Hillary was able to net 28 out of Mississippi.

So a good night for Bernie is actually a loss.

That's kinda sad.

Reached his delegate target. He needed 67 and Hillary only needed 63 and they both reached their targets. Hillary has overperformed her delegate targets in every state except VT. Bernie only met his target in VT and MI and never exceeded it yet.

...but he's doing a hell of a lot better than HRC or anyone else expected him to. Nothing sad about a guy going from 5% in the polls to actually winning quite a few states.

And his win in MI actually gave me a sigh of relief knowing that if by some miracle he is our nominee we may still be able to defeat Trump. Although personally I believe would beat Bernie. Americans seem to like xenophobia, big walls, and low taxes. Bernie would be painted as a tax raising amnesty lover.

We should all be proud of him.

He's a good guy.

I'll second that!

begin campaigning with her. A clean sweep next Tuesday should get her closer to that call from the White House.

And he's only up by 99 delegates.

Before Woodward and Bernstein publish their articles.

Hot of the press: Debate Recessgate.

Will edit. Thanks for noticing.

By


to favor Hillary early on..... I'll wait a while before I get too bet out of shape

But the debate schedule was. The primary schedule was done back a bit to favor a centrist more like Clinton. DWS had nothing to do with this one at least.

You might be thinking of debate schedule, which all campaigns work on and agree to.

I guess...

The poster is saying that 50 separate state party organizations coalesced around Hillary 2 years ago -- in secrecy -- to develop a plan for her to beat an unknown opponent by gaming the primary schedule.

You must mean the debate schedule, not the primary schedule. Sanders hadn't even announced he was running for president when the primary schedule was made public.

In dozens of threads on DU (most with allcaps and a lot of WOW WOW WOWs) I have read about the "Michigan Miracle."

Look at the numbers: Sanders got 67 delegates, for a net gain of 4.
On that same night in Mississippi Clinton had a net gain of 28.
In Texas alone, she had netted an additional 74 delegates.

I hate to use math to diminish groundless optimism, but reality has a way of doing that.

...he did pull a miracle. Every prediction was that he would lose Michigan by double digits at a minimum and 20+ seemed likely. Nate Silver predicted a 22.5% win for Clinton and said she had more than 99% chance overall to win the state.

But it's also true that Sanders got destroyed in Mississippi and the proportional system means that the "win" in Michigan was pretty much a tie (similar to the Iowa win for Hillary). Adds up to a pretty big delegate loss for Sanders on the evening, though it could have been a heck of a lot worse if you look at all those Michigan polls.

So we'll see. Objectively, I would say the race for a majority of the pledged delegates is too close to call at this point.

I am sure the super delegates will be thrilled with her nine state 450 delegate win in those southern states that we haven't got a chance in hell of getting even 1 electoral vote from. If not, surely those three squeakers in the blue states will make them forget those 9 blue states that other guy soundly beat you in.

Sanders wins tiny, rural, fairly homogenous states or ones with open primaries that allow independents and Republicans to vote.

Hillary wins huge, diverse states whose primaries are closed to only Democrats. She's got a pretty strong winning strategy right now.

...except that taking everything isn't enough. Even if it happens (which I still think is unlikely), he has to win by LARGE margins to offset Clinton's existing delegate balance. Winning MI with 49.8% isn't a sign of a significant voter shift.