Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread II

[Foolmewunz]

So just let Bernie roll over Hillary in these caucus states with more 70-20 landslides, erasing her lead, while banking on California (50-50), New York, and PA to bail her out? That doesn't sound like a good strategy.

Just how many delegates do the rest of these caucus states have? Couldn't winning the rest of the caucus states by 70-20 wipe out any of Hillary's predicted wins in those three states?

Bernie could take 100% in the remaining caucus states, and if he doesn't do well in the big primary states, he'll still lose by 500.

Remaining Caucus States: Wyoming, Guam, US Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, North Dakota... Total 132 delegates if he takes 100%. He won't, but assume Alaska-like figures if you wish... 80% = 105 Sanders : 27 Hillary.
That's about the lunch-time allocation in New York. His requirement after today may have shifted slightly from needing 2/3 of the delegates remaining, but not by much. When the dust settles, the bottom line is that they need to flat out win, win, win. And WIN BIG in some states with a decent delegate count. So far, that's MI and WA. In fact, Bernie's got more delegates from the accumulated states he's lost in than he does in the winners.

Momentum? It will mean something going into WI. That's an important Dem state and he's been polling well. WY? Who cares? Truly... if I'm a Dem strategist and considering changing my support to Sanders, I don't give a rat's ass how much he swept Idaho and Montana and Oklahoma by. I care about that baker's dozen of states that the party needs to carry to retain the WH. He's won two of those (MI and WA); he's lost in FL, TX, VA, OH, IL, MA. "Yeah, but he was close!"

Close doesn't matter. Wins in red states don't matter. The Dems have about as much chance of taking Utah and Oklahoma as I have of winning Miss America. When the numbers are finalized at the end of today, Clinton's magic number is going to be around 650, I think. That's the number of delegates she needs to pick up of the remaining 2073, but we'll have to wait to see the final allocation of delegates from today. If it's 660 or 670, it's not much of a difference. It's a very small number.

Thread continued from here.

Please keep to the topic, thank you!

Posted By: zooterkin

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Bernie could take 100% in the remaining caucus states, and if he doesn't do well in the big primary states, he'll still lose by 500.

Remaining Caucus States: Wyoming, Guam, US Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, North Dakota... Total 132 delegates if he takes 100%. He won't, but assume Alaska-like figures if you wish... 80% = 105 Sanders : 27 Hillary.That's about the lunch-time allocation in New York. His requirement after today may have shifted slightly from needing 2/3 of the delegates remaining, but not by much. When the dust settles, the bottom line is that they need to flat out win, win, win. And WIN BIG in some states with a decent delegate count. So far, that's MI and WA. In fact, Bernie's got more delegates from the accumulated states he's lost in than he does in the winners.

Momentum? It will mean something going into WI. That's an important Dem state and he's been polling well. WY? Who cares? Truly... if I'm a Dem strategist and considering changing my support to Sanders, I don't give a rat's ass how much he swept Idaho and Montana and Oklahoma by. I care about that baker's dozen of states that the party needs to carry to retain the WH. He's won two of those (MI and WA); he's lost in FL, TX, VA, OH, IL, MA. "Yeah, but he was close!"

Close doesn't matter. Wins in red states don't matter. The Dems have about as much chance of taking Utah and Oklahoma as I have of winning Miss America. When the numbers are finalized at the end of today, Clinton's magic number is going to be around 650, I think. That's the number of delegates she needs to pick up of the remaining 2073, but we'll have to wait to see the final allocation of delegates from today. If it's 660 or 670, it's not much of a difference. It's a very small number.

Thanks for the fact-based injection some participants in this conversation desperately need.

Not that it will slow them down, but it should ....

 

[Manopolus]

Bernie could take 100% in the remaining caucus states, and if he doesn't do well in the big primary states, he'll still lose by 500.

Remaining Caucus States: Wyoming, Guam, US Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, North Dakota... Total 132 delegates if he takes 100%. He won't, but assume Alaska-like figures if you wish... 80% = 105 Sanders : 27 Hillary.
That's about the lunch-time allocation in New York. His requirement after today may have shifted slightly from needing 2/3 of the delegates remaining, but not by much. When the dust settles, the bottom line is that they need to flat out win, win, win. And WIN BIG in some states with a decent delegate count. So far, that's MI and WA. In fact, Bernie's got more delegates from the accumulated states he's lost in than he does in the winners.

Momentum? It will mean something going into WI. That's an important Dem state and he's been polling well. WY? Who cares? Truly... if I'm a Dem strategist and considering changing my support to Sanders, I don't give a rat's ass how much he swept Idaho and Montana and Oklahoma by. I care about that baker's dozen of states that the party needs to carry to retain the WH. He's won two of those (MI and WA); he's lost in FL, TX, VA, OH, IL, MA. "Yeah, but he was close!"

Close doesn't matter. Wins in red states don't matter. The Dems have about as much chance of taking Utah and Oklahoma as I have of winning Miss America. When the numbers are finalized at the end of today, Clinton's magic number is going to be around 650, I think. That's the number of delegates she needs to pick up of the remaining 2073, but we'll have to wait to see the final allocation of delegates from today. If it's 660 or 670, it's not much of a difference. It's a very small number.

Yes, but let's keep in mind that Bernie hasn't lost ALL the primary states either (Umm... NH was a primary, as was Vermont), and the Republican candidates are getting so stupid that some of their party (the halfway rational ones), as well as some independents, will end up in our primaries, instead of their own (when they can). My bet is that they hate Hillary far worse than socialism at this point, particularly if they're honest enough with themselves to realize that Bernie is more Bull Moose than Bolshevik. That's pretty much how they've been trained lately. Bernie's approval rating is far greater than hers among the general population.

California will be key if he is going to have a chance to win. True, he has to stay relevant that long first, but that'll be the one that flips everything on its head if he does manage to stay relevant until then, IMO.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Yes, but let's keep in mind that Bernie hasn't lost ALL the primary states either (Umm... NH was a primary, as was Vermont), and the Republican candidates are getting so stupid that some of their party will end up in our primaries, instead of their own (when they can). My bet is that they hate Hillary far worse than socialism at this point. That's pretty much how they've been trained lately. Bernie's approval rating is far greater than hers among the general population.

California will be key if he is going to have a chance to win. True, he has to make it that long first, but that'll be the one that flips everything on its head if he does manage to stay relevant until then, IMO.

Unless he pulls a massive turn-around in NY/PA/MD/DE, I don't see it going down to CA.

 

[Manopolus]

Unless he pulls a massive turn-around in NY/PA/MD/DE, I don't see it going down to CA.

One thing at a time. Yeah, he has to do better than the polls. He has been doing that most places lately though. It's still very much possible. I won't say it's probable, obviously -- never have.

Also, even Arizona -- the last place he lost -- isn't official yet due to investigations into the process. I'm not sure what's going go down there. I could even see a do-over there if it's as bad as I hear -- assuming it continues long enough to make that decision. I don't suspect that's what'll happen, but you never know.

 

[ddt]

https://scontent-sjc2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/535252_1091497234276663_7651478801868349237_n.png?oh=292158ccca5890b81aea58f76d3c8912&oe=574AEAFC

Edited by zooterkin: 

Edited for rule 5.

LOL.

Yeah, could you tone down the acrimony and the hyperbole a bit? After the DNC, you need to stand united behind the chosen candidate. You have that responsibility to the rest of the world. If the Democrats lose this presidential election, we end up with either a POTUS who thinks that pushing the button brings in the Second Coming of Christ, or one who thinks it'll be nice fireworks for the opening of his next resort.

So pretty please?

 

[NoahFence]

81% in Alaska. I know it's Alaska... but 81%? Wow.

 

[Manopolus]

Hawaii -- Bernie winning at a little over 70% with 88% of precincts reporting.

 

[wareyin]

According to the Googles, this morning Clinton has 1712 delegates, Sanders has 1004 delegates. There are 2049 delegates remaining, of which Clinton needs 33% (671) to Sanders needing 67% (1379). So, kudos to Sanders for 3 wins, and finally topping 1000 delegates, but that 67% is still a virtually impossible mark to hit.

 

[varwoche]

A brief summary of the reasons we should supposedly dismiss Nate Silver, according to wisdom eminating from deep inside the Bernie bubble:

1. Silver is establishment, conservative light. (And if you cite Silver, you too are establishment, conservative light). Courtesy of Trakar.

2. Because Silver himself isn't a pollster, but rather he performs analysis based on polling results, that means he's a "hack", track record be damned. Courtesy of Manopolus.

I invite you both to reconsider this self-serving nonsense.

 

[Beeyon]

I care about that baker's dozen of states that the party needs to carry to retain the WH. He's won two of those (MI and WA); he's lost in FL, TX, VA, OH, IL, MA. ...

... Wins in red states don't matter. ....

Wins in red states don't matter, unless Hillary wins them?

 

[lobosrul]

According to the Googles, this morning Clinton has 1712 delegates, Sanders has 1004 delegates. There are 2049 delegates remaining, of which Clinton needs 33% (671) to Sanders needing 67% (1379). So, kudos to Sanders for 3 wins, and finally topping 1000 delegates, but that 67% is still a virtually impossible mark to hit.

That's counting unpledged delegates though.

 

[wareyin]

That's counting unpledged delegates though.

Yes, it is. Why wouldn't it?

eta: I'm asking for a different reason than the typical Sanders supporter line of 'because it makes my candidate look better to not count them, and maybe they'll all change their minds and vote against the popular vote, anyway'

 

[lobosrul]

Yes, it is. Why wouldn't it?

They can change their mind any time they want. A theory is they won't go against the pledged delegates, which would in effect disenfranchise the voters. The we'll see. I still think Bernie's chance of getting a majority on pledged delegates is a longshot BTW.

 

[wareyin]

They can change their mind any time they want. A theory is they won't go against the pledged delegates, which would in effect disenfranchise the voters. The we'll see. I still think Bernie's chance of getting a majority on pledged delegates is a longshot BTW.

They can change their mind in theory. Is there any reason to believe they will?

I count the supers who have endorsed Sanders, as well as those who have endorsed Clinton. As does the Associated Press, and Google, and Cook Political, among many others. If those Supers change their endorsements, the numbers will change then.

 

[lobosrul]

They can change their mind in theory. Is there any reason to believe they will?

I count the supers who have endorsed Sanders, as well as those who have endorsed Clinton. As does the Associated Press, and Google, and Cook Political, among many others. If those Supers change their endorsements, the numbers will change then.

Well some changed their mind from HRC to Obama in '08.

 

[wareyin]

Well some changed their mind from HRC to Obama in '08.

This is true, and it would indicate a few supers changing their minds from Sanders to Clinton this time around, but until they do so, I'll keep counting them for him.

Remember that in '08, Obama and Clinton's race was much closer than Clinton and Sanders this year, among pledged and super delegates.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is true, and it would indicate a few supers changing their minds from Sanders to Clinton this time around, but until they do so, I'll keep counting them for him.

Remember that in '08, Obama and Clinton's race was much closer than Clinton and Sanders this year, among pledged and super delegates.

And superdelegates switched earlier on, another reminder Sanders isn't Obama.

 

[Peter May]

And superdelegates switched earlier on, another reminder Sanders isn't Obama.

From the way Bearnie looks is he going to make it to the starting line?

 

[Travis]

Interestingly my little Mad Max dystopia town has way more Sanders signs and bumper stickers everywhere than any other candidate and this is a town that hasn't voted Democrat since Truman.