Agree to disagree. Clinton's lead is not big enough for proportional delegation to be a concern. A winner take all windfall miracle is not necessary. Bernie just needs to chip away. He has the time and the friendly territories left to do just that. And as FB said, the proportional sword cuts both ways.
Bernie Sanders cannot afford delegate splits, he is 200 delegates behind Clinton. Delegate splits are a double edged sword as well, as Clinton is likely to get close to splits as well. I won't argue with you concerning the campaign ran by Sanders, it has been excellent; but that is ultimately irrelevant. People have been exposed to Bernie Sanders, they are familiar with him. He is on television, he is discussed. If someone doesn't know about Sanders, it is because they don't want to. 229 delegates is a huge number to make up. Do you know of a single case of a candidate making up a 229 delegate deficit? Kansas (33), Louisiana (51), Nebraska (25), Maine (25), Michigan (130), Mississippi (36), Florida (214), Illinois (156), NC (107) and Ohio (143) are the upcoming states over the next two weeks. Clinton is going to win Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, Illinois, North Carolina and probably Ohio. These are states with huge delegate counts. Now many of these will end up with close to splits....... but Sanders isn't gaining +/- in these states. So that leaves Kansas, Nebraska and Maine. When it comes to Kansas and Nebraska, Clinton is going to get close to a split. So that leaves Maine and his 25 delegates; except the polling shows Clinton will get close to a split there as well. So, over the next two weeks, it is extremely likely that Sanders will be in an even bigger hole in the delegate count. It is very possible that Sanders will be 300 or more delegates behind in 12 days.
Saying that everyone is 'familiar' with a Democratic Socialist Jew from Vermont in his first national race two days after Super Tuesday (when normally most Americans aren't familiar with anyone yet) is silly. The only two 'familiar' candidates are Hillary (among the top 5 most well known American political figures today) and Trump. And Trump isn't even 'familiar' politically, as most people couldn't tell you more than one thing he stands for. I think people in the D&D get tunnelvision sometimes because we're so tuned into this stuff. But the vast majority of voters really aren't plugged in this early. I agree that the next two weeks will make or break Sanders. If March 15th rolls around and he hasn't bitten into Clinton's lead things will be dire. The time for holding serve is over, he has to gain ground.
Again, do the math. Just saying "he has time" and "it can work" doesn't really mean much. There are calculators out there that let you plug in the numbers. Find a viable path to victory - you're going to find it's a hell of a lot more difficult than you think.
Feel free to provide links and/or explanations, otherwise you're 'just saying' things as much as I am.
No. She would need to pick a VP that can go head to head with Trump. Bernie doesn't have that persona. She could pick Bernie as a member of her cabinet (Treasury, Labor, Commerce, ...)
Wouldn't be the smart choice for a variety of reasons. Also Bernie is going negative soon. It has already started.
no links....but here's an example...there are 920 delegates up for grabs by March 15. If Bernie gets 80% of the delegates for Kansas Nebraska and Maine, and 50% of Ohio and Michigan, and 45% in all the other states (Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida Illinois and North Carolina), he falls about 6 delegates further behind (ignoring Florida's bonus system for the leader). And I can't see him getting anywhere near those numbers.
Bernie knows he needs to shift the trajectory in a major way. He can't continue to just rely on GOP super Pac ads (echoing his talking points) to drive up Hillary's negatives in some of these states. He has to go after her directly and hope they bite back. Sending Jane out yesterday was good move. Maybe a Clinton surrogate screws up and attacks her. That's a good news story for them. [youtube]yslDCWtfaoE[/youtube]
Thanks for the post. Like I said, the next two weeks are make or break. If he doesn't gain ground, I'll be pretty much comfortable considering it out of reach for him. I don't consider him gaining ground over the next two weeks a miracle. But that's just subjective language nonsense like arguing over 'elite' QBs.
Really don't think the 190 delegates (per NY Times) Clinton leads by is at all an insurmountable lead. Time is Clinton's enemy
Actually Bernie would be good to go against Trump. He appeals to white working class voters on just the issues Hillary is weakest on. His coalition in Vermont is granola eating lefties and the poor white working class. The cautiously contented sort of liberals and the conservatives go for the typical establishment candidates. In recent elections I think the Dems have stopped running against him.He voted and spoke out against NAFTA and the trade deals that shipped their jobs overseas. Many of them might hate gays, immigrants etc, but they really don't like folks making a couple hundred grand making speeches to Goldman Sachs and then voting to bail them out like Hillary and Bill do.
The NY Times says she leads by >600 http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-results.html?_r=0 And there is no way she loses NY and CA, with her huge leads in polls right now. Both those alone added to current get her to 1900 out of 2383 needed to win.
If you're really interested, there are endless sources out there that go through the math: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/22/u...-leaving-bernie-sanders-with-steep-climb.html Here's a site that shows an estimate of what each candidate needs from each state to get a majority: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats/ I'll make it easy - point to the states where he can overperform enough to make up the deficit he has. In his very best state, he got a total of 2 more delegates than his target. Clinton outperformed her target by 20 in Texas alone. If you don't want to do the research or just want to say "I'm sure it's possible", that's up to you. But math does not lie, and it's very much out there if you actually care to learn it.
NYT includes Superdelegates. They are fickle and if Bernie were to lead in regular delegates, they would probably shift their allegience. So the real element to look at is taking out the superdelegates.
The only valuable thing to glean from this article (dated February 21... full of Clinton strategist/support quotes, right after her win in Nevada...) is the revisiting 2008, where Obama put together a 100 point lead on Super Tuesday that Clinton could never catch up to. Bernie is further behind than that. But it begs the question, is Hillary as strong a candidate as 2008 Obama, and is Bernie's campaign weaker than Hillary in 2008? I actually spent all afternoon on this site, so no need to be condescending. If I knew where Bernie could/would over-achieve, I'd be working in politics. Upsets are going to have to happen for Bernie to win, I readily admit that. But it's pretty apparent that nothing I suggest is going to make anyone go "oh yeah dude, totally!" That's kind of the nature of an upset.
OK, gotcha. But then that is 595 v 405...roughly 60% to 40% lead...with NY and CA still looming big against Bernie.
Super Delegates don't matter at this point they vote in July, and will go w/ the popular vote. She's leading by 190
