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

[Shadows]

Colorado is a 16% odd lead while MN is almost 20%.

[Shadows]

BTW for MA, Amherst & Worcester still left - Both with decent population together & both liberal leaning with a good number of college students - So that is why probably the media is not calling it yet

[Shadows]

Fox calls MA for Clinton

Lead down to 23K(2.4%) now from 30K a while back, Sanders is gaining 1K every few seconds, lead is tightening, probably a narrow victory for Clinton.

Fox is dumb when it comes to Dem, they have no idea

[Shadows]

Don't tell me MA is the next IA...

Iowa was a small state, MA is bigger people wise, so likely even that small a loss would be 5K or 8K odd

[Shadows]

Amherst is likely to go Sanders. Worcester is uncertain. This'll certainly be close; I wouldn't be calling it yet.

Honestly would not make a big difference delegate wise. MA Delegates will be split now

 Alabama @ 18% is bad, should have been 24-25% for Sanders, Texas @ 31% is bad, should have been 37-38%, those 2 states will give Clinton 120 odd Delegate lead & that's not nice. With a little more effort, that 120 could have been 70 odd.

[Shadows]

Amhrest will not make up that 25K deficit. This will be a Clinton win, maybe a bit lesser.

[Shadows]

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.

Probably less than 200 with MN & CO. Gettable as California alone has round 500, NY & PA has huge delegates. He will sweep states after March 15th.

Ofcourse it is tough for him to win CA, PA or NY, this thing wouldn't be easy & he is a big under-dog.

But after loosing MA, this is a good result, I was not sure about Co, OK or MN - He won all 3 & got above 85% in VT, which is okay.

This stretch was going to be disaster.

[Shadows]

It's official IMO MA is Hillary.

Amherst went to Bernie 2/1, gap is now 2.4%, But Hillary still ahead by around 25K. Bosten & Newtown alone can gave 28K odd to Hillary. Really strong strategy

[Shadows]

Clinton is probably getting only 3 Delegates over Sanders in MA - So that was how much it meant for delegates, purely a confidence & momentum victory.

80 Delegate Advantage for Hillary is Texas (Almost 50% of her lead) - Big set-back there.

[Shadows]

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.

How many states on the GOP side are winner-take-all?  

Don't change the subject. I never praised the GOP system once, so instead of changing the subject to something completely irrelevant, let's talk about superdelegates, shall we?

You may not have praised them, but I have never seen you criticizing the GOP system either, certainly not with the venom you have thrown at ours.  

I do believe that the GOP system is broken as well. Just because I don't say my opinions out loud doesn't mean that you can assume that the opposite of my opinions is true. Now, stop trying to change the subject. I believe I told you to stop changing the subject already.

So am I to surmise that you think the idea of super-delegates is more undemocratic than winner-take-all? 

And no, and I am not changing the subject.  Your bias and hypocrisy here needs to be laid bare for all to see.

I never said that either. I believe that they are both undemocratic, and that they both need to be fixed. They are of equal importance for reforming our primary systems.

And you are changing the subject. I was talking about superdelegates, and you spun around and started talking about winner-take-all states.

Winner take all IMO is not good & I'm against it, but to compare with Super delegate things is pretty stupid - Hello the Presidential Elections would be a Winner Take all - Both Dems & GOP will be taking states & this is how even a Presidential election would be run

When someone compares it to the Super Delegate thing, it is pretty embarrassing to see

[Shadows]

FEEL THE (CLINTON) BURN! PLUS IT WILL ONLY GONNA GET STRONGER!

Demographically, the Clinton burn will be stronger today than at any other time. She can look forward to getting these margins in MS, LA, and DC, but nowhere else.

She doesn't need those massive margins anymore due to her massive delegate lead. Even in the worst case scenario, she just needs to keep most contests remotely close. Easy peasy.

She needs big wins otherwise she could loose. CA, PA, etc have huge delegates & a 7-8% loss would make substantial differences. Add to it the string of states Bernie will win next.

She needs big wins MS,LA,IL,FL, etc to put this race to bed. If she is like 350 delegate ahead, it will be impossible for Bernie

[Shadows]

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?

Sanders has 'GOP lite' appeal amongst non white voters. And yet apparently that's their fault. Not his. If you want to try and win an election on white voters backs go ahead. But it's getting almost delusional now.

Austin is Bernie country bro, I am surprised at 0.1% btw, if Sanders was gonna get 40% odd Austin would have to give a 10-15% lead. Austin is very liberal compared to Texas, plus add college votes.

As did Clinton after being 1st Black 1st lady, she was whipped out among blacks. Sanders has only done a shade bad than Clinton despite no name recognition & not a candidate of Clinton's stature or without establishment support.

This just spells doom for Clinton in the general

[Shadows]

FEEL THE (CLINTON) BURN! PLUS IT WILL ONLY GONNA GET STRONGER!

Demographically, the Clinton burn will be stronger today than at any other time. She can look forward to getting these margins in MS, LA, and DC, but nowhere else.

She doesn't need those massive margins anymore due to her massive delegate lead. Even in the worst case scenario, she just needs to keep most contests remotely close. Easy peasy.

She needs big wins otherwise she could loose. CA, PA, etc have huge delegates & a 7-8% loss would make substantial differences. Add to it the string of states Bernie will win next.

She needs big wins MS,LA,IL,FL, etc to put this race to bed. If she is like 350 delegate ahead, it will be impossible for Bernie

You wish dude. Just go back to reddit already.

This is common sense. When you have 1000 Delegates left (say) with 40 days left with a 100-150 delegate margin, if you call it over, you're just dumb.

You're sig counting the Super Delegates is also insanely dumb & I don't want to waste my time explaining, you should have the intelligence to figure that out- I don't want to waste my time with you so there goes my last reply to you!!!

[Shadows]

According to 538, this is how Bernie performed relative to his benchmarks:

CO: +6
OK: +6
MN: -1
VT: -11
MA: -14
GA: -16
VA: -20
TX: -22
AR: -25
TN: -35
AL: -41

Looks like a landslide folks.

Dude you'r fake. He won 87% of Votes in VT & he under-performed by 11% - What was he supposed to get? 98%

Where is the link? Do not come up with fake data to spread your message - Disgusting

[Shadows]

Actual Numbers vs 538 -

Vs Polling Average -
(Sanders)
Alabama -6%
Arkansas -2%
Georgia +0%  (+0.3)
Mass +5%
Okla +3.5%
Tenn 0%(+0.4%)
Texas -1.5%
Vermont +1.5%
Virginia +0% (+0.2%)

No Polls for MN & CO

538 gave a tough target to Sanders to win the nomination(if tied nationally & he is 10% odd behind)

MN (Target - 60%) (Actual - 60%)
Co (Target - 55%) (Actual - 58%) - +3%

Alabama is the only state Where Sanders has out-performed by 6%.

Most states he has out-performed the polls including beating a very tough target in MN & CO.

Overall average he has out-performed

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/super-tuesday-preview-democratic-presidential-election-2016/
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2016/primaries/2016-03-01

[Shadows]

According to 538, this is how Bernie performed relative to his benchmarks:

CO: +6
OK: +6
MN: -1
VT: -11
MA: -14
GA: -16
VA: -20
TX: -22
AR: -25
TN: -35
AL: -41

Looks like a landslide folks.

Dude you'r fake. He won 87% of Votes in VT & he under-performed by 11% - What was he supposed to get? 98%

Where is the link? Do not come up with fake data to spread your message - Disgusting

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bernie-sanders-doesnt-need-momentum-he-needs-to-win-these-states/

That was comparing FB Likes, etc & considering Sanders was tied Nationally with Clinton (Which he is not). If you want to compare with Online Likes, etc & say he is under-performing, please go ahead.

Very intelligent way to compare - Clinton hacks will do anything to make Sanders look bad & make Trump supporters look like an angel.

[Shadows]

Sanders "underperforming" his target in VT is literally meaningless since it resulted in 0 change of delegates. And it's not as if the media will call VT a disappointment for Sanders.

Clinton hacks are now comparing results vs FB Likes n stuff - No morals, No dignity even while winning!