4/19/16, 5:45 PM
NY Dems: If XXX is nominee..

Clinton
Definitely vote for: 65%
Probably vote for: 20
Won't vote for: 13

Sanders
Def: 59%
Prob: 21
Won't: 18

Download the Twitter app

This is a primary of the likes, I've never seen. This is the first time that by the time they get to New York in April that everything is still on the table and unresolved. Stand-alone primary is working to our advantage this time because all the focus and attention is on New York state and the issues and the voters that live here and the issues they care about," said Lenihan.

"It does count more than even in the November election because when you think about it, as we're allocating delegates for the selection of the party's candidate, it's done by congressional district, so it's a smaller unit, than it is entirely statewide," said Ralph Mohr, Erie County Republican elections commissioner.

It's driving voter turnout to a potential record.

"By 9:30, over 15 percent of the people already voted, and that's after the booth has only been open for three hours. That's a big turnout," said Lenhian.

"That's much higher than we've experienced even in local primaries, so we're very optimistic," said Mohr.

Lenihan says last fall in the general election, there was only a 24 percent total voter turnout.

Benchmark Politics (@benchmarkpol)

4/19/16, 4:07 PM
Reports of extremely low turnout in West Brooklyn, namely Williamsburg. One of the few areas in NYC pro Sanders. pic.twitter.com/0CSLieGqsM

Benchmark Politics (@benchmarkpol)

4/19/16, 2:13 PM
Albany ward leader tweets about how the most ethnically diverse ward in Albany is seeing sky high turnout twitter.com/juddkrasher/st…

Judd Krasher (@Juddkrasher)

4/19/16, 2:02 PM
@icoggins1 it's the most ethnically diverse ward in the city of #Albany. It's typically a low turnout ward. Not today.

Benchmark Politics (@benchmarkpol)

4/19/16, 2:13 PM
Albany ward leader tweets about how the most ethnically diverse ward in Albany is seeing sky high turnout twitter.com/juddkrasher/st…

Judd Krasher (@Juddkrasher)

4/19/16, 2:02 PM
@icoggins1 it's the most ethnically diverse ward in the city of #Albany. It's typically a low turnout ward. Not today.

Benchmark Politics (@benchmarkpol)

4/19/16, 1:04 PM
MSNBC is reporting massive turnout in Harlem. Definitely a pro-Clinton area. #NYPrimary benchmarkpolitics.com

Benchmark Politics (@benchmarkpol)

4/19/16, 1:06 PM
Bill Clinton GOTV in Harlem, where we have heard has a lot of turnout. twitter.com/ARVsays/status…

MaryAlice Parks (@maryaliceparks)

4/19/16, 11:37 AM
Sanders' camp tells reporters no plane-side pics of him boarding to leave NY for PA. His flight about to take off now #NYPrimary

On Monday, I wrote a piece exploring what I considered an interesting question: Why was it that Bernie Sanders's average campaign contribution had stayed at $27 for months? It was a question I'd seen on Twitter on the not-infrequent occasions in which Sanders brought it up, and it's something that I figured I could answer. So I answered it. The reasons? First, averages involving millions of numbers change slowly. Second, the campaign encourages a $27 donation explicitly (with a button on its fundraising page) and implicitly (by making it a point of pride). And, third, it actually does waver from that point, apparently by decent margins, but the effect is still the same.

Shortly after the piece went live under a headline that highlighted the fact that the $27 isn't constant, I began receiving a steady barrage of negative feedback on social media from Sanders supporters. That by itself isn't uncommon and isn't actually representative of the real world. (I wrote about this in February.) But the tenor and volume of that feedback was unusual — particularly given that the piece was innocuous, as I saw it. It wasn't a fact-check; it was a math lesson. But by the end of the day, I'd received thousands of negative tweets, negative comments on Facebook, and any number of emails — excluding the scores of spam emails I'm getting because someone signed me up for them in bulk. Someone called my editor to complain. Someone else posted my home address on Twitter.

...

And, fourth, there is an obvious willingness by Sanders supporters to assume that institutions of power are out to get them — and to lash out in response. This goes back to the original point. I'm not owed the benefit of the doubt that my goal was not to disparage Sanders's contributions but to explain them. But neither I nor anyone else writing critically about Sanders deserves the sort of response that has been received. No, Twitter isn't life. But irrational fury that leads to abusive behavior isn't the sort of thing that should be ignored.

The people on Twitter who have threatened my life, posted my address and made comments about my wife were responding to Sanders articles.
9:37pm - 18 Apr 16

If you’re *infuriated* because I wrote a story explaining why Sanders’s avg donation is near-but-not-always-at-$27, rethink your priorities.
9:39pm - 18 Apr 16