IL: Chicago Tribune -- Clinton +42!, Trump +10

[IceSpear]

Well, Bernie won Kansas, so it's still a toss up.

- The Young Turks

[IceSpear]

Well, Bernie won Kansas, so it's still a toss up.

- The Young Turks

Um no they aren't saying that you hack. If this is the result the Democratic party is not winning this November.

Oh really? This is Cenk Uygur's article about how Bernie won Super Tuesday because he won Oklahoma and two caucus states, despite trailing by 200 delegates in the end. He also stated in a video shortly after ST that the race was 50/50.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/why-bernie-sanders-won-su_b_9363416.html

They're the biggest hacks in existence, dumber than Dick Morris, less accurate than Baghdad Bob, and as delusional as the Paulbots in 2012 that were convinced his Virgin Islands win would deliver him the nomination. I'll enjoy seeing their rationalizations and damage control when Hillary becomes presumptive nominee. They should be ashamed of themselves for misleading their impressionable young followers who don't follow the minutiae of elections closely enough to realize what Super Tuesday actually meant.

[IceSpear]

Well, Bernie won Kansas, so it's still a toss up.

- The Young Turks

Um no they aren't saying that you hack. If this is the result the Democratic party is not winning this November.

Oh really? This is Cenk Uygur's article about how Bernie won Super Tuesday because he won Oklahoma and two caucus states, despite trailing by 200 delegates in the end. He also stated in a video shortly after ST that the race was 50/50.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/why-bernie-sanders-won-su_b_9363416.html

They're the biggest hacks in existence, dumber than Dick Morris, less accurate than Baghdad Bob, and as delusional as the Paulbots in 2012 that were convinced his Virgin Islands win would deliver him the nomination. I'll enjoy seeing their rationalizations and damage control when Hillary becomes presumptive nominee. They should be ashamed of themselves for misleading their impressionable young followers who don't follow the minutiae of elections closely enough to realize what Super Tuesday actually meant.

I'm confused by some of your statements. How at all are they "misleading" their audience by telling them facts about Clinton's obvious corruption. If you actually watched they don't believe that Sanders has this wrapped up like you like to frame it. They only say let the voters decide and not to announce that Clinton will win the nomination no question about it like you tend to imply. So actually it is you that is more biased. Clinton will have a very difficult time in the general, no one is going to be very enthused to vote for another Clinton dynasty. A lot of Sanders voters will either stay home or vote for the insane Donald Trump because they are tired of corrupt politicians. Clinton is not guaranteed to win in November at all.

Uh...I think you just changed the subject here. I couldn't care less if they talk about Clinton's "corruption" (lol). They may be entitled to their opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts. I never said that they stated Sanders had it wrapped up, I said they've stated multiple times that it was a toss up/50-50. Which they have. And it most certainly is not. Bernie has an extremely narrow path to the nomination that will likely get slammed shut in the next week. Hillary is at 95% odds in the betting markets, and that's taking into account people who think she could be indicted!

I'm not basing Hillary winning the nomination off fantasy. I'm basing it off facts. She's up ~200 delegates in a 100% proportional system. It doesn't take a mathematician or political science expert to realize that is very close to insurmountable barring extreme circumstances.

The general is irrelevant. We're talking about the primary here. Even if Bernie is more electable, it has no relevance to the fact that he has a negligible chance at winning the nomination.

[IceSpear]

If those Clinton/Sanders numbers hold, Illinois won't be a primary. It'll be a funeral for the Sanders campaign.

The funny thing is that Hillary doesn't even need to dominate in any of these states. Bernie is the one that needs to net delegates here, not her. Why? Because he's already fallen well behind his benchmarks in the totality of the states that have voted so far, and needs to make up ground elsewhere. Even his original benchmarks had him essentially tying in OH/MO, and keeping it within single digits in FL/NC/IL. Which means that his adjusted benchmarks would likely have him winning OH/MO comfortably and making FL/NC/IL razor thin victories.

Really puts things in perspective, doesn't it?

P.S: In Bernie's original benchmarks, he was supposed to win Michigan by 5 points. Which means he'd likely need to win it by double digits now due to his deficit. So good luck with that to the people who will inevitably gloat and declare her to be in DEEP, DEEP TROUBLE if she wins it by "only" single digits.