Microsoft Bing has predictions for the upcoming primaries *

[DemocratSinceBirth]

Last edited Wed Apr 27, 2016, 10:11 AM - Edit history (1)

Indiana -Clinton 54.2% - 83 delegates
West Virginia-Clinton 54.2% - 29 delegates
Kentucky-Clinton 62.2% - 55 delegates
Oregon-Sanders 67.6% - 61 delegates
California-Clinton 54.8% - 475 delegates
Montana-Sanders 65.1% - 21 delegates
New Jersey-Clinton 57.1% - 126 delegates
New Mexico-Clinton 53.1% - 34 delegates
North Dakota-Sanders-56.7% - 18 delegates
South Dakota-Sanders 56% - 20 delegates
District Of Columbia-Clinton 67% - 20 delegates





http://www.bing.com/search?q=Election+2016+Primaries&p1=%5BFUI+els%3D%22Primaries%22%5D&FORM=ELHEAD&ajax=ElectionsBPI&axID=28&pIG=0F2124BA3B8F43A7B2F99080BEBD8E98

*Posted for heuristic purposes only


On request-Delegates assigned and delegates to be assigned:


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_delegate_count.html

[onehandle]

1. Honest Math Says No Path. nt

[Agnosticsherbet]

6. History and reality shows there is no path

Some here are convinced that Sanders will somehow take every delegate in California for the win.
Mathematically that is possible. History and reality prove it is not.

Clinton can lose every primary and still clinch the win.

The mathematical path of Sanders is a fantasy. Reality does not work that way.

[SidDithers]

2. What about Guam?...

It's a caucus, so right up Bernie's alley.



Sid

[morningfog]

9. And Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico.

[auntpurl]

3. Sorry to be a pain, but would you mind adding the number of delegates available from each state?

I can do it in a reply, but I think it would be better in the OP. TIA!

[CajunBlazer]

12. Why don't you do it and the OP'er can copy and paste it into the OP

[auntpurl]

15. Right, here it is:

Indiana -Clinton 54.2% - 83 delegates
West Virginia-Clinton 54.2% - 29 delegates
Kentucky-Clinton 62.2% - 55 delegates
Oregon-Sanders 67.6% - 61 delegates
California-Clinton 54.8% - 475 delegates
Montana-Sanders 65.1% - 21 delegates
New Jersey-Clinton 57.1% - 126 delegates
New Mexico-Clinton 53.1% - 34 delegates
North Dakota-Sanders-56.7% - 18 delegates
South Dakota-Sanders 56% - 20 delegates
District Of Columbia-Clinton 67% - 20 delegates

[CajunBlazer]

18. Nice!

[DrDan]

4. Montana, North and South Dakota leaning toward Sanders

why would that be

[auntpurl]

5. Racially homogenous and sparsely populated?

[DrDan]

7. probably right - same as the rural counties he has been winning I suppose

[auntpurl]

8. It's interesting

Looking back on 2008 now, I think if Hillary had been running against nearly anyone but Obama, she would have won the thing.

Edited to add: not that I don't think Obama's been a great President. He has.

[DrDan]

16. I think that is spot-on

[auntpurl]

17. As a matter of fact...

If it had gone differently, she could have had him on the ticket and then we would have had 8 years of Clinton, 8 years of Obama. Would have worked better with their respective ages. Not that I think Hillary's aged out, good god, her energy is amazing. She's got more than 20 years on me and I can tell you I would not survive the campaign trail.

Never mind, 8 years of Obama, 8 years of Clinton works too!

[ViseGrip]

10. Actually, he can be close enough to make a case, when the FBI implodes.

And, when she falls below Trump, where now, she is only tied. Sanders still in double digit lead on him. Hillary=Trump.

[CajunBlazer]

13. Excuse, are you a GOP plant?

[LanternWaste]

14. Odd you post that on the same morning DU gets concern-bombed about paid trolls.

Odd you post that on the same morning DU gets concern-bombed about paid trolls.

[firebrand80]

11. I waiting for askjeeves to weigh in nt