My guess is that he won't win many or any of the States won by Clinton in 2008. But we're all just speculating until people vote.

I'm not engaging in speculation; I'm making predictions based on historical facts (the 2008 campaign) and data (the 2016 polls, contact with professionals in the field, etc)

That's why it's a prediction. Crazy stuff can happen. People can die or drop out of races. My prediction as of today is that Sanders will win maybe one or two States. But who the heck knows. He could win all of them. That's what makes it kind of fun. We get to vote. I will probably vote for Sanders if he's still in the race by the time the primaries roll around to my State. That's about all I can say with even the slightest degree of accuracy right now. That could change by the time the primary reaches my State. I know you enjoy predictions. I do too. But I think we've seen so many predictions here that are over the top insane. 'Bernie will win all 50 States!' 'Bernie has no chance of winning any States!' I think you're smart enough and read enough to know which predictions are more accurate than others. I think Nate Silver and some other places are giving some pretty good predictions. But even they concede that primary predictions based on historical facts aren't so perfect. Results of primary votes are shall we say a much better indicator.

but it seems that VT will give him its blessing.
there are good possibilities for WA, CA, OR, as
well as CO.

response than the one I gave above, lol.

Thanks.

My candidate is winning everywhere and every single one of your base are belong to us.

Meanwhile your candidate is weak and puny and can not win anywhere.

QED

With the high number of black voters in the party in those states I absolutely see no wins for him in those states. Relationships would have had to have been built with the black demographic in all areas for that to be a possibility.

Since neither is true, that makes any response pretty meaningless.

If Obama had lost IA and thus only had SC going into Super Tuesday, he likely would have lost the nomination. That IA victory caused a significant number of voters to stop and take a closer look at Obama.

As a result, you can't use national polling today to predict the flow of the primary. Winning in early states creates far more change than any amount of campaigning. And polls in IA this far out are notoriously bad. Remember, Clinton was doing quite well in 2008...right until she came in third.

Also, constantly throwing up current poll numbers in the hopes that all of Sanders supporters will give up is very tiresome. By now, it should be utterly obvious to you that this approach does not work at all on Sanders supporters. All it does is let you feel smug. Though given the number of times you post essentially the same thing, smug is apparently your primary goal.

Iowa is a must-win because it's the only way he could ever hope to steal momentum from Hillary. Obama did it. But Obama also was going to win a few states regardless of Iowa. But you're right, he wasn't going to win the nomination if he lost Iowa.

Bernie isn't doing nearly as well in state polling as Obama and that means he's likely a Howard Dean-like candidate - momentum is there but it will peter out quickly with a loss.

Clinton has a 24 point edge on Bernie in Iowa right now in the average of polls. That's quite the gap to close. It can be done, certainly, but to compare, in 2008, Obama trailed Clinton by just three-points in Iowa at this point in 2007.

A whole lot of those polls use "likely voter" screens that exclude anyone who didn't vote in 2008. Which means they throw out anyone under 26.

Also, an enormous number of those polls are 80-100% landline...and most of those that are 80% use online polling to fill the remaining 20%.

Lastly, caucuses are primarily won via enthusiasm - that's how Dean lost. Big numbers, but few who'd bother with going to the caucus. Clinton's not doing very well in enthusiasm in those same polls that give her such a lead. Meanwhile, Sanders supporters are quite enthusiastic.

IOW, I'm not so sure we can trust polling like we used to. We'll see if I'm wrong in a few months.

Dick Morris did the exact same thing in 2012 to prop up the idea that Obama couldn't be winning in the polls because they were all basing it on 2008 and the election was going to be like 2010.

And I'm not insisting I'm right. Instead, I specifically say we'll find out if those doubts are justified in a few months.

Have doubts, but also realize that when polls converge on a consensus they're going to be way more right than wrong.

when Sanders supporters keep posting issues? Do you think we're going to suddenly stop caring about healthcare and TPP and social security and living wage because you post another poll?

This is a discussion Board. People here like to discuss politics. That includes news relating to politics, such as polls. If that bothers you, you might want to express your concerns to the Sanders people currently trumpeting the ABC poll.

Add to which, I refer to no polls at all in the OP; I ask the Sanders people to tell me how he's going to win a national election. Still waiting.

Zilch, zero, nada. That's my prediction.