So it looks like WY will be a 8-6 SBS delegate victory or 7-7 split

[DemocratSinceBirth]

Last edited Sat Apr 9, 2016, 05:08 PM - Edit history (1)

I thought Tyler Perdigo predicted a 14-0 shutout.




On edit - added " or 7-7 split"

[revbones]

1. Link where her predicted that please. Otherwise you're misrepresenting what he said

Granted that's the usual case for Hillary followers and something they don't agree with. He just said she ran the risk of being shut out.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. Are you Tyler?

I wouldn’t be surprised to see Hillary drop below 20% in Wyoming by the time the caucus results are in. As we witnessed in Alaska, at caucus locations where Hillary has very little support, she runs the risk of being deemed a non-viable candidate (this threshold is 15% at all caucuses as far as I’m aware) and being awarded no delegates at that location.

-Tyler Perdigo

[revbones]

5. And he didn't "predict" that did he?

Please answer me why Hillary followers seem to always twist and misrepresent what people say so much? And then to actually quote him saying something different from what you implied, just takes the cake.

He said she "runs the risk". Did he say "I predict she would be shut out"? Nope. His prediction numbers above where you quoted from even say that she wouldn't because her percentage was higher than the 15%.

So what is it? Is the truth not good enough to use?

[brooklynite]

15. Here you go: final projection of 75/25

Hillary Clinton will perform poorly for the following reasons:
•Wyoming has a closed caucus, which Bernie has consistently done very well in. He has won all seven closed caucuses to date (counting the recent Nevada flip).
•Wyoming has the second lowest population of Black voters in the nation, 0.8%, second only to Idaho.
•Bernie Sanders has a greater social media presence in Wyoming than every other state that has voted so far, with the exception of Vermont.
•Hillary Clinton has a very low amount of Google search interest in Wyoming; it’s her third worst state in this regard, behind only Idaho and Vermont.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see Hillary drop below 20% in Wyoming by the time the caucus results are in. As we witnessed in Alaska, at caucus locations where Hillary has very little support, she runs the risk of being deemed a non-viable candidate (this threshold is 15% at all caucuses as far as I’m aware) and being awarded no delegates at that location.

https://tylerpedigo.com/2016/04/09/wyoming-caucus-final-projection/

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. Thank you, sir.

8-6.

HRC overperformed
SBS underperformed

[MineralMan]

3. If that's the case, then Hillary did better than her target of 5 pledged delegates.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats/

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. Tyler Perdigo suggested she would be shut out.

[revbones]

6. That is completely false.

Here is his actual prediction

?w=2028

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. I literally couldn't care less what you think I said is false or isn't false.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see Hillary drop below 20% in Wyoming by the time the caucus results are in. As we witnessed in Alaska, at caucus locations where Hillary has very little support, she runs the risk of being deemed a non-viable candidate(this threshold is 15% at all caucuses as far as I’m aware) and being awarded no delegates at that location.

-Tyler Perdigo

[revbones]

12. Guess it's good I provided the image of his actual prediction as proof what you said was false.

And you even bolded where he said "she runs the risk" - which proved you were wrong in saying he predicted that.

Not sure why you'd want to double-down on what is proven false. That would seem to indicate you had ulterior motives or were a serial liar.

Are you a liar? Just asking. If not, what's the motive for repeating something that is obviously false more than once? Surely an honest person would admit their mistake - especially when they had selectively quoted from the page proving they were saying something false.

Was it just that you missed the graphic above with his actual prediction numbers on it? Or was it that you misread what you quoted and thought it said something completely different?

Which is it?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. I couldn't care less that you think I am a liar

Oh, I just read that part of your poison missive and ignored the rest.

Please carry on.


Love,
DSB

[revbones]

16. Good for you.

I'll just continue posting things that disprove your false posts then. Carry on.

Someone else might be curious as to why you'd continuous post falsehoods, but maybe if you added a disclaimer to the bottom of each of your posts saying it was not meant to be taken as true, then you wouldn't get questions...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. I couldn't care less that you follow me around this board by your own admission.

I am almost flattered, almost.



LOVE
DSB

[revbones]

20. That's funny.

I "follow" the latest posts, like you probably do.

How exactly would any of us follow another around the forum?

You guys are pretty silly with the fairytale stuff.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. Oh look

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1692436

[revbones]

22. So I replied to another of your comments? That's following you around?

Are you ok? I mean, that's a little bit excessive on the conspiracy tales stuff and might indicate other problems.

[Ned_Devine]

26. No, it's just an over inflated sense of self importance

I remember that person telling to that Bernie wouldn't win a single state and to "book it". Maybe he/she meant Bernie would win 16 states...so far.

[MineralMan]

7. I do not know who Tyler Perdigo might be.

Nor, as a matter of fact, do I care. We're getting results from an actual caucus. Those are the only real data that matter.

[B Calm]

24. Who is Tyler Perdigo?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. A gentleman with a blog who is being more frequently cited here.

Sir or madame, you can learn more about the gentleman via a google search.

Cheers.

[Gothmog]

9. Clinton's target was 5 delegates and Sanders needed 11

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. I am encouraged.

I was expecting a shutout.

[IamMab]

23. By your count, that's 16. Wyoming only has 14, because Sanders' target was 9.

For the sake of accuracy, that's all.

[Barack_America]

10. So is this caucus going to count or be an undemocratic POS?

[Trenzalore]

18. All caucuses are undemocratic POS no matter who wins

They also all count.

As a party we really need to standardize the state processes.

[Lucinda]

13. Sanders definitely underperforming expectations!

Cool.

[Nanjeanne]

27. 12% up for Sanders - expected split is 8 for Sanders and 6 for Clinton

http://patch.com/us/across-america/wyoming-democrat-caucus-2016-results-bernie-sanders-poised-victory-0

Will be interesting to see how Sanders increases his tally in the Wyoming Convention since the only county Clinton "won" is the one that went overwhelmingly for Sanders until the "surrogate votes" of 600+ were delivered to give Clinton the win. Somehow if those 600+ weren't able to show up in person to the caucus - I'm guessing they will probably not show at the Convention either.

In any case - I've learned so much from the Clintonites - and that is that if a .2% win for Clinton can be a WIN for Clinton . . . then surely 12% for Sanders is a WIN too!

[bigtree]

28. it's looking like a tie

Dan Merica ?@danmericaCNN 13m13 minutes ago
Wyoming Dem party official says the state could be a tie in delegates. Right now, they say, it is 7 for Sanders and 6 for Clinton. One TBD.



Benchmark Politics @benchmarkpol
With #WYCaucus Washakie County update, Sanders falls to 56% with only one county left. Delegate tie almost assured with this result.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. I thought this was going to be a blow out.

[bigtree]

30. looks like when Democrats vote, Hillary wins

...Bernie folks sometimes count indies in these closed-primary states who are shut out.