Democratic Super Tuesday results thread (first polls close at 7pm ET)

[Sorenroy]

Just looking at where the most votes are out, I think Oklahoma goes for Clinton. Massachusetts is much harder to call.

Well, maybe. Oklahoma County is 1% in, vs. the 7% for the rest of the state, but alot of that comes from early voting. I can't imagine it holds at 63-35 (in fact is has dropped a little bit).

[Sorenroy]

I'd like a map please.

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results

Live map...

[Sorenroy]

As a note, Clinton is continuing to creep slowly towards that 15% viability threshold in Vermont. First results had her down at 10%, but she's gone up to 13% as the night wears on... I saw a exit poll on the Republican side showing a lot of moderates and liberals, hopefully they aren't crossovers from the Democratic side who give that delegate to Clinton.

[Sorenroy]

LOL Clinton only has three counties in OK now.

Nice AP call.

Clinton has less than 50% in both the counties that aren't part of the "big city" (one with a less than 1% lead, the other with less than 5%).

[Sorenroy]

Sanders up 60-30 in the CD-1 in MN.

Looks like there are some issues with the NYT live map for MN. It's showing a Clinton lead, but the only numbers in tilt Sanders.

Edit: Yeah, the state map is reporting less precincts.

[Sorenroy]

Speaking of OK, Sanders has taken all but one county!

And that county has swung around 20-25 points towards Sanders since polls started to come in (early voting VS voting that day). With 30% of the votes left, perhaps a strong showing could force Clinton below 50% or even get Sanders the win (wishful thinking, I know).

[Sorenroy]

Look like Hillary might take Minnesota huge blow to Sanders

The only reason she is winning Minnesota is because the State map for the NYT is wrong. Look at the CD map (click the state map) and you'll see the exact opposite results.

[Sorenroy]

I feel like Massachusetts is going to be a lot like Iowa. Boston is almost done and still a lot of Sanders area out there. I'm predicting a very narrow Clinton win.

68% reporting statewide, 95% reporting in Boston. All the other major cities in MA that the NYT has indicated on their maps have fully reported except for Worcester, which has no results in. Sanders (probably) wont overtake Clinton, but it will (hopefully) tighten up from the 3.4% lead she has there now.

[Sorenroy]

OK, this is bad. Hillary seems to coming back in the Denver area...

Sanders widens lead in CO to 1000 Votes now. Not looking bad

Wait, is Colorado reporting the popular vote there? If so, that's nice... can someone confirm?

Edit: Also, what about Minnesota? Is that also reporting popular vote numbers?

[Sorenroy]

I feel like Massachusetts is going to be a lot like Iowa. Boston is almost done and still a lot of Sanders area out there. I'm predicting a very narrow Clinton win.

68% reporting statewide, 95% reporting in Boston. All the other major cities in MA that the NYT has indicated on their maps have fully reported except for Worcester, which has no results in. Sanders (probably) wont overtake Clinton, but it will (hopefully) tighten up from the 3.4% lead she has there now.

Up to 79% statewide, 98% Boston. Worcester is still out but the margin has tightened up to a 2.4% gap.... (plz?)

[Sorenroy]

Colorado Called for Sanders!

Minnesota Called for Rubio!

(As per NYT!)

Also, question still up in the air: Does the Democratic Party report actual popular votes for MN and CO or just delegate equivalents?

[Sorenroy]

NYT - Sanders wins Minnesota!

[Sorenroy]

Thank you Massholes! No way this can be spun as anything other than an amazing night for Hillary now.

Bernie got 4 wins, and should shut Hillary out of delegates in Vermont.

Pledged yes, supers no.

Ah, yes. The Superdelegate Defense. Basically implying that if Clinton doesn't win the nomination democratically, she'll win it undemocratically.

Dude, she's gonna be up ~250 pledged after tonight. That's basically insurmountable in a proportional system. Might need to update those talking points.

I'd argue that anybody who still talks about superdelegates needs to update their own talking points first.

Uh, in the 2008 primaries Hillary won over 300,000 more votes than Obama, but he still won because of superdelegates.

I agree that they are unnecessary, but they do matter and it's not some kind of anti-Sanders/pro-Hillary "anti-democracy" conspiracy.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA

Obama - 17,869,542

Clinton - 17,717,698

Either way, superdelegates (and Caucuses) are an affront to the democratic system.

[Sorenroy]

I know it's only by 0.1% but, in a race he's loosing by 34.1 points, why is Sanders leading in Austin?

[Sorenroy]

So I know sometimes the NYT stops reporting results when it is clear what the results are. Do the races in Minnesota, Colorado, Arkansas, or Massachusetts have their full results (all precincts reporting) numbers somewhere else?