2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumLooking at this chart, it's obvious that Bernie doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning
Obama's 90 delegate lead at this point in 2008 proved to be insurmountable because of proportional allocation.
Hillary currently has a 300+ delegate lead over Bernie.
---------------------
<...>
The below doesn't include superdelegates, the unpledged delegates that cause so many complaints. This is earned delegates, the people committed to Clinton and Sanders through voting. Clinton's lead over Sanders is now 2.7 times the biggest lead Barack Obama had over her at any point in 2008.
This isn't insignificant. Because the Democratic calendar features only proportional contests -- no winner-take-alls -- it means that Sanders can't simply win a California and make up a big chunk of that gap. He needs to win big states big.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/16/bye-bye-bernie-the-democratic-race-is-all-but-over/
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Her supporters have driven Bernie fans to the other woman: Jill.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Because Hillary supporters have been mean to them?
Boo hoo hoo....
all american girl
(1,788 posts)decision...at least that's what the Bernie supporters said. Now I'm very confused.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Lucinda
(31,170 posts)Looking very good!
CalvinballPro
(1,019 posts)Super-delegates in states that he won should be bound to vote according to the state's wishes, i.e. for him. Super-delegates in states Clinton won, however, should violate their voters' will and vote for Sanders anyway.
Does he not even understand how dishonest this argument is? That only Sanders voters should have their votes acknowledged?
6chars
(3,967 posts)it is not good news for Bernie.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,912 posts)...proportional allocation".
No, actually it was because Obama was too popular in the rest of the races for Clinton to catch up to him, That is the honest truth. That is what it boiled down to. It was a contest between two candidates, each drawing comparable support in the second half of the campaign - so Clinton could not close the gap that year against Obama.
You can certainly argue, and no doubt you do, that Sanders will not be popular enough in the remaining states to make up the current difference and win. But every election is different.
Trenzalore
(2,331 posts)The margins weren't substantial enough after this point in order for her to make up the difference.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,912 posts)I do not dispute that it is better to have a delegate lead than not to have a delegate lead, or that it takes a more impressive string of performances to overcome a large delegate gap than a small one. I am just saying that the 2008 race had its own unique dynamics, as does the 2016 race. Bernie beat Hillary by a lot more in NH than she beat Obama by there last time. Results in the South were way more lop sided this time. Who knows how Washington will vote this time etc.? The odds obviously strongly favor Hilary, but the contest is not yet so far along that a series of strong Sanders victories now, building momentum for other strong Sanders victories later, could not still close this gap. Different people, different time.
Trenzalore
(2,331 posts)I also think when it becomes apparent that he has little chance of securing enough delegates the focus should shift to talking about his message and not attacks on his opponent.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)Trenzalore
(2,331 posts)and your quarterback broke his ankle.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... eventually.
Logical
(22,457 posts)lostnfound
(16,170 posts)Gotta find seeming good in this situation.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)I like your sense of humor.