If Sanders goes 7-1 between now and California, what is the media reaction?

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Here's the layout: There are 8 contests between now and June 7. While Clinton has a chance in 6 of them, it's completely plausible that she only wins 1 - this would involve Sanders winning IN, WV, KY, OR, and the WA beauty contest along with the hard-to-predict territories of Guam and the Virgin Islands. Clinton would win only in latino-dominated Puerto Rico. I've tried to guess at the margins, and assuming that OR/WV are the only states where someone gets 60%, it looks like Sanders nets somewhere between 25 and 40 delegates (A lot will depend on whether he's winning Oregon 60-40, 65-35, or 70-30). So it won't meaningfully change the delegate math. But how will the media take it? Will they leech on to his likely comeback-broadcasting "I'm 4 for 4", "I'm 6 for 6", "I'm 7 for 8" narrative like they more or less did between AZ and NY? Or will they cast it away as just a set of rogue states?

[Nichlemn]

I think you'll see all those reactions, depending on how broadly you define "the media". A few delusional Bernie supporters will get some airtime saying "MUH MOMENTUM" and they won't be entirely dismissed as kooks by CNN and the like, but the consensus will cluster around #2.

[angus]

I reckon it would be the second option.  I don't notice the majority of writers (Chris Ciliza of WaPo and a few others excepted) playing favorites in the Democrat primaries the way they're doing it in the GOP primaries.  All the major dailies make no excuses when excoriating The Donald and his supporters, but between Clinton and Sanders, they do seem to be reporting on the straight. 

[Kingpoleon]

#2 means the media would have to be telling the truth...

[Crumpets]

NOTA:

"Are Democrats second-guessing Hillary Clinton already?"
"Bad sign of things to come?"
"How a socialist who has already basically dropped out is still giving Clinton a run for her money"
"Delegates questioning Clinton electability"

And of course from TYT:
"WHAT IF CONNECTICUT WAS THE LAST STATE HILLARY WON?!?!?!? #WHISPEROFADREAM"

[Xing]

Probably option 2. "It's impressive, but the math is still impossible." I definitely don't see Sanders winning Guam or the Virgin Islands, though.

[HAnnA MArin County]

Typical media reaction: "she has work to do if she's still losing to Bernie Sanders at this stage in the race. How remarkable of him to continue winning states even though everyone tells him that the race is over! Look at how far he's come!" Blah blah blah. A very different tune from 2008 when they trashed the states that Hillary won as dumb racist rednecks and how her victories didn't mean a thing since she was so behind in the delegate count and all she was doing was bruising Obama and helping McCain. How the media has been able to get away with this double standard without anyone calling them out on it baffles me.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

"Didn't Bernie concede? Oh well, what's Trump up to?"

[Famous Mortimer]

They would cover it as a comeback and rightly so.

As it stands though, he has no chance of winning Indiana or Kentucky. Let alone the 90% Black Virgin Islands.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

They would cover it as a comeback and rightly so.

As it stands though, he has no chance of winning Indiana or Kentucky. Let alone the 90% Black Virgin Islands.

Why are you so confident about Indiana and Kentucky?

With the non-PR territories, I just feel like they're so divorced from america as a whole that it's quite brave to predict anything about what they'll do.

[Orser67]

Hopefully they would be more concerned with delegates than "winning." A bunch of 51-49 wins wouldn't mean much.

[Xing]

They would cover it as a comeback and rightly so.

As it stands though, he has no chance of winning Indiana or Kentucky. Let alone the 90% Black Virgin Islands.

I wouldn't quite say no chance in Kentucky, though it's unlikely. Indiana, though? It's demographically quite similar to Missouri (maybe even a bit better for Sanders), which was a true nail-biter. I would not be confidently predicting Indiana for either candidate at this point.

[IceSpear]

Typical media reaction: "she has work to do if she's still losing to Bernie Sanders at this stage in the race. How remarkable of him to continue winning states even though everyone tells him that the race is over! Look at how far he's come!" Blah blah blah. A very different tune from 2008 when they trashed the states that Hillary won as dumb racist rednecks and how her victories didn't mean a thing since she was so behind in the delegate count and all she was doing was bruising Obama and helping McCain. How the media has been able to get away with this double standard without anyone calling them out on it baffles me.

Not to mention that the only reason she stayed in was because the popular vote and MI/FL delegates were still on the table.

It will be very interesting to see the media's reaction if Bernie wins WV and to compare/contrast it with their reaction when Hillary won it in 2008. Here's some snippets from that:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/21/us/politics/21clinton.html?sq=

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/scarborough-slams-media-for-abusing-clinton-in-08-msnbc-called-entire-states-racist/

Daily Kos: The Most Racist State: West Virginia in the May 13 Primary

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/14/515353/-

Who wants to bet that if Bernie wins, Daily Kos will suddenly see the people of West Virginia as populist working class True Democrat massive freedom fighters?

And of course this video that was passed around the blogosphere showing how racist and ignorant WV voters are: https://youtu.be/ODaxZSz3Awg