Certainly Bernie's performance in WA/AK/HI was way above projections. Added that his performance in other contests post Mar 1 show the same trends, and adding the early voting data, this article makes a good case.

At any rate, it is some optimism I plan to hang my hat on.

Meanwhile Clinton supporters make claims based on presumptions that are just no longer true.

We'll see, as the Zen Master said.

BTW, a great post of a great article.

It really connects all the dots

I just don't write as well and don't do as good a job of marshaling spefic facts and numbers. I'm I'm very glad that someone else has.

Back when 538 was so totally wrong about what the outcome would be, I knew then that Nate Silver's problem wasn't one of whether or not he polled cell phones or younger voters, but that he just wasn't capturing the change that was occurring. This, from the article, sums it up quite well:

Had Bernie gotten the media attention he deserved, maybe. But we are actively involved in our politics and being informed. So many, many people are not. As much as my fingers are crossed and crossed again, I have my doubts. So hoping I'm wrong.

I'm in WA and caucuses helped because caucuses attract informed and involved voters. Primaries attract people who vote often for name recognition. It pains me to say this and I'm hoping I'm wrong.

I'm watching Kasich on CNN Town Hall - he was way behind but the right has given so many more opportunities for all their candidates to be vetted than the left, he's now catching up I think. Numbers not great I know but with each presentation, he gets stronger. You don't constantly hear the delegate count on the right. The Democrats are being as protective as possible to Hillary.

1) "Momentum" is more important than delegate count.

2) Clinton's wins in the South don't matter.

Plus the article is just wrong. Depending on the final allocation, the post-Super Tuesday delegate gap has barely budged, and may have even expanded Clinton's lead by 10-20 delegates. A tie, when you are that far behind is losing ground, not winning (especially when you take 12 states off the table, including your strongest)

These "Bernie is secretly winning" articles are just embarrassing. I like it better when Dems remember that we are supposed to be the reality-based community.

of the election. In past years most Super-Delegates did not even come into it until the Convention. And this election most Super-Delegates endorsed Hillary while she was the only one running and they considered her inevitable.

Personally I want to get rid of Super-Delegates all together as they use their power to not only override the voters at the convention but also to influence the whole voting process.

Where is that democracy?

Thanks, NWCorona.

... but Sander's trend throughout the primary has been toward greater recognition and support, and it's good to see.