To those who haven't yet voted...don't worry your little heads. 538's got this.

[madfloridian]

From Harry Enten at Fivethirtyeight March 2.

Hillary Clinton’s Got This

To borrow a phrase from Dan Rather, Hillary Clinton swept through the South like a big wheel through a Delta cotton field on Super Tuesday. She won seven states total, including Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia in the South. She also won Massachusetts and American Samoa. Bernie Sanders emerged victorious in four states (Colorado, Minnesota, Oklahoma and Vermont), but his victories tended to come by smaller margins and in smaller states. The end result is that Clinton has a clear path to winning the nomination, and Sanders’s only hope to derail her is for something very unusual to happen.

....This lead is pretty much insurmountable. Democrats award delegates proportionally, which means Sanders would need to win by big margins in the remaining states to catch up. He hasn’t seen those kinds of wins outside of his home state of Vermont and next-door New Hampshire. Consider the case of Massachusetts: My colleague Nate Silver’s model had Sanders winning the state by 11 percentage points if the race were tied nationally and by 3 points based on the FiveThirtyEight polling average last week. Instead, Sanders lost by nearly 2 percentage points.

....Sanders, perhaps not surprisingly, has indicated that he’ll continue to fight for votes across the country. But for every win he may get in mostly white states, Clinton will be marching toward the nomination with likely victories in states such as Michigan and Florida. The math indicates that Clinton eventually will win the nomination with relative ease.

To paraphrase...Hillary will be the nominee but Bernie's welcome to be along for the ride.

This is shamelessly taking the human factor out of voting and pushing Hillary.

SO...to those of you in all these states yet to vote

...including the delegate rich state of California:

Too bad for you guys, but go ahead anyway. Just remember who's already won.

Idaho March 22nd

Arizona March 22nd

Alaska March 26th

Hawaii March 26th

Washington March 26th

Wisconsin April 5th

Wyoming April 9th

New York April 19th

Connecticut April 26th

Delaware April 26th

Maryland April 26th

Pennsylvania April 26th

Rhode Island April 26th

Indiana May 3rd

Nebraska May 10th

West Virginia May 10th

Kentucky May 17th

Oregon May 17th

California June 7th

Montana June 7th

New Jersey June 7th

New Mexico June 7th

North Dakota June 7th

South Dakota June 7th

District of Columbia June 14th

[reformist2]

1. Mr. 538 is part of the national brainwashing campaign to force us to accept Hillary.

[peacebird]

42. It's not working....

[silvershadow]

140. ^THIS.

[Buzz Clik]

142. How's that delegate count working?

That's all that matters.

Oh, I forgot -- that's been corrupted, too.

[AgingAmerican]

167. How many states to go?

3/4 of them?

[Buzz Clik]

168. Michigan on Tuesday. Shaping up to be another huge loss for Sanders.

Care to project when Sanders takes the delegate lead?

[kristopher]

172. Ready to incorporate the idea of trend lines based on favorability ratings...

...and being out of Dixie?

[madfloridian]

169. Does it matter since 538 has decided the issue?

This is done to discourage voters in later states.

It's sickening.

[Buzz Clik]

170. Just stop. Polling is done because people want to know.

It's expensive to do, and if it didn't generate revenue (selling papers, ads, etc), it would not be done at all.

538's projections are the next logical step: scientific, statistically sound analyses.

Why the hell is everything a f***ing conspiracy?

[Buzz Clik]

55. Oh noes!!! Yet another pollster goes under the bus!

[whatchamacallit]

133. Seems this is all you got anymore

Tisk...

[Buzz Clik]

141. You want a serious response to the kneejerk, "If they support Hillary, they are corrupt!"?

It isn't coming.

Derision and ridicule, and nothing more.

[SCantiGOP]

74. Reformist:

Nate Silver's whole reputation is based on the accuracy of his predictions over the past 3 elections.
1 - Do you remember 2008 when he called 49 out of 50 states correctly? The night before the election he had NC and Indiana as toss-ups, so he gave Obama NC and McCain IN, but Obama carried both.
2 - Do you really think he would jeopardize his reputation and livelihood to be part of a "national brainwashing campaign"?

Argue your cause, but you do need to stay grounded in reality.

[kristopher]

91. 538 is not "Nate Silver" anymore

He's affiliated, but there are several other analysts there who have a free hand.

[madfloridian]

166. Nate Silver is with ESPN...they are making voting movies together.

[arcane1]

101. Nate Silver isn't the author of the OP n/t

[Helen Borg]

103. 538 used to be good.

Now it's just another hack tool in the hands of the establishment.

[SCantiGOP]

104. Honest answer:

If they were predicting an advantage for Sanders, would you still consider them a tool of the establishment?

[cprise]

111. Honest question to answer your question:

Is Sanders a tool of the establishment?


Oh BTW... 538 said that Jeb was a sure thing!

[peacebird]

146. I know, right? Jeb! Was a lock according to 538... oopsie?

[Adrahil]

150. This is delusional bullshit.

They are a data-driven analytical site.

It's just that the data doesn't support your desired narrative now.

They've done the math. They've done not one, but TWO articles on what it will take for Bernie to win the nomination. He's not doing it. I know you want a story of rainbows and sunshine, but the actual data do not support it.

[Human101948]

151. What is a "desuted narrative?"

I couldn't fin it in my dictionary.

[Adrahil]

152. IPad keyboarding error. It was "desired". NT

[Human101948]

153. Thanks!

Makes more sense.

[GeoWilliam750]

106. I am trying to remember

How did he do in the last mid-terms?

[haikugal]

112. Our overlords....

[madfloridian]

124. Between the media and the pollsters...we don't need to bother.

It's getting ridiculous.

[haikugal]

125. It is so apparent they've forever blown their cover.

[Adrahil]

154. They DATA DRIVEN.

Actual delegates are being selected now. If you don't agree with their analysis, crunch the numbers and preseent another scenario. Let us judge which analysis is more plausible.

[haikugal]

155. It's a corrupt system designed to keep the 99% under the thumb of the establishment...

You know the DC bubble that doesn't care about facts. DATA DRIVEN my ass.

[Adrahil]

156. I look foward to reading your analysis of the delgates. NT

[haikugal]

157. You mean the super delegates?

Bernie Sanders had a record number of supporters turn out to give him a 22 percent win over Hillary Clinton in the New Hampshire primaries.

It was a big win in terms of voter support, but it didn't translate to a big win in terms of delegate support.

Despite the fact that Clinton suffered the second biggest defeat in New Hampshire's history, both candidates walked away from New Hampshire with 15 delegates

Why?

Because in the Democratic Party, unpledged delegates, also known as "superdelegates," don't have to support the same candidate as the majority of voters.

In fact, the whole point of superdelegates is to give the party elite more control over the primary process.

That's not a conspiracy theory, that's what the chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) recently told Jake Tapper.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/12/we-need-more-questions-like-this-one-from-jake-tapper-to-debbie-wasserman-schultz-video/

That's right, the chair of the DNC said that unpledged "superdelegates" are meant to be a bulwark against grassroots movements in the Democratic Party.

Unpledged superdelegates have been a part of the Democratic Primary process ever since Ted Kennedy supporters challenged sitting President Jimmy Carter for the democratic nomination in 1980.

Democrats had started to feel like their primary process had become too chaotic, and that it was resulting in nominees that ended up losing in the general election.

So the party decided to make their primary process just a little less Democratic by cordoning off a percentage of the total available delegates as "unpledged delegates" who don't have to support the candidate that the majority of primary voters and caucus-goers choose.

It was a move in the wrong direction - it wrested control away from voters and made the Democratic primaries fundamentally less democratic.

And the Democratic Party has only accelerated the process of handing the party over to the economic elites in our country ever since then.

Back in 1992, Al From and the Democratic Leadership Council fundamentally changed the Democratic party with a "bloodless coup" that put Bill Clinton in the White House and replaced the Democratic agenda of FDR, JFK and LBJ with the agendas of Wall Street and global corporations.

Since then, the party ranks have been filled with third-way corporate Democrats and lobbyists.

And many of them, particularly the lobbyists, have become unelected superdelegates, despite their blatant ties to corporate America.

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/34898-have-the-democratic-superdelegates-been-compromised

[Adrahil]

158. Nope, take the super dels out of it.

Hillary will win on plaedged delagtes. The 538 analysis includes only pledged delegates.

[haikugal]

159. They pledged before votes were cast, how is that based on democratic principles?

She represents the status quo, the establishment and big money's influence. She'll promise anything to get a vote then turn around and forget you exist...unless you can pay for her attention. Hillary is not interested in working for the little people, the millions who are suffering.

Our system is broken and corrupt and going down hill fast.

[Adrahil]

160. What are you talking about?

Pledge delegates are the delegates selected in the caucuses and primaries. Super delegates are not pledged, they can vote for whoever they want. The 538 analysis does not consider super delegates.

[haikugal]

161. I'm talking about the way delegates are divided up and super delegates.

What are you talking about?

[warrprayer]

2. Kick

And rec

[A Little Weird]

3. Also Kentucky May 17th

[madfloridian]

4. Here's where I got that list...wonder if others are missing as well??

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/3/4/1496149/-Do-the-Democratic-Primaries-conclude-on-April-15th-No-they-conclude-on-June-7th

[bernbabe]

11. Well, according to Daily Kos

It's over after March 15th so who cares anyway?

[navarth]

99. that animated gif is so awesome

[madfloridian]

139. .....

[A Little Weird]

16. I don't know

Kentucky's primary is strange this year - we've always done a primary in the past where everyone voted on the same day. This year, the republicans are having a caucus instead (it's actually going on today). They did this to accommodate Rand Paul because there was a state law that would have made it illegal for him to run for senate and president on the same ballot (I don't really know all the details of that stupid decision). So maybe they thought we were voting before March 15th?

[madfloridian]

19. I had edited KY in, but took it out until I get more info.

I know FL has its primary in August, but we have a Presidential Preference Primary (16th)

That's confusing too.

Let me know.

[A Little Weird]

26. No I'm sure that it's May the 17th

I was speculating on why the post on dailykos might have left it out. I didn't mean to make the matter even more confusing. Here's some more info from ballotpedia -
https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_election_in_Kentucky,_2016

[madfloridian]

30. I added it back.

[liberal_at_heart]

5. I will be voting for Bernie on March 26.

[AtomicKitten]

85. And I for Bernie on June 7th.

[Blue_In_AK]

98. Caucusing here on the 26th, as well.

[panader0]

6. Arizona, also March 22.

Can't wait to vote for Bernie.
ETA: be careful--other posts about states not voting yet have been locked as not GDP

[DesertRat]

73. I'm in AZ too

I received my early ballot and mailed it back a week ago.

[SheenaR]

7. Sure

But for every win he may get in mostly white states, Clinton will be marching toward the nomination with likely victories in states such as Michigan and Florida

This and every condescending aspect of this post has become the standard by which (some) Clinton supporters talk to people now.

[Robbins]

13. 538 has joined list of clinton supporters

calling bernie and his supporters racist.

if we are all racists,sexist and like tea party and republicans why do you want us to vote for her.she's so much better than us
according to clinton supporters.

[SheenaR]

17. I'm sick of it

And I don't care. The Democratic Socialists have a far brighter future than the Third Way.

[Robbins]

22. consider this

i voted for

1992-Bill Clinton and dems
1994-dems
1996-clinton and dems
1998-dems
2000-gore in primary and GE & other dems
2002-dems
2004-Dean in primary and kerry and other dems in GE
2006-dems
2008-Obama in Primary and GE and other dems
2010-dems
2012-Obama and other dems
2014-dems

yet now according to some i am racist,sexist,anti-woman,like tea party,and a republican.

if you go after other dems like this because they support bernie instead of clinton how are you going to win independents.

Like you i have had enough of it.

[madfloridian]

34. I voted Dem for Kennedy plus Dem ever since. Now I'm not a good Dem for supporting Bernie.

It's ludicrous.

[Duval]

115. We must be close to the same age, madfloridian.

I have also voted Dem since Kennedy. Guess I'm not a "good Dem", either.

[madfloridian]

120. I remember the huge lines that year.

I don't feel much like a Democrat anymore.

[JDPriestly]

80. I was converted to the Democratic Party in 1952. I wore an Adlai Stevenson pin in 1956.

I have been a Democrat all my life.

I am voting for Bernie but not for Hillary although, as a Democrat, I will vote for all the other Democrats on my ballot.

[randome]

37. When did 538 call Sanders racist?

I get that some of you don't like polling firms to talk about what they do but this is getting silly. It's their job to make predictions based on trends.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

[hack89]

94. No. We are saying black voters have decisively rejected him.

but it certainly is not because he is a racist. They just like Hillary better.

[Kall]

68. It's sickening

[MisterP]

8. polls and pronouncements are intended to shape outcomes, not measure them

[madfloridian]

23. I have always believed that.

[MisterP]

25. and here's a candidate relying on voter suppression!

[madfloridian]

56. With the party chair on board..

[marew]

58. You've got that right! n/t

[GoneFishin]

76. Exactly. It's disgusting. And Camp Weathervane Dirty Tricks Squad pulls that shit constantly here.

[Karma13612]

147. [phone]. Eom

[itsrobert]

9. Time to get on with the General

Bernie has no path to the nomination.

[Kalidurga]

14. If it is true that there is no path for Bernie to get the nomination

Then waiting til the convention to be crowned shouldn't be a problem.

[Contrary1]

20. Time to get on with the General

I see Hillary having no path to the Presidency. Might as well get on with it.

[Stuckinthebush]

69. She has

She knows. Time to focus on Trump and Cruz. On to the GE!

[greymouse]

110. Hillary has no path to the presidency

Only Bernie beats Trump.

Besides the polls saying that, you can be sure that for every dirty trick Hillary, Bill, and the MSM pull, they lose Bernie voters if she is the nominee.

[TBF]

10. Translation: Hillary is tanking big time

but if we can get those "retards" (tm: Rahm) to stay home she'll still win.

[radical noodle]

12. I can relate

I lived in Indiana all my life until 2012 and regularly had to deal with "the nominee has already been chosen" thing. I can sure appreciate your feelings, but it's not new by any means.

[MaggieD]

15. Bernie is not going to win

I've been saying this since he first announced. By all means, vote. He still is not going to win. Why is it a problem to say that?

[madfloridian]

21. Well good for you and 538. Too bad for the rest of us.

[MaggieD]

27. So you want to outlaw people having opinions?

How about math and data? Should we outlaw that too?

I don't want to engage in hyperbole, but this touches on what I loathe about socialistic systems of government. They tend to be very authoritarian and seek to control speech.

[madfloridian]

36. I don't even know how to reply to that.

[ms liberty]

78. That was strange.

Where did she get that from? I reread the whole exchange a couple of times trying to figure it out.

[Ivan Kaputski]

144. Crack is bbbaaaadddd.

[MillennialDem]

72. Bernie needs 53.8% of the remaining delegates. Far from impossible.

[MaggieD]

109. Ok

[msanthrope]

87. The OP was a math teacher. I am hoping she can demostrate her proofs. nt

[madfloridian]

100. The OP never claimed to be a math teacher. The OP taught grades 1-6.

Get your facts straight.

[msanthrope]

107. Quote"397. Wrong. I taught "new" math "old" math for decades."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5576177

Tell us all how Nate's Silver's MATH is wrong.

to the jury..it is not against the TOS to quote old posts. To that end...admin had provided a helpful search box. And, previously, this OP has had a post of mine hidden my claiming that quoting old posts is against the TOS. It is not. If it was, she would be able to cite it.

[Beowulf]

116. You just proved Madfloridian's point.

If you had a clue you would know that "new math" and "old math" refer to curriculum trends in elementary schools from the 1960's on.

538 is now owned by ESPN, which is owned by Disney. Not exactly impartial.

[msanthrope]

126. I proved that madfloridian previously claimed to haved taught math....

so...still waiting on how Nate is wrong.

[Beowulf]

128. In elementary school.

I doubt that's what you originally intended.

538 is no longer Nate, it's Disney.

[msanthrope]

134. What the fuck? Seriously....are you suggesting that an

elementary school teacher doesn't have the math skills to refute Nate?

Bullshit.

[Beowulf]

138. I consider your response disingenuous. Goodbye.

[madfloridian]

129. Grades 1-6 teach math everyday.

I'm sorry but I don't see your problem.

[msanthrope]

131. Well, if you taught it everyday, then you shoud be able to refute his math....

School us all, mad!

[madfloridian]

132. If you feel the need to continue this, go ahead. I see you keep mentioning a jury?

If you feel the need for that go ahead also.

[msanthrope]

135. I would never alert on you. I think your posts deserve a spotlight.

But you---you admitted to alerting on me merely for linking to your past posts.

Again......tell us the Math that disproves Nate Silver.

[madfloridian]

136. How many years ago was that?

[msanthrope]

137. I'm Sicilian. We count decades as seconds. nr

[nadinbrzezinski]

127. Irony alert (and some red baiting)

[msanthrope]

82. The OP was a math teacher. I am hoping she can demostrate her proofs. nt

[wavesofeuphoria]

149. She was an elementary teacher. They teach math, language, science, social studies, reading, etc.

You are very disingenuous.

[Nanjeanne]

18. And they wonder why voter turnout is so low.

She's going to have a very hard time beating the enthusiasm of the Republicans in a GE if she's the nominee. People are seriously fed up with this crap.

[angrychair]

24. Kiss my ass Harry

You are not a wizard.
Glad you decided the race before 24 states (half the country) has had a say. So tired of this shit.

If she doesn't need my vote to win now than she won't need it in November (provided she remains in the race and out of jail)

[MaggieD]

31. Math and data and demographics

So far the polls have been pretty spot on. We have a proportional system that makes it near impossible for him to close the deficit he already has. He has a slim to zero chance of winning.

[madfloridian]

38. Then stop the damn primaries, Maggie D. Why bother with voting?

Just let 538 take the wheel.

[MaggieD]

43. So you all can see he really lost

Look, every poll from the start until now has shown her winning. And now you're surprised she's winning? Does that make any sense to you?

[angrychair]

49. Again, half the country hasn't voted

I am very aware how our system works. Again, if it is all the same to you I think he will stay in to the convention. As Democrats we have to leave someone in the race when the FBI come knocking on her door.

[MaggieD]

51. Great - vote

He is not winning now and he won't be winning at the end. And if he stays in after it becomes crystal clear that the voters do not prefer him (Mar 15th) he will just look foolish. Whatever.

Your fantasy that she is going to be indicted re: email is just silly. But hang on to whatever you feel you need to hang onto. Makes no difference to me.

[marew]

46. Exactly!!!

And she has all those "super delegates" already in her camp that makes sure she cancels out regular citizens' votes for Bernie! She certainly does not need us! Democracy in action- NOT!

[angrychair]

28. I will caucus for Bernie on March 26th

And support all of my brothers and sisters having their vote after I have had mine.
Union strong!

[liberal_at_heart]

32. me too! March 26. Go Bernie!

[MaggieD]

35. LOL - and I and my family will caucus for Hillary on the same day

Your guy will continue to win the caucuses because they are anti-democratic and favor his demographic. But they don't have enough delegates, nor will he win them by large enough margins to win the nomination.

[angrychair]

59. Yep, "un-democratic"

When you lose. Just fine if you happen to win.


What the hell does "favor his demographic" mean? You mean the demographics of the Democratic Party? You know, all the people she will need to win if she makes it to November without going to jail first.
Have fun trying to win with 50% (at most) of 33% of the registered Democratic Party voters and a irrelevant percentage of independents and cross-over teapublicans (as you have noticed, teapublicans are already starting to concede that tRump in their person and backing off their rhetoric-that is if that turd doesn't end up in jail himself).

[MaggieD]

61. No, I have always thought that about caucuses

His demographic is young voters that have no problem getting to a caucus location on time and spending hours there. One of the reasons caucuses are undemocratic is because older, disabled, people that have to work while they are held, single parents with kids, etc., can often not attend.

Most young people don't have those barriers. He will do well in caucus states because of that, but he will still not win the nomination.

[angrychair]

64. Closest we have ever come to agreeing so far

I understand the reasoning behind caucuses and that they are cheaper and easier to do than a primary.
Washington's Democratic Party does it for that reason. We pay for our own.
The teapublicans do a primary but pass the cost on to the citizens of Washington.

In our case, it's really that simple.

[Its Got Electrolytes]

95. I certainly hope your family is reading all of this crap you post

then decide to caucus for Bernie, just to make you look silly.

So mote it be.

[MaggieD]

108. No one in my family supports Bernie

Sorry.

[Duval]

117. What do you mean by "anti-democratic"?

That really sounds ridiculous, MaggieD.

[DinahMoeHum]

29. He who lives by the crystal ball ends up eating broken glass.

Just sayin'.

[Ned_Devine]

33. The MA totals are still questionable as well

My state was anything but a clear victory. The exit polls showed Bernie at 52-46 over HRC and suddenly after some electioneering by career philanderer Bill Clinton, she ekes out a 50-48.5 win* over Bernie.

[madfloridian]

39. Remember the exit polls problem in 2000? I'm looking for some articles now.

Scary stuff.

[Punkingal]

44. It is scary.

[reformist2]

50. I seriously wouldn't put it past some party hacks to fix the numbers.

[MaggieD]

40. You believe exit polls over actual voting?

LMAO.

Look, the delegates are awarded proportionally. We don't count states won, we count delegates won.

[madfloridian]

41. Thanks, MaggieD for keep my thread kicked. Means a lot.

[MaggieD]

45. It's a funny thread - she has been winning all along

And now that the rubber is meeting the road you all seem SHOCKED that everything people have been saying all along is coming to pass. Happy to kick a thread in the name of reality. We could use some more of that around here, IMO.

[madfloridian]

47. Let's allow the statisticians to decide elections, take out the human factor. Right?

The polls from the beginning were based on demographics they could know, but the new voters did not fit those patterns.

The polls have been used to discourage...and that should not be their purpose.

[MaggieD]

48. The PEOPLE are deciding it, and as predicted he is losing

Here is something interesting:

[Trust Buster]

65. Thank you for this crystal clear analysis.

[questionseverything]

63. richard charnin caught the ptb adjusting the exit polls

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280133097

[madfloridian]

75. This part..about the unedited exit poll MA...fascinating.

Sanders led the UNADJUSTED exit poll Gender crosstab of 1297 respondents by 52.3-45.7%. The poll was downloaded from the CNN site at 8:01pm .

Clinton led the final 1406 respondents by 50.3-48.7% – an exact match to the RECORDED vote. But her 50.3% share was IMPOSSIBLE. The proof is self-explanatory: How could Clinton gain 114 respondents and Sanders just 7 among the final 109 respondents?

[mythology]

162. This is just embarrassing

You do understand that polls are weighted right?

Here's a link so you can better understand exit polling:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/vote-2014-exit-polls-work/story?id=11996124

It's painful to keep reading these sort of uninformed posts that claim some grand conspiracy because you don't like the result of an election.

[questionseverything]

164. it is embarrassing that blackbox "output" is accepted without question

After the polls close the exit poll results are weighted using the actual vote count to make the data more accurate.
///

that quote from the link you posted is exactly what charnin has said for years, that the polling results are "adjusted" to match the "recorded vote"

[questionseverything]

163. charnin has done amazing work over the years documenting the "red shift"

the country has experienced since electronic vote counting has been introduced in the mid 60s

further proof the results are not accurate,occasionally we catch reported numbers moving backwards

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280132764

[marew]

57. Hello! "Super delegates" are not awarded proportionally!

Forgot New Hampshire? Bernie blew Hillary away but after the super delegates were counted they were within a single delegate of one another.
Super delegates are free to choose whomever they want at the national convention, REGARDLESS of how the vote went in their home state. How to fix an election!

[hack89]

96. She will continue to win without super delegates. Nt

[GoneFishin]

88. I didn't buy it either. She leaped ahead by 22,000 votes in the first 20% of returns, then didn't

gain at all during the entire remaining 80% or 1,000,000 votes. She finished with the same 22,000 lead she had from the very beginning.

It did not look normal to me at all, a giant leap at the very beginning followed by no more gains for the rest of the night. It looked like what you would expect if someone wanted to put her ahead, but not so outlandishly that it would be questioned.

[Bluenorthwest]

52. This is why we have abysmal turnout, this narrative suppresses the vote and that's why they do it.

In that regard Hillary is a failure as front runner, shrinking the very Party she should be energizing and expanding. It's a strategy fit for Republicans. And her supporters revel in this turnout, in this disinterested electorate.

[MaggieD]

54. What happened to Bernie's revolution?

Seems like it got canceled. LOL!

[KPN]

66. Not to worry BlueNW ...

Bernie's not going to lose. This kind of unbridled confidence is the stuff upsets are made of. Bernie stands a good chance even w/o the "arrogance" ... which in ordinary primaries does serve to discourage turnout. It's not working with the Bern.

[SoapBox]

53. It ain't over!

That kind of talk makes me even MORE furious than I already am.

[Vote2016]

60. Isn’t 538 the blog that told us Trump had ZERO chance and Jeb! was a lock for the nomination?

[comradebillyboy]

62. Is 538 going to prevent you from voting?

People are allowed to make predictions and say things you don't like. It's not 538 fault that Bernie is losing.

[FloriTexan]

67. Kick!

[Motown_Johnny]

70. So the coronation was today?

Damn, I must have slept through it.

[Billsmile]

71. It Was Over Before It Was Over

FiveThirtyEight in August and July.


http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-bernie-sanders-surge-appears-to-be-over/

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/bernie-sanders-could-win-iowa-and-new-hampshire-then-lose-everywhere-else/

[erlewyne]

77. On the Ides of March my household is voting for BERNIE SANDERS !!!

There are six of us ... old timey Democrats.

We roll up our sleeves and pay union dues.
Bernie is our idol !!!

[George II]

79. Hillary Clinton will still win the Democratic nomination and be elected President.

[madfloridian]

83. ......

It's been predetermined and predicted and announced.

[George II]

84. Where, how, and by whom?

[madfloridian]

86. ....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511419887

[George II]

92. Why do you link back to your OP to which we've all be replying?

[madfloridian]

93. Because the question you just asked has been answered.

Besides, why worry. Hillary will win.

Many who feel a little queasy about the primary will have decisions to make in November.

And all those states who haven't yet voted, but who are being told the nominee already....well that's another matter.

[msanthrope]

90. You were a math teacher. So tell us how the MATH is wrong. nt

[madfloridian]

118. Not sure where you got that idea.

[msanthrope]

130. Here....where you claimed to have taught Math for decades....

TO THE JURY......please note that this poster has previously dared me to post past links, then lied that linking to past links was against the TOS. In fact, admin has provided a helpful search box for just that purpose...searching. It is NOT against the TOS to post past threads....it keeps everyone honest.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5576177

[msanthrope]

81. You were a math teacher, right? Show us how Nate is wrong. nt

[SidDithers]

89. Sorry. The math just isn't there...nt

Sid

[dpatbrown]

97. Can't wait for June 7th

We here in California will go BIG for the Senator Sanders. Everyone is talking about Sanders. I was born here in 1948, and can't wait. The first time in my life I get to vote for a progressive.

[Helen Borg]

102. Another guy with ties to Clinton, I bet

Like the Daily Beast bozos.

[PatrynXX]

105. 538 got it right once

thats it's claim to fame.. thats id nada. think even a fork in the road could said who'd win in 2012

[Perogie]

113. Hillary is a corporate whore

[Ivan Kaputski]

145. It's just business.

[Duval]

114. 2 here voting for Bernie on March 15th. nt

[madfloridian]

171. Mailed in my absentee ballot last week.

Bernie of course.

[madfloridian]

119. With 24 states and DC left to go...folks, 538 says we have a winner!!

This has become a pattern, more noticable since 2000.

[madfloridian]

121. Are they showing Hillary's results WITH superdelegates...

perhaps to discourage remaining 24 states plus DC?

To make it seem overwhelming?

[Karma13612]

148. I would take a wild guess and say "of course "

[FloriTexan]

122. Awesome post!

[madfloridian]

123. ......

[madfloridian]

143. Is it true that Obama didn't lead in delegates until May?

I've forgotten.

[madfloridian]

165. Kick because 538's new prediction says Hillary is IT!!!

So I guess we just sit back and enjoy our statistician overlords.

[SidDithers]

173. Kick...nt

Sid