Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

paulthompson

(2,398 posts)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 09:48 AM Mar 2016

Sanders can win - support outside the South

Bloomberg just put out a new national poll today putting Clinton and Sanders in a dead heat nationwide. Sanders has 49% and Clinton 48%.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-03-24/democrats-evenly-split-over-clinton-sanders-in-bloomberg-poll-im63yb0w

Sanders has been crushed by Clinton in the South, but every single Southern state has voted already (except Kentucky). So it stands to reason that his numbers would have to be much better than evenly split outside the South. Furthermore, people are saying that Sanders would need to win 58% or more of the remaining pledged delegates to have a majority of them going into the convention. Is it reasonably possible for him to reach that number?

I'm no statistician, but I decided to do some back of the envelope calculations. First, I chose to define "the South" as what Wikipedia calls "the Solid South," which includes Texas, Oklahoma, Arkanasas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia. That does not include a more expansive view of the South with West Virginia, Maryland, Washington DC, and Delaware, since none of those have had their primaries yet.

Using 2010 census data, the South has 104 million people. Clinton got 68% of the pledged delegates in those states, which I think is a good guesstimate of her popularity in the South, since Democrats have proportional voting in all their primaries. 68% of 104 million is 71 million.

The total US population in 2010 is 308 million. 34% of that is in the South, which means 66% (or 204 million) is not. In the voting so far, Clinton has won 46% of the non-South vote, and Sanders 54%. However, it's expected that many of Sanders' best states are still to come.

If we go with today's Bloomberg poll that says Sanders and Clinton are tied nationwide, then we subtract the South at a rate of 68% Clinton and 32% Sanders, that means that of the 66% of the U.S. that is the non-South, Clinton would have 41% (or 83 million) and Sanders 59% (or 121 million).

Thus, if Bloomberg's latest poll numbers are correct, Sanders' popularity should be roughly 59% outside of the South right now. It is said Sanders needs 58% of the remaining pledged delegates. So that looks doable to me. It's possible for him to win!

Mind you, this is a very rough calculation. Hopefully there are others who could dig deeper into the numbers. Also, the Bloomberg poll number might be a little generous to Sanders, since some other recent national polls had him doing worse. But my basic point is that if you look at this latest national poll number and then subtract the South, which has voted already, Sanders is in the rough ballpark of the 58% that he needs.

30 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Sanders can win - support outside the South (Original Post) paulthompson Mar 2016 OP
Or we could just look at aggregate polling from some of the non -southern states remaining. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2016 #1
I knew someone was going to say that paulthompson Mar 2016 #2
By the way... paulthompson Mar 2016 #3
Well... DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2016 #4
true paulthompson Mar 2016 #8
He needs to win large and heterogeneous states 60-40 DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2016 #11
I disagree paulthompson Mar 2016 #16
Hillary Clinton beat Barack Obama in CA by 8 points. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2016 #17
So what? paulthompson Mar 2016 #18
What there is DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2016 #19
reply paulthompson Mar 2016 #20
Proof please DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2016 #24
Really? paulthompson Mar 2016 #26
The Nevada exit polls were hotly disputed DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2016 #27
I'm done paulthompson Mar 2016 #30
The demographics of California don't support your theory. mythology Mar 2016 #23
No paulthompson Mar 2016 #25
a bit more paulthompson Mar 2016 #15
Also, if you look at the trajectory of national polls, Bernie is rapidly gathering steam lagomorph777 Mar 2016 #28
I think crunching numbers is interesting, but can't be relied upon all that much. Punkingal Mar 2016 #5
Yes, it would be nice if a little luck would go our way for a change! NT xynthee Mar 2016 #7
Thanks for posting! xynthee Mar 2016 #6
Me too. pdsimdars Mar 2016 #22
Outside of the Bible Belt, Sanders has won 11 states to Hillary's 7 and won 583 delegates to 513 Attorney in Texas Mar 2016 #9
#berniemath DanTex Mar 2016 #10
First we were instructed to ignore the national polls. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2016 #14
we know how the rest of the race will go firebrand80 Mar 2016 #12
If he ran as an independent, he could win the south . mmonk Mar 2016 #13
Astounding! pdsimdars Mar 2016 #21
I think the GOP is gonna "get it" lagomorph777 Mar 2016 #29

paulthompson

(2,398 posts)
2. I knew someone was going to say that
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 10:14 AM
Mar 2016

I figured that would be the counter response. However, many states haven't been polled at all yet, or polled poorly. If Sanders really is tied with Clinton nationally, where do those Sanders supporters live? They have to be somewhere!

Also, if you look at state by state polls, there's been a frequent trend in non-South states. (Many of the Southern states Sanders never even contested, since he didn't have enough time for personal visits or enough money to run ads everywhere.) Sanders starts off way, way down in the polls, and then as the election date gets closer, he closes the gap dramatically.

For instance, consider that Sanders did better than the latest polls in Idaho and Utah by over 50 points in each state! In Arizona, he lost but still did better than the most recent polls by about 12 points. In Illinois, he lost by two points, but he was down by 40 points in two polls a week earlier. In Michigan, he out performed the polls by about 20 points. In Kansas, he beat the latest poll by 35 points. And so on.

I've been following politics my entire life, and I've never seen any poll numbers move as fast as Sanders' numbers have moved. For instance, I'll bet that beating the polls by over 50 points in two states on one night has never happened in the history of U.S. primaries!

So yeah, he's down in a lot of state polls many weeks before they take place, but I fully expect those numbers to change dramatically, just as they have in most other non-Southern states. He may lose some of the states you mention, or only win narrowly, but then again over half the states haven't voted yet and he'll do very well in others. (Personally, I think he's going to do very well in California once he gets his message out there, and that's a huge state.)

Again, if the Bloomberg poll is even close to accurate, those Sanders supporters have to exist somewhere. Unless you're saying his support has inexplicably surged in the South since those states have voted, many of them have to be in the states that haven't voted yet.

paulthompson

(2,398 posts)
3. By the way...
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 10:34 AM
Mar 2016

I think we'll know a lot after the next round of primaries. If Sanders wins by big numbers in Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii, then there's reason to be hopeful.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,704 posts)
4. Well...
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 10:37 AM
Mar 2016
Again, if the Bloomberg poll is even close to accurate, those Sanders supporters have to exist somewhere. Unless you're saying his support has inexplicably surged in the South since those states have voted, many of them have to be in the states that haven't voted yet.


You chose the one national poll that confirmed your narrative and conveniently ignored the seven national polls that disconfirmed your narrative, ergo:


http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-democratic-primary


For instance, consider that Sanders did better than the latest polls in Idaho and Utah by over 50 points in each state!


Those are caucuses in states that were hardly polled. You can do a google search to verify my claim . They are also small and heterogeneous states.

Bernie Sanders is losing the Latino vote on an order of 3-2 and the African American vote 3-1 to 4-1. There is no evidence to suggest he is going to do any better in states where they are a significant part of the electorate.


I think we'll know a lot after the next round of primaries. If Sanders wins by big numbers in Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii, then there's reason to be hopeful


He was always supposed to do well in homogeneous states...The challenge was to channel that success into more heterogeneous ones. That's why Sanders handily defeated Clinton in homogeneus Utah and Idaho and got waxed in heterogeneous Arizona.






That is why predictions markets give him a 1-20 chance of winning, ergo:


http://predictwise.com/politics/2016-president-democratic-nomination

paulthompson

(2,398 posts)
8. true
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 10:57 AM
Mar 2016

>You chose the one national poll that confirmed your narrative and conveniently ignored the seven national polls that disconfirmed your narrative, ergo:

I said this in my original post:

"Also, the Bloomberg poll number might be a little generous to Sanders, since some other recent national polls had him doing worse."

I agree the Bloomberg poll is probably a little off. Maybe he's down 50% to 45% to Clinton nationally at this point. He'll have to do better. He's still a long shot, and he's got an uphill climb all the way.

I didn't say he's going to win; I said he has a reasonable chance, meaning it's not impossible. But a lot of Clinton supporters say it's impossible for him and he should just give up already. I disagree.

I see a lot of enthusiasm for Sanders with his big rallies and fundraising, compared to Clinton. Also, Sanders does very well with the like/dislike ratings (the best of all the candidates of either party), and Clinton does very poorly. Her 55% or so dislike rating would be notably higher than anyone ever elected president, and ironically is only equalled by the high dislike ratings of Trump. That says to me that Sanders has a good chance to peel away more of her support as more voters get to know him.

It's not unreasonable to imagine that he could continue to rise in the polls over the next couple of weeks until more polls show that he's roughly tied nationally (or maybe even better, who knows). If that's the case, I stand by my estimate that that would mean he would have about 59% support outside the South, which gives him a shot to win 58% of the remaining delegates.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,704 posts)
11. He needs to win large and heterogeneous states 60-40
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 11:09 AM
Mar 2016
It's not unreasonable to imagine that he could continue to rise in the polls over the next couple of weeks until more polls show that he's roughly tied nationally (or maybe even better, who knows). If that's the case, I stand by my estimate that that would mean he would have about 59% support outside the South, which gives him a shot to win 58% of the remaining delegates.


He needs to win large and heterogeneous states 60-40. There is no evidence of that so far and even if we use your non-south/south paradigm he has lost Illinois, Missouri, and Ohio; the latter by a significant amount. He did win Michigan 50-48. He also lost non- deep south Massachusetts. Iowa, and Nevada, , and Arizona.


paulthompson

(2,398 posts)
16. I disagree
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 11:41 AM
Mar 2016

I think he can roughly tie in some of the big states you mention, like New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Then do very well in the vast majority of the remaining states. Then win by 60 to 40 or more in California. If you look at the numbers state by state, that can get him over the 300 delegates he needs from Hillary's lead. He doesn't need to win all those big states by big amounts (though it sure would help).

The key in my opinion is California. There are almost 500 delegates in that one state, making it the most important state by far. Already, his poll numbers there are not that bad. And a lot can happen between now and early June when California votes, especially with Clinton's e-mail scandal still a big question mark.

Already, he's not doing that bad with Latino voters there - Latino voters favor Clinton 58 to 35 in the latest poll. And according to that poll, he's only winning white voters by 46 to 41. He can do a LOT better than that with whites, judging by the exit polls in some other states. (There are states where he's won the white vote by over 80%!) If he has a late surge in California, as he has had in so many other non-South states, he could win there by 60 to 40 or more.

Again, I'm not saying he has an easy road by any means, but it's not impossible for him to win either.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,704 posts)
17. Hillary Clinton beat Barack Obama in CA by 8 points.
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 11:50 AM
Mar 2016
Then win by 60 to 40 or more in California.



Hillary Clinton beat Barack Obama in CA in 2008 by 8 points:


http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/CA.html


There is no evidence to suggest she loses it by 20 points this time.

In every contest except Illinois where she won the Latino vote by one point, her margins have been 3-2 or greater...In fact, TX and AZ, with their large Mexican American populations, were dry runs for California and he did poorly there.

paulthompson

(2,398 posts)
18. So what?
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 12:04 PM
Mar 2016

So what? How Clinton did in 2008 has very little predictive value for 2016. Note for instance that Obama swept most of the deep South in 2008, and Clinton won them all this time around. Or note the results in New Hampshire this time. Not only did Sanders win by 20 when Clinton won it in 2008, but if you dig deeper into the data, the type of people who voted for Clinton and which counties she won were very different than in 2008.

Amongst other things, Clinton generally did well with white voters and Obama with black voters in 2008, while this time it obviously is flipped, with Sanders doing well with white voters and Clinton with black voters. This is an entirely different election!

I don't think it can be denied that in state after state this time, Clinton starts out with huge leads and then Sanders numbers improve. Sometimes its enough for him to win the state, sometimes not, but that's the general trend. If Sanders is already only down by seven in California, as the latest poll shows, that makes me optimistic that his usual late surge will give him a big victory there.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,704 posts)
19. What there is
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 12:16 PM
Mar 2016
so what



What there is a paucity of evidence that Senator Sanders can win a heterogeneous state by twenty points and and an abundance of evidence that the more heterogeneous the electorate the worse he does. That's an empirical observation and a normative one.

And your argument that he is this strong closer is specious. For every state where he started behind and caught up there are states like Florida, Virginia, Texas, Arizona, and Ohio et cetera, where he started far behind and ended far behind.

Oh, please spare me the canard he started at 1% , 2% 3%. You could use that argument to say an unknown like Jimmy Carter started at zero and became the president.

Amongst other things, Clinton generally did well with white voters and Obama with black voters in 2008, while this time it obviously is flipped, with Sanders doing well with white voters and Clinton with black voters.


That is incorrect...Sanders and Clinton are splitting the non-majority vote.If you have evidence to the contrary adduce it. Oh, the overall majority vote, to date, and not the cherry picked majority vote from this or that state.

Thank you in advance.

paulthompson

(2,398 posts)
20. reply
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 01:11 PM
Mar 2016

California is different, as far as big states go. Sanders has done very badly with blacks, often losing 80% to 20%, and sometimes even worse. California only has a 7% black population, which is much less than the other big states. It also has a large Asian-American populaton (about 15%), and Sanders has done well with them, usually getting a majority of their vote.

The two states that have voted already with a black population percentage most similar to California? Kansas and Oklahoma - states Sanders won by 35% and 10%. It's a whole different story there than say New York or Illinois, which have much larger black populations.

"And your argument that he is this strong closer is specious. For every state where he started behind and caught up there are states like Florida, Virginia, Texas, Arizona, and Ohio et cetera, where he started far behind and ended far behind."

I've said he's been a strong closer, except in the South. Three of the states you mention are in the South, so let's skip them. In Arizona, he lost by 18 points. A week before, an average of two polls had him down by 30 points. In Ohio, he lost by 14 points. A week before, an average of the three polls taken then had him down by 25 points.

It's the same trend in state after state. Sometimes there's a big shift towards Sanders, sometimes a smaller one, but it's almost always in his direction. In this thread already, I've pointed out many other states where he's had a late surge, including Michigan, Kansas, Illinois, Utah, Idaho, as well as Ohio and Arizona mentioned above. I could add others, like Iowa (where he tied after being down by about 20 points a month earlier), New Hampshire (where he beat the final poll average by about ten points), Colorado (where he beat the one prior poll by over 40 points!), Minnesota (where he beat the latest poll by 50 points!), Massachusetts (where he beat the final poll average by five points), Maine (he bettered the one poll by 15 points), Oklahoma (he beat the final poll average by 12 points), and so on. Good grief! How many more examples do you need?!

Seriously, how the heck can you not admit there's a pattern of late surges for Sanders in non-South states?! It has to do with Sanders' positive like/dislike numbers and Clinton's negative like/dislike numbers. Put simply, the more people get to know Sanders and his policies, the more they want to vote for him.

Also, I don't follow what you mean by splitting the majority or non-majority vote. I was simply referring to the fact that Obama won most of the black votes in the 2008 primaries, while Clinton has been winning most of the black votes in the 2016 primaries. I don't see how you can dispute that. Things have changed a lot since that election. For instance, Clinton did better with poor voters and Obama with rich voters in 2008, whereas in 2016, Sanders has been doing better with poor votes and Clinton is doing better with rich voters.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,704 posts)
24. Proof please
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 01:43 PM
Mar 2016
Also, I don't follow what you mean by splitting the majority or non-majority vote


They are splitting the white vote. If you have evidence to the contrary, post it. And if they are splitting the white vote then the non-white vote is determinative, and the more non-white voters there are the better she does. We are back to the beginning of our conversation.



California is different, as far as big states go. Sanders has done very badly with blacks, often losing 80% to 20%, and sometimes even worse. California only has a 7% black population, which is much less than the other big states.[ It also has a large Asian-American populaton (about 15%), and Sanders has done well with them, usually getting a majority of their vote


Proof please.




She won Latinos in Texas, the lions's share of whom are Mexican American 71-29%:

Preferences of Latino voters, who helped decide the 2012 election for President Barack Obama, were only broken out in Texas’ exit polls; Clinton won with them, with 71 percent to Sanders’ 29 percent.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clinton-sanders-minority-voters_us_56d6f8e3e4b0bf0dab33f4f9



There is no exit demographic polling data for Arizona but the research indicates she won the heavily Latino areas there:

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/arizona


With that as a predicate where is the evidence he will fare better with the Latino electorate in California?

Outside of Illinois where they tied he has lost the Latino vote badly whether they be Cubans, Puerto Ricans and Dominicans in Florida or Mexican Americans in Nevada, Texas, and Arizona.

The suggestion he will beat Hillary Clinton in the Golden State by 20% or more is outlandish... Throw in the fact that no Democratic presidential candidate in recent history has won it in a contested election it by more than single digits and it becomes preposterous.

Is it possible... I live in the San Fernando Valley...I am heading to the gym...It's theoretically possible that the big one (earthquake) will hit and you will never hear from me again but not probable.



paulthompson

(2,398 posts)
26. Really?
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 01:57 PM
Mar 2016

Really? No comment whatsoever from you about all the Sanders late surge data I looked up for you? You said prove it with more than a couple of examples, and I did. Can you concede that is something that has happened in most non-South states? If you can't acknowledge clear evidence, then I'm wasting my time arguing with you.

As far as Texas goes, Sanders was overwhelmed with so many Super Tuesday states at once, and he barely contested there. The latest California poll already has him doing better with Latinos in that state (Clinton ahead 58% to 35%) than the Texas numbers you cited. And, as I've repeatedly pointed out but you seem incapable of acknowledging, Sanders has a history of late surges in non-South states, so those numbers should improve.

Also, look at my post #25 that mentions the Latino exit poll numbers in Nevada.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,704 posts)
27. The Nevada exit polls were hotly disputed
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 02:12 PM
Mar 2016

The Nevada exit polls were hotly disputed:



https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=nbevaDA+exit+polls+2016+hispanic+disputed


No one disputes the FL, TX, and AZ exit polls where Senator Sanders was crushed among Latinos. *

(Clinton ahead 58% to 35%) among Latinos in California


That's a twenty three point deficit or 62% of Latinos who have expressed a preference...That's close to the 67% She received against Barack Obama in 2008:








BTW, I am still waiting for those numbers on Asian voters that you suggested Senator Sanders is winning handily.

In closing, all the evidence points to a close win for Clinton in California. There is no evidence that points to a >20% loss...

* The only state where he tied among Latinos is Illinois... He was crushed with Latinos everywhere else. The logical inference is that Latinos who live in the southwest, the lion's share who hail from Mexico, vote differently than those in the mid-west who are from someplace else.



paulthompson

(2,398 posts)
30. I'm done
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 02:37 PM
Mar 2016

STILL no comment about the pattern of late Sanders surges? Wow.

I could go on arguing about demographic data and such, but I'm done, because that suggests to me that you refuse to acknowledge any evidence that doesn't support your view. Clearly, there's no way I'd be able to even dent your opinion on anything.

 

mythology

(9,527 posts)
23. The demographics of California don't support your theory.
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 01:25 PM
Mar 2016

It's heavily Hispanic and African American. Not exactly Sanders best demographics.

paulthompson

(2,398 posts)
25. No
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 01:47 PM
Mar 2016

See my post #20 right above yours. A seven percent Black vote in California isn't much, and compares to Kansas, where he won big (by 35 points!).

Yes, there are more Latino voters in California, but he makes better headway with them, whereas he's had a lot of trouble getting black voters to change their minds. In Nevada, exit polls indicated he won a slight majority of the Latino vote. That may be a little off, since there was some dispute about that, but at least it was in that ballpark. It's highly likely he'll still lose a majority of Latino voters in California, but it's a matter of how much, and especially how well he can do with white and Asian American voters. He could lose the black vote badly in California and still have a big win there.

paulthompson

(2,398 posts)
15. a bit more
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 11:18 AM
Mar 2016

"Those are caucuses in states that were hardly polled. You can do a google search to verify my claim. They are also small and heterogeneous states."

True, but they were polled. There actually were seven polls in Utah, though some were months before the election date, and ALL of them were off by more than 50 points. So clearly there had to have been a late surge in Sanders' support. And that has been the pattern in most non-South states (though usually not nearly that big of a surge).

Even small states and caucus states matter. If Sanders is going to win, he's going to have to take some of those small states by very big margins, like he did in Utah and Idaho.

I don't recall the exact numbers, but I believe Sanders has a plus like/dislike of about 11 or 12 (meaning that many like him more than dislike him) and Clinton has a like/dislike of about minus 11 or 12. That says to me that there are a lot of people who don't really like Clinton (and do like Sanders) but are voting for her because they feel she has a better chance of winning the general election or some other strategic reason like that. That means there's a much greater potential for Sanders to improve his numbers than Clinton. Most Americans know Clinton well, and her dislike rating has stayed high for many months.

lagomorph777

(30,613 posts)
28. Also, if you look at the trajectory of national polls, Bernie is rapidly gathering steam
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 02:19 PM
Mar 2016

Apply your original math to the extrapolated national poll, and Bernie's odds look very good.

Punkingal

(9,522 posts)
5. I think crunching numbers is interesting, but can't be relied upon all that much.
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 10:53 AM
Mar 2016

There are so many variables to take into account, and this year more than most election years that is true. I love Bernie, and I badly want him to win, but we need some luck, too. If it were a level playing field, for instance, the MSM being fair, it would be easier to reach the numbers he needs.

Having said this, I still believe it's possible!

 

pdsimdars

(6,007 posts)
22. Me too.
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 01:20 PM
Mar 2016

I post something and see that, say 50 people have commented, and I go to look at them and there are only 3. That says something to me. I must have pushed some buttons of the people I don't want to hear from.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,704 posts)
14. First we were instructed to ignore the national polls.
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 11:13 AM
Mar 2016

First we were directed to ignore the national polls and rely on state polls. Now we are direct to ignore all the state polls and rely on the one lone national poll that shows Senator Sanders leading.

If I ever get lost i am not asked a Sanders supporter for directions.

firebrand80

(2,760 posts)
12. we know how the rest of the race will go
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 11:10 AM
Mar 2016

Once enough states have voted, you can pretty accurately tell weather a state will be strong Hillary, strong Bernie, or a close race. The same thing was true in 2008. It's not about "having a crystal ball" it's his common sense.


Bernie does well in open primaries, less diverse states, caucuses. Hillary does better in closed primaries, more diverse states.

Given everything we know about the upcoming states, combined with the amount of ground Bernie needs to make up, this thing is over. Of course Bernie can stay in if he wants, but his supporters shouldn't close their eyes to the writing on the wall.

mmonk

(52,589 posts)
13. If he ran as an independent, he could win the south .
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 11:12 AM
Mar 2016

But he couldn't because our system works against independents as well as air time.

 

pdsimdars

(6,007 posts)
21. Astounding!
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 01:18 PM
Mar 2016

Even what he has achieved so far is astounding.
He started with zero name recognition on May 26. He started out with 4% against Hillary in national polls.
He has had a media blackout . . they don't show any of the pictures of his yuuuuge crowds, don't play his speeches, etc. The DNC has done everything in their power to stop him. Clinton campaign has swift boated him. . . on and on and on. . .and yet, he still keeps rising.
This says to me that the American public is "getting" it. Which means, we still got it as a country.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Sanders can win - support...