At this stage though, that makes NO DIFFERENCE. If he doesn't win enough delegates now (and he isn't, he's not reached his 'target' in more than a few and Clinton has exceeded hers handily in almost all of them, making his targets even HIGHER going forward) then what colour the state is in the general means absolutely sod all.

Plus, surely if he wins very little by the end of March it should be nearly impossible to come back from or have it look to anyone that he can still come from behind and win this.

 

Rubio must be furious with Kasich. Losing to Trump by three points in Virginia, one of the few states where a win could've been spun as a sign he was still competitive. Kasich got nearly ten percent there.

 

Kasich still being in the race is fascinating. Although disastrous for Rubio. But really strange that he's held on this long. I wouldn't be that surprised at this rate if Rubio drops out before he does.

 

This page explains it all pretty perfectly http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/electi...gets/democrats/. There's a table at the bottom which shows what Tirren linked to before about the numbers each of them would be getting to take it a delegate draw. Sanders has only met his target in Vermont, Oklahoma and New Hampshire.

 

As is stands from Super Tuesday, in terms of what Sanders has/'needs':

 

Alabama 4/18

Arkansas 7/14

Colorado 33/36

Georgia 23/37

Massachusetts 43/50

Minnesota 42/47

Oklahoma 20/20

Tennessee 22/34

Texas 48/96

Vermont 10/16 (so far, but it'll probably be all 16 in the end)

Virginia 32/43

 

Now not every delegate has been awarded yet, but you get the idea. Or at least, it should be obvious on a simple mathematical/factual level anyway. He's likely to win Kansas and Nebraska at the weekend, but given Clinton will likely beat him by a large margin in Lousiana he probably won't catch up very much even if decimates her in those two. Then the rest of March, bar Maine, Missouri and maybe Ohio looks like more solid Clinton territory. So like Iz says, pretty soon it becomes a case of needing to win BIG in EVERY state just to keep pace, let alone move ahead.

The trend is v obvious though!

 

He is winning the same states as Barack - ie the states Democrats win elections in!! Texas for example isn't going blue.

He's won three of the eight states Obama had won that have happened this point. Even if we were going by the token of 'winning the same states as Barack' (which still doesn't matter, as Bernie's getting crushed in all the ones he isn't winning, which Obama wasn't, and Bernie's not getting loads of delegates in the ones he is winning, which Obama was), Hillary would still be winning.

Regarding the whole "he's winning the seats that the Democrats actually win" - so?

 

The Democrat membership will be markedly different in terms of demographics and views to the electorate as a whole in virtually every state. The swing voters who could win Ohio for him against Clinton aren't the same ones who would have to vote for him to win Ohio against Trump or any other Republican.

Unless the polls change dramatically or Sanders concedes early I can see it lasting the distance, with Clinton probably passing the benchmark on 7th June.

In the states that actually mattered yesterday, Hills won them all. She thrashed Bern in the 3 biggest states yesterday really boosting her numbers. Bern is predicted to be stronger mostly in the smaller states that Hilary's landslides in Texas and Georgia made completely irrelevant already.

Although Clinton is certainly going to be the nominee (unless she's indicted over the e-mail scandal), I think you can now make a serious case that Sanders would've been a stronger candidate for the Democrats than Clinton will be. The argument that "Bernie is winning in the Democrat states" isn't relevant to the nomination itself since all states are equal in that, but it IS relevant in terms of who would have the best chance in November, and it is true that Sanders is either winning or tying in most of the swing states (bar Virginia).

 

Then there's the polling which is constantly showing Sanders runs better against all Republican candidates than Clinton does. Until recently I would've dismissed it on the basis that a lot of people didn't know who Sanders was (people were maybe just treating him as a "generic Democrat" and projecting whatever they wanted onto him). but he and his views have become more well known now and yet if anything his standing in the general election match-ups is improving.

 

The Democrat membership will be markedly different in terms of demographics and views to the electorate as a whole in virtually every state. The swing voters who could win Ohio for him against Clinton aren't the same ones who would have to vote for him to win Ohio against Trump or any other Republican.

 

While the bit in bold is right, if anything that favours Sanders more. Clinton is being powered by black voters who are by far the most in-the-bag for the Democrats no matter who the candidate is, while Sanders is being powered by low-income white voters who are at major risk of defecting to Trump en masse.

Edited March 3, 20169 yr by Danny

Although Clinton is certainly going to be the nominee (unless she's indicted over the e-mail scandal), I think you can now make a serious case that Sanders would've been a stronger candidate for the Democrats than Clinton will be. The argument that "Bernie is winning in the Democrat states" isn't relevant to the nomination itself since all states are equal in that, but it IS relevant in terms of who would have the best chance in November, and it is true that Sanders is either winning or tying in most of the swing states (bar Virginia).

 

Then there's the polling which is constantly showing Sanders runs better against all Republican candidates than Clinton does. Until recently I would've dismissed it on the basis that a lot of people didn't know who Sanders was (people were maybe just treating him as a "generic Democrat" and projecting whatever they wanted onto him). but he and his views have become more well known now and yet if anything his standing in the general election match-ups is improving.

While the bit in bold is right, if anything that favours Sanders more. Clinton is being powered by black voters who are by far the most in-the-bag for the Democrats no matter who the candidate is, while Sanders is being powered by low-income white voters who are at major risk of defecting to Drumpf en masse.

Equally you could argue that Sanders is being propped up by young liberals who will vote Democrat no matter what, while Hillary is being supported by moderates who might think Trump could run the economy better. Neither is entirely accurate, but it illustrates why it's hard to say who would be a better bet.

Then there's the polling which is constantly showing Sanders runs better against all Republican candidates than Clinton does. Until recently I would've dismissed it on the basis that a lot of people didn't know who Sanders was (people were maybe just treating him as a "generic Democrat" and projecting whatever they wanted onto him). but he and his views have become more well known now and yet if anything his standing in the general election match-ups is improving.

Sanders hasn't really been subjected to any substantial attack though, so it would likely change pretty quickly in a general election scenario. Pretty much all the negativity Hillary could get is priced in at this point.

Although Clinton is certainly going to be the nominee (unless she's indicted over the e-mail scandal), I think you can now make a serious case that Sanders would've been a stronger candidate for the Democrats than Clinton will be. The argument that "Bernie is winning in the Democrat states" isn't relevant to the nomination itself since all states are equal in that, but it IS relevant in terms of who would have the best chance in November, and it is true that Sanders is either winning or tying in most of the swing states (bar Virginia).

The sample size is still far too small to draw anything from that, given Bernie has won one swing state he isn't neighbouring solidly.

 

That said I'd add that (in addition to Nevada and Virginia) Georgia went solidly for Hillary, and I wouldn't totally rule out the Democrats from being competitive there with Trump.

Equally you could argue that Sanders is being propped up by young liberals who will vote Democrat no matter what, while Hillary is being supported by moderates who might think Trump could run the economy better. Neither is entirely accurate, but it illustrates why it's hard to say who would be a better bet.

 

She's not though: Sanders is winning with moderates and independents, and with the low-income white voters who decide elections.

 

Admittedly Clinton is generally winning with the high-income voters (who presumably don't like the sound of being taxed more by Sanders, but vote Democrat because they're socially liberal) - they might have been at risk of going to the Republicans if Bush or maybe Rubio had been the nominee, but they're probably safer for the Democrats if Trump is the nominee and insulting immigrants and women all the time.

 

Sanders hasn't really been subjected to any substantial attack though, so it would likely change pretty quickly in a general election scenario. Pretty much all the negativity Hillary could get is priced in at this point.

 

He might not have been attacked as such, but his views have still got a lot of airtime - and yet his polling figures against Republicans and his general approval ratings are still MUCH better than Clinton's. Like I say, I would've agreed they didn't matter much a few months ago when Sanders would've been a blank canvas for a lot of voters, but not now.

 

As much as the Establishment in every Western country doesn't want to hear it, Corbyn politics without the batshit foreign/defence policies is potentially a winner.

Yup, Corbyn politics are veeery popular right now with the PEOPLE but not with the Establishment or the media that works for it.

 

The only hope for the Democrats now is a superticket, Sanders/Clinton or Clinton/Sanders.

Yup, Corbyn politics are veeery popular right now with the PEOPLE but not with the Establishment or the media that works for it.

Uh, no. He has the worst net popularity ratings of any leader of the Opposition ever. That is not the sign of someone who is 'very popular with the people'. The people who like him really like him. The many more that do not really do not. You can say that's down to the 'biased media' or whatever, but that isn't the sign of someone 'popular with the people' if they're buying it.

She's not though: Sanders is winning with moderates and independents, and with the low-income white voters who decide elections.

 

Admittedly Clinton is generally winning with the high-income voters (who presumably don't like the sound of being taxed more by Sanders, but vote Democrat because they're socially liberal) - they might have been at risk of going to the Republicans if Bush or maybe Rubio had been the nominee, but they're probably safer for the Democrats if Trump is the nominee and insulting immigrants and women all the time.

Sanders isn't winning with self-identified moderate Democrats is he? High income and BAME Democrats isn't a wide enough coalition on its own to get Hillary the results she's had so far.

 

He might not have been attacked as such, but his views have still got a lot of airtime - and yet his polling figures against Republicans and his general approval ratings are still MUCH better than Clinton's. Like I say, I would've agreed they didn't matter much a few months ago when Sanders would've been a blank canvas for a lot of voters, but not now.

The views themselves have had airtime, but Hillary hasn't really gone on the attack on his views from a conservative angle (given it would be totally toxic for her in uniting the party after) beyond saying he's single issue (not in itself a critique of the position) or that it's unrealistic (not all that common an attack from her either). That wouldn't be the case in a general election scenario, and I can bet Sanders wouldn't be anywhere near as popular after two months of attack ads on how much his plan would cost the average American.

 

Most of what your average American will have heard so far from Sanders is something that won't be in itself something many people would hate him on - that society is stitched up for the 1% at the top, and the establishment and the big banks need breaking up. I don't think as many will be aware of his detailed tax plan that he's already released which...doesn't just stop at the 1%, let's put it that way. All well and good to argue for it, but I don't think it's going to leave his ratings intact.

 

As much as the Establishment in every Western country doesn't want to hear it, Corbyn politics without the batshit foreign/defence policies is potentially a winner.

It may well be! But I don't think Sanders has a clue on how to actually make any of it happen beyond just having the position. So long as the Republicans control Congress, the presidency is for all intents and purposes a foreign policy position with the odd executive order possibility, unless you have the know-how on how to work with Congress in brokering a deal. I think Hillary has that experience and ability more than Sanders has.

Won't all the young liberals (especially if Bernie loses and tells them to vote for Clinton) vote for Clinton in the main election to make sure that Trump doesn't become President? I've been reading a lot about Sanders' supporters not voting if he isn't the democrat nominee, but I can't see that in the slightest with the thought of Trump looming in the distance. I know if I was a Bernie supporter I would be first in line to vote for Clinton if it meant keeping Trump out. :unsure:

Even if 2000 hadn't made third party voting a little more of a cautionary tale (and given Dubya was running as a compassionate conservative at the time it really did make it look like there wasn't that much difference between Gore and Bush. Another cautionary tale there on taking that sort of positioning at face value from either the left or right), I just don't see that many Bernie supporters really will stay at home when faced with the prospect of an open racist as president.

 

Particularly also as in practice it hasn't been that divisive or dirty a fight between Bernie and Hillary. Despite the online supporter warring, Hillary really hasn't gone hardball in attacks on Bernie - she hasn't said anything so outright attacking that it would disqualify her to many Bernie supporters in terms of her values.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/01/politics...olls/index.html

 

According to this poll most Democrats wouñd be happy with either choice - even more reason for a party-uniting superticket, uniting the left and moderate sides.

It may well be! But I don't think Sanders has a clue on how to actually make any of it happen beyond just having the position. So long as the Republicans control Congress, the presidency is for all intents and purposes a foreign policy position with the odd executive order possibility, unless you have the know-how on how to work with Congress in brokering a deal. I think Hillary has that experience and ability more than Sanders has.

He'd be an awful lot better at it than an actual Corbyn-type figure would be (because let's face it, they're really not that alike), which is why I'd be vocally backing him if he was still in with a shout of winning the nomination.

It doesn't take much to be better than Corbyn at working with people.