Hillary's Winning the 13-State-Bible-Belt. Sanders is Still Winning the 37-State-Not-The-Bible-Belt!

[Attorney in Texas]

This nomination race is basically where you would expect it to be if you were looking for Sanders to win a come-from-behind upset over Hillary, the DNC chosen establishment Goliath who is running to keep the status quo in place.

There are several key points to keep in mind.

1. First, if you were thinking that Sanders was the favorite, and not the underdog, and this would be an easy waltz to the nomination, that was never a realistic expectation. If you thought that a Jewish progressive candidate from New York via Vermont was going to win in the Bible Belt over the centrist former first lady of Arkansas, that was also never going to happen. But keep in mind, Dixie is 13 states and the rest of America is 37 states; I'd rather be winning in the 37 state region than in the 13 state region.

2. Second, leave aside the Bible Belt for a moment, and look at how well "underdog" Sanders is doing in the rest of the nation:

State.....Hillary Delegates.....Sanders Delegates

IA.....................23....................21
NH....................9.....................15
NV....................19....................15
CO....................28....................38
MA....................46....................45
MN....................29....................46
OK....................17....................21
VT.....................0.....................16
NE....................10....................14
KS....................10....................23
ME....................7.....................15
MI.....................60....................67
IL......................68....................67
MO....................32....................32
OH....................76....................57

Total................434...................492 out of 926

Considering the 15 contests outside of the Bible Belt, Missouri was a tie and Sanders won the most pledged delegates in 9 out of 15 states! Sanders won most of these states convincingly, and lifted the voters to achieve record turnout in most of these wins.

Hillary only won a majority of pledged delegates in only 5 out of these 15 states, and her wins in Iowa and Massachusetts and Illinois were by incredibly narrow margins (by only one delegate in Massachusetts and Illinois, and by 2 in Iowa).

Sanders has won over 53% of these delegates!

If the West Coast states were front-loaded in the nomination calendar instead of the Bible Belt, the establishment politicians at the DNC would already be updating their resumes and the M$M would be pulling its hair out.

3. Third, the goal is to amass a majority of pledged delegates going onto the convention. Do not fall for the nonsense about super-delegates who do not vote until the convention and who historically flip to back whichever candidate is leading in the voter-assigned pledged delegate count and do not but into Hillary's campaign's misleading posts about the "popular vote" which is not a real count of the popular vote (just ask what was the popular vote in Iowa, for example, and why Hillary and her allies in Iowa are opposing any release of those figures).

There are 4050 pledged delegates to be allocated, and 2108 remain to be assigned by the voters in the upcoming contests. That means we are less than halfway through the process. For Sanders to achieve 2026 pledged delegates (a majority) he needs 1215 (about 57%). To put that in context, Sanders meets this target if he does about as well as he did in Nebraska, and he meets this target even if he does less well than he did in Kansas, Colorado, Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont. Sanders does not even have to do as well in the remaining part of the race as Hillary did in the first part, and he can still win.

With these goals in mind, we need to focus like lasers on the next 9 contests:

Democrats Abroad (we are well ahead)
Idaho (we are ahead in the most recent poll)
Utah (we have been ahead in earlier polling and Sanders is way ahead in the betting markets)
Arizona (this is a close race to watch; if we get the turnout up, we probably win)
Alaska (we are ahead in the most recent polling)
Hawaii (I'm not aware of any polling, but Rep. Tulsi Gabbard has our back and I like our chances)
Washington (I'm not aware of recent polling, but word on the ground is that we are ahead)
Wisconsin (we are ahead in the most recent polling)
Wyoming (I'm not aware of recent polling, but word on the ground is that we are ahead)

Sanders is already winning the Not-The-Bible-Belt primary 9 wins to 5, and after then next 9 contests, Sanders could easily be ahead 18 to 5!

We have passed through the part of the calendar rigged to favor the type of centrist candidates who will perform best in the Bible Belt, and the best half (more than half, really) remains to be contested. Sanders has taken Hillary's best punch, and he's still standing!

Keep donating! Keep phone banking! Keep the hope burning!

[LexVegas]

1. You are on fire with the predictions. nt

[Attorney in Texas]

10. Thanks for noticing that. I am pleased to have done better than Nate Silver this cycle.

[Voice for Peace]

109. Linked this on FB for the discouraged ones.

I woke in a cold sweat this morning with a terrifying vision of Bill Clinton in the WH.

Thank you SOOOOO much for this OP.

[pkdu]

126. Lol of the night ! you forecast Michigan , hahahaha

Well done.

[obamanut2012]

28. .....

[peacebird]

2. Excellent post! Fight on Fellow Berners! We have his back, and he has ours!

[Godhumor]

27. That Hillary stands no chance of losing in November

So how are blue states so much more important in the primary than red states, again?

[restorefreedom]

42. she is struggling in swing states. thats the real issue. nt

[Godhumor]

44. ... Like Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia and Nevada? N/t

[restorefreedom]

46. like missouri, ohio, illinois and probably west virginia. nt

[Godhumor]

48. All three she technically won

Ohio by quite a bit.

[restorefreedom]

49. when you have to put the word "technically" in front,

it sounds like a potential problem. on the other side, trump has won decisive victories (except ohio) with record turnout.

that sounds like a ge nightmare scenario for the dem

edit to add...his virulent anti tpp stance in rust belt states could really help him and hurt her. that will be a huge issue in swing states.

[Godhumor]

50. But to say she is struggling in swing states when she is winning them vs Bernie

Because Trump is outperforming other Republican contenders makes no sense. If she is struggling in swing states by that metric, Bernie is getting wiped out.

[restorefreedom]

52. if she wins on her side by a couple of points

and the R candidate wins by a lot with record turnout, who is likely to have the advantage in a ge? keeping in mind that there are more r candidates, while there is only one other d candidate.

[Godhumor]

54. But Bernie is not performing as well as her

How, then, is he the better choice in purple states in the GE?

[restorefreedom]

65. some of these states have closed primaries

the ge is wide open. he has a much greater crossover potential than she does. the ge will be a free for all, and he can get (esp with trump in the race) indy and repub votes that would never go to her.

with 40+ percent of people being independent and maybe 30% tops identifying as dems, it looks good for someone with crossover appeal.

[Karma13612]

79. Just out of curiosity,

when we get to the convention (not me personally, but Oh do I wish I could),

are these the sort of things that are discussed? The ability of the candidate to win cross over votes, etc.?
I would hope so since this sounds like good strategy points to consider before the nominee is announced.

thanks for this analysis, it helps quite a bit.

[restorefreedom]

88. :) yw. i wish i could be a fly on the wall at the convention.

and i would hope that electability and ability to generate both funds and new voters, not to mention turnout, would be parts of the discussion.

i think the greatest weight is probably given to the delegate wins, but those other things should be considered, especially when there is uuuge difference between how they poll vs republicans.

[DCBob]

67. Huh?? .. WV is not a swing state.

Not even close.

[restorefreedom]

69. from the website 270towin

West Virginia, which seceded from Virginia (which itself had seceded from the Union) during the Civil War, became its own state in June 1863. It and Nevada were the only states admitted during the war, although Kansas became a state in early 1861, just a couple months before the hostilities began. Although the state has gone Republican in the last 4 elections, including a blowout 62% to 36% win by Mitt Romney over Barack Obama in 2012, the state is primarily Democratic at the local and state levels. Of the presidential elections from statehood through 2012, voters went Democratic 20 out of 38 times. Much of this back-and-forth (at least in recent history) can be attributed to the shifting views of the large blue-collar vote in the state.

[DCBob]

71. Where have you been the past 16 years? WV has voted Red since 2000.

Its a solid RED state and getting redder by the minute.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states
http://www.270towin.com/states/West_Virginia

[restorefreedom]

85. wv has a split history

and a state is only red till its not.

[DCBob]

89. 20 years ago it was blue.. that's ancient history in politics.

It's solid red and that wont change.. why? coal and global warming.

[restorefreedom]

91. perhaps so. but as coal goes to make way for green energy,

and miners start living longer as they work out of the mines, who knows? then again, it could take another 20 years...

[orpupilofnature57]

101. You sure you want to lean on anywhere but the South ? Nevada was a squeak .

[Godhumor]

108. She is outperforming Sanders in the swing state primaries

It were going to argue that one region is more important than the other, I would say that swing states would be the most important.

She is handily beating Bernie in those.

[liberal_at_heart]

4. Hell yeah, we're going to keep on fighting!

[Fumesucker]

5. The Bible Belt is the Real America

Just ask them, bless their hearts.

[beachbumbob]

6. So ignore Texas...Florida....

Outside of being far behind...Bernie is winning....pretty funny logic

[Attorney in Texas]

13. Who's ignoring Texas and Florida? Go ahead, take your victory lap! Hillary swept the Bible Belt.

Congratulations; now let's move on to the next section of the calendar.

[Vincardog]

18. Right ignore CA and NY too

[comradebillyboy]

94. When did Bernie win NY and California?

[DanTex]

7. LOL. If you don't count the states Hillary won, then Bernie's way ahead!

[Cali_Democrat]

19. hahahahaha

[obamanut2012]

30. And VA (not the Bible Belt), PA, NJ....

[yardwork]

122. OH is not the Bible Belt. Especially not Cleveland.

[LisaM]

84. Finally someone said it! I thought I was in an alternate universe.

I didn't know Massachusetts was in the Bible Belt, but I guess I stand corrected.

[yardwork]

120. We're not supposed to mention Massachusetts because mega phone.

[LisaM]

121. Oh, right...

The Bake Sale Caper.

[yardwork]

123. What are you going to do about the Big Dog.

[pampango]

8. I hope we treat Democrats everywhere similarly. It is not their fault if they live in the 'wrong'

state in some cases. I like the 50-state strategy as a long term vision although it complicates short term tactics.

I guess we could stop holding primaries in red states if we don't want their votes to count.

[JoePhilly]

12. The 50 state strategy went under the bus a while ago.

It's bad for the new math.

[NCTraveler]

16. +1

Pretty interesting how even the thought is outright dismissed.

[Attorney in Texas]

15. Sanders did not skip any contests. He fought hard, but Hillary won the Bible Belt. Congratulations!

[DemonGoddess]

78. She won the Rust Belt too!

Or is my home state now part of the Bible Belt and the South? Funny, I always thought IL was a Midwestern state.

[Attorney in Texas]

92. In Illinois and Michigan combined, he won 134 pledged delegates and she won 128. Hillary won the

Bible Belt by a margin but it does not seem like either candidate walked away with the Rust Belt with a margin to brag about.

More importantly, if you are thrilled with a one-delegate win in Illinois, I'm not here to rain on your parade. I'm really looking forward to the states coming up, and I'm glad to get past the states now behind us. From Sanders' perspective, the first 6 weeks of the primary calendar were murderous and the next 4 weeks look like an opportunity to build momentum so I'm just glad we made it through the first 6 weeks as successfully as we did. I cannot speak for anyone else, but I expected Hillary to build a bigger lead during her best part of the primary calendar.

[Gothmog]

105. Why exclude Ohio unless it ruins your numbers?

[yardwork]

124. Ohio is part of the Rust Belt. Akron is in Ohio. Just saying.

[JoePhilly]

9. This is that "new math" I keep hearing about.

[lunamagica]

20. It's called Berniemath

[sweetloukillbot]

37. My favorite was an argument that Ohio was close

Because if 6% had flipped he would have won.

[MaggieD]

11. LMAO!

I see you had to switch from the "red state" meme to the "bible belt" meme.

[NCTraveler]

17. Just a slight tweak/evolution in verbiage.

[speaktruthtopower]

14. If he wins all of those..

he is back in the conversation, but she has the momentum after last night.

[Vincardog]

26. Her momentum and trajectory favor a downward slope from here on.

[grossproffit]

31. Funny, the same thing was said here just last week.

[Vincardog]

62. Check next month.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

77. Crazy idea, what say we ALL support her then that wont happen!

Once Bernie drops out I mean.

[Bleacher Creature]

21. I know that Bernie has to project confidence.

But at some point it just becomes cruel to give people false hope (and take their donations).

Yet, when I see people grasping like this, I realize that Bernie himself is probably the only person who may be able to talk sense into his supporters (and that may not even be true anymore).

[SidDithers]

22. ...

So, if you exclude all the places that Bernie lost, then he's winning.

Have I got the latest spin just about right?



Sid

[geek tragedy]

25. reminds me of late stage Marco Rubio nt

[SidDithers]

29. It's gone beyond sad to downright pitiable...nt

Sid

[NuclearDem]

61. He's not losing, he's just differently winning.

[Peace Patriot]

100. Please don't use violent language and imagery! I beg you!

I have lived through three assassinations of great leaders: John Kennedy, Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy.

These were horribly traumatic events to me and to millions of others. We have a candidate on the other side who uses violent language and has inspired violence.

PLEASE, PLEASE, get rid of your logo!

I'm a Sanders supporter, but I would beg this of you if it were Clinton you were attacking or anyone else. We are in a dangerous situation for candidates AND supporters.

Please.

[NuclearDem]

103. "Stick a fork in him" is not violent language or imagery.

It's a common, cooking-related idiom that absolutely nobody interprets as advocating violence.

Things like "go fuck yourself with a brick" and "beat her with a 2x4", on the other hand, absolutely invoke violence.

[Peace Patriot]

125. To a deranged mind?

I'm sorry, but it IS violent language, despite what it originally meant. It plants an image of death by stabbing, and/or cooking a person and then stabbing him with a fork. We should NOT be using these kinds of potential psychological triggers in the political atmosphere of violence that Trump has created. Have a heart! I had mine broken 50 years ago. I don't want it broken again in the few decades I have left. I just shuddered when I saw your logo.

Just for the record, I am generally tolerant of raucous political debate. For instance, I have NEVER reported anybody here for anything, and I don't use "ignore." And the only cited comment I ever voted against, in a jury, was a foul racist comment about Obama. I believe in free speech! I want to see what everybody has on their minds. And I even hesitated over the racist comment, because it taught us not to trust that commenter ever again. (Maybe we should have a kind of pillory, where a commenter who makes such a comment is exposed, rather than hidden.)

But when it comes to violent language and images, in this current atmosphere, I urge you and others to please be aware of the tragic losses we have already suffered in the past, of Trump's language and nazi ambience and what it does to people and also of all the recent mass murder tragedies we have suffered. I think "stick a fork in him" does qualify as something that contributes to that violent atmosphere.

Please don't use it!

[Codeine]

23. That's a lot harder to type than "Confederate", isn't it? nt

[geek tragedy]

24. he's winning all the states except the ones he's losing nt

[Ferd Berfel]

32. K&R

[Tarc]

33. Why do Sanders supporters dis the "Bible Belt" state wins

because those are states the party will likely not win in the fall, and then trumpet the upcoming states that they think (i.e. pray) Sanders will win, even though many of those will be red in the Fall as well? Here's the list you put forth above;

Idaho (red)
Utah (red)
Arizona (red)
Alaska (red)
Hawaii (blue)
Washington (blue)
Wisconsin (likely blue)
Wyoming (red)

So, what gives here?

[upaloopa]

34. This is not like the general election where you win states for electoral college votes.

Hillary is winning delegates not states. She is winning votes not states. Voters are deciding who is our nominee not states.

Bernie won Michigan but it did not change tha status of the primary. Last night changed the status of the primary because as in every primary vote we have had so far Bernie falls further behind.


So it matters not where you win, what matters is how many delegates you win. We are not in a general with Bernie vs Hillary. We are in a primary where a vote in NC is just as important as a vote in VT. And yes Southern voters have every right to decide who our nominee is.

[BainsBane]

35. Then you, as a Texan

and the rest of your state casts second-class votes? Is that the assumption?

[Attorney in Texas]

36. They aren't "second class" votes. They are votes from a region that favored Hillary and is now done

voting.

Those votes count 100%. But they do not count to the exclusion of remainder of the states where a majority of voters have not yet had the chance to be heard.

The point is that Hillary swept one region, and congratulations to her on that, but now we're past that part of the nomination calendar where her strongest region has already had its say, and now Sanders has a chance to do well enough in the remainder of the contests that he may overcome the lead from Hilary's wins in the Bible Belt.

You apparently have no concern whatsoever that -- outside of the Bible Belt -- Hillary is losing. That's OK. I wasn't writing this post to cause you concern; I had a different audience and intention in mind.

[marions ghost]

63. Thank you

for your posts

[BainsBane]

96. That is a factually false statement

She leads by millions of votes. She just won Ohio, Iowa, and Illinois, the former by a wide margin. She will win NY and California too.

Hillary does best with primaries rather than caucuses because the electorate is more diverse. Her strength is among people of color and women. She also leads by 2.5 million votes. That's a huge amount. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_vote_count.html

She has 314 more earned delegates than Sanders and 755 more total delegates than Sanders. She need only 777 more to win the nomination, while Sanders requires another 1532.

Each vote is equal, regardless of where they live, and Sanders trails hugly. That is a fact.

[Attorney in Texas]

99. You realize that several states have not reported any vote total, right? If you are so sure

Hillary has this in the bag, you probably need not get so worked up about the Sanders supporters.

If you think you're winning and yet we're still having more fun, you're probably doing it wrong.

[iandhr]

38. In the "Bible Belt" ...

The Democratic primary vote is almost all African American. You are saying those voters don't matter.

[Attorney in Texas]

40. "almost all African American"? That is simply not true and easily disproved. The Bible Belt is the

region within the US that is least supportive of reproductive health liberties, collective bargaining rights, GLBT equality, etc.).

This is an ideological issue (with much of that ideology likely related to the higher level of church attendance in the Bible Belt) and not a racial issue.

If you have some data to suggest that voters (including Democrats) outside the Bible Belt are less progressive than voters (including Democrats) in the Bible Belt, please share it.

Once you have an ideological explanation for the difference between the Bible Belt and the rest of the nation, why drag race into the equation?

[onenote]

39. Any state that Clinton wins or ties in the rest of the way raises the bar for Sanders

Saying that all Bernie has to do is win every state with 57 percent of the vote sounds doable, maybe. But the reality is every time he wins a state with less than 57 percent -- or loses a state -- that 57 percent target goes up. There is virtually no margin for error. And there are states out there -- maybe not the next nine -- that look like wins for Clinton or at best narrow losses, which will push the bar higher.

[Attorney in Texas]

41. No one disputes that Sanders is the underdog. No one is saying it is an easy task. But when Sanders

wins some contests by a lot more than 57% (as he will do in the next contest, which is the Democrats Abroad vote ion March 21), then the threshold for the remainder of the states goes down.

Let's check back on April 9 and see how Sanders is doing then.

[restorefreedom]

43. excellent work! great post! nt

[Persondem]

45. Bet you came with this while sitting in a chair that swivels really well. nt

[CalvinballPro]

47. Well of course if we cut away the large number of states Bernie lost badly in, he'd be ahead.

Now, what's the Sanders' campaign's plan for nullifying the votes of the millions of Democrats who live in the South but still get a say in picking their party's nominee?

Please, elaborate. I want to hear this.

[Attorney in Texas]

53. I'm not privy to Sanders' campaign plans, but no one is "cutting away" states. If the Bible Belt did

not count, the math in the OP would be that Sanders needs to win just 49% of the delegates in the remaining states because he's already petty far ahead in the pledged delegates from the non-Bible Belt states that have voted to date.

Instead, the math suggests that he needs about 57% of the delegates in the remaining states because he's got to compensate for Hillary's wins in the Bible Belt (congratulations, by the way).

Sanders does not need to "cut away" the centrist votes from the Bible Belt; he has to overcome those votes. Fortunately, the rest of the calendar is much more progressive than the part of the calendar we've now put behind us.

[CalvinballPro]

57. He needs 58% today. He needed 54% yesterday. Every contest he loses compounds the necessary #

Or more accurately, every contest he doesn't win with more than 60% of the popular vote compounds the necessary number of delegates he needs.

I think it's disingenuous for you to have to exclude a large number of states and how they voted in order to argue that Sanders still has some kind of a chance.

[Attorney in Texas]

70. That's incorrect for a couple of reasons. First, not all states report a "popular vote" and delegate

pledging is not necessarily directly tied to popular vote (Sanders likely won the "popular vote" in Iowa, for example, but delegates are not assigned in that manner).

Second, 60% is not a threshold - Sanders could win 58% every remaining contest and he'd win going away; it is true that if he wins only 51% of the delegates in a future contest than he has to do better in another contest to make up for that, but -- by the same token -- when Sanders does better than 57% in a contest (as he will in the next context, Democrats Abroad), then he has credit that will allow him to do worse than his 57% average in another contest.

Finally, I'm not excluding any states. If I had excluded the Bible Belt states, then the OP would have said "Sanders needs to win an average of 49% of the remaining pledged delegates because he's already ahead." The fact that the OP explains Sanders needs to win 57% of the remaining pledged delegates is accounting for Hillary's lead among the Bible Belt delegates.

The only reason Hillary is ahead is because of the way the primary calendar is organized. It was decided long ago to front-load the contest with the former Dixiecrat states with the idea that such a calendar would produce more centrist candidates who would do well in the general election. The thinking behind that calendar is now antiquated, but the lingering results remain - a centrist candidate with ties to the Bible Belt is going to have some built in advantages over a progressive Jewish candidate from New York. If these Bible Belt states switched places on the calendar with the West Coast states, Hillary would be losing right now. The fact that the calendar is set up the way it is creates a false impression that Hillary is doing better than she would if the states were calendared differently.

[marions ghost]

66. silly post

nobody is nullifying past votes. The projection is based on info about the upcoming states.

[Trust Buster]

51. Hillary just won a southern state, a mid-Atlantic state, 2 rust belt states and a Midwest state

while Sanders did not record a victory yesterday.

[Attorney in Texas]

56. Missouri was a tie. Hillary won her HOME STATE by one delegate. She won Ohio (congratulations). And

Hillary won two Bible Belt states Florida and North Carolina (interestingly, she was projected to win North Carolina by almost twice as much as she did so Hillary under-performed her polling and delegate projections in 3 of the 5 states, but -- again, congratulations -- hit her targets in Florida and Ohio).

It wasn't a great day for Sanders but he exceeded his delegate projections in 60% of the contests and overall.

[NuclearDem]

72. PROTIP: A loss by any margin is still a loss.

Though I'm certain H.A. Goodman appreciates the assist, this is utterly hilarious desperate spin.

There are fewer and fewer states for Sanders to keep pulling off "bad days, but still did kind of alright somehow" performances like Tuesday. He's over 300 pledged delegates behind and polling horribly in the few 100+ delegate contests remaining.

Tuesday wasn't a "not great" day for Sanders--it was a goddamn disaster. You're doing neither the campaign nor your fellow supporters any good by continuing to lie to yourselves about how bad it was.

Sanders lost Florida. Sanders lost North Carolina. Sanders lost Ohio. Sanders lost Illinois. Sanders lost Missouri. Previously, Sanders has lost Massachusetts. Sanders has lost Iowa. Sanders has lost Nevada. With the exception of Missouri, none of these are the bright-red, ultraconservative states you're so inclined to dismiss.

There are obviously some very real issues with campaign tactics not bearing fruit for Sanders. Unfortunately, it seems like some Sanders supporters aren't going to realize this until it's far too late.

[Attorney in Texas]

80. You say "Sanders lost Missouri," but last I saw the delegates were split evenly. How did you think

Sanders was going to do on Tuesday?

He came away with the exact same number of delegates as I expected him to (he did 5 delegates worse than I expected in Missouri and Ohio but 5 delegates better than I expected in Illinois and North Carolina).

Sanders' campaign has been focused on surviving until the stretch of 9 contests from March 21 through April 9, and he has now reached that goal. Let's revisit the race after April 9 and see where things lie.

[NuclearDem]

87. His campaign tactic of "surviving"

now has him in a position where he has to win nearly impossible victories in every single contest going forward to have a shot at securing the nomination.

His plan of abandoning the South and not even attempting to mitigate the damage (he spent money in Vermont of all places, for crying out loud) put him dangerously in the hole, and he's been losing ground ever since.

He needs to start winning over 55% of the vote in every single contest going forward. He's not going to manage that in Arizona, New York, Indiana, New Jersey, or California.

His strategy was monumentally stupid, and now that he's lost Illinois and Ohio--contests he saw himself winning--he's paying the price for it.

[Attorney in Texas]

93. So you have an O'Malley icon and you are questioning Sanders' strategy. I like O'Malley but I would

think we could agree that, from a strategy perspective, Sanders has done better. Right?

I'm not sure what Sanders' campaign tactics were but I assume that he did as well as he could and hung on until he got past the part of the primary calendar that was titled in Hillary's favor. I'm just glad we're all past that part of the calendar now.

You say Sanders is "paying a price"? If you think campaigning is a chore and you don't like to go to your own rallies, having to keep campaigning might seem like "paying a price," but when Sanders describes his campaign as a movement, what he's telling you is that the campaign is the job (whereas for Hillary the campaign is a necessary and unpleasant chore she must undertake to achieve the ambitious goal she has set for herself). I don't think Sanders feels like he is "paying a price" for anything - he's leading a movement.

[NuclearDem]

102. Yes, I have an O'Malley avatar, and yes, I'm questioning Sanders' strategy.

I wasn't under any delusions as to O'Malley's chances this cycle. He was hardly as well known in establishment circles as Clinton or in leftist circles as Sanders and couldn't get much traction without a unique base of his own. I didn't expect him to go much further than South Carolina, at best; however, I supported him because he had far more comprehensive policy proposals than either Clinton or Sanders and because he's going to be a major player in the party going forward.

Your candidate's strategy is setting him up to fail. Apparently, while going to rallies and campaigning don't seem to be chores to a great deal of Sanders supporters, actually showing up at the polls to vote does--that's the nature of relying on young voters and independents rather than loyal, active members of a party.

[RockaFowler]

75. Florida is not Bible Belt

Please stop saying this

Oh and North Carolina is not really in the Bible Belt either

Bible Belt is really Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, South Carolina and Arkansas. There are really 2 Floridas - The Panhandle and the rest of the state. I will give you the Panhandle, but the majority of people do not live in this area!!

So please stop saying Florida is the Bible Belt!!!

[Attorney in Texas]

95. I understand that you feel that way, but others have a different view:

[Autumn Colors]

55. One question

Does this factor in Bill Clinton polling station invasions and vote counting software meddling?

I hate that these are even issues.

Regarding the first one, I know that in our town, the girl scouts even had to keep their girl scout cookie table the minimum distance from the entrance of the polling station that campaigners do.

[Attorney in Texas]

59. This treats all past contests as water under the bridge and projects how Sanders has to perform in

the future contests to keep on track.

[AzDar]

58. K & R

[NuclearDem]

60. Somebody tell Iowa, Nevada, Massachusetts, Illinois, and Ohio

that there are now officially in the Bible Belt.

[Squinch]

64. Praise Jesus!

[Attorney in Texas]

73. I'll assume that you didn't read the OP before responding (which is OK, I'm just glad for the kick)

I specifically said that Hillary went 5 for 15 outside of the Bible Belt.

I specifically reported her delegate count in each of those states, but if you add up all of Hillary's wins outside of the Bible Belt (both the number of states and the number of delegates), she is losing to Sanders outside the Bible Belt.

I did not suggest that Sanders has gone 15 for 15 outside of the Bible Belt - Missouri was a tie (each won 32 pledged delegates) and Sanders won 9 states while Hillary won just 5 (and Sanders won more overall pledged delegates) in those 15 states.

No body has relocated Iowa, Nevada, Massachusetts, Illinois, and Ohio into the Deep South, but it seems noteworthy that even with these 5 wins, three were incredibly narrow -- 1 delegate margin in Massachusetts and Illinois, 2 in Iowa -- including Hillary's home state where she fell far, far short of projections.

[NuclearDem]

74. Spinning like a top.

[Peace Patriot]

111. Oh, for Pete's sake, this is not spin! It's numbers.

And the numbers tell us that it's going to be a tight race in the remaining states, with Sanders having the chance to make up the difference that Clinton gained first of all in the front-loaded southern states. Also, that she hasn't done that well outside of the southern states, which is where the primary is going now. (Near ties in Illinois, Iowa and Massachusetts do not bode well for her, though her win in Ohio does--so it's something of a draw at this point. It is notable too--something to consider--that without the southern states (which she won't have in November) she is still struggling, which doesn't bode well for November.)

We all realize that Sanders is a long shot--he always has been--but it's NOT OVER. It's not over until the majority of people in this country get to vote, and they happen to live in much more Sanders-friendly states.

One reason for dropping off the southern states, in prognosis discussions, is that neither Clinton nor Sanders will win them in the GE. Both MUST do well in the non-southern states to win the GE. And the fact that Sanders still has a chance to win the nomination, at this point, does not say much for Clinton's popularity in the portion of the country she must have in the fall. When you add in her extremely negative numbers on general population approval, and Sanders' opposite numbers (very highly approved of) plus Sanders' ability to draw in Independent voters, young voters, new voters and disgruntled voters, she is actually in some trouble--whereas Sanders as the Dem nominee has more of a chance to blow Trump (or whoever) away in the GE, due to his ability to engender enthusiasm and excitement for a new New Deal.

Now that IS "spin." I want this to be considered--Clinton's chances in the GE vs Sander's. There aren't a lot of numbers on this yet, but the ones we do have do not look good for Clinton. Sanders has much higher favorability ratings and he beats Trump by double the margin that Clinton does. Though Sanders is the underdog now (as to total earned delegates), electability in the GE may be a factor in the coming states. I think it's already been a factor in Clinton's favor in the states that have voted; but I think that could switch round in the states ahead, as Clinton's "baggage" gets more attention (for instance, having Kissinger as an advisor will push very bad buttons for her in blue states; the recent murders in Honduras and her support for the fascist coup there will also be "baggage" for her--and there is quite a lot more). When blue state voters assess this "baggage" they will rightfully worry about the GE.

"Spin" again, but not without substance. Clinton supporters should be thinking about these things.

[NuclearDem]

114. Given the OP's track record, I can comfortably say that it is, in fact, spin.

OP has a habit of cherrypicking polls favorable to Sanders, usually from poor outlets like Overtime and the Free Beacon, and either ignoring or questioning more accurate and established firms like 538 when they don't fit his narrative.

His "predictions" have been almost universally wrong, almost on the level of HA Goodman. OPs like these exist solely as mental morphine for Sanders supporters.

[noretreatnosurrender]

68. Donated Last Night

Very pleased where we are now.

[Karma13612]

76. OK, game on!

Gosh, the math is still doable!

Thanks for this diary.

Go Bernie!!

[GoneFishin]

81. Great post. Donated last night and plan to continue donating. Go Bernie!

[grasswire]

82. Go Bernie Go!!

Solidarity!

[grasswire]

83. may I share this? nt

[Attorney in Texas]

112. Of course. Please do.

[seabeyond]

86. We have a winner. And we have a loser. ;)

[Attorney in Texas]

98. Typically, we don't decide who's the winner and who's the loser before halftime.

[seabeyond]

107. I was a swimmer. We had heats. Had winners and losers. The winners advance. Losers go away.

[Renew Deal]

90. You could have stopped at "Hillary's winning"

Because that's the bottom line.

[Vote2016]

97. kick and I wish I could recommend this 100 times!

[Gothmog]

104. Sanders is down to a 4% chance of being the nominee according to predictwise

Your analysis amuses me and ignoring states that Sanders has lost does not change the probability of Sanders becoming the Democratic nominee http://predictwise.com/politics/2016-president-democratic-nomination

Hillary Clinton 96 %
Bernie Sanders 4 %

The delegates won in the bible belt state including Texas get to vote and Clinton has a far larger lead right now than President Obama ever had against Clinton http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/03/what_hillary_clinton_learned_from_losing_to_obama.html

And like Obama before her, she’s run up the score in favorable states and held tight in contested ones. Up until Tuesday’s primaries, this gave her an advantage. And now, with lopsided victories in Florida and North Carolina, she enjoys a structural lead that dwarfs the one Obama held at this point in 2008. Clinton is ahead by more than 300 delegates, which is to say that even if she had lost to Sanders on Tuesday in Ohio, Illinois, and Missouri, her large delegate lead would’ve been safe.

As it stands, Clinton didn’t win only in the South, once considered her sole stronghold in the primary; she captured the Midwest, too, finishing the night with Ohio and Illinois in her corner. (At press time, Missouri was still counting.) With these wins, her delegate lead leaves Sanders in a tight spot even after you bracket “superdelegates” from the equation. Post Tuesday, there are just six states that award more than 100 delegates: California, Maryland, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Washington. To win a pledged-delegate lead, Sanders would have to score upset after upset after upset, by unprecedented margins. And that’s with similarly large wins in smaller states. None of this is an impossibility, but I wouldn’t bet on any of it.

It is very unlikely that Sanders can catch up. President Obama had a much smaller lead and held that that easily until the convention.

[bravenak]

106. He is losing

[dsc]

110. OK NE and KS are all in the Bible belt

it is absurd to claim they aren't. That is a net 21 delegates. Add in states in which few people even voted such as ME where fewer people voted for him than voted for Hillary in my quite small county (Wayne CO NC which has fewer than 100k people) and you are getting pretty close to parity.

[Betty Karlson]

113. K&R for uplifting truth!

[imagine2015]

115. It's far from over.

[Attorney in Texas]

116. Definitely. Not only is it far from other, neither of our candidates should want it to be over. Do

forget how it was when the RNC liked up debates when the DNC shut out all debate in an effort (mostly successful) to smother the campaigns of Hillary's rivals for the nomination?

The Republicans lead the news every cycle and the Democrats got no coverage. Does anyone wonder why they are setting new turnout records and -- excluding the states where Sanders wins and sets new turnout records -- our turnout is anemic in states that Hillary wins?

We don't want that again. Keeping the primary going allows Hillary to keep in the headlines for non-FBI-investigation/potential-indictment and allows her to cast herself as moderate with Sanders as her foil and it allows Sanders to keep him movement going forward.

[Mary Mac]

117. Hillary learned from Obama

Hillary is running like Obama did and Bernie is running like Hillary did.

[MichaelSoE]

118. Kicking ... the clock is ticking

[Garrett78]

119. Denying reality and promoting false memes is neither healthy nor productive.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511460282

[Waiting For Everyman]

127. Very well done!

Thank you!

[Garrett78]

129. No, it's very poorly done.

The OP distorts reality in numerous and stunning ways.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511460282

[Waiting For Everyman]

130. Well now, you see, this is how it works...

You decide what your opinions will be, and I decide mine.

People seem very confused on this lately. Someone in another current thread in GDP thinks they can determine what other people say and think.

[Garrett78]

131. But we're not just dealing with opinions here.

We're dealing with false memes, contradictions and fallacious reasoning.

Like equating the Democratic electorate of the Deep South (including people in places such as Atlanta, GA and Austin, TX) with "Confederates" and Strom Thurmond types.

Like talking about how Clinton can only win "red" states when it's Sanders who is doing better in "red" areas (such as rural Missouri, as opposed to St. Louis and Kansas City) and Clinton who is doing better in "blue" areas.

Like showing simplistic, misleading 2-color maps (Clinton-won states in this color, Sanders-won states in another color) that ignore the population differences between states and the margin of victory in each state.

Like ignoring demographic realities that indicate what can be expected going forward.

And so on.

Saying 2 plus 2 equals 37 isn't an "opinion." Not a valid one at least.

[Waiting For Everyman]

132. You made your point in your thread.

I read it before, I didn't agree with it. If you'll notice, I didn't comment in it.

This is a thread making a different point and analysis, which I do agree with. I still don't agree with yours.

Are we clear now?

[Garrett78]

133. What is it that you agree with?

Do you agree with equating the Democratic electorate of the Deep South (including people in places such as Atlanta, GA and Austin, TX) with "Confederates" and Strom Thurmond types?

Do you agree that Clinton can only win "red" states, even though that's already been proven false? Do you disagree that it's actually Sanders who is doing better in "red" areas (such as rural Missouri, as opposed to St. Louis and Kansas City) and Clinton who is doing better in "blue" areas?

Do you not acknowledge the enormous flaw in the simplistic, misleading 2-color maps (Clinton-won states in this color, Sanders-won states in another color) that ignore the population differences between states and the margin of victory in each state?

And please don't tell me that isn't precisely what the OP and others are doing.

[Waiting For Everyman]

134. You don't take a hint well, do you?

[Garrett78]

135. So, you can't actually say what it is with which you agree.

That's fine.

[book_worm]

128. Who cares?