Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
then bernie does not have 9 million. nt msongs May 2016 #1
Nebraska was run as a democratic primary and Hillary won. Renew Deal May 2016 #2
If anything caucuses count double Doctor Jack May 2016 #3
Shaun King quickly gets fact-checked by the Washington Post Frenchye May 2016 #4
Glenn Kessler's Math Meteor Man May 2016 #11
Common sense would tell you King's analysis is nonsensical... it doesn't even pass the eye test. DemocratSinceBirth May 2016 #18
So you are relying on berniemath? Gothmog May 2016 #57
Sean King gets hack-checked, you mean Uponthegears May 2016 #26
Not so fast... DemocratSinceBirth May 2016 #31
Actually I went the right speed Uponthegears May 2016 #48
Densely was a poor choice of words. I should have said populous. DemocratSinceBirth May 2016 #49
Does not diminish Uponthegears May 2016 #54
Take solace in the fact we will stop Donald Trump, inshallah. DemocratSinceBirth May 2016 #56
Truth there Uponthegears May 2016 #60
Post removed Post removed May 2016 #32
they are coming out of the woodwork. they must be shaking in their boots. litlbilly May 2016 #45
That has to be it Ned_Devine May 2016 #52
it is intense, total desperation as it implodes before our eyes, they are in total desperado mode amborin May 2016 #65
Did you even read the article? He offers no facts refuting that Bernie got ZERO votes in Washington pdsimdars May 2016 #72
No not 3 it's 3.5 million MattP May 2016 #5
lolz obamanut2012 May 2016 #6
That is patently absurd DemocratSinceBirth May 2016 #7
Shaun King is the same guy who said Bernie won Nevada Frenchye May 2016 #9
I am familiar with his work... DemocratSinceBirth May 2016 #10
LOL. Starry Messenger May 2016 #68
One More Time Meteor Man May 2016 #12
I don't know about other states but the turnout in Washington was miserable LisaM May 2016 #8
Whatever you read was likely wrong. As a PCO, my precinct and all the others locally set records floriduck May 2016 #37
No, I'm not wrong, and it not as high as 2008 (but it was close) LisaM May 2016 #40
The state may have come up short but not in my area. Just sayin' floriduck May 2016 #42
So your "miserable" comment was a bit exaggerated. Or are you saying Obama's floriduck May 2016 #44
It was high compared to other caucuses, but caucus turnout is miserable in general. LisaM May 2016 #51
For what it's worth, I'd Ike to do away with caucuses too. I'd prefer vote by mail. floriduck May 2016 #62
I like the opportunity to vote by mail, but LisaM May 2016 #66
As long as she has one more delegate she wins. Sorry. nt eastwestdem May 2016 #13
And Democracy Loses Meteor Man May 2016 #34
Way better than a Sanders presidency. nt eastwestdem May 2016 #36
Sanders Presidency is good for the 99% and for democracy amborin May 2016 #64
I might agree with you if he had an actual plans to accomplish his promises. eastwestdem May 2016 #70
Honestly?!? chervilant May 2016 #71
some of the caucuses didn't even have 10,000 people in attendance. upaloopa May 2016 #14
Exactly Meteor Man May 2016 #19
The census is based on mathematical assumptions. Your and his arguments are obscurantist. DemocratSinceBirth May 2016 #20
Riiiight! Meteor Man May 2016 #24
Yeah, flat earthers deny the validity of inferential and descriptive statistics. DemocratSinceBirth May 2016 #25
And Krugman Is Always Right Meteor Man May 2016 #29
The Nobel Prize winner has a firmer understanding of economics than the Vermont independent. DemocratSinceBirth May 2016 #33
How About Stiglitz? Meteor Man May 2016 #38
" See how clear that is? " I think so. DemocratSinceBirth May 2016 #43
Lol! Meteor Man May 2016 #58
You don't bring glory to yourself my making things up. DemocratSinceBirth May 2016 #61
Did you watch the video? Meteor Man May 2016 #67
Wrong. The votes from caucuses won't change anything. Almost no one votes. CrowCityDem May 2016 #15
I got a video just for you workinclasszero May 2016 #16
Just 7 contests have not reported their populsr vote. hrmjustin May 2016 #17
Alaska? Meteor Man May 2016 #21
.alaska is blank on that list. hrmjustin May 2016 #23
Oh yeah Meteor Man May 2016 #27
No but they do report how many voted. You can do guess work based on results. hrmjustin May 2016 #28
Guess Work Meteor Man May 2016 #30
She can't win! The votes don't count! She's unelectable! randome May 2016 #22
Right. JTFrog May 2016 #35
You R right. Hillary is ahead by 2.9M riversedge May 2016 #39
Yes, Clinton is winning the popular vote — by a wide margin Gothmog May 2016 #41
For The Third Time Meteor Man May 2016 #46
I'll take educated guesswork over hopeful fantasy anytime. randome May 2016 #50
Guess Work Meteor Man May 2016 #59
Why trust you over the fact checker? Gothmog May 2016 #55
Excellent point. CentralMass May 2016 #47
A caucus vote count does not go by the population, if so the primary states would go by their Thinkingabout May 2016 #53
Well, what if the other side subtracted non-Democratic party votes? JCMach1 May 2016 #63
2.9 million bigtree May 2016 #69
This is actually Stupid. Literally, Mathematically stupid.` DWilliamsamh Jun 2016 #73
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Hillary Is Not Ahead By 3...»Reply #36