Looking at the math, Clinton will win the nomination easily

[LannyDeVaney]

The delegate lead is just too big for Sanders to overcome, even if he manages several more state wins.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/bernie-sanders%E2%80%99s-win-in-michigan-probably-won%E2%80%99t-change-the-race/ar-AAgztrk?li=BBnbcA1

[Kalidurga]

1. He isn't going to win several more states he is going to win most the rest of the states.

So, you are way off again.

[LannyDeVaney]

21. I'm not off again ...

just read the article.

Absolutely, if Sanders wins the majority of delegates headed to the convention, he will be the nominee and I will unequivocally vote for him in November.

However, the numbers indicate that it is nearly (not totally) impossible for him to overcome the deficit. Heck, the deficit became even bigger last night, despite what you may have heard.

We are all Democrats, and this is part of the process. Have a nice night.

[DemRace]

41. DemRace.com has a delegate calculator that shows many ways for Sanders or Clinton to win.

Here is the site. http://DemRace.com

[Joe the Revelator]

2. MEME OF THE DAY

Keep spinning it!

[dana_b]

10. along with some more of the "she's ahead by 20 points!" polls

and "he'll drop out by Super Tuesday" while we're at it.

Maybe if they keep saying something long enough, they really begin to believe it.

[LannyDeVaney]

22. Delegate count isn't a "meme" ...

it's how the Democrats will choose our nominee.

[NWCorona]

3. Everyone is quick to write him off

While moving the goalposts.

Bernie isn't going anywhere but into the WH

[TDale313]

4. Yawn.

Hillary supporters really need some new material. Shit's getting old.

[LannyDeVaney]

24. Facts and numbers are getting old?

It's how we decide our nominee. Delegate count.

[liberal_at_heart]

44. Facts and numbers can be manipulated. Hillary was supposed to win MI by 20 points.

After MI the whole math and numbers game isn't going to wash anymore. No one is buying it anymore. Find a new meme.

[NurseJackie]

5. I believe you're correct. I'm disappointed about last night, but confident of Hillary's nomination.

[Sivart]

6. When does the easy part start?

[KingFlorez]

7. Math hates Bernie

It's just another big billionaire trying to stop Bernie Sanders, because he can destroy the banks.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. Right. Remember Karl Rove and "the math"?

http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2006/11/karl_rove_on_th.html
Sometimes even "the math" doesn't turn out to be what you think it is.

[pat_k]

9. Ignores analysis relative to targets...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1455928

[LonePirate]

11. Whomever wins the majority of pledged delegates will be the nominee.

Any other scenario will be damaging to the party.

[timmymoff]

12. no

Bernie attracts to the party. Hillary has an exodus from the party. So actually one nominee harms it.

[LonePirate]

18. Put your Bernie bias aside and look at things realistically.

If Bernie does not win a majority of pledged delegates, he will not be the nominee. If Hillary does not win a majority of the pledged delegates, she will not be the nominee. If either candidate becomes the nominee without winning a majority of pledged delegates, there will be a very destructive convention and we will lose in November regardless of who the nominee is.

[jcgoldie]

13. Don't come here with your evil math talk

Who the hell sent you that voodoo Silver guy?

[Avalux]

14. Math has taken a big hit of late. Butterfly effect seems to be in charge these days. n/t

[LannyDeVaney]

25. Math <> polls

Read the article.

It even gives scenarios where Sanders wins a lot of states in the future. He has a huge gap to overcome. He has to average a 15% win in all future primaries.

That isn't a poll. That is math.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

15. After all, she's ahead by 22 points in Michigan!

MATH!

[speaktruthtopower]

16. She should win unless something dramatic happens

[Kalidurga]

31. Like Bernie winning in an upset in Michigan?

[hack89]

32. No. He didn't win big enough for it to make a big difference in delegates

he needs big wins to reduce Hillary's lead.

[Kalidurga]

33. You don't get it at all, no he didn't need to win big he needed to close

the 30 point gap that pollsters were predicting just to stay in the game. This indicates he is going to do a lot better now in more progressive states coming up. A whole lot better.

[hack89]

35. A series of 10 point victories still means he loses.

he needs blowout victories in big states. We know Hillary can do it. Can Bernie? Remains to be seen.

[litlbilly]

17. you must have flunked math then

[LannyDeVaney]

39. One liners are cute ...

but they don't in any way address what I said, or the facts discussed in the article.

You can have your pithy insults, they only expose you.

[litlbilly]

40. blah blah blah, try again

[Vattel]

19. sad, but prolly true

[jeepers]

20. Hillary has roughly a 210 delegate lead over Bernie in the primary

450 of her delegates are from red states, 9 republican states which in the general will not afford Hillary even one electoral vote. Hillary has however won Iowa Nev and Mass for 23 electoral votes.

Sanders has not won any red states but has won Colo Minn Mi Kansas Oklahoma NH and Vermont for 39 electors. Bernie has also won Maine and Nebraska but their electors are awarded according to who wins the congressional district which means at worse the electors will be split accordingly.

Bernie is winning mathematically.

But from here lets assume that there are no big wins or losses and that each candidate wins an equal number of states.

Remember that 9 of Hillarys states wont give her even one electoral vote while Bernies 7 states are or will result in electoral votes.

Do you think that even if Hillary maintains her 200 delegate lead that the supers are going to be excited about the candidate who wins blue states or with a candidate who losses red states?

Delegate count matters in the primary but in the winner take all general it is all about who can win the blue states and like it or not that is what must matter to the super delegates

[LannyDeVaney]

27. I honestly don't get the argument about red state delegates ...

The Democratic nominee will be decided based on delegates from ALL states. It has absolutely nothing to do with how a state will go in the General Election.

Look at the 2008 results (and the states the ultimate nominee, Pres. Obama) won. Were those all blue states?

[jeepers]

42. except that the democrat who goes to the general

will be determined in the primaries. Bernie has solidly won 9 blue states and Hillary has squeaked by in three. Her delegate strength lies in states that will go repub but that is not where dems are going to win the presidency. For the democrats winning the presidency is not about delegate count but in victories in blue states.

[Garrett78]

43. Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma are blue states? That's news to me.

Given that Obama came closer to winning several of the southern states than he came to winning NE, KS and OK, many must be surprised to learn that those 3 states are "blue."

Demographically-speaking, the Democratic electorate in the Deep South states is more representative of the overall Democratic electorate than is the Democratic electorate in the states Sanders has been winning. You could argue that Michigan is the one exception to that, and Michigan was a virtual tie (as was IA and MA).

Obama won those southern states in the 2008 primary and lost them in the general election, yet had no trouble winning the general election. As I've posted before, this silly Clinton-Dixie meme really ought to stop.

As I wrote elsewhere, Michigan represents the first diverse, populous blue state primary of this campaign. Some are claiming that Michigan proves Clinton can't win outside of the Deep South, but the sample size is way too small. And it's important to not conflate the Democratic electorate of the Deep South with the overall electorate of the Deep South.

Time will tell how much Clinton struggles outside of the Deep South. Just as time will tell how successful Sanders can be outside of New England and small caucus states that lack diversity. For now, we have 1 - ONE - data point (Michigan) where the candidates were separated by a mere 20,000 votes (out of more than 1 million ballots), so we can't make any determinations one way or another.

We aren't going to learn much from Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Delaware, etc. But March 15 (Ohio, Illinois, Missouri, Florida and North Carolina) and Arizona on the 22nd will offer more data points. In April, there's New York, Maryland and Pennsylvania. Those are the states that will determine which narrative is true (Clinton can't win outside of the Deep South vs. Sanders can't win delegate-rich states that are relatively diverse).

[Attorney in Texas]

23. Wasn't that Jeb's slogan nine months ago? I guess he let the trademark expire.

[Stuckinthebush]

26. Well, Lanny Davis would say that!

I'm sorry! I had to do that

Yes, you are correct, this race is hers. No doubt!

[rock]

28. I believe you are right

I reached the same conclusion on my on but it is nice to have some concurrence. It's about delegates. Which I notice the Sanders supporters do not like to count.

[restorefreedom]

29. todays "bernie cant win" meme brought to you by......nt

[casperthegm]

30. I get the impression HRC supporters would like us to give up

Not going to happen. As a matter of fact we just donated another $35 today. As more and more people become aware of the stark differences in their positions, their contrasting voting history, and their moral character I suspect we'll continue to see more of a turning of the tide in favor of Sanders. Feel the Bern

[hack89]

34. Please don't give up.

Even lost battles have redemptive value.

[morningfog]

36. Bernie can win the majority of pledged delegates by winning

20-25 of the remaining 35 contests. And he doesn't have to win by landslides as long as he keeps his losses close. Hilary's southern state well is drying up.

It's going to get close.

[Gothmog]

37. Bernie Sanders’s Win in Michigan Changes Race but Not Probabilities

This is interesting http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/10/upshot/bernie-sanderss-win-in-michiganprobably-wont-change-therace.html?ref=topics&_r=1

But in the end, none of it seems like quite enough for a victory for Mr. Sanders. Mrs. Clinton has already banked too much of a lead. As an example, the PredictWise chances for a Clinton victory changed only from 95 percent to 93 percent from Tuesday to today.

Imagine, for instance, a brutal stretch for Mrs. Clinton, one where she underperforms the demographic projections by as much as she did in Michigan for the rest of the year.

She loses in Ohio and Missouri next Tuesday. States where Mrs. Clinton was thought to have an advantage, like Arizona, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, California and Connecticut, become tossups. Mrs. Clinton wins New York, but by just eight percentage points.

She gets swept in the West, including big 40-point losses in places like Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, Utah and Montana, and 30-point losses in Washington and Oregon. She loses by 20 points in Wisconsin and Rhode Island, by 30 in West Virginia and Kentucky.

She still wins — and comfortably.

I just checked and despite this victory by Sanders, the free market system is only giving Sanders a 7% chance of being the nominee

[calguy]

38. BSers must have flunked math in school