2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBernie doesn't need to win every stake by 58%
He just needs to win a landslide here and there. He would probably win a landslide in Oregon Kentucky. Indiana should be very good to him as well. he can cut her lead in half because then we have a Puerto Rico caucus, he should win big there as well.
Bernie may very well win every single state in the West.
Landslides are not rare, we've seen plenty the cycle and there will be more going forward.
This is the 538 lie, they pretend landslides are rare,
But we've seen multiple this cycle alone, once Bernie wins one or two Landslide victories things will get interesting.
UMTerp01
(1,048 posts)Cuz I'm going with the guy (Nate Silver) that does have one
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)nt
UMTerp01
(1,048 posts)Funtatlaguy
(10,878 posts)Trump University?
k8conant
(3,030 posts)or political science?
randome
(34,845 posts)Your odds would be better at flipping a coin and betting it will stand on edge.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]
Csainvestor
(388 posts)OR and KY should be landslides for Bernie. IN is open and Puerto Rico is a caucus.
For those that follow Sports, Nate is trying to pretend he needs to win every single game by 8 points, we all know that's almost impossible, but that isn't what Bernie has to do. Oregon will be a massive victory for him and that will cut her lead. Pretend it's one game with plenty of time left on the clock.
Tarc
(10,476 posts)Sanders does not do well with Latino voters.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)I still don't see Bernie winning there, however.
Tarc
(10,476 posts)Delegate Selection: Proportional Caucus/Convention
Voter Eligibility: Open Primary
k8conant
(3,030 posts)(with weighted results).
LiberalFighter
(50,949 posts)And primaries were held right now. Sanders would still need to get over 56% of the 1,284 delegates remaining
morningfog
(18,115 posts)A landslide in OR, KY and IN would not get him there.
Csainvestor
(388 posts)He should win the rest of the West.
She will have a tiny lead and then it's up to CA
morningfog
(18,115 posts)You have to use numbers to back up your claim or you won't be taken seriously. You've suggested a few states with landslides and that Bernie will do well in the west. Okay. But what numbers and how about Tuesday?
Csainvestor
(388 posts)He will do it with just 4 contests. IN OR KY and Puerto Rico.
120 minimum. He could cut her lead by more than that.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I think you're confusing a studied analysis of the numbers with simple prophecy.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)What percentage in each state?
And that assumes he loses no ground Tuesday.
Csainvestor
(388 posts)These 4 contests will be huge victories for Bernie.
He gained 50 points more than hills in WA alone.
TeacherB87
(249 posts)Yes, Bernie won like 75% to 25% for Hillary in Washington State, but Washington state only has 34 delegates and he only netted 14 from there. Furthermore, Oregon is the only one of those states where Bernie has a clear chance at a landslide. I implore you to show me evidence that proves the contrary. Indiana and Kentucky will not be landslides for Bernie because Hillary has done well in similar states. His best case scenario in both is to break even which doesn't close the delegate gap. Bernie winning Puerto Rico is an even more absurd concept because of his performance with Latinos in most part of the country (it's been piss poor). I would love for Bernie to have beaten her, and I voted for him, but I see no reasons in any of these posts to justify hope that he can still pull it off. No, he doesn't have to win each state by 16%, but he does not have enough landslide-friendly states left to make that not necessary.
Hav
(5,969 posts)LiberalFighter
(50,949 posts)Sanders would need to get over 189 of those 259 delegates to get a 120 delegate advantage. That is over 72% needed.
Indiana is likely not more than 60-40 or net about 17. Recent poll shows Hillary ahead with margin of error just over 4. Sanders might beat Hillary by 1 to 3 points.
That leaves 176 for the 3 states and 103 net delegates needed. Need to win over 139 delegates at this time to net 103 or over 78%.
Sanders would be lucky to tie. Split the difference as a tie and still need 103 with only 121 up for grabs in Oregon and Puerto Rico. 85% from these two elections is not going to happen.
It keeps getting worse.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Csainvestor
(388 posts)Demos heavily favor Bernie in KY. Do your homework.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Maybe you should "do your homework"
As I said while there is a paucity of polling in KY and IN there are models that point to a loss for the Vermont independent in Kentucky and Indiana:
http://www.bing.com/search?q=Election+2016+Primaries&p1=%5BFUI+els%3D%22Primaries%22%5D&FORM=ELHEAD&ajax=ElectionsBPI&axID=28&pIG=0F2124BA3B8F43A7B2F99080BEBD8E98
At this point the Vermont independent is getting his bell rung. It's like watching the wings being pulled off a butterfly.
TeacherB87
(249 posts)Finally someone who is paying attention to facts and not wishful thinking.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)He will have a yuge win in OR, probably 2-1, but is either a push or behind in KY and IN.
TeacherB87
(249 posts)It's kind of demeaning how much my fellow Sandernistas are grasping at straws at this point.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)I follow the data.
My other passion is sports. There are certain teams I am passionate about but reason prevents me from believing they are capable of achieving more than what they are actually capable of achieving.
bjobotts
(9,141 posts)TeacherB87
(249 posts)they can certainly be attacks. Because factual evidence is perceived as an attack by illogical people and conspiracy theorists. If we were talking about a factual vs. factual exposition then no, facts would not be perceived as attacks by anyone involved.
LiberalFighter
(50,949 posts)Especially considering that landslides are not likely to happen in any of those states.
Kentucky is a closed primary I doubt based on current polling will go Sanders.
Indiana is an open primary. The first poll released today shows Hillary ahead but could go either way due to the margin of error.
Oregon is a closed primary. There does not appear to be any data for Oregon yet. Possibly favors Sanders. But not a landslide.
jcgoldie
(11,631 posts)Not very likely for either candidate outside very small caucus states.
firebrand80
(2,760 posts)That Hillary didn't compete in at all
Indiana is likely to be similar to the states around it: IL, OH, WI, MI, MO; not a landslide. Ditto with KY.
Bernie will in all likelihood win Oregon big. But Hillary could cut his margin by spending some money there, but I doubt she'll have to.
I don't know what to think of Puerto Rico, I'm not sure what you're basing your opinion on.
Also, you analysis would assume that he keeps it close on Tuesday. A few of those states might be close, but PA is probably worse for Bernie than OH, and MD is worse for him than PA. I'm thinking conservatively Hillary +10 in OH and +15 in MD.
Don't forget the DC primary is still coming up, which will be Hillary +25 or so.
Csainvestor
(388 posts)You may think Hillary is going to win to the Dakota's and the rest of the West.I doubt it. she's not going to take the rough wild west states this time around.
firebrand80
(2,760 posts)But there aren't enough delegates there for it to make much of a difference. His "7 out of 8 momentum" didn't make a bit of difference because Hillary's AZ win more than compensated for the 7 losses.
TeacherB87
(249 posts)When you say "this time around" it implies that she won these wild west states last time. But she didn't, if I recall correctly she only one one of the Dakotas. She doesn't need to win any of the small-population western states, including Oregon, to beat Sanders. She doesn't even have to win more than 42% of the vote in any of the BIG states remaining but she will win far more than that in several (strong majorities likely in MD, PA, NJ and CA. Where do his delegates come from? The math makes no sense for Bernie at this point. I wish it weren't so, but its the mathematical truth.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)nt
Stuckinthebush
(10,845 posts)Let's say he gets ALL of the votes from KY, IN, and OR (unlikely but let's do it).
And let's say he gets at least half of the votes from other states - I'll even give him the edge on states with odd number of delegates.
Then this is where we stand with pledged delegates only:
[IMG][/IMG]
She will have 2024 and he will have 1955 pledged delegates. Still a 69 point pledged delegate deficit for Sanders.
This doesn't count the unpledged of which Hillary has a massive lead.
It also assumes a break even across all other races and he STILL won't have a majority of pledged.
The math doesn't work.
Csainvestor
(388 posts)My point is this. Her lead will be tiny.
Stuckinthebush
(10,845 posts)While I disagree that her lead will be tiny it doesn't matter.
The supers have thrown their support to her by a 9 to 1 margin and the likelihood of them changing over a tiny Sanders deficit is very small.
He would have to landslide ALL the remaining contests to the point of receiving all of the remaining delegates for that to happen. We all know that won't happen.
It's over.
Csainvestor
(388 posts)He can make a case to supers if her lead is minimal
Stuckinthebush
(10,845 posts)Yes.
1 - If he wins ALL of the delegates in OR, IN and KY
and
2 - If he splits 50/50 the remaining races is all of the other states
and
3 - If he gets 100 more delegates in CA than her
and
4 - If he can convince half of the supers to abandon Hillary for him
Then he wins. OK.
Meanwhile I hope Hillary is preparing for the General Election because that string of necessities is improbable.
firebrand80
(2,760 posts)Stuckinthebush
(10,845 posts)Thanks for that!
brooklynite
(94,596 posts)These are political professionals; they won't be impressed by the "Sanders wins head to head polls" argument that the amateurs here like to trumpet. They won't be impressed by nine months of beating up on Superdelegates. And they won't be impressed by someone who's not doing anything to help the Party financially.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]
Stuckinthebush
(10,845 posts)I'll change it now.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Just has to whittle it down until then.
Stuckinthebush
(10,845 posts)The estimates in the chart above are based on giving him ALL of the delegates in KY, IN and OR which realistically won't happen, AND giving him a 50/50 split in the remaining states which we know won't happen.
The only way to do this is through wishful thinking or a miracle - which won't happen.
I understand the desire to look at the possibilities but the probabilities are against him. Next Tuesday those probabilities get even smaller because he won't split the states on the 26th per the polling.
It's done. Really.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)If so, I will stop posting here for 6 months and work for what I need to work for.
HRC does not represent my concerns for this Nation. She will get nothing from me.
Stuckinthebush
(10,845 posts)But that doesn't change the probabilities.
You will do what you feel is necessary for you. That will entail determining if you wish to support the Dem nominee who will be Hillary, voting GOP, not voting, or writing in a vote.
Your call.
firebrand80
(2,760 posts)There aren't many whittling opportunities left
k8conant
(3,030 posts)I saw an old poll for NM that shows Clinton up, but WV is 60%+ for Sanders. (We vote May 10).
I didn't see any polls for ND, SD and MT.
Stuckinthebush
(10,845 posts)But, again, the projections in that chart show him winning ALL the votes in OR, IN, and KY. That won't happen.
The point is that even with overwhelming wins in some of the remaining states and ties in all the others (which won't happen) he is still behind in the delegate count - pledged and unpledged.
He has run out of road.
firebrand80
(2,760 posts)LiberalFighter
(50,949 posts)How many delegates will they get out of Poland?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Unless he flips the script with the states on Tuesday, he is done.
Csainvestor
(388 posts)And he needs to win big in remaining states I mentioned.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)He can't afford to lose the whole eastern seaboard.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)steaks?
LOL
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]
mythology
(9,527 posts)Tarc
(10,476 posts)When people say he needs 58%, they are talking about the average needed. The true hurdle comes in every state that he does not hit 58% in, as that increases the burden on the ones remaining.
All you've really offered in these content-free threads of the past few days is simplistic "BERNIE'S GONNA WIN YUUUUGE!" cheer-leading tripe. No actual analysis, no citations of polls or trends, just personal twitter/blog-like statements of opinion.
Especially laughable ar the claims Sanders can carry states by 75-85...eighty-flippin-five...percent.
firebrand80
(2,760 posts)55?
oasis
(49,389 posts)KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)Codeine
(25,586 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)So its like totally new.
TeacherB87
(249 posts)They are all small western states from here on out. He's not going to win landslides in any of the large states left, there's no evidence to support any other conclusion at this point.
k8conant
(3,030 posts)TeacherB87
(249 posts)I wish more people would come to this conclusions so we wouldn't have to debate in circles on this site all the time.
firebrand80
(2,760 posts)TeacherB87
(249 posts)there is no factual basis for the idea that he will earn landslides in those states. All of the evidence points to a 50-50 split at best for Bernie in both states.
jg10003
(976 posts)firebrand80
(2,760 posts)brooklynite
(94,596 posts)Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey, California. He's not only not hitting the targets, he's behind in ALL of them; underperform in any one and your percentage target in the remaining ones shoots up.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)538 doesn't actually say that at ALL. If you read their articles, you would know that. He needs 59% of the remaining delegates. If you look at their targets, they recognize that he would do better in some states than others.
But here's the problem.... Bernie's landlsides tend to happen in smaller states. And losing a single big state like New York can actually counter big wins for Bernie in several smaller states. There aren't that many big delegate states left. Pennsylvania, Maryland, California, and New Jersey are really the only "big haul" states left (maybe Indiana in there too). Right now, Clinton leads in all those, except Indiana (no polling there). So where are Bernie's game-changing landslides going to come from?
Renew Deal
(81,861 posts)Just keep in mind that things may not go the way you think.
PooleBowman
(1 post)Sen. Sanders cannot possibly win the nomination.
Super-delegates are Democratic elected officials, long-time Party members and very committed supporters of the DNC. They have a vested interest in the Party and Sec. Clinton who has devoted blood, sweat and tears to the Party for over 40 years. Sen. Sanders is not a Democrat, and he has stated several times since Tuesday that his main mission is to lead a hostile takeover of the established Democratic Party, not to defeat Trump or Cruz and other GOP down-ballot candidates.
Second, Sec. Clinton currently has earned a total popular vote of 10,404,655 and Sen. Sanders has earned 7,710,382. Again, he cannot possibly win by sufficient margins to make up the deficit of 2,694.273.
Therefore, its delusional to think that any of Sec. Clinton's 502 super-delegates are going to switch to Sen. Sanders.
Also, the arithmetic, per the absolutely minimalist case for Sec. Clinton, shows that she will win the nomination easily by June 14.
There are 1,404 pledged delegates yet to be earned of a total of 4,050 and 172 super-delegates yet to be awarded of a total of 715.
Sec. Clinton has 1,446 pledged delegates and 502 super-delegates. She needs 435 (30.9829% of the pledged delegates yet to be rewarded) pledged delegates to clinch the nomination, assuming she is awarded no additional super-delegates, for a grand total of 2,383 delegates. She has earned 54.6485% of the available pledged delegates through April 19.
Sen. Sanders has 1,200 pledged delegates and 41 super-delegates. Assuming he earns the remaining 969 pledged delegates and the remaining 172 super-delegates, he will have a grand total of 2,382 delegates. He has won 45.3515% of the available pledged delegates through April 19.
Therefore, she needs to earn an average of only 30.9829% for each of the remaining primaries/caucuses to earn 435 pledged delegates and win the nomination.
In other words, Sec. Clinton can win the nomination with an average of only 30.9829% for each primary/caucus, which means that Sen. Sanders must win each primary/caucus by an absurd average of greater than 69.0171%.
Note: There are only three caucuses remaining: Guam - closed caucus (7), North Dakota - open caucus (18) and the Virgin Islands - closed caucus (7). and only three open primaries: Indiana (83), Montana (21) and Puerto Rico (60). The total for all six open primaries and caucuses is 196. Sec. Clinton currently leads by 246 pledged delegates.
There is no rational scenario which enables Sen. Sanders to become the nominee either by winning pledged delegates or by persuading super-delegates to switch from Sec. Clinton before, or at, the Democratic convention as of July 25. There is simply no path to the nomination.
By continuing his campaign of increasingly shrill and hateful over-the-top personal attacks of lies, slander and dehumanization, he is damaging the Democratic Party, Sec. Clinton's general election campaign against He, Trump or Second Coming Cruz and Sen. Sanders desired legacy of a future meaningful progressive movement. Hes losing current and potential Democratic Party allies every day.