Networks: Bernie Sanders wins Wisconsin primary
Source: USA Today
Sanders entered Tuesday's contest on a winning streak, but one thats hardly denting Clintons delegate lead in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/04/05/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-wisconsin-primary-democrats/82669988/
sanders projected to gain some delegates, Hillary almost as many delegates. sanders still far, far short of Hillary's insurmountable lead.
denbot
(9,894 posts)RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)Mira
(22,378 posts)Sometimes that happens. I'm thrilled.
jomin41
(559 posts)Go Bernie!
postulater
(5,075 posts)???
Chicago1980
(1,968 posts)postulater
(5,075 posts)The same reason the national election shouldn't be called before the west coast states vote.
Pharaoh
(8,209 posts)you should never, ever call or even project an election while people are still in line! That is the whole point of waiting till the polls close.
former9thward
(31,802 posts)It is done by private groups, namely the TV Networks. They have free speech rights to do what they want.
deutsey
(20,166 posts)ErikJ
(6,335 posts)peacebird
(14,195 posts)Chicago1980
(1,968 posts)peacebird
(14,195 posts)reddread
(6,896 posts)Chicago1980
(1,968 posts)reddread
(6,896 posts)I dont think it will be me
Chicago1980
(1,968 posts)peacebird
(14,195 posts)Same cannot be said for Hillary. People know Bernie is honest, trustworthy and he has their backs. Hillary, no.
Chicago1980
(1,968 posts)Yet she's still up in the delegate count and the number of persons who've voted for her.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Chicago1980
(1,968 posts)She'll be getting more.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)litlbilly
(2,227 posts)wins NY. Cant wait to see what you post then. Your meme of the day people will probably just stay in bed that day...
Chicago1980
(1,968 posts)especially when time is limited.
How about we let people vote.
If Bernie wins NY then he wins NY.
If he wins the nomination then I'll vote for him, I'm not a brat who'll stomp their feet and not vote.
I'm one of those purists who's "my candidate or bust".
I have better sense than that.
Wisconsin is the same state who elected Walker twice and just elected some batshit crazy supreme court justice. They're a pretty schizophrenic state.
brewens
(13,396 posts)exponentially. People that like Bernie but may not have gotten out to vote because they have been told it was useless will now be planning to vote. Every win shows them he has a real chance. They now are seeing and hearing him more. The momentum is building!
reddread
(6,896 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)iandhr
(6,852 posts)Why is Sanders in Wyoming instead of giving a big speech in Madison or Milwaukee? Thank the folks who gave you your most important win.
WI is an important state in the general on Wyoming isn't. I understand Wyoming is one of the next states but he could always go tomorrow.
liberal from boston
(856 posts)MSNBC has Bernie speaking now.
HeartoftheMidwest
(309 posts)We worked hard for him; we know he appreciates us!
Like Bernie, we're already looking ahead.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)steve2470
(37,457 posts)who is the woman in your gif ?
svpadgham
(670 posts)She's from the Young Turks.
steve2470
(37,457 posts)Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)It's a really good show hosted by progressives. Ana is my favorite.
Response to iandhr (Reply #14)
Skittles This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to iandhr (Reply #14)
DUbeornot2be This message was self-deleted by its author.
LS_Editor
(893 posts)The Democratic Party needs to do away with the blatantly anti-democratic Super Delegates. The corruption is sickening.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)Duckfan
(1,268 posts)Approximately 100 + delegates is far from insurmountable. And thats with pledged delegates-not supers. I can do math thank you.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)which does, however ignore that the deficit is more than 200 in pledged delegates, ignoring the super delegates.
Not impossible, but increasingly unlikely. Sanders is running out of states where he will likely win, with margins enough to make a difference.
beastie boy
(9,059 posts)He spent about $1.5 mil more than Hillary to get about 15 net delegates. At this pace, it will cost him $25 mil more than Hillary and 17 consecutive victories the size of Wisconsin just to catch up.
Go Bernie!
strategery blunder
(4,225 posts)(I just got home from work so I haven't looked up the projected margin of victory quite yet.)
And his pledged delegate deficit yesterday was more like 230, not 250. Some "delegate trackers" have not estimated WA's delegate allocation yet because those delegates will be allocated at future county/legislative district caucuses. However, like IA, they should roughly follow the initial results, and therefore can be estimated ahead of time with good accuracy (as the media did for IA, but seems reluctant to do for WA).
Depending on the source, and hinging largely on whether WA's delegates were fully extrapolated from our caucus results, Bernie either had 975 delegates (low end) or ~1010-1012 (with our delegates fully apportioned) before today.
That said I do recognize that we Bernie supporters have a long, uphill battle ahead of us. However, I believe that we can do it!
I will celebrate when I can. I do believe that certain delegate-rich states like CA are watching closely.
beastie boy
(9,059 posts)17 more consecutive victories the size of Wisconsin!
postulater
(5,075 posts)He will never run out of money.
All from people like me.
beastie boy
(9,059 posts)But he is running out of delegates to win. And throwing money at them doesn't seem to work that well.
frylock
(34,825 posts)litlbilly
(2,227 posts)the huge % of indies who vote for Bernie. You get that over 62% of the GE are indies right? You think they will vote for Hillary? I doubt it very much.
phazed0
(745 posts)Well..... when I look at the link it looks like Bernie is going to get 44 delegates to Hillary's 28... That's almost double of Hillary..
litlbilly
(2,227 posts)Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)CentralMass
(15,265 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)GreydeeThos
(958 posts)And right now Bernie is losing by 217.
FailureToCommunicate
(13,989 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Turborama
(22,109 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Had to get in your subtle sniping.
Edited it to minimize the win and don't bother to update the post.
Tacky.
Here's the correct update:
Bernie Sanders defeats Hillary Clinton in Wisconsin
Heidi M Przybyla, USA TODAY 10:50 p.m. EDT April 5, 2016
Bernie Sanders prevailed in Wisconsins Democratic primary Tuesday, continuing his winning streak over Hillary Clinton.
In a victory speech from Wyoming which holds a caucus on Saturday Sanders claimed momentum and argued he is a stronger general election candidate than Clinton.
We are defeating Donald Trump by very significant numbers, Sanders said of the Republican front-runner, before taking aim at the billionaire class, the fossil fuel industry and super PACs that are funding other campaigns. "Yes, we can change the status quo when we think big and when we have a vision," said Sanders. "I am not naive, i know the power of Wall Street and their endless supplies of money."
Clinton tweeted congratulations to Sanders, adding "to all the voters and volunteers who poured your hearts into this campaign: Forward!"
FailureToCommunicate
(13,989 posts)beastie boy
(9,059 posts)Comes down to about $100 grand per net delegate!
Amazing how little an extra $1.5 million buys these days!
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)No one is buying your spin.
beastie boy
(9,059 posts)How'bout $90,000 per delegate?
...Sorry, it's not up to me to discount the price tag on a delegate. It's a matter of record.
FailureToCommunicate
(13,989 posts)a big win for the Democratic party?
beastie boy
(9,059 posts)But I don't mind staying up late to cheer the last runner to reach the finish line!
A for effort!
greymouse
(872 posts)Bernie's money comes from people. Hillary's from corrupt BigWhatsises. Plus she's had a decade or two of free publicity.
beastie boy
(9,059 posts)Bernie spent $3 of people's money for every corrupt BigWhatsises' dollar. That's $100,000 for each net delegate.
Those corrupt BigWhatsises turn out to be much more frugal than the campaign finance reform crusader, no?
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)beastie boy
(9,059 posts)that people don't know that it costs money to run for President?
I am not.
I am under the impression that it cost Bernie three times the money his opponent spent to get 15 net delegates...
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)It costs a lot to counter all the biased-media lack of coverage. It looks like Bernie won every county but two at this point.
I'm sorry this is hard for you. It must be past YOUR bedtime.
beastie boy
(9,059 posts)When you don't buy the media coverage, you don't control what they cover.
If you get your way, this may backfire at Bernie big time.
rynestonecowboy
(76 posts)That doesn't help your argument. If you want to argue that it doesn't matter where the money comes from you should just head over to the Hillary subreddit. Most normal working class Americans are tired of billionaires buying our elections.
beastie boy
(9,059 posts)I am talking the other side of the equation - how much money is being spent and to what effect. Shows how shallow Bernie's victory is in WI. When ou outspend your opponent by this much, you should expect a landslide! Especially when you claim higher ground, no?
...We are both awfully sorry today, aren't we?
greymouse
(872 posts)According to the nytimes, which is the bag for Hillary, Bernie spent $3.1 mil on ads, Hillary spent $2.1 mil.
Current delegate count (still in progress):
Bernie 45 delegates, $68889 per delegate
Hillary 31 delegates, $74193 per delegate
So I guess more money doesn't get enough people to vote for Hillary.
beastie boy
(9,059 posts)According to NBC, which is not the bag for Hillary, Bernie spent $2,400,000 on ads, and Hillary spent $931,000, a difference of $ 1,469,000. The net gain in delegates for Bernie is 14. Cost per net delegate, $104928.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/sanders-anti-trump-groups-hold-ad-spending-edge-wisconsin-n550921
...Oh damn, I screwed up.Turns out that Bernie spent $4K per delegate more than I initially estimated. Thanks for alerting me!
mwooldri
(10,291 posts)beastie boy
(9,059 posts)Anyone who throws that kind of money at a primary and still loses, on his own turf no less, is a moron!
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)She's raised more money than Sanders and still can't put him away:
beastie boy
(9,059 posts)And Bernie is still 230 of them behind!
Wadya got to say to that?
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)According to the FEC Clinton has spent $112,762879 while Sanders has spent $119,378,555 and that's just their campaign spending. Add the Super Pacs into the formula ($3.1 million from Correct the Record and $11.5 million from Priorities USA just to name two) and you'd see that the Clinton camp is outspending Sanders. Rebuttal?
http://www.fec.gov/disclosurep/pnational.do
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00578997
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00495861
beastie boy
(9,059 posts)Hillary total spent $147,722,431
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N00000019
Bernie total spent $122,737,872
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N00000528
Hillary total delegates won - 1279
Bernie delegates won - 1027
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_delegate_count.html#!
Hillary cost per delegate: $115,498
Bernie cost per delegate: $119,511
I demand satisfaction!
Tomorrow, 6AM, behind the Trinity church. Twenty paces. My choice of water pistols. Be there, or I will insult your mother!
SunSeeker
(51,368 posts)d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)But what happens if he starts getting more delegates than her?
beastie boy
(9,059 posts)And if Bernie starts getting more delegates, you have every right to demand satisfaction. The choice of water pistols will be yours.
SunSeeker
(51,368 posts)He needed to win by 16 but he only won by 13. Hillary only needed 43% (38 delegates) to maintain her edge. She got that (43.2%). Sanders didn't get what he needed. He couldn't even win 57% in an open primary state tailor made for him like Wisconsin--at 99% reporting he came in just shy at 56.5%.
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)beastie boy
(9,059 posts)But what does either have to do with Bernie outspending Hillary 3 to 1 in Wisconsin?
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Here is the CORRECT excerpt for the OP:
In a victory speech from Wyoming which holds a caucus on Saturday Sanders claimed momentum and argued he is a stronger general election candidate than Clinton.
We are defeating Donald Trump by very significant numbers, Sanders said of the Republican front-runner, before taking aim at the billionaire class, the fossil fuel industry and super PACs that are funding other campaigns. "Yes, we can change the status quo when we think big and when we have a vision," said Sanders. "I am not naive, I know the power of Wall Street and their endless supplies of money."
beastie boy
(9,059 posts)Oh c'mon! Don't tell me there is no irony in the victory speech of a candidate who just outspent his opponent by 3 to 1!
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Go home. No one wants to play with you.
http://www.npr.org/2016/02/06/465781632/fact-check-clinton-and-sanders-on-campaign-finance
"MSNBC moderator Chuck Todd asked Sanders why he isn't seeking public financing, a system that was used by the winners of every Democratic and Republican nominating contest from 1976 to 1996.
Sanders: "It is a public financing system that everybody knows is antiquated. It no longer works. Nobody can become president based on that system."
He's right. The public financing system badly needs updating. As it is, candidates get too little, too late, compared to what's being spent in modern campaigns.
A publicly-financed candidate can spend up to $48.1 million in the primaries. Both Clinton and Sanders have already raised more than twice that much."
beastie boy
(9,059 posts)Are you trying to add insult to irony? What's it got to do with the 3 to 1 ratio in Bernie's spending?
C'mon, don't be a killjoy, play with me some more!
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)for President.
beastie boy
(9,059 posts)I can't make heads or tails out of your reply.
Wanna sleep on it and come up with a comprehensible reply tomorrow?
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)rynestonecowboy
(76 posts)It's almost comical how biased the MSM is. How is Sanders decisively wins 7 of the last 8 states and could upset Clinton in her home state of NY? I called this race for Sanders months ago just due to the enthusiasm gap but with every state it keeps getting clearer that Sanders will win the second half of the primary despite the blackout of his campaign. We supporters aren't the uninformed sheep that the MSM and democratic party assumed we were. The informed people of this country have awakened and aren't going to stand by and let the corporations tell us how to run our country and our lives.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)the state, instead of dominating in all but 2 or 3 counties.
sus453
(164 posts). . . tonight in Wisconsin) and only gets a footnote in the news, under several layers of who won the Republican primary - this along with the inevitable analysis by reporters and pundits about why he can't win. Hillary wins a state, and it's like the second coming of Christ.
This is an interesting election year and one where media (as well, of course, as big money) are actively partisan. The tail wagging the dog - love American-style.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Wibly
(613 posts)The statement that Clinton's lead is "insurmountable" or "far short" is pure spin. It is not fact.
If you have to exaggerate, you've probably already lost, and should not be taken seriously.
The Super Delegates are not counted until the Convention. They can change anytime up until the vote at the convention is called. Counting unhatched chickens does not constitute an ethical or realistic outcome.
beastie boy
(9,059 posts)If Bernie wins every single one of the remaining races by a margin bigger than Wisconsin, he is a shoe-in!
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/16/upshot/clinton-sanders-democratic-delegate-lead.html
Response to onehandle (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
SylviaD
(721 posts)The Wisconsin victory, like the Washington victory, means little in the long run.
My preferred candidate won many states in 2008, but did not win the nomination.
Vinca
(50,170 posts)It must mean something when he gets a crowd of thousands at an office opening he doesn't attend. I think he's a got a real chance there.