Awesome chart for Bernie's path to the nomination!

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

http://polichart.com/interactives/bern-path

[onehandle]

1. ...

[img][/img]

[NWCorona]

4. That appears so for Hillary

[morningfog]

2. What is remarkable is that he shaved 100 delegates in a few days and just a few contests.

[hack89]

5. Not really.

it merely reflects the normal back and forth of a primary campaign and how favorable states align for each candidate on the schedule. Obama was losing states in May of 2008 and still won the nomination even though his lead was never as great as Hillary's.

He still has a nearly impossible road ahead of him.

[morningfog]

7. He's making the road less impossible with his landslides against the front runner.

We all know it is a very steep hill and that HIllary is almost certainly going to win. But, it is not absolute and Bernie's chances not impossible.

[hack89]

9. He needs landslides in big states

which he has not done yet. And don't forget - Hillary probably has a couple of land slide victories ahead of her. The first big victory for her or a loss in a big state for him and it will be over.

[morningfog]

11. No he doesn't need a landslide in a big state. He needs wins in big states to be sure and

needs to avoid landslides in big states.

[hack89]

16. He needs landslide victories simply to get the delegates he needs

avoiding landslide losses simply hands the nomination to Hillary - lets not forget that she could potentially narrowly lose every state remaining and still win the nomination. That is how big her lead is.

[morningfog]

21. Her lead is 228 delegates. He needs 56.5% of the remaining delegates.

That means if he wins landslides in smaller states, that number goes down for the larger states.

I admit it is hard, I have never denied that, but not impossible. He could break even in NY, MD, PA, and NJ and take CA by 52% and win the majority of the pledged delegates if he wins by comfortable to large margins in nearly all the remaining contests.

It's fluid. He does not need to win every contest. He does not need landslides in big states. He must avoid landslides from here on out though, especially in the big states.

[hack89]

49. She needs 44%. She could lose every remaining state and still be the nominee.

that is an easier path than Bernie's.

[morningfog]

50. Lol, of course it's easier.

State the obvious. His is damn near impossible but not impossible. His is unlikely, but not impossible.

He essentially has to run the table in all the small states with big margins while breaking even in the big states and picking one or two off.

[hack89]

3. That chart should scare the hell out of any Bernie supporter.

he is not going to win NY, PA, NJ and California - he might narrowly win one but not all four.

[morningfog]

8. No fear. It is what it is.

He'll do it or he won't.

[bobbobbins01]

10. I think it looks pretty promising.

And he'll do better than narrowly winning just one. I think he'll take 3 out of 4, but the question is by how much. Hopefully a he'll get a few more blowouts along the way to offset any states he might under-perform in. I think its all pretty much up in the air right now, but those 4 are the ones to watch, and maybe Maryland too. I'm not sure if 45% there is going to happen for him, but I'm hopeful.

[hack89]

12. Based on what understanding of the electorate?

all the recent polls tell a different story. I can understand wanting to win really really badly but a grounding in reality comes in handy every now and then.

[bobbobbins01]

15. I think we've learned that the polls have been way off.

And that Bernie tends to over-perform most of them.

[hack89]

18. Not really

MI was the only real outlier - the polling companies have figured out how to account for Bernie and his supporters.

More importantly a clear pattern has developed as to which type of states favors each candidate. Bernie has yet to break that pattern which does not bode well for upcoming primaries which are the type of states Hillary has been winning by healthy margins.

[reddread]

25. as have the prognosticators

if only they had something (else) to lose by being wildly wrong.
at least MSNBC is fooling fewer folks now.

[HumanityExperiment]

20. Time...

There's only one candidate that's gained in % within polls over time, the other has remained static

so the only candidate that's scared is the one that's remained static

so... check your facts, check your info and get back to me on which candidate is scared again....

[hack89]

22. All that matters is the number of delegates. That is all.

national polls are useless - for one thing they encompass states that have already had their primaries.

State polls are what you need to look at - and they look good for Hillary. And very bad for Bernie.

So I would think Bernie is the one running scared. He got in a huge hole early and can't see a way to win regardless of how national polls are trending.

[HumanityExperiment]

23. yeah, sure...

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-the-polls-missed-bernie-sanders-michigan-upset/

try again...

[hack89]

24. Yet polls for previous and subsequent states were accurate

so MI polling was an outlier. If all the state polls were wrong you might have a point.

[HumanityExperiment]

26. my point...

22 primaries remain

56% needed by Bernie in each of those remaining to beat HRC

these are the facts, this is the truth

time, trends... only candidate that's continued to rise in poll %'s consistently has been Bernie from the point he started this race until present

I look forward to each primary and opportunity, do you?

[hack89]

27. And Hillary only needs to win 44% to win.

which means she could lose every state and still win the nomination.

And you know that she has some big victories ahead of her - Bernie is not going to run the table.

[HumanityExperiment]

30. Agree to disagree...

you have your perception and I have mine...

[CountAllVotes]

31. +1

and I beg to agree w/you. I hope that is ok w/you! for Bernie Sanders for President 2016.

#FeelTheBern

[HumanityExperiment]

32. agreed!

[CalvinballPro]

33. You like 538, huh? Spin this.

Much more recent than the Michigan article you're citing.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/its-really-hard-to-get-bernie-sanders-988-more-delegates/
If you’re a Sanders supporter, you might look at the map and see some states — Oregon, Rhode Island, West Virginia, Montana and so forth — that look pretty good for Sanders, a lot like the ones that gave Sanders landslide wins earlier in the campaign. But those states have relatively few delegates. Instead, about 65 percent of the remaining delegates are in California, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Maryland — all states where Sanders trails Clinton in the polls and sometimes trails her by a lot.

[HumanityExperiment]

34. OK, I'll take that challenge...

"because superdelegates could still swing things"

do you support this premise?
super delegates "exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists."
so is Bernie a 'grassroots activists'?

Do I believe this is possible?
http://polichart.com/interactives/bern-path
Yes, I do

"If the remaining states vote based on the same demographic patterns established by the previous ones"
HRC and her supporters have to BANK on this to happen otherwise they're screwed and if MI is any indication of possibilities then they should be VERY concerned

For instance...
"The most recent poll of Wisconsin, which votes next week, has Clinton winning there. I ignored it and assumed Sanders will win by 16 percentage points instead. The demographics do look pretty good for Sanders in the Badger State."

So you tell me, who's more scared with the remaining 22 primaries left?
Not me.... so that leaves you

[CalvinballPro]

36. You're so scared you're quoting out of context.

Here, I'll italicize what you quoted and bold-face everything you didn't.

None of this is all that likely. Frankly, none of it is at all likely. If the remaining states vote based on the same demographic patterns established by the previous ones, Clinton will probably gain further ground on Sanders. If they vote as state-by-state polling suggests they will, Clinton could roughly double her current advantage over Sanders and wind up winning the nomination by 400 to 500 pledged delegates.

My candidate leads in every measurable metric that decides the nomination. Yours trails, badly.

Scared? You're projecting now.

[HumanityExperiment]

37. Incorrect...

tick..tock...
you posted this
"If the remaining states vote based on the same demographic patterns established by the previous ones"

Nate countered yours with this... within same article

"The most recent poll of Wisconsin, which votes next week, has Clinton winning there. I ignored it and assumed Sanders will win by 16 percentage points instead. The demographics do look pretty good for Sanders in the Badger State."

not scared, I'm 'projecting' the facts as contained within the very article you meant to 'impress' me with as supporting your contention

So... I say this, try again

[CalvinballPro]

38. Oh, so you're a professional cherry-picker then? Not surprising.

The paragraph you're citing is the author forcefully adjusting expectations to give Sanders even a small chance at winning enough delegates. He did it for other state's than Wisconsin. It doesn't mean what you think it does, and you're running scared from the parts of the article that say what you don't want to hear.

To repeat, these are not predictions. On the contrary, they describe a rose-colored-glasses scenario for Sanders that I consider to be very unlikely. To develop them, I started with our original pledged delegate targets for Sanders. Those already look optimistic for Sanders, who has underperformed his delegate targets in most primaries (he’s beaten them in most caucuses, but there aren’t many caucuses left on the calendar).

Now what? Now that I've shown the actual context for the paragraph you tried to falsely cite as predicting a Sanders win, what have you got left?

Nothing, that's what.

[HumanityExperiment]

39. Try again...

Nate countered yours with this... within same article

"The most recent poll of Wisconsin, which votes next week, has Clinton winning there. I ignored it and assumed Sanders will win by 16 percentage points instead. The demographics do look pretty good for Sanders in the Badger State."

That's Nate's prediction... in the article... his words....

so the only person having 'nothing' is you.. try again

[CalvinballPro]

41. Nate's words: "These are not predictions." Try reading the whole article.

[HumanityExperiment]

42. I did...

Nate countered yours with this... within same article

"The most recent poll of Wisconsin, which votes next week, has Clinton winning there. I ignored it and assumed Sanders will win by 16 percentage points instead.The demographics do look pretty good for Sanders in the Badger State."

[CalvinballPro]

43. Nate's words: "These are not predictions." Everything after is an argumentative ASSUMPTION

Nate Silver is engaging in an intellectual exercise to find out how much Sanders would need to be winning states to be on track to win enough delegates. He even says, in the quote you're fixated upon, "I ignored it and assumed." There's no analysis to back it up.

Run along, frightened troll. You've earned your ignore with this bullshit.

[HumanityExperiment]

45. Ugh...

"Run along, frightened troll. You've earned your ignore with this bullshit."

yeah... sure... gotta love the projection of some folks

[bobbobbins01]

6. Also of note, the Arizona number will change in Bernies favor slightly.

Even if a re-vote doesn't happen, he's probably going to gain 2-3 more delegates than what is currently listed there once the provisional ballots have been counted(He's already up to 41.33%).

[thereismore]

14. They are counting the provisional ballots in AZ? Please tell me!

[bobbobbins01]

17. I've been tracking it here...

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/AZ-D

And sorry, I misstated the number...he currently has 41.14%. The 41.33% are the soft pledged delegates...but its still an improvement. Early estimates are leaning towards him hitting 43-44% after its all said and done.

[thereismore]

28. That's really great. Thanks to everyone who stayed

in line.

[strategery blunder]

52. +1

[thereismore]

13. I think he will be "in the green" after WI but then all eyes are on NY. He needs to win with 54%,

maybe 50%, but a win would be very nice. The difference between 54% and 50% in NY is 10 delegates. If he does really well in WI and WY, he does not have to win NY with 54% to be on target. 50-51% would suffice.

[amborin]

19. K&R

[Renew Deal]

29. Basically according to that site, he has to win almost every contest

[Tarc]

35. Some hilarious stuff right there

54% New York?
60% in Kentucky?
58% California?
58% Pennsylvania?

Unicorn fantasy.

[hrmjustin]

40. He is not even going to get 44% in NY let alone 54%

[Donald Ian Rankin]

44. Now there's a wonderful piece of dishonesty.

They "arbitrarily" select March 15th as the day to start the counter from, discounting everything before then.

Of course, if you start it any sooner than that, Sanders is well behind target.

[DCBob]

46. That clearly shows how impossible it is for Bernie to win.

There are a number of problems but assuming Bernie has big wins in PA, NY, NJ, and CA are really ridiculous. There is no polling or logic or reasonable explanation for why he would win those with those big numbers. This is just grabbing numbers out of the air to make the numbers come out the way they wanted it. Any idiot can do that.

So if he fails to perform big in any one of those 4 states he still loses. That's why Bernie is toast. Thanks for proving it so clearly!

[Gothmog]

47. Chart ignores super delegates

Have fun trying to change the minds of these party officials. Sanders does not want to be a part of the Democratic party but wants to remake the Democratic Party in his own image. The super delegates will be voting on the basis of what is in the best long term interests of the Democratic party and who is best for down ballots candidates. Sanders' platform would kill a ton of down ballot candidates which will make it hard to change the minds of super delegates.

[jg10003]

48. This is not correct. Bernie needs to win 56.5% of remaining delegates, not 58%.

That 1.5% difference can be the difference between winning with 2026 delegates and losing with 2025.

[Garrett78]

51. Utterly Unrealistic

I've asked many times for someone to use one of the delegate calculators to demonstrate how Sanders could acquire a majority of pledged delegates. Finally someone has done so, but it's nowhere close to realistic.

8-point victory in NY, 12-point victory in NJ, and a 16-point victory in both PA and CA? Only a 10-point loss in MD and only a 16-point loss in Wash. D.C.?

Could one of those things happen? I suppose. All of them? No.

And even then Sanders just barely takes the lead.