Voting strategy on Super Tuesday

[wiggin]

I've got a minor conundrum and I thought some of the political folks here would have some interesting strategies to address it. So, I live in a Super Tuesday state that is polling with a wide margin for Trump and a small margin for Sanders. My priorities are to ensure that neither Trump, Cruz, or Sanders is nominated. I'd prefer a Clinton-Kasich election but will find a Clinton-Rubio election also palatable given the unlikeliness of a Kasich nomination.

My question is how to best use my primary vote to best support my preferred outcome. Some useful information:

1. All delegates are proportionally allocated. There are 91 at stake for the Dems and 42 for the GOP, but remember that GOP delegates are about twice as valuable for the convention.
2. The opinion polls show Trump with ~50% and everyone else in the teens or lower, but polling of GOP primaries in Mass is routinely off because upwards of 2/3 of GOP primary voters are not card-carrying Republicans and may be undercounted in the (sparse) polling. Sanders' lead in polls, while slight, is probably more believable given his geographic proximity, better polling coverage, and his history of progressive politics.

I'm inclined to lean towards taking a GOP ballot just because I don't see an easy way for Sanders to win, especially after Clinton's likely strong showing in southern states on Super Tuesday. That being said, this is one of the 2 or 3 states he has a chance of taking on Super Tuesday, and it could help his narrative a bit by a win... and it doesn't seem likely I can make much of a dent against Trump's (albeit iffy) numbers. In terms of who to vote for, it seems like Kasich is just a wasted vote, just to make a point, while Rubio might legitimately need every delegate were he to get to a contested convention.

What do you think? Is there a way (mathematical or otherwise) to reasonably choose the vote that will maximize the chances of my desired outcome? Polling data is so scarce and spotty that it's very hard to choose a best option.

[Hazir]

I've got a minor conundrum and I thought some of the political folks here would have some interesting strategies to address it. So, I live in a Super Tuesday state that is polling with a wide margin for Trump and a small margin for Sanders. My priorities are to ensure that neither Trump, Cruz, or Sanders is nominated. I'd prefer a Clinton-Kasich election but will find a Clinton-Rubio election also palatable given the unlikeliness of a Kasich nomination.

My question is how to best use my primary vote to best support my preferred outcome. Some useful information:

1. All delegates are proportionally allocated. There are 91 at stake for the Dems and 42 for the GOP, but remember that GOP delegates are about twice as valuable for the convention.
2. The opinion polls show Trump with ~50% and everyone else in the teens or lower, but polling of GOP primaries in Mass is routinely off because upwards of 2/3 of GOP primary voters are not card-carrying Republicans and may be undercounted in the (sparse) polling. Sanders' lead in polls, while slight, is probably more believable given his geographic proximity, better polling coverage, and his history of progressive politics.

I'm inclined to lean towards taking a GOP ballot just because I don't see an easy way for Sanders to win, especially after Clinton's likely strong showing in southern states on Super Tuesday. That being said, this is one of the 2 or 3 states he has a chance of taking on Super Tuesday, and it could help his narrative a bit by a win... and it doesn't seem likely I can make much of a dent against Trump's (albeit iffy) numbers. In terms of who to vote for, it seems like Kasich is just a wasted vote, just to make a point, while Rubio might legitimately need every delegate were he to get to a contested convention.

What do you think? Is there a way (mathematical or otherwise) to reasonably choose the vote that will maximize the chances of my desired outcome? Polling data is so scarce and spotty that it's very hard to choose a best option.

Sorry, but what you call a strategy doesn't make any sense at all.

[wiggin]

How so? I would genuinely like to hear some thoughts.

[Hazir]

Basically what you are telling us is that you don't know who you would want to vote for in the Presidential elections then you move over to a voting strategy that should eliminate the guys you really dislike. Given the situation I think the logical approach would be to let your vote be decided by who you'd like to see as the next President of the USA.

[LittleFuzzy]

I've got a minor conundrum and I thought some of the political folks here would have some interesting strategies to address it. So, I live in a Super Tuesday state that is polling with a wide margin for Trump and a small margin for Sanders. My priorities are to ensure that neither Trump, Cruz, or Sanders is nominated. I'd prefer a Clinton-Kasich election but will find a Clinton-Rubio election also palatable given the unlikeliness of a Kasich nomination.

My question is how to best use my primary vote to best support my preferred outcome. Some useful information:

1. All delegates are proportionally allocated. There are 91 at stake for the Dems and 42 for the GOP, but remember that GOP delegates are about twice as valuable for the convention.
2. The opinion polls show Trump with ~50% and everyone else in the teens or lower, but polling of GOP primaries in Mass is routinely off because upwards of 2/3 of GOP primary voters are not card-carrying Republicans and may be undercounted in the (sparse) polling. Sanders' lead in polls, while slight, is probably more believable given his geographic proximity, better polling coverage, and his history of progressive politics.

I'm inclined to lean towards taking a GOP ballot just because I don't see an easy way for Sanders to win, especially after Clinton's likely strong showing in southern states on Super Tuesday. That being said, this is one of the 2 or 3 states he has a chance of taking on Super Tuesday, and it could help his narrative a bit by a win... and it doesn't seem likely I can make much of a dent against Trump's (albeit iffy) numbers. In terms of who to vote for, it seems like Kasich is just a wasted vote, just to make a point, while Rubio might legitimately need every delegate were he to get to a contested convention.

What do you think? Is there a way (mathematical or otherwise) to reasonably choose the vote that will maximize the chances of my desired outcome? Polling data is so scarce and spotty that it's very hard to choose a best option.

Because you're proportional, you take a GOP ballot and vote for Rubio. If it were winner-take-all you'd take a Dem ballot and vote Hillary to try and keep Bernie from taking the state but since the delegates will still be roughly evenly split between them either way your best bet is to try and flip one of the weightier GOP delegates to Rubio

[Dreadnaught]

Because you're in a proportional delegate state and the Democratic primary has undemocratic superdelegates, it makes sense to take the GOP primary and vote for someone like Rubio or Kasich. Probably Rubio. The chance of a Republican convention battle based on Trump vs. non-Trump delegates seems higher.

Meanwhile, when I search "new york democratic primary" on Google, the first result is "How and when to vote for Bernie Sanders -- voteforbernie.org"

[RandBlade]

From what you've said vote Rubio.

Clinton will almost certainly beat Sanders anyway barring FBI intervention. If the FBI arrest her she's out anyway.
If Kasich is a wasted vote it's pointless except maybe to make a gesture to keep him on life support.
Rubio might count.

Kasich going out is probably the best way to stop Trump and Cruz anyway.

[wiggin]

Basically what you are telling us is that you don't know who you would want to vote for in the Presidential elections then you move over to a voting strategy that should eliminate the guys you really dislike. Given the situation I think the logical approach would be to let your vote be decided by who you'd like to see as the next President of the USA.

I don't really know who I'd like to be President - this early in the election the candidates are intentionally vague about any actual policy proposals, so I'd essentially have to go based on feel, past political history, and how much I like them. That's enough for me to be certain that I have zero interest in the aforementioned three nutjobs from becoming President, but I don't have a great handle on which of Clinton/Rubio/Kasich would be ideal. Furthermore, let us imagine that I did have a favorite. Let's say it's Kasich - do I vote for him even though he has a very low chance of successfully gaining the nomination? Perhaps my vote will enable Trump to gain the nomination and take the election, which IMO is a far worse outcome than most of the alternatives. What if my lack of voting for Clinton or Rubio means a very unsuitable politician gets on the ballot? I'm afraid I don't trust the American electorate enough to believe that a Trump/Cruz/Sanders bid won't be successful in the general, especially if their opponent stumbles in some version of an October surprise.

Hence the term strategy. I am reasonably certain that the US will do fine with either Clinton/Rubio/Kasich as president, even if I will eventually settle on one to support (I don't love any one of them wholeheartedly). But I'm much more concerned about the chance of a nutjob getting in charge.

Because you're proportional, you take a GOP ballot and vote for Rubio. If it were winner-take-all you'd take a Dem ballot and vote Hillary to try and keep Bernie from taking the state but since the delegates will still be roughly evenly split between them either way your best bet is to try and flip one of the weightier GOP delegates to Rubio

Because you're in a proportional delegate state and the Democratic primary has undemocratic superdelegates, it makes sense to take the GOP primary and vote for someone like Rubio or Kasich. Probably Rubio. The chance of a Republican convention battle based on Trump vs. non-Trump delegates seems higher.

Meanwhile, when I search "new york democratic primary" on Google, the first result is "How and when to vote for Bernie Sanders -- voteforbernie.org"

From what you've said vote Rubio.

Clinton will almost certainly beat Sanders anyway barring FBI intervention. If the FBI arrest her she's out anyway.
If Kasich is a wasted vote it's pointless except maybe to make a gesture to keep him on life support.
Rubio might count.

Kasich going out is probably the best way to stop Trump and Cruz anyway.

You've all more or less suggested the same approach, which I had also been leaning towards. My only concern is this: we are all assuming that Sanders has no real chance of beating Clinton. I would say this is a reasonable assumption, but I also assumed he wouldn't have nearly the success he's had in early primaries or polling, either, and he has. He has started to get some serious money, and a real part of the Democratic party's progressive wing supports him. I don't think a Sanders nomination is likely, but I am afraid that discounting it entirely would be unwise. In contrast, the GOP leadership is actively opposed to both the Cruz and Trump candidacies, and I think that will start to tell as money and organization coalesces around Rubio now that Bush/Christie/etc. are out of the running. Current polling would still suggest Trump or Cruz are a bigger threat to the nomination than Sanders, true, but it's still quite early in the primary season - the first big prize of delegates is Super Tuesday and I don't trust poll numbers very far until we actually see the delegate counts.

You are all probably still right, but I'm wondering if there is a way to quantify these risks and hedges to best deploy my vote. I don't want to get too far down the quantitative rabbit hole, of course, but there has to be a way to determine this rather than just following my gut about which vote would be most impactful in achieving my goals.

[Hazir]

I don't really know who I'd like to be President - this early in the election the candidates are intentionally vague about any actual policy proposals, so I'd essentially have to go based on feel, past political history, and how much I like them. That's enough for me to be certain that I have zero interest in the aforementioned three nutjobs from becoming President, but I don't have a great handle on which of Clinton/Rubio/Kasich would be ideal. Furthermore, let us imagine that I did have a favorite. Let's say it's Kasich - do I vote for him even though he has a very low chance of successfully gaining the nomination? Perhaps my vote will enable Trump to gain the nomination and take the election, which IMO is a far worse outcome than most of the alternatives. What if my lack of voting for Clinton or Rubio means a very unsuitable politician gets on the ballot? I'm afraid I don't trust the American electorate enough to believe that a Trump/Cruz/Sanders bid won't be successful in the general, especially if their opponent stumbles in some version of an October surprise.

Hence the term strategy. I am reasonably certain that the US will do fine with either Clinton/Rubio/Kasich as president, even if I will eventually settle on one to support (I don't love any one of them wholeheartedly). But I'm much more concerned about the chance of a nutjob getting in charge.





You've all more or less suggested the same approach, which I had also been leaning towards. My only concern is this: we are all assuming that Sanders has no real chance of beating Clinton. I would say this is a reasonable assumption, but I also assumed he wouldn't have nearly the success he's had in early primaries or polling, either, and he has. He has started to get some serious money, and a real part of the Democratic party's progressive wing supports him. I don't think a Sanders nomination is likely, but I am afraid that discounting it entirely would be unwise. In contrast, the GOP leadership is actively opposed to both the Cruz and Trump candidacies, and I think that will start to tell as money and organization coalesces around Rubio now that Bush/Christie/etc. are out of the running. Current polling would still suggest Trump or Cruz are a bigger threat to the nomination than Sanders, true, but it's still quite early in the primary season - the first big prize of delegates is Super Tuesday and I don't trust poll numbers very far until we actually see the delegate counts.

You are all probably still right, but I'm wondering if there is a way to quantify these risks and hedges to best deploy my vote. I don't want to get too far down the quantitative rabbit hole, of course, but there has to be a way to determine this rather than just following my gut about which vote would be most impactful in achieving my goals.

Eh, isn't your base problem that your 'doubts' are bordering on the disingenuous? You don't know the candidates well enough to have formed an opinion about them? With the two relevant candidates on the Democratic side being a woman who's been in politics for about as long as I have lived and who's been in the national awareness for about as long as I care to remember and the other an outspoken radical who's been around the block a few times as well? With the Republican candidates being who they are we can have few doubts about what they stand for either as long as their name isn't Donald Trump.

Sounds to me like you're agonizing over really liking Sanders, but have resigned already to a Clinton presidency.

[LittleFuzzy]

You've all more or less suggested the same approach, which I had also been leaning towards. My only concern is this: we are all assuming that Sanders has no real chance of beating Clinton. I would say this is a reasonable assumption, but I also assumed he wouldn't have nearly the success he's had in early primaries or polling, either, and he has. He has started to get some serious money, and a real part of the Democratic party's progressive wing supports him. I don't think a Sanders nomination is likely, but I am afraid that discounting it entirely would be unwise. In contrast, the GOP leadership is actively opposed to both the Cruz and Trump candidacies, and I think that will start to tell as money and organization coalesces around Rubio now that Bush/Christie/etc. are out of the running. Current polling would still suggest Trump or Cruz are a bigger threat to the nomination than Sanders, true, but it's still quite early in the primary season - the first big prize of delegates is Super Tuesday and I don't trust poll numbers very far until we actually see the delegate counts.

You are all probably still right, but I'm wondering if there is a way to quantify these risks and hedges to best deploy my vote. I don't want to get too far down the quantitative rabbit hole, of course, but there has to be a way to determine this rather than just following my gut about which vote would be most impactful in achieving my goals.

I'm not actually assuming that Clinton will beat Sanders. It's just that it's not relevant since your state hands out delegates proportionally. Instead I think that since they're going to roughly split the delegates in your state regardless, you should be putting your vote on the delegate with the greatest weight for beating all three of the candidates you don't want in the White House. The individual delegate is heavier in the GOP because there are less of them. The GOP race is more divided so your involvement there will carry more comparative weight regardless of how "large" each delegate is. By acting in the GOP race you're working to exclude two choices you don't like rather than just the one you don't like in the Dem primary. All of the metrics here say you should be voting the GOP ballot except for one: the possibility that nothing is going to stop the Trump campaign to win the nomination. That single metric suggests you vote for Hillary in the hopes you have at least one palatable candidate in the general election, but it also pins everything on beating Trump in the general election where your individual vote will have even less weight than it does in the nomination. It's a strategic vote which minimizes your say rather than maximizes it and that's never a good approach.

[wiggin]

Even on pledged delegates Clinton is winning I believe, but even if the superdelegates are unpledged what reason is there for them to switch to Sanders if they can keep Clinton winning? There is a reason they've already pledged support for Clinton.

I think that the superdelegate vote is at least theoretically subject to change; in some cases (such as the NH superdelegates), there is some public pressure on superdelegates to change their intended vote based on Bernie's good showing in that state. Also, there are only 700-odd superdelegates - they will decide things only if the delegate count is close, and I think there will be a lot of pressure brought to bear on superdelegates to honor the popular vote if this were the case.

The reason I think Clinton is still likely to win has more to do with her likely lead in pledge delegates when the primaries are over, but I'm not 100% confident of that.

(On pledged delegates they are tied BTW, though Clinton is likely to pull ahead on Super Tuesday.)

It will be *awesome* if Sanders won the popular vote and most of the regular delegates and only lost due to the superdelegates. (Very unlikely to happen). That would cause A LOT of bitterness among Democrats and the superdelegate process. And that kind of scenario would likely make some of the super delegates swap over to vote with who the people had wanted to represent their party.

To be fair, the largish number of GOP primaries that go to winner-takes-all states isn't super democratic, either. But I agree that superdelegates are pretty ridiculous. Then again, maybe they help reduce the chances that a Democratic Trump could win the nomination.

I'm not actually assuming that Clinton will beat Sanders. It's just that it's not relevant since your state hands out delegates proportionally. Instead I think that since they're going to roughly split the delegates in your state regardless, you should be putting your vote on the delegate with the greatest weight for beating all three of the candidates you don't want in the White House. The individual delegate is heavier in the GOP because there are less of them. The GOP race is more divided so your involvement there will carry more comparative weight regardless of how "large" each delegate is. By acting in the GOP race you're working to exclude two choices you don't like rather than just the one you don't like in the Dem primary. All of the metrics here say you should be voting the GOP ballot except for one: the possibility that nothing is going to stop the Trump campaign to win the nomination. That single metric suggests you vote for Hillary in the hopes you have at least one palatable candidate in the general election, but it also pins everything on beating Trump in the general election where your individual vote will have even less weight than it does in the nomination. It's a strategic vote which minimizes your say rather than maximizes it and that's never a good approach.

I think your logic is fairly sound, but there are some other considerations:

1. Does winning a big state - even if the delegate count is close - help the Sanders campaign in a PR/'momentum' sense that isn't captured just by delegates? Will it affect later contests?
2. The doomsday scenario you suggest, where Trump is unstoppable, is particularly concerning. A Sanders-Trump election would be highly unpredictable IMO, especially if we also see a Bloomberg run. Unfortunately, my vote in the general is completely irrelevant, as it's highly unlikely the state will break for the GOP one way or the other, irrespective of who is running. So my only chance to affect things is now - and if Sanders is a real threat to the Clinton nomination (and, simultaneously, Trump has a high chance at getting nominated), a vote for Clinton makes a lot of sense.

Your argument about the higher granularity of delegates for the GOP is a great one, though, and I think it's probably the most meaningful. Even without solid forecasts on the chances Rubio and Sanders have for the nomination, having a greater chance of moving the needle in a meaningful way suggests I take a GOP ballot.

[RandBlade]

That makes sense after all doesn't everyone call people they're agonising over supporting a nut job. ...

Regarding Sanders I think numerically it will take a black Swan event for him to win. She has a nearly 500 delegate lead already. I'm currently on holiday in Canada and watched Colbert's new show last night and he made a joke based upon the media coverage about how Clinton had suffered a "devastating victory" while Sanders had another "triumphant defeat". How many more victories could Clinton endure?

Sanders has a mountain to climb and it is getting higher.

[wiggin]

Eh, isn't your base problem that your 'doubts' are bordering on the disingenuous? You don't know the candidates well enough to have formed an opinion about them? With the two relevant candidates on the Democratic side being a woman who's been in politics for about as long as I have lived and who's been in the national awareness for about as long as I care to remember and the other an outspoken radical who's been around the block a few times as well? With the Republican candidates being who they are we can have few doubts about what they stand for either as long as their name isn't Donald Trump.

Sounds to me like you're agonizing over really liking Sanders, but have resigned already to a Clinton presidency.

What about my posts here - or, in fact, my entire posting history - suggests I am interested in voting for Sanders? He's a demagogue with wholly unworkable and counterproductive policies.

As for the rest of your post, I certainly have some idea of how each candidate would govern, yes, but policies change with time. I have no idea how, for example, a 2016 Hillary might differ from a 1993 Hillary on entitlement reform, or healthcare policy, or financial regulation. I have only a limited idea of Rubin's plans, and little sense of Kasich's policies either - one is young enough not to have a long policy record and the other hasn't crafted much policy on a federal level. These things matter.

That makes sense after all doesn't everyone call people they're agonising over supporting a nut job. ...

Regarding Sanders I think numerically it will take a black Swan event for him to win. She has a nearly 500 delegate lead already. I'm currently on holiday in Canada and watched Colbert's new show last night and he made a joke based upon the media coverage about how Clinton had suffered a "devastating victory" while Sanders had another "triumphant defeat". How many more victories could Clinton endure?

Sanders has a mountain to climb and it is getting higher.

Most of those delegates are unpledged, and things can change over a long primary. I am hesitant to write Sanders off just yet - perhaps the pledged delegate count after super Tuesday will help.

[Lewkowski]

Vote Rubio.

[RandBlade]

Even on pledged delegates Clinton is winning I believe, but even if the superdelegates are unpledged what reason is there for them to switch to Sanders if they can keep Clinton winning? There is a reason they've already pledged support for Clinton.

[Lewkowski]

Even on pledged delegates Clinton is winning I believe, but even if the superdelegates are unpledged what reason is there for them to switch to Sanders if they can keep Clinton winning? There is a reason they've already pledged support for Clinton.

It will be *awesome* if Sanders won the popular vote and most of the regular delegates and only lost due to the superdelegates. (Very unlikely to happen). That would cause A LOT of bitterness among Democrats and the superdelegate process. And that kind of scenario would likely make some of the super delegates swap over to vote with who the people had wanted to represent their party.

[Flixy]

What happens to pledged delegates of candidates that drop out?

[wiggin]

What happens to pledged delegates of candidates that drop out?

Generally, they are free to vote for whomever they choose (just as, theoretically, pledged delegates can); in practice, if the candidate who drops out endorses a different candidate, many/all of 'their' pledged delegates may vote for the endorsed candidate.

[wiggin]

Update:

Current polling means my state is almost inevitably going to be won by Trump, but obviously every delegate counts in a proportional allocation state. Unfortunately, the latest polls don't really show Rubio getting much of a bump from recent candidates stepping out - the big winner seems to be Kasich (though he's still polling in third place), with Trump maybe picking up a few points as well. This may have been helped by our local liberal rag, the Boston Globe, explicitly encouraging unaffiliate voters to take a GOP ballot and vote for Kasich to inject an element of sanity into the discussion. Given the polling in other Super Tuesday states it's reasonable to assume that Clinton will get a hefty dose of delegates (though MA may a close one in terms of winning a majority), and 538 thinks she's running slightly better than needed for her pledged delegate count. Similarly, it's clear that Kasich has no hope of the nomination, so Rubio is the best bet for having a decent candidate on the GOP side.

In other interesting news, the MA primary is also an opportunity to vote for the local members of the state and town party committees. Though the Democratic races are generally unopposed (certainly where I live), there's an interesting story going on with the MA GOP committee races. The MA governor (one of he most moderate GOP governors in the US) appears to be trying to take control of the GOP state committee by explicitly endorsing his preferred candidates in nearly every contested race, generally people who have either worked closely with him in the past or currently work as state employees. It's a not-too-subtle attempt to reshape the MA GOP into a much more moderate body, taking on the conservative wing of the party head-on. Given the political makeup of the state, it's long overdue, and has a chance of articulating a platform (and producing candidates) who are more likely to be elected in a general election. Of course, it stinks to high heaven of machine politics and a certain amount of cronyism, but given that his endorsed candidate in my district seems relatively innocuous, while his three opponents are all some variant of foaming at the mouth, it's not a very challenging choice.

[GGT]

Personally, I've never liked "strategy" voting. That's a concept that political parties have marketed on their own behalf, suggesting that a vote for 'the party' is what matters most. Do you become part of the party machinery when you follow their 'strategy'?

I'd rather see people vote their hearts AND minds over any party affiliation, or party loyalty. And I'd love to see the power of the "Independent" as a third party that could change the US political duopoly.

[wiggin]

You do realize that strategic voting does not need to have any relationship to a party affiliation, right? I am unaffiliated with any party and routinely vote for candidates from both main parties. The question is what strategy best achieves my goals in this primary, not how to assure a D or R victory in the general.

[GGT]

You do realize that strategic voting does not need to have any relationship to a party affiliation, right? I am unaffiliated with any party and routinely vote for candidates from both main parties. The question is what strategy best achieves my goals in this primary, not how to assure a D or R victory in the general.

I'm registered Independent, and you're registered "unaffiliated"....but the truth is that our votes won't matter in a process that's dominated by (R) or (D) parties.

If you believe in "strategic voting" then you'd be changing your voter registration in advance of every election, and changing party affiliation.

[wiggin]

What did you end up doing?

As a registered Democrat in NY, I am seriously torn between voting for Bernie or not voting at all.

I went with Rubio, reluctantly. In hindsight I guess I should have gone with Kasich to try to swing one more delegate in his direction. Guess it doesn't matter all that much anyways - Kasich's final delegate count doesn't matter as long as Trump doesn't get an absolute majority.

I'm a bit curious about the 'Bernie or bust' suggestion of yours. Based on your politics I assume you would far prefer a Clinton set of policies than a Sanders one, assuming the R candidate is (as expected) highly unpalatable. I get the argument that Clinton is rather less principled than Sanders, but the final outcome is almost certain to yield more acceptable policies, no? I dread having to choose between, say, a Trump and a Sanders candidacy. A Clinton/Cruz or Clinton/Trump race is far better IMO.

I'm registered Independent, and you're registered "unaffiliated"....but the truth is that our votes won't matter in a process that's dominated by (R) or (D) parties.

If you believe in "strategic voting" then you'd be changing your voter registration in advance of every election, and changing party affiliation.

Uhm, no? My state has an open primary for unaffiliated voters but not for voters who choose a party affiliation. So in fact the best outcome for strategic voting is precisely the opposite of what you suggest.

[Dreadnaught]

What did you end up doing?

As a registered Democrat in NY, I am seriously torn between voting for Bernie or not voting at all.

[Loki]

Seriously? For all of Clinton's flaws, at least she's not a utopian dreamer whose policies would destroy the country if ever implemented.

[Lewkowski]

Seriously? For all of Clinton's flaws, at least she's not a utopian dreamer whose policies would destroy the country if ever implemented.

Yeah but that voice...

[Loki]

If I wanted to hear the most stereotypical Brooklyn accent to ever exist, I'd have stayed in Brooklyn.