WaPo: "Why Bernie Sanders needs to start winning big states — big"... or he can't possibly win.

[DCBob]

Chris Cillizza, WashPost..

Six days ago, Bernie Sanders pulled off one of the great upsets in modern politics — surging from more than 20 points behind in Michigan’s presidential primary to edge out Hillary Clinton.

It was remarkable! It was historic! And it netted him four more delegates than Clinton in the state. Meanwhile, in Mississippi, Clinton won with more than 80 percent of the vote — and gained 28 more delegates than Sanders.

On the best night of the Sanders campaign to date, he fell 24 more delegates behind Clinton in the race for the Democratic nomination.

Sanders is in a position where winning states is not close to enough if he wants to be the party’s nominee. He needs to start winning big states by big margins. As in, winning a state such as Illinois by 30 or 40 points. Or Florida.

That seems very unlikely to happen either Tuesday or in the future. If past votes are any guide, it will be a tough road for Sanders. There have been seven election nights in the race so far; Clinton has netted delegates in six of them, while the two candidates fought to a draw in the seventh (New Hampshire).

None of this means that Sanders can’t — and won’t — keep running. Winning states matters in terms of perception and keeps the wolves from his door. But winning states and emboldening your supporters isn’t the same things as taking concrete steps to reducing or eliminating Clinton’s delegate lead.

That looks to be a near-impossible task for Sanders unless the numbers in the states to come start changing quickly.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/why-bernie-sanders-needs-to-start-winning-big-states--big/2016/03/13/f8564d52-e922-11e5-b0fd-073d5930a7b7_story.html

[Ed Suspicious]

1. You'll keep hammering at him until the end. I really hope he wins.

That looks to be a near-impossible task for Sanders unless the numbers in the states to come start changing quickly.

Your concern is most concerning.

[DCBob]

6. I'm not concerned in the least.

Why would you think that?

[Armstead]

78. If you're not concerned why keep putting up posts intended to demoralize?

[DCBob]

82. They are not intended to demoralize.

This is a discussion board to discuss topics of interest regarding this election. This topic is very interesting.. imho.

[SCantiGOP]

2. Washington Post is part of the conspiracy

Along with 95% of the rest of the media.

[DCBob]

3. LOL.. its all a grand conspiracy!!

[Garrett78]

43. Seems to be a lot of that going around.

Like here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1483337

[SCantiGOP]

51. That was the most delusional post

I have ever seen on DU, and that is saying something.

[nadinbrzezinski]

67. Yes it is, and far beyond Sanders by the way

here, a direct link

http://reportingsandiego.com/2016/03/13/media-bias-and-public-perception/

This goes well beyond this race and it is far worst than it looks. Hell, they want TRUMP, there I said it.

[SCantiGOP]

4. And the DNC, and SNL, and

President Obama, and Morgan Freeman, etc etc

[riversedge]

5. Thanks. Generally Chris C makes no sense.

[DCBob]

9. Yeah, this is one of his better more realistic articles.

[riversedge]

10. I actually gave up reading him last couple of months

[Cheese Sandwich]

7. That's not really true. Someone did the math on here. If he starts winning by even small margins

in a lot of states he will catch up significantly. And then he can do well in some big states to take the lead.

[DCBob]

8. Not really.

Try it yourself..

http://54.85.212.73/demdelcalc/

[Cheese Sandwich]

11. risky click

[DCBob]

13. Dont worry.. its actually my website.

Im harmless.

[Cheese Sandwich]

39. That's really cool.

Fun site

[DCBob]

64. Thanks... my pleasure.

[Ruby the Liberal]

36. Its really cool

Lets you input your projection for various upcoming states to see where the delegate math shakes out.

[randome]

21. Wow. Impressive number-crunching.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You’re cheating yourself if you don’t accept the same benefit of a doubt you’d offer anyone else.[/center][/font][hr]

[DCBob]

24. Thanks.

I have been looking for something like this on the web and couldnt find it.. so I built it myself.

[Stallion]

33. Interesting Your Data Still Leaves Her Several Hundred Delagates Short

coming into the Democratic Convention which was a scenario I brought up yesterday of a hypothetical situation where Clinton gets 50%+ of Pledged Delegates but still needs Super Delegates. I really think its a scenario more ought to be paying attention to-and it emphasizes that Super Delegates are NOT irrelevant. They may well decide the nomination even for the candidate who has the majority of Pledged Delegates. My hypothetical had her with a 200 Pledged Delegate lead while yours had her closer with 297-in both cases Super Delagated would be necessary to put her over the top. See link for my scenario

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511479188

[DCBob]

37. Yes, it does. That surprised me a bit.

So yes the Supers will likely indeed play a critical role here.

[angrychair]

40. Wow so you are "ok"

With and support 'SuperDelegates' voting at the convention against the will of voters in states they represent?
I have no issue with 'SuperDelegates' as long as they are compelled to vote in-line wth the state they are from, all of them, no matter how big or small the margin.

[DCBob]

59. The supers can vote however they want.. thats their role.

What's the point of having them if they vote exactly as the state they are from? That would just be more pledged delegates.

[Garrett78]

49. But if she gets a clear majority of the pledged delgates, it's a done deal.

Superdelegates wouldn't play the role they did in 2008. They'd be irrelevant.

[NWCorona]

50. That's a great website! It would be nice to be able to export and post

So people could compare their calculations. Your post and link actually makes me feel better about Bernie's chances! The way I see it with your tool. Neither of them get to the magic mark and I expect some flipping of supers if it's close.

[DCBob]

63. I might be able to add that.

Thanks for the suggestion.

[NWCorona]

66. No problem!

I think having actual numbers to back you up is always a great thing.

[JFKDem62]

12. Bernie is going to win the big states. nt

[DCBob]

14. By how much??

That's the question.

[JFKDem62]

17. Enough to do the job nt

[DCBob]

20. He has not yet and there are no indications things are changing.

[JFKDem62]

29. Please feel free to bookmark my post and you can check back after the convention. :) nt

[hack89]

15. But not by large margins. Nt

[jillan]

16. Maine doesn't count? 29 pts NH? 28 pts CO? 28 pts KS? 35 pts + This was all BEFORE

Bernie's surge. The winds are behind Bernie at the moment.

So please retire this stupid talking point!!

[DCBob]

18. And none of that really helped him much.... that's the point.

He is still way behind. That's not stupid.. that's reality.

[jillan]

19. Stupid is saying that Bernie cannot make up Hillarys 200 lead in delegates.

[DCBob]

22. How exactly?

That's a very big lead given delegate allocation and the fact that Hillary is not going to simply collapse. She will always get a a decent chunk of the vote which means Bernie can never get a large delegate gain which means he cant win.

[jillan]

26. HALF of the states have not even voted yet!

[DCBob]

27. And a bunch are Hillary states.

The math is against him... try it yourself..

http://54.85.212.73/demdelcalc/

[jillan]

31. LOL!!!! How can anyone predict how people will vote? Even Nate Silver can't.

[DCBob]

34. LOL.. I have been hearing the Bernie gang predicting all sorts of crazy shit lately.

Please post your laughing faces at them when you have chance.

[Agschmid]

75. Yet here you are making a prediction about how people will vote...

[Garrett78]

76. It's par for the course, I've noticed.

Vague predictions (Sanders will win, Sanders has a good chance of winning, etc.) are fine. But when someone asks those folks to back their prediction up with delegate math or someone points out why the delegate math still heavily favors Clinton, all of a sudden predictions are useless.

[Agschmid]

77. I just think it's odd for someone to slam someone for making a prediction...

And then making one themselves. Seems kind of ridiculous if you ask me.

[Garrett78]

79. It is. But...

...it's an epidemic at DU. As I pointed out here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511487558#post20

[Agschmid]

81. Yup.

[Garrett78]

46. That's the question I keep asking.

Like here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511477814#post44

People can't speculate by making vague predictions and then say they don't want to make predictions. As I wrote in the post I just linked to:

Just once I'd like to see someone who thinks Sanders will win the nomination demonstrate with delegate math how they think that's going to happen. I read post after post suggesting that he has a good chance of winning (or that he *will* win) and that those who make the case that he doesn't have a good chance are wrong. But those folks need to crunch the numbers, as they say, and back up their statements. Otherwise they come across as people who haven't actually put any thought into why they claim what they claim, people who are emulating politicians with empty rhetoric.

What do they think the delegate margin will be after March 15? Why? What do they think the margin will be heading into New York following what many are expecting to be a good stretch (of 8 contests) for Sanders? What do they think will happen in New York? And so on.

[NWCorona]

53. I wouldn't be to sure of that.

I've been playing around with your neat webtool and I'm seeing all kinds of possibilities.

Besides I love rooting for the underdog!

[DCBob]

58. Yeah, there are possibilities..

but the odds of them realistically happening are diminishing by the day.

Glad the delegate calculator tool was useful!

[NWCorona]

60. Very useful!

This next round coming up is very important for Bernie. Probably the critical of them all really.

On a side 📝. Your tool helped me realize why Bernie has never bad mouthed the superdelegates. Barring a complete collapse of either Bernie or Hillary. Neither of them make it to the magic number with out the supers.

[DCBob]

62. Yep, Hillary will need the Supers to win this.

But I think most Democrats will be ok with that as long as she has a decent lead going into the convention.. say 200+ delegates.

[NWCorona]

65. True!

But leaving most of the tables stock and only adjusting the delegate rich states. It's pretty easy to have the outcome a lot closer than 200 delegates.

I'm sitting outside my kids TKD class but when I get a chance I'm gonna play with that tool more.

Tuesday is gonna be a wild ride!

[Garrett78]

68. Not necessarily.

If Clinton were to have an exceptionally strong March 15th, that would be devastating to the Sanders campaign. And if Sanders were to drop out at some point, the superdelegates won't play any role.

That may not be likely, but I think Tuesday will be very telling. If Clinton's lead doesn't grow much that day, we may have a ballgame. If she leads by 350+ after Tuesday, the game is pretty much over.

[drray23]

23. may be do the math ?

Instead of letting your emotions guide your judgment ?
We do not have winner take all primaries. In order to catch up Bernie has to win all remaining states by big margins . Each time he wins a state Hillary also gets delegates.

[jillan]

28. As I just posted above - 1/2 of the states have not yet voted. Unless you have a crystal ball

you have ZERO way of predicting the math.

[drray23]

35. you are confusing math with predictions.

I am not talking about the polls. I am simply refering to the mechanism for delegate allocation. Its proportionally given.

So since the total delegate per states is known, you can calculate by how much Bernie would need to win each remaining state in order to make up the 200 delegate deficit. Basically he has to win by huge margins every remaining state. Its still possible but very unlikely.

[Scootaloo]

38. It's march 13.

if you think that you can say with certainty, right now today, what say... california will do three months from now... well, you're either a psychic or a liar.

if you were a psychic I suppose you'd have better things to do than sneering at people on the itnernet, though. So that kind of narrows it down.

[Garrett78]

48. California may not even be relevant.

If Clinton increases her lead substantially on Tuesday (to, say, 350+), it'll be virtually impossible for Sanders to win.

[Buzz Clik]

25. As I understand it from Berners, Hillary will not win another state. Game over.

[Bleacher Creature]

52. And lose them all 100% to 0%

For some reason they're convinced that he'll win CA. It seems highly unlikely to me, but one of the projections I saw required him to take 87% of the primary to make a difference.

[NWCorona]

54. Not at all!

It's just looking like Bernie might pull it off. I'm not seeing the mathematical certainty that Hillary supporter's are.

[Garrett78]

69. Certainty, no. Likelihood, yes.

March 15th is, needless to say, huge. If Clinton expands her lead to, say, 350 or more, it'll be virtually impossible for Sanders to overcome that deficit. Because if she has a very good March 15th, she's probably going to do well in most of the other big states that remain (NY, PA, MD, CA, etc.).

[PatrickforO]

30. Whatever. I'm supporting Bernie right through the convention,

to the nomination and then to the White House.

[dana_b]

42. me too. And consider the source - the WaPo.

Jeff Bezos would love to keep all of his amazon money just by giving Hillary some more Kindles.

[jillan]

32. LIS

[Land of Enchantment]

41. You are SO missing the obvious and your

predictions are meaningless. Here's why:

a) Hillary's numbers have nowhere to go other than down.
When all this began EVERYONE knew who she was, were familiar with her because she has been in the public eye for
soooooo long. Bernie was the Great Unknown and these two facts hurt him and helped her in the beginning.

b) As the campaign season progressed Bernie gained 'some' exposure (none from the MSM) and the more people
learned about him the more they liked him. Her numbers started falling, his numbers started climbing. Why?

c) The reason is because Hillary cannot build on her BASE. She started as the front runner and practically every point
Bernie has gained is because she is LOSING HER BASE.

Finally, Hillary is NOT attracting new voters. She had peaked--- was maxed out in the beginning. She is losing the millennials, the Independents and the younger Blacks and Latinos and Asians and Native Americans. She has no where to go. Game Over.

[reformist2]

44. Chris Cilizza makes the mistake of assuming the superdelegates will be voting for Hillary, or at all

[DCBob]

61. Why would they not support the candidate with the plurality of votes?

Especially given they already voiced their support for her.

[Alfresco]

45. It is a near-impossible task for Sanders. Hillary will be our nominee.

[NWCorona]

56. Bernie was supposed to be finished before super Tuesday and the goalposts are still moving.

[Garrett78]

70. I don't know about *before* Super Tuesday, but...

...Super Tuesday was a bad day for Sanders, as expected. The Michigan surprise provided Sanders with a glimmer of hope. We'll have to see how March 15th goes. If Clinton expands her lead by 100+ delegates, it will be virtually impossible for Sanders to win.

[NWCorona]

71. Let's check back on Wednesday

[Garrett78]

72. Absolutely.

Just to be clear, I'm not predicting what will happen on March 15th. I'm just making an "if this, then that" statement. Some folks seem to be underestimating how difficult it would be to overcome a deficit of 300+ delegates.

[NWCorona]

73. Agreed!

[Kittycat]

47. Beat those drums...

But Inhope Hillary is hearing as well, as she runs out of favorable states, and Bernie looks forward to his favorable ones, while still gaining on her inevitable ones.

[NurseJackie]

55. This is what we've been saying all along! But ...

... they refuse to believe it or accept it.

[Iliyah]

57. Arithmetics. Pres O won by them. . .delegates

Here we have HRC with both popular votes and delegate numbers. Math, BS needs to win every states with at least 60% to catch up, and surpass. To my knowledge, every Democratic Party's states are not winner take all, but are proportional. Disregarding the "Southern States" was a tactical. Therefore, HRC won the delegates and the popular votes with the South. Mind you, HRC lost the delegate numbers to BHO in 2008.

[YCHDT]

74. +1, I don't know how it feels to be so caught up into a position that rational logic & track record

... is trumped by my thoughts.

Maybe I have, I'm human too but I don't recall not being able to snamp out of it

[HERVEPA]

80. Thanks for the info Baghdad Bob

[DCBob]

83. LOL.. thanks back..

[HERVEPA]

84. Nice self-portrait

[DCBob]

85. Hehe..