Clinton and Trump Win the New York Primary—By a Lot


For the first time (ever?) California will be in play for the nomination with double the delegates of NY. I expect Sanders count will go up (not enough to take it, some) as the rural counties in NY have not been counted yet.
If the only illustration you can come up with is a shitty, half-assed, photoshopped stock photo, maybe just don't use any illustration.
California 'matters' only if Sanders wins it by a huuuuuge margin.
@1: Hillary is up about 58-42 with 96% of reported votes so far. So yeah, maybe Bernie will pull out a win!! In all seriousness, don't get too excited about CA yet, when we still have Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island coming up on April 26 -- all closed primaries.

But I'm sure Bernie and the Bernie bros will find a way to spin this -- maybe "all of those urban black voters don't matter -- I have the white rural vote! Victory!!"
@4 Are you a Hillary bro? Kinda agro there- why are you fighting against imaginary arguments?

Also, I don't think Sanders will win, but regardless, CA voters will be courted for the first time in the primaries, which will be interesting.
I fully expect a round of a "Hillary works to keep the electorate dumb to the real possibilities and used sleight of hand to confuse them" as an imaginary sidestep around the "poor blacks and blue collar whites don't know what's best for em" argument
@6 Why are you Hillary bros making things up that don't exist? There are plenty of real things to get worked up about instead of fighting imaginary people.
If and when a Sanders chimps says that, then pounce on them.

Save your vitriol for Trump. We are all on the same side.
If Hillary wins California, Bernie will claim it's just the "Deep West".
And so American democracy somehow picks the two least popular people in contention to run against each other. This will be awful for turnout, which will hurt the down ticket Democrats. I am sure the Hil-bros will blame Bernie for inspiring people too much early on.
@7, be sure to remind the Bernie Bros that "we're all on the same side" when Hillary wins the nomination, because from what they've been saying, they'll just flounce off and not vote if their revolution doesn't happen.
Right, the Bern’s got ‘er in the bag now.

He’s like a late night hook-up who looked pretty good around closing time, but not so great in the painful morning light, and then wants to hang around for breakfast. You make them coffee, politely agree that yeah, it’s infuriating how screwed-up the system is and that so many morons just don’t get it, but really just want them to go away.

And then you tell them, just as politely, that you have a busy day ahead of you and it’s time for them to go. As it is for Sanders. Who like last night’s hook-up, began to look less and less desirable as the day wore on. And that’s why substantially more people voted for Clinton instead of him, not because they’re brainwashed and ill-informed dunces, like the loudest of his tribe claim. They simply have more important things to do with their time, as should you.
@7 jesus fucking christ
@9 No, the least popular Republican is Ted Cruz.

The question I have for "progressive" Hillary supporters is: when she returns, politically, to the right after the convention, or even before, will you still support her?
@10 and @7 if you want the Sanders people (and I am not one of them- I just dislike Clinton more) you should play nice. Not gloat.
This presumptive coronation thing is a huge turn off, as is telling people that they are going to act badly- before they do anything. That seems to be a form of bro-ing which you seem to be eager to put on the Sanders camp.
If you want to lose Sanders supporters in the general, this is the kind of behavior that will do it.
Can we finally stop pretending Sanders has a chance at the nomination now? I know it's good for political journalism, but it's dumb, and it's been dumb for a while.
#13, I expect all of the Hillary supporters to enlist in the military when she decides to go to war.
@11 - that is absolutely HILLarious. Seriously. Good one.
@15 only if we can stop pretending Clinton would make a good President.
@18 is there a better candidate?
@19 Besides Sanders? Stein.

Besides Stein? Trump. At least some of the things he claims are better than Hillary. I don't believe anything he says. But, at least we can replace him in 4 years.

Hillary and her supporters are gonna have to make sure people don't switch allegiances to Trump out of spite. Because I don't want another 8 years of Same Ol Shit.
If there's one fact we can count on, it's the Democrats' compulsion to self-destruct. They're in a tailspin, and their solution is to choose a one of the most corrupt, polarizing, and divisive candidates in US history.

Under President Obama, Democrats have lost 900+ state legislature seats, 12 governors, 69 House seats, 13 Senate seats. That's some legacy.
-- Rory Cooper
quick sidestep to say I feel sorry for the word "bro," now the lowest insult this side of the n-word, then an affirmation of unity between disenfranchised minority men, drop out sub-culturals. Hearing a Hawaiian guy happily call out to a buddy "was up brah?" and get a "was good braddah" back in return - the unity and goodwill expressed in that exchange - seems a long way off from "Bernie Bros" and "Hilary Bros" and "Tech Bros" and "Cool Story Bro" and all the rest of the snide appropriations of, I guess, frat boys co-opting appropriation.

In other news our man Bernie's going down for sure, now decide if you want to act like a grown up or throw a little snit and hand Donald Trump the nuclear codes.
@20: do you seriously believe you'll ever get anything different than the "same ol' shit"? you may not have noticed, but our government is structured to limit and slow change.

trump voting idiots want to burn the whole thing down, too.

clinton will be competent if uninspiring. she'll be an adult. she will NOT start "another war" for fun. she will govern center-left, just like Obama, and she will make compromises with the GOP to keep the doors open, just like Obama. she'll complete remaking the SCOTUS into a liberal court.

trump is an option for pouty babies.
@ 23, So we should vote for Clinton so that she can get on with stabbing us in the back and callously betraying us with the Republicans? Way to upsell it.
@20 - I think you need to show your work on the "most corrupt, polarizing, and divisive candidates in US history." claim.

Politics is about power and Clinton has been gathering power for a very long time. What the primary process is showing is that you need power to change things - ideas, appeals to justice, abstract principles, that stuff is not enough. If it was, we'd have had betamax instead of VHS.
@23 "she will govern center-left, just like Obama"

Bullshit. They are both right wingers as seen in "free" trade policies, deregulation of banking, romney care, foreign interventions, fracking, etc in sum pretty much every single issue of importance except for some verbal window dressing.
@15 People who pay attention already know that Sanders' campaign isn't only about the nomination but also building a movement so it'd be good to stop pretending Sanders is going to stop his campaign.
@26 - if you're that pessimistic, then you should have no trouble at all voting for the lesser of two evils.
@24: odds are you're not going to get a chance to vote for Sanders in the General, so basically, yeah. if that's how you want to put it.

@26: we disagree on what "center-left" means, as well as what "right winger" means. Cruz is "right-wing". both Obama and Clinton are centrist Liberals. I'm sorry that you don't like that, but it's the best you're going to get.

this is America. the revolution is not coming.
@26, As a pro-choice, feminist, gay man and trans ally, I can assure you that you are very, very, very wrong. The issues you apparently only see as "window dressing" are of extreme importance to me and most of the Democratic voters I know. The Democratic party is not as progressive on taxes, finance, and environmental issues as I would like, but they are still closer to my positions and more amenable to shifting leftward than the extremists currently running the GOP.
It's simple — the further to the left you want the Democratic party to be, the more likely you should be to vote for Sanders in your primary. Even if there's no chance he could snag the nomination. The more delegates he winds up with, the stronger the argument that Dems should listen to their liberal wing. I've given up on Sanders winning outside of crazy-ass events that nobody could anticipate, but I would like to reverse the mostly-rightward slide we've been engaging in since the early '90s or so.

If staunch party supporters keep belittling Sanders supporters and telling them to shut the fuck up, it is very likely they will stay home in November. This is a chance for Clinton to demonstrate her leadership and throw a bone to a substantial, young, fired-up portion of the Democratic base. Or, as I fear, she could swing right after locking up the nomination. Given the groundswell of support Sanders enjoys from independents and the enthusiasm we've seen from a significant part of our base, I really hope she doesn't repeat the losing 21st-century party mistake of toeing the centerline.

I would love to hold my nose, vote Clinton in the general, and be pleasantly surprised by her presidency. That's my best-case scenario. Clinton and her fans should be trying to court Sanders supporters, not beat them into submission with vitriol and smugness.
@28 Knowing who one is voting for is most important. Pretending that Clinton is a liberal will lead to disappointment and a Trump-like candidate being elected sooner or later.

@29 It is truly laughable to pretend neoliberals are anywhere close to the left after 30+ years of moving America and Western Europe to the right in concert with Republicans. People like you also claim(ed) that politicians like Blair are center left.

@30 As if Obama or Clinton had ever done anything but bring up the rear on women/LGBT issues, like the opportunists they are..

@32, So says the person who has the luxury of thinking about women/LGBT issues as window dressing.
@33 I didn't say that women/LGBT issues were window dressing. You did. For the record, I haven't believed that women/LGBT issues were window dressing for over 45 years.

What I did say is that all Obama/Clinton do is window dressing, which is not that hard to see when paying attention to their record, rather than their rhetoric.
@34, I don't see the point in splitting hairs over what you meant when you used the phrase "verbal window dressing" when LGBT and women's issues were conspicuously absent from your list of "pretty much every single issue of importance" and you doubled down on it in your comment above @32. I can only conclude based on the words that are attributed to your screen name that we have differing opinions on whether there is any difference between the two major parties, what issues are important, and where Obama and Clinton stand on a particular set of issues that matter a great deal to me and a lot of liberal and/or Democratic voters.
@35 When have Obama and Clinton shown leadership on women/LGBT issues? They may personally feel differently than Republicans about these issues but it hasn't prevented them from selling these constituencies down river when it was politically expedient. If you need examples let me know, in the meantime stick to what I say rather than making shit up.
And herein lies the perennial demonstration of the deficiencies of demanding ideological purity in politics: there is no such thing as a candidate that is going to be 100% acceptable to anyone, regardless of where they lie on the political spectrum; it's just that those at the extreme ends tend to insist that a candidate who may be mostly in-accord with their views is still patently unacceptable, and that ironically, the closer a particular candidate may be to that desired-yet-unobtainable 100% mark, the more those who occupy the farthest extremes of the extreme insist their failure to achieve ideological perfection makes them even more unsuitable. It's like a political version of Xeno's Conundrum: the closer one gets to the goal, the harder it is to traverse the incrementally smaller distance.
@37 But, Clinton is pretty fucking far from my ideal.

Sanders was closest. I was settling for him. And now you're trying to offer me her. It's like I asked for lasagna, was willing to accept spaghetti, and am now being told that all I can have is a Dick's Burger.
@30 As a pro-choice, feminist, gay man and trans ally...I can tell you that you are very very wrong. Many many of the social left things are indeed window dressing to the economic pressures the government has been applying.

What good is equal pay for women if there are no decent-paying jobs? Yes, it's good that Trans allies can use the bathroom of their gender, but is that more important than a severe housing crisis?

Right now, it's the economy, stupid. Just because Republicans fell off the mountain of sanity the rest of the world is operating on doesn't mean that the rest of us are buying your bullshit that Hillary Clinton is amenable to being "center-left."

So, let me ask you: when Hillary returns to the economic right after the convention, or even before the convention, will you still support her and claim she's "center left?"
@32 worn out your copy-n-paste button yet?