If any media outlet is surprised at Bernie's support in states such as Kentucky... [View all]

[Garrett78]

...they must have slept through 2015-2016. Or they're just stupid.

In general in 2016, Sanders did best in states with less diversity. The 2016 Democratic Primary in Kentucky was incredibly close (probably the closest contest of all) in spite of taking place well after the race had been decided back on Super Tuesday. Leave it to members of the MSM to take reality and flip it on its head. To suggest that Sanders having a "surprising" level of support in a state such as Kentucky is proof that he's a serious contender is the exact opposite takeaway one should possess. "Hi, I'm a member of the media and it's my job to get you, the viewer, to believe the exact opposite of what's real." Ugh.

Sanders is at his ceiling of support. He has a loyal and substantial following, but it's not going to grow much, if at all. He's a known quantity. After New Hampshire, the race is basically over for Sanders.

The main thing Sanders is accomplishing is shrinking the electorate. He's locked up a large, cult-like following, which means the rest of the field is competing for the remaining 80-85% of the electorate. That's 1 of 2 factors that's had a major impact on this race. The other is the size of the field--most people aren't inclined to bother distinguishing between 20+ candidates they've never heard of, which is to the benefit of those with the most name recognition. Had the field never been larger than 7-8 candidates and had Sanders not run, we'd be looking at a totally different dynamic--and probably a much different result.