No he doesn't and a 200 delegate lead for Clinton with 30 states is nothing. She's had the luxury of having Southern votes early. She had a larger lead vs Obama in 2008 at this point.
Math says otherwise. Sanders LOST ground today - both in absolute terms and relative to his targets. The timing was different in 2008 due to earlier voting, but Obama was leading in elected delegates after Super Tuesday that year and never relinquished that. At this point, you're either simply ignorant of the facts, making things up, or outright lying. None really bolster your case.
seems to be a loss on the day per fivethirtyeight, they don't take voter perception/excitement in to account though. http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blo...y-maine-primaries-presidential-election-2016/
Like Sanders but this guy will get murdered in the GE. Trump has a better chance of winning than he does. The American voters are delusional and completely brainwashed into thinking that socialism is bad. A significant portion of the population will be terrified of evil socialist Bernie Sanders. Then just wait until Americans find out about his tax hikes.
It was over before it started. Back in January, I said it didn't matter if Sanders won both Iowa & NH. He never had a real chance to beat Hill in the long marathon of a process of winning the nomination. Early momentum and enthusiasm just ain't enough.
CNN polls have Sanders over Trump, Cruz or Rubio. Clinton also is ahead of Trump but losing to Cruz & Rubio. This is all garbage. **** Hillary Clinton buying super delegates. Sanders is going to end up with more delegates.
Then why is he crushing her in states outside of the South? Obviously he's gaining momentum. Kansas had a record turnout in his favor. Some of these states he's winning now he was behind in polls a month ago. There's still 30 states left to vote but only 2 remaining southern state primaries. You say he has no chance in the marathon but he's controlling the lead in delegates by a wide margin in 3 of the 4 major regions in the country, that vote the same grounds. And getting people to actually vote. He has to win the goldmine in California and pick up the 15 or so of the delegates he's been picking up in the rest of the country where he's won 8 states already So far from over.
Don't blame old people. They're doing what's best for them. They want the least amount of change at this point in their lives, they won't benefit from a lot of the change being proposed. That's why they love Hillary. If you look at the demographics of the voter base, Hillary Clinton is practically Miley Cyrus to them. You can see it in the split between the type of people who vote for Clinton and those who vote for Sanders. Blame young people. Blame the DNC leadership for pandering to the portion of voters that will allow them to maintain their grip with as little change as possible. Blame the stupid rules re: super delegates, archaic voting process, voter restriction, gerrymandering, debates devoid of all the issues important to young people, the framing of issues being largely in the candidates' hands, years of disenfranchising youngsters from being interested in voting, colleges that make Hillary's donors look like rock stars instead of thieves, college books written by ex wall street cronies, TV media (which young people NEVER watch) which continues to RIDICULOUSLY out fund online media, the fetishization of race and gender vs policies, the insistence of old family members and friends that a big change is unrealistic and dangerous, etc. Also blame Bernie's inability thus far to break from language that young people don't understand. So frustrating. If you want people to come out and vote for the first time, stop talking about ACTS and BILLS and GLASS STEAGALL and all these terms that young, never-before-voted Americans are HIGHLY unlikely to know about. These are people who won't watch a video if they have to click twice to get into a second app on the smartphone which is already in their hand. You want them to sit and wiki everything you say? Bernie's advisers are really screwing him in this regard. He's run a pretty good social media campaign, but he is missing an opportunity here. You don't reach most youngsters through TV and debates and rallies and generic twitter messages. It's not an easy game and believe me I know brands/corporations pay TOP DOLLAR to anyone who understands this game, but that's what Bernie needs to do. At this point, old people are not going to switch sides anymore. You can see it in the posts on this page. Former realists and grandmas for Hillary. There's a slogan. He has the momentum but there may not be enough time for him to hit full speed. The best way to accelerate the process is to attract new voters in new ways. At this pace, he's going to tie on legit delegates and the super delegates will crush him. Let's go Bernie. If he doesn't make it, they are going to change DNC rules to ensure another scare doesn't happen, which makes it all the more important.
Bad night for Bernie. He fell further behind and is about to lose Michigan and Florida and a bunch of other states.
Why is it always that if Sanders loses the excuse is that the media has done him wrong, people don't know his message or the "corporate" boogeyman has influenced the people. Maybe, just maybe people don't agree with Sanders or believe that he will be as good a candidate as other candidates. Also Sanders doesn't have momentum, Clinton has only seen here numbers head to head against Sanders grow. In the latest cumulative poll he is 10-15 points behind Clinton. I also no one touches the fact that Bernie Sanders is mostly white people, he polls poorly with black people and Hispanics. So are they just voting their interest, or are there excuses for this fact as well?
1) If you say voters, that would make sense, and my point would still hold up. If you say "people" or "likely voters" though, that's not really representative. More than 50% of old people vote, less than 10% of young people vote. If you have a big portion of everyone, you will lose to someone who has all of the old people. When you say PEOPLE in this context, are you referring to eligible voters? If so, no, objectively she is not just being considered better than Bernie by the majority. If you are talking about likely democrat voters, yes, she is objectively considered a better candidate. Perhaps you are indifferent about the difference, but I assure you even she is not. TV media which I mentioned obviously favors Hillary. I'm following this thing all day, I can't believe what I read when I look at the mainstream papers and TV. Perhaps you don't have a point of reference? What media aside from mainstream TV and newspapers are you following which makes you feel like the bias is reasonable? Finally, 5 million individuals have contributed financially to Bernie's campaign. He is the Usain Bolt of grassroots support. This is a record in American HISTORY. You can get people to rallies by throwing a great party, but try getting 5 million people to contribute to your campaign. If you want to talk about "people", there's "people" for you. 2) That's not how momentum works. Momentum is where he was versus where he is versus Clinton. He has outperformed polls often, she has not. He doesn't have momentum that is turning 20-30% over to him unexpectedly, and I said as much. FYI she is leading by 9% on RCP, and that's an increase (for the first time) from the last results btw. Big whoop. That means he is currently going to outperform her in the remaining states, she has more than her 9% in these southern states. However, at this pace, he is not going to outperform her by enough. 3) I don't see why this bothers you so much. If you ask me, Black people simply don't know of Bernie as much as Bill Clinton, who has a strong favorability rating with them (they associate her to him). Also, Black/Hispanic voters are more conservative and Hillary is as Republican as Bernie is a Democrat. This doesn't discount everyone of course, these are largely reasonable voters making their own decisions and I don't see an issue with black or hispanic people favoring Hillary. When did the white vote stop counting though? Are there not poor disenfranchised white people? Let's see what happens now that we're done with most of the red non-swing states where Hillary thrives. Bernie made a rookie mistake not tailoring his message to different voter groups, but this past 10 days has seen more influential African Americans share their view of Bernie and I think we'll see the impact of that over the next couple of weeks. I'm more outraged by female support for Hillary. You can really summarize a lot of this in the fact that Hillary supporters are here in this thread all the time, won't even bump a Hillary thread because she is such a known unimaginative commodity, what she says/does has such a low correlation with being true, and Bernie is getting Hillary voters to talk about new sides of old issues. That's what voters are like right now. Even Hillary's positions are being moved by the gravity of the Bernie campaign. If you want to downplay how historically unique this moment is, go ahead. 32 states to go, far more progressive states than we've been through so far. $40m in the Bernie war chest. Hillary is holding tight and playing it safe. She has mobilized everyone that can be mobilized. The media has flooded itself with positive Hillary media. Trump is annihilating establishment candidates left and right. So is Cruz, who is polling great against Hillary nationally. I'll take these odds. I would have taken them 3 months ago.
And I thought I was the only heterosexual white male other than Bill Clinton who supports Hillary. Hell, maybe I'm just more moderate than, say, my three "BERNIE!!" co-workers (and others), one of whom twists his face at the idea of voting for Hillary and would vote for Trump as his second choice. "Dude, I don't even know if your relative youth will excuse you on that one," I say. "You'd go from an avowed Socialist to the American Mussolini?" (I brought out the Mussolini thing even before dumbass Trump unabashedly quoted him.) I like Sanders well enough, in my heart of hearts, but this isn't Denmark/Vermont. You think Obama had it tough with Congress? Try the Bern. And when I hear, "We're gonna start (staht) a re-vo-LU-tion," I can't help but shake my head: "Oh, for God's sake, this isn't the college dorm, I know better than that." He is bringing up a lot of important issues in the election cycle, though. You can see how Hillary shifted her tone and some talking points. This is better than how Trump changed the discourse on the right.....just the worst sort of xenophobia, racism, fear-mongering crap.
polling shows sanders does better against every republican candidate than clinton does. furthermore, the margin of victory for sanders vs. trump is higher than any other potential match-up. i have no illusions about sanders getting nomination...clearly, the DNC establishment is in the tank for clinton...but her negatives are such that sanders actually does better in the GE and if democrats really want to win their best chance is with sanders.
The claim that Hillary Clinton had a large lead over Obama from Super Tuesday in 2008 is false. Obama won 13 states for 847 delegates to 10 for 834 delegates that Clinton won. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Tuesday,_2008
You still have to consider that the Republican candidates have barely mentioned Sanders. Clinton is their target. If they felt that Sanders was an actual threat you would see more attention focused on him by the GOP which would most likely affect poll results.
This is a very good point. Traditionally younger voters don't vote that much but Obama did prove to be an exception and was able to turn out a good youth vote. Prior to that Bill Clinton in 1992 was able to turnout a substantial youth vote so it is possible. This is one I don't think is so much of the case the media likes a horse race and Sanders is getting his coverage. Further since Clinton has agreed to more debates it is getting him even more coverage. One thing that might be different though is that Republican candidates are paying far more attention on Clinton and Sanders barely registers in Republican rhetoric. To that extent she is getting more coverage but all of it is negative. That is probably a big factor that explains why in head to head to polls Sanders is performing better than Clinton over the GOP contenders. Trump, Rubio, and Cruz have been beating each other up and all have been beating up Clinton. So all four have very negative perceptions. Sanders is relatively unscathed with Clinton taking a much softer line in the Dem primaries and very little mention in the GOP primaries. True he has managed to harness excitement into many donations. I would say though that is a sign that Big Donors aren't quite the Bogeyman that Sanders himself makes it out to be when he's shown the ability to raise a lot of money and compete against the Clinton money machine. Sanders has come a long way and that is definitely a credit to him and his message. That said momentum is relative. Clinton has been winning overwhelmingly in the states she's supposed to win and even though Sanders has won some impressive victories in other states the margins haven't been as big as what Clinton has. This is the problem with proportional delegates and why an early lead is important. Sanders could theoretically win every state from here on out but still lose the primary race. Many Sanders supporters say that him just still winning states is a sign of momentum. That's not enough as long as the momentum for delegates keeps going Clinton's way. I'm not discounting the support that Sanders gets but there is no denying there is a demographic break between the two. While many have pointed out that under the Clinton's mass incarcerations and welfare reform hurt black communities but at the same time the Clinton Admin. also had more blacks in their administration than any before. There was a reason why many called Bill Clinton the first black president. As far as women why should it be strange that women would be excited about having a women president? Especially older women who have gone through the battles of ERA. Also while Sanders supporters continue to paint Hillary Clinton as not being progressive she has done a lot for women's rights including co-sponsoring and shepherding the Ledbetter Bill for equal pay for women. I really don't think not having a specific Hillary Clinton thread is much indication of how successful her campaign is. That said Sanders has moved the needle to the left and that is a good thing. I said at the very beginning of this campaign that a coronation for Clinton wasn't a good thing for the Democrats, the country and really even for her campaign. There needed a be an actual debate and contest on the Democrat side rather than leave it all to the GOP. It's possible Sanders could still win but getting more and more unlikely. Many Sanders supporters hold out hope for CA and NY but he might be mathematically eliminated before then.
If im a Republican, and I know: Hillary is leading the Democratic primaries She is facing a litany of questions over trustworthiness and honesty I can see polls in which my sides candidates match up better against her then they do Sanders Why would I divert attention to Sanders? I would want to focus on the weakest candidate possible, hoping they could win their primary. I would then have a field day targeting and pointing out that candidates respective flaws in a general election, thus assuring my side gets their candidate in the WH. Likewise, if i'm Hillary, and I see a poll that says: GE- Hillary-52% Donald-44% GE- Hillary-47% Marco-50% GE- Hillary-49% Cruz-48% Why would I focus on anyone other than Trump? Even though that poll is essentially telling me that I should focus my attention onto Rubio and Cruz because they would match up against me better in a GE, I would focus on Donald, because he's leading his side's race, and I would have plenty to pick apart in a GE if he won his primary. Literally because I wouldn't view Trump as a threat is why I would target him. Trying to go after Rubio and Cruz would only give them publicity and headlines, which is why I wouldn't even bother mentioning them. Let me just keep all that attention on Trump, and make sure two of my biggest threats fade into obscurity in their primary. The GOP doesn't target candidates "Out of respect for which has the strongest policy" , but rather who would be easier to run against. That's what targeting is.
She's definitely done a lot, such as accepting donations to her foundation from countries that enforce sharia law on women lol.
