One Word:

[Chichiri]

The six most delegate-rich states still to come are California (475), New York (247), Florida (214), Pennsylvania (189), Illinois (156), and Ohio (143). Three of these states all vote on March 15, and Hillary is projected to win all of them by large margins. If these margins hold for the next couple weeks, she will take:

* 87 delegates from Ohio, 31 more than Bernie.

* 103 delegates from Illinois, 50 more than Bernie.

* 142 delegates from Florida, 70 more than Bernie.

So from these three states alone, Hillary's lead will expand from 197 delegates to 348 delegates. It is mathematically impossible for her to lose these delegates from Pennsylvania or New York alone, and Bernie would require 87% of the vote in California to make it up. (The latest poll from California is a couple months old, but it showed Clinton 46, Sanders 35.)

After March 15th most of the remaining states do favor Bernie -- but by small numbers. 41-34 delegates in Arizona, 19-14 in Utah, 13-12 in Hawaii, 96-93 in Pennsylvania, and so on. Only Oregon, Wisconsin, and Washington favor him by double digits.

Here's the thing. If Bernie battles Hillary to a tie in all the states where she is favored (including Louisiana, Florida, Illinois, etc.), and wins all of his favored states by the very margins which give him the advantage, he will make up 122 delegates on his 197-delegate deficit.

Hillary wins.

If Hillary takes Ohio, Illinois and Florida by the margins projected above, but is kept to a tie in every other state where she's favored (although Ohio actually favors Bernie by 1 delegate), and Bernie wins all his other favored states by DOUBLE the margin of his advantage, he will make up 242 delegates on his 348-delegate deficit.

Hillary wins.

If, just for fun, we give him an additional 100 delegates in California, that's 342 delegates on his 348-delegate deficit.

Hillary wins.

And no, there will be no indictment. Do a google search, filter out right-wing and pro-Bernie sites, and read about it for yourself. It's a non-issue.

Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee for President. End of story.

[RobertEarl]

1. Maybe

Well if that happens and the FBI doesn't, say hello to Trump.

[grossproffit]

32. How many times what Sanders name mentioned during the debate last night?

[Agnosticsherbet]

2. This will be over before June 7.

[rock]

3. As a birthday present to me!

(June 7th)

[MoonRiver]

4. Maybe sooner.

Math doesn't lie!

[Hortensis]

35. Sooner would be great. Hillary has already

begun the battle against the forces of the right. And for that matter, so has Bernie.

[malthaussen]

5. So, what's your point?

Let us stipulate that Mrs Clinton does win the primary. Are you suggesting, therefore, that conversation is superfluous? That, further, it makes no difference what anyone says, because the Candidate won't pay any attention to them, anyway? I really don't understand the "resistance is futile" meme.

-- Mal

[Chichiri]

11. My point is...

Conversations about whether Bernie's ideas are worthwhile, and how we can best put them into practice under Hillary's administration, are productive.

Conversations about Hillary being indicted, or Hillary not having a chance against Tiny Trump, or how much Bernie supporters personally hate Hillary, are not.

[malthaussen]

14. We agree then.

This would be true, however, even if the projection were different. There does seem to be a lot of schadenfreude floating around, and not just within the Dems. Those who celebrate the breakup of the GOP are similarly short-sighted.

As to Mrs Clinton being indicted, that's just a silly thing to talk about, because it gets us nowhere. Obviously, it would wreck her chances of being elected, but that is rather a feeble reed to lean on, and furthermore hoping it would come to pass might just indicate a bit of ill-will on the part of the one floating it (although a disinterested concern for the well-being of the country cannot be completely ruled out).

Conversations about Mrs Clinton defeating Mr Trump, however, are relevant, so long as they are not couched in the terms of "Clinton can't beat Trump, so she shouldn't be the candidate." (The same, of course, applies to Mr Sanders: what's sauce for the goose is, after all, sauce for the gander) It is, however, useful to discuss where and how her campaign might be deficient, and means of repairing that. Whether or not that is the most productive conversation to have now is moot. But either candidate would need to address gaps in his support for the General Election, and a broad discussion of how the Democrats might craft a winning coalition whomever is the candidate would be most productive of all, IMO.

As for personal feelings towards the candidates, they have no place in political discourse; that is why we have Hillary and Bernie groups, after all.

-- Mal

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. Conversations about indinctemnts

are you saying then that there are not three investigations underway at the current time? One is civil (the witch hunt I will grant you) The other two are criminal. And one has probably kicked this to a grand jury. Don't you think we should let the DoJ do it's job? I personally do not want a President taking the oath of office under such a cloud. You KNOW the Rs will call for the formation of the impeachment committee ten seconds after they take the oath and get all the house keeping done.

[Chichiri]

20. Can you post a link to an official statement...

...confirming that a criminal investigation is underway, with Hillary as its target?

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. They are going to interview her and officials that worked for her

it is all over the place. Are you telling me the press is lying on this? I would have to ask why? Yeah the Beacon, sure. Why is CNN and the Hill and even MSBBC repeating those lies? At this point this is humorous,

By the way, the witch hunt also wants to interview them, this has been granted by the judge. appointed by her husband.

If you want to pretend this is not happening by all means, pretend it is not happening.

[Hortensis]

19. Oh, no. The election continues. BUT, the TOS say

that, once both party nominees are clearly identified, we shift to loyal mode and trashing of our candidates or party is not allowed.

Our time of identification is actually coming up pretty fast, but the GOP nominee may not be identified until their convention on July 18-21. Thus, with Bernie expected to still be technically running right up to our convention, July 25-28, it seems his supporters may well be able to honestly criticize and/or trash the Democratic Party's clearly identified nominee most of the summer.

Vote for Democrats.
Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose.

But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative).

For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear.

For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day.

Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

[Chichiri]

23. I'm pretty sure that the loyalty requirement begins...

...when at least 2 MSM sources confirm that a candidate has clinched the nomination. From that point there's a "transition" of a few days, where opponents of that candidate are allowed to vent, and then the loyalty requirement takes effect. So, although this is pretty unlikely, it's possible that Bernie supporters could be gone from DU as early as two weeks from today. (More likely it will be May or early June.)

[Hortensis]

26. So, we don't have to wait for the GOP nominee?

That is frankly very good news as allowing trashing of our nominee to continue for months after identified didn't seem very...functional.

That will be unfortunately hard on the more ardent supporters of Bernie Sanders when he is still technically running, however. That group will need another site to use for bashing our nominee during that transition period, obviously.

I imagine those who preferred Bernie but feel comfortable backing Hillary will be staying right here and getting on with doing a proper job of examining and bashing what the hard right intends to do to our country. They're scary. We're all going to need to keep each other bucked up and confident.

[pdsimdars]

6. I prefer the analysis of Cenk and his mathematics.

But keep trying to end it before it's over. Bernie is rising and Hillary is slowly sinking. We'll just have to see where it ends.

[Chichiri]

9. It's kind of the same story.

After Iowa, people were saying that Bernie would win big in New Hampshire (which he did), which would give him momentum to win Nevada (which he didn't), which in turn would let him come very close to Hillary in South Carolina (which it didn't), which in turn would put a big damper on Hillary's Super Tuesday wins (which it didn't).

Now they're saying that Bernie won Colorado and Minnesota (which he did), which means he'll have enough momentum to win Michigan (which he won't), which in turn will, on March 15, let him win or come in close in states like Ohio, Illinois, and Florida (which he won't).

This is what Cenk is pinning his hopes on -- and, all due respect because I like the guy, he's just plain wrong.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. Cenk is neither a politucal scientist or a statistician.

He's a value laden pundit with an ideological axe to grind.

[grossproffit]

33. He's a propagandist.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

34. Damn close./nt

[JaneyVee]

7. What about these states?

[Chichiri]

8. Yeah, once you factor in those states, the situation becomes more dire for Bernie. nt

[MineralMan]

22. Yup. People keep forgetting those states.

Each win will add to Bernie's delegate deficit. I'm not seeing a path for Bernie to get an actual majority delegate win. I see a simple path for Clinton to that goal, though.

Also, in the later primaries, there may be a bandwagon effect that boosts Hillary's results in those states. In some, it may well be enough to tip them into the Clinton camp.

[Vinca]

10. Arithmetic!

There have been roughly 50% more Republican votes cast so far in the primaries than Democratic votes. Hillary Clinton may well be the Democratic nominee for president and, yes, it will be the end of the story.

[Chichiri]

12. There's no good evidence that good primary turnout...

...translates to good general turnout, or bad to bad.

[Vinca]

13. Good for you. I love an optimist.

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. You might want to look at 2004 for that evidence you seek

padawan.

[Chichiri]

17. What am I looking for? Nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. The primary and general election turnout

democrats did have that gap.

For the moment I will ignore that Kerry did win at Cuyahooga County in OH, (a story covered in Excelsior Mexico) But that excitement gap was present.

And anybody with a shred of common sense should be concerned.

yes, that excitement gap might be solved as the primary continues, but there is correlation.

The same happened by the way in 2000. Also in 2000, like I expect to see this year, many conservative democrats across the country did cross the line for Bush nationwide, I expect to see the exact same phenomena happen and let me count the way Independents are not excited about HRC... should she be the nominee.

So a more precise comparison might be 2000... and if Bliomberg runs... yup pretty much, It is a good question who those pesky indies (43 percent of the electorate) will go to, but that internal poll leaked to the NY Post is not the only one that is in the rumor mill. There is panic that NY might go red, in a federal election, and CA might as well. And if you think this minority majority state will save your bacon...

But it is your party, nominate whoever you want. I prefer to watch returns and see what happens. I like contested primaries.

[Chichiri]

21. Be specific. Where was the gap, and how big? Nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. Oh the google could help here

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/02/us/the-2000-campaign-partisan-enthusiasm-republicans-claim-an-edge-a-will-to-win.html?pagewanted=all

Now there is more, you can search it. But I have heard this from a few democratic officials. They are reaching panic stage And at this point, there is fear they will not keep the white house.

[Chichiri]

25. I don't see any mention of primary turnout in that article.

And I have no way to ascertain what you heard from "Democratic officials" (you make it sound like you have coffee with them on a regular basis).

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. No we don't have coffee regularly

but I do talk with a few of them locally. And this is far from universal, but a few are starting to realize this is not a normal election cycle.

Oh and here is this aspect of it... Democrats are not in a rush

https://newrepublic.com/article/75129/why-democrats-are-chronically-unenthusiastic

and if you want to be extremely technical. here you go

http://www.uvm.edu/~dguber/POLS125/articles/patterson.htm

And a more recent story on when the Rs found themselves in trouble in 2008

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/08/05/enthusiasm_gap_on_display_in_tuesdays_primaries.html

You ignore this gap at your peril. Me... whatever, just the fate of the nation... and yes it is that dramatic.

[Chichiri]

39. Those deal with turnout generally, not primary predicting general.

I think this conversation will have to happen after Hillary clinches, at which time we can talk about how to GOTV. Because it's going to happen.

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. Yup it is going to happen

whatever... I have heard this too much, from people who vote, they will vote for ... whoever the Rs nominate before they vote for her.

Ah yes, 2000, here we go again...



And that is all I will say about it. I know my notes are being taken at this point. And when November comes it will be painful. By the way, no, she has not cinched it, and the Supers also switched their pledged vote in 2008... so the major media (I crack me up), should not be counting them. And at that pint your math is not that clear.

[Chichiri]

42. The math doesn't count the supers at all.

First one to 2,026 pledged delegates wins, that's all the math looks at. Hillary is not going to need the supers.

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. You are assuming much

but whatever, as I said, it will be painful.

And by the way this is such an unusual election and the anger is such that well, whatever. Historians will have fun speaking of this well after the dust settles.

[Chichiri]

45. I . . . what? Assuming what?

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. that primary states will continue to vote the way they have so far

I am not willing to make that assumption, and I know Sanders has a (narrow) map to the nomination.

[Chichiri]

47. If June 7th comes, and there are only 714 delegates left . . .

. . . and Bernie needs 713 of them to win, will you still insist that Bernie has a realistic path to the nomination?

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. Look, I am not going to play this game you are trying to play

I only will again say, she is the nominee, current voting rates. The Rs have an extremely good chance of taking the WH... It is called HISTORY.

And I know this is starting to register with some of my local party officials.

[Chichiri]

49. Ohkay, we'll pick this up after Hillary clinches. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

50. Have fun with that

I will continue to report on this... and that is what I do. But if she has it. I will have to have an industrial sized bottle of TUMMS on election night. I think I will share with a few local members of the party. I am that way, nice and kind and the sharing type.

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. Hey look as much as I do not like Silver for a lot of stuff

he is doing

Here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511414029#post9

[Svafa]

31. I highly doubt that Clinton will drive huge turnout in the GE. If she is the nominee, we're doomed.

[LAS14]

28. Thanks for the hard facts. nt

[asuhornets]

36. n/t

[DrDan]

37. time to start chilling the champagne - will be popping to cork soon

[SheenaR]

38. Clarevoyance

Can I have tomorrow night's Powerball numbers please while you are at it.

End of story eh? You very well may be right. The odds are now heavily in her favor.

Wonder if future strategies will change when he ends up carrying 30 states but losing the delegate war.

Tell me though. By your numbers will she hit 2383 with pledged delegates?

[Chichiri]

40. At this rate, probably. But...

She only needs 2.026 to secure a majority of pledged delegates.

[k8conant]

51. End of a sad story. And not President ever

[wyldwolf]

52. but a woman I talked to in the checkout lane at at Target...

... says she's voting for Bernie!

And so did my Republican co-worker.

And that woman at the park.

and...

[Chichiri]

55. And Sarah Silverman! nt

[Bleacher Creature]

53. This is such a great post. Thanks!

Youve really spelled it out nicely and have provided a really important service to your fellow DUers.

[NurseJackie]

54. K + I + C + K