2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHere's why last night didn't help Bernie Sanders
Did he win two States? Yes
Did he win more delegates than Clinton? Yes.
So, was it a good night for Sanders? No.
Sanders has to do two things: he needs to collect 2026 delegates (essentially all pledged, because of the limited number of superdelegates he has) AND he needs to erase Clinton's 300 delegate lead.
The problem is that there is a finite number of States and a finite number of delegates left to get to accomplish both goals.
FiveThirtyEight has estimated that, to get to 2026, he needed an average of 58% of all the remaining delegates up for grabs (some estimates I've seen put the percentage at 61%, but let's go with this).
Last night, 131 delegates were available, so Sanders needed a minimum of 74 to stay on track. He got...74. So, he had a good night, right?
No. He didn't have a BAD night, but not having a bad night isn't good enough. Because unless you believe that he'll win every remaining State BY 58%, then he needs to bank extra delegates for States where he loses or comes in below 58%. Will he exceed 58% in some States? Of course, but a number of them are small States (MT, ND, SD, AK, WY) which won't have a lot of delegates in play. He has two large States coming up where he'll probably exceed the minimum: Washington (101) and Wisconsin (86). The problem is that next month he's got three States where he's likely to lose, and definitely likely to miss the 58% mark. Pennsylvania alone (189) will offset WA and WI, and then there's New York (247) and Maryland (95), as well as likely Connecticut (55) and Rhode Island (24). And then of course, there's the biggie: California (475). There's been no indication that Sanders is likely to win CA by 16 points. So he needs every extra delegate NOW if he's going to have a chance. Last night, he didn't get them.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I dunno, that sounds like a win to me.
DavidDvorkin
(19,477 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)anyway, I've figured from the get-go that he was a long shot.
However, given that the DNC is currently headed by someone who allied herself with Sheldon Adelson to send sick people to prison for using medical marijuana, I intend to register my displeasure with where the status quo of the national party sits, philosophically, as loudly as I can from here until November:
and one way I intend to do that is to vote for Bernie Sanders in the primary, even if it is increasingly less likely that he's going to get the nomination.
quickesst
(6,280 posts)... even the diehards realize this. I believe they are holding on to that hope beyond hope that something, something, or something dramatic will happen and everything will fall into place for them. That's just what I think, which of course doesn't mean anything to anybody but me.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)that is NOT all pledged delegates remain fun. That is 57.9%, which is much less than 100%.
Solid Snake1
(95 posts)Its over. Bernie can win by 70% margins in the next 6 states and it doesn't matter at this point. Once Hillary wins by 20 or more points in NY her lead becomes insurmountable.
Gothmog
(145,231 posts)ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Probabilities are not facts. She hasn't won it outright and I have every intention of helping to drag this on as long as she hasnt.