He only needs one state for momentum. And Hillary needs to stop him in both states just to tread water.

He'll win VT, but lose NY, TX, CA, and FL.

all bets are off (except SC) moving forward.

That's different than the original question.

If Sanders wins IA (and I think he can), he can roll up NH, and NV.

I'm not saying that means anything in the context of 2016. Just an interesting historical note. It is possible to lose some big states and still win in the end.

The question is where does Sanders win? VT and then what? Wisconsin if he's lucky?

A lot will depend on how the media reacts to what happens tonight. If a Sanders win is covered the way Obama was covered, it could move the numbers considerably. If he loses tonight and media starts writing his obituary, it will be hard to come back even with a win in NH which media has already portrayed as the expected outcome. The media narrative is much more powerful than a lot of people want to believe. If Obama had lost Iowa in 2008, I don't believe he would have been able to win the nomination. So, I think Sanders needs to win tonight in order to stay competitive.

The party would have circled the wagons around Hillary and it would have been over. There would have been too much pressure to drop out.

If Hillary wins tonight, expect exactly that to happen.

Violated DNC rules. Hillary supporters try to claim those two states as wins for Hillary but no candidate was allowed to campaign there and all candidates were supposed to get their names taken off the ballots.

Obama didn't really lose Texas. He lost the primary and won the caucus. His team put the emphasis on the caucus and not the primary.

He lost NY because it was Hillary's home state. Bernie will lose NY as well for same reason.

Obama lost CA due to early voters who voted before his early state wins. He won the Election Day voters.

Sanders best chance of winning states is going to be - Wisconsin, Vermont, New Hampshire, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska.

Thanks for the reminder. I think you're right about those states. I also think Sanders could exceed expectations in some Appalachian states that Obama had trouble in, partly because of racism. West Virginia for example.

It's a sore spot with FL and MI with Obama supporters because Hillary tried to steal the nomination away from Obama by using delegates from those 2 states.

Thanks for playing Bernie

He has to create more momentum, if he expects to make up the gap in places like SC.

Going into Super Tuesday, he needs at least two wins in order to generate any sort of momentum to possibly compete.

I often hear losing candidates talking about it right before they lose.

That's because "momentum" is always, politically, potential - it is used as a substitute for "sure, we're losing now, but maybe we won't be if this magical thing happens."

and then have a convincing win in NH to gain serious momentum.

Word on the street is he's gaining steam in Nevada; as of a couple weeks ago he was outspending her dramatically on bi-lingual ads there. And there will be a couple weeks to build toward a win there...

...he can't play the expectations game of "an unexpected win" or "doing better than expected". The Iowa race has been too close and the NH race has been too far apart for too long. If he loses Iowa by any amount, then the pressure is on him to win "somewhere", and assuming he wins in NH, the story then will be "where else can he win?"

Especially if he takes Nevada before Super Tuesday.

If it happened to him, you shouldn't be surprised when it happens to Bernie. NY, CA, TX, PA and OH were double-digit spankings, plus he caught a break in MI and FL which didn't count. He won by sweeping the South and putting up huge wins in WI, MN, his home state, VA, MD and in red/purple caucus states around the country, especially out West.

Agreed to not recognize those states' results. That is, until Hillary lost the nomination and tried to cheat her way to a win.

If MI and FL were going to count, Obama would have campaigned there and likely won 1 of the 2 states.

As for losses in other states, Obama didn't lose Texas. His team won the Texas caucus and lost the primary. And he ended up with only 4 less delegates than Hillary. Hillary supporters don't understand that this was a delegate contest and not a popular vote contest.

In California, Obama won with voters that voted the day of the primary. He lost in early voting. Most of the early voters voted before Obama won anything and everyone thought Hillary had the nomination locked down. There was a poll that a large % of those voters regretted their votes for Hillary.

NY was Hillary's home state, of course, he lost it. But, he won way more delegates there than Hillary did in Obama's home state of IL.

Obama also racked up 19 wins in a row and basically had the nomination sewn up by then.

Obama won plenty of big states - Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Minnesota, Louisiana, Wisconsin, Washington, Maryland, and Virginia.

Sanders is likely going to lose CA and other states with early voting just like Obama did last time.

and you're wrong about MI and FL. He would have lost both by substantial margins and he was very fortunate they jumped the gun on their primary date. Where he subsequently lost, he did campaign smartly to minimize the delegate deficits.

The larger point is, given what we saw in 2008, it's hard to see a path to victory for Sanders.

Sanders will declare momentum, Clinton will write NH off as VT's neighbor

But nothing is really isolated, and IF Hillary loses both IA and NH, the focus would all be on Bernie's surprise strength, and questioning Hillary "inevitability."

Think of this conversation in terms of how the media will frame everything so as to maximize advertising revenue.

No one "wins" in Iowa. Regardless of the outcome, both candidates will come away with delegates. In 2008, Obama got 16 but Clinton walked away with 15 and Edwards got 14. No one won or loss there.
Caucus voters are averaged but getting more people there than anyone else is important.
Even in a worse case scenario of a 16/15 or similar split, he will have achieved a serious win. He will be close and still win NH...something 6 months ago they said could not be done. He would have achieved the "impossible".

"If it were easy, any asshole could do it"
Angrychair

caucuses are different so a "win" takes a while. Thanks for a sensible response.

same way the incumbent LBJ's renomination was presumed inevitable in 1968). A close Sanders finish in Iowa coupled with a big win in NH will pull that pillar of 'inevitability' once and for all out from under the Clinton campaign. Maybe then we'll get a battle on the issues. (Not holding my breath, as I fully expect the red-baiting by Hillary's proxies to begin in earnest starting . . . tomorrow.)

in New Hampshire.

Lyndon Johnson won the New Hampshire primary by only ten points in 1968.
Therefore, he withdrew from the race.

It was about the same spread with Edmund Muskie, the "presumed" Democratic nominee of 1972, if I recall correctly. He didn't win New Hampshire big enough, so he withdrew.


Don't look now, but New Hampshire may be a BLOODBATH for Hillary.
NOT just a loss, but perhaps a TOTAL FUCKING HUMILIATION!

There are now some polling indications she may lose it by a 2-to-1 margin.
Any frontrunner who can lose a state she won last time by such a margin, should get out of the race, for the good of the party.

has earned the loyal support of many Democrats. She should stay in so long as the math gives her a chance to win; her supporters deserve no less, nor would I expect Bernie to counsel her any differently.

than we used to, back in the "old days"...

down ballot races, Sanders must go out of his way to respect the many Hillary supporters who believe as strongly in her candidacy as you and I believe in Sanders' vision. He must not only appear to be magnanimous, he must be magnanimous. (Contrast that with the Social Darwinism of a Trump or Cruz-type figure.)

I disagree with Hillary and with most of her supporters. But I respect their right to their opinion and believe it has equal weight with my own. Otherwise, what's the point in having a democratic republic

I can't believe people forgave her for that. She racebaited her way across the country saying appalling things about Obama and non-white voters. Yet, people are clapping and acting like she is worthy of the nomination.

Iowa is a state that is perfect for Sanders to win. It's white and liberal and they have never liked the Clintons. If Sanders can't win here, it makes it impossible to see how he wins in Nevada and South Carolina. So, he'd be going into Super Tuesday down 3 states to 1. That is going to be hard for Sanders to come back from.

However, the unknown is Hillary's email scandal. The news isn't covering it much but with the State Dept's announcement and new investigation + the next set of emails that are going to be dumped right before Super Tuesday (and likely will have more classified emails in them), it could hurt Hillary significantly. But, Sanders is going to have to start talking about the seriousness of the emails. If he just blows it off like he has been, it would be a mistake.

It is nothing. It's clear from Friday's announcement from the State Dept. that this has gotten very serious. Voters should know they are backing a candidate who may have aides getting indicted over handling classified information incorrectly. I think Hillary will skate but that scandal is going to really hurt her general election chances.