Here is why Bernie can't win

[Corporate666]

People talk about "momentum" and "he's won 8 out of the last 9 states!".

Nominations are not won based on states. They are won based on delegates.

Using numbers from Realclearpolitics (quibbles over a few delegates here or there are immaterial), the playing field looks thusly:

Sanders is down by 244 at the moment (others say 194, 200, etc - it doesn't matter for the purposes of this).

on Tuesday, 247 delegates are up for grabs. This represents 15% of all remaining delegates. I don't think anyone believes Sanders is really going to win. Let's say the current polls are wrong and he only loses by 5% instead of 10%+. That's a 13 delegate loss for him.

The following week, 5 states vote, representing 384 delegates, or 27% of all remaining delegates. He is down in the polls in those states. The most important are PA and MD, which together represent 74% of the delegates available on that day. Sanders is down double digit percentages in both states. But let's say he rallies and loses 8% overall on April 26th vs Clinton, that puts him down 31 more delegates.

But the real problem is that after April 26th, there are 1015 delegates remaining, and Sanders is down by 250-300 delegates. Which means for all the remaining states, he has to win 63% to Clinton's 37%. In every state. But of all those remaining states, 60% of the delegates come from CA and NJ. Clinton is up 20-30 points in NJ and 10 points in California. But Bernie needs to be up by 25 points both states.

And the above assumes that he does much better than expected in NY, CT, PA, DE and MD. If he does about as well as the polls suggest and he loses NY by 10 points, loses CT by 6, MD by 20 and PA by 11, and even if he ties in DE and RI, he will give up 68 delegates to Clinton, putting him more like 300 behind.

So he will be going into the final stretch, down by ~300 delegates, with only 1,015 delegates left in play, 60% of which come from 2 states, both of which he is down by double digit percentages, but both of which he needs to win by 30 points. And that is assuming he doesn't lose any single one of the other states, but rather wins all of them by 30 points too - every single one.

And because the that is an impossibility, it illustrates why Sanders has no way to win. His ONLY shot is if he managed to win NY by 10 points, then go on to win all the contests next week by 10 points also.... that would still put him down by 140 delegates with 1015 left to win, meaning he would still have to win every future race by 15 points, including California and Jersey.

His only path to victory is to win NY and all April 26th states by 10 points, then win everything else by 15 points.

Since that has no reasonable (or even unreasonable) chance of happening, he is already done.

I will try to bump this post after each primary to continue proving that I am right, as I expect a lot of whining in response.

[SheilaT]

1. Wasn't it all over in March? What have I missed?

Other than how much better he's done than polls have predicted: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280177479

[RandySF]

4. It's been over

Whether Bernie wants to continue is up to him.

[SheilaT]

7. Who is Vernie?

But Hillary hasn't clinched the nomination, despite the fact that she was at least 70 points ahead of Sanders a year ago. Her lead has been collapsing.

We've been assured on a daily basis for many months that Hillary is absolutely going to win, that she has it totally locked up. But she doesn't. Why would that be?

[RandySF]

16. She IS absolutely going to win.

[Yurovsky]

96. In November? I wouldn't measure for Oval Office drapes and rugs just yet...

Trump supporters may be unhinged, racist, or just plain stupid, but they are 1000x as energized as the HRC supporters. Her "rallies" remind me of the old Johnny Carson dog food commercials where Ed would place the bowl of food in front of the dog and then watch him walk off, disinterested.

She's simply not likeable. And she has spent the past 4 months lecturing progressives about being realistic and just accepting the inevitable. Basically telling me and others like me to sit down, shut up, and vote as you are told.

No thanks. And millions of other progressives & millenials are disgusted by her and her corporate agenda and will either stay home or vote 3rd party (or write Bernie in). I cannot surrender to the very forces attempting to destroy me and other working-class and poor Americans.

[gabeana]

10. What a dipshit response

dandy

[RandySF]

14. You can call it what you want

But it's ultimately the truth.

[cstanleytech]

21. Really? I thought the final election was not until June? nt

[enid602]

65. bern

As long as the suckers send in the $27, he will not quit. It's not in his economic interest to do so, and I don't think he's been a Dem long enough to feel compelled to act in the Party's best interest.

[Corporate666]

13. I am not sure

if he has done better than polls predicted. For sure, he has done better in some states than the polls suggest, but what happened before really doesn't change the situation as it stands now.

The numbers are what they are. He has to win NY and next Tuesday's races by 10 points on average, and then 15 points in every future race.

Or, if he does better on Tuesday and the following Tuesday than expected but still loses, he needs to win all the future rates by 25 points.

Or if he loses Tuesday and next Tuesday by predicted margins, he needs to win every future race by 30 points, including NJ and CA where he is down by double digits.


Things like "momentum" don't apply. They are already calculated into the most recent polls. Barring something like Clinton being indicted or hit by a bus, what chance does Bernie have of achieving any of the 3 paths above?

[SheilaT]

24. "I am not sure

if he has done better than the polls predicted".

Have you not been paying any attention?

How far down was he in the polls in Michigan? Iowa? New Hampshire? And so on.

The only states he did as poorly as predicted were the Super Tuesday states, and in those that had early voting, he only lost in the early voting. He did much better in election day voting.

He has done much better ever since Super Tuesday than any of the polling indicated, the best example being Michigan. 99%+ were the odds given by Nate Silver that Hillary would win. I don't have the patience to look up every caucus and primary since, but yes, he has done better, often better by double digits, than the polling showed. He is currently less than 200 pledged delegates behind Hillary.

I don't think any traditional pollsters are taking "momentum" into account, especially not as it's happening this time around. And to say he needs to win future primaries by 30 points simply isn't accurate. And, at the risk of repeating myself, he's been winning races he wasn't expected to win, winning those he was expected to win by much larger margins than predicted, and even those he's lost in the last month have been by smaller margins than predicted.

[Corporate666]

35. Have you been paying attention?

Polls have a margin of error. Some polls had Bernie ahead in Iowa, some had Hillary ahead. She ended up winning by a small margin. That was accurate to the polls.

NH polls had Sanders up from 7 to 26 points. He won by 22. Accurate to the polls.

Michigan was a true surprise, but the others you mentioned are not. It appears you are taking one aberration and extrapolating that to be a trend and applying it to other polls which do not support your conclusion at all.

Are you predicting a Sanders win on Tuesday in NY? What do you think is going to happen? I think he will lose by around 10 points.

What is inaccurate in what I wrote? You made a claim but provided no data. Just saying something is wrong doesn't make it wrong. The numbers I wrote are correct. If Sanders loses Tuesday and loses 3 states by the projected margins the following Tuesday, then he needs to win by 30 points in all future races. This is a timed race over a distance.... Sanders has a fixed amount of time and a fixed amount of distance to go. He is down substantially compared to Clinton. In order to make that up, he needs to outperform her by larger margins than she has outperformed him (percentage-wise). The more time passes that he is not beating her by the required margin, it means he has to beat her by even larger margins in subsequent races.

[SheilaT]

58. You're claiming he has not done better than the polls predicted, and I'm saying he has.

I really shouldn't have to look this up for you, but I'll do a few:
Wisconsin: the most optimistic poll had Sanders up by 8. He won by 13.
One Alaska poll (possibly the only one) in January had Clinton up by 3 points. He got over 80% of the vote.
All of the polls in Iowa had her ahead. The result? She won by the humongous victory of .2%.
She was up by 34 in Minnesota by polling. He won 61.6% of the vote.

Do I really have to go on? This feels like sufficient research. Many similar results have been posted over and over again here on DU. So I stand by my statement that he's been doing better than expected, especially in the past two months.

He is not going to need to win future races by 30 points. I feel very hopeful he will win New York, and not just in a squeaker. On the other hand, since she is seen as the native daughter of that state, twice elected to the Senate after moving there in 2000 just to run, if she does anything but win big she will be perceived as damaged from now on.

[enid602]

66. I voted early

. . . " and in those that had early voting, he only lost in the early voting. He did much better in election day voting." Is this the new meme? That Bernie would be winning if it weren't for those pesky early voters? Or those States that insist on having a democratic primary instead of a caucus where Bernie's PAID activists can dominate the results? And this is the man of the people?

[samson212]

78. It's about momentum

If Bernie did better on the day of the election than on early voting, it means that his popularity increased over time. It's not about discounting those voters, it's about observing the change. So, since the forthcoming elections are later still, it stands to reason that he would continue to outperform polls going forward.

Where do you get the idea that somebody's paying Bernie "activists" to "dominate" the results? Do you have evidence of this? Can I see? While I haven't heard that either side has done such a thing, I do get the feeling that HRC caucus goers are less likely to show up to the second round, again indicating that support is changing in Bernie's favor over time.

[question everything]

99. How do the openness of the primaries factor here?

Most of Sanders' votes came from non Democrats, who were allowed to vote in open primaries and caucuses

New York, of course, is a closed primary. So I wonder how the others are.

Thank you for a detailed blanaced analysis.

[Demsrule86]

83. Yes

It was over in March...this is a waste of money and time...all for ego.

[SheilaT]

89. It was all over for her in March or April in 2008,

and yet Hillary stayed in the race. Obama asked Dems to donate to her to retire her campaign debt, which I thought more than a bit pushy. I don't think she spent any of her own millions of dollars for that.

[egalitegirl]

2. The problem is the other candidate is a partner of Bushes

The main problem many of us have with the Clintons is that they are partners of the Bush family via the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund and other ventures. They collected money from the public for helping people in Haiti but used it for investments in luxury hotels.

[Corporate666]

17. I don't see

the relation of this claim to the reality of the poll numbers?

Are you suggesting that the information in your post is new information that the public does not know about, and once it comes out, people will abandon the Clinton campaign? I don't see that happening.

[egalitegirl]

38. Yes, it is new for a lot of people

The information is definitely new for a lot of people, especially to those who fall into one of the two categories - people with little interest in politics and young people. These are typically not people who post on message boards but who sincerely believe what they hear from politicians. They do not understand that the establishment consists of politicians from both the major parties.

I believe that even many supporters of Hillary who are actively involved in politics and even post here may find this information surprising because they have been boxed into discussing only those issues fed to them by the leadership of the party. Bernie Sanders has definitely shifted the narrative and a wider set of topics are being discussed this election cycle.

Until he did this, the topics of discussion were identical for the Democrats as well as the Republicans.

[Corporate666]

41. Haiti was a long time ago...

assuming this information was not discovered just this weekend, then Sanders has not been successful in using it to compete with Clinton. He is virtually out of time to do it prior to NY and even next week's contests, and at that point he will be down by ~300 delegates and need 30% more of the remaining votes than HRC to win.

[egalitegirl]

60. Does the defense apply to the Bush family as well?

Would you make the same argument to defend the Bush family? Their victims have still not been given the money.

[COLGATE4]

44. I would strongly suggest that you try

reading the articles over at Free Republic, which appear to be very similar to, if not the source for your comments. We prefer posts on DU with facts.

[Gomez163]

3. Every day he stays in he drives Hillary's negatives higher.

[northernsouthern]

8. Hillary was already negative...

Now the paint is just washing off and people are seeing what's underneath.

[k8conant]

15. That says more about Hillary than anything else.

[Loudestlib]

22. Everyday that Hillary stays in it drives her negatives higher.

[krawhitham]

57. Maybe she should build herself up instead on attacking him

[Karma13612]

80. And how is that Bernie's fault? Eom

[Gomez163]

90. He should not be in the race. He has no chance.

[Karma13612]

97. oh OK. that's your opinion. bye. eom

[tabasco]

98. Nope.

H. Clinton gets ALL the credit for her unpopularity.

[RiverLover]

5. I like your screen name.

It's good to be authentic. Let's us know right off the bat who we're dealing with.

[Corporate666]

26. I like my screen name too...

I am proud of the jobs I have created and the millions of dollars in revenues I've generated, and incredibly proud of my employees sending their children to college, buying cars, taking vacations and buying homes. I'm proud of the products we've researched, designed and developed that people like enough to spend their hard earned money with us. And I am proud of the fact that we manufacture 100% in the USA.

It is a wonderful feeling to be the king of your own domain, to profit financially from the risks you've taken and through the results of your hard work and guile. I love driving to work each day and I crave the thrill of the hunt and crave the high of winning and succeeding. And the money is nice too )

But I am sure it's comforting for some to believe the game is rigged and they have no shot and rich fat cats are conspiring against them. Unfortunately this poor immigrant who grew up poor and had to start working at 11 years old kinda blows the "I had no chance" theories out of the water.

Can't wait to get to work tomorrow - I will have a hard time sleeping tonight, being so excited about what a great week it's going to be.

[Land of Enchantment]

30. I don't believe a word you say. Your vibes are jumping off the page. Goodbye, troll. nt

[Corporate666]

39. You are buying into a mistaken belief I already addressed

You are kidding yourself into believing it's a state thing. It's not. It's a delegate thing.

If you look at a map of population density of the USA, you still see that a tiny state like New Jersey has a lot more delegates than a huge state like Montana. But a big area colored in for Sanders looks more impressive, but is irrelevant to winning the nomination.

The numbers don't lie. Sanders is behind by a lot - he MUST win NY and all states the following week. If he does not, he needs to win all other contests by 30 points to secure the nomination.

[AgingAmerican]

51. You just contradicted yourself

[AgingAmerican]

50. Cool story bro

[Punkingal]

53. You noticed that, too!

[KingFlorez]

6. It's been this way for over a month

Once Clinton secured a delegate lead of 100+ this race was locked in.

[SHRED]

9. Even if Bernie does not win the nomination...

...he has changed the Democratic Party for at least a decade.
He has pushed it in a much needed direction.

Get used to it.
We are not going away.

[Zynx]

29. No, but he is thankfully.

[SHRED]

31. Because she is so much better...lol

Hillary was paid heavily for speeches to the same institutions who crashed the economy with their hedge fund schemes and toxic mortgage-backed securities.

Her son-in-law worked 8 years in the hedge fund industry at Goldman Sachs before starting his own hedge fund group into which the Goldman Sachs CEO is invested.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/23/business/dealbook/for-clintons-a-hedge-fund-in-the-family.html

And her campaign manager John Podesta (Group) handles PR (public relations) for billions of dollars in arms sales to the Saudis from such big players like Lockheed Martin.
You know Saudi Arabia?... the country responsible for 9/11?
Well the John Podesta Group is essentially a go-between that helps Saudi Arabia with their image to further sales growth in weaponry, etc.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/01/07/washingtons-multi-million-dollar-saudi-pr-machine

In Latin America her support for coup regimes, militarization, and privatization; trade deals that wreak economic havoc, all of which have resulted in death.

http://www.thenation.com/article/a-voters-guide-to-hillary-clintons-policies-in-latin-america/

"Hillary has nothing to brag about: Her foreign policy record is a disaster"

http://www.salon.com/2016/01/23/there_is_no_foreign_policy_d_league_hillarys_foreign_policy_disastrous_experience_partner/

She has waffled mightily regarding the potentially disastrous Trans Pacific Partnership trade deal (TPP).

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/08/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-now-opposes-trans-pacific-partners/

She was for fracking and the Keystone XL pipeline before she told us she isn't.

"Hillary Clinton's State Department Sold Fracking to the World"
http://m.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron

She is a recent convert to supporting same sex marriage after a decade of opposing it.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/17/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-change-position-same-sex-marriage/

Look...the military industrial banking complex is powerful and they want her at the helm.
The .1%'s gravy train must be protected in their view.

Bottom line...The powers that be are much more comfortable with her as President rather than Bernie.

[COLGATE4]

45. I'm willing to bet that, once Hillary gets the nomination

and then the Presidency that the Democratic Party will be 99% unchanged. After the GE the 'revolutionaries' and Bernie-supporting Independents will go back to their homes, TV's, couches and lives until 2020.

[aikoaiko]

11. What would it matter if can't win? I don't think you understand what is happening here.

He should still campaign for every vote and every delegate in every remaining state.

[Corporate666]

20. what about the other candidates?

There are, what, 9 who have dropped out? Should they also compete for every remaining vote? If not, why not?

What is the reason to compete if he can't win? As soon as Clinton has secured her winning position, she will start going after the GOP candidate. Bernie has no possibility to accomplish anything as soon as he is no longer viable.

[AgingAmerican]

25. Why not? Because they are no longer running?

Duh!

[Corporate666]

43. Any answer?

You didn't answer the question.

If it is important to stay in the race past the point where you can no longer win, then why did the other candidates drop out instead of staying in?

Or perhaps staying in past the point of winning serves no purpose?


Clinton will cinch the nomination before the convention, and Sanders will drop out, just as all the other non-viable candidates dropped out. And the reason they drop out is because there's nothing to achieve once they've lost.

[cloudythescribbler]

64. see my comment #63 below nt

[aikoaiko]

33. Sure, anybody can campaign for as long as they wish.

What you seem to not understand is that Bernie is trying to win, but he is also creating something that has potential to outlast his campaign even if her doesn't win. Its really not about Bernie accomplishing anything, per se. Its about the political left exerting itself.

The typical candidate is only about winning and bails when it gets difficult.

I know this is hard for you to understand.

[riderinthestorm]

40. Bernie has us to fund him taking his message all the way to the convention and beyond

That's what the other candidates lacked.

We the people and our $27.

Bernie’s core supporters have only donated on average 3% of the maximum allowed while Hillary's at 56%. That means he still has a virtually unlimited well of funds to tap for a very long time.

We're not going away.

[cloudythescribbler]

63. much of what you project is credible but on this point you are way off

It may very well be that -- especially as NY, PA and MD are all "closed" primaries, which is a YUUUUUUGE disadvantage to Bernie, one that his delegates as a bloc, with some Hillary delegate allies, ought to insist the party platform categorically oppose in all states -- Bernie may indeed have only a very slim chance of garnering a majority of pledged delegates by the end of April

Let's assume that were true, at least arguendo. It is CERTAINLY plausible and not to be dismissed. It is also true that Michigan was an outlier as far as the inaccuracy of polls are concerned. But there is a LOT that Bernie COULD accomplish (whether he does or not is at least in significant degree dependent on the collective effort of Bernie & his supporters & organization) both at the Convention and laying the groundwork for an organized progressive opposition coming forward independently (preferably both within AND outside the framework of the Democratic Party) starting day 1 after the November election no matter who wins.

At the Convention, there are many issues, from process ones like "closed" primaries to a hopefully much changed platform on climate change recognizing the 350.org type issues, and the kind of urgency that Bernie but not Hillary outlined in the recent Brooklyn debate. There is a lot that keeping his organization and supporters together could help accomplish not only at the Convention but after the election. This is especially true if Hillary is elected, and governs as a neoliberal, like her husband was and Obama is. Just as there has always been a broadcast Republican response to the SOTU, and sometimes two responses -- one from the mainstream of the GOP and another from the Teabaggers -- so in the future there should be a progressive apparatus sufficiently loud and boisterous that there would be a progressive response broadcast as well. Is this a prediction? No -- it's an aspiration. There was much potential for the Rainbow Coalition in the 80s, but it then faded. The progressive wing of the Democratic Party, as well as progressive [electoral and electoral-related, as well as unions etc] need to have the kind of sustained organized presence that Bernie could help catalyze. It does not require that all or even most voters for Bernie remain active on a regular basis, but it would require his leadership and a core of organization and activists. It is also crucial that this not entirely abandon working within AS WELL AS outside the Democratic Party, for the many Congressional and other races. In "safe" Democratic districts there are a lot of Democrats of little progressive worth who need replacing.

I agree that the notion that the Democratic Party has been forever transformed blah blah blah should not be automatically taken for granted -- as it will require a substantial and successful organizing effort to lay the groundwork for that. But neither should the possibility of such an effort making headway, and Bernie being a major part of that.

And the notion of comparing Bernie to the also-rans of both parties, candidates whose campaigns never gained significant traction, should be compared to Bernie's movement-like campaign is as silly as taking for granted that the Democratic Party has been revolutionized as a fait accompli

[COLGATE4]

46. All that's 'happening here' is Bernie providing lots of lovely

sound bytes for the Rethugs to use in the GE.

[aikoaiko]

62. Yeah, I can just see Trump calling HRC out for her Wall Street money.

Bernie is making the case for ideas left of HRC's ideas.

And its a very good thing.

[Marrah_G]

73. YES

southern states do not get to choose for everyone. Bernie needs to stay in until the last vote comes in.

[Doctor_J]

12. Thanks for posting this

I missed it the first hundred times.

[jmg257]

18. Wonder if the FBI will be done before the convention?

[Demsrule86]

84. who cares?

Right wing BS...I heard that they are bringing Benghazi back so this did not pan out apparently.

[jmg257]

86. Lots of people do...very important she not have an indictment hanging over her

in the GE.

Knowinglyu or negligently fucking up with classified information ain't exactly a small thing.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

19. are you counting the 30 + old time democrats that have played the system

LOL

[AgingAmerican]

23. Another wordy linkless OP

They must pay by the word...

[Fuddnik]

28. Cut him some slack.

He was laid off for 6 years.

[AgingAmerican]

49. No link provided

Why is that?

[CentralCoaster]

56. Locked out of their own damn thread. That's rough.

tough beans!

No link will be coming now, not after a hidden reply in his own thread!

[Dragonfli]

52. .

[Fuddnik]

27. !

[Lucinda]

32. TY ~ KNR

[artislife]

34. No whining, just the knowledge that

she will never be president whether she wins the nomination or not.


And I am good with that.

[Corporate666]

48. Curious why you think so?

Trump looks to be the GOP nominee. She beats Trump handily in a national election.

Sure, things can change between then and now, but it's likely Trump will come out with more silly statements rather than improve his standing among independents.

Clinton is a centrist democrat and much of her voter base remembers how great the Clinton years were and so she has strong appeal to independents and even to the left side of the GOP.

Why do you think she will not win a national election? I think the odds are strongly in her favor that she's the next POTUS. What makes you think not?

[artislife]

54. Because Trump isn't a guarantee to be the nom

and the Right, the Independents and the Left all really don't like Hills. We lose now, we can come back with a real progressive in 4 years is the prevailing thought amongst the Left.

[Go Vols]

36. In the shape of an "L" on her forehead?

[jfern]

37. It's not clear what the exact margin is, but it's close to 200

[SHRED]

42. Bush/Clinton Dynasty...

Can't wait.

[krawhitham]

55. She will not have enough pledged delegates at the convention

If she loses NY "momentum" will crush her, but whatever happens she will not have enough pledged delegates at the convention


So if the FBI reports come out and is bad, if that little shit Trey Gowdy does really have a July surprise, or the transcripts get leaked we will not be screwed and they can select Bernie at the convention


We only reason we have this safety net is because Bernie competed all the way to California

[DemocracyDirect]

59. I'm sorry but the Republicans will wait until after the nomination...

... to launch their surprise attacks if Hillary Clinton is the nominee.

And it probably won't be just one issue. It will be many.

I just don't understand what we're thinking if we nominate her.

[berniepdx420]

61. could you rework your numbers if Bernie wins NY by 8% ??

[Recursion]

67. The problem is "winning by X%" doesn't automatically translate into a specific delegate count

You can win by a very modest margin statewide and still get a much higher delegate count than the other candidate if your margins are widely spread across the state. Conversely, you can win by a pretty big margin statewide but only net a few more delegates than your opponent if your margins are concentrated in a few areas. There are even some corner cases where you can "lose" statewide but come away with more delegates (this has already happened somewhere this year, I forget where... Missouri?)

It looks right now like Clinton's support will be strong in the city and Sanders's will be strong upstate, which means he has some structural advantage in the delegate allocation.

[berniepdx420]

69. I would be surprised if Hillary carries the city.. maybe Manhattan.. I think this is where the

large polling outfits are missing the point.. I have no info to back that up..

[Recursion]

70. Oh, no, she's always carried cities. She won Boston/Cambridge/Newton, MA

She'll definitely win NYC, particularly Queens and Brooklyn (if Sanders wins any borough it will be Manhattan, or possibly Staten Island).

[berniepdx420]

71. New York has a different mix.. particularly it's Jewish & Latino community... right... no need

for the ffs ..

[Recursion]

74. Fair enough, removed.

Sanders has greatly improved his support among Latinos, but still trails badly among African Americans and South Asians, which means Queens and Brooklyn are going to be hard on him.

[berniepdx420]

75. I'm not seeing the same info on South Asians... any links ? I will look for some too... another

factor for me is education level.. NY has many more highly educated liberals than a lot of other cities on the east coast .. Boston would have a high level as well

[berniepdx420]

76. How are you defining South Asian ?

[Warren DeMontague]

68. Which begs the question as to why the Hillary people spend so much energy in GDP trying to convince

us that that is the case, instead of just chillaxing on the chaise lounge with a mai tai or something.

You got it in the bag, what's to worry about?

[Marrah_G]

72. It is not over until Everyone gets to vote

No one knows what will happen between now and then and there are superdelegates out there that may well change their minds.

[Demsrule86]

85. Why?

The superdelegates will not change their minds and pick a candidate who lost the primary. This is a waste of time and money which would be way more useful for the general.

[Marrah_G]

91. I disagree

My vote counts as much as anyone else's. No one knows that the SD will do, which I rather think is the point of having them.

I hope he stays in until every vote is cast and counted.

[silvershadow]

77. The actual candidate will be decided by the delegates, even if that means at convention.

Anything is possible once Bernie cuts off her path.

[onehandle]

82. Is that you, Ted Cruz? nt

[silvershadow]

87. Polly? Is that you? Polly Anna?! nt

[MFM008]

79. Facts

If she wins New York, that really slams a door, If not she STILL has more delegates than him.
More super delegates
More popular vote

who cares about rallies or the Vatican or trying to bully HRC delegates, red faced rants, old guy yelling at clouds,
insults, throwing money, all the theatrics as the HMS Sanders sinks like the


and goodbye Presidential stuff and HELLO Vermont stuff, whatever that is.

[Gothmog]

81. The math is against Sanders

[NurseJackie]

95. That and so much more.

Go, Hillary! We love you!

Note to Jury: The above statements represent my opinion. No DU rules or terms of service have been violated. It is not against the rules to have an opinion that differs from the Alerter. --- REMINDER: Jury Duty is not intended to be a weapon to silence opponents. It's a community standards tool to enforce the terms of service. Use your best and honest judgement when deciding if this post violates the actual DU rules.

[Orsino]

88. The primary is about so much more than a winning number of delegates.

I can't believe how many times this has to be explained.

Lose focus now, assume the primary's over, and you abandon further hope of lobbying your candidate(s) for the change we need. The convention is where the Democrats finalize their platform for the general, and this will be done in part a cording to relative numbers of delegates won.

Don't abandon your voice! If you think something needs to change, lobby unceasingly.

[Marrah_G]

92. And it is a vital way to vet our own candidates

Getting every possible skeleton or scandal out before the general. The worst thing would be for everyone to drop our early and have a declared winner overcome by a game changing scandal.

Imagine if everyone had given up early and John Edwards had been our candidate in 2008?

[Orsino]

93. Yeah. Not to mention the entire states who haven't voted yet.

Everybody get on board.

[silvershadow]

94. I agree. Can you imagine if we choose Hillary and then she is indicted? What a mess! nt