Elections Democrat 2016 Primary Thread: V2 It's Still Hillary Edition

[theBLADE1]

Most of the media isn't posting optimistic stuff.

EXACTLY!!!!! They don't want Sanders supporters/undeiceded voters to think he is a reasonable candidate or has any chance of victory. Establishment media is doing everything they can to try and assure Clinton the nomination.

 

[Lead]

EXACTLY!!!!! They don't want Sanders supporters/undeiceded voters to think he is a reasonable candidate or has any chance of victory. Establishment media is doing everything they can to try and assure Clinton the nomination.

Maybe for some. The projections also aren't optimistic either though. That's not bias. That's just following the polling and not cherry picking. That's why I like FiveThirtyEight. Most of their articles are aimed at being correct rather than pushing an agenda.

 

[theBLADE1]

Maybe for some. The projections also aren't optimistic either though. That's not bias. That's just following the polling and not cherry picking. That's why I like FiveThirtyEight. Most of their articles are aimed at being correct rather than pushing an agenda.

I'm just saying there hasn't been a more optimistic time to be a Sanders supporter than right now and the large majority of the media hasn't been accurately reporting it. Sanders won Wyoming today making it 8 out of the last 9 and he is CONSISTENTLY taking huge bites out of her lead in NY, PA, and CA.
all while her favorability amongst dems plummets and a new poll shows her being disliked by 55% of Americans. Sanders takes the lead on June 7 as Sanders continues his streak and super delegates realize she is a sinking ship.

This is happening Lead......

 

[Lead]

I'm just saying there hasn't been a more optimistic time to be a Sanders supporter than right now and the large majority of the media hasn't been accurately reporting it. Sanders won Wyoming today making it 8 out of the last 9 and he is CONSISTENTLY taking huge bites out of her lead in NY, PA, and CA.
all while her favorability amongst dems plummets and a new poll shows her being disliked by 55% of Americans. Sanders takes the lead on June 7 as Sanders continues his streak and super delegates realize she is a sinking ship.

This is happening Lead......

Yea but let's be honest here. You have been optimistic the entire race because Bernie is your guy. There are far more objective looks at this race like fivethirtyeight which actually showed Hillary won the targeted amount needed in Wisconsin to win nomination. This isn't them readjusting after the race to try to make her look good. They made these targets very very early in the race and both candidates got the number targeted to win the nomination (making it essentially a wash).

I also find it funny the complaints of media bias when you do cherry pick information in this race. It's a double edge sword Blade.

Right now, Bernie is off 91 delegates total at this point for the target. So if we wins New York with 216 delegates (the targeted 125 + 91), then you can come to me about being optimistic. Until then, I don't see reason to be optimistic. He is slowly losing the race by not remaining on target while Hillary does. New York and California may be his only saving grace for how far off he is getting.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats/

Problem with all these states coming up is they aren't winner take all so Bernie can't make a huge jump anywhere with that 91 I mentioned. He needs a blow out in the popular vote in order to catch up and most of those states don't even have enough delegates for that to matter. Once again, that's why NY and CA are what's left and we are looking at a decent swing (possibly 60-40) win on Clinton to get back on track.

I'm just trying to let you know what to look for. Not shitting on your candidate. There is a difference between discussing the race and who we like in the race. Blending those two never works well.

 

[Lead]

Sanders takes the lead on June 7 as Sanders continues his streak and super delegates realize she is a sinking ship.

This is happening Lead......

Also, take this in mind since you referenced June 7th with California.

Bernie is currently 212 delegates behind Clinton (these are election delegates, not super).
New York and California are allocation races meaning popular vote mostly to delegates given.
New York awards TOTAL 247 delegates. So lets say Bernie wins 65/35. 161 Bernie, 86 Clinton (Bernie nets 75 delegates there)
California awards TOTAL 475 delegates. So lets say Bernie wins 60/40. 285 Bernie, 190 Clinton (Bernie nets 95 delegates there)

In this miraculous scenario for Bernie I just gave you, Bernie netted 170 delegates over Clinton. This is STILL below the 212 I mentioned, 42 short. The other races shown are also allocation and don't really provide enough delegates for a 42 point swing, even when considering them together. I gave you a very very pro-Sanders outlook and he still doesn't win. It's just math here. Not bias. Not agenda.

 

[theBLADE1]

I also find it funny the complaints of media bias when you do cherry pick information in this race. It's a double edge sword Blade.

The media bais is very real I and I have no beef with 538 but they have been wrong before(see Michigan polling). I stay away from outlets that are clearly bias (Washington Post, New York daily news, politico and a few others as the sum of their owners donate to the Clinton campaign hence why should I trust them). And when it comes to cherry picking, I kind of resent that. I do my damnedest to only post factual information pertaining to whether or not Sanders still has a path to the nomination.

He has knocked off a huge portion of her lead in California
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...nia_democratic_presidential_primary-5321.html

And in Pennsylvania
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...nia_democratic_presidential_primary-4249.html

And in New York
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...nia_democratic_presidential_primary-4249.html

Compare those numbers to what they were a month or two ago And it's not hard to see that if he keeps on riding this wave of momentum, he is on track to pull off some big upset victories in the next few coming states.

Polls now show a large portion of America has an unfavorable view of her.
http://nyc.suntimes.com/nyc-politic...still-trumped-by-reviled-gop-front-runners-69

I'm not dismissing the fact that Clinton is still the favorite and heavily so And I also understand he still has some substantial ground to make up, but I'm telling you I think he can win Even in the face of it all.

Right now, Bernie is off 91 delegates total at this point for the target. So if we wins New York with 216 delegates (the targeted 125 + 91), then you can come to me about being optimistic. Until then, I don't see reason to be optimistic. He is slowly losing the race by not remaining on target while Hillary does. New York and California may be his only saving grace for how far off he is getting.

You do realize that the Democratic race is frontloaded with the South states voting first right? Even if you lost some of the states he might could have one( BTW look up how a Nevada and potentially Missouri just flipped in favor of Sanders) the most important are California, New York, Pennsylvania, and to a lesser extent New Jersey. But this is the point that I really want to make. Let's just say hypothetically here that Clinton goes on to lose those states but yet, as you have pointed out, still remains behind in delegates then why would the Democrats at the convention want to nominate a candidate who loses liberal bastions like that? I'm telling you a lot of those superdelegates would switch. There are more Hillary supporters willing to vote for Bernie then there are Bernie supporters are willing to vote for Hillary. Things like this are going to matter a lot and frankly it's what I'm banking on as even I don't believe( though I'm hoping) he is going to crush her in the above-mentioned states.

He is not out of this and he is gaining momentum every day.

 

[theBLADE1]

Also, take this in mind since you referenced June 7th with California.

Bernie is currently 212 delegates behind Clinton (these are election delegates, not super).
New York and California are allocation races meaning popular vote mostly to delegates given.
New York awards TOTAL 247 delegates. So lets say Bernie wins 65/35. 161 Bernie, 86 Clinton (Bernie nets 75 delegates there)
California awards TOTAL 475 delegates. So lets say Bernie wins 60/40. 285 Bernie, 190 Clinton (Bernie nets 95 delegates there)

Again this is the point in trying to raise and it's a very simple question. Let's say for the sake of argument that Sanders goes on to win California, New York, and Pennsylvania (tall order I get it). How could superdelegates feel so easy nominating a candidate who could not win California and New York? Sanders routinely does better against all of the Republicans and New York and California mostly decide who the Democratic nomination is going to be while the majority of Clinton's votes have come from the deep South which is states that are sure to vote Republican?

The crux of my argument is that if Sanders can pull off victories in liberal/progressive stomping grounds while he destroys the Republicans in polling data, there is no reason for a large portion of these superdelegates to not at least consider voting for him to assure a Democratic victory come November.

 

[Lead]

The media bais is very real I and I have no beef with 538 but they have been wrong before(see Michigan polling). I stay away from outlets that are clearly bias (Washington Post, New York daily news, politico and a few others as the sum of their owners donate to the Clinton campaign hence why should I trust them). And when it comes to cherry picking, I kind of resent that. I do my damnedest to only post factual information pertaining to whether or not Sanders still has a path to the nomination.

Ahh yes, Michigan. Lets keep bringing that up as the standard for how accurate polling has been doing since they were wrong with one state and you need to believe that is the rule and not the exception. In fact, it isn't even the exception since a 1% chance occurs every 100 times and the last time something like MIchigan happened was in the 1980s so don't base that as a common occuring event.

He has knocked off a huge portion of her lead in California
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...nia_democratic_presidential_primary-5321.html

And in Pennsylvania
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...nia_democratic_presidential_primary-4249.html

And in New York
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...nia_democratic_presidential_primary-4249.html

My analysis in the other post not only had him winning CA and NY but by 60 and 65 points and he still lost the race.

Compare those numbers to what they were a month or two ago And it's not hard to see that if he keeps on riding this wave of momentum, he is on track to pull off some big upset victories in the next few coming states.

Ahh yes, more buzzwords like momentum when people already previous to the past 9 contests predicted Bernie would do well in these states and still lose the race. I'm sure momentum was something crucial in your analysis during super tuesday.

Polls now show a large portion of America has an unfavorable view of her.
http://nyc.suntimes.com/nyc-politics-government/7/86/411161/hillary-clinton-disliked-by-55-of-americans-but-eye-popping-figure-still-trumped-by-reviled-gop-front-runners-69

Trump is also has the same thing going on. Unfavoribility doesn't seem to matter in primaries but likely will in the GE. Point I'm making, is this polling doesn't reflect results in state races, the actually states polling does which isn't good for Bernie.

I'm not dismissing the fact that Clinton is still the favorite and heavily so And I also understand he still has some substantial ground to make up, but I'm telling you I think he can win Even in the face of it all.

This is my point. You have a clear bias here. I'm presenting the clearer picture while you are imagining the smallest of possibilities to remain in hope for a candidate. Analysis like that doesn't get good results.

You do realize that the Democratic race is frontloaded with the South states voting first right? Even if you lost some of the states he might could have one( BTW look up how a Nevada and potentially Missouri just flipped in favor of Sanders) the most important are California, New York, Pennsylvania, and to a lesser extent New Jersey. But this is the point that I really want to make. Let's just say hypothetically here that Clinton goes on to lose those states but yet, as you have pointed out, still remains behind in delegates then why would the Democrats at the convention want to nominate a candidate who loses liberal bastions like that? I'm telling you a lot of those superdelegates would switch. There are more Hillary supporters willing to vote for Bernie then there are Bernie supporters are willing to vote for Hillary. Things like this are going to matter a lot and frankly it's what I'm banking on as even I don't believe( though I'm hoping) he is going to crush her in the above-mentioned states.

He is not out of this and he is gaining momentum every day.

You are acting like I know nothing about the primaries when I've been posting these threads since the beginning of January. Yes, I know southern states are at the front end. They have been for a long time. This isn't a news flash. If you're making the point that Hillary's lead is only because of these in the front end, I would disagree and mention my analysis is for the REMAINING races and not looking at previous contests to make that decision. You have to look at their current delegate counts and the possible scenarios in the remaining states which is what I did and showed even if Bernie wins by landslides in the two largest, he still loses.

You can hold on to the super delegate hope thing cause I won't argue which way they will swing. Only point I'll put to that is even if they go 50/50, Clinton wins nomination and in your statements from early on in the race, she should because the superdelegates should vote in allocation to election delegates or it's stealing the race.

Again this is the point in trying to raise and it's a very simple question. Let's say for the sake of argument that Sanders goes on to win California, New York, and Pennsylvania (tall order I get it). How could superdelegates feel so easy nominating a candidate who could not win California and New York? Sanders routinely does better against all of the Republicans and New York and California mostly decide who the Democratic nomination is going to be while the majority of Clinton's votes have come from the deep South which is states that are sure to vote Republican?

Very very bad argument. New York and California are the last states democrats have to worry about in the GE. In the GE, you worry about Iowa, Colorado, Virginia and most importantly Florida or Ohio which is almost an automatic win for the Dems in the GE if they get one of those two states. You are overplaying the differences in these candidates. New York and California aren;t going to say Bernie didn't win so lets go for Trump or Cruz or Kasich. That's laughable.

The crux of my argument is that if Sanders can pull off victories in liberal/progressive stomping grounds while he destroys the Republicans in polling data, there is no reason for a large portion of these superdelegates to not at least consider voting for him to assure a Democratic victory come November.

Other than Kasich, Hillary and Bernie are both doing well head to head with Republicans. If you want to clarify this further, show me data about this. Not just generalized statements that I'm suppose to just trust you on. And again, you've completely flipped on the superdelegates thing for it to now support your views. You want them to sway against what the people voted for in order to give Bernie the edge and I'm not even talking 50/50 switch would favor Bernie cause he wouldn't have 50/50 of the elected delegates. You are talking majority of superdelegates when he won't win the majority of elected ones.

 

[theBLADE1]

Ahh yes, Michigan. Lets keep bringing that up as the standard for how accurate polling has been doing since they were wrong with one state and you need to believe that is the rule and not the exception. In fact, it isn't even the exception since a 1% chance occurs every 100 times and the last time something like MIchigan happened was in the 1980s so don't base that as a common occuring event.

I didn't say it was the standard I'm saying it showed that they could be wrong because they underestimated his support base. You can't act like it won't happen again even if the chances are slim. They're not dishing out golden prophecies from God. And still the polling trends have him gaining on her.

My analysis in the other post not only had him winning CA and NY but by 60 and 65 points and he still lost the race.

If she cannot when New York and California then she has problems on her hands considering one in four Sanders supporters would not vote for her. That's plenty enough reason to sway some votes to his side.

Ahh yes, more buzzwords like momentum when people already previous to the past 9 contests predicted Bernie would do well in these states and still lose the race. I'm sure momentum was something crucial in your analysis during super tuesday.

Actually, yes. It was expected he would have a bad showing on super Tuesday even though I was hoping otherwise. The real race began after March 15.

Trump is also has the same thing going on. Unfavoribility doesn't seem to matter in primaries but likely will in the GE. Point I'm making, is this polling doesn't reflect results in state races, the actually states polling does which isn't good for Bernie.

You have a casewhere both of the Voter base on both sides of the aisle extremely dislike the front runners. They still have enough time to choose a different nomination and it appears as though we're in the middle of that process happening.

You are acting like I know nothing about the primaries when I've been posting these threads since the beginning of January. Yes, I know southern states are at the front end. They have been for a long time. This isn't a news flash. If you're making the point that Hillary's lead is only because of these in the front end, I would disagree and mention my analysis is for the REMAINING races and not looking at previous contests to make that decision. You have to look at their current delegate counts and the possible scenarios in the remaining states which is what I did and showed even if Bernie wins by landslides in the two largest, he still loses.

You can hold on to the super delegate hope thing cause I won't argue which way they will swing. Only point I'll put to that is even if they go 50/50, Clinton wins nomination and in your statements from early on in the race, she should because the superdelegates should vote in allocation to election delegates or it's stealing the race.

Great then you already knowThat the South voting first has always been meant to hurt the nonestablishment candidate on the Democratic side. She is at her current position with the lead in delegates and in the popular vote because of the South. You also keep dismissing the fact that Sanders outperforms the poles on a consistent basis.

Very very bad argument. New York and California are the last states democrats have to worry about in the GE. In the GE, you worry about Iowa, Colorado, Virginia and most importantly Florida or Ohio which is almost an automatic win for the Dems in the GE if they get one of those two states. You are overplaying the differences in these candidates. New York and California aren;t going to say Bernie didn't win so lets go for Trump or Cruz or Kasich. That's laughable.

I'm saying If she cannot win her home state of New York( which is technically Bernie's home state) and California then that means your front runner has some serious problems going forward. Also I'm extremely confident Sanders would when Iowa, Colorado, and Ohio. You're also not considering the factThat most of Hillary's supporters would end up supporting Sanders in the general.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/how-...of-bernie-sanders-fans-wont-vote-for-hillary/

Other than Kasich, Hillary and Bernie are both doing well head to head with Republicans. If you want to clarify this further, show me data about this. Not just generalized statements that I'm suppose to just trust you on. And again, you've completely flipped on the superdelegates thing for it to now support your views. You want them to sway against what the people voted for in order to give Bernie the edge and I'm not even talking 50/50 switch would favor Bernie cause he wouldn't have 50/50 of the elected delegates. You are talking majority of superdelegates when he won't win the majority of elected ones.

It's still entirely possible for Bernie to catch her in the pledged delegates amount. That is still possible even though I know you won't agree but I don't care because we will see. It is also very possible that many of the superdelegates will come to his side if he continues to outperform the polls and win the next If few contest. Here's the data you asked for.

Sanders versus Cruz
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_cruz_vs_sanders-5742.html

Clinton versus Cruz
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_cruz_vs_clinton-4034.html

Wow.... Pretty stark difference there? She barely beats him sometimes when she's not In a tie with him. Okay how about Trump?

Sanders versus Donald
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...s/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html

Hillary versus Donald
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...s/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

Facts are facts. Hillary beats them both but Sanders Is a sure fire bed to stomp them. Hillary will continue to lose her support base slowly but surely as she makes low blow attacks against Sanders and as a voters start to see that the way to a sure victory Come November is through Bernie Sanders. This isn't even hard to understand.

I'm going to dinner now. If you reply to me again I'll probably be responding tomorrow.

 

[MerrdMerrrk]

 

[Lead]

I didn't say it was the standard I'm saying it showed that they could be wrong because they underestimated his support base. You can't act like it won't happen again even if the chances are slim. They're not dishing out golden prophecies from God. And still the polling trends have him gaining on her.

You pointed to it as you main point for why future polls will be wrong so you somewhat were implying it is more of standard than it really is. As I stated, the statistical chance of Sanders winning Michigan was true based on decades of data and it appears to be proving itself by happening once every other decade. I already gave you a 65-35 and 60-40 result which would be this miraculous slim chance and he still lost.

If she cannot when New York and California then she has problems on her hands considering one in four Sanders supporters would not vote for her. That's plenty enough reason to sway some votes to his side.

These type of polls aren't reliable. Every election has these people who say their candidate or bust and then some or most come back to the candidate or maybe they don't. This whole conversation is shifting beyond the original discussion which was how could Bernie come back and win. I'm not trying to talk about the GE at this point. I'm not trying to talk about who is more appealing at that time. I'm talking about the remaining states and simple math. You are diverging from that with these odd things that don't change the original discussion.

Actually, yes. It was expected he would have a bad showing on super Tuesday even though I was hoping otherwise. The real race began after March 15.

No. The real race began in Iowa and ends June 7th for elected delegate (June 14th if you count DC). This comment alone shows you are looking at everything from a broader view than the actual math. All you need to do is take current delegate count and look at who will win what amount of delegates and show me the scenario that Bernie wins. I already tried to do that for you and showed just how steep the chances are.

You have a casewhere both of the Voter base on both sides of the aisle extremely dislike the front runners. They still have enough time to choose a different nomination and it appears as though we're in the middle of that process happening.

Maybe with Trump since the field is slimming but he still has a decent chance of still securing first ballot with unbound delegates. Hillary's has been dropping since January but polls like these aren't the best indicators of future results. State polling is as I mentioned.

Great then you already knowThat the South voting first has always been meant to hurt the nonestablishment candidate on the Democratic side. She is at her current position with the lead in delegates and in the popular vote because of the South. You also keep dismissing the fact that Sanders outperforms the poles on a consistent basis.

Part of her lead is because of the south which is my entire point. I'm showing you how far ahead her lead is and pointing to scenarios in the upcoming states that still show Sanders winning big and losing overall. You're line of thinking is completely flawed with this. You don't say "Well the south got Hillary ahead so I'll see their current delegate count as 50/50 and whoever does better going forward wins." WRONG. Bernie has to win and win very very big to catch up on that lead.

I'm saying If she cannot win her home state of New York( which is technically Bernie's home state) and California then that means your front runner has some serious problems going forward.

This is a problem you have. I'm arguing whether Bernie will win this race based on data and objectivity. You assume these arguments mean I support Hillary every time we talk. Hillary is not my frontrunner. She is the frontrunner of the Democratic party and we are discussing how Bernie could possibly win and just how slim that is. There is no fanship in this discussion aside from you with Bernie.

Also I'm extremely confident Sanders would when Iowa, Colorado, and Ohio. You're also not considering the factThat most of Hillary's supporters would end up supporting Sanders in the general.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/how-...of-bernie-sanders-fans-wont-vote-for-hillary/

Again, the are forgetting what we are talking about and just throwing any pro-Bernie facts you can think about. I don't care about the GE in this discussion because we are talking about who wins this primary and if Bernie can come back. GE is an entirely different discussion that I really don't care about.

It's still entirely possible for Bernie to catch her in the pledged delegates amount. That is still possible even though I know you won't agree but I don't care because we will see. It is also very possible that many of the superdelegates will come to his side if he continues to outperform the polls and win the next If few contest.

Again, superdelegates makes this more subjective of a discussion and may be the only thing you can really cling to til the convention that I won't bother you about. I did show however that Bernie winning big in California and New York still doesn't win him majority of elected delegates and if superdelegates split 50/50, Bernie loses. It will be funny seeing you convention week asking superdelegates to go against what the elected delegates chose.

Here's the data you asked for.

Sanders versus Cruz
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_cruz_vs_sanders-5742.html

Clinton versus Cruz
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_cruz_vs_clinton-4034.html

Wow.... Pretty stark difference there? She barely beats him sometimes when she's not In a tie with him. Okay how about Trump?

Sanders versus Donald
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...s/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html

Hillary versus Donald
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...s/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

Facts are facts. Hillary beats them both but Sanders Is a sure fire bed to stomp them. Hillary will continue to lose her support base slowly but surely as she makes low blow attacks against Sanders and as a voters start to see that the way to a sure victory Come November is through Bernie Sanders. This isn't even hard to understand.

I'm going to dinner now. If you reply to me again I'll probably be responding tomorrow.

I don't put much weight on head to heads before the GE as I've never seen anything showing a strong correlation with this and the GE head to heads. Either way, as I said, that a whole other discussion. I personally think the Democratic ticket already has a very strong chance of winning now that the field of the GOP has slimmed down and we can see the potential match ups. We will have plenty of time to talk about it after the conventions when we know who the two are.

I'm going to dinner now. If you reply to me again I'll probably be responding tomorrow.

I went out for drinks so that worked out well.

 

[theBLADE1]

You pointed to it as you main point for why future polls will be wrong so you somewhat were implying it is more of standard than it really is. As I stated, the statistical chance of Sanders winning Michigan was true based on decades of data and it appears to be proving itself by happening once every other decade. I already gave you a 65-35 and 60-40 result which would be this miraculous slim chance and he still lost.

No I didn't. I pointed it out as an indicator of how polling data isn't always spot on. I never indicated it was an all out Indictment on the accuracy of current or future polling. It was merely an example that polls aren't always the be all end all predictors of what's going to happen. That's all and you know that's what I was trying to say. Hell if anything I'm banking on them being correct as it shows her losing more ground in these coming states as time goes on.

These type of polls aren't reliable. Every election has these people who say their candidate or bust and then some or most come back to the candidate or maybe they don't. This whole conversation is shifting beyond the original discussion which was how could Bernie come back and win. I'm not trying to talk about the GE at this point. I'm not trying to talk about who is more appealing at that time. I'm talking about the remaining states and simple math. You are diverging from that with these odd things that don't change the original discussion.

So let me get this straight whenever I refer to current polling there "not reliable" Unless it Goes to benefit your argument right? Also Didn't you say something earlier about unsubstantiated claims not being backed up? I won't buy that they are not reliable because I have no reason not to in less you prove what you're saying. And I'm sorry but there has never been a candidate In modern history who is this popular who has called for as many drastic, widely popular changes as Bernie Sanders. It's 100% believable that a large majority of his supporters will not back her in the general because she represents to them what is fundamentally wrong with politics. And for the record I still believe he will come back and actually claim the majority of the pledged delegates before the race is over.

No. The real race began in Iowa and ends June 7th for elected delegate (June 14th if you count DC). This comment alone shows you are looking at everything from a broader view than the actual math. All you need to do is take current delegate count and look at who will win what amount of delegates and show me the scenario that Bernie wins. I already tried to do that for you and showed just how steep the chances are.

Of course it takes a certain level of faith to believe even in the face of adversity. I'm well aware that it doesn't look good. But I, along with other supporters and certain news publications still believes Sanders has a path to victory. You're not just saying that Sanders has a steep climb you're also saying that he has already lost and he has no chance to win and that simply is not the case. I have no reason to believe your implied message. I know his chances are steep and I have never ever denied that but he certainly still has a path to the nomination. I don't give up when the going gets rough unlike certain other former Sanders supporters on this board.

Maybe with Trump since the field is slimming but he still has a decent chance of still securing first ballot with unbound delegates. Hillary's has been dropping since January but polls like these aren't the best indicators of future results. State polling is as I mentioned.

Again so polling data only matters and doesn't matter when you say so right? You can't have your cake and eat it too. You're going to have to back that shit up Lead.

Part of her lead is because of the south which is my entire point. I'm showing you how far ahead her lead is and pointing to scenarios in the upcoming states that still show Sanders winning big and losing overall. You're line of thinking is completely flawed with this. You don't say "Well the south got Hillary ahead so I'll see their current delegate count as 50/50 and whoever does better going forward wins." WRONG. Bernie has to win and win very very big to catch up on that lead.

I know were not going to agree on this issue, but if Sanders wins the coming states, Future voters and even superdelegates are going to look at Sanders as the stronger general election candidate. They are not going to settle for a candidate who has had the bulk of their victories coming from states there will not win in the general. This is not going to be a smooth convention. And again if he does when New York and California in a scenario like you presented earlier are you telling me that is still no problem at all? At that point Hillary Clinton would be considered damaged goods.

This is a problem you have. I'm arguing whether Bernie will win this race based on data and objectivity. You assume these arguments mean I support Hillary every time we talk. Hillary is not my frontrunner. She is the frontrunner of the Democratic party and we are discussing how Bernie could possibly win and just how slim that is. There is no fanship in this discussion aside from you with Bernie.

I have NEVER assumed you were supporting Hillary. When I typed your I meant as an American citizen, she is the Democratic front runner in the country you reside in. Same goes for me. I know you have a conservative bent or at least I think so anyway.

Again, the are forgetting what we are talking about and just throwing any pro-Bernie facts you can think about. I don't care about the GE in this discussion because we are talking about who wins this primary and if Bernie can come back. GE is an entirely different discussion that I really don't care about.

Part of the basis for my entire argument is that Bernie Sanders is a stronger general election candidate, which is why voters who have yet to vote and potentially superdelegates who have also yet to vote will come into play in terms of who will win the primary. Again I will reiterate that I still believe Bernie Sanders will end up winning in the pledged delegates category. As he is as of this moment down 214 delegates. I understand it's not winner take all,But Bernie can still do it based off of( brace for that word you don't like again) momentum. Also people are starting to see the very true fact that he is indeed a stronger general election candidate regardless of if you say that line of polling matters are not.

Again, superdelegates makes this more subjective of a discussion and may be the only thing you can really cling to til the convention that I won't bother you about. I did show however that Bernie winning big in California and New York still doesn't win him majority of elected delegates and if superdelegates split 50/50, Bernie loses. It will be funny seeing you convention week asking superdelegates to go against what the elected delegates chose.

I am telling you Democrats at the convention are not going to elect a candidate who cannot win New York and California. That's not even considering if he manages to win other states like Pennsylvania and maybe New Jersey in a similar fashion. Again you are also considering it a foregone conclusion that she will when the pledged delegates like it's already a done deal. I disagree so I guess we'll have to see on that one.

I don't put much weight on head to heads before the GE as I've never seen anything showing a strong correlation with this and the GE head to heads. Either way, as I said, that a whole other discussion. I personally think the Democratic ticket already has a very strong chance of winning now that the field of the GOP has slimmed down and we can see the potential match ups. We will have plenty of time to talk about it after the conventions when we know who the two are.

There is literally no reason not to believe the head-to-head matchup polls. You may not believe them but until I see new sets of polling data where Clinton outperforms Sanders against either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz, then it is the easiest thing in the world to say that Sanders is the candidate that all but assures another four years of a Democrat in the White House.

I went out for drinks so that worked out well.

Nice! I had a warm belly full of wine last night.

 

[Lead]

No I didn't. I pointed it out as an indicator of how polling data isn't always spot on. I never indicated it was an all out Indictment on the accuracy of current or future polling. It was merely an example that polls aren't always the be all end all predictors of what's going to happen. That's all and you know that's what I was trying to say. Hell if anything I'm banking on them being correct as it shows her losing more ground in these coming states as time goes on.



So let me get this straight whenever I refer to current polling there "not reliable" Unless it Goes to benefit your argument right? Also Didn't you say something earlier about unsubstantiated claims not being backed up? I won't buy that they are not reliable because I have no reason not to in less you prove what you're saying. And I'm sorry but there has never been a candidate In modern history who is this popular who has called for as many drastic, widely popular changes as Bernie Sanders. It's 100% believable that a large majority of his supporters will not back her in the general because she represents to them what is fundamentally wrong with politics. And for the record I still believe he will come back and actually claim the majority of the pledged delegates before the race is over.




Of course it takes a certain level of faith to believe even in the face of adversity. I'm well aware that it doesn't look good. But I, along with other supporters and certain news publications still believes Sanders has a path to victory. You're not just saying that Sanders has a steep climb you're also saying that he has already lost and he has no chance to win and that simply is not the case. I have no reason to believe your implied message. I know his chances are steep and I have never ever denied that but he certainly still has a path to the nomination. I don't give up when the going gets rough unlike certain other former Sanders supporters on this board.



Again so polling data only matters and doesn't matter when you say so right? You can't have your cake and eat it too. You're going to have to back that shit up Lead.



I know were not going to agree on this issue, but if Sanders wins the coming states, Future voters and even superdelegates are going to look at Sanders as the stronger general election candidate. They are not going to settle for a candidate who has had the bulk of their victories coming from states there will not win in the general. This is not going to be a smooth convention. And again if he does when New York and California in a scenario like you presented earlier are you telling me that is still no problem at all? At that point Hillary Clinton would be considered damaged goods.



I have NEVER assumed you were supporting Hillary. When I typed your I meant as an American citizen, she is the Democratic front runner in the country you reside in. Same goes for me. I know you have a conservative bent or at least I think so anyway.



Part of the basis for my entire argument is that Bernie Sanders is a stronger general election candidate, which is why voters who have yet to vote and potentially superdelegates who have also yet to vote will come into play in terms of who will win the primary. Again I will reiterate that I still believe Bernie Sanders will end up winning in the pledged delegates category. As he is as of this moment down 214 delegates. I understand it's not winner take all,But Bernie can still do it based off of( brace for that word you don't like again) momentum. Also people are starting to see the very true fact that he is indeed a stronger general election candidate regardless of if you say that line of polling matters are not.



I am telling you Democrats at the convention are not going to elect a candidate who cannot win New York and California. That's not even considering if he manages to win other states like Pennsylvania and maybe New Jersey in a similar fashion. Again you are also considering it a foregone conclusion that she will when the pledged delegates like it's already a done deal. I disagree so I guess we'll have to see on that one.



There is literally no reason not to believe the head-to-head matchup polls. You may not believe them but until I see new sets of polling data where Clinton outperforms Sanders against either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz, then it is the easiest thing in the world to say that Sanders is the candidate that all but assures another four years of a Democrat in the White House.



Nice! I had a warm belly full of wine last night.

I think we are on different pages right now. Part of this is on my end for asking for data on the GE match ups. I wasn't trying to encourage that as a point for whether Bernie can win the primary or not. I just wanted to see the information and didn't want to look it up since you brought it up. IMO, the GE favors either Democratic candidate at this point. Also, every candidate left is either very far end on an ideological spectrum or not liked or both so there isn't much reason to argue a candidate having no chance in the GE. Bernie probably has a great chance due to the other side or at most 50/50. What I was trying to say is this is a different debate. I don't think superdelegates or voters are looking at that data and letting it affect how they vote in the end so it doesn't really directly connect with our discussion. The best indicators is state polling for upcoming races.

This is something you brought up. The polling data I shot down was favorable/unfavorable polls because these haven't connected well with actual voting results. Sometimes voters see a person as more qualified and vote even though they don't like them much (Hillary) or the candidate is very polarizing where you either love or hate them (Trump). My point is that data is useful in many cases but not the point you are applying it too. In the GE, analysts definitely follow the sitting presidents approval rating closely but in primaries, its kinda a second tier thing to look at from state polls. HendoRuasomething was doing this with me before Nevada when I was point to state polling and demographic polling for who you would vote for and he kept throwing out polls like "Do you think this candidate is trustworthy". It's an interesting thing to look at for sure but it isn't something we've found over the years that connects with the results. For example, as he mentioned, not many found CLinton trustworthy yet the majority still voted for her. I'm not cherry picking the polling I look at. I'm simply sticking the the types that provide the best results which has and will be state polls.

With that, you mentioned state polls are looking better for Bernie.


New York (The state I previously showed a scenario of him getting 65/35 (+30 win) and still losing the primary race)
Clinton averages +14% which means Bernie needs a 44% swing to get to my scenario where he loses the Dem primary race
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...nia_democratic_presidential_primary-5321.html

California (The state I previously showed a scenario of him getting 60-40 (+20 win) wtih the NY scenario above and still losing the primary race)
Clinton averages +9.5% which means Bernie needs more than a 29.5% swing to get to my scenario where he loses Dem primary race
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...nia_democratic_presidential_primary-5321.html

Pennsylvania
Clinton average +16%
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...nia_democratic_presidential_primary-4249.html

Here is the states left and what five thirty eight expects them to get. Just look on this link and tell me the math that gets Bernie to more elected delegates than Clinton.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats/

 

[theBLADE1]

I think we are on different pages right now. Part of this is on my end for asking for data on the GE match ups. I wasn't trying to encourage that as a point for whether Bernie can win the primary or not. I just wanted to see the information and didn't want to look it up since you brought it up. IMO, the GE favors either Democratic candidate at this point. Also, every candidate left is either very far end on an ideological spectrum or not liked or both so there isn't much reason to argue a candidate having no chance in the GE. Bernie probably has a great chance due to the other side or at most 50/50. What I was trying to say is this is a different debate. I don't think superdelegates or voters are looking at that data and letting it affect how they vote in the end so it doesn't really directly connect with our discussion. The best indicators is state polling for upcoming races.

There is still a lot of Undecided voters and people that can still be swayed in many of the upcoming states. Those people will make decisions based off of a number of different issues and I think it is reasonable to say that a good number of them will look at GE match ups because a lot of people are genuinely scared to death of Trump and Cruz. Because of that some might choose to endorse Sanders and some might not. Whether or not it has a large effect on superdelegates and undecideds has yet to be seen and only time will tell.

I think this is especially true if Cruz gets the Republican nomination because while Sanders and Clinton both pretty thoroughly be Trump, Ted Cruz actually tends to put up much more of a fight against Hillary then he does against Sanders. By the time the Dem convention rolls around the Republicans will have already had theirs And that is when all of this talk of who would do better in the GE will actually matter. Again this is assuming Sanders does well in the coming months.

This is something you brought up. The polling data I shot down was favorable/unfavorable polls because these haven't connected well with actual voting results. Sometimes voters see a person as more qualified and vote even though they don't like them much (Hillary) or the candidate is very polarizing where you either love or hate them (Trump). My point is that data is useful in many cases but not the point you are applying it too. In the GE, analysts definitely follow the sitting presidents approval rating closely but in primaries, its kinda a second tier thing to look at from state polls. HendoRuasomething was doing this with me before Nevada when I was point to state polling and demographic polling for who you would vote for and he kept throwing out polls like "Do you think this candidate is trustworthy". It's an interesting thing to look at for sure but it isn't something we've found over the years that connects with the results. For example, as he mentioned, not many found CLinton trustworthy yet the majority still voted for her. I'm not cherry picking the polling I look at. I'm simply sticking the the types that provide the best results which has and will be state polls.

Time seems to not be her friend where as it benefits Bernie. Favorable/unfavorable may not be the sole determining factor in who will pick up votes but it will be in play with a cumulation of any number of other factors. I maintain that if Sanders can continue to put on very good performances in the coming states then there is a strong case to be made that the majority of her votes have come from states in the South that are not going to vote Democratic in the general especially if Sanders makes a good showing in more liberal states amongst more diverse progressives. If she goes on to win both the popular vote and the pledged delegate vote then you're right but that hasn't been set in stone yet.

New York (The state I previously showed a scenario of him getting 65/35 (+30 win) and still losing the primary race)
Clinton averages +14% which means Bernie needs a 44% swing to get to my scenario where he loses the Dem primary race
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...nia_democratic_presidential_primary-5321.html

California (The state I previously showed a scenario of him getting 60-40 (+20 win) wtih the NY scenario above and still losing the primary race)
Clinton averages +9.5% which means Bernie needs more than a 29.5% swing to get to my scenario where he loses Dem primary race
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...nia_democratic_presidential_primary-5321.html

Pennsylvania
Clinton average +16%
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...nia_democratic_presidential_primary-4249.html

You're missing my point though. Those current numbers are good compared to what he was at just a couple of weeks ago In all three of those states. What we're arguing about is whether or not he has it in him to win those states big enough to come out with a victory and I think he can. Time is on his side and while it may not look good for him currently, he still has enough time to turn those votes over to his side?

Let me just flat out ask you this. Let's just say for the sake of example that Arizona was the last state that Hillary Clinton Was victorious in. Bernie Sanders goes on to win Every single state that has yet to vote and not even by crushing victories but he wins them all. Do you think there will be any hesitation amongst the Democrats at the convention to elect her, even if she is winning the popular vote with most of those votes coming from the south? Would they want a Democratic candidate who has lost so many states like that?

 

[Lead]

You're missing my point though. Those current numbers are good compared to what he was at just a couple of weeks ago In all three of those states. What we're arguing about is whether or not he has it in him to win those states big enough to come out with a victory and I think he can. Time is on his side and while it may not look good for him currently, he still has enough time to turn those votes over to his side?

They look good in comparison to last week but that's far different from a 44% and 29.5% that he needs at his current position. Saying "yea but he made up ground" doesn't matter when I'm showing you he almost needs half the electorate in NY to switch in a week to get to a scenario where he still loses.

Let me just flat out ask you this. Let's just say for the sake of example that Arizona was the last state that Hillary Clinton Was victorious in. Bernie Sanders goes on to win Every single state that has yet to vote and not even by crushing victories but he wins them all. Do you think there will be any hesitation amongst the Democrats at the convention to elect her, even if she is winning the popular vote with most of those votes coming from the south? Would they want a Democratic candidate who has lost so many states like that?

I can't really comment on what they would think but I can tell you she would have the point of arguing she won more delegates and the popular vote at the end of the day which would be looking at the entire race (not just the south or not just the pro-Bernie states) and that's kinda the whole point. Also, I think you and many people mentioned superdelegates going against elected delegates allocation is wrong but maybe you didn't. Could've been HendoRua complaining about it. Either way, I think what you are saying is super delegates giving Bernie the majority of their votes is the only way he can win at this point. I have not seen anything from you showing math where he gets enough elected delegates that he could get 50/50 in super and still win.

 

[Lead]

Sanders’ tax return: As ‘boring’ as promised

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders released his 2014 tax returns Friday night, showing that he paid $27,653 in federal taxes on adjusted gross income of $205,271.

The Vermont senator pledged to release the filings during the Democratic debate on Thursday night after sparring with Hillary Clinton over financial disclosure issues.

Story Continued Below


The majority of Sanders’ earnings came from his $174,000 salary as a U.S. senator, as well as Social Security benefits.

The returns, filed jointly with his wife, Jane, were just as “boring” and straightforward as Sanders repeatedly said they would be, particularly compared to those of Hillary Clinton, his multi-millionaire opponent for the nomination.

After tax payments of $31,825, Sanders collected a $4,172 refund. They donated $8,350 to charity.

 

[Lead]

Clinton Is Winning The States That Look Like The Democratic Party

“Secretary Clinton cleaned our clock in the Deep South, no question about it,” Bernie Sanders said during Thursday night’s Democratic debate in Brooklyn. “That is the most conservative part of this great country,” he continued. “But you know what, we’re out of the Deep South now. And we’re moving up.”

I have a few problems with this line of argument, which seems to imply that Democratic voters in the Deep South don’t reflect the larger Democratic electorate. (The remarks Thursday night echo previous comments made bySanders and his campaign.) Consider Sanders’s reference to the term “Deep South,” which traditionally describes Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina: These are five of the only six states, along with Maryland, where at least a quarter of the population is black. Given the United States’ history of disenfranchising black voters — not to mention the importance of black voters to Democrats in November — it’s dicey for Sanders to diminish Clinton’s wins there.

 

[Lead]

Priebus: 'Much more comfortable' running against Clinton than Sanders

Reince Priebus says he is “much more comfortable” running against Hillary Clinton than Bernie Sanders this fall.

The chairman of the Republican National Committee was speaking to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Friday when he was asked which Democratic candidate he’d rather have his nominee face off with this fall.

“Much more comfortable and I think everyone that has analyzed this knows that Hillary Clinton is in the ditch. We don't know how far in the ditch she's going to go but she's not doing well. She's not even winning,” Priebus said. “She is not popular, unfortunately for her, she’s not likable.”

 

[Lead]

Sanders says Clinton’s platform could determine how much he would campaign for her

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders said in an interview broadcast Friday that he would wait to see what Hillary Clinton includes in her platform before deciding how actively to campaign for her in the fall if she is the party’s nominee.

The senator from Vermont, who has vowed to stay in the race until the Democratic convention, was asked by Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC whether he would try to persuade his young supporters to back Clinton in the same fashion that she supported President Obama after losing the nomination to him in 2008.

 

[Lead]

How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk

Hillary Clinton sat in the hideaway study off her ceremonial office in the State Department, sipping tea and taking stock of her first year on the job. The study was more like a den — cozy and wood-paneled, lined with bookshelves that displayed mementos from Clinton’s three decades in the public eye: a statue of her heroine, Eleanor Roosevelt; a baseball signed by the Chicago Cubs star Ernie Banks; a carved wooden figure of a pregnant African woman. The intimate setting lent itself to a less-formal interview than the usual locale, her imposing outer office, with its marble fireplace, heavy drapes, crystal chandelier and ornate wall sconces. On the morning of Feb. 26, 2010, however, Clinton was talking about something more sensitive than mere foreign affairs: her relationship with Barack Obama. To say she chose her words carefully doesn’t do justice to the delicacy of the exercise. She was like a bomb-squad technician, deciding which color wire to snip without blowing up her relationship with the White House.