Puerto Rico Democratic primary results thread (8am - 3pm EST)

[Xing]

Interesting, I wonder why we didn't get a picture of a girl in a bikini for the other primaries...

[Xing]

I recently watched videos of both Clinton and Sanders speaking in Puerto Rico about the economic situation there. It's really a disaster, and I sincerely hope that both of them continue to think about it and ways to assist Puerto Rico even after this primary. It would be shameful for Puerto Rico to just go back to being ignored.

Also, will we be getting results shortly after 3 PM EST, or will we have to wait for several hours again?

[Xing]

Looks like Clinton is up 61-38 so far.

[Xing]

We'll see whether or not that's representative (I'm guessing Clinton will win by more.) I was just reporting what I saw.

[Xing]

Imagine if California were this slow.

[Xing]

What I meant is, imagine if we had 3% of the vote in California four hours after the polls closed.

[Xing]

If only this could convince congress to give Puerto Rico a bit of help.

[Xing]

BERNIEMENTUM! INEVITABERN!

[Xing]

CNN now has it at 65-34 for Hillary, with 13% in.

[Xing]

As I mentioned in another thread, even though Hillary will clinch the nomination either way, it's bad optics for her to have super delegate endorsements, as opposed to the voters, put her over the top.

[Xing]

Maybe they were hoping that it would be an ultra close race, and that DC would decide it all, lol.

Also, according to CNN, Sanders is currently winning San Juan by 22 votes.

[Xing]

They've called it for her, but looking at the districts, she'll underperform her '08 margin.

[Xing]

Could Puerto Rico end up being Sanders' best territory?

[Xing]

Why is Sanders outperforming Obama so much? Is it really just low turnout? Do some Puerto Ricans like populists? Or do some just like a good comeback story?

[Xing]

Why is Sanders outperforming Obama so much? Is it really just low turnout? Do some Puerto Ricans like populists? Or do some just like a good comeback story?

Doing 6 points better with incredibly low turnout is "outperforming Obama so much"?

I mean, most people would say that Hillary outperformed her 2008 margin in Arizona, even though she only did so by 6%, and turnout was lower.

[Xing]

Some Sanders supporters are claiming fraud:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The only campaign guilty of fraud today is Bernie's.

Lief can you explain how Sanders committed voter fraud

Sanders' existence is voter fraud in the eyes of our friend Lief.

[Xing]

I guess this does prove that well Hillary is doing well among Latinos in general, it doesn't pay to try and correlate the Latino vote from state to state. Looking at the votes in states like New York and Florida, I would've expected this to be more lopsided, but it's a different place with different circumstances.

I guess we're going into CA without a clear idea of how well Clinton will do among Latinos. If she wins them by TX/FL margins, she'll probably win by double digits. If she wins them by the margin she won here, it'll probably be a close race. Bottom line is, we don't know.

[Xing]

I guess this does prove that well Hillary is doing well among Latinos in general, it doesn't pay to try and correlate the Latino vote from state to state. Looking at the votes in states like New York and Florida, I would've expected this to be more lopsided, but it's a different place with different circumstances.

I guess we're going into CA without a clear idea of how well Clinton will do among Latinos. If she wins them by TX/FL margins, she'll probably win by double digits. If she wins them by the margin she won here, it'll probably be a close race. Bottom line is, we don't know.

Your doing yourself a disservice by trying to connect this to other states. I cant stress how low turnout is. Im not sure PR is even going to get close to 100,000 votes tonight, the Primary in 2008 had 380,000 votes. And if Hillary wins Hispanics in California by 20 points, doesnt she win the primary by double digits?

My point was that we shouldn't assume that Latinos vote the same way in every state. I was simply speculating about what margins were possible for her in California. Also, why are we assuming that higher turnout would've automatically meant a larger win for Hillary? Isn't it annoying enough that some of the Sanders folks make that excuse? Anyway, if she wins Latinos by 20 points, and white voters by 15, we've got a close race on our hands.

[Xing]

I guess this does prove that well Hillary is doing well among Latinos in general, it doesn't pay to try and correlate the Latino vote from state to state. Looking at the votes in states like New York and Florida, I would've expected this to be more lopsided, but it's a different place with different circumstances.

I guess we're going into CA without a clear idea of how well Clinton will do among Latinos. If she wins them by TX/FL margins, she'll probably win by double digits. If she wins them by the margin she won here, it'll probably be a close race. Bottom line is, we don't know.

Your doing yourself a disservice by trying to connect this to other states. I cant stress how low turnout is. Im not sure PR is even going to get close to 100,000 votes tonight, the Primary in 2008 had 380,000 votes. And if Hillary wins Hispanics in California by 20 points, doesnt she win the primary by double digits?

My point was that we shouldn't assume that Latinos vote the same way in every state. I was simply speculating about what margins were possible for her in California. Also, why are we assuming that higher turnout would've automatically meant a larger win for Hillary? Isn't it annoying enough that some of the Sanders folks make that excuse? Anyway, if she wins Latinos by 20 points, and white voters by 15, we've got a close race on our hands.

The young and healthy can stand and wait in line for 2 to 4 hours to vote. The sick, elderly or those with other responsibilities cannot. The turnout situation was just like a caucus today. When heavy requirements are placed on voters, Sanders always comes out ahead. And Im not sure what your last point is, if Hillary wins Latinos by 20 and whites by 15, it wont be close. 

My bad, I meant if Sanders wins white voters by 15, and Clinton wins Latinos by 20. With regards to your other point, no doubt some of Clinton's supporters didn't vote, but it could be that a lot of potential Sanders voters stayed home as well. I don't agree that restrictions always favor Sanders. That is a weak argument. Who do you think benefited from the registration deadline in New York?

[Xing]

I guess this does prove that well Hillary is doing well among Latinos in general, it doesn't pay to try and correlate the Latino vote from state to state. Looking at the votes in states like New York and Florida, I would've expected this to be more lopsided, but it's a different place with different circumstances.

I guess we're going into CA without a clear idea of how well Clinton will do among Latinos. If she wins them by TX/FL margins, she'll probably win by double digits. If she wins them by the margin she won here, it'll probably be a close race. Bottom line is, we don't know.

Your doing yourself a disservice by trying to connect this to other states. I cant stress how low turnout is. Im not sure PR is even going to get close to 100,000 votes tonight, the Primary in 2008 had 380,000 votes. And if Hillary wins Hispanics in California by 20 points, doesnt she win the primary by double digits?

My point was that we shouldn't assume that Latinos vote the same way in every state. I was simply speculating about what margins were possible for her in California. Also, why are we assuming that higher turnout would've automatically meant a larger win for Hillary? Isn't it annoying enough that some of the Sanders folks make that excuse? Anyway, if she wins Latinos by 20 points, and white voters by 15, we've got a close race on our hands.

The young and healthy can stand and wait in line for 2 to 4 hours to vote. The sick, elderly or those with other responsibilities cannot. The turnout situation was just like a caucus today. When heavy requirements are placed on voters, Sanders always comes out ahead. And Im not sure what your last point is, if Hillary wins Latinos by 20 and whites by 15, it wont be close. 

My bad, I meant if Sanders wins white voters by 15, and Clinton wins Latinos by 20. With regards to your other point, no doubt some of Clinton's supporters didn't vote, but it could be that a lot of potential Sanders voters stayed home as well. I don't agree that restrictions always favor Sanders. That is a weak argument. Who do you think benefited from the registration deadline in New York?

Not restrictions placed upon by the state parties, I mean physical burdens. Having to endure long lines and rooms without air conditioning just to vote favors younger, healthier voters. Today, Puerto Ricans were expected to wait in long lines for hours upon hours, outside or in hallways without air conditioning and your telling me you dont think that had more of an impact on Hillary's voting base?

It may have made a slight difference, but do you really think turnout would have been as high as '08, or that Clinton would have won by as much or more than she did in '08?