New York Primary Results Post
10:40pm
Last one for the night, 73% of the vote in:
40 minutes after polls close and winners called on both sides.
9:40PM
Polls are closed. 15,000+ precincts to report in. Widespread voting irregularities today. What we know already: Trump takes the Republican primary by large margins. Cruz is in a distant 3rd place. Let’s go to town in the comments!
Fox News projecting Kasich finishes 2nd in NY.
Clinton ahead early with 10% of precincts reporting
Tags: Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, election, Hillary Clinton, John Kasich, New York Presidential Primary, Primary, Ted Cruz, Voting
With 21% in, Clinton leads 61 to 39. A call will probably come soon, but it did not come at poll closing due to exits showing a closer race. But those exit polls have been shown already to be inaccurate due to the raw vote total coming in from various precincts.
27% reporting, still 61%-39%
30% reporting now, Clinton still up 61%-39%, and still half of the Bronx, Westchester, and much of long island to report.
MSNBC calls NY for Hillary Clinton.
It’s called for Hillary.
ABC, Fox call NY for Clinton.
This is a good map for seeing the breakdown in NY.
CNN projects Clinton winner of New York.
41% in, Clinton 60, Sanders 40.
I am hearing a bell…..
Be nice.
That eliminates another BS talking point, that he always wins when the turnout is high, and loses when it is low.
Pandora, you have no idea how much I am censoring myself right now. My open thread tomorrow will be very nice.
10pm 1,000,232 votes, 50% reporting (7,536 of 15,067 precincts)
With 51% in, Clinton 59.5, Sanders 40.5. It will likely close to a final margin of 57-43 after more upstate comes in.
Based on previous primaries, nothing all that surprising with this.
60% in, Clinton 59, Sanders 41
Hillary speaking now
“New York is a place to dream big—and we’re setting bold, progressive goals in this campaign. But New Yorkers also like to get things done.” Good quote there to try and bring in the Bernie supporters she’s going to need. It’s that tone that I can’t stand. “New Yorkers also like to get things done.” She’s not making me want to vote for her by continuing to take passive-aggressive pseudo-insulting jabs like that. *yawn*.
Notice that Hillary in her victory speech didn’t once explicitly mention Bernie Sanders and, more importantly, his followers. For someone grumbling about Sanders’ supporters not supporting her if she becomes the nominee, her snobbish and elitist disregard of them tonight belies her so called desire to bring them into the Democratic Party tent. She’s not expansive about including and reaching disenfranchised Americans. She’s a cliquish insider. A pure estalishmentarian.
@DG “Notice that Hillary in her victory speech didn’t once explicitly mention Bernie Sanders and, more importantly, his followers.”
And if she had, there’d probably be posts here about how she was rubbing it in.
She can’t get a break…
In her speech she pivoted almost completely to the general. Good. Now is the time to set the messaging employing common sense terms such as “gun safety” before the GOP can warp the issue with fear mongering. She can do the same for the other major issues while the GOP continues their intercine warfare.
Can’t spend too much time attacking candidates while it’s still in doubt, but there is plenty to say about the issues that can label whatever candidate survives the GOP convention.
“She can’t get a break…”
Nope. She’ll have to make her own breaks. For some people, she will always be damned if she does, damned if she doesn’t.
I just got this from the Sanders campaign:
“We didn’t get the victory we had hoped for this evening, but what’s important is that it looks like we’re going to win a lot more delegates in New York than any state that voted or caucused before tonight.
So what does that mean? Five important states vote one week from tonight, with more delegates at stake than Hillary Clinton led by coming into tonight. And if we do well next Tuesday, we remain in a position to take the pledged delegate lead when almost 700 delegates are up for grabs on June 7.”
Talk about alternate reality…
It’s not Bernie that Clinton has to worry about at this point. When you’ve just crushed it in the New York primary and WaPo takes that occasion to call you one of the weakest Democratic candidates of recent memory, you’ve got problems with your image.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-won-new-york-but-her-image-is-underwater/2016/04/19/d1ff2f3c-0620-11e6-b283-e79d81c63c1b_story.html
Are stories like this merited? It really doesn’t matter. They’re out there, and they are being read, and the MSM already seems interested in casting the narrative of the two most unpopular presidential candidates of recent memory running against each other, thereby creating a false equivalence that is beneficial only for Trump.
@SN “Are stories like this merited?”
Probably. But it says this:
“Democrats see Sanders as an agent in Clinton’s decline, arguing that in recent weeks his attacks have been aimed less at policy differences and more at questions about her character.”
It’s a shame that Bernie went there. He just dragged them both down.
Get real. No one would have faulted Hillary for congratulating Bernie for running a spirited campaign and, most importantly for the general election, for his supporters voting for him. Instead she acted as if Sanders and his supporters were non entities. So instead of doing what’s necessary to woo those voters for the general election, she just assumes she’s entitled to them and takes them for granted. The Clintons act like royalty. It’s revolting.
So now we hear the spin that Bernie is responsible for Hillary’s high negatives. That’s deliberate delusion. The *fact* is she began this race with very high negatives. But let’s ignore the facts and instead robotically mouth the establishment Democratic excuse making spin.
Riiiight…
Hillary: I would like to congratulate Bernie for running a spirited campaign and, most importantly for the general election, for his supporters voting for him.
Yeah, that would have gone over well. Stop being silly.
“Democrats see Sanders as an agent in Clinton’s decline, arguing that in recent weeks his attacks have been aimed less at policy differences and more at questions about her character.”
ehhhh..Clinton’s character had issues long before Bernie went there. Regardless, I would have preferred a solid policy-driven campaign. Can’t get everything you want though.
Character issues that were largely driven by the wingnut Clinton Derangement Machine. Now it’s been picked up by some Sanders supporters who are pretty much repeating the rightwing bullshit. None of them have much that is new and, frankly, letting the right define your own candidates is pretty despicable. For the people calling for Democratic purism, you could start the party by ceasing to repeat what the right wants you to repeat.
Yes, I have been most disappointed in my fellow Progressive’s alliance with the right wing during this primary season. Hopefully now they will see the error of their ways.
Man I’m glad I wore my hip-waders today. The stuff is waste high in here.
If a candidate’s supporters are swayed easily by Twitter, I’d not be relying on them for much of anything.
The thing that slays me about the whole project is that I didn’t believe much of the Clinton Derangement crap from the right — why would I believe if from my own compatriots?
“None of them have much that is new and, frankly, letting the right define your own candidates is pretty despicable. For the people calling for Democratic purism, you could start the party by ceasing to repeat what the right wants you to repeat.”
You want to talk about letting the Republicans set the standards for the conduct of the presidential race? Then complain to Hillary. She says that she won’t let the transcripts of her Wall Street praise fests be released until the Republicans do it first. Imagine that. Letting the Republicans take the moral lead in this matter. Then she’ll follow the Republican suit. But I’m not terribly surprised. Like most establishmatarian Democrats she resembles a Republican more than, say, a FDR.
If you hire me to give a speech to you and your group, I am going to touch on things that are of interest to you and I am going to say things that elicit at least polite applause. I wouldn’t make you any promises and I would choose my words pretty carefully so that they don’t come back and bite me in the a** later.
Does anyone really think there are smoking guns in the transcripts? Would you be satisfied with the short form of the speeches or should people be holding out for the long form? Is there a task force ready to examine them to ensure they aren’t forgeries? I’m sure Sheriff Arpaio’s team is standing by and ready should the need arise.
Dave – the actual content doesn’t matter so much. Trump is going to run straight at all of the rigged economy, international banking cartels, free trade stuff that Clinton is so weak on.
I think the accusation is that there were no speeches. The money was just donations for favors to be named later. I personally don’t care anymore. I’m trying re-wire my brain and move on. Ive decided i want to see the GOP pay for the last 8 years (and really last 30 years) more than anything else… the bonus will be that much of what I want to see done policy-wise can be a part of that ‘making the GOP pay’
Jason, as soon as Obama can get fully behind Clinton (needs to seem impartial) the conversation will change. You know as well as I do that everyone who voted for Obama in 12 will fall in line again this year…. sure Trump might turn out more Klansmen who have felt disenfranchised, but for every one of them, he makes 2 new Latino voters who, rightfully, see a Trump presidency as a direct threat to their lives.
Ben, I get that. Trump will still be able to mount an effective populist campaign against our decidedly and stridently anti-populist candidate.
Here’s one Goldman Speech.
And the money was for speeches given after she left the State Department. Because you aren’t supposed to collect money for speeches while you are in Congress or an appointed govt employee.
“anti-populist candidate.”
I just posted that weakness on the other thread. It’s a real weakness. Populism appeals to the hopes and fears (remember hope and change?) of the general population. That’s not Clinton.
She does wonky competence (“Lowering the biologic exclusivity period from 12 to 7 years.”) Huh!? Imagine a rally of the people and a banner with that on it)!
Should people be paying attention to stuff like that? Yes. Will they? No. That’s why Herbert was selling “A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage” Because people are unsophisticated or just don’t have the energy to delve into the issues.
I don’t know how to mitigate that. We need the competence, but many people want the pretty colors and lights.
You are right. Trump is not going to be a pushover. Especially for a candidate with Clinton’s weaknesses.