Bernie Sanders just won landslides in 3 diverse states. He's still toast.

[Nonhlanhla]

Title of essay above. Good analysis.

From the essay: Characterizing the demographics of Sanders's support accurately is important. Saying that he does well in "white states" or with "white voters" exclusively can make it seem as if he's running some kind of white identity movement and erase the existence of his supporters of color.

All that said, offering the more nuanced explication of the ethnic dynamics of the race does not change the fundamental issue. Sanders is currently well behind Clinton in pledged delegates. To overtake her, he needs large blowout wins in large-population states that offer large troves of delegates. That means California (27 percent of delegates outstanding), New York (14 percent), Pennsylvania (11 percent), and New Jersey (7 percent).

Here are some reasons why such blowout victories in big upcoming states are unlikely to happen:...
...
Nothing about Sanders's performance in Washington or Hawaii or Alaska — or his early win in Utah — alters that perception. Had Sanders won Arizona, even narrowly, it would be a different story, as an Arizona win would have suggested that something had changed since his losses in Nevada and Texas. But that didn't happen.

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/28/11318160/bernie-sanders-hawaii-washington-alaska

[berni_mccoy]

1. OFFSNTSA

[Nonhlanhla]

2. I like Patrick Stewart a lot

and I love his character in Star Trek, but your little picture is not exactly a thoughtful response to what is actually a very thoughtful article.

The author gives credit to the Bernie camp's point that Bernie is not just the candidate of white people. At the same times it looks at the actual,nuanced demographic data and uses it to support his central thesis. That is basic good writing.

But then I suppose you did not really read the article, did you?

[Ed Suspicious]

3. You come in with a branded bias and you expect people to give your article a fair reading?

Look, I might make a nice point once in a while, but I know that when I give it wearing a Bernie button I'm not likely to convince many of Hillary's people.

[Nonhlanhla]

7. No, I don't expect anyone to actually read the article

But if someone is going to respond to it, then, yes, they should read the article.

[Logical]

28. Lol, very thoughful.

[Logical]

29. Any headline with "he's still toast" is not worth reading. Maybe be a little less of an asshole. Nt

[Nonhlanhla]

32. It's the title of the essay

And you're a rude jerk for calling me an asshole.

[Hortensis]

4. It's actually very sympathetic to Bernie. Read the article.

Thanks, Non.

[Nonhlanhla]

8. Exactly

I thought it was a very balanced article, quite sympathetic to Bernie, quite analytical about the whole picture.

[longship]

5. Oh boy, more of this:

Spin! Spin! Spin!

Everybody who spins forgets the story about the Zen Master and the Little Boy. It is one everybody should learn. And this is a true story -- not the Zen Master one, just the depicted telling of it. The important lesson here is what one learns from it.

Congressman Charlie Wilson (played by Tom Hanks here) and CIA operative Gust Avrogatos (played by Philip Seymour Hoffman) were real people and the real Charlie Wilson was a consultant on this, Mike Nichols' last film. Hanks was a producer. It is a wonderful film. And it is a true story. It is about the largest covert war ever which defeated the Soviets in Afghanistan. One drunkard Democratic congressman from Texas and an outcast CIA guy did it. The film is astounding, highly recommended.

Here's the scene about the Zen Master:

But as Congressman Charlie Wilson wisely said, "That ball, it keeps on bouncing."

We could learn a lot from Charlie and Gust, if we only opened ourselves to rather important things instead of petty differences.

[GreatGazoo]

6. Has the Clinton campaign entered a "Bagdad Bob" phase ?

They lost by 40%+ in the last states. Hello ?!

[HumanityExperiment]

9. Troll bait...

another one of these?

Let the remaining primaries to cast their votes, why do HRC supporters not want this primary cycle to stop whereas in '08 they didn't... Hmmmmm

[Nonhlanhla]

11. WTF?!

This is a very thoughtful article, and very balanced in its analysis. How the hell do you see it as troll bait?

Are Bernie supporters completely incapable of thoughtful conversation?

[HumanityExperiment]

12. yeah right...

let me know when an actual "very thoughtful article" is written and then I'll get back to you

Bernie is at 56% needed from remaining primaries to win

Is that still within 'toast' parameters? NOPE...

HRC supporters don't live in 'balanced' nor 'thoughtful' when it comes to the primary process, this is validated constantly by these trolling OPs

[Nonhlanhla]

14. You know what?

I really resent being called a troll. I posted an article that is very balanced and even positive towards Bernie while giving a thoughtful analysis of the upcoming races. If you want to dispute the points the author makes, why don't you do that, instead of calling me a troll?

[Katashi_itto]

15. Tough for you.

[HumanityExperiment]

17. yeah right...

You're a troll...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110770493#post4

and

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511592211#post15

[Nonhlanhla]

20. You are being disgusting

Having opinions that differ from Bernie supporters does not make someone a troll.

And once again, absolutely NO thoughtful response from any of you. Just attacks. It's pathetic.

Bye, placing you on ignore.

[HumanityExperiment]

21. Ok...

buh bye

[LWolf]

10. No.

We always knew the biggest fight would be the primaries. He may not prevail. Of course, he's still in the running, which I know frustrates the establishment. I'm still fighting, and will do so until the nomination is official and the convention is over.

Win or lose the primaries, though, he's grown the political revolution that's been brewing long before he threw his hat into the primary wing. If he loses the nomination, he'll go back to fighting for us in the Senate, and the revolution will continue. It will be harder of course; HRC, win or lose in November, will be as large an obstacle than Republicans. I doubt she'll win in November, though. I think the R will win, and the Ds will be forced into at least pretending to be an opposition party.

Either way, we've already won, and Clinton and the neo-liberal Democrats have already lost.

And, as Bernie proved in 1981, it's not a good idea to declare victory until every last vote is counted.

[Hortensis]

13. Sorry, repair and evolution yes, revolution no.

You guys can go into a major snit, insist that everyone else is destroying the country, and go back to whatever radicals were doing since the 1970s, just sitting around hating liberals while conservatives dragged our nation into the gutter I think, or you can join other progressives to fix the country, including Bernie. Strictly your choice.

[Katashi_itto]

16. Yep it is our choice. We are happy to play chicken in a system that has already deserted us.

I will vote my conscience

[Hortensis]

18. Deserted you or you deserted it?

I have suspected for a long time that most of Bernie's far left supporters probably have not been involved all that much, including educating themselves and exercising their responsibility to vote. Adults who don't vote are deserters of their responsibility as citizens by definition.

That Bernie supporters on DU constantly blame liberals and democrats for everything our country has done always makes me wonder:

WHERE WERE YOU while the wave of conservative power was dragging us into the gutter? What was your part in this? If you really think we could have stopped it and don't know that we weren't able to, what can one think except that you weren't there and that's why you don't know?

Or maybe it's all hypocrisy. That's a possibility too. Do you resent and despise us because we are the reflection of your own bad choices and mistakes? Of all the times you didn't do enough, didn't fight, didn't bother, didn't understand what was happening and betrayed your own beliefs with your choices?

Some here undoubtedly, at least for a while (years?), thought the GOP was in the right and supported their actions. Do BSers hate knowing that everything that has gone wrong is as much your fault as anyone's because you let it happen, in some cases even helped make it happen?

[Katashi_itto]

19. There is only one hypocrite in this conversation and its not me.

"WHERE WERE YOU while the wave of conservative power was dragging us into the gutter?"

Likely during part of that phase I was an unwilling participant in desert storm.

What were you doing?

[Hortensis]

23. BUT, did you educate yourself and vote

knowledgeably and responsibly? I am guessing no to the second part. Imo, those who are responsible and knowledgeable about their political duties display it in their attitudes. They always, always know nothing is black and white, and their knowledfe and understanding dont allow them to reduce issues to foolish good-us versus bad-them labels.

BTW, our son was in Desert Storm and has usually voted and, I am very proud to say, always been able to hold sensible political discussions. Our daughter too!

[Katashi_itto]

24. Good for your son and daughter, what about you?

The system is corrupt. So is your candidate.

[Hortensis]

33. Which comes first? The extremists need to

believe that their extreme "solutions," always requiring destruction of existing systems, are the only ones that will save their nations? Or the conviction that all existing systems and people (the "establishment&quot are so corrupt that extremists (the white-hat ones) have no choice but to destroy? And get them out of the way so extremists can take over?

I'll give you a clue. The extremist need always comes first and the need creates the convictions of absolute corruption, and whatever else desired, to feed it.

[Katashi_itto]

35. Still not answering huh?

Lol

[Hortensis]

36. Okay: My BIL talked me out of joining the

military during Vietnam after graduating high school and getting some quick, minimal training in some medical skill. I was against the war but wanted to help all the guys I knew in high school who were graduating very unhappily to Vietnam. (Draft numbers were a major topic back then.) I hadn't gone to college, yet, however, and my BIL knew that enlisted women back then were typically treated as...I think one of the words he used was "skanks." In any case, he'd been over there and was returning for another tour and was appalled at the very idea of my going as a lowly enlisted woman. He convinced me to go to college first, and later on the war ended.

Now, about my question as to your efforts to properly educate yourself to be a good citizen?

My belief is that most extremists talking as you do need to believe the Democratic Party and a few people whose names they bothered to learn are outrageously corrupt. They need to believe that to justify to themselves what is to my view is the outrageously dishonest, hostile, and ignorant behavior typical of extremists. (Extremes of attitudes, and the behaviors they generate, are how political groups get tagged with that label.)

Behaviors that literally would threaten democracy itself and destabilize and threaten the continuation of our nation if they could somehow prevail are by definition extremist in our nation. Clue: In a democracy, candidates don't always win just because we want them to. We don't do "purges" and the "masses" or "Southern states" aren't dehumanized units to be controlled but individual citizens who all have the right and duty to vote their decisions. Many on this forum have called for oppression, not realizing just what they were doing (which goes back to the lack of self education and self honesty). I've read a number of posts even suggesting that much religious practice should be made illegal, and a bunch of other wishful crimes against life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Especially any and all that get in the way of their "revolution." (Like closed primaries. LOL.)

Actually, I no longer remember what my original question is. I've answered your challenge, though, so you answer mine by showing me that you are not an extremist whose intellect and moral code are enslaved to far-left emotion, but instead how you have, in fact, invested most of your passion in learning what you need to know to vote responsibly.

You are passionate about Hillary, for instance. You should therefore be able to rattle off at least several of the policy goals she holds now that have changed little, or not at all, since she was in college (she's always been a policy nerd, so you'll be familiar enough with 30 years of documentation). I'll settle for that -- Go!

[Katashi_itto]

37. One of the architects of TPP, was for it, then against it...now for it...at least this week.

Anti-glass steagall. Or maybe now for it temporarily.

Moreover, she has reversed her positions on gay marriage, immigration, gun control, the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact, mass incarceration and the Iraq War, and some believe her recent stand on the Keystone XL pipeline constitutes a flip, too.

Also During President Bill Clinton’s administration, political flexibility was associated with triangulation—that is, taking a position that was above right or left and allowed Clinton to cherry-pick from his foes’ ideas and incorporate them into his own.

Instead of triangulating, Hillary Clinton shapeshifts, guided less by a grand ideology and more by grand ambition. After all, what good is consistency if it doesn’t bring you to power?

[Hortensis]

39. I asked a simple question anyone interested in

Hillary Clinton should be able to answer in seconds -- opponent or supporter. Here, then, a second try but even easier: Name just...4 of the major policy goals she has supported with little or no change since her college days.

Hillary has been boring audiences in person and on TV and readers for three decades now by promoting a much longer list of needed progressive changes and advances, so this challenge should be nothing for someone who is paying so much attention to issues.

So, go: Just a lousy four. For yourself, dont bother answering me because this has gotten old. Here's a clue -- she's hit more than this in every debate.
1.
2.
3.
4.

But if you have found you DON'T KNOW this very basic but terribly important information about one lousy super-famous person who may just be our next president, how about every other issue you think you understand?

[Katashi_itto]

40. So I answered your question and now you want another question answered without even acknowleging

I answered your original question correctly.

We are done.

[LWolf]

22. And it's strictly your choice in how you choose

to frame other people's choices. "Snit," "go back to," "just sitting around hating," etc..

Some of us don't see through your lens.

Thank goodness.

[Cobalt Violet]

25. doesn't mention her 147 FBI investigator lead.

How can they ignore that math. She is toast.

[eomer]

26. Wrong. Bernie does not necessarily need "large blowout" wins in those four largest states.

If Bernie gets 53% of delegates in those four largest remaining states and 59% of delegates in the other remaining states then he will have gotten 988 delegates to Clinton's 759. This would make Bernie the winner by a count of 2,026 to 2,025.

The above is just an example. I'm not saying it is a likely scenario, just that it is hypothetically possible. Since the OP article isn't talking about likely scenarios either but rather is acting as if it is presenting something that is mathematically inevitable, I'm refuting it by showing a purely hypothetical example.

If Bernie gets 56.6% across the board (consistently or in any pattern of offsetting ups and downs) he will have gotten the 988 remaining delegates he needs. A large blowout would be something larger than 53% or 56.6%. Bernie does not necessarily need a large blowout in those four largest remaining states.

[Tarc]

30. What's you're basically counting on here is winning a Powerball jackpot

This fanciful scenario puts him up a single delegate. As soon as you toss some cold reality water on a just 3 of those projections...Sanders will lose Kentucky, PR, and DC somewhere in the 65-70% range, for starters...he sinks back to 2nd place.

[eomer]

31. Actually that's an entirely different analysis than what the article attempted.

And, no, I specifically stated that the ups and downs have to total up to 56.6%, not that he has to get 56.6% everywhere.

So to realistically analyze the chances you would have to look state by state and have some idea what the likely outcomes are. It seems really clear that no one is able to do that - no one really knows how any one state will come out, much less how every one of them will.

In reality no one really knows what the chances are to any degree that is helpful. We're going to have to just see how the votes come out. That's great in my opinion.

[SidDithers]

27. DU rec...nt

Sid

[Orsino]

34. Partial analysis.

Do people just not get that the primary is about more than just a winning number of delegates? If Sanders finishes second, he is no more "toast" than was 2008's runner-up, of whom some might have heard.

The primary is also about influence, for which serious candidates should wrestle for as long as they want. People declaring the primary over don't understand primaries, conventions OR presidencies.

[AgadorSparticus]

38. 538 says it doesn't really matter if he doesn't win in the big states

And get at least 57%.