Sanders's path (or lack thereof) to victory (from 538)

[Crumpets]

538 just published a map of how Sanders would have to do in each of the remaining states to win a majority of pledged delegates. Looks pretty much impossible if you ask me, and that seems to be the conclusion they reach as well.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/its-really-hard-to-get-bernie-sanders-988-more-delegates/?ex_cid=538fb

[The Other Castro]

[Ebsy]

A narrow Sanders win in Wisconsin would be devastating to his chances of reaching a majority of pledged delegates.

[Joe Biden is your president. Deal with it.]

It's dead, Jim

[Xing]

It's not about him winning anymore. It's about getting as many delegates as he can, so that he can influence the Democratic platform.

[°Leprechaun]

I would change this. He is not likely to win New York, and probably not Puerto Rico.
If he were to win all other states according to the chart before June 7, he would have to win CA&NJ by bigger margins.

The chart shows him winning 390 in April, which is not likely, although maybe possible. If he wins a majority of delegates (366 or more) it will be much closer. He would have to really outperform in May & June to get to 2026 if he only gets 366 in April. He could win MD & NY, but it is highly doubtful and he would only eke out really small victories in those two states if he were to win.

[madelka]

Lol, Sanders isn't winning California. Even the White Democrats here are not as pro-Bernie as this forum seems to think.

[Wells]

So, he basically needs to win every remaining state except Maryland, Delaware, and DC. That will not happen. Winning New York, California, and Pennsylvania? Impossible.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

So, he basically needs to win every remaining state except Maryland, Delaware, and DC. That will not happen. Winning New York, California, and Pennsylvania? Impossible.

I understand NY and CA, but why couldn't he win PA? I'm not all that familiar with PA demographics.

[Holmes]

So, he basically needs to win every remaining state except Maryland, Delaware, and DC. That will not happen. Winning New York, California, and Pennsylvania? Impossible.

I understand NY and CA, but why couldn't he win PA? I'm not all that familiar with PA demographics.

It's a closed primary where Philly and its burbs will have a lot of weight on the final numbers, not to mention that due to Clinton's performance in Ohio, it's not crazy to think she'll win Lackawanna, Allegheny and Erie counties. Sanders should win Centre county, and probably most of the rural counties where hardly anyone will vote in a closed Democratic primary, and the south west where the Dixiecrats live. That is assuming they haven't switched to Republicans yet.

[Xing]

So, he basically needs to win every remaining state except Maryland, Delaware, and DC. That will not happen. Winning New York, California, and Pennsylvania? Impossible.

I understand NY and CA, but why couldn't he win PA? I'm not all that familiar with PA demographics.

FWIW, polls give him a much better shot at CA than PA.

[°Leprechaun]

Let's dispel the myth that Clinton necessarily does better in closed primaries. Sanders won Democrat's Abroad, a closed primary. There haven't been that many closed primaries, and they haven't been in solid Democratic states. Clinton's best state, Mississippi, was an open primary.
Just because Clinton has so far outperformed Sanders in closed primaries does not mean that she will in future closed primaries, none of which will be in the south.
(not that caucuses are the same as primaries, but Sanders has done well in closed caucuses)
Let's wait and see, before making any assumptions.

[Erc]

Let's dispel the myth that Clinton necessarily does better in closed primaries. Sanders won Democrat's Abroad, a closed primary. There haven't been that many closed primaries, and they haven't been in sold Democratic states. Clinton's best state, Mississippi, was an open primary.
Just because Clinton has so far outperformed Sanders in closed primaries does not mean that she will in future closed primaries, none of which will be in the south.
(not that caucuses are the same as primaries, but Sanders has done well in closed caucuses)
Let's wait and see, before making any assumptions.

Pretty sure Democrats Abroad tells you pretty much nothing about any primary contests in any of the 50 states.

[Holmes]

Using Democrats Abroad as proof that Sanders can do well in closed primaries..............

The upcoming closed primaries are so bad for Sanders. They're all in the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic, in states with diverse electorates, and/or in states that have a lot of affluent voters. The only two closed primaries remaining that will be favorable to Sanders are Oregon and Kentucky.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Using Democrats Abroad as proof that Sanders can do well in closed primaries..............

Seriously
This might be the single most embarassing thing I've seen posted on this forum this year.

[Shadows]

I would change this. He is not likely to win New York, and probably not Puerto Rico.
If he were to win all other states according to the chart before June 7, he would have to win CA&NJ by bigger margins.

The chart shows him winning 390 in April, which is not likely, although maybe possible. If he wins a majority of delegates (366 or more) it will be much closer. He would have to really outperform in May & June to get to 2026 if he only gets 366 in April. He could win MD & NY, but it is highly doubtful and he would only eke out really small victories in those two states if he were to win.

He will be destroyed by Clinton in MD which has a higher black population than SC!

Anyways at this point it is about getting the maximum delegates to exert maximum influence. It is even more important to project himself as the alternative and not an establishment appointed if Hillary gets a bad result in the email case, which is very much possible!

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

I posted this in the '40% in NY thread,' but I think it's pretty relevant here, so here ya go --
 
"I too think that it would be a bad idea for Bernie to start packing up his things in boxes marked  1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVE, WASHINGTON DC 20500, but I don't really think that that's relevant to the conversation.

First of all -- Sanders basically got into the race because no other prog would. Excepting the time between Feb 9,  8:00 pm eastern and the morning of the NV caucus, wining was never his* plan. I think he mainly wanted to remind everyone that Progs are a growing faction in the party, since Warren wasn't going to contest the nom. 

Second -- there are a LOT of other things you can do at a party convention other than get nominated for President.  Think of this primary campaign as a trojan horse to sneak in 1900-2100 progressive activists into the smoke filled room. Think of those activists demanding strong anti-super PAC, anti free-trade planks in the platform. Think of a speaking schedule with Warren, Ellison, Gabbard, Sanders grabbing the top spots.

There's every reason for him to stay in until the end and grab every delegate he can.

*by his, I of course mean Bernie, Jane Sanders, Devine, Briggs, and the rest of the inner circle"

I think the 'he can't win, so he should drop out' logic is pretty shortsighted.

[Xing]

I posted this in the '40% in NY thread,' but I think it's pretty relevant here, so here ya go --
 
"I too think that it would be a bad idea for Bernie to start packing up his things in boxes marked  1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVE, WASHINGTON DC 20500, but I don't really think that that's relevant to the conversation.

First of all -- Sanders basically got into the race because no other prog would. Excepting the time between Feb 9,  8:00 pm eastern and the morning of the NV caucus, wining was never his* plan. I think he mainly wanted to remind everyone that Progs are a growing faction in the party, since Warren wasn't going to contest the nom. 

Second -- there are a LOT of other things you can do at a party convention other than get nominated for President.  Think of this primary campaign as a trojan horse to sneak in 1900-2100 progressive activists into the smoke filled room. Think of those activists demanding strong anti-super PAC, anti free-trade planks in the platform. Think of a speaking schedule with Warren, Ellison, Gabbard, Sanders grabbing the top spots.

There's every reason for him to stay in until the end and grab every delegate he can.

*by his, I of course mean Bernie, Jane Sanders, Devine, Briggs, and the rest of the inner circle"

I think the 'he can't win, so he should drop out' logic is pretty shortsighted.

This. Bernie was always a longshot for the nomination, and while he may have had times during the campaign where it looked like he had a shot at winning, this was always about more than that.

[Crumpets]

I posted this in the '40% in NY thread,' but I think it's pretty relevant here, so here ya go --
 
"I too think that it would be a bad idea for Bernie to start packing up his things in boxes marked  1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVE, WASHINGTON DC 20500, but I don't really think that that's relevant to the conversation.

First of all -- Sanders basically got into the race because no other prog would. Excepting the time between Feb 9,  8:00 pm eastern and the morning of the NV caucus, wining was never his* plan. I think he mainly wanted to remind everyone that Progs are a growing faction in the party, since Warren wasn't going to contest the nom.  

Second -- there are a LOT of other things you can do at a party convention other than get nominated for President.  Think of this primary campaign as a trojan horse to sneak in 1900-2100 progressive activists into the smoke filled room. Think of those activists demanding strong anti-super PAC, anti free-trade planks in the platform. Think of a speaking schedule with Warren, Ellison, Gabbard, Sanders grabbing the top spots.

There's every reason for him to stay in until the end and grab every delegate he can.

*by his, I of course mean Bernie, Jane Sanders, Devine, Briggs, and the rest of the inner circle"

I think the 'he can't win, so he should drop out' logic is pretty shortsighted.

I don't think anyone's seriously suggesting he needs to drop out this second, just that people should stop acting like you're biased for Hillary if you speculate on her general election performance and not Bernie's. Or not giving someone's opinion a great deal of regard if they start of with "Bernie's still in this! It's not over 'til it's over! It's basically a coin toss!"

[RaphaelDLG]

I posted this in the '40% in NY thread,' but I think it's pretty relevant here, so here ya go --
 
"I too think that it would be a bad idea for Bernie to start packing up his things in boxes marked  1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVE, WASHINGTON DC 20500, but I don't really think that that's relevant to the conversation.

First of all -- Sanders basically got into the race because no other prog would. Excepting the time between Feb 9,  8:00 pm eastern and the morning of the NV caucus, wining was never his* plan. I think he mainly wanted to remind everyone that Progs are a growing faction in the party, since Warren wasn't going to contest the nom.  

Second -- there are a LOT of other things you can do at a party convention other than get nominated for President.  Think of this primary campaign as a trojan horse to sneak in 1900-2100 progressive activists into the smoke filled room. Think of those activists demanding strong anti-super PAC, anti free-trade planks in the platform. Think of a speaking schedule with Warren, Ellison, Gabbard, Sanders grabbing the top spots.

There's every reason for him to stay in until the end and grab every delegate he can.

*by his, I of course mean Bernie, Jane Sanders, Devine, Briggs, and the rest of the inner circle"

I think the 'he can't win, so he should drop out' logic is pretty shortsighted.

I don't think anyone's seriously suggesting he needs to drop out this second, just that people should stop acting like you're biased for Hillary if you speculate on her general election performance and not Bernie's. Or not giving someone's opinion a great deal of regard if they start of with "Bernie's still in this! It's not over 'til it's over! It's basically a coin toss!"

Yes, I think we can agree on that!

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

I don't think anyone's seriously suggesting he needs to drop out this second, just that people should stop acting like you're biased for Hillary if you speculate on her general election performance and not Bernie's. Or not giving someone's opinion a great deal of regard if they start of with "Bernie's still in this! It's not over 'til it's over! It's basically a coin toss!"

Okay fair, but he's/Bernieland's got plenty of reasons to be in the race 'til the Convention (and, indeed, to insist that he can win).

Also, he *could * still win. Who the heck knows. I don't think it reflects Clinton bias to be pessimistic about his chances though

[°Leprechaun]

Using Democrats Abroad as proof that Sanders can do well in closed primaries..............

Seriously
This might be the single most embarassing thing I've seen posted on this forum this year.

I was just stating a fact. You are obviously taking it out of context. I was just merely stating that the only closed primaries Clinton has won are in the south, and included that. It is a fact. Deal with. I wasn't using it as "proof", Duh! Clinton did win Arizona, which is technically in the south, but more important a Republican state; that was my only point. Get your facts straight, dude.

[°Leprechaun]

Using Democrats Abroad as proof that Sanders can do well in closed primaries..............

Seriously
This might be the single most embarassing thing I've seen posted on this forum this year.

This is the guy who said that there is zero chance that the GOP would win in 2016.

Now I feel signficantly more optimistic about Republican chances this fall lol.

We shall see. The joke will be on you. haha

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Clinton did win Arizona, which is technically in the south, but more important a Republican state.

This "Clinton only wins safe R states" mantra needs to stop. She won Ohio, Massachusetts, Illinois, Virginia, Nevada, Florida, and Iowa, and is likely to win NY/PA/MD/DE.

[°Leprechaun]

Clinton did win Arizona, which is technically in the south, but more important a Republican state.

This "Clinton only wins safe R states" mantra needs to stop. She won Ohio, Massachusetts, Illinois, Virginia, Nevada, Florida, and Iowa, and is likely to win NY/PA/MD/DE.

That's not what I was talking about. I was talking about closed primaries.