MD-Monmouth: Clinton up 25

« Reply #1 on: April 21, 2016, 01:21:39 PM »

Clinton leading big in state dominated by blaxicans. News at 11.

Logged

Xing
xingkerui
Atlas Superstar

Posts: 30,303

Political Matrix
E: -6.52, S: -3.91

« Reply #2 on: April 21, 2016, 01:22:43 PM »

Seems like a believable result.

Logged

Holmes
Atlas Icon

Posts: 13,750

Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -5.74

« Reply #3 on: April 21, 2016, 02:02:24 PM »

Clinton leading big in state dominated by blaxicans. News at 11.

lol the blaxicasians.

Logged

IceSpear
Atlas Superstar

Posts: 31,840

Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Quote from: TN volunteer on April 21, 2016, 01:19:54 PM

« Reply #4 on: April 21, 2016, 02:05:47 PM »

It's not over yet, Sanders can still win by 90 points in PA and CA!!!111!

I hope CA does the right thing next cycle and moves their primary to Super Tuesday so that zombie campaigns will no longer be able to use this talking point.

Logged

Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort
Joshua
Jr. Member

Posts: 1,710

Political Matrix
E: -4.52, S: -5.91

Quote from: IceSpear on April 21, 2016, 02:05:47 PM

« Reply #5 on: April 21, 2016, 02:08:45 PM »

Quote from: TN volunteer on April 21, 2016, 01:19:54 PM

It's not over yet, Sanders can still win by 90 points in PA and CA!!!111!

I hope CA does the right thing next cycle and moves their primary to Super Tuesday so that zombie campaigns will no longer be able to use this talking point.

Our Secretary of State is a ditz, but is pretty much a shoo in for a second term in 2018.

California can't promise to do anything rational about this.

Logged

Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar

Posts: 31,698

Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

« Reply #6 on: April 21, 2016, 02:50:30 PM »

^^ Wasn't CA on ST in 2008? What was the rational behind changing that?

Clinton leading big in state dominated by blaxicans. News at 11.

lol the blaxicasians.

It's pretty clear that Sanders would be the presumptive nominee in a hypothetical "whites-only" primary.

Logged

Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend

Posts: 44,936

« Reply #7 on: April 21, 2016, 03:00:15 PM »

Wow Wulfric giving Tender Branson a run for the money in being the most racist poster!

Logged

Holmes
Atlas Icon

Posts: 13,750

Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -5.74

« Reply #8 on: April 21, 2016, 03:06:00 PM »

^^ Wasn't CA on ST in 2008? What was the rational behind changing that?

Clinton leading big in state dominated by blaxicans. News at 11.

lol the blaxicasians.

It's pretty clear that Sanders would be the presumptive nominee in a hypothetical "whites-only" primary.

So the Klan?

Logged

IceSpear
Atlas Superstar

Posts: 31,840

Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

« Reply #9 on: April 21, 2016, 03:07:36 PM »

^^ Wasn't CA on ST in 2008? What was the rational behind changing that?

Clinton leading big in state dominated by blaxicans. News at 11.

lol the blaxicasians.

It's pretty clear that Sanders would be the presumptive nominee in a hypothetical "whites-only" primary.

Yes, he'd be a shoo in in a Republican primary.

But on a serious note, I remember someone posting a breakdown of the white vote here a while ago and it was actually surprisingly close. I wonder what it looks like now.

Logged

/
darthebearnc
Junior Chimp

Posts: 7,367

Quote from: Holmes on April 21, 2016, 03:06:00 PM

« Reply #10 on: April 21, 2016, 03:09:09 PM »

^^ Wasn't CA on ST in 2008? What was the rational behind changing that?

Clinton leading big in state dominated by blaxicans. News at 11.

lol the blaxicasians.

It's pretty clear that Sanders would be the presumptive nominee in a hypothetical "whites-only" primary.

So the Klan?

haha funny you are smart

Logged

Holmes
Atlas Icon

Posts: 13,750

Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -5.74

Quote from: ͡◔ ᴥ ͡◔ on April 21, 2016, 03:09:09 PM

« Reply #11 on: April 21, 2016, 03:11:47 PM »

Quote from: Holmes on April 21, 2016, 03:06:00 PM

^^ Wasn't CA on ST in 2008? What was the rational behind changing that?