Democratic WV primary + NE fake contest results thread (1st polls close @7:30ET)

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Would the DNC give Farrell a delegate though? They never gave delegates to Randal Terry and co in 2012

[Averroës Nix]

So, despite the gloating, the Nebraska primary is likely to be pretty close after all, I guess?

I mean, even if it was a tie that would be a 14 point swing. That would actually be similar to Texas in 2008. The primary and caucus were held on the same day. Hillary won the primary by 4 but lost the caucus by 12.

Hahaha, I didn't remember that. They were actually held on the same day?!? Insanity.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

Would the DNC give Farrell a delegate though? They never gave delegates to Randal Terry and co in 2012

They did not get delegates because they did not inform the state parties  of the names of their delegates, as well as failing to meet certain qualifications.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/randall-terry-loses-his-delegate-to-the-democratic-convention/?_r=0
http://www.wrcbtv.com/story/17525058/john-wolfe-cries-foul-in-louisiana-primary

[sportydude]

Wait, Hillary just "won" Nebraska by a pretty big margin?
It's time to abolish caucuses.

[RI]

Nebraska will probably end at about 54-46 or so

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

One really close delegate. If Bernie keeps beating Hillary 7-5 he gets that extra statewide delegate. Also similarly it's close in the 3rd district. It's 18-11 if he gets both of them.

[RightBehind]

Bernie has done a lot better than many thought. It's too bad superdelegates screwed him over. People here can try and justify the superdelegates all they want, but I personally don't like it because it gives a great voice to those beyond thr constituents. Something isn't right when you've taken 19 states and more than 1,400 pledged delegates yet less than 50 supers. Your opponent has about 200-300 more pledged delegates but the supers overwhelmingly favor her.

[Holmes]

What..? Screwed over by superdelegates? Clinton's ahead by 3 million votes and about 280-odd delegates over Sanders. In no definition of the word has Sanders been screwed over by superdelegates.

[Xing]

Bernie has done a lot better than many thought. It's too bad superdelegates screwed him over. People here can try and justify the superdelegates all they want, but I personally don't like it because it gives a great voice to those beyond thr constituents. Something isn't right when you've taken 19 states and more than 1,400 pledged delegates yet less than 50 supers. Your opponent has about 200-300 more pledged delegates but the supers overwhelmingly favor her.

I agree that we should consider at least reducing the number of superdelegates, but Sanders would still lose even without them.

[Panda Express]

Bernie has done a lot better than many thought. It's too bad superdelegates screwed him over. People here can try and justify the superdelegates all they want, but I personally don't like it because it gives a great voice to those beyond thr constituents. Something isn't right when you've taken 19 states and more than 1,400 pledged delegates yet less than 50 supers. Your opponent has about 200-300 more pledged delegates but the supers overwhelmingly favor her.

Bernie is way down in the delegate count even if you remove all the Supers.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I could agree to a small reduction in superdelegates in the context of an overall "primary reform" deal, but I don't think we should abolish them by any means. What 2016 has shown is that voters cannot be trusted to blindly pick their own presidents - they picked a fascist on one side, and almost picked a socialist on the other side. Just like in the general election where electors can be faithless, superdelegates provide an important "check" on the voters during the primary process. I can agree to the idea that if the voters go with the "wrong" choice by such a large margin that the superdelegates become irrevelant that then the party establishment needs to change their views and endorse the "wrong" nominee. But if the voters are sort of closely divided, the choice should be left up to the party establishment, as they are more likely to know what is truly in the party's best interest.

[Eraserhead]

Clinton 54% - Sanders 46% in the Nebraska beauty contest now.

It's definitely looking like it'll end up fairly close which is kind of what I figured.

[Alcon]

McDowell County, WV, finally came in - 91.5% Trump.  Probably the first time the Atlas has ever used the darkest shade of orange on a map?

[catographer]

West Virginia, my eyes, they burn! D:

[This account no longer in use.]

West Virginia, my eyes, they burn! D:

It happens every year for the GE. Maybe that's why some Atlas Democrats are so focused on getting WV back into the freiwal.

[Gass3268]

I could agree to a small reduction in superdelegates in the context of an overall "primary reform" deal, but I don't think we should abolish them by any means. What 2016 has shown is that voters cannot be trusted to blindly pick their own presidents - they picked a fascist on one side, and almost picked a socialist on the other side. Just like in the general election where electors can be faithless, superdelegates provide an important "check" on the voters during the primary process. I can agree to the idea that if the voters go with the "wrong" choice by such a large margin that the superdelegates become irrevelant that then the party establishment needs to change their views and endorse the "wrong" nominee. But if the voters are sort of closely divided, the choice should be left up to the party establishment, as they are more likely to know what is truly in the party's best interest.

I'm in favor of cutting it down to just elected officials (Senators, Representatives, Governors, and state legislature leaders in states where there are no majorly elected Democrats).

[KingSweden]

Bernie has done a lot better than many thought. It's too bad superdelegates screwed him over. People here can try and justify the superdelegates all they want, but I personally don't like it because it gives a great voice to those beyond thr constituents. Something isn't right when you've taken 19 states and more than 1,400 pledged delegates yet less than 50 supers. Your opponent has about 200-300 more pledged delegates but the supers overwhelmingly favor her.

I agree that we should consider at least reducing the number of superdelegates, but Sanders would still lose even without them.

This Hillbot agrees!

[Frodo]

I think getting rid of every caucus (except for Iowa) in exchange for a Democratic Party significantly further to the left than under Bill Clinton (or even Barack Obama) is a fair enough compromise.  

[IceSpear]

Carson is beating Rubio in both Nebraska and West Virginia. lol

[This account no longer in use.]

Can't arson the Carson.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

53-47 Clinton in the Nebraska beauty contest with 90% in. Lancaster is in now, but Douglas County still has vote left - could be good for either candidate.

[RI]

McDowell County, WV, finally came in - 91.5% Trump.  Probably the first time the Atlas has ever used the darkest shade of orange on a map?

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?fips=19&year=1992&f=0&off=0&elect=1

[catographer]

53-47 Clinton in the Nebraska beauty contest with 90% in. Lancaster is in now, but Douglas County still has vote left - could be good for either candidate.

Where are you finding results for the beauty contest in NE?

[The Other Castro]

53-47 Clinton in the Nebraska beauty contest with 90% in. Lancaster is in now, but Douglas County still has vote left - could be good for either candidate.

Where are you finding results for the beauty contest in NE?

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/elections/2016/by_state/NE_Page_0510.html?SITE=AP&SECTION=POLITICS

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

Farrell is at 14% in WV-3.  Can he crack 15%?  If so, would he pick up a delegate?

He's at 13.508%, which just barely rounds up to 14%. It would be a stretch for him to make up an extra percent and a half with 78% reporting.

With 88% reporting, he's up to 13.595%. Not quite enough.