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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 02, 2024, 05:43:31 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Sanders's path (or lack thereof) to victory (from 538) (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Sanders's path (or lack thereof) to victory (from 538)  (Read 1161 times)
°Leprechaun
tmcusa2
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,253
Uruguay


« on: March 30, 2016, 01:22:58 PM »
« edited: March 30, 2016, 01:35:56 PM by It's not over, not even half way. »

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.
Logged
°Leprechaun
tmcusa2
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,253
Uruguay


« Reply #1 on: March 30, 2016, 02:32:52 PM »
« Edited: March 30, 2016, 07:58:52 PM by It's not over, not even half way. »

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.
Logged
°Leprechaun
tmcusa2
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,253
Uruguay


« Reply #2 on: March 30, 2016, 07:56:52 PM »

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.
Logged
°Leprechaun
tmcusa2
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,253
Uruguay


« Reply #3 on: March 30, 2016, 08:02:03 PM »

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
Logged
°Leprechaun
tmcusa2
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,253
Uruguay


« Reply #4 on: March 30, 2016, 08:08:14 PM »

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.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.02 seconds with 13 queries.