As it's not uniform campaigning - they only opened their campaign offices in New York in March.

 

And it's been the same story everywhere - as people get to know Bernie, they vote for him.

How weird, I didn't realise only 40% of Democrats knew him.

Then how do you explain her rapidly diminished lead in Pen, Maryland, Cali and New York? Without these states as the smaller ones will go Bernie, like Wyoming today, with historic levels due to momentum, she cannot win!!

This is all reducing the likelihood of her having the sufficient delegates to win, not counting superdelegates, before the convention. Sanders probably won't either, which means this will be a split convention, just like for the Republicans, and both will have to make their case to the party. It will make Hillary look like a v weak candidate, but make Beernie seem exceptionally strong.

 

Note the REAL data: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramso..._b_9620362.html

 

Seeing as Bernie is predicted to win 88% of the following races, including NY, Pensylvania and California, Hillary will have to concede.

Edited April 9, 20169 yr by Virginia's Walls

PLEASE don't try and use HUFFINGTON POST as a basis for anything in a discussion. Few places are more openly cloaked in Bernie bias. He is NOT predicted to win NY, PA or CA as of right now.

 

Plus, if it were a contested convention Hillary likely could still end up having more actual VOTES, which strikes me as a fairly easy ''will of the people'' argument for them giving it to her anyway. So, Bernie still loses. I'm worried that he's going to make this very difficult for her, but I can't see any situation where Bernie winning, or even stopping her reaching the target, is anything other than a statistically VERY UNLIKELY outcome.

That whole article is based on the ridiculous assumption that superdelegates will suddenly decide to unendorse someone who has enough delegates to be the nominee (and almost certainly more votes). What exactly do you think the point of superdelegates are?

Superdelegates have ALWAYS gone with the will of the people!

 

And Bernie is not the type to quit when she passes the target - he seems very petulant. Look at his infant-like temper tantrum over being caught out over having no detailed policy, attacking Hillary and saying she's unqualified when she NEVER said that about him. He has adopted the Bernie or Bust youth argument and will have many a toys out the pram moment until the candidate is decided in the convention.

Superdelegates have ALWAYS gone with the will of the people!

And they will argue that the will of the people will be the candidate who got more votes, as Hillary almost certainly will have done if she gets enough pledged delegates to win with superdelegates.

After losing 88% of the remaining states? It seems likely they'd jump to Bernie after a campaign collapse.

She won't lose 88% of the reaming states. Not even close.

According to his hard, accurate maths, yes.

And Bernie is not the type to quit when she passes the target - he seems very petulant. Look at his infant-like temper tantrum over being caught out over having no detailed policy, attacking Hillary and saying she's unqualified when she NEVER said that about him. He has adopted the Bernie or Bust youth argument and will have many a toys out the pram moment until the candidate is decided in the convention.

What on earth?

What? It is an accurate assessment.

I love how the social democrats on this forum seem more scared of the left candidates than any right wing candidates in politics at either side of the Atlantic, always trying to demean any of their achievements or play down their chances at any turn or make their supporters seem that if only they moved away from their utopian idealistic position to one which is more likely to be electable they would stand a better chance. It really is patronising to say the least!

I love how the social democrats on this forum seem more scared of the left candidates than any right wing candidates in politics at either side of the Atlantic, always trying to demean any of their achievements or play down their chances at any turn or make their supporters seem that if only they moved away from their utopian idealistic position to one which is more likely to be electable they would stand a better chance. It really is patronising to say the least!

What achievements of the radical left, exactly? If we're going to dismiss social democracy, I want some receipts on those. And I don't mean 'winning internal elections'. Also, a reminder that the Attlee government was considered a social democratic sellout by the left at the time too.

 

My dislike of radical left candidates if anything is a function of my hatred and fear of right wing candidates. Society is biased to the latter even at the best of times, let alone without us opening the door for them.

According to his hard, accurate maths, yes.

Speaking of hard and accurate maths, the delegate gain for Bernie in Wyoming tonight over Hillary was a grand total of 0 - he didn't win by enough to break the tie. Mmmm, momentum.

 

After losing 88% of the remaining states? It seems likely they'd jump to Bernie after a campaign collapse.

In what sense is it likely that a group of people who generally dislike Bernie (remember, these are Democratic insiders who don't really take kindly to a man who has refused to identify as a Democrat all his adult life and who is doing nothing to raise funds and support Democratic candidates - a pretty key difference with all previous primaries where the superdelegates have supported the winner) and typically have a huge amount of loyalty to the Clintons will jump to supporting him even if he hasn't overtaken Hillary on votes?

 

I would also add that everything from before is still true - he's really unlikely to overtake her on pledged delegates even if he wins '88% of the states' (which is very unlikely given how many have high proportions of African American voters and how many she has big leads in), because the delegates are done proportionally.

She had a 70% lead with African Qmericans but due to his momentum that lead has shrunk to 1/4th its size.

No it's not. He doesn't even have the African American Millennial vote! That's the one part of the Youth demo that Hil actually has in her camp. There's a bloody good reason she has won every single southern state - the ones with the most diverse population.

She had a 70% lead with African Qmericans but due to his momentum that lead has shrunk to 1/4th its size.

You're citing someone who thinks cherrypicking from national crosstabs of polls (which have small sample sizes and therefore ludicrously huge margins of error) is kosher.

Some more interesting polling numbers (no doubt highly unreliable and completely ignoring the obvious momentum): http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04/10...tform=hootsuite. Clinton is ahead by 16% in NY and 11% in PA here.

 

MO-MEN-TUM