[Skywalker]

Monmouth

NY

Clinton 51
Sanders 39

[Skywalker]

Some statistics to the latest Monmouth poll:

The race is basically tied among non-Hispanic white primary voters (48% for Sanders and 46% for Clinton), while Clinton enjoys a large lead among black, Hispanic and other voters (62% to 22%). Clinton holds a significant advantage among voters age 50 and older (57% to 36%), while the race is much closer among voters under 50 (45% for Clinton to 43% for Sanders).

Clinton earns similar levels of support across the state, including Manhattan and the Bronx (52%), Brooklyn and Queens (48%), Staten Island and the metro suburbs of Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, Rockland, Orange, and Putnam counties (51%), and upstate New York (51%). Sanders performs better upstate (44%) and in the metro suburbs (41%) than he does in Brooklyn/Queens (36%) or Manhattan/Bronx (35%). However, 13% of primary voters in these four New York City boroughs say they do not have a candidate preference.

“It is worth noting that a significant number of minority voters in New York City are undecided. Based on past primaries, these should turn out to be Clinton voters, but Sanders is making an all-out appeal for their support,” said Patrick Murray, director of the independent Monmouth University Polling Institute

[Marvin]

Originally posted by RatedG²

There's no way to know he would have won by the same percentage in a primary too Marvin . Wyd

That's what I said

But there's no reason to believe Hillary would've gotten closer in Washington (the place with a $15 minimum wage, legal recreational marijuana, etc which are literally Bernie's plans) just because it's a primary. He's won some primaries also.

[KyIe]

Ok so Bernie was cute for a minute but now its becoming really disconcerting how many people are supporting him when his entire platform is nonsense.

[@michael]

Originally posted by RatedG²

There's no way to know he would have won by the same percentage in a primary too Marvin . Wyd

Mess

Originally posted by The Countess

Monmouth

NY

Clinton 51
Sanders 39

Wow, another NY poll showing a double digit lead

[foxaylove]

Originally posted by The Countess

Take with a grain of salt but..

Surprised? NOT AT ALL.

[RatedG²]

Originally posted by Marvin

That's what I said

But there's no reason to believe Hillary would've gotten closer in Washington (the place with a $15 minimum wage, legal recreational marijuana, etc which are literally Bernie's plans) just because it's a primary. He's won some primaries also.

Then there was no point in your rant of him getting closer to the pop vote count if you admitted there is no way of knowing if he would have won by the same percentage.

Interesting conversation we just had

[@michael]

Originally posted by RatedG²

Then there was no point in your rant of him getting closer to the pop vote count if you admitted there is no way of knowing if he would have won by the same percentage.

Interesting conversation we just had

VERY interesting! Very TELLING, too, I'd say!

[Marvin]

Originally posted by Bloo

Without them, she still tied him. I don't see how the super delegates prove your point. You commented on her fundraising, saying that it's failing. I made the claim that she was very cost-efficient in Wyoming.

I'm saying all her fundraising does not have that much of an impact on winning down-tickets elections considering our current Congress.

And the fact that she tied Bernie in Wyoming just proves that raising/spending money is not as important as some people are trying to make it seem.

[Citrus]

I can't wait for my tax return so I can snatch a Hillary tee for summer

[Marvin]

Originally posted by RatedG²

Then there was no point in your rant of him getting closer to the pop vote count if you admitted there is no way of knowing if he would have won by the same percentage.

Interesting conversation we just had

I said his numbers would be bigger, not closer.

But do you really think she would've won the state all of a sudden? The number would obviously be something like 1.7-1.9 million, and that's just with Washington.

My point is that y'all keep throwing this 2 million number as if it's really an indicator of her strength or something, and it's just not. When every state has the same voting process, then y'all can try it.

[foxaylove]

Originally posted by Marvin

I'm saying all her fundraising does not have that much of an impact on winning down-tickets elections considering our current Congress.

And the fact that she tied Bernie in Wyoming just proves that raising/spending money is not as important as some people are trying to make it seem.

Fundraising for the down ticket absolutely plays a key role. That money that's funneled to their campaigns is what keeps them on airwaves and maintaining a paid staff needed to remain competitive. If your opponent is slamming you on tv nonstop and you don't have the funds to counter it, that's a blow to a candidate. Not everyone likes to read the news, as they should. It does make a difference. You also need money for signs and campaign publicity. If people don't see you in the community, how do you expect them to vote for you? Knocking on every door in a huge city or district isn't realistic.

[Bloo]

Originally posted by Marvin

I'm saying all her fundraising does not have that much of an impact on winning down-tickets elections considering our current Congress.

And the fact that she tied Bernie in Wyoming just proves that raising/spending money is not as important as some people are trying to make it seem.

This is a stupid argument for many different reasons:

Reason number one, we have already established that she does more for down-ticket Democrats than simply help fundraise for them. So, that's blatantly not true.

Reason number two, for you to say there's no impact or little impact of her to win elections into Congress, you would need to present the data that the rate of victories for Democrats without fundraising support is not significant to elections where there is fundraising support. Which, I doubt you'd be able to find. If we cut off fundraising in general, I don't see how you could argue that the results would not change at all. That fundraising goes to help less established Democratic politicians lead campaigns with the most basic resources: commercials, online ads, merchandising, paying for full-time campaigners, etc. You take that away, and it's incredibly difficult to win an election. For the presidential nomination, there's so much national coverage, that it's not as difficult to get attention. That's not true of local elections.

Reason number three, gerrymandering.

[Citrus]

Originally posted by Marvin

I'm saying all her fundraising does not have that much of an impact on winning down-tickets elections considering our current Congress.

I'm curious why you think her fundraising doesn't have much of a down-ticket effect. Do you think it's because dems tied to her reputation are hurt?

[Ramcoro]

Unfortunately, Money Does Buy Elecctions

94 percent of biggest House race spenders won
82 percent of biggest Senate race spenders won

So fundraising is very important, but gerrymandering is still a problem.

[@michael]

Originally posted by Citrus

I'm curious why you think her fundraising doesn't have much of a down-ticket effect. Do you think it's because dems tied to her reputation are hurt?

I think he just likes saying anything to discredit her

[Bloo]

This is BEAUTIFUL, read this:
http://hillary-for-president2016.tum...lary-and-heres

[mermaid_ariel]

Multi-tasking Queen

[@michael]

Originally posted by Bloo

This is BEAUTIFUL, read this:
http://hillary-for-president2016.tum...lary-and-heres

This is awesome Hillary really is an amazing candidate for all progressives.

[Skywalker]

http://m.nydailynews.com/opinion/tra...icle-1.2596292