Yesterday less than 300,000 people voted. In 2008 almost 2,000,000 people voted in NY alone.

[onehandle]

Hillary is 28% ahead in Bernie's home state.

See: Math

[Gomez163]

1. The Bernie camp is better at exaggerating small victories.

[MadBadger]

2. 230K voted in Washington

Though I get what you are saying

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. Are you sure?

I thought 200,000 people voted in Washington. Is that incorrect?

[MadBadger]

4. Mixing up delegates with voters

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. The 230,000 is a good estimate but the problem is we don't know the exact number.

[MadBadger]

14. Got the number from the Democratic Party of Washington

I do agree though. We should know voters as well as delegates

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. Thank you... I knew the OP's numbers were way off...

But, hey, we all make mistakes...And I don't believe it was intentional.

[roguevalley]

40. so ... there are more people to vote in New York than Washingon and the other two states which means

what? There is no guarantee that the people of new york will vote for the carpetbagger. This election cycle should tell everyone that.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

57. Where does the junior senator from Vermont hail from?

Thank you in advance.

BTW, he loved New York so much he moved to Vermont. Great career move, though.

[ljm2002]

44. "But hey, we all make mistakes."

Sure. But if one is going to include snarky remarks in one's posts such as:

"See: Math"

Then one should get one's numbers right -- or expect a few barbs in return IMO.

[onehandle]

16. Typed the wrong first digit. Fixed it.

Millions will be voting in closed Democratic primaries in April.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. No problem...They just looked odd...

[ljm2002]

45. Yeah that "math" stuff can be tricky... n/t

[Live Bait]

5. New York is not just NYC

Upstate NY doesn't even like Clinton at all.

I see many Bernie signs, but not Clinton signs.

Now, shoo, before you look silly.

[MadBadger]

10. Cuz signs=voters

I drive down a major road I see tons of signs planted in the divider where nobody lives.

[hrmjustin]

17. NYC turns the rest of the state into a pumpkin on election night.

[MadBadger]

23. Yea, NYC represented more than 50% of the vote in the 08' primary.

[hrmjustin]

25. Yep!

[Bluenorthwest]

28. But its' a proportional pumpkin.

Not a winner take all pumpkin.

[hrmjustin]

29. True but Hillary will wipe out most or all of Sanders gains from this weekend.

[Bluenorthwest]

33. If she does far better than 08, but it's 291 delegates she got 57% in 08, 165 for her, 116 for him..

That does not wipe out today's gains, it adds to them.

[hrmjustin]

36. It adds to her gains.

I think she may break 65% here.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. I think you look

Now, shoo, before you look silly.

I think you look silly issuing unenforceable ultimatums on the internet, am I right?

[onehandle]

21. I forgot that NY is being cut up into two mini-states.

Not.

[SidDithers]

24. ...

Sid

[hrmjustin]

26. You are awarebthat the majority of Democratic voters in our state are in the south of the state?

[JackRiddler]

49. NYC is also not the NYC Clintonistas imagine.

We may well be ready to put an end to her carpetbaggery.

Hard to believe after the long series of results showing up the polls that they're still trying to sell any and every poll, especially weeks in advance of a primary vote.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

6. OK, I went to "see Math". Math says your numbers are wrong.

[WhiteTara]

7. I thought Bernie won Vermont.

I'm confused about your post. Thanks

[bkkyosemite]

9. Bernie is from NY

[MadBadger]

12. "Hillary could barely win her birth state of Illinois."

Works both ways.

[Major Hogwash]

22. He did, she got a big fat goose egg in delegates in Vermont.

She probably then promptly turned around and fried it!!

[Fuddnik]

8. And 1,999,995 voted against Hillary.

[onehandle]

18. 1,068,496 voted for Hillary.

[hrmjustin]

20. Hillary will win NYC big and the surrounding suburbs.

[cherokeeprogressive]

27. If most of those people voted for Bernie Sanders... Hillary's in a pinch.

She doesn't seem to inspire many people.

[LuvLoogie]

30. Just 2.5 million more people than Bernie so far.

[cherokeeprogressive]

34. And to hear Clinton supporters tell it... most of them black women.

Careful you don't run out of those.

[LuvLoogie]

41. Nice, craptastic response.

Feel the self immolation

[Gwhittey]

54. No no 2.5 million more people that where counted and recorded

Many Many states do not keep the individual vote. Most of the caucus do not pass on the votes of each voter but the vote of precinct delegates. That is why so many Hillary supporters where silly and posted about how only 26K people voted in WA. Math only works when you are smart enough to understand what the numbers mean.

Bobby has 5 apples and buys 2 oranges the answer how many apples does Bobby have is not 7.

[LuvLoogie]

59. There are only a few states that haven't reported popularly vote totals so far

I was commenting on the supposed lack of enthusiasm for Hillary. So I am offering empirical evidence that shows Hillary voters have so far been more enthusiastic given the votes tallied. If a Bernie voter wants to slam enthusiasm for Hillary, real numbers undermine that assertion.

I suppose you could show me the non-popular-vote-reporting caucus states that Bernie won and claim that he won those states by 2.5 million people or more. Most would think such a claim dubious.

[Bluenorthwest]

31. NY Democratic Primary had 1,862,445 votes in total. Hillary got 57.37%. Interesting story from then:

Count All the Votes!
February 19, 2008
"It's like the Florida recount, but in Harlem.

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was shortchanged hundreds of votes in several largely African American precincts in New York City, the New York Post reports.

Eighty election districts in New York City didn't record a single vote for Obama. Thousands for Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and hundreds for former No. Carolina Sen. John Edwards, somehow did.

As the New York Times reports, in one largely black district in Brooklyn, the initial tally was 118 to 0, a Clinton sweep. A review showed the actual result was 118 for Clinton, 116 to Obama."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/count-all-the-v.html

[TheDormouse]

37. Wow--I had forgotten all about that!

thanks for the history, and the link!

[hrmjustin]

46. We no longer use the lever machines in NY.

[Bluenorthwest]

47. Well that's certainly good. What are you using?

We do pen and paper.

[hrmjustin]

48. We have a paper ballot we fill out and put it in a electronic counting machines.

[JackRiddler]

50. Which then swallow them and goodbye.

Lots of paper that won't ever be counted.

Theoretically better than all-electronic I suppose.

[hrmjustin]

52. I think they count them.

[JackRiddler]

55. You think?

Can we find a link?

[hrmjustin]

56. No. It would be accurate to say it is a hope.

[Surya Gayatri]

32. YEEESSSS!

[Lorien]

35. Caucus States vs. ballot voting

but tell yourself whatever you need to to keep cheering for the bloodthirsty neocon.

[mhatrw]

38. Voters <> state delegates

See: Logic

[Dem2]

39. This is why states don't all have primaries at the same time

Different areas can exhibit their regional politics and get abundant media coverage.

[Lucinda]

42. KNR Thank you!

[ljm2002]

43. In February Bernie had 4% support nationally; now he has 45% or more...

...see: momentum, math.

[JackRiddler]

51. What is the benefit to the Clinton camp of this voter suppression strategy?

Hey, if she's a million miles ahead according to all these junk polls that almost always turn out WRONG, whose vote do you think that's likelier to suppress? (Hint: Not Sanders').

[azmom]

53. Passive aggressive much

[Number23]

58. So is the 300,000 number in your OP now correct? And that is across three different states??!!

761,000 voted in the state of Georgia alone.

300,000 across three states is fucking ridiculous.