Proportional delegation means there is no chance Bernie catches up to Hillary by NY

[Godhumor]

Bernie is going to have a good stretch, but his hope at making up the gap hinges on outperforming big states starting in later April, not the favorable stretch in the next few weeks.

After the 15th, there are only 373 pledged delegates up for grabs before NY. Just in overall terms, the following math comes into play:

If Bernie runs on Tuesday and manages to 50-50 split the entire day (Which he won't, but let's say he does), he is still down by the same 206 delegates he is today.

To get the full way back to that he needs to win over 77% of those 373 delegates before NY. A wipe-out of 290 to 84. Some states in the next few weeks will be close, and Hillary will be favored in Arizona's closed primary, probably by double digits. Arizona is the third largest delegate haul in that 3 week stretch, by the way.

So what is close to parity? Within 50? Even then he needs over 71% of all those delegates.

Now, let's assume that Hillary expands her lead by 50 on Tuesday (So I can reuse some of the same numbers, and it will be a lot closer to reality than a 50-50 split). To be at parity by NY, Bernie needs to win over 86% of all those delegates, which means multiple states where Hillary gets below the 15% voter threshold. That has only happened in Vermont so far, and even then just barely.

To be within 50 would be that 77% number from a few paragraphs before.

So let's go one step farther, let's say Bernie splits Arizona after splitting Tuesday. He would need to win 76% of the 298 remaining delegates before NY to be within 50 of Hillary by NY. If she increases her lead by 50 tomorrow and splits Arizona, he needs 85% of the delegates to be within 50.

So let's look at a more realistic scenario. Hillary increases her lead by 50 tomorrow and Bernie, even including Arizona, wins the next 3 weeks by an average of 60-40 in delegate split. He'll still be down over 180 delegates by NY. What about at 70-30? He will still be down 107.

Parity, hell even near parity as being defined by an over-generous 50 delegates, is simply not feasible at this stage in the game.

[NurseJackie]

1. Math. Reality.

[woodsprite]

2. What was Pres. Obama's standing at this point in the game in 2008?

Is there a site that shows that? I was wondering over the weekend or if I'd have to try to piece it together.

[jcgoldie]

25. situations were reversed as I recall

Hillary faced the same uphill climb as Sanders now faces after the southern states voted... she made up ground but could not catch up for the same reasons as are currently being stated in regard to Bernie.

[karynnj]

29. The number of primaries and caucuses on different dates are not the same

In 2008, superTuesday in early February had 23 states, including most of the biggest - CA, NY, NJ etc - decide. It actually was an incredible firewall for Clinton, who had strong connection in most of those big primaries.

At this point, fewer states voted than by that point in 2008. Not to mention, the order of states is different. This time most of the southern states were front loaded. this was clearly intentional as it was assumed - correctly - that Clinton would win big here.

The math does favor Clinton. One reason is that the formula weighs states by the votes in past general elections - not democratic votes, but votes. This means that red state Democrats are weighed more than blue state Democrats. Add to that, that Clinton is still ahead in most national polls. Bernie would need to be significanly above 50% if most of his wins are in blue states.

[MineralMan]

3. There is not a zero chance for Bernie Sanders to win enough delegates.

Statistically, he could still do it. It appears to be very unlikely, but to say he has no chance is simply incorrect.

[Godhumor]

6. Well yes there is a chance

But No chance is so much closer to reality, and it fits much better in the subject line than "Bernie's chance of doing so is really, really, really small and blows up completely after the first even remotely competitive state."

I'm going to go ahead and say my dramatic license in OP is allowable in this case.

[pandr32]

79. And reality matters!

[Garrett78]

10. To be tied by New York?

Because that's what the OP is about.

[MineralMan]

15. No, I don't think it will be tied by New York.

I think Hillary's lead in the delegate count will still exist. Proportional allocation of delegates is the reason.

Tomorrow, her delegate count lead will probably increase some more, for that very reason, even if there are close wins in some states by Bernie.

The system and how it operates is the only explanation that is needed.

Check back on on Wednesday. You'll see Hillary with a higher lead than now. Reality is real.

[Garrett78]

21. Agreed.

And since that's what the OP was about, I'm not sure why you had posted what you did.

[pkdu]

52. he's our own little Debbie Downer, nt

[Tortmaster]

106. And she has a margin of over 1.6 million ...

... in the popular vote. She's been crushing it and will possibly extend her pledged delegate lead to 300 later today.

And that's good news for America!

[morningfog]

4. I don't think anyone expects him to overtake her by NY.

Bernie has many good states following NY. If he is to reach or overtake her, I don't think it could happen until June 7.

[Garrett78]

12. See this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511487139#post23

[morningfog]

13. Regardless, he doesn't have to catch up by NY to catch her by the convention.

[Garrett78]

20. Of course not.

But what I keep seeing over and over again are suggestions that Sanders still has a good chance (some have said 50/50) of becoming the nominee from people who refuse to justify their statement with delegate math. And then when people use delegate math to suggest Clinton remains a clear favorite, people want to claim predictions are useless. Apparently vague predictions that aren't rooted in reality are just fine, but predictions that those same people dislike are pointless.

Likewise, various mainstream media outlets and sites like Politico are spot-on when posting pro-Sanders pieces, but are otherwise conspiring against Sanders. Yesterday I'm reading that Politico is out to get Sanders. This morning I'm reading a pro-Sanders Politico piece posted on DU. The contradictions and inconsistencies are astounding. Many Sanders supporters on DU seem to be emulating Clinton, ironically enough.

And don't get me started on the ridiculous 'red' state meme. Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Idaho, Utah, Montana, Wyoming, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota...perfectly acceptable. Louisiana, Georgia, Texas, South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama...shouldn't even count.

[karynnj]

31. I think ALL the red states are over represented because the allocation is based on votes, not votes

for the Democrat.

So, if Idaho has 30% Democrats and Vermont has 60% Democrats -- each Idaho Democrat gets twice the weight of a Vermont Democrat.

However, those are the rules set up and thus, what we need to follow. As you note it helps each side if they both win red states. I wish they would change the weights to reflect the consensus of Democrats. (I wouldn't mind if all the purple states started the process or were given some extra weight - as that could at least be defended as trying to pick the candidate most likely to win the swing states. Except in landslides, we win the blue and lose the red. I can think of no reason for overweighting a state like Alabama ... which we win... never.

[Garrett78]

42. How delegate total is assigned.

This is from 2004 but the rules, I'm guessing, haven't changed much if at all: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P04/D-Alloc.phtml

So, states where Democrats have won in previous elections do, in fact, get a bonus.

From another site:

population & Democratic party enrollment
average vote cast in last 2 elections for D candidates
Democratic performance in the last few elections
Democratic proportion of state Congressional delegation

https://www.quora.com/What-determines-the-number-of-delegates-assigned-to-a-state-during-primaries

[pkdu]

54. How dare you post that !

The Bernie excuse goes out the window.

[Recursion]

103. Where I said he could be at parity? Hell, he could. He'll be closer than now

Parity is a stretch but not the kind of fairytale impossibility you're convinced it is. If Sanders can perform in the Northwest like Clinton has in the South? Yeah, he could be within 50 or so by NY.

If you care about closing this out you should deal with the actual numbers rather than making up stories about how the 5% gap can't be closed with 70% of the delegates still outstanding. It obviously can, and the next few weeks will determine a lot of that.

[Garrett78]

112. I don't care about "closing this out."

Between tomorrow and New York, there are 373 delegates up for grabs. If Sanders can manage to break even with Clinton tonight, they would still be separated by 214. So, in order to close the gap to 50, Sanders would need to win nearly 270 of those 373 delegates.

Once again, there isn't a 5% gap. There's a 16+% gap, and Sanders would need to win the remaining delegates by +8%. We know where you're getting the 5% number from, and we also know how misleading it is. We've been over this more than once.

[Barack_America]

5. Yes. He needs to win NY and CA to pull ahead.

And both by about 10 points each. We're aware, thanks.

[Gwhittey]

7. Post anfter post

I see this Math crap? How can you claim Math means shit in what you are saying. You are using bad Math you are using your assumed data and extrapolating a answer. But your data is flawed. The polls are flawed and it has nothing to do with closed vs open primary. It has too do with fact that Polls do not reach people who are 90% more likely to vote for Sanders. These polls are like me going to a KKK rally and asking "Do you like black people" I bet you can tell how that poll would work out.

Unless you know that Clinton is cheating to win the vote and has the fix it, How can you be so sure? as the voting has not accrued.

[Godhumor]

8. I didn't use a single poll in this analysis

And I made very strong assumptions for Bernie. Don't know what else to say.

[MineralMan]

16. There is no fix. There are voters.

Voting decides, and nothing else. You'll see that if you watch actual election results and delegate allocations. That's the only math that matters, and real results only come after each primary event.

Predictions are only guesses. In our primaries, we don't have to guess. We can see the results.

[Garrett78]

9. I get 435 and not 373.

As I pointed out here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511487139#post23

Sanders would have to do incredibly well on Tuesday to be in a position to catch Clinton by New York.

[Godhumor]

11. You're counting unpledged supers n/t

[Garrett78]

14. My bad.

I had forgotten that this site does that: http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016-presidential-primary-schedule-calendar/

[ProfessorPlum]

17. I don't think anyone things he can catch up to her before NY

but there is a chance for him to catch her before the convention. So I'm not sure what the point of this OP was.

[Garrett78]

19. It was a response to another thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511487139

Anyway, I've seen all sorts of predictions from people claiming that Sanders has a good chance of winning the nomination, but I don't ever see specifics/number crunching. The person claiming "Sanders could conceivably catch Clinton by New York" is yet another example.

[dmosh42]

18. Even if he wins the majority vote, the Dem rules are "rigged" big time!

[MineralMan]

22. If he wins the majority of pledged delegates,

he will be the nominee. Democrats are fair-minded people. The superdelegates are not going to vote against the will of the people who voted in the primaries. There is no "rigging." There is a system for choosing a nominee. That system will be followed.

Now, here's a question for you: Suppose, as is quite likely, that Hillary Clinton has a small majority of pledged delegates and a majority of the popular vote by the time of the convention. Do you think the superdelegates should vote for Bernie Sanders and make him the nominee? Some people do think that is what should happen. How about you?

Personally, I want the superdelegates to affirm the vote of the primary voters, either way. Whoever has the majority of delegates will also have the majority of the popular vote, nationwide. That's because delegate allocation is done proportionally to the vote in each state. The superdelegates should simply affirm that vote. And they will.

The superdelegates only come into play, really, if there are more than two candidates for the nomination who earn delegates. In such a case, there might not be a majority for a candidate. Then, the superdelegates end up making up a majority. That will not be the case in 2016.

Nothing is "rigged." It's designed to produce a nominee. And that's what will happen, fairly, openly and honestly. You'll be able to see it happen, live.

[dmosh42]

30. I wish I could be as optimistic as you are, because I know you remember when there was no.......

superdelegates, and the majorities fully reflected the primary results. Why do you suppose they needed to add that feature? Maybe for
an event such as this? It would seem outrageous that things happen, but we only have to remember 2000 when the Supreme court decided the election over a majority.

[MineralMan]

37. They did the superdelegate thing to deal with primaries where there

were multiple candidates that might result in no clear majority. That's not the case this year. There are only two, so one will obviously have more votes than the other. It will be simple, really. The candidate with a majority pledged delegates wins the nomination. That's how the superdelegates will vote, I'm sure. They're not going to go against the will of the people, either way.

[aspirant]

41. No need for superdelegates with multiple candidates

the popular vote totals should decide the winner

[Lucinda]

65. Caucus states do not contribute to popular vote totals

So that would have to change

[aspirant]

69. Superdelegates

"do not contribute to popular vote totals" so we should change that too.

[MineralMan]

111. Only in some caucus states. Others record and report

popular votes.

[Lizzie Poppet]

23. Yes, it's possible that the early primary scheduling of conservative states sealed it.

That's disastrous for the party in November, in my estimation, but it's how it's likely to work out. Early momentum, particularly when relentlessly trumpeted by a corporate media completely in the bag for the corporate candidate, may be impossible to overcome. Large margins in Republican-controlled states look likely to make the difference.

Again, I think that's a strategy almost guaranteed to lose the GE, but it's how things were set up. I'm not going to cry about the outcome as much as an actual party member (I'm an independent progressive), but I'll damn sure not be shy about my opinion of the wisdom of these choices if we end up looking at the inauguration of President Trump.

[Garrett78]

24. Let's look at the actual primary schedule:

Last edited Mon Mar 14, 2016, 12:44 PM - Edit history (1)

Iowa (Midwest)
New Hampshire (New England)
Nevada (West)
South Carolina (Deep South)
Alabama (Deep South)
American Samoa
Arkansas (Lower Midwest)
Colorado (Mountain West)
Georgia (Deep South)
Massachusetts (New England)
Minnesota (Upper Midwest)
Oklahoma (Lower Midwest)
Tennessee (Lower Midwest)
Texas (Deep South)
Vermont (New England)
Virginia (Southeast)
Kansas (Midwest)
Louisiana (Deep South)
Nebraska (Midwest-ish)
Maine (New England)
Democrats Abroad
Michigan (Upper Midwest)
Mississippi (Deep South)
Northern Marianas

Quite a few folks are misrepresenting the schedule, and the meme you're pushing is yet another meme that needs to be laid to rest. Plus, some of the states Sanders has won (and is expected to win going forward) are 'redder' than several of those Deep South states (going by Romney's margin of victory in 2012).

[Art_from_Ark]

43. I wouldn't call Arkansas "lower midwest"

The only part of the state that might qualify for that category is the extreme northwest corner.

[Garrett78]

53. It's also not part of what's traditionally considered the Deep South.

I'm not wild about using "upper midwest" for places like MI and MN either. The point is that the "frontloading" charge has been vastly overstated.

[Art_from_Ark]

60. The so-called "Delta" flatlands of the east are much more akin to the Deep South

than they are to the Midwest. Places like Eudora, McGehee, Lake Chicot-- those are Deep South towns-- might as well be Mississippi. The people who live in the Ozark and Ouachita mountains generally are not midwesterners, either. And if you went to Little Rock or Texarkana or El Dorado and told the locals they were "southern midwesterners", they'd get a good laugh out of that.

[Garrett78]

62. And people in MI or MN probably don't want to be considered "upper midwest."

But we're getting away from the point here.

[artislife]

100. They call themselves the North West...not to be confused with the Pacific Northwest.

They have an airline named that.

[Garrett78]

113. What different places are called often makes little sense.

Michigan is much closer to the east coast than the west coast. I grew up in St. Louis and always thought it odd that it was considered Midwest.

Oh well.

[aspirant]

44. Dixie states are front loaded for a reason

If you think a Dixie Dem represents the Dem base than rely on them for a GE win.

We should put our bluest states first, than swing states to determine the best candidate to win the GE, period.

[Garrett78]

56. You're conflating the Deep South Democratic electorate with the overall electorate in the Deep South

And that's not fair. Also, as my list should make clear, the charge of "front-loading" has been overstated.

So, you think DC should be first, followed by Vermont? I don't see the point of that. Now, if you wanted to argue that the swing states should be first, I could maybe go along with that. Florida and Ohio, in that order, are the 2 most crucial states.

Personally, I'd like every state to have their primary over the course of the same few days (maybe a Friday through Sunday or Thursday through Saturday), following 2 or 3 months of campaigning. In January, perhaps. The top 2 (or possibly 3 if a certain threshold is met) would advance, and the rest would have to drop out. After more campaigning, every state would once again hold a primary election (over the course of 3 days) and a nominee would be determined. Or perhaps there would be a 3rd round. Endorsements would be allowed, of course. But there would be no such thing as a "superdelegate."

I say 3 days of voting so as to increase turnout.

Generally, there's a frontrunner and several alternatives to the frontrunner. The problem is the alternatives tend to split the vote, which is an advantage to the frontrunner (it's not really an issue with the Democrats this year as it quickly became a 2-person race, but it is certainly an issue for the Republicans this year). That's why I would support an elimination round and then a 2nd round to determine the nominee.

Also, I don't see why IA or NH or SC (or any single state) should have so much influence over the results (why should "momentum" be a factor in deciding who the nominee should be?). I'm especially bothered by states that don't mirror the overall electorate having so much influence.

[aspirant]

61. "Deep South Democratic electorate" you mean conservaDem primary voters and is very "fair"

"front-loading" is clearly a tactic to try to run-up the tally to eliminate real progressive candidates. You only need Bernie's elimination posts by HRC supporters on DU to understand this

"overstated" the only overstatements are yours.

[Garrett78]

64. As the list in post #24 shows, the "front-loading" charge has been overstated.

Several of the states Sanders has won (and is expected to win going forward) are 'redder' than most of the states of the Deep South (judging by Romney's margin of victory in the last presidential election). But I guess that doesn't matter somehow.

[aspirant]

72. How many "Deep South" states remain after tomorrow?

"overstated" how many bluest of blue states still remain.

"the "front-loading" charge has been overstated" Your psychic vision, not mine.

[Garrett78]

73. Psychic vision?

Methinks you know not what you're saying. And since you aren't actually addressing the points I've made, I'll stop replying until you do.

[aspirant]

92. Verify and scientifically prove the overstatement, just another one of your psychic guesses

"overstated" how many bluest of blue states still remain.

"the "front-loading" charge has been overstated" Your psychic vision, not mine.

[Garrett78]

95. You're drunk, right?

Good night.

[aspirant]

99. You're unable to verify psychic guesses , right?

[MattP]

26. By putting his issues in the mainstream he has won

He has proven what was thought to be fringe is very much popular and hopefully it will be a turning point for this country

[GreenPartyVoter]

28. Yes, and he needs to stay in the race to keep those

issues at the forefront.

[BainsBane]

27. He would need 61% of all remaining delegates to win the nomination

By contrast, Clinton needs only 39% of the remaining delegates.

That doesn't mean it is impossible for Sanders to win, but it makes it extremely difficult.

[eomer]

110. He needs 54% of remaining pledged delegates.

Hillary needs 46% of remaining pledged delegates.

[SheenaR]

32. Realistic

Is not her winning +50 tomorrow

Let Bernie be down by 100-150 by NY. That's perfectly fine.

If he is down 100 at NY, it's over for her.

Tomorrow after he wins 3, then wins 8 straight. She may win 1 or 2 states the rest of the way.

To quote a cheerleader here. Math. Reality.

[Garrett78]

33. Wait, what's realistic and not realistic?

So, it's not realistic to think Clinton could increase her delegate lead by 50 tomorrow? But it is realistic that Sanders could be down by just 100 heading into New York?

Hmmm.

[SheenaR]

34. Not what I said

50 is unrealistic.

The notion of 100-150 or even 180 being insurmountable is nuts.

And I said if it's 100 it over.

That's what I said.

[Garrett78]

40. Just to clarify.

Your post was titled "Realistic," followed by "Is not her winning +50 tomorrow"

I guess you were saying it's not realistic to think her lead will be down to 50 after tomorrow. If so, I agree. I thought you were saying, "Realistic is not her winning +50 tomorrow," as in, "It's not realistic to think she could increase her lead by 50 tomorrow." Because I'd say that is realistic.

You then implied that her lead being down to 100 heading into New York is plausible. I don't think that's realistic. If Sanders and Clinton break even tomorrow (meaning Clinton would still be up by more than 200), it will be an exceptionally good day for Sanders. In that scenario, Sanders cutting Clinton's lead down to 150 heading into New York is plausible.

[aspirant]

45. Prove your "realistic" guesses.

[Garrett78]

50. I was commenting about someone else's guesses.

But perhaps you mean my suggestions about what isn't realistic. If you care to specify, I'll be glad to explain via delegate math.

[aspirant]

55. Please explain your scientific "suggestions"

[Garrett78]

57. Can you specify?

Which suggestions?

By the way, do you have the same objections to Sheena's predictions?

[aspirant]

63. Post 20

Tell me how your "delegate math" scientifically eliminates Bernie from the nomination and avoid any and all propagandized opinions.

[Garrett78]

66. I didn't say it did. Let's look again at what I actually wrote in that post.

Post #20 was about hypocritical posts. Here's what I wrote in that post:

But what I keep seeing over and over again are suggestions that Sanders still has a good chance (some have said 50/50) of becoming the nominee from people who refuse to justify their statement with delegate math. And then when people use delegate math to suggest Clinton remains a clear favorite, people want to claim predictions are useless. Apparently vague predictions that aren't rooted in reality are just fine, but predictions that those same people dislike are pointless.

Likewise, various mainstream media outlets and sites like Politico are spot-on when posting pro-Sanders pieces, but are otherwise conspiring against Sanders. Yesterday I'm reading that Politico is out to get Sanders. This morning I'm reading a pro-Sanders Politico piece posted on DU. The contradictions and inconsistencies are astounding. Many Sanders supporters on DU seem to be emulating Clinton, ironically enough.

And don't get me started on the ridiculous 'red' state meme. Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Idaho, Utah, Montana, Wyoming, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota...perfectly acceptable. Louisiana, Georgia, Texas, South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama...shouldn't even count.

[aspirant]

74. Post 63

"Tell me how your "delegate math" scientifically eliminates Bernie from the nomination and avoid any and all propagandized opinions".

Still waiting for your scientific "delegate math"

[Garrett78]

75. Post #63, which was a copy 'n' paste of post #20, clearly shows I never said that.

Post #20 is about various contradictions I've witnessed (a good example can be found in this thread, in which you object to certain predictions but not others).

I didn't say anything about "scientifically eliminating" anyone. Methinks your reading comprehension skills are lacking, or perhaps you're drunk.

[aspirant]

88. "to justify their statement with delegate math".

Still waiting for you to scientifically "justify" your "delegate math" or include the disclaimer.

[Garrett78]

91. Still waiting for you to make sense.

You continue to ignore the points I've made, including the point about your hypocrisy. You continue to accuse me of saying something I clearly didn't say.

So, we're done.

[aspirant]

93. Verify and scientifically prove this "hyprocisy" or just another psychic communication.

[Garrett78]

94. Well...

...you objected to predictions given in response to Sheena without objecting to Sheena's predictions. So, there you have it. That was easy.

[aspirant]

101. That's not scientific proof, just another one of your psychic associations

[Godhumor]

35. It is very realistic she adds another 50 tomorrow. She can do it easily with just 2 states

Hillary's lead will expand tomorrow just on the basis of FL and NC.

[SheenaR]

36. Your realism and mine are different

NC is not going to help her build a sizable lead. It will be under ten points. Florida, you got me. And then he wins the other three

[Godhumor]

39. Fine. NC by 10 and FL by 20

Is over 50 delegates, and that is expecting Hillary to underperform in both those states, Illinois and Ohio.

Like I said, 50 is a lot more realistic than 0, and she has a much better chance of being 70+ Wednesday morning than under 30.

[aspirant]

47. so now it has come to " better chance" how unconvimcing.

[Garrett78]

58. I notice you don't object to Sheena's predictions.

I don't see what's wrong with saying one predicted outcome is more likely than another predicted outcome. For instance, in another thread, a poster suggested that Sanders and Clinton could be tied by the time New York has its primary. If I were to say it's far more likely that Clinton will lead by at least 150 delegates heading into New York, what would be wrong about that?

[aspirant]

67. Fine, then include the disclaimer

as follows: I am in the psychic prediction business and all numbers + guesses have no scientific basis and I agree that anyone's prediction is as "realistic" as mine.

[Garrett78]

70. But that isn't true, and you still haven't explained why you don't object to Sheena's predictions.

You don't have to be a psychic to say something like, "It's virtually impossible for Clinton and Sanders to be tied heading into the New York primary." Because, as has been explained several times already:

Breaking even on March 15th would be considered an exceptionally good day for Sanders. And, even if that were to happen, he would then need to win nearly 300 of the 373 delegates leading up to New York. That's not palm reading. That's math.

[aspirant]

77. "Would be considered"

another one of your psychic guesses without disclaimer, where's your science

[Garrett78]

85. Stating that Sanders winning 50% of the March 15 delegates...

...would be considered (by Clinton and Sanders supporters alike) to be a great day for Sanders is a "psychic guess?" Mmmkay. If you say so.

Still waiting for you to let Sheena know how much you oppose her predictions.

[aspirant]

96. If you don't have the March 15 numbers, they are only psychic guesses

no matter the joy or sorrow.

[aspirant]

46. Prove your "realistic" guesses with not one vote counted

[Alfresco]

38. kick :-)

[oasis]

48. Thanks for sizing it up.

[aspirant]

49. Is "sizing it up" scientific?

[Garrett78]

59. The OP explained why it's unrealistic to think they could be tied heading into New York.

Feel free to explain why you disagree.

[aspirant]

81. Show me the science, not psychic guesses.

[Garrett78]

87. The OP, post #70 and other posts have already demonstrated with math...

...why it's highly unlikely that Sanders and Clinton will be tied heading into New York.

You choosing to ignore those posts don't make them go away, nor does your repeated use of "psychic guesses" indicate that you have a clue what you're talking about.

Likewise, ignoring my point that you don't object to predictions that you like doesn't make my point disappear.

[aspirant]

97. "highly unlikely" is not science

and unscientific "delegate math" is subjective, hence psychic guesses.

[Garrett78]

114. I'm pretty sure you're the only one using the term "science."

Just because you keep insisting other people said such-and-such doesn't make it true. Nice try, though.

[aspirant]

115. It doesn't make it science either, just more psychic guesses

[grasswire]

51. FBI. nt

[jfern]

68. Why would he need to catch up by NY?

[Garrett78]

71. See post #19.

This OP was a response to another OP.

[jfern]

82. He just needs to win the pledged delegates by June 14th

Or maybe a little later if he's narrowly short and can manage to pick up a handful of delegates in the later rounds of caucuses.

[Garrett78]

89. Yes, but the OP wasn't about Sanders's chances of winning the nomination.

Again, it was simply a response to another OP. So, no need to get worked up over it.

[aspirant]

83. Show us the proven, verified scientific numbers.

[Garrett78]

90. The numbers for what?

You mean the math that explains why it's highly unlikely that Sanders and Clinton will be tied heading into New York? That's been done several times already. Ignoring those posts doesn't make them go away.

[aspirant]

98. The unscientific "delegate math"

for future uncounted primaries, thus psychic predictions/guesses

[Scootaloo]

78. Because he lasted past September

Because he didn't quit before christmas.
because he didn't drop out after the early primaries.
because he didn't cave after Super Tuesday
because he didn't lose in Michigan.
because he's doing well in tomorrow's contests.

Because clinton supporters keep making arbitrary "cutoff points" for Sanders in an effort ti discourage voter turnout, and those deadlines keep getting blown open.

[Garrett78]

80. No, it's because the OP was a response to another OP. Simple as that.

See post #19 and post #71. This thread was simply a response to someone else who suggested Sanders and Clinton could be tied heading into the New York primary. That's all.

[Recursion]

104. I flippantly said he might and Godhumor has been focused on that for about 24 hours

I seriously doubt he'll be even when NY votes, but he's going to be a lot closer than he is now, particularly since with every day he treads water, the absolute spread of 200 gets smaller proportionally.

[Godhumor]

107. It was a great post! Truly felt it needed to be an OP

Way too much work went into it to leave it as a post in an already existing thread.

[Scootaloo]

76. Here we have the core difference between Clinton supporters and Sanders supporters

Sanders supporters see a goal they desire and are going to work for it no matter how hard it is.

Clinton supporters see hardship and declare that no goal is worth the effort.

Your arbitrary goalposts - "By christmas! By super tuesday! By Super Tuesday v.2.0! By New York!" are just that - arbitrary goalposts. And you keep missing. Again, and again, and again.

Maybe instead of trying to deflate turnout for sanders, you ought to try to inflate turnout for clinton? I know, it's hard, so you're not really that interested in trying. But give it a whirl, Godhumor.

[pandr32]

84. Hillary has won over a million more votes than Sanders to date

So much for: "you ought to try to inflate turnout for clinton"

[Recursion]

105. Yep, but only the delegate count matters, ultimately

And those northwest states have them too

[pandr32]

117. Great! She's ahead with delegates, too!

[Firebrand Gary]

86. Kicked and Recommended.

[Peace Patriot]

102. Your mistake starts in your 1st sentence: "Bernie is going to have a good stretch.."

He wasn't going to have anything like "a good stretch" only a short time ago. Now Illinois, Ohio and Missouri are in play, with some polls showing Sanders ahead in Illinois and Missouri and very close in Ohio. THIS WAS NOT THE CASE ONLY A SHORT TIME AGO. It happened as a result of Sanders' SURPRISE victory in Michigan. Michigan put these states in play for Sanders not just doing well but winning the states. And it even makes a decent showing in Florida a possibility.

What you don't seem to understand is human nature, politics and the momentum of a growing insurgent campaign. You don't seem to grasp the difference between Clinton's complacent voters and complacent campaign--a campaign that was all geared for an easy coronation, and which has yet to respond to the danger that it is in of actually losing this nomination--and a campaign with fired up supporters, eager for the challenge, who are out there knocking on doors and campaigning and organizing tens of thousands of people into rallies at numerous locations, and making 50,000 telephone calls in a day, and raising unbelievable amounts of money in small donations.

Thousands of young activists and voters. Thousands of new activists and voters. Thousands of oldsters like me who have been invigorated by this campaign, which resembles the old "big tent" Democratic Party that we knew when we were young. Thousands of Independent voters and alienated non-voters, newly excited. People who are flying below the radar of the pollsters and the pundits.

You don't get it. You really don't. Politics has a passionate side, an emotional side--the way, for instance, Eugene McCarthy didn't even win New Hampshire, just did well, and drove LBJ out of the race in 1968; the way the Democratic Party imploded after Robert Kennedy was assassinated in 1968--an explosion of youth against the war, which resulted in a loss for Humphrey which should have been a win (against Nixon); the way JFK beat Nixon in 1960 because JFK looked infinitely better on the new political medium of television (and had a wonderful speechwriter and a great sense of humor); the way the public continued to give Bill Clinton high approval ratings throughout the Ken Starr "Star Chamber" proceeding and even with an impeachment...and so many more instances of passions and emotions coming into play, things that defy logic.

Numbers matter but they don't matter that much in surprising (or shocking) circumstances and in the face of an insurgent, rebellious, anti-establishment campaign--in the case of Sanders, a campaign that has been written off, time and again, and WILL NOT DIE. At least, so far.

I think you don't understand the reason for this, or how it's working. The country is boiling with the need for change. The pundits don't get it. The numbers crunchers don't get it--and have been wrong again and again. The party establishments don't get it. The media, of course, are clueless. And the Clinton campaign seems to me to be the most clueless of all, sitting back, fat and happy and smug, trying their little dirty tricks and getting nowhere, and hanging on with increasing desperation to their ragged "inevitability" campaign plan.

I will not predict anything. In such a volatile situation, who knows what tomorrow will bring? But I will say this: you have that Clinton smugness, from your very first sentence. "Bernie is going to have a good stretch." You don't understand how he got here, to this "good stretch." You don't understand how impossible that was, just weeks ago, when Daily Kos was calling for Sanders to pull out and "unify." Many of you Clinton supporters were saying that. Then Sanders did the impossible--and shut you all up for a while. Now you and "Nurse Jackie" are back with your "numbers." Please spare me! This is only partially a numbers game, and you don't understand the other parts.

[Godhumor]

108. Bernie needs the numbers side to win

Michigan netted him 4 delegates. Half of that was wiped out by a territory caucus with less than 200 people participating.

Passion, enthusiasm and spirit are great, but strategy and tactics are needed within the rules. When Bernie decided to concentrate on "shocking" upsets in states instead of maximizing delegates in delegate rich states, even if he loses, he put headlines before winning the nomination. That is simple, cold, hard numerical reality.

Does he have a chance? Sure. But that path is tight as hell and needs to be walked perfectly.

And I have literally no idea how acknowledging that he is going to be in a favorable three week stretch where he is probably going to win 6 or 7 of 8 contests is condescending.

[bigwillq]

109. I agree.

Bernie is doing very well but he needs (needed) to do much better because of how the system is set up. Bernie should do well today, and going forward, but probably not well enough to win the nomination.

[magical thyme]

116. He's not expected to catch up by NY. Most of his paths don't have him catch up until June 7

What does need to happen is that in April, he starts closing the gap.