Hillary has done very well in the deep south. Let's see, how many more southern states are there?

[DLnyc]

South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana and Texas have now already voted, giving her something like 335 delegates.

That leaves Mississippi, which has 36 delegates and votes on March 8.

Maybe her path to a majority of the pledged delegates is murkier than we are being told?

[liberal_at_heart]

1. which is exactly why they are trying to convince us to give up as of March 15.

Not going to happen. Bernie will pick up a lot of delegates after March 15. I will be voting for him on March 26.

[DLnyc]

2. Yes, realistically the contest could go either way.

There are lots of states with all different demographics and large numbers of delegates still to vote, and there is a lot of time for people to change their opinion based on debates and random news events.

It is quite ludicrous to call anything settled at this point!

I will be voting for Bernie in New York (which has 247 pledged delegates) on April 19, by the way!

[Beacool]

3. NC, FL & MS.

But she's ahead in the polls and predicted to win MI, IL and OH.

[DLnyc]

5. I do not expect Hillary to get the kind of margins in NC and FL

that she got in Louisiana, Alabama, South Carolina, Texas and Georgia. So things might get tougher for her, we'll see.

[Garrett78]

11. She doesn't have to win them by as much.

Florida and North Carolina both have a very high number of delegates, so any margin of victory is devastating to the person who is behind in delegates.

[Sancho]

31. Hillary is way ahead in FL and NC....

It will likely be a landslide down here.

[cwydro]

34. This NC voter will be voting for her.

So will my mom, and several others I know.

[DLnyc]

7. It will be interesting to see how she does in MI, IL and OH

Polls have not always proved right so far. And even if she does win in these states, I highly doubt that she would get anything like the margins she got in Louisiana, or even in Texas, so those wins are not too likely to make a huge change in the delegate math. That's what I mean by things being a little tougher for her going forward. Even though the media makes a big deal about who wins how many states, it's actually pledged delegate counts that determine the nomination, not the number of states!

We'll see how it plays out, I guess.

[Garrett78]

12. When you're already behind...

...you can't afford to lose most or all of the states with a high number of delegates, even if you only lose by 5 or 10 percentage points. You can't make up enough ground with the likes of Nebraska, Kansas, Maine, Idaho, Alaska and Wyoming.

[JDPriestly]

58. California has 546 votes, and we do not vote until June 7. That's the big one.

Bernie will win here. He will win a lot of votes here.

[Garrett78]

60. That would be quite the upset.

Both candidates will likely win a lot of California delegates, but Clinton is favored to win more.

[putitinD]

52. I predict Bernnie wil crush Hillary in Michigan on Tues.

[Optimism]

4. So excited ...

.. to be voting for Bernie in Seattle at month's end. Along with two family members as well! Driving just a few blocks yesterday I saw THREE Bernie bumper stickers (nary a Clinton one). Washington's definitely feeling the Bern! Contacting my (not so) Super Delegates trying to convince them to switch their votes to that of the People's if (when) that happens.

[madokie]

67. We've already voted

but I've yet to see a Hillary bumper sticker one. I have a Bernie sticker on both of my pickup trucks gave my brother one for his old VW Beetle

[Hydra]

6. There's some major bombshell coming

There's no other reason for Team Hill to be trying to wrap up the primary this early if not.

If they had the votes locked down, they should be digging in for the GE, no more ads/money being used and working on repairing Clinton's image to get the disaffected dem vote back.

Instead, Hillary and Bill are scrambling to grab every vote they can, surrogates are shutting down discussions, MSM is pushing the idea that Hillary is more than halfway there...

Does not smell like a victory party...

[longship]

9. Well, you can't spin the delegates.

Either one has them, or not. And it is still very early in the process.

I do not see Hillary maintaining this pace. She has the worst negatives on the ticket by far. And Bernie has the best, from both parties.

Plus, there's the issue that polling says that she might not be electable in the fall.

[CoffeeCat]

13. I wonder if something is lurking underneath

the political surface after hearing Pelosi's remarks the other day. Highly out of character, Pelosi remarked that the super delegates do not decide the race and she alluded to the notion that they should not be used to factor the current winner.

It's well known that this is a standard Clintonian tactic used to misrepresent and exaggerate HRC's lead.

Pelosi's comments seem to dig into these Clinton-specific tactics.

Pelosi is a political beast. She knows everyone and everything happening in DC. Is she aware of something going on with the Clinton camp? Distancing herself perhaps?

[grasswire]

16. always the possibility of FBI

but I don't think that even Pelosi would have a hint of that, unless there is already a grand jury empaneled and ready to roll.

[brush]

8. Ahhh . . . you're forgetting or ignoring Florida?

[DLnyc]

10. Florida has not voted the same as the other states I mentioned, historically

Florida is generally considered a purple state, I think. It has sometimes voted Democratic in presidential races, sometimes Republican. In contrast, the "deep south" states like Alabama and Mississippi, after Lyndon Johnson, have gone strongly Republican. Georgia and Texas have sometimes been close, I think, but still have gone Republican in every race since Carter, as far as I can recall.

South Carolina also came close in 2008, I believe, but in the end went red.

With all due respect, I was not trying to spin things or cast aspersions, I am just pointing out that a trend that has worked in Hillary's favor so far, will not be very dominant in the rest of the race.

[brush]

46. We're talking the Democratic primary here, not the general election

Clinton is highly favored to win the Florida primary and gain more delegates than Sanders towards the nomination.

[Live and Learn]

14. Hell yes, Even if Hillary does manage to win, it certainly won't be a Democratic mandate.

A mutiny is brewing and they would be well advised to acknowledge it. Oh, and we won't be made to HEEL.

[grasswire]

17. I will not heel for Hillary.

We need T shirts.

[Live and Learn]

18. Ooh, I like that! Good idea. nt

[DrDan]

15. ignoring Florida?

538 has it a 30+ finish for HLC

[Live and Learn]

19. Shouldn't all good Democrats after the Bush fisaco?

Present company excluded, of course.

[DrDan]

20. went to PBO twice - so probably not

[Live and Learn]

21. Not in the primary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2008_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries

[DrDan]

22. my mistake - I thought your "bush fiasco" referred to the GE

must apply elsewhere

[Live and Learn]

23. Yes, your mistake. We are not in the GE yet much as some like to pretend we are. nt

[DrDan]

24. yet you refer to a past GE - oh well - Florida PIRMARY looms . . . .

[Live and Learn]

25. And you are now pinning your hopes on Florida. Good luick with that.

I will be fine however Florida goes. This is not a game. It is about survival. If you win, we as a species die. That is the truth. If I win , we all win.

Either way, we all win or we all lose. So, either you celebrate a Bernie win of celebrate a species loss.

[DrDan]

26. well - I can't compete with that - the death of a species

pardon me if I don't share the self-claimed importance of your mission

[DrDan]

28. and chance for salvation lies with a career politician whose claim-to-fame is writing amendments

[Live and Learn]

29. Smear attempt noted and ignored. Bernie is the only one paying attention, he thinks it is the MOST

important issue and he is correct. If you don't see that, I really can't help you.

[Live and Learn]

30. Why did you use a religious term? Hillary is the only one attending a cult religious group. nt

[DrDan]

32. and thou accuse others of smears . . .

[DCBob]

33. Michigan, Illinois, Florida, Ohio, New York, Maryland, Pennsylvania...

are all big delegate states and will all go to Hillary.

[putitinD]

55. I predict Bernnie wil crush Hillary in Michigan on Tues.

[BlueMTexpat]

35. The question you SHOULD be asking

is this: Can Bernie win 60% of all pledged delegates remaining?

Hillary's leading in the polls in the remaining delegate-rich states, in some by significant margins. So 60% looks highly unlikely in those even if Bernie gets closer to Hillary percentage-wise. Hillary will also pick up delegates in states she loses. Even if Bernie pulls 60% of delegates in those (he didn't in NE, for example), Hillary will still increase her totals overall.

It's definitely a lopsided uphill battle. But I respect your support for your candidate nonetheless.

[DLnyc]

38. I'm not sure where you got 60%

so far, by RPC count, HC has 651 pledged delegates and BS has 456 pledged delegates

There are a total of 4051 pledged delegates, so a candidate would need 2026 to have a majority.

So HC needs 2026 - 651 = 1375 more, and BS needs 2026 - 456 = 1570 more.

The number of pledged delegates remaining should be the total minus those allocated or 4051 - (651 + 456) = 2944.

So I come up with:

HC needs to get 1375/2944 = .4671. . . = 46.7% of the remaining delegates.

BS needs to get 1570/2944 = .5333. . . = 53.3% of the remaining delegates.

So I repeat my original statement, the contest for the majority of the pledged delegates seems like it could go either way, especially considering that HC may not be getting the same big wins in the future, that she has recently in the deep south.

Again, I am not presenting this as spin. I feel this is an objective analysis. I don't think any of us really know how this will end up, with very different sizes and political leanings of states yet to come, stretched out over a fairly long period. So, as I said before, I think, with all due respect, that we will see how it plays out!

Although, in the interest of full disclosure, and to make one final point, I will say that I am pulling for Bernie, I will be doing phone banking today, and in a close contest, perhaps the decisive factor is which side works harder, not which side spins the facts better!

[BlueMTexpat]

41. No problem. Glad to hear that you

are phone banking for your candidate, as I am for mine, and have been for the past couple weeks. That's exactly the spirit that we need.

If you want to take a look at how the delegate count is working out, here's a good website. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_delegate_count.html

You can agree or disagree with me on the percentage. I'm merely repeating what the "experts" are saying. SuperDs are included in the total delegate count. Like it or not, Hillary already has 1,121 of the 2,382 delegates - including SuperDs - needed to win the nomination, i.e., nearly half-way there. Bernie has 481.

Hillary currently leads both in pledged delegates (651 to 456) and in total popular votes by a margin of >1.5 million. As noted before, she is leading in most polls, if not all, in the delegate-rich states remaining and is likely to win the majority of delegates in each. Bernie must first make up a deficit of nearly 200 delegates to break even before he can pull ahead, which is unlikely because Hillary will also keep adding to her totals, both in pledged delegates and in popular votes.

[DLnyc]

42. Okay, I see, but I don't think that is the relevant number.

If I recall correctly, Hillary also had the superdelegates on her side in 2008. But once Obama got the majority of the popular vote, i.e. the majority of the pledged delegates, the superdelegates decided to back him, rather than overturn the choice of the majority of the Democratic party. So "un-pledged" really does mean un-pledged -- they can go either way and they can, and likely will, shift if the pledged majority is with Bernie.

The point I was trying to make is that Bernie has done okay in the pledged delegates so far (456 to Hillary's 651, by RCP's count today), and may in fact do better in the remaining contests.

So, in my humble opinion, Bernie still has a very good shot at winning this thing, much too good a shot to be talking about giving up now!

[Garrett78]

51. Clinton won the popular vote in '08.

By a hair.

[JonLeibowitz]

53. And Obama outperformed in caucus states, as was his plan.

Popular vote does not include those, so his strategy necessarily disadvantaged him.

[Garrett78]

59. Other factors also disadvantaged him.

Such as disputed primaries.

Regardless, the 2008 race was very close. The 2016 race probably won't be--the larger states are likely to continue going for Clinton. Clinton and Obama are both neoliberal establishment types. The Clinton vs. Sanders dynamic is completely different. I think the Sanders campaign is less about winning the nomination and more about speaking out against neoliberalism and corporatization and holding Clinton accountable to positions she's forced to take in response to Sanders's challenge.

[beachbum bob]

36. Hillary will win Michigan, illinois, new York...and those

States are not in South and can't wait for sanders supporters excuses....

[Godhumor]

37. And OH, NJ and PA... N/t

[MineralMan]

39. Well, there's Florida, too.

They vote on March 15.

However, there are also all those industrial states, like Michigan, coming up, too. So far, a lot of the states have been Southern ones, but that's about to change. I think you'll see that Hillary does just fine in the states with high delegate counts, and that's really all that matters when it comes to the convention.

[DLnyc]

40. Yes, and there's California. And Washington, New York, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Arizona, Connecticut,

Oregon, Pennsylvania, . . . In short, a big variety of sizes and general demographics. So we will see how those go. But the ones that have been big winners for Hillary, the Deep South states, are pretty much done. Florida has not voted like the Deep South for a couple of decades, I thnk. I think of FL as a purple state, not a red state. Maybe Hillary will do well there, maybe she won't. But I really don't think it is likely she will get the kind of margin that she got in SC, GA, AL, LA, and TX. Of course, I don't know yet, I don't think anyone really knows for sure, although almost everyone seems to think they do.

My point was simply that Hillary's results so far may look better than what she'll get in the future, since the states with a similar political landscape to the ones in which she has had huge margins, are pretty much finished voting now! Of course, her results may look great in the upcoming states, that's what we will see as the contest goes on, I think!

[Garrett78]

43. Clinton doesn't need the same kind of margin.

When you're already behind, you can't afford to lose most or all of the states with a high number of delegates, even if you only lose by 5 or 10 percentage points. You can't make up enough ground with the likes of Nebraska, Kansas, Maine, Connecticut, Oregon, Idaho, Alaska and Wyoming.

In the big blue and purple states that remain, those with 100+ delegates, Clinton is a heavy favorite.

[DLnyc]

44. I agree, she needs less. She needs to get 47.7%, and Bernie needs to get 53.3%

of the remaining un-pledged delegates (see my post #35).

With all due respect, I would say Bernie is behind, but it's being spun as way behind, when really it's just a bit (namely 5.6%) behind. And, as I pointed out in the OP, the states going forward may be better for Bernie, on average, than the states we've done already.

So I don't know how it will play out, but I don't feel that painting it as "no chance for Bernie" is realistic, when the difference in pledged delegates needed is not that great and it's possible that the states still waiting to vote may not be as favorable to Hillary, on average, as were those that have already voted.

IMHO.

[Garrett78]

47. The states Sanders is most likely to win...

...are states with relatively few delegates and little diversity. That's not going to cut it.

[DLnyc]

49. Mostly so far. Except maybe Minnesota

which has 77 delegates and is less 'white' than some other states. Apparently Bernie got 61.6% of the votes there!

I would be interested to know where you are getting your "most likely to win" data, can you share the source there?

[Garrett78]

50. Minnesota was a caucus and is about 86% white.

Polls in larger states with more diversity (including those have already voted) indicate Clinton is a heavy favorite. Meanwhile, the states Sanders has won so far are relatively small states with little diversity. Now, those trends aren't set in stone, but they are more likely to continue than not. Meaning the states Sanders is most likely to win are states like Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Alaska, the Dakotas and the rest of New England. But even in those states, Clinton will win a proportion of the delegates, which aren't that numerous to begin with.

Sanders desperately needs wins in some larger states with more diversity, which means upending the trend and polling data. Could that happen? Sure. Is it highly unlikely? Yes.

[DLnyc]

69. Interesting

But I would add a couple of points:

Minnesota is probably less than 81% white, not 86% (compared to the US at 72%)
http://mn.gov/admin/demography/data-by-topic/age-race-ethnicity/ has Minn at 81% white and declining in 2014
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_States has US at 72% white in 2013

RCP had Clinton at +34 in mid January, but she lost to Bernie by 23 points on March 1.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/mn/minnesota_democratic_presidential_caucus-3585.html

So I myself wouldn't call a Sanders victory "highly unlikely" at this point. In fact I would say, given the history of oceans of ink over the last several months spilled assuring us all that today's realities could never possibly come to be, that it really remains to be seen how things are going to play out. Hence, I myself am a bit reluctant to state with certainty how things are going to play out. I think it all depends on a lot of things, including what Hillary says and does, what Bernie says and does, how the media spin and churn it all, to what degree various groups of people react to all the saying and doing and spinning and churning and, finally, who actually comes out and votes!

[Samantha]

56. And that is no accident -- the DNC scheduled states they thought Hillary would carry FIRST

so she could rack up a big lead immediately, augmenting their claim that she was inevitable. Well she was inevitable until those states concluded their voting. Now she has a REAL race to compete in, and it will not be easy. More and more people know Sanders' message now, they have been introduced to him, and they love his platform.

I don't count on Bernie carrying Florida because I think of DWS taking care of that for Hillary ....

Sam

[TBF]

45. They want us to give up before the north

and west vote. They (the Hillary campaign, supporters & press) can take a long walk off a short cliff afaic.

Everybody should get to vote. We cannot let this contest be decided by the states which are least likely to go blue in the general.

[aspirant]

48. Why does the DNC frontload all southern Dixie states first?

You think they would begin with our bluest of blue states so we could determine who is our strongest Electoral College candidate.

Trying to determine who is our most ConservaDem candidate and then doing there best to stop the process and crown a winner is silliness.

I wonder who in the past DNC's set-up this charade?

[Algernon Moncrieff]

62. Why don't we simply have a two or three tier primary in which all states vote at once?

New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina always vote first -- THAT's silliness.

[Garrett78]

64. I'm all for a series of national primaries.

Personally, I'd like every state to have their primary over the course of the same few days (maybe a Friday through Sunday in January--3 days to increase turnout), following 2 or 3 months of campaigning. The top 2 (or possibly 3 if a certain threshold is met) would advance, and the rest would have to drop out. After more campaigning, every state would once again hold a primary election (over the course of 3 days) and a nominee would be determined. Or there could possibly be a 3rd round. Endorsements would be allowed, of course. But there would be no such thing as a "superdelegate."

Generally, there's a frontrunner and several alternatives to the frontrunner. The problem is the alternatives tend to split the vote, which is an advantage to the frontrunner (it's not really an issue with the Democrats this year as it quickly became a 2-person race, but it is certainly an issue for the Republicans this year). That's why I would support an elimination round and then a 2nd (and possibly a 3rd) round to determine the nominee.

Also, I don't see why IA or NH or SC (or any single state) should have so much influence over the results (why should "momentum" be a factor in deciding who the nominee should be?). Especially states that don't mirror the overall electorate (South Carolina more closely mirrors the overall Democratic electorate than IA and NH do, but I still don't think any single state should have so much influence).

[Algernon Moncrieff]

66. Agree 100%

I'd simply do away with the delegates and the convention. I suggested in another post that if the candidate doesn't want to pick a Veep (and almost all do now), then the House Democratic caucus can simply decide.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

54. I just made a post on this topic

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511432279

So far, the percentage of African American voters in a state seems to be a solid indicator. Bernie Sanders has won states with an average 3.75% AA population, while Hillary Clinton has won states with an average AA population of 18.9%.

If this were to be continuing indicator, the next two weeks will be bad for Bernie Sanders, as the upcoming states are southern and/or have high AA populations: MS, MI, FL, NC, IL, OH. After that, the next two weeks would seem to favor Bernie Sanders, as a bunch of Western states, and Wisconsin with low AA populations vote. Then back to Hillary, as we run through the Mid-Atlantic East -- CT, NY, MD, PA, DE, and RI (both RI and CT should be close and could swing to Sanders); then a mixed bag to finish that is probably about 2-1 Sanders (and includes California -- which has a surprisingly low AA population according to the Kaiser Family Foundation) if the AA population theory is a good predictor -- which we will know better in about a week and a half.

[Garrett78]

57. 3.75 vs. 18.9

And guess which one of those numbers more closely resembles the overall/national Democratic electorate.

Winning a majority of delegates in small states that lack diversity isn't going to cut it, especially since Democrats don't have winner-take-all primaries, meaning Clinton gets a proportion of the delegates even in states like Nebraska and Idaho.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

61. Clinton should substantiay pad her lead before taking about 10-14 days of body blows from Sanders

The next batch of states are primaries in the South and the Industrial Midwest. Polling and statistics suggest they favor Clinton.

Then the race turns to the Rocky Mountain states and the West -- mostly caucuses (including WA)but some primaries (including WI). Lower delegate states with less diverse populations on the whole some exceptions, of course). These will allow Sanders some margin to catch up, but probably not to reach Clinton's totals or overtake her.

[Garrett78]

63. With the exception of WA and WI...

...the states that favor Sanders, like those that have already gone his way, don't have very many delegates/people.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

65. Agreed.

Even if Sanders wins the West Coast (likely), if Hillary takes the remainder of the South; the bulk of the industrial Midwest; and NY/NJ/MD/DC she should go on to win.

I'll readily concede Sanders supporters skew younger, and are very energetic in their support. The campaign reminds me more of Howard Dean's 2004 bid than Obama in 2008. A lot of long term good for the Party came out of Dean's failed efforts, and I suspect the same will be true of the Sanders campaign.

Having said all of that, Hillary Clinton can not let her foot off the gas. It's still close enough where a major gaffe or unexpected news development could put Sanders in a position to strike.

[Garrett78]

68. I don't think Sanders will win the West Coast.

Oregon and Washington, perhaps, but Clinton will likely win California by a wide enough margin that she'll more than cancel out Sanders's wins in the 2 states to the north. I suspect Clinton will also win Arizona and New Mexico. Sanders, meanwhile, is more likely to win the reddest of red states like Idaho and Wyoming. That's why the Clinton-red state meme is so silly.

[Lil Missy]

70. You are missing a lot of other states where Hillary is expected to win.

Very selective on your part. And boy, are you ever in for a surprise.

[mikehiggins]

71. Consider where Sanders started before you hand HRC the crown.

HRC is the declared candidate of the rich, the establishment and almost every elected official in the nation with a (D) after their names. She has a YUGE! war-chest funded by all sorts of folks willing and able to cough up the max as soon as she started her run, and backed up several very well funded super-pacs. She has a campaign staff headed by well known lobbyists and political operatives very well known in political circles, and so on and so forth. Her political resume includes such positions as Senator from New York State and Secretary of State of the United States. The Main Street Media, by and large, whether print or cable or broadcast, has been in the tank for her from the very first. The number of broadcasters who have lost their jobs for failing to support the HRC anointment includes any number of voices even slightly to the left. The fix was in to a degree unprecedented in recent political history.

Her opponent was a balding Jew from Brooklyn via Vermont with no money, little support and less chance of winning than Ross Perot did back in the day.

The fact that HRC has not crushed Sanders into the dirt by this point is simply amazing to his supporters and enraging to hers. Why is this happening? Here is something I copied from an earlier post dealing with some of the reasons.

The difference between Hillary, Sanders, and the Republicans:

* Sanders has supported gay rights since 40 years ago. Hillary and Republicans have not. 

* Sanders wants to end the prohibition of marijuana. Hillary & The Republicans do not. 

* Sanders wants to end the death penalty. Hillary and The Republicans do not. 

* Sanders wants to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Hillary and the Republicans do not. 

* Sanders wants to break up the biggest banks. Hillary and The Republicans do not. 

* Sanders voted against the Wall Street bailout. Hillary and the Republicans (and too many "Democrats) did not. 

* Sanders introduced legislation to overturn Citizens United. Hillary and The Republicans did not. 

* Sanders refuses to accept money from super PACs. Hillary and the Republicans do not. 

* Sanders supports a single-payer healthcare system. Hillary and The Republicans do not. 

* Sanders refrains from waging personal attacks for political gains. Hillary and The Republicans do not. 

* Sanders considers climate change our nation's biggest threat. Hillary and The Republicans do not. 

* Sanders opposed the Keystone XL Pipeline since day one. Hillary and the Republicans do not. 

* Sanders voted against the Patriot Act. Hillary and the Republicans did not. 

* Sanders voted against the war in Iraq. Hillary and The Republicans did not. 

* Sanders wants to Raise (or eliminate) the CAP on FICA deductions. Hillary and the Republicans do not. 

* Sanders opposes unrestricted "Free Trade". Hillary and the Republican do not. 

*Sanders wants to protect Social Security by Raising-the-Cap. Hillary and the Republicans do not because the top 1% will have to pay their fair share. 

*Sanders wants to diffuse the Middle East by NOT sending more weapons, Hillary and the Republicans do not. 

Most of these positions have high levels of support among rank and file Americans.

Maybe that is the answer?