just trashed 20 hatred Hillary postings from the BS followers

desperation setting in.

Sanders independents are white, male, high earners and have less postive view of Obama

In part, Sanders’s support among independent leaners is a product of the demographics of his coalition generally. Among Democrats and independents who lean Democratic, the independent leaners are more likely to be male, white and higher-income — and at the same time, they have less positive views of President Obama.3 In short, the demographics and attitudes that tend to predict being an independent who leans Democratic are those that predict Sanders support.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-sanders-does-better-with-independents/

So why is Sanders doing so well among independents? It appears to be driven not by their ideology so much as their dislike of partisan politics

?w=575&h=414

?w=575&h=342

Nate Silver - Sanders wins those caucus states extremely white and therefore poorly representative

nate silvers review of the numbers are quite stunning.

And the sort of wishful thinking Sanders is engaged in can cut both ways. Yes, Clinton’s lead would be considerably narrower (although she’d still be winning) without delegates from the Deep South. But what if you excluded delegates from caucuses, where Sanders has gained a net of 150 delegates on Clinton? Without those delegates, Sanders couldn’t even maintain the pretense of a competitive race. Not only are most of those caucus states extremely white and therefore poorly representative of Democrats’ national demographics — many of them (such as Idaho and Nebraska) are also quite red. Furthermore, caucuses tend to disenfranchise voters by making it harder to vote. Our demographic modeling suggests that this has hurt Clinton and that Sanders wouldn’t have won by the same enormous margins if those caucus states had held primaries instead.

But overall, the math is pretty simple. Sanders is winning states that are much whiter than the Democratic electorate as a whole, Clinton is winning states that are much blacker than the Democratic electorate as a whole, and Clinton is winning most of those states that are somewhere in the middle, whether they’re in the South (like Virginia) or elsewhere (like Ohio or Nevada). That’s why she’ll probably be the Democratic nominee

“Secretary Clinton cleaned our clock in the Deep South, no question about it,” Bernie Sanders said during Thursday night’s Democratic debate in Brooklyn. “That is the most conservative part of this great country,” he continued. “But you know what, we’re out of the Deep South now. And we’re moving up.”

I have a few problems with this line of argument, which seems to imply that Democratic voters in the Deep South don’t reflect the larger Democratic electorate. (The remarks Thursday night echo previous comments made by Sanders and his campaign.) Consider Sanders’s reference to the term “Deep South,” which traditionally describes Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina: These are five of the only six states, along with Maryland, where at least a quarter of the population is black. Given the United States’ history of disenfranchising black voters — not to mention the importance of black voters to Democrats in November — it’s dicey for Sanders to diminish Clinton’s wins there.

But the Deep South isn’t Sanders’s only issue. His problems in the rest of the South are what really dooms him. Clinton’s largest net delegate gains over Sanders came from Texas (+72) and Florida (+68), two states that are within the South as the Census Bureau (and most other people) define it. Clinton also cleaned Sanders’s clock in Virginia and North Carolina. Overall, Clinton gained a net of 155 delegates on Sanders in the five Deep South states, but she also added 211 delegates to her margin in the rest of the region
In addition to being important to the Democratic Party’s electoral present and future, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina and Texas are quite diverse. They’re diverse ideologically — Miami and Austin aren’t exactly “the most conservative part” of the country — and they’re diverse racially. They contain not only a substantial number of African-Americans but also Hispanics and, increasingly, Asian-American voters.

In fact, these states are among the most demographically representative of the diverse Obama coalition that Clinton or Sanders will have to rely on in November.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-is-winning-the-states-that-look-like-the-democratic-party/

Sanders voted for the 2001 Authorization Unilateral Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF).

This authorization granted GW Bush the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups.

This vote essentially gave GWBush the ability to invade any place on earth where he and Chaney suspected terrorists were hiding.



This joint resolution may be cited as the ’Authorization for Use of Military Force’.

Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Sanders voted YES for Iraq liberation Act -removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq

In 1998 Sanders voted for the Iraq Liberation Act which states, “It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.”

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/105-1998/h482

Clintons popular vote marginin and Florida and Ohio - enough to swamp all of Sanders' wins combined

Clinton’s lead in New York grows: NBC/Wall Street Journal/Marist poll.+ 17

This is pre debate polling. I expect her lead to grow after her stellar performance...


Hillary Clinton has expanded her lead over Bernie Sanders in New York’s April 19 Democratic presidential primary, according to a new NBC 4 New York/Wall Street Journal/Marist poll.

Clinton gets support of 57 percent of likely Democratic primary voters in the poll, while Sanders gets 40 percent.

That 17-point lead for Clinton is an increase from Monday’s NBC/WSJ/Marist survey (conducted by the same pollster), which found the former secretary of state ahead, 55 percent to 41 percent, though the change is within the margin of error.

In this most recent poll, Clinton leads among both women (60 percent to 37 percent) and men (53 percent to 44 percent), those 45 or older (67 percent to 29 percent) and non-whites (58 percent to 39 percent).

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/poll-clintons-lead-new-york-grows

NY: Hillary +13 winning voters that in small caucuses voted BS

Among Democrats, Clinton leads Bernie Sanders 53 percent to 40 percent and 7 percent undecided, buoyed by a 36-point advantage among African-American voters in the state (65 percent to 28 percent).
Clinton also leads among those who described themselves as somewhat liberal (56 percent to 42 percent),
moderate or conservative (58 percent to 33 percent) and among men (48 percent to 43 percent) and women (55 percent to 38 percent).

Sanders leads only among voters describing themselves as very liberal (55 percent to 41 percent) and voters younger than 45 (55 percent to 36 percent).

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/poll-who-is-winning-new-york-221840#ixzz45h3c8sQV
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook