Hillary Town Hall

Hillary Clinton is doing a town hall with Rachel Maddow. I don't think it's live, but it had to be filmed since yesterday, since they are discussing the Cruz-Kasich alliance.

Hillary sounds very confident. She reminds Rachel a few times she is 2.7 million votes ahead.

She doesn't sound worried about Sanders, or whether he tells his supporters to support her.

She emphasizes her support for the Democratic party. She is raising money for Democrats down ticket.

Maddow keeps trying to get her to acknowledge Sanders' permanent mark on the Democratic party. She won't say he changed the party. Instead she says how important it is to support Democrats. And for Democrats to increase their turnout at midterm elections, not just presidential elections.

< Cruz and Kasich Deal Already Fraying | Big Night for Trump: Takes All Five States >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Bernie seemed out of gas... (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by magster on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 01:01:43 AM EST
    ... here's hoping to a Hillary thumping tomorrow that will prompt a campaign suspension. Bernie's surrogates are out of control and I'm ready for the general election.

    I thought Mrs. Clinton did quite well. (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 03:32:24 AM EST
    Let's hope Sen. Sanders does the right thing tomorrow night and suspends campaigning.

    Bernie, on "Morning Joe" (none / 0) (#5)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 07:45:52 AM EST
    Just floated the idea of Elizabeth Warren as his running mate.

    Can you say, "Hail Mary"?


    Tone deaf (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 08:05:04 AM EST
    more likely. What voting group would she bring that he doesn't have already?

    How can anyone assess Sanders' (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 05:20:10 AM EST
    or even Clintons permanent mark on the Democratic Party at this point in time? it is just begging for ego stroking.

    I am tired of the primaries too... (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Cashmere on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 07:12:34 AM EST
    I have really gotten to the point where I can barely tolerate Bernie Sanders and especially Weaver, Devine, and his surrogates.  I'm sure I will go back to tolerating Bernie once this is over.  I thought Hillary was on fire last night.  I'm pleased that she's standing up re: Bernie's talk of controlling the democratic platform.  Bernie's current talk about his role in supporting the eventual nominee, and how it is Hillary's responsibility to bring his voters in to vote Democratic (POTUS and down ticket) I find infuriating.  Especially after what Hillary did in 2008.

    Sen. Sanders' comments proved what i'd (none / 0) (#76)
    by cpinva on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 08:17:35 AM EST
    suspected all along, his whole campaign was more about his ego, than about identifying the problems this country faces, and articulating clear solutions. had it not been, he would have strongly urged his followers to support the democratic nominee, regardless of who it is.

    Sen. Sanders has made it a point, for his entire time in public office, to not self-identify as a democrat, until this past summer. he opportunistically registered as a democrat, so he would have a built-in support system, should he win. it didn't work, and i'll bet money, as soon as he suspends his campaign, he'll re-register as an independent.

    I hope Sen. Sanders stops his campaign soon, because I too am getting tired of his (seemingly) out of control staff and supporters saying asinine things, and creating more problems than they're fixing.


    Good for her! (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by Nemi on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 08:00:42 AM EST
    Hillary Clinton on the primary 2008:

    "We got to the end in June and I did not put down conditions. I didn't say, `You know what, if Sen. Obama does W, Y, and Z maybe I'll support him," Clinton told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow. "I said I am supporting Sen. Obama."

    Clinton declined to call on Sanders to drop out if the primaries end and he is still trailing her in pledged delegates. However, Clinton said she spent "an enormous amount of time" convincing her supporters they should support Obama after she ended her first presidential campaign in June 2008.

    "I hope that we will see the same this year," she added.

    And I hope she will keep on emphasizing this!

    Turnout looked strong this morning (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Peter G on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 11:41:56 AM EST
    as I voted in the PA primary. Had to vote for 14 delegates by name (7 male & 7 female) in addition to presidential preference, and in the 3-way race for US Senate nominee, 4-way race for US Representative, 4-way race for state Atty General. An exhausting process, to vote! And a sign of an energized Democratic Party, it seemed to me.

    agreed. (none / 0) (#17)
    by ding7777 on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 12:42:52 PM EST
    the 14 delegates by name was took me awhile

    8 by name (none / 0) (#45)
    by chrisvee on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 07:12:58 PM EST
    On my ballot -- agree it took a bit of time. I was fearful of making an error.

    regarding Clinton (none / 0) (#8)
    by CST on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 09:27:40 AM EST
    getting Sanders people on board:

    "Hillary Clinton would defeat GOP front-runner Donald Trump among young voters by 36 points as 18- to 29-year-olds turn toward the Democratic Party, according to a new poll released Monday."

    That's about what Obama got.  Who needs help from Sanders when you have Trump.

    "Fifty-one percent said they do not support the principle of capitalism, for example, and 16 percent of those surveyed said they identify as socialists."

    Also suggests that young voters are not quite the wide-eyed idealists some would suggest.  Sure, they prefer the more left-wing guy - because they are significantly more left-wing in their politics.  But push comes to shove, they'll take Hillary.

    Sanders may be overplaying his hand. (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by caseyOR on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 09:43:11 AM EST
    And, in the process, undercutting whatever chance he had of influencing the Democratic platform. He says he will not attempt to bring his supporters to Clinton. If he follows through on that I see no reason to even give him a speaking slot at the convention.

    The purpose of the convention in these times is to showcase the winning candidate, promote Party unity and give a bit of a boost to downticket races. I do not see where angry bitter Bernie fits into that program.

    In case anyone is doubting the importance of downtick races- yesterday a federal judge, appointed by George W. Bush, upheld North Carolina's very restrictive voter ID law, thus guaranteeing chaos in November and the disenfranchisement of many many voters.

    All federal judges are appointed by POTUS and confirmed by the Senate. If a Democratic president is to have any chance of getting judicial appointments through Democrats must control the Senate. Downticket races matter.


    Rachel looked (none / 0) (#10)
    by sallywally on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 09:43:18 AM EST
    kind of worried after Hillary wouldn't give credit to Sanders for changing the Party. Also after talking about how she worked to get her supporters to go to Obama. She was a big asset to him from the getgo. I forgot she nominated him at the convention.

    Anyway, Rachel looked sad or worried the rest of the town hall, I thought.

    Maybe she saw the end for Bernie, finally. (none / 0) (#11)
    by sallywally on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 09:46:03 AM EST
    There (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 10:03:55 AM EST
    seems to be a lot of talk about him suspending his campaign after tonight among the chattering classes. Now whether that will happen or not is anybody's guess because frankly the chattering class has been wrong all the time this election season.

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by sallywally on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 10:39:55 AM EST
    Hillary really smacked him with her responses to whether he has changed the party and will work to get his supporters to her. Will he negotiate or refuse to do so or take his marbles home and pout?

    The chatterers have not been right about much (none / 0) (#16)
    by Steve13209 on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 12:10:36 PM EST
    I think he stays in until the convention. He's still pulling in tons of contributions and his supporters want to see him play this out.

    Mrs. Clinton was (none / 0) (#15)
    by KeysDan on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 11:59:55 AM EST
    in top form--engaging, energetic and confident. As always, she had facts at her fingertips, including details of a recent deadly shooting in Philadelphia as part of her gun safety advocacy.

     Senator Sanders may have moved some of her positions more to the left  (as she did Senator Sanders  on some matters, e.g., gun issues). However, in my view, an important impact of the Sanders' campaign was to bolster Mrs. Clinton's campaigning--a transitioning from the rather awkward interview with Terry Gross in NPR's Fresh Air interview of June 2014 to the practiced campaigner who, for example, graciously but firmly corrected Miss Maddow.  

    In case you were counting (none / 0) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 04:18:51 PM EST
    on Samders acting like a democrat

    PHILADELPHIA -- In a fresh indication of the challenges Democrats face unifying the party in the fall, the campaign of Bernie Sanders sent out a fundraising solicitation Tuesday that included a picture of a smiling Hillary Clinton standing next to Republican front-runner Donald Trump at his wedding.

    "Over the past few days, Hillary Clinton's campaign and some of its top supporters have launched an odd new line of attack against people like you who stand with Bernie," said the email signed by Jeff Weaver, Sanders's campaign manager. "They are saying that by continuing to campaign and fight for every vote, for every delegate, that we are helping Donald Trump."

    "They've used language reserved for traitors to our country, saying we are `giving aid and comfort' to Trump," Weaver continued. "They are emailing supporters with the subject line `What Trump loves about Bernie.' Let me be clear, there is one candidate in this Democratic primary who Donald Trump said would make a `great president,' and it's not Bernie Sanders."


    Let's put that in the header: "traitor" (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Towanda on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 04:33:49 PM EST
    so that it won't be overlooked in the tiny typeface.

    Sanders' campaign now is calling Clinton a traitor.

    I had thought that campaign already had hit its low point, its worst.  I was wrong.


    Read that again, you are missing it. (none / 0) (#31)
    by Steve13209 on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 05:03:36 PM EST
    Weaver says the Clinton campaign is describing the Sanders campaign using the term "aiding and abetting the enemy" which Weaver says is language used when describing traitors.

    So he is castigating the Clinton campaign for essentially calling the Sanders campaign traitors for bringing up things that Trump might use in the general.

    Pretty lame of Clinton, actually.


    Yeah, right (none / 0) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 05:06:57 PM EST
    That's why the image of the Clintons and Trump is included.


    You are consistent.  I'll give ya that.  Laughably ridiculous.  But consistent.


    HowdyDoody (none / 0) (#71)
    by Steve13209 on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 10:39:00 PM EST
    What part of:

    They've used language reserved for traitors to our country, saying we are `giving aid and comfort' to Trump," Weaver continued .

    do you not understand? All this cheerleading must be rattling your brain.


    might? (none / 0) (#72)
    by mm on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 06:25:11 AM EST
    bringing up things that Trump might use in the general.

    He's already doing it.  


    Playing (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 04:57:27 PM EST
    the victim. Yes, it seems to be an every day occurrence lately.

    However I found this one so over the top it's almost comical.

    He really sounds desperate for money. I understand Devine is trying to tamp this kind of stuff down.


    Devine (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by FlJoe on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 05:03:25 PM EST
    better tamp this sh**t down quickly if he ever wants another gig. This constant spew of negativity is absolutely out of bounds.

    I think (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 05:08:40 PM EST
    the problem is that he's getting overruled by the rest of them. Of course Devine thought the trip to the Vatican was a mistake and he was right about that. You'd think after that debacle they might start to listen to him. However, I think Bernie has gotten to the point where he believes his own press releases.

    Yes, wasn't it (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by KeysDan on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 07:43:20 PM EST
    odd that the anti-establishment candidate flew off to the Vatican to join a conference and see the Pope, head of a 2,000 year-old establishment.

    This is the kind of thing (none / 0) (#40)
    by sallywally on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 05:47:55 PM EST
    an intelligent reader would easily identify as ridiculous and extremely unlikely to be true.

    The Democratic Party will be united (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 08:30:14 PM EST
    Sanders can either join it or not as he prefers.

    Ugh -- I head this on MSNBC when Jane Sanders (none / 0) (#19)
    by Cashmere on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 04:25:06 PM EST
    was being interviewed.  Apparently there is also a NYT article stating that Bernie will reassess his campaign after today.  Jane Sanders was absolutely defiant about this not being true.  I was only listening, but she sounded very adamant.  I think they will never tone things down.  He seems more and more like a spoiler to me.

    Ugh, indeed, to Jane Sanders (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Towanda on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 04:31:54 PM EST
    also continuing to equivocate on release of their tax returns -- full returns, not the partial return finally released, and full returns for the standard several years' worth -- which her spouse said would be this week.

    The Sanderses now have equivocated for so long on releasing tax returns that I have to join others wondering what they're hiding.  (And even my prior assumption of incompetence -- as in Jane Sanders' actions as a college president, but then, who thinks that they can be a college president with an online PhD?! -- did not speak well for someone seeking to be the country's president.)


    I think there is a lot of incompetence there... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Cashmere on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 04:36:32 PM EST
    I did not realize the PhD was from an online program.  Pardon my distaste for Bernie, Jane, his campaign team and his surrogates.  I have just reached the end of my rope in tolerating their impossible quest.

    She said (none / 0) (#20)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 04:27:28 PM EST
    He will release his tax returns when HRC releases the transcripts.

    Can't imagine what they're hiding, except maybemaybe they invest in companies he has railed against.


    Why pop the magical bubble (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 04:35:26 PM EST
    His fans have inflated?  No point in exposing his feet of clay since he will never be the nominee so his taxes will never be an issue with anyone but democrats.

    At this point it seems like there is no need for (none / 0) (#22)
    by Cashmere on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 04:32:53 PM EST
    any transcripts or taxes to be released.  Of course, Jane Sanders is being silly here as the taxes are expected of candidates, the transcripts are not.  Maybe Jane realizes with the difficulty she had getting the 2014 returns out, the rest of the expected years would be much too time consuming.  Honestly, doesn't it make anyone wonder how inept a Sanders presidency would be if they can't even get their taxes released to the public beyond and before 2014?  It is a simple thing to do.  My thoughts are that there is nothing they are hiding, but that they are just inept.

    Didn't Donald in Hawaii (none / 0) (#32)
    by Steve13209 on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 05:05:12 PM EST
    prove that the NYT was just a rag?

    Well, he certainlby tried. (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 07:57:59 PM EST
    THe NY Times has certainly been a rag ... (none / 0) (#78)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 05:57:48 PM EST
    ... when it comes to its obvious bias against the Clintons over the years. Margaret Sullivan, NY Times' public editor, admitted in July 2015 that her own paper's shoddy coverage of the Clinton email story, which had subsequently required repeated corrections of the record and walk-backs of unsubstantiated allegations and outright misrepresentations, was damaging its reputation.

    Dogs bark, and the caravan passes. (none / 0) (#26)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 04:45:32 PM EST
    What Sanders & Associates, LLC want to do after tonight is entirely up to them. If he wants to be remembered as the left-wing's mirror image of an angry and fuming Pat Buchanan, forever raging against the machine, then so be it. He'll realize soon enough that everyone else is moving on.

    If you think the media (none / 0) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 04:49:24 PM EST
    Will move in as long as he is in the race you haven't been paying attention.   He will be treated as if he has a chance of being the nominee just as he has, and has not had, for months.

    I kinda (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 05:02:57 PM EST
    see the media moving on already with them returning to being TrumpTV.

    However that being said if Hillary doesn't win all 5 states tonight it will be some kind of Bernie comeback I'm sure.


    It doesn't matter (none / 0) (#36)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 05:08:46 PM EST
    If Hillary sweeps tonight.  The media will not, and IMO has not, move on from Samders fluffing.

    It will not.


    But no one believes them anymore (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 08:32:13 PM EST
    They can fluff away, people believe what they can see.

    Rachel Maddw (none / 0) (#65)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 08:35:31 PM EST
    Just said Hillary could lose every remaining contest and still win the nomination.

    Even Cronkite says the war is over.


    Ha! Yes indeed. (none / 0) (#66)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 08:44:59 PM EST
    She is a Rhodes Scholar after all.

    Ruffian I believe it was you (none / 0) (#67)
    by CoralGables on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 08:59:44 PM EST
    a few weeks back not liking people talking about "the math", but it really is all about the math.

    And the math for Sanders going forward looks similar to the chances for Wile E. Coyote


    I just prefer to think of it as voters (none / 0) (#68)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 09:08:22 PM EST
    I'm sure the candidates disagree. 'Oh, well the math just didn't fall my way'.

    I think the candidates see it as voters (none / 0) (#69)
    by CoralGables on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 09:13:25 PM EST
    It's the people behind the scenes that play with their delegate calculators.

    True! (none / 0) (#70)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 09:16:27 PM EST
    Maybe Bernie can land a gig as an (none / 0) (#59)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 08:05:11 PM EST
    angry white guy hosting a radio call in show.

    I'm not talking about the media, Cap'n. (none / 0) (#79)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 06:00:03 PM EST
    Rather, I'm talking about voters themselves.

    I look forward to her response. (none / 0) (#39)
    by sallywally on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 05:37:05 PM EST
    California Dreaming (none / 0) (#34)
    by Steve13209 on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 05:07:02 PM EST
    Please please please California. Give Bernie the win so I can pass the crow.  

    California (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 05:10:56 PM EST
    is 38.5% white. I think Hillary was leading by at least 10 points in the last polling I saw and Hillary won it in 2008. It's not a favorable state. His most favorable states were at the beginning of the primaries for the most part.

    His most favorable state going forward will be... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Cashmere on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 06:06:54 PM EST
    Oregon.  Believe me, I live with it every day!  I have found some closet Hillary supporters however and I am getting more bold!

    True and I think (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 06:35:11 PM EST
    there might be one caucus left.

    According to (none / 0) (#73)
    by Nemi on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 06:45:08 AM EST
    RCP's Dem. delegate count, there are two more caucuses: Guam and Virgin Islands. Both closed.

    Nate has Sanders needing to win Oregon (none / 0) (#43)
    by CoralGables on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 06:59:33 PM EST
    along with needing to win every remaining contest after tonight other than DC where he'll need at least a tie to win the nomination.

    But it isn't just winning, it's the predicted margins he needs which are outlandish. And he'll still need to win over a majority of the superdelegates after that. The needed numbers are rather amazing:

    Indiana - Sanders +28
    West Virginia - Sanders +45
    Oregon - Sanders +61
    Puerto Rico - Sanders +20
    California - Sanders +26


    I like you desperate (none / 0) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 05:11:57 PM EST
    More please.

    Oh, and good luck with that.


    Not. Gonna. Happen. (none / 0) (#64)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 08:32:57 PM EST
    Sanders needs 107% (none / 0) (#74)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 07:58:19 AM EST
    Of all remaining delegates to win.

    You are correct - not gonna happen.

    History is being made - we are seeing the first female nominee for president on a major ticket.  Wow.


    I meant he is not going to win California (none / 0) (#77)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 02:11:34 PM EST
    but especially true of the nomination as a whole.

    I think Bernie might make it somewhat close. (none / 0) (#80)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 06:03:05 PM EST
    But no, it's far more than likely that he's not going to win California.

    Sanders is 809 delegates behind (none / 0) (#81)
    by CoralGables on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 06:22:12 PM EST
    California has 548 delegates. Once California rolls around it's not going to matter either way.

    It will matter a lot! (none / 0) (#82)
    by Steve13209 on Fri Apr 29, 2016 at 08:05:53 AM EST
    if Bernie wins California. This is not all about winning the nomination. It's showing the Party the support that Bernie's policies have. Clinton will surely win the nomination this year, but it may be the last year of old-school thinking if Bernie and his supporters have anything to say about it.

    I (none / 0) (#83)
    by FlJoe on Fri Apr 29, 2016 at 09:31:29 AM EST
    guess you are unaware of the law of diminishing returns. Bernie has been very successful in getting his message across already both with voters and the party leaders (if you don't think Hillary has noticed it you are sadly mistaken). Now that defeat is nigh, instead of trying to move back to the aspirational goals of his early campaign he keeps pointing to the "corruption" of the Democratic party as the prime reason for his failure.

    Any victory in California that is based on this house divided meme is liable to do more harm than good this cycle no matter how it influences the future.


    CNN calls Maryland for Clinton (none / 0) (#44)
    by CoralGables on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 07:06:13 PM EST
    before a single vote is counted

    Not true (none / 0) (#75)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 27, 2016 at 07:59:27 AM EST
    They had early voting.  A couple hundred thousand votes were cast 2 weeks ago, so those were counted.

    Sanders is speaking now. Insisting (none / 0) (#46)
    by caseyOR on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 07:14:52 PM EST
    that polls show he is the one who will beat Trump. Calling on Super delegates to see that he is the one to beat Trump.

    Complaining about closed primaries. It does not seem that Sanders has any intention of moderating his attacks on Clinton. He sounds like a man who still believes he can win the whole thing.

    Annoying... annoying... annoying (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Cashmere on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 07:26:03 PM EST
    Stubborn and sanctimonious!

    I'll consider voting for Sanders (none / 0) (#49)
    by ExPatObserver on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 07:31:01 PM EST
    in the general, if he meets my conditions.
    1. Release his tax returns
    2. Fire Weaver
    3. Change his platform to suit my preference

    oh and
    4) Win  some primaries and then the nomination!

    Speaking to the (none / 0) (#48)
    by sallywally on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 07:29:59 PM EST
    superdelegates before Clinton runs away with the evening.

    Hoe come all the Trump votes (none / 0) (#50)
    by sallywally on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 07:33:34 PM EST
    Are getting counted but not the Dems? He's been declared winner in all five states and no word on anything but Maryland for the Dems.

    They just called Delaware for Hillary (none / 0) (#52)
    by Cashmere on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 07:37:32 PM EST
    They just called Delaware for Hillary.  Likely more of a landslide on the R side.  

    Good. (none / 0) (#53)
    by sallywally on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 07:42:10 PM EST
    Looks like Sanders doing better in PA than polls projected.

    The (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 07:47:45 PM EST
    areas favorable to Hillary are coming in later.

    DE was (none / 0) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 07:46:46 PM EST
    called pretty quick for her.

    Sanders still yelling away... (none / 0) (#51)
    by sallywally on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 07:36:48 PM EST
    half an hour or so now?

    Pennsylvania goes for Hillary! (none / 0) (#57)
    by sallywally on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 07:51:09 PM EST

    How were the polls in CT? (none / 0) (#60)
    by sallywally on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 08:10:47 PM EST

    Clinton +4 (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by CoralGables on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 08:21:31 PM EST