursday's poll tracks with another WSJ/NBC/Marist poll, released Tuesday, that showed Clinton holding a 14-point lead.
Clinton outperforms Sanders in New York among women, men, those 45 or older, and those in New York City and the surrounding suburbs, while Sanders holds his advantage among young voters and statistically ties Clinton among upstate voters.

A Clinton win in delegate-rich New York on April 19 would provide crucial breathing room for her campaign, as Sanders has continued to make a spirited challenge in the Democratic nominating contest despite trailing in the delegate count.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/15/politics/hillary-clinton-new-york-poll/

---

With New York basically over, Hillary has headed to another big win for her, California for the weekend.

[dubyadiprecession]

1. BS has hit the...

Wall.

[LiberalFighter]

51. The wall that Trump built?

[rjsquirrel]

2. But but

Bernie won 7 primaries in a row!

Or wait what's this week's talking point that disproves all known mathematical theorems?

NY voter here pulling the lever for Clinton and increasingly proud to do so.

[Victor_c3]

4. I don't know about the proud part...

I live in New York and I've yet to come across anyone in real life who admits that they'll vote for Hillary Clinton. I haven't seen any evidence of any Hillary supporter anywhere around where I live in New York.

I'm not saying that people aren't going to vote for her, I just don't see any evidence of people being proud or excited about her. However, support for Sanders is much more obvious.

[geek tragedy]

5. Ten quiet voters make less noise than one loud one nt

[Human101948]

7. The Silent Majority...wasn't that Nixon's constituency?

Trump was recently claiming them as well.

[reACTIONary]

32. "The silent majority" is your formulation....

.... people don't owe you a declaration of who they are voting for nor are they obiged to make public proclimations of support for a candidate. Most folks don't. So what?

[SoLeftIAmRight]

87. want to make a friendly large bet?

???

[beastie boy]

18. Do you live in Staten Island?

[Victor_c3]

56. Nope, actually Hudson Valley

its the area about an hour north of NYC surrounding West Point, Newburgh, and Poughkeepsie.

We'll have to see what happens on Tuesday. I'm not saying that Hillary doesn't stand a chance, but I don't see any evidence in my daily life to suggest that anyone supports her around where I live. She might very well have the silent majority and they are just doing a really great job staying silent. I don't know. I'm just really stumped by what I see (or don't see).

[beastie boy]

58. That explains it. The place is even more right wing than Staten Island.

No wonder you can't find anyone voting for Hillary.

[tabasco]

59. Unlike the southern tier of U.S. states,

which are renowned for their unequivocal liberalism.

[beastie boy]

60. Apparently so.

No one from the Southern US reported to have never encountered a Hillary supporter.

[Wibly]

64. Come on now

Clinton represents the right wing of the Dem party. She's the establishment candidate, and her voting record demonstrates she's the war hawk of the Dem Party. If there was going to be strong Clinton support anywhere, it would be in right wing bastions.

[beastie boy]

66. Apparently, either she is not right wing, or Hudson Valley is a bastion of liberalism.

How else would you explain a Hudson Valley resident never meeting anyone who would vote for Hillary?...

[Helen Borg]

24. The Clinton machine is everywhere. Just invisible.

That's how they can cheat and stay undetected, in my opinion.

[riversedge]

92. Your she is cheating post reminds me of the chicken little story.

[redstateblues]

28. Everybody I knew at the time voted for McGovern

How is it possible that Nixon won?

[Victor_c3]

57. I'm not just saying it's everyone that I know only supports Sanders

I don't see any evidence anywhere of anyone supporting Clinton. No signs, no bumper stickers, nobody bringing her name up in conversations around me, nothing. I see the occasional "Trump" sign and even leftover signs from '08 and '12 proclaiming support for Obama and even some '12 Romney stickers on cars. But nothing anywhere for Hillary.

As I said in a reply to someone else, her supporters are doing an excellent job staying silent about their support for Hillary. We'll have to see on Tuesday what this means.

[Tarheel_Dem]

62. Talk about a bloodbath that I hope never to see repeated. McGovernites were LOUD, but very wrong.

[RobinA]

94. This Is Why

every time I see a picture of Sanders I see a hologram of McGovern shimmering over his left shoulder. I couldn't vote that year, but I remember it well. I would have voted for McGovern in that blow out.

[Wibly]

65. The problem in that electon

Was not people voting, but people not voting, and people being relatively certain Nixon would lose. It was a combination of apathy and confidence that killed McGovern. It wasn't that there was some vast movement in support of Nixon.
The argument the poster is making, that Clinton does not seem to be winning any sort of grassroots or groundswell, is clear from the turn outs at rallies. The poster is simply reporting the lack of enthusiasm is translating on the ground.

[Zynx]

77. That. Is. Bulls***.

No one expected Nixon to lose that election. He was ahead by 20-25 points the whole election and won by 22. Turnout wasn't even that low, despite the fact the race was competitive. Voter turnout could have been 100% and he would have still won.

You've created a fiction that not a single historian endorses.

[stopbush]

71. Oh, please. You need to start hanging out with Dems.

They're the ones overwhelmingly and enthusiastically supporting Hillary.

[Victor_c3]

83. Hmmmm

Real dems aren't center-right in their political leanings and don't take more than a decade to realize that their vote for the war on Iraq was a mistake. Real dems realize that Iraq was a bunch of bullshit from the get go.

I stand corrected if the Democratic Party isn't really the party of the left and the progresdives. I've long suspected that either Hillary is a either a DINO or the democratic party is just the other right leaning party our choice is limited to.

If Hillary is in fact a democrat then I guess I'm not and I was mistaken for believing that the democrats were the party of the progressives and the left.

[stopbush]

84. You may not be a Democrat. Nothing wrong with that.

The Democratic Party is a big tent party. It is progressive, but it is not overtly socialist.

[RobinA]

95. Well. This "Real Dem"

knew Iraq was BS from the get go, but will vote center right in order to keep off-the-deep-end-right from being President. Do I like it? No, but you play the hand you're dealt.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

88. want to make a friendly large bet?

???

[TreasonousBastard]

3. If Clinton wins NY...

as she probably will, Sanders really should hang it up.

He'll be more of an annoyance than a competitor, and Hillary should spend more time going after asshole Republicans than swatting at flies.

Bernie's a great guy, but he won't be useful to any of us if he continues to bait Hillary in a losing fight. He's better at baiting Trump and Cruz.

I only hope that if he does bail, the Berniacs and Hillary haters don't do a lemming march over the cliff.

[stopbush]

6. He's already an annoyance.

And anyone who goes around lying about their opponent the way he does about Hillary, providing sound bites that will be used against her and down-ticket Ds in the fall is hardly a great guy. He's something else (I'm thinking of a word that ends in "hole&quot .

[Human101948]

8. Bernie to Vatican talk on helping poor, Hillary to CA for $350,000 venture capitalist dinner

And anyone who goes around lying about their opponent the way he does about Hillary, providing sound bites that will be used against her and down-ticket Ds in the fall is hardly a great guy. He's something else (I'm thinking of a word that ends in "hole&quot .

Obama: "She’ll say anything, and change nothing."

[stopbush]

11. Sanders excellent adventure, a publicity stunt

that won't help in NY.

What a clown.

[Human101948]

14. How will Hillary's hedge fund dinner help NY?

?1460763695

[laserhaas]

16. Applause - APPLAUSE

[beastie boy]

19. There is a difference between "help in NY" and "help NY"

But nice try. Fully expected.

[Human101948]

29. As usual no response to Hillary's corrupt fundraising...

Yes, legal, but totally corrupt.

Much more worthy of discussion than Bernie's trip to Rome.

[reACTIONary]

36. What's wrong with raising cash...

.... for your self and your fellow democrates. That's what it takes to win the election. Do you want our front runner and other democrates to lose? I don't.

[Human101948]

41. It's where the contributions come from that is the problem...

Nothing will change as long they embrace the corrupt Citizens United system of campaign conttibutions--

Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy

The US is dominated by a rich and powerful elite.
So concludes a recent study by Princeton University Prof Martin Gilens and Northwestern University Prof Benjamin I Page.
This is not news, you say.
Perhaps, but the two professors have conducted exhaustive research to try to present data-driven support for this conclusion. Here's how they explain it:
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.
In English: the wealthy few move policy, while the average American has little power.

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

[reACTIONary]

49. And nothing will change unless they...

.... DO embrace it. You know the saying that nature, to be commanded, must be obyed? Similarly, the system, to be changed, must be worked.

That's just the way it is. My advice is to get over the butt-hurt and to support our candidates rather than dnegrate them for doing what they have to do.

[beastie boy]

48. Corrupt? Please define the word.

It is useless to respond to allegations of corruption when you get to make up your own definitions.

I might define corruption as collecting $27 from as many people as possible after whipping them into a frenzy with fiery but fundamentally impractical rhetoric.

See, that was easy!

[stopbush]

42. Most of that money is funding down ticket races.

Something Sanders has no inerest in doing, even though he promised to do so as a condition of being allowed to run in the D primaries.

He's such a louse.

[Human101948]

45. Where does she get all that money? Hedge fund managers and fossil fuel lobbyists...

Hillary has a super-PAC to help her out.

When you’re the wealthiest person in the race and you’ve raised more money than any other candidate, its not going to bring you down to take a little time and effort to raise money for the DNC. But its even easier to do this with the cushion of a super-PAC. Last quarter, Clinton raised $77 million and her super-PAC raised an additional $20 million, while Sanders raised $40 million and had no money from a super-PAC. While super-PACs cannot spend this money directly on candidate expenses, they are free to spend it on advertising. This saves Hillary Clinton $20 million dollars on ads that Bernie has to pull directly from his campaign funds. Since Clinton raised $18 million for the DNC, and since her super-PAC likely raised much more than $20 million this quarter, she’s got a big cushion for down-ticket fundraising that Bernie lacks.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/1/2/1465551/-Why-didn-t-Bernie-Sanders-raise-any-money-for-the-DNC

Hillary Clinton’s Biggest Campaign Bundlers Are Fossil Fuel Lobbyists

A list of 40 registered lobbyists that the Clinton camp disclosed to the Federal Election Commission on Wednesday revealed a number of Democratic Party lobbyists who have worked against regulations to curb climate change, advocated for offshore drilling, or sought government approval for natural gas exports.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-bundlers-fossil-fuel_us_55a8335ee4b04740a3df86c5

[stopbush]

46. Hillary has no connection to her pac. That would be illegal.

Karl Rove's pac is running pro-Sanders anti Hillary ads. Is Sanders responsible for those ads? No.

I hope Hillary raises as much $ from whoever she can to win. And she is winning.

We can't afford Sanders as president. His naive bumbling would set back the progressive cause for decades.

[Human101948]

79. Unfortunately Hillary is not a progressive, she is an incrementalist...

as she herself has indicated.

[stopbush]

80. Sure she is. Look at her record.

Sanders isn't a progressive as much as he's a demagogue.

[tabasco]

61. Do you have a link for how the Clinton campaign money is being spent?

I've seen that statement made about funding the down-ticket races, but no source for it. Thanks.

[Ford_Prefect]

12. David Brock will do his best to guilt them into supporting the DNC putsch in July I am sure.

As far as I know the primary is the season when the party is supposed to discuss where it ought to go and what the voters want. Supporting a candidate is one way for the rank and file party members to enter that discussion.

Up to now the party leadership has disdained to listen to the rest of us except when Sanders and O'Malley were on the stage. Even BLM got short shrift. I would not want to be a down ticket candidate under DNC leadership this year. The DNC has done everything they can to alienate voters we need to get the Senate back and help the house races that are still viable.

Please spare your platitudes for those who still buy lottery tickets with their grocery money. You can demand loyalty all you want to but at last count it still has to be earned. Human nature doesn't alter just because we think it ought to.

The mass of independent voters which could have been attracted to the Democratic Candidate are the numbers you really should worry about. They don't have a voting agenda that the DNC appears to recognize. They are the voters who might be persuaded to help fight the Republican Dark Money machine at many levels, if only they thought it would improve their condition. Past attempts at frightening them into voting have been remarkable for their lack of success at turning out independent voters.

I don't see that many of them in love with the Republican offering so far. That could change by November.

[Human101948]

81. The DNC is a freaking disaster...

They can't seem to win anything except the White House. And it's not surprising when they have someone like DWS at the helm who would rather support Republicans than fellow Democrats.

[LenaBaby61]

9. Great news .....

For Hillary Clinton

[ananda]

10. Too many conservative wall street types I guess.

Too bad for the many many people who need officials like Sanders.

[Pharaoh]

13. I would think Bernies 48,000

in Washington square verses 1200 at Hills rally is a poll that is real people in real time.

So don't get too cocky. Hillary had similar numbers right before Michigan.But I will admit a closed primary is detrimental to Bernies vote tally. Will be an interesting tuesday night.

[beastie boy]

20. I wonder how many of the 25,000 are voting Democrats

rather than unregistered Bernie groupies who never voted in their lives for anyone or stood for anything.

[LiberalFighter]

53. Or were there because they support Sanders

And not there just because they could.

[COLGATE4]

21. With 57,000 NYU students all around Washington Square

I don't think that number proves anything other than "Hey, so and so is at the Square. Let's go and see who's there".

[winstars]

50. Thats what I said, Was it 48,000 or 25,000 in Washington Square Park??? News said 27,000

BTW just a couple of blocks away on Sixth Avenue, each year we get 40,000 marching in the Halloween Parade, with well over a 1,000,000 spectators.

Lived down there for 30 years, it ain't that hard to attract a crowd...

27,000 people at an event is a really great number, but we must keep it in perspective.

Is it similar to Trump's big numbers? Are they all voters or are some just going to see Donald Trump because its like going to a show or a game but the admission is free.

Hell if it was easy to do, I would go see Trump just to observe, although I think my ears would start bleeding after a few minutes and I would have to rapidly depart the venue...

[laserhaas]

15. Ye are allowed to dream of a crowned queen

and can continue to do so - with these fallacies (like her winning debates)

by hibernating for 4 years.

[Hoppy]

17. So Hillary's ahead in N.Y. --- As Forrest said, "Stupid is as stupid votes."

[itsrobert]

26. Still calling Hillay voters stupid

Just as expected from Bernout supporters.

[COLGATE4]

23. Not necessary. April 19 is only 4 days away.

After that, it's all over for Bernie.

[stopbush]

43. Yep. Sanders supporters will argue that he needs only

85% of the remaining delegate votes to tie Hillary...and they'll be right.

[COLGATE4]

69. Exactly. Math is hard. nt

[Equinox Moon]

22. Too bad NY is a closed primary

People go out to vote last minute. The closed primary is what hurts Bernie. NY has known Hillary for a long time. They are just getting to know Bernie now, which activates people, but now those people can't do any last minute show up and vote.

Our country needs wide spread voting rights. Democracy!

[COLGATE4]

25. Yep. Let's change the rules which have been in effect

forever and (at least presumably) are well-known to voters so those people who haven't thought about what party they belong to can walk in and vote. Of is the complaint because it hurts Bernie?

[Equinox Moon]

27. The suppression voting system hurts everyone

[COLGATE4]

30. Limiting primary voters to members of a given party

is not voter suppression. Anyone is free to join the party which best meets his/her beliefs. If they don't then there's no cause for complaint when they're not allowed to interfere in a party they showed no interest in belonging to.

[Equinox Moon]

33. Some people decide last minute, closed primary shuts them out

I think there are many people that decide last minute to participate in voting, some for the first time. That includes a person that has never participated before and now feels motivated to do so. Closed primary is suppression, for it prevents people from participating.

This is indisputable.

[reACTIONary]

37. If they do, they just change their affiliation to Democrat . ...

..... the rules could allow that to be done at the last momement. If they don't want to change their affiliation why should they have a say in the party's candidate?

[Equinox Moon]

40. NY closed primary, CLOSED peoples ability to change their party

People had to register to vote in the primary by March 25th.
They had to change party affiliation LAST year.

This is suppression.

Not everyone is up to date on the voting rules. They are living and working and think of this last minute and now they can't participate. Does that help you understand?

[stopbush]

44. Nope. Those are the party rules. You don't like the rules,

form your own party.

Sanders certainly knew the rules. Blame him for not running as an Indy so you could vote for him as an Indy. He's the one who decided to run as a D and agreed to run in closed primaries. No one forced him.

Whiners.

[reACTIONary]

47. OK, so you want to change the rules . ...

.... to make it easier to register and vote. That doesn't require an open primary. It just requires the ability to register to vote OR to change your party affiliation up to election day.

I think that a party's candidate should be chosen by the party's membership. If you want a say, join the party. What's wrong with that?

[Tarheel_Dem]

67. Then your complaint should have been lodged with the "Voter Education" unit of your candidate's....

campaign. That's not suppression, it's ignorance. It's the same reason Donald Trump is losing delegates left & right. Smart campaigns know what's important, and they make sure their supporters are "educated". If, as you say, people "make up their minds at the last minute", then they have only themselves to blame for not belonging to a party. I don't want Greens & Libertarians fooling around in our nominating process, and apparently neither does NY.

[anigbrowl]

78. It was up to Sanders campaign to build support

I think closed primaries are fine, that you should be a member of a political party for at least a few months before you take part in an intra-party election. The votes of people who are not plugged into politics at all shouldn't be that influential IMHO.

[COLGATE4]

72. It would be suppression in the General Election. It is

not in any organization where, in order to vote you have to be a member. The last minute folks need to join the party of their choice in order to vote the next time around. They can vote in the GE but they're out of luck for party Primary elections.

[RobinA]

96. Whaaa, Whaaa

Look, I was registered as an Independent years ago. Although I live in a state where the primary rarely, if ever, matters (PA), I figured I might want to vote in a primary one day, so I picked a side. Everybody has that opportunity. Voting rules have made it more and more possible to come late to the party, easier to register, and easier to stay registered in most cases. There have been glitches that need to be changed. At some point, a voter has to be a grown-up and follow a few simple rules. You can't wake up unregistered from a year long sound sleep the day of the election, be magically transported to the polls, and expect to vote. For most voters it just takes a little fore thought. Which I realize, is a dying concept. This is not to say that some groups of people don't have problems that need addressing, and these should be addressed. I just have little time for people who can't be bothered to secure their ability to vote and then cry because they can't vote.

[still_one]

34. Democrats should nominate the Democratic nominee, not some independent, or someone who

has no party affiliation.

Why should someone who is not a registered Democrat determine who should be the Democratic nominee.

In our society, people have the right to associate with each other on the basis of any standard, just as people have the right NOT to associate with each other on the basis of any standard.

Those who took the effort to register as a Democrat, did so with the intent to associate with other Democrats.

[Equinox Moon]

38. Yet, people can decide to be a Democrat at any point and join the party.

A person may become motivated to participate and join the democratic party because of a candidate they are learning about for the first time. That is very real.

[still_one]

39. Then there is no problem, as long as they abide by the respective states registration rules

[Wibly]

54. Garbage

Sanders has caucused with the Dems for years and years and was accepted as a candidate for the Party's nomination. He is a democrat.
Get over it.

[still_one]

73. Did I say ANYTHING about Bernie in my post? I was referring to those who didn't bother to register

as Democrats, and want the privilege of voting in the Democratic primary. That is what open and closed primaries is all about

In New York for new registrations it won't be a problem for those who register as Democrats. The issue will be for those who were registered in the last election as an independent, republican, or some other affiliation other than Democrat

[COLGATE4]

70. Exactly right. nt

[SoLeftIAmRight]

89. want to make a friendly large bet?

???

[LiberalFighter]

55. Primaries are a political party event.

If they want to vote in a Republican or Democratic primary they need to identify as Republican or Democratic. They should not be able to be a Democrat one day and then go with No Party or Republican the next day.

Everyone should have the right to vote unencumbered with party affiliation during the general election.

[still_one]

90. This isn't rocket science

[disndat]

31. disndat

That is because NYS doesn't allow cross-over votes. Sanders has done well with Independents wherever he ran successfully in
caucuses and primaries, States that do not have cross-over restrictions.

[Chicago1980]

74. They had a chance to change their party affiliation to something.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

35. You really can't just wait 3 more day, can you?

[Wibly]

52. Poll is weak

A low polling sample, under 600 people, with an error margin of 4 percent, conducted by an organization that has all but endorsed Clinton.
Yup, that's a poll you can count on (to be used as spin by a desperate campaign).
Shame on CNN for continuing to cover polls and a horse race instead of digging into issues.

[Chicago1980]

75. You trying to 'unskew' them like the Romney folk did 4 years back?

[Surya Gayatri]

63. K & R most enthusiastically.

[Liberal_in_LA]

68. ..Lol

[northernsouthern]

76. Is this the same poll they have been posting for days? NT

[itsrobert]

82. But Camp Pinocchio said ABC had a poll that showed Hillary's lead was only 6 percent

They had no link.

Tell me Camp Pinocchio wouldn't lie.

[JoFerret]

86. The bumbling ineptitude of #PopeGate can't help

Is the Bernie campaign free fall? Or is that just my wishful thinking?

This latest monumental disrespect of Pope Francis may be a final straw.

The misogyny and bullying tactics of his surrogates snd fans is borderline intolerable.

He has left the high ground of ideals and ideas for the gutter politics of anger and slander.

[riversedge]

91. REC. and Thank you.

[DiverDave]

93. Haven't we heard this before?

Bernie is gonna win the nomination