Support NeoGAF

[balladofwindfishes]

You're basically asking for Bloomberg. The GOP base is most interested in social conservatism.

I'm not fiscally conservative by any measure.

But yea, if the GOP pivots to accept someone like Bloomberg as a Republican, things will get kind of scary for Democrats.

And I think that might be the future of the Republican party, which is worrying.

 

[pigeon]

I'm not fiscally conservative by any measure.

But yea, if the GOP pivots to accept someone like Bloomberg as a Republican, things will get kind of scary for Democrats.

And I think that might be the future of the Republican party, which is worrying.

Keep in mind that in this world the white nationalists don't vote Republican any more. They probably vote third-party or stay home.

 

[BlastProcessing]

Based god is real ya'll. What an amazing story for Sanders, started as a no-name from Vermont and now he's winning national polls. Not only has Bernie made huge gains but he dominates the youth vote (including women), and has outraised even Hillary Clinton's campaign. Fascinating.

Of course he has to start winning yuge to make up for the delegate deficit...unless they're banking on Hillary losing the 'FBI primary' lol

I'm always surprised by this narrative. Anybody who follows politics at all knew Sanders for a long time. He was an independant in the Senate, that's rare, that stands out. I suppose the "Sanders is a newcomer" narrative comes from a combination of the fact that there are a ton of low information voters and the fact that he hasn't accomplished much as a Senator.

 

[Goro Majima]

There's an awful lot of the Democrat base that's Socially Liberal, but Fiscally Conservative, so it's always a fear of mine that the GOP will eventually drop their Socially Conservative weight and appeal to a pretty decent chunk of Democrats. Basically, business types who aren't bigots and don't want to be associated with bigots.

So the Democrats will need to be careful with any major shift left, although I think post Hillary, the party will be a lot more liberal. I think Hillary, herself, will be very much more liberal at the end of her second term.

I think that's the logical progression for republicans at this point when the democrats are demographically set to win more and more every year.

It's going to be difficult to move their social views to the center at the very least however. I don't see them fully embracing social liberalism to where they're always on the front lines of it however.

 

[Macho Madness]

I'm not fiscally conservative by any measure.

But yea, if the GOP pivots to accept someone like Bloomberg as a Republican, things will get kind of scary for Democrats.

And I think that might be the future of the Republican party, which is worrying.

You're talking about a small number of people though. The GOP base isn't going anywhere soon and they're still quite socially conservative. That's not changing just because the party wants to. They already wanted to in 2013. The SCOTUS ruling on marriage equality was also said to "put that issue behind" the GOP. It's just not happening. The party you're describing doesn't exist, and won't exist any time soon.

 

[Odrion]

I'm not fiscally conservative by any measure.

But yea, if the GOP pivots to accept someone like Bloomberg as a Republican, things will get kind of scary for Democrats.

And I think that might be the future of the Republican party, which is worrying.

I don't know, this future where the Republicans would no longer be a threat to gay and POC rights sounds pretty cool. Especially compared to what we have now.

Wouldn't it get the democratic party to pivot left both economically and socially? Wouldn't it be better if voting Republican didn't mean, to quote a cool poster, "The tacit approval of oppressing minorities"? Wouldn't it be better that if the Republicans did win, it'd be just a bummer and not an ever living nightmare to people with empathy?

 

[Aaron Strife]

I'm not fiscally conservative by any measure.

But yea, if the GOP pivots to accept someone like Bloomberg as a Republican, things will get kind of scary for Democrats.

And I think that might be the future of the Republican party, which is worrying.

This is probably what will happen, but keep in mind demographic changes will continually offset any gains the GOP makes.

The big things I can see the GOP moderating on are gay rights, immigration and environmentalist issues. It will help them, to be sure, but it's not like the younger generations are would-be Republicans who are only withholding their support because of pesky social issues.

I mean look at where Bernie's support is coming from - young liberals who support free college, healthcare and paying no favors to the banks. I'd imagine most minorities who already support the Democrats and tend to be poorer would favor that sort of platform too. By 2024, millennials will make up about half of the electorate and minorities about 40%. It'll be a huge undertaking for the GOP to successfully rebrand themselves in that time. Not that they can't do it, but it'll have to be similar to how Bill Clinton reshaped the Democratic Party in 1992. Otherwise they'll have to rely on bad economies or major world crises to get voters to boot the Democrats out.

Personally I would love if the two-party system moved so that Bernie represented the center of the Democrats and Bloomberg represented the center of the Republicans, so I mean if that's what ends up happening, alright. I'm as liberal as they come but I also feel like my support for the Democrats is more or less default, because the GOP is so fucking crazy that they can't be trusted as a serious alternative.

My theory regarding the electoral map will be that the GOP starts to gain in the Midwest - IA/OH/WI will become Lean Republican states more or less, while MN/MI/PA could almost become tossups - and the Democrats start to solidify the "New South" that's started to take hold (VA/FL/NC/GA). The GOP might also find new strength in the Northeast, while Democrats pick up Arizona and (much further along) Texas.

 

[Macam]

There's an awful lot of the Democrat base that's Socially Liberal, but Fiscally Conservative, so it's always a fear of mine that the GOP will eventually drop their Socially Conservative weight and appeal to a pretty decent chunk of Democrats. Basically, business types who aren't bigots and don't want to be associated with bigots.

So the Democrats will need to be careful with any major shift left, although I think post Hillary, the party will be a lot more liberal. I think Hillary, herself, will be very much more liberal at the end of her second term.

Well, Republicans aren't "fiscally conservative" (a meaningless term of there ever was one); they just use tax revenues for different priorities (e.g., tax cuts). Their problem is that the social conservatives basically provided a lot of the grassroots activism and excitement for the party.

I certainly agree in general, but Republicans to date haven't been interested in competing for replacing that crowd with a more fragmented, if broader, set of centrist/right of center voters. If Trump causes the party to implode, that could happen, but Republicans still seem content with the coalition, just not the result it's produced this go around.

And I sincerely doubt Hillary will be more liberal, but that's been beaten to death around here. It's wishful thinking.

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

Is PPP good now? I remember them getting shit in 2012.

 

[Maxim726X]

You're basically asking for Bloomberg. The GOP base is most interested in social conservatism.

And that's the issue that the party has to reconcile moving forward.

Also, the blatant racism and xenophobia. Good luck.

 

[googleplex]

No, if you want Bernie Sanders, then you need to get out and vote for Bernie Sanders in the primary.

Vote. That is all.

Most important thing to read in this thread, regardless of the candidate.

The one thing thus primary has shown that even if you dont agree %100 with either Hillary or Bernie. Both are good candidates and infinitely superior to anyone on the GOP side..

I happen to think that Hillary is more qualified then Bernie to be president, but I'd vote for him in a second if he somehow made it to the GE

 

[Flo_Evans]

I'm just happy I can vote for Bernie and he is still somewhat in it.

Anecdotal sure but STL is Bernie all the way... I see people all the time with Bernie stickers/gear. Not once have I seen anyone supporting Hillary publicly. Large black population in the city itself so it will be interesting to see how they vote.

I imagine all the hillbillies in the ozarks are Trump or Hillary.

 

[Macho Madness]

I'm just happy I can vote for Bernie and he is still somewhat in it.

Anecdotal sure but STL is Bernie all the way... I see people all the time with Bernie stickers/gear. Not once have I seen anyone supporting Hillary publicly. Large black population in the city itself so it will be interesting to see how they vote.

I imagine all the hillbillies in the ozarks are Trump or Hillary.

Hillary's candidacy has actually been quite low-key in that respect. For all the talk of Trump and the "silent majority", the candidate with the most votes so far in the primary without a whole lot of vocal or visual representation is Hillary.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Is PPP good now? I remember them getting shit in 2012.

PPP was great in 2012. They mostly got shit from Republicans who were mad they were putting out polls showing Democrats ahead.

They did ok in 2014... Had a few misses but so did everyone. They've been good for the primaries so far, Michigan being their only huge miss.

 

[pigeon]

Is PPP good now? I remember them getting shit in 2012.

PPP was right in 49 states in 2012 as I recall.

Right after that, though, Nate Cohn and Nate Silver ripped into them for what they considered to be unethical poll methodology -- basically modifying their weights on the fly to make sure that the polls were in line with the polling averages. There wasn't any specific evidence but there was a lot of argument.

So, I mean, you could kind of go either way.

 

[Balphon]

Yep

Bu bu bu your delegates would ruin the system through sheer number.
Well fuck me if a state that holds a majority of the population in the country has some sway right?

California has about 11% of the US population, which is a plurality, not a majority. Likewise, the size of the delegate count in CA really would swamp the entire process when the votes are as spread out as they are in this cycle.

Besides, the sheer weight of CA's delegate count means its primary still holds outsized importance even when held in June. The primary/caucus of a smaller state held at the same time (e.g. NM) is of greatly reduced significance compared to a state with the same delegate count held earlier (e.g. NV).

 

[Afrodium]

How can the GOP pivot to this magical fiscally conservative socially liberal party without getting voters to put people like this into office? You realize the same electorate that's about to nominate Trump will have to make this pivot too, right?

 

[Abstrusity]

Well that's sort of what I was implying. The opinions of Independents and Republicans are surely irrelevant to the FL poll?

Pretty much. However, they are NOT irrelevant to the general election, where we actually vote between a Dem and Republican, which is why some like to have open primaries. A closed primary renders everyone who is registered independent or registered without affiliation otherwise, to have zero say in how the country goes. So, a bunch of independents want Sanders, but they'll get Hillary.

They won't vote rather than vote for Trump, because they hate both Hillary AND Trump.

And when President Trump calls down a thousand years of justice on the heretical blasphemers, they can say "I told you so," and "don't look at ME, -I- wanted Sanders," before they are flayed alive as sacrifice. Needless to say, the DNC won't be winning much after that.

 

[RustyNails]

So you all are telling me there's no need for me to vote for Bernie in FL...

You must vote for Bernie if you like him. I'm going to skip the delegate math class and just give you the answer: Bernie Sanders losing FL by a smaller margin is significantly better than Bernie Sanders winning all of the tossup (IL,OH,MO - for the sake of argument) states by a smaller margin.

 

[BanGy.nz]

How can the GOP pivot to this magical fiscally conservative socially liberal party without getting voters to put people like this into office? You realize the same electorate that's about to nominate Trump will have to make this pivot too, right?

Sustained losses over three or four more presidential election cycles would probably do it.

 

[pigeon]

Pretty much. However, they are NOT irrelevant to the general election, where we actually vote between a Dem and Republican, which is why some like to have open primaries. A closed primary renders everyone who is registered independent or registered without affiliation otherwise, to have zero say in how the country goes. So, a bunch of independents want Sanders, but they'll get Hillary.

They won't vote rather than vote for Trump, because they hate both Hillary AND Trump.

Like, it's a nice story, but the reality is that there just aren't that many real independents in America.

The majority of "independents" are party leaners and basically act exactly like party members in their voting behaviors, so they can basically be treated as party members.

The number of people who are actually outside of the political system but participating in a primary is basically tiny. They aren't going to matter.

 

[Macho Madness]

How can the GOP pivot to this magical fiscally conservative socially liberal party without getting voters to put people like this into office? You realize the same electorate that's about to nominate Trump will have to make this pivot too, right?

That's what I've been trying to say. This kind of party doesn't exist and won't exist anytime soon.

 

[Finale Fireworker]

Pretty much. However, they are NOT irrelevant to the general election, where we actually vote between a Dem and Republican, which is why some like to have open primaries. A closed primary renders everyone who is registered independent or registered without affiliation otherwise, to have zero say in how the country goes. So, a bunch of independents want Sanders, but they'll get Hillary.

They won't vote rather than vote for Trump, because they hate both Hillary AND Trump.

And when President Trump calls down a thousand years of justice on the heretical blasphemers, they can say "I told you so," and "don't look at ME, -I- wanted Sanders," before they are flayed alive as sacrifice. Needless to say, the DNC won't be winning much after that.

Question: can't you just reregister to vote in a closed primary? In Maine, there was a whole table with a line full of independents (and possibly republicans, I guess) who were redeclaring to vote in the primary. Do other states do this?

 

[Lord_Byron28]

I'm always surprised by this narrative. Anybody who follows politics at all knew Sanders for a long time. He was an independant in the Senate, that's rare, that stands out. I suppose the "Sanders is a newcomer" narrative comes from a combination of the fact that there are a ton of low information voters and the fact that he hasn't accomplished much as a Senator.

I'd say 95% of Americans don't pay attention to individual accomplishments of senators. At most they may know the speaker of the house and their state representatives but that is a low amount. The only time people's record in Congress draws attention is when they run for president or otherwise put under the national media spotlight.

Not too mention I recall this entire campaign people saying he peaked at 10% then 15%, then 20%, etc. in national polls. By the time November and December rolled around the narrative changed to the polls don't matter this far out. Even though his odds are next to none, he has been far more competitive than anyone ever expected. I recall being told how Hillary was going to destroy Sanders once she started campaigning but he is holding his own well despite the socialist label. Hopefully this inspires more politicians to pay attention to what Sanders campaign was about.

 

[HylianTom]

Hillary's candidacy has actually been quite low-key in that respect. For all the talk of Trump and the "silent majority", the candidate with the most votes so far in the primary without a whole lot of vocal or visual representation is Hillary.

Silent majority? Convention riots?

1968, indeed.

People are going to learn the hard way: being loud online and with bumperstickery/signs is not indicative of real-world polling results.

 

[plagiarize]

I'd say 95% of Americans don't pay attention to individual accomplishments of senators. At most they may know the speaker of the house and their state representatives but that is a low amount. The only time people's record in Congress draws attention is when they run for president or otherwise put under the national media spotlight.

Not too mention I recall this entire campaign people saying he peaked at 10% then 15%, then 20%, etc. in national polls. By the time November and December rolled around the narrative changed to the polls don't matter this far out. Even though his odds are next to none, he has been far more competitive than anyone ever expected. I recall being told how Hillary was going to destroy Sanders once she started campaigning but he is holding his own well despite the socialist label. Hopefully this inspires more politicians to pay attention to what Sanders campaign was about.

Exactly. I'm backing Clinton, but how well Sanders has done gives me further confidence that America is continuing to move in a more liberal direction, and that even if we aren't ready for someone like Sanders now, that we might be in eight years.

Silent majority? Convention riots?

1968, indeed.

People are going to learn the hard way: being loud online and with bumperstickery/signs is not indicative of real-world polling results.

I learnt that in 2004 when Bush won reelection despite a lack of visible support. People only get one vote. In a two horse race someone with a slight preference for one candidate cancels out someone with a very strong preference for the other. That's why I wasn't remotely surprised by Obama's reelection. Because by then I was looking at the data.

 

[Abstrusity]

Question: can't you just reregister to vote in a closed primary? In Maine, there was a whole table with a line full of independents (and possibly republicans, I guess) who were redeclaring to vote in the primary. Do other states do this?

Yes. However, that all depends on what resources you have in your area. If I was Independent, and went to the DMV today to register as a Dem, it might take me three years, just like it did to get registered to vote in my area after I moved. I MIGHT be able to register at the polling station, but likely wouldn't have a voter card, which, as far as I know, is required to vote in the primary, here.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Hillary's candidacy has actually been quite low-key in that respect. For all the talk of Trump and the "silent majority", the candidate with the most votes so far in the primary without a whole lot of vocal or visual representation is Hillary.

Yeah I am kind of dumb though there is actually a small Bernie campaign office on the same block as my office... no wonder I see more people feeling the bern

 

[StormBrute]

Exactly. I'm backing Clinton, but how well Sanders has done gives me further confidence that America is continuing to move in a more liberal direction, and that even if we aren't ready for someone like Sanders now, that we might be in eight years.

People talk about this a lot, but I'm worried about the other side of this.

We're all predicting the collapse or reformation of the GOP, which is a very real possibility, but assuming that it doesn't and just continues on as it has... What are we going to get from that side in eight years of increasing political polarization if we're getting Trump now? What are they going to be ready for in four, eight years?

Just look at how things have moved with the Republican candidates, from McCain, to Romney, and now to Trump. They're increasingly unelectable in the general, sure, but Trump is stirring up all this shit while he's still in the primary phase. I'm not looking forward to what it's gonna be like in the general. What kind of havoc is the next guy gonna wreak?

I think people feel like we've kinda bottomed out here, but I worry we might manage to dig ourselves lower still before it gets better. It's a shallow, probably unfounded fear, but I can't help but wonder sometimes.

 

[Hoho for breakfast]

I like how these elections are rigged to favor certain candidates but with enough turn out, someone like Bernie Sanders can still win it.

For example in Florida you had up until mid February to register for a particular party. If you were undecided by then, too bad. You don't get to vote tomorrow. There is no rule like this for the general election.

If you think that's lame, New York also has a closed Primary and Independents had until OCTOBER 9th of 2015 to register as either a Democrat or Republican. October 9th of last year. You don't think maybe minds may have been made up or changed since October of last year? It's a farce.

Despite this, the momentum now is all on Bernies side and if it keeps up he can still become the nominee. Don't let these people tell you that Hillary has it in the bag because she has a 215 or so delegate lead. That can absolutely be overcome if people get out and vote.

The whole point of people telling you he can't win is so you develop a defeatist attitude and hopefully spread it around. Ideally it stops you from even bothering to vote.

Don't listen to it, don't believe it, and please go vote. Even if Sanders is the underdog in your state currently, it's extremely important to vote since the delegates are allocated proportionately in most cases. Anyone talking about his nomination being "mathematically" impossible at this point either does not understand what they're talking about, or has an agenda. Of course the two aren't mutually exclusive..

 

[Miles X]

At the very least this keeps the race exciting until near the end when Hillary gets enough delegates.

Despite this, the momentum now is all on Bernies side and if it keeps up he can still become the nominee. Don't let these people tell you that Hillary has it in the bag because she has a 215 or so delegate lead. That can absolutely be overcome if people get out and vote.

Except not enough people want to vote for him, regardless, she does have it in the bag.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

I don't know how much this momentum talk really matters. After NH, it was all on Sanders side according to people but he still lost Nevada. After all those 60 point wins in the South, Clinton still lost Michigan. Momentum is just something for pundits to talk about.

 

[harSon]

I like how these elections are rigged to favor certain candidates but with enough turn out, someone like Bernie Sanders can still win it.

For example in Florida you had up until mid February to register for a particular party. If you were undecided by then, too bad. You don't get to vote tomorrow. There is no rule like this for the general election.

If you think that's lame, New York also has a closed Primary and Independents had until OCTOBER 9th of 2015 to register as either a Democrat or Republican. October 9th of last year. You don't think maybe minds may have been made up or changed since October of last year? It's a farce.

Despite this, the momentum now is all on Bernies side and if it keeps up he can still become the nominee. Don't let these people tell you that Hillary has it in the bag because she has a 215 or so delegate lead. That can absolutely be overcome if people get out and vote.

The whole point of people telling you he can't win is so you develop a defeatist attitude and hopefully spread it around. Ideally it stops you from even bothering to vote.

Don't listen to it, don't believe it, and please go vote. Even if Sanders is the underdog in your state currently, it's extremely important to vote since the delegates are allocated proportionately in most cases. Anyone talking about his nomination being "mathematically" impossible at this point either does not understand what they're talking about, or has an agenda.

People should absolutely partake in their constitutional right, and go out and vote. And Bernie's path to being the nominee isn't impossible, it's just incredibly improbable - and it's the fact that delegates are allocated proportionately that makes that fact true:

It's almost impossible for Bernie to win at this point.

From here on out, he'd have to win 54% of the remaining delegates to have a chance (Not an average victory of 54% to 46%, but be awarded 54% of the remaining pledged delegates). More than half of those remaining delegates lay with California, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Ohio.

If he ends up splitting the delegates of those states evenly, he'd need 58% of the remaining delegates outside of those states to compensate. If he loses any of those six states to a moderate/significant extent, then he'd likely have to win 60+% of the remaining states outside of those six. He's expected to lose big in North Carolina and Florida tomorrow, so that 60+% is likely going to be the case. He has a chance to pull out upsets in Ohio, Illinois and Missouri - but he can't really afford to evenly split the delegates which is likely what he'd do if he pulled an upset. And New York is Clinton's backyard, and only 44% white (and 33% non-Hispanic white) - so he's likely to lose big there.

Is he going to win New Jersey, New Mexico, Arizona or Maryland? Probably not. Even California is a stretch.

He can potentially run up the delegates in states with white majorities, where he's had success in the past, but as Vox states - the contests he did well in previously were within New England (his backyard) or Midwestern Caucus States. Will he be able to do the same in these remaining white heavy states, which are Midwestern primary states (Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin), Western states (Oregon, Utah, Idaho), or Appalachian states (Kentucky, West Virginia) - and are these victories going to be landslides to counteract what Hilary was able to do in the Southern states?

Having said all that, yeah - it's technically possible for him to close Hilary's lead... but that's only a statistical possibility. Not really a real world one.

 

[Miles X]

Here's how the race will look if it goes in Bernies favour (and even this is the upper side of optimistic).

Florida - 65/35 to Hillary (Clinton 139, Sanders 75)
North Carolina - 65/35 to Hillary (Clinton 70, Sanders 37)
Illinois - 52/48 to Bernie (Clinton 75, Sanders 81)
Ohio - 52/48 to Bernie (Clinton 69, Sanders 74)
Missouri - 54/46 to Bernie (Clinton 33, Sanders 38)

Total delegates vs goal: (Goal being what he needs to stay/keep/get on path to nom)

Clinton - 386/365
Sanders - 305/326

Hillary leads 81 delegates. Even in this reaslitic best case scenario for Bernie he is 21 delegates behind what he neded and Hillary is 21 ahead.


Now here's how it looks if polling/past results are accounted for.

Florida - 67/33 to Hillary (Clinton 143, Sanders 71)
North Carolina - 70/30 to Hillary (Clinton 75, Sanders 32)
Illinois - 52/48 to Hillary (Clinton 81, Sanders 75)
Ohio - 52/48 to Hillary (Clinton 74, Sanders 69)
Missouri - 50/50 (Clinton 35, Sanders 35)

Clinton - 408/365
Sanders - 282/326

126 lead.

 

[Afrodium]

Sustained losses over three or four more presidential election cycles would probably do it.

You're assuming a large portion of the GOP electorate will realize that their racism and sexism is preventing them from winning elections and will just stop being racist and sexist in order the get fiscally conservative people in office. The truth is that a lot if these people side with the GOP because of their regressive social views.

 

[brainchild]

lol

Bernie Sanders holds public flogging of Chicago's mayor, and it just might win him IL

From the OP

...and they may just tip this primary in Bernie's favor.

Tipping in his favor != shifting the polls 20 fucking percentage points.

My apologies if you can't understand the difference.

 

[Wafflecakes]

I just hope there are no more polling shenanigans like in Michigan.

The numbers junkie in me cringes that those polls were so flawed.

 

[KingSnake]

Maybe Sanders should participate after tomorrow in the Republican primaries with such high scores in the Republicans' options.

 

[inner-G]

Tipping in his favor != shifting the polls 20 fucking percentage points.

My apologies if you can't understand the difference.

All the polls were old.

That made a difference, but Hillary wasn't up by that much before, realistically.

 

[Grover Cleveland]

Even if Sanders goes 3-2 Hillary will grow her delegate lead.

Yep.

There's only so many more of these "momentum" victories Bernie can take when he's still only getting further and further behind in delegates. He needs upsets and big victories in the delegate-rich states.

The good news is, the primaries take a turn more northern and...whiter after tomorrow. He can chalk up quite a few primary wins.

The bad news is, he's probably going to be so far behind after tomorrow in pledged delegates that it won't matter.

 

[Miles X]

Yep.

There's only so many more of these "momentum" victories Bernie can take when he's still only getting further and further behind in delegates. He needs upsets and big victories in the delegate-rich states.

The good news is, the primaries take a turn more northern and...whiter after tomorrow. He can chalk up quite a few primary wins.

The bad news is, he's probably going to be so far behind after tomorrow in pledged delegates that it won't matter.

Like New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Maryland where Hillary is expected to do very well?

 

[Krowley]

Like New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Maryland where Hillary is expected to do very well?

If you give Bernie NY and CA by 10 points each, and assume a shift in the race nation-wide that would allow those victories to happen (which would naturally include decent wins in a lot of other big states like Maryland, and Pennsylvania), he can pass her by a few delegates.

Maybe.

Or at least that's what I came up with messing with this delegate calculator thing I found earlier today on the web. But I know my projections were awfully optimistic.

Bernie has to hope that a lot of people are only voting for Hillary because they think she can't lose, and because they don't trust he can win in the general. Then he has to continue winning in surprising ways, and proving that narrative wrong, at which point those people would begin to get excited to vote for an underdog with more aggressively progressive values, and switch teams at the end.

 

[Miles X]

If you give Bernie NY and CA by 10 points each, and assume a shift in the race nation-wide that would allow those victories to happen (which would naturally include decent wins in a lot of other big states like Maryland, and Pennsylvania), he can pass her by a few delegates.

Maybe.

Or at least that's what I came up with messing with this delegate calculator thing I found earlier today on the web. But I know my projections were awfully optimistic.

Bernie beat Hillary in NY, are you having a laugh?

She is leading 55/34

 

[Krowley]

Bernie beat Hillary in NY, are you having a laugh?

Well he is a native New Yorker, which I assume has to count for something, and he will have (I think) about three weeks to campaign there without having to worry about any other states. He'll also be going in there on a 12 or 13 state winning streak.

It's his only hope. He can't beat her without getting both NY and CA (with some to spare), or else blowing her out by 20 or 30 percent in CA, which seems pretty unlikely at the moment.

 

[Miles X]

Well he is a native New Yorker, and he will have three weeks to campaign there without having to worry about any other states. He'll also be going in there on a 12 or 13 state winning streak.

It's her Home state. She was a Senator there, she still has a lot of goodwill/support from that alone.

She's leading Maryland polls by 30 points.

Honestly from that block the best Bernie can hope for is 5 point losses IMO.

 

[Krowley]

It's her Home state.

I get that, but in a way it's his home state too.

We'll see.

It's her Home state. She was a Senator there, she still has a lot of goodwill/support from that alone.

She's leading Maryland polls by 30 points.



Honestly from that block the best Bernie can hope for is 5 point losses IMO.

I get that this is considered a very unlikely outcome. Trust me. But that's what he has to try for.

And also, any polls that have him getting destroyed this far out don't mean a lot to me. If it still looks that way a few days before the vote, then I'll be singing a different tune. Polls tend to tighten up right before the actual vote happens. Not always, but often.

 

[Battersea Power Station]

.

 

[Manmademan]

.

haven't read the thread? it's completely accurate.

LOL! nice edit chump. but I still saw it.

 

[Wafflecakes]

Well he is a native New Yorker, which I assume has to count for something, and he will have (I think) about three weeks to campaign there without having to worry about any other states. He'll also be going in there on a 12 or 13 state winning streak.

It's his only hope. He can't beat her without getting both NY and CA (with some to spare), or else blowing her out by 20 or 30 percent in CA, which seems pretty unlikely at the moment.

If you say so.

 

[Miles X]

I get that, but in a way it's his home state too.

We'll see.

We'll see Bernie lose NY, NJ, ML and Penn, yes lol.

He has the midwest left, maybe west coast (but not Cali, and least not any huge margin).

It's pointless talking about him getting 20+ wins in NY ect and saying "we'll see" why not just say he's gonna with 30 points in Florida tomorrow while you're at it?

If you say so.

I didn't even see that bit, I realise now he's just joking around.