Sanders Senatorial home State win 86% Clinton's Senatorial home State win 58%

[azurnoir]

notice the difference? and oh in 2008 while she was a Senator it was about the same

[comradebillyboy]

1. Sorry for your loss...nt

[azurnoir]

2. oh gosh thank you so much except pain isn't what I'm feeling nor is anger

[MadBadger]

13. So Denial?

[azurnoir]

16. Nope not that either

[brush]

32. What is that OP supposed to mean? Tiny Vermont vs the Big Apple? Is that supposed to prove something

[auntpurl]

3. IOW, Sanders wins homogenous Vermont while Hillary wins super-diverse NY

Notice the difference?

[azurnoir]

7. yep she won by nearly 30 points less and Barack Obama lost to her by the same margin in 2008

kinda blows that diversity thing right out of the water

[Zynx]

11. Except Obama won VA, MD, IL, GA, and NC. Sanders has gotten skunked on those.

I'm assuming Sanders loses MD next week.

[azurnoir]

14. we're talking about New York

[Zynx]

18. Yes, but you said the diversity argument doesn't apply. It does apply. He hasn't won diverse states

aside from caucus states.

Sanders is in far far far far far worse shape than Obama at a similar point. By late April he had an insurmountable lead.

[azurnoir]

22. Not in NY it doesn't nor did it in Minnesota either where he took the minority areas too

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. Your logic is flawed.

Barack Obama has proven himself capable of building a large and heterogeneous coalition. The Vermont independent has proven he is incapable of putting together such a coalition.


I think you should have posted this in the Bernie Sanders forum where you would have been applauded for your insight.

[azurnoir]

27. no logic simply facts

and it's more fun here really it is

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. Please make believe this a test.

Which of the three candidates has proven incapable of assembling a heterogeneous coalition?

Barack Obama
Hillary Clinton
Bernie Sanders


Thank you in advance.

[azurnoir]

35. None of them

[DemocratSinceBirth]

37. Wrong answer. Please try again.

Thank you in advance.

[azurnoir]

39. oh you mean not the one you wanted

[DemocratSinceBirth]

42. It is a test. There are only right answers and wrong ones./nt

[azurnoir]

44. according to you and I gave the right answer

[DemocratSinceBirth]

57. Tiny homogeneous Vermont actually has less people than a congressional district.

Wrap your head around that. Therefore it is fair to compare Sanders' perform in his postage stamp sized state with Hillary's performance in the congressional district where she lived it and she won it 69-31. The difference isn't nearly as stark.

http://www.westchestergov.com/boe99/linkcounty.aspx

And let's not even begin to talk about the fact NY has nearly thirty times as many people as lil Vermont.

[azurnoir]

60. Barack Obama lost NY in 2008 by the same margin that Bernie did yesterday

all your race theories just took wing at least when it comes to NY

[DemocratSinceBirth]

64. Thank you for proving my point.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are both adept at building broad and heterogeneous coalitions, the Vermont independent, not so much...


All is not lost...The South Dakota caucus is coming up.

[brush]

41. But you're getting battered because of your flawed reasonings

A previous poster put it to succinctly, Sanders doesn't do well in diverse states.

You can't win the presidency getting mostly white votes. That was proven in 2102 with Romney. He got a huge majority of the white vote but was beaten handily.

Sorry, those days are over, and so is Bernie.

[azurnoir]

43. not battered actually it's fun watching Hillary supporters pile on

because they do not like the optics of what those numbers say about the candidates

[brush]

48. What optics? You mean like these?

Hillary got nearly half a million more votes in NY than Trump:

Clinton — 1,054,083 votes

Trump —524,932 votes

Any questions?

[azurnoir]

56. Hillary vs Trump in NY well okay go there if you need to

[leftynyc]

54. Except it seems it's the Bernie

supporters that whine constantly about being reminded that Bernie can't seem to win in big diverse states. If you call fighting back against abject bullshit piling on, you need a thicker skin.

[brooklynite]

4. I DID notice the difference! My question is, why should I care?

We've long since passed the expectations game. Sanders is no longer polling at 5%; he's a serious candidate and need to perform like a serious candidate; i.e. WIN. He's not. Clinton IS winning, whether or not it's at the pace you think it should be.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. sorry for your loss.

And comparing a state the size of a congressional district that is as homogeneous as a Wayne Newton Vegas act with a state as large and heterogeneous as New York is patently absurd.

[azurnoir]

12. Barack Obama lost to Hillary by the same margin in 2008 that Bernie did last night

doesn't sound very diverse to me

[Zynx]

26. He lost minority voters by massive margins.

He doesn't have a diverse coalition. His showing in NY was far whiter than Obama's was.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. Please see Post #21.

Thank you in advance.

[azurnoir]

29. link it eta I already replied -not logic just facts -see I repeated it just for you

[Adrahil]

6. Well that's one way to spin a a disastrous result for Sanders. NT

[Godhumor]

8. Clinton's senatorial home +31 to +33 delegates. Sanders' +16

Notice the difference?

[Codeine]

9. She took home almost twice as many delegates from her state, however.

And she's going to be president. I'm sure she's fine with the VT results.

[MadBadger]

10. She got more votes in Queens alone than he did in all of Vermont.

[Bad Dog]

15. It seems a rather meaningless figure

which won't affect the outcome one bit.

[MineralMan]

17. And Hillary netted about twice as many pledged delegates

more than Bernie in her Senatorial home state. That's interesting, too. Bernie got 16 more pledged delegates in VT than Hillary. In NY York, Hillary got 31 more pledged delegates than Bernie. Stuff's fascinating when you look it up.

[onehandle]

19. Straws, I grasp at thee. nt

[Codeine]

24. Ha!

[azurnoir]

31. nope I pointed out FACTS

and the replies are all but but but

[Blue_Adept]

38. FACTS... from a certain point of view

[azurnoir]

40. No point of view simple election results

[hack89]

58. Insignificant facts. nt

[JoePhilly]

45. Bwahahahaha!!!!!

[Freddie Stubbs]

20. Keep enjoying these little victories while Hillary keeps winning delegates

[onehandle]

25. Not to mention nearly 3,000,000 more votes.

Numbers are so inconvenient.

[Tarc]

23. That's a cool story, bro. Tell us again how many delegates VT was worth?

[geek tragedy]

30. .

[azurnoir]

34. But as ya'll pointed out he hasn't lived there in 50 years

and Hillary barely scraped out of Il with a tie less than 2% in my state we call that a recall

[geek tragedy]

36. What exactly does this talking point prove, in your estimation? nt

[azurnoir]

46. Look around it seems Team Hillary can not take the slightest of bad optics

I point out that Bernie is more popular in the state he's a Senator from than Hilary was now or when she was a Senator and get a massive pile on - what's that tell about the chances of party unity?

[geek tragedy]

50. no one living on planet earth thinks Clinton winning a landslide

in the state with the second most delegates is bad optics for her.

Step outside the Bernie Bubble.

[mythology]

47. Yes I notice that Clinton won another state

Took 247 delegates out of play, won by 200,000 plus votes, increased her substantial delegate lead, again showed her campaign appeals to substantial majorities of black, Hispanic and women voters and soundly beat a candidate who out spent her by a wide margin, and further closed the already exceedingly unlikely path to the nomination Sanders even theoretically had.

Sanders winning Vermont showed he could handily win a state that has a very low minority population, is substantially more liberal than even the median of the Democratic party and if Clinton didn't contest the state.

One of these can be extrapolated to winning the Democratic nomination. One can not.

[azurnoir]

49. That's it for Hillary's folks it just about the number delegates NOTHING else

she has completely ignored middle America, what does that tell those of us who live here about what we can expect from her as POTUS

[geek tragedy]

52. what counts as "middle America?"

She campaigned hard in Iowa, won Missouri, Illinois, Ohio.

She even campaigned hard in Wisconsin despite knowing she'd lose there.

[azurnoir]

55. Iowa was a tie and some of her delegates there have flipped to Bernie

living in Minnesota I count Ohio as the East and Illinois was pretty much a tie >2% difference

[leftynyc]

51. Because comparing a lily white state

of less than a million people to an extremely diverse state of 19.75 million people makes perfect sense. More pathetic sore loser nonsense.

[azurnoir]

53. Barack Obama lost New York by the same margin in 2008 as Bernie did yesterday

blows that lily white thing right out of the water

[leftynyc]

59. So what?

Are you saying the President can't put together a diverse coalition? Because for all appearances, Bernie can't. I do love how you whine about how the delegate count is all that matters to Hillary supporters. What the fuck else matters in a race for delegates? You candidate took a body blow last night - suck it up.

[azurnoir]

63. I haven't whined about delegates I pointed out Hillaary ignores states with low delegate counts

almost like she's saying those people just aren't important to me

[leftynyc]

66. And just WHERE is Hillary

ignoring states with low delegate counts. Where are the quotes from Hillary discounting even one state? I'll wait.

[azurnoir]

67. she completely snubbed the Black community in North Mpls

quotes are not necessary lack of appearances speak for themselves

[leftynyc]

70. So - no quotes

She's CLEANING UP in all minority heavy states. Let's not pretend otherwise. Maybe after Bernie gets his ass kicked again next Tuesday you'll find reality a more healthy place than the la la land where Hillary is ignoring minorities.

[Dem2]

61. I like eggs.

I looove eggs.

[SidDithers]

62. 1446 to 1205. Notice the difference?...nt

Sid

[tritsofme]

65. Cool story broToo bad home state margins don't decide the nomination.Very special for you all though

I'm sure.

[JustAnotherGen]

68. Thinking out loud but

Wouldn't diversity and size have something to do with that?


Vermont had a total of 134,571 votes cast among the four Democratic Candidates on the ballot:

http://www.wptz.com/politics/2016-vermont-primary-results/38148736

It's a physically small state without the broad spectrum of Americans there - and those who don't fit the 'American Dream' mold aren't large enough to make an impact.

NY (with 99% reporting) cast 1,182,552 Votes.
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/new-york

I lived in the Greater Rochester area for 30 years. Moved to NJ in 2006. If you look at the 'map' and how it went - it would make sense that Sanders would have picked up the 315ers (white working class high school grads) and 607 (includes Ithaca and Cornell) and up through the mountains of the eastern part of the State. But when you look at the 4 largest cities (Greater NYC, Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse) the areas couldn't be more different.

To me, having canvassed and volunteered for campaigns for Slaughter, Clinton (first Senate run), President Clinton, Senator Kerry, my parents (local township won but county lost), state legislators and county Executive - and having done the Federal across the state -

The numbers shouldn't be compared.

In Alphabet Soup in Rochester NY - well - there isn't one in Vermont. There's one Syracuse. There's one in Buffalo. There isn't an Alphabet Soup in say -

Canadaigua or Lake Placid or Elmira. Those are mini Vermonts. But Vermont doesn't have a Rochester - they just don't. You aren't going to find that kind of diversity in 700 K people in ONE county (Monroe) in Vermont.

[azurnoir]

69. sigh Barack Obama lost NY in 2008 by the same margin that Bernie did yesterday

hillary won by the same margin doesn't seem all too diverse to me

[JustAnotherGen]

76. He was relatable in those cities

In the GE - folks in Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse could relate to him. I mean no disrespect to you - people are different. I'm one who just can't relate to Sanders at all. O'Malley I could relate to - Sanders I can't.

I've already moved on to the NJ Governor's race - Phil Murphy. He's relatable to me.

[KingFlorez]

71. Size matters

In a small state like Vermont it's not really all that hard for the sitting Senator to get that much. New York is a much larger state with a clear regional divide. There is quite a difference.

[zappaman]

72. Yes...and?

[Squinch]

73. Clinton won the primary and Sanders lost it. Notice the difference?

[LexVegas]

74. Don't lose mad...just lose. nt

[azurnoir]

75. I'm not mad at all I am amused by the reaction to this thread

[nc4bo]

78. Recommended. nt