2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHow well does HRC have to do in NY to remain credible?
It's her most recent "home state"...If she loses there, or just barely wins, what as you see it does that do to her campaign?
As people here see it, what support level, in voter percentage, does she absolutely have to take in NY?
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)She will still be the only credible candidate when Sanders gives his first State of the Nation speech.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)I think she will lose by that much.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)reformist2
(9,841 posts)Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Bernie won Wisconsin by 14 points. New York is even more favorable to Hillary because independents are not allowed to vote in primaries and her core voters are mostly Democratic Party loyalists.
Bernie won his home state with 86% of the vote.
Hillary should be able to easily get at least 60% of the vote in New York otherwise she's going to look like a huge loser.
Firebrand Gary
(5,044 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)The eyes of those who can't do simple math?
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)And she'll still be over 200 pledged delegates ahead when she does. Simple math.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)or anyone else will jump in. And I think people need to be reminded that she won NY in 2008 also. She's very popular here.
GreatGazoo
(3,937 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)I believe "toast" is the word they used.
PATRICK
(12,228 posts)opposed by the "establishment" that it would be more important to win than to come close. No one is going to state the obvious unless he wields a knockout punch. Losing close will drive HRC up a wall but it draws out the struggle done the road. She needs to win by five to put Sanders back down as terrible a performance as that would be. Sanders needs a stronger win than Michigan to send her down for the credibility count.
Every election is different. We don't have suppression or cheating or crossovers. We do have effective party machines and organizations in the tank, so to speak for Clinton. That is a powerful advantage with all the rest of the media bias and Wall Street favor. But this can be a maverick state for a better candidate and change. I think some of the same dynamics can simply switch on and "confound" the experts. The debate may actually make a big difference and Sanders cannot afford to let himself be victimized in any unfair way even if such things have backfired often with his less than politic rival.
It is crucial with the stacked and besieged party leadership trapped with Clinton that he keep actually winning big Dem states. More than delegate count this would give the poor judgment of the party leadership no way out except acknowledging Sanders- or a brokered convention, since the GOP is possibly doing one itself- the endgame of two poorly performing institutions. Obama's path was made easier because the leadership more readily split off to back his cause. He didn't have to beat Clinton in all the later states.
jfern
(5,204 posts)highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)I don't trust her to look after my interests in any way, and that is backed up with plenty of proof about both her and Bill.