Bernie will qin the nom anyway.

But she might well be George H.W. Bush in 1992 rather than in 1988 -- at this point in the '92 election, he was miles ahead of Bill Clinton in the polls, because the Democrat nomination battle had been so bruising and so much muck had been thrown at Clinton that a lot of Democrat voters supporting other candidates were answering "don't know" in the Bush v Clinton polls.

 

But as soon as the nomination battle was over, all the Democrats who had previously been reluctant started holding their noses and saying Clinton was the lesser of two evils, while people were reminded of Bush's negatives too. I would argue both are entirely possible this time too if/when Trump finally clinches the nomination (I know you think Hillary has been getting hounded by the media, but, the left-wing blogosphere aside, it's my impression that the major US media has been pretty much ignoring Hillary/the Democrat battle for the past month or so, so it's not surprising her standing in polls vs Trump has risen when people aren't being reminded why they dislike her on a daily basis).

 

That's without even considering the distinct possibility in the next 6 months of an economic shock or a terrorist attack on American soil which might make a lot of swing voters think "Trump is a douche, but he has a point about things needing a shake-up".

 

Bill Clinton won in 1992 because Ross Perot ran as a 3rd party candidate, which ate away at HW's vote. Bush would have almost definitely got a 2nd term otherwise.

Bill Clinton won in 1992 because Ross Perot ran as a 3rd party candidate, which ate away at HW's vote. Bush would have almost definitely got a 2nd term otherwise.

Nup. Exit polls of Perot voters found he pretty much drew from both Clinton and Bush equally.

Not dissimilar to the commonly held belief that the SDP cost Labour the 1983 election then, when they too took votes from both their bigger rivals pretty evenly.

 

Bloody Argentina.

He has cut Hills lead to 3 and 4 points in New York and Pensylvania over March alone. And with added weeks of momentum, it's all over.

It really isn't, a 200+ delegate lead is huge and even if he narrows the gap to a near draw in New York and Pennsylvania it wouldn't be enough.

He has cut Hills lead to 3 and 4 points in New York and Pensylvania over March alone.

Literally not true.

It really isn't, a 200+ delegate lead is huge and even if he narrows the gap to a near draw in New York and Pennsylvania it wouldn't be enough.

 

California.

 

It is true - it's been reported by multiple sources.

Well, I've seen no evidence of such a small gap, the closest I saw had her 10 ahead. However, a new poll released today has her at +18 and even with a 5% margin of error, that's still a solid lead.

Mostbpolls show a gap of 5 actually and as live voting always goes his way, plus momentum...

Well link to the polls that show this then

Well, I've seen no evidence of such a small gap, the closest I saw had her 10 ahead. However, a new poll released today has her at +18 and even with a 5% margin of error, that's still a solid lead.

 

She is definitely still solidly ahead in NY but that particular pollster is a pretty notoriously inaccurate one from what I've read (the same organisation had her up by 48 a month ago, which was way higher than any other poll even then). 10 is the smallest lead she's had. Bernie has closed similar leads in a week before though, I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that he could end up within a handful of points of her, not that that would be near good enough.

Is there a way we can find out how many times MOMENTUM has been used in this thread? :kink:

Agreed, I definitely expect it to be close, but I'm still convinced she will win (and in Pennsylvania too). Bernie will have another ''MOMENTUM'' gaining day today anyway with a strong showing in Wyoming, though of course with a grand TOTAL of 14 pledged delegates it, once again, means very little but could shift the polls a little more in his favour.

http://m.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Califo...n-s-7235299.php

 

This is happening in all states and California has 500 delegates. With his momentum and an open primary there, after winning Knew York Pen Maryland and several small states, he will win. The momentum has bern clear since last summer!!

Edited April 9, 20169 yr by Virginia's Walls

If he's had momentum since before the primaries started, why is he losing?

 

Don't get me wrong, I'd love Sanders to win but I'm not deluding myself.

Define 'momentum' please Michael.

Momentum is that he is going up in the polls continuously, based on the forward motion of his campaign with added support from more and more people and from winning states, getting his campaign more attention and popularity.

 

The momentum has been in his favour since summer.

Ok, well let's play this game for a moment. If the momentum has been with him since summer why are we only NOW seeing the polls in New York etc. close to these levels? If the momentum has been there since the summer then why was/is Hillary polling ahead (and, you know, WINNING handily).

 

If your response includes the word rigged or a variant thereof it is null and void.

Momentum is that he is going up in the polls continuously, based on the forward motion of his campaign with added support from more and more people and from winning states, getting his campaign more attention and popularity.

 

The momentum has been in his favour since summer.

Mmm, yes, forward motion. Those polls since February 1st by the way:

 

http://i.imgur.com/yj4FQy7.png

 

Frankly feeling run over with the sheer momentum there.