Oh, no.

[LWolf]

[berni_mccoy]

1. Heh

[baldguy]

2. Sanders needed 65% of the vote in WV to remain viable. He only got 49%.

And 44% of that was from fascist RW Trump supporters. So, the answer is "No".

Every time he "wins" he falls further behind.

[beaglelover]

3. Yep. Too bad, so sad for Mr. Bernie.

[mucifer]

4. Maybe, but it sure doesn't make Hillary Clinton look good.

[JaneyVee]

5. Obama lost 21 states

Last edited Wed May 11, 2016, 10:23 AM - Edit history (1)

She isnt even spending $$$

[mucifer]

11. Neither is trump and he is surging in the polls. It's really scary.

Constant free press. They just love him.

[LWolf]

7. He didn't get 65%.

NBC says it was 51%, while Clinton got 36% in a state she won handily in '08.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/sanders-wins-west-virginia-democratic-primary-n571356

He won. And he has more wins ahead of him.

[eomer]

8. No, he needs 65% of the remaining pledged delegates. He missed it by just 1 delegate in WV.

He got 18 pledged delegates out of 29, or 62%.

If he had gotten 19 pledged delegates out of 29 that would be 65.5%.

[morningfog]

10. He's viable until mathematically eliminated. HIllary can't do that until JUne 7, at the earliest.

[onenote]

6. Honest answer? He almost certainly can't

That's because his devastating blowout victory in West Virginia did absolutely nothing to move him closer to getting the nomination.

He still needs nearly 66 of the remaining pledged delegates to have a claim that he won the majority of the pledged delegates, which is the only argument he can possibly make successfully to win the nomination.

And time, and the primary schedule ahead of him aren't particular favorable.

If his "devastating blowout victory" in West Virginia actually had cut meaningfully into Clinton's margin, it would have been an actual victory (albeit not one that was either devastating or a blowout vis-a-vis Clinton's lead), but as it stands, it really was at best a holding action and, in terms of lost opportunity, a loss.

[LWolf]

9. 51% - 36%.

Winning by 15% is a loss.

And Clinton supporters keep telling me I can't do the math.

Sure I can.

Clinton may not earn enough pledged delegates to win the nomination outright. She hasn't won yet.

I'm doing my job this week to make sure she doesn't; my primary vote goes to Sanders, and I'll be dropping it into a drop box this weekend.

[onenote]

12. Neither candidate will win enough pledged votes to win the nomination outright

So that's pretty much a dead talking point.

The question is what can Sanders do to move the needle on the super delegates that both he and Clinton will need to get the nomination --- super delegates that currently lean heavily in Clinton's favor.

The only thing he can do to change that dynamic -- a dynamic in which he loses the nomination -- is win a majority of the pledged delegates. And his win in W. VA moved him no closer to that result than Clinton's win in W.Va in 2008 did anything to get her closer to defeating Obama.

That's the honest answer to the question you asked. Not spin.