Bernie cannot win FL in the general, and that means if he loses ANY of the following he loses it all

[Celerity]

given the following postulations. If he loses FL then he HAS to win ALL of the flowing states or pairings or he loses the EC, in some cases by a nation ripping-apart 269-269 tie where the Rethugs 26 (or more post election) House delegations will elect the monster Rump.The only 2 state House delegations (ironically WI and FL) where we have a chance to remove a delegation from the Rethugs are gerrymandered up the arse, have Rethug massive voter suppression programmes as well, and are basically insanely hard to flip, PLUS there is a tied state (PA) who the Rethugs very likely may win back if Bernie is at the top of the ticket. ALL those Blue Wave flips in the House that are from pink, purple and red districts are in serious trouble with a Sanders-topped ticket. There is more than a decent chance we lose the House with a Bernie-led ticket.

For arguments sake I will keep ME-2 and NE-2 in the Trump category as Trump won ME-2 (the 2nd most rural district in the US House) by 10 points, and NE-2 voted down a progressive in favour of a Trumper-humper in the massive Blue wave 2018 elections. Obama won it by 1 % in 2008, then lost it in 2012, Hillary lost it in 2016 with only 44.98% of the vote. Those one or two (IF we flip both) EV's only come into play in certain losses of states or pairs, those being worth 9 or 10 EV's. If worth 10 EV's, we would need to flip BOTH or lose 269-269 with the House electing Trump if we flip only one. If we lose 11 EVs or more from the list below, those 2 districts do not matter at all. The odds of Bernie flipping AZ or NC are very, very low, and IA (Hillary won only 41.74% of the vote in 2016) chances are also very low, especially if Bernie loses FL and WI. OH, TX, IN, GA, and MO are in the delusional category as states to place as possible R to D flips with Sanders at the top of the ticket, especially if the economy holds up to any sort of extent.


Lose FL and then ONE of the following states or pairs (given the 2 split districts I already covered, and those only matter for the 9 or 10 EV states/pairs anyway) and we lose

MI

or

PA

or

WI

or

CO

or

MN

or

VA

or

WA

or

NJ

or

NV+NH

or

OR+NH

or

NM+NH

or

OR+NM

or

OR+NV

or

NV+NM

or

CT+NH (CT as a pair partner is added due to it being an insurance centre, which Sanders puts at risk)

or

CT+NM

or

CT+OR

or

CT+NV

[LexVegas]

1. Trump will win Virginia if Bernie is the nominee. nt

[Celerity]

4. then that's the whole show, we lose, & will also probably come close to or outright lose the House

[LexVegas]

25. Yep. nt

[democratisphere]

2. Voters need to wakeup.

[JackInGreen]

3. And we're bound n determined

To be ruled by one state or anothers decision, this is a good example of shit being broken.

[Freddie]

32. Reality

We have the EC. We already “won” 2 elections only to have us get screwed by the EC. We can’t afford that again and have to plan our campaign around this reality. Repugs are counting on the same thing happening in Nov. and don’t give a flying f** that the majority of humans in this country don’t want them.

[MFM008]

5. I say

It will be 1988 again.
Sanders wins west coast states and the usual
Blue states like Vermont.
Maybe 10. Thats it.

[empedocles]

10. Still early in the race

[Celerity]

15. my calculations show a worst case scenario of Bernie only winning 10 states, DC included

He may win ME-1, but a reduced margin could hand Trump the at large delegate.

[Mike 03]

19. Horrifying.

[Celerity]

21. WA could fall as well, but looking at the 2016 percentages and current Trump numbers, I put it Blue

[Tom Rinaldo]

23. By my calculations: Looks like a bad acid trip to me. n/t

[Celerity]

33. not at all, that was the WORST case scenario, here is what I think, as of today, will be the actual

results with a Bernie topped ticket.

MI, MN, CO, VA, and NV could all or partially go Trump as well

[BilltheCat]

77. I hate to say it but I think that's an optimistic projection

I'm not sure we even would get MD and Washington.

[Celerity]

80. Oregon would be more likely to defect than WA, and I cannot see, even with Bernie, MD going down

these are the lowest % states for Rump in 2016

Oregon I put red in this worst case map as the spread (11%) is a lower there than WA (16%) and a LOT lower than in MD (26%)

[BilltheCat]

83. Mostly agree

You may well be right on Oregon. Outside of Portland it certainly isn't the blue bastion people think and it is much smaller than seattle to offset the rest of the state.

MD I am less sure of as the Democratic vote in MD is solidly PoC. I can't see them turning out in big numbers for Bernie Sanders.

Thank you!

[Celerity]

84. actually (and unfortunately IMHO) Berne is the clear second place choice with my fellow black voters

Massive cleavage in terms of age versus Biden. Millennials and under break to Bernie, older ones to Biden.

[BilltheCat]

86. respectfully disagree

Sorry but polls are so unreliable and with the GOP and Russians willfully targeting them I wouldn't give them a bean of credibility at this point.

The interviews last night with live PoC Democrats in SC showed not one of them supporting BS. I don't know a single PoC personally that doesn't think he's a surefire ticket for another term of Dottard and loss of the House.

[Celerity]

87. exit and entrance polls also show you to be wrong, and you are positing one tiny anecdotal piece

of evidence, which is statistically meaningless.

There were other focus groups with black Bernie supporters on the same network, so you are also being selective with yoursingle sample.

as for this statement

I don't know a single PoC personally that doesn't think he's a surefire ticket for another term of Dottard and loss of the House.

You must not know many, especially my age cohort of 18 to 30yo (I am 24, 1996-born, dead in the middle of the Zennial micro-gen (born 1992-1998, the bridge micro gen between late millennials and early Gen Z)

I am a realist, and do not try to spin up or spin away every single thing I come up against that is not to my liking.

[BilltheCat]

88. hmmmm

if you exclude my friends, relatives (from interracial marriages in my family) people at the black evangelical church we attend , etc I guess I don't know that many.

look we can all believe what we want to believe. to me at the end of the day what I want is the person who can have the strongest shot and PLAN to get rid of Dottard, and not to just wing it and hope God is on our side.

[Celerity]

89. I think Sanders will be a general election disaster, and quite possible will cost us the House as

well, but I am not going to deny reality simply because I disagree with the choices of many of my fellow black voters. It is ludicrous to claim that there is not a significant amount of black support for Sanders. I do not mean to sound harsh toward you, but I don't do reality denial well, sorry.

cheers

[Magoo48]

6. The sky is falling, the sky is falling.

Be afraid, be very afraid.

Hummm...where have we seen this tactic before.

[Celerity]

16. it is not 'sky is falling' at all it is basic maths nt

[Lordquinton]

73. It really is "Sky is falling"

It's all based on predictions of an event almost a year out on data that won't even be relevant by then.

The only math is making the numbers look right.

[Celerity]

75. sorry, but that is a very weak rebuttal, and the maths are the maths, I did not manipulate the EC

[Happy Hoosier]

26. I will be interested in how you will feel in, say, mid-November. Let's revisit this then. NT

[BilltheCat]

78. to a lot of us nearing retirement it is a VERY big deal I can assure you

and that's leaving aside other things I care about like labor unions, the environment, women's rights, a functioning Justice Dept, the courts and a few other minor details. seems to me this was not the time to take crazy risks hoping against all evidence that God is on our side and it will all work out.

[TheCowsCameHome]

7. After next Tuesday

we'll have a better handle on how things will pan out.

Fingers crossed. We can't let 2020 slip away.

[NurseJackie]

8. Bernie can not win. America will never elect a Socialist as President.

He may be able to manipulate the party to squeak out the nomination... but America won't have it. Say hello to EIGHT years of Trump. Say goodbye to a balanced Supreme Court. Say goodbye to Roe. Watch marriage equality start to be nibbled away slowly but surely until there's nothing left but a dying stem.

The DNC really screwed up. I'm ready for the party to choose our nominee... the old image of smoke-filled convention hall meeting rooms looks pretty good to me right now.

[TheCowsCameHome]

13. Agree, Jackie.

The word "socialist", rightly or wrongly, sends many voters running for the exits.

There is far too much at stake this time.

[still_one]

79. I agree. People can delude themselves, but that won't change the electoral college. By the way,

where is the electoral college located, and do they offer a degree in WTF?

[NurseJackie]

82. Delude. Excellent word.

Thank you.

[still_one]

85. Much more useful degree, as long as one is aware

[Voltaire2]

9. A centrist lost Florida in 2016

So losing Florida is always a possibility, socialist or no socialist.

Was that your point?

[Just_Vote_Dem]

11. What's a "centrist"?

I'm a liberal who supports the Democratic party platform, who voted for Clinton in the general. Does that make me a "centrist"? Just curious.

[Just_Vote_Dem]

14. I think there's only a few Dems that would fit that moniker

I can think of Manchin right away, but not many others.

[TwilightZone]

47. That's because there aren't many others.

To some Sanders supporters, everything to the right of Bernie is centrist or right-wing, as demonstrated in that post.

Manchin isn't even a right-winger. He's a moderate.



https://www.ontheissues.org/Joe_Manchin_III.htm

[Just_Vote_Dem]

64. Thanks

Didn't think he was really that conservative

[Celerity]

70. those On The Issues graphs are (to steal a phrase from a Texas bloke I went to LSE with) as useless

as tits on a bull. They are slanted to project certain outcomes (from most all that I have seen posted here) and make little differentiation between people who are clearly farther apart in reality. Manchin would be on the rightward side of many centre-right parties here in vast swathes of the EU (I am Los Angeles-born, London-raised, and live in Sweden atm.) The US has been artificially slid so far to right overall that all perspective has been lost when doing any sort of trans-national political-philosophical comparative analysis.

I say all this as a very outspoken critic of Sanders who thinks his nomination by our Party would be electoral suicide, not just for POTUS, but the House as well, given the reactionary character of the overarching zeitgeist that pervades inside the American nation-state.

[Happy Hoosier]

27. If you aren't a Berner...

You will eventually be called a Centrist, or even a Conservative.

[RandiFan1290]

17. And downballot races all over the country

[Celerity]

18. the point is the simple maths, if we lose FL & any ONE of those 18 possibilities, we lose the POTUS

when the 2 split districts are taken into account as I posited. Even flipping one is not good enough in most of the cases, and flipping both (highly doubtful) stills leaves many of those in play. Add in 2 or more from the list and NOTHING saves us.

[FM123]

22. Voltaire, yes, losing Florida is always a possibility.

As a Floridian living in a blue county (Broward) my fear of losing FL is tied to the fact that we have 4 trumpy republicans at the helm: Secretary of State Laurel Lee who is chief of elections along with trump's lapdog governor DeSantis and the worst senators ever - Marco Rubio and Rick Scott. This core four of rotten repugs must be factored into the equation regardless of who our eventual candidate is.

[Happy Hoosier]

28. It's one thing for it to be a possibility...

It's another for it to become a virtual certainty. With Sanders as the nominee it is a certainty. And what doe we get in return? Not bloody much.

[W_HAMILTON]

24. And a Sanders-endorsed progressive candidate (Gillum) lost Florida in 2018...

...while many of the more moderate Democratic candidates actually flipped House seats there, including two women that came out against Sanders's comments (regarding Castro) yesterday.

[mitch96]

42. Sadly Fla is a red state

So Fla is democrat and so is the Orlando area.. Other than that it's pretty red YMMV
m

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. The odds of flipping AZ and/or GA are NOT "Very very low" with Sanders

Both have large non Cuban Hispanic populations for one thing. The odds of Sanders flipping those states are MUCH higher than the odds of Trump picking up many of the states that you then go on to list in your OP: such as CT, OR, NJ, NV, NM, etc. It's more likely Sanders can pick up TX, with its large and increasingly active Hispanic voters, than Trump that could pick up NJ, CT, or OR.

And of course it should be pointed out that Trump already won FL in 2016, that Florida elected a Republican Governor in 2018, and that we lost the last U.S. Senate seat election to a Republican as well. While we would love to win FL, and though a good case can be made that Sanders is not our best candidate there, there are polls and experience from the 2016 election that points to Sanders doing better in some of the former "rust belt" states than other Democrats would.

The point is that we need to build a big blue wave in 2020 under any of our candidates. 2020 can't more or less be a rerun of 2016.

[Happy Hoosier]

29. There won;t be a blue wave under the Sanders banner.

Sanders' campaign is built upon personal loyalty to HIM. He openly disdains the "Democratic establishment." He won't have any coat tails. None. That's one reason many of us don;t support Sen. Sanders. He simply will not build a blue wave movement.

[Tom Rinaldo]

34. Actually it's built upon enthusiastic support from tens of millions to an ideal

Backed by a huge number of repeat contribution small donors. Two things drive a blue wave; circumstances and enthusiasm. Current circumstances involve our ability to preserve our democracy, our ability to preserve our ecosystem for current, let alone future, generations, and protecting the Supreme Court from totally being consolidated for decades to come under far right control. If that isn't enough to get more Democrats to vote we have a big problem. Trump has maxed out on his mobilize his base strategy. He is already all in on it. Only Bernie Sanders consistently generates wide spread enthusiasm across all racial lines with Americans below 40. Those now 18 through 21 could not vote in the 2016 election. Sanders "owns" that age group. We need their votes in 2020.

[Happy Hoosier]

39. OKay a couple retorts to this comedy piece....

1) Sanders routinely dumps on the "Democratic establishment," often in the same breath he talks about Republican. That does not create "enthusiasm" for democrats.

2) The Supreme Court wasn't enough to drive all Berners last time. A significant chunk of them did not for for Clinton.

3) Core democrats will vote D up and down the ticket. But that is not enough. Bernie isn't expanding the p[arty, he is creating a cult of personality, centered on him.

4) Sanders has talked about bringing in non-voters. So far the evidence is that is either not happening, or is happening in modest numbers. Yes, Sanders "owns" young voters.

But we'll see. I think Sanders will win the nomination at this point. And if he does, we'll see if his magical turn-out predictions come true. If they do, I'll be here after election day eating crow. If they don;t, I'll be doing the "I fucking told you so" dance of lament.

[Tom Rinaldo]

43. I'll be more polite in responding to you

Very few people self identify as members of "the Democratic establishment". Maybe you do, I don't, and I was a member of our local Democratic Committee for seven years (until last week actually when I gave up my seat to younger blood) including three spent as Chair. But those who do identify as members of the "Democratic establishment" might have good reason to not be happy with those words, sure. Except no doubt you consider members of the "Democratic establishment" to be "core Democrats " and, in your own words: " Core democrats will vote D up and down the ticket" Identification/membership with/in the

Democratic Party has been declining for decades as has also been the case with the Republican Party. Similar to how politicians have "run against Washington" now for years, being seen as bucking "party establishments" has been helping candidates more and more of late, just ask Jeb Bush how being seen as a candidate from the "Party Establishment" worked for him last time around. You are right that not all Sanders "supporters" voted for Clinton in the 2016 Presidential election, and you are right that they were not all "core Democrats.". Aren't "non core Democrats" the votes that we need to do better at locking in this time?

For point of reference, the backers of losing contested Presidential primary contests NEVER transfer 100% allegiance to the winning candidate. The "Party Unity My Ass" (or PUMA) Hillary supporters in 2008 did not support Obama in the General Election, and they defected at a higher rate from the Democratic ticket in that Fall than did "Bernie or Bust" (BoB's) in 2016.

[honest.abe]

35. They are quite low.

If you believe the polls:

AZ: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/az/arizona_trump_vs_sanders-6808.html (Trump +5 avg)
GA: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2020/Mason-Dixon_GA.pdf (Trump +10 most recent poll)

Also, if you are thinking Sanders could flip TX.. here's this:

TX: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/tx/texas_trump_vs_sanders-6819.html (Trump +4)

It will be a very tough road for Sanders to win a general election versus Trump.

[Tom Rinaldo]

36. Using that for a discussion point: AZ is clearly in play

By definition that is not "very low" odds, nine months out.

[honest.abe]

38. If you want to focus on flipping AZ then Biden is your man.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/az/arizona_trump_vs_biden-6807.html (Biden +0.3 avg)

More than 5 points better than Sanders vs Trump.

[dalton99a]

30. Democrats are delivering the elections of 2020 and beyond to Republicans on a silver platter

with a socialist ticket

[USALiberal]

31. Wow, you can predict that? Amazing! Nt

[Celerity]

37. it was very easy, just move FL to Red again, and then go to all the states that would tip Rump

to 269 EV's or more that are in play, given the others I discussed.

I fully expect, if Bernie is top of the ticket, to lose far more than just one of those 18 possibilities.

My gut feeling, is as of today, this following map would be the results with a Bernie nomination and the economy not going into free-fall



MI, MN, CO, VA, and NV could all or partially go Trump as well

[Jake Stern]

52. Colorado is blue enough now that it will never go Trump

Yes I said "never". As in not happening, not a chance.

Read more: https://www.coloradopols.com/the-big-line-2020

[Celerity]

54. CO staying Blue barely relives the systemic risk when we lose FL w/ Bernie at the top of the ticket

all I did was lay out any remotely possible additional losses of big enough size to lose the general, thus CO was added to the list

[kentuck]

40. As I recall, Trump won Florida the last time around?

Which candidate do we expect will change that outcome in 2020??

[Fiendish Thingy]

41. He's not going to lose OR, and could flip AZ and possibly others

Current projections (which will almost certainly change as November draws closer) are a narrow margin of 278-260 for Dems - basically a one state margin, without Florida.

Rachel had a Super PAC director on last night outlining this margin; they will spend $150 million BEFORE the convention on anti-Trump ads.

[Celerity]

44. extraordinarily small chance Sanders flips AZ, Biden himself would have a hell of time doing it

and Oregon can stay Blue (which I think it probably will) and that still doesn't change the vast majority of those at risk states.

Sanders at the top is truly massive dice roll, with the odds of a loss quite high, and he is the one candidate who truly puts us losing the House as a viable scenario into play.

[thesquanderer]

45. OTOH, in Florida, Sanders polls better than any of our other candidates except Biden...

...and maybe Bloomberg (too early to be sure since there's only been a single poll).

So this analysis applies to almost everyone.

My version of this is simpler:

Whoever we nominate needs to win Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. I assume the states Hillary won are the lowest hanging fruit, they are full of people who already preferred an "underwater in favorables" candidate over Trump. So while certainly not assured, I assume that those states are more likely than not to go to ANY candidate we put up. So we need the three key states she lost.

We can afford to lose in those key swing states only if we pick up another less likely (but not impossible) state, like Florida, Ohio, or Texas.

[Celerity]

46. TX or OH with Bernie as the nominee is so not going to happen. This is the stuff of fantasy.

[thesquanderer]

48. I agree, not likely, but not outside the realm of possibility

We're unlikely to get Texas with any candidate, but Sanders is polling as at least giving us some shot

see https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287457401

It's not just the one poll, since numerous other polls show him within the MoE

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/tx/texas_trump_vs_sanders-6819.html

As for Ohio, the polling isn't terrible, there just hasn't been enough of it.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/oh/ohio_trump_vs_sanders-6764.html

As I said, WI/MI/PA is where it's at... but it's not entirely impossible that he could pick up some other prize that allows at least one of those to fall away.

[Celerity]

51. massive dice rolls, all

[thesquanderer]

57. Yes. I would not put money on winning Ohio, Florida, or Texas. With ANY of our candidates.

I'm just saying it's not impossible, either. Like I said, it's more about WI/PA/MI. And Sanders is actually pretty well positioned there. I think Biden is the only other candidate routinely polling well in those states...?

[Celerity]

59. WI's looking grim for whoever we nominate and PA is starting to do the same. FL is toast with Bernie

I love Bernie's programmes, I live under a social democratic (NOT SOCIALIST) expansive welfare state here in Sweden that is very close to his APPARENT vision but they are unpassable in the US and they will sink him in the general.

I hate his false labelling as a democratic socialist which has helped to open this whole shitstorm and will kill so many vulnerable Dem's chances in the House if he tops the ticket.

[Alliepoo]

50. Bs isn't gonna win Ohio.

It’s just not going to happen. Wish I could say otherwise but I just don’t see it. Too many narrow minded, white, so called Christian olds in this state and let me tell you they turn out in droves for elections. I’ve never seen so many wrinkled up white haired old people at the polls as a few years ago when weed was the issue- where the youth vote was supposed to prevail. Now, substitute Socialism and Commie for weed and you better watch out for the silver stampede. The young are not reliable voters and they aren’t gonna do squat for BS in November.Add to that a bunch of dirty dog repubs in charge of the state and voting. And fwiw-I’m an old, too!! Just not one of those olds.

[squirecam]

68. Bernie would need Sherrod Brown

On the ticket to have a prayer of winning the Midwest.

[democrattotheend]

49. I think Florida is a long shot for any Democrat

Recent polls showed that. Plus, at least since 2000, it hasn't been the closest swing state by any means. Obama won it twice by narrow margins, but he would have won without it. Every other Democrat has lost there. Since at least 2004, it seems that if a Democrat can win Florida, they can also win without Florida.

And I don't see Connecticut or Oregon being at risk. Oregon should be a Bernie stronghold, if anything. And if we are in danger of losing Oregon and Connecticut we wouldn't have a chance in Florida anyway.

[Celerity]

53. I put in every possible combination of loss given the other postulations, obviously some

are more likely that others

I would put (assuming FL is a loss)

the biggest states (and one pair) at risk of being lost, and thus tossing the election to Trump, as


WI

or

PA

or

MI

or

MN

or

NV+NH


only one of those needs to be a loss for us and we are well and truly fucked more than likely unless we somehow flip BOTH ME-2 and NE-2, and even that will not help if the one we lose is PA or MI or if NH is paired with WI or MN as a losing pair

here would be the losing map given the last example (and choosing WI to stay red, although MN is also worth 10 EV's as well so the same maths)


this is flipping BOTH ME-2 and NE-2 BLUE (very unlikely though, to happen, even flipping one will be so hard), plus the obvious FL loss, and then sweeping ALL other of the races listed save for WI and NH (NV would do the same thing as NH, just add 2 more EV's to Rump)

[democrattotheend]

56. I think Bernie will do as well as any Dem in WI, MN, NH and NV

And probably Michigan as well. If anything, he's probably the strongest contender in some of those states. For example, Wisconsin and Minnesota especially have a history of supporting independents and progressives.

I do think Pennsylvania and maybe Michigan might be a little tougher for Bernie than some of the others because of his environmental policies. OTOH, his experience representing a rural state and ability to connect with rural and blue-collar voters might help him there. I just remembered that Bernie won the Michigan primary in 2016, which I think was a bit of a surprise. Primary success is not always indicative of general election success, but there is some correlation, especially in a year like 2016 when both sides had contested primaries.

Biden should be our strongest candidate in Pennsylvania, although if I recall the polls haven't shown a huge difference between him and Bernie in head to head matchups there.

[Celerity]

58. If PA or MI or both stay Red, we lose the POTUS then, Bernie is going to get CRUSHED in FL

He insanely keeps doubling down on the Castro and other socialist or communist dictators praise and/or mitigation.

[democrattotheend]

60. On the flip side, if we get PA, MI and WI back, we don't need Florida

And like I said before, while I agree Bernie would be weaker in Florida than the others (and we've known this all along), I think he's just as strong if not stronger in Wisconsin and Michigan, and at least so far, not significantly weaker in PA. And I think it's unlikely that any of our candidates both 1) wins Florida and 2) wins by such a narrow margin that they need Florida. If Florida is going blue, enough other states are going blue that we don't need it.

[Celerity]

62. I can see Bernie, IF (and it is massive IF) he wins WI, MI, PA (all three are so so dicey atm)

losing Florida (a given with him at the top)

and STILL losing the general

via ANY of ONE following losses

VA

or

NV+NH

or

NH+NM

or

NM+NV

or

CO

or

MN

or

NJ

or

CT+NV (again CT is home to a huge insurance industry)

or

CT+NM

or

CT+NH


there is NO other candidate who would win WI,MI, and WI and yet lose

so WHY would we risk this????? (and I still have massive doubts he wins all 3 of WI, PA, and MI)

[democrattotheend]

63. Hard to say what will happen in VA

I used to live there, and I think Bernie could have trouble, but I am actually concerned about the state for all of the Democrats, because Democrats took over the state legislature in 2019 and have been passing a ton of progressive legislation really fast, which is great, but I'm concerned they are overreaching and forgetting how red the state used to be in the recent past. This could hurt any Democrat running for president, but probably Bernie and Warren more than the others.

[rockfordfile]

66. BS Any of the Democratic tickets can win

[democrattotheend]

67. I didn't say they couldn't

I said if the Democratic candidate is able to win Florida, he or she probably would have been able to win without Florida. Florida is a bit to the right of the country as a whole. I'd love to win it, but I don't think it will be the deciding state like it was in 2000.

[ebbie15644]

55. I'm from western PA and

I do not believe Bernie can win PA. It's not a young state tends to be more conservative and backed trump in 2016. More older people than younger.

[Celerity]

61. WI and PA and MI and MN and NV+NH as pair & singular are all in massive risk with Sanders at the top

yet I have people who are telling me Bernie not only wins ALL of those (AND that even FL will be a lock for a Bernie win), but that he also puts NC and TX and OH and IN and GA and AZ and MO ALL in play, some going so far as to say he wins most or all of those!

It is, IMHO, dangerously delusional, a massive dice roll when the stakes are potential union-ending down the road.

[uponit7771]

65. ✨✨✨✨SANDERS 3 MONTH SWING STATE NUMBERS AGAINST TRUMP SUCK !!!✨✨✨✨

[melman]

69. Connecticut?

What the hell? There is no way Trump wins CT.

[Celerity]

72. covering all remotely possibly bases melman nt

[melman]

81. And I'm telling you as someone who's spent most of my life in CT

That it isn't possible. Even remotely.

[Celerity]

90. it is the least likely of those I listed, but I did post in the OP why I added it as a possibility

even taking it away hardly changes the crux of the biscuit

[Cha]

71. K

[Lordquinton]

74. Based on...

Some rando on the internet declaring it so doesn't make it true.

[BilltheCat]

76. Terrifying

I heard from friends in central florida retirement meccas that the GOP is already promoting M4A as taking funds away from current retirees health care. Unfortunately I'm not sure they won't easily tar the entire party with that given all the money that they have to run continuous commercials and all the networks the evangelical volunteers have in Florida.