Let's review why it was clear by mid-March who was going to end up with more pledged delegates.

[Garrett78]

It was suggested in another thread that saying Clinton's ultimate pledged delegate majority was evident by mid-March is a form of fantastical thinking. But it really isn't. As we near the end of the primary season, let's review why:

Following Super Tuesday (March 1) and Clinton's 5-state sweep on March 15, it was very apparent that Clinton was stronger in diverse, delegate-rich states. And that Clinton was stronger in primaries, as opposed to vote-suppressing caucuses. You see those patterns, you look at the contests to come, and you see the writing on the wall.

While Sanders hadn't been mathematically eliminated from reaching 2026 (even now he's not mathematically eliminated), there was no reason to believe those patterns would suddenly get flipped upside down (it would have taken something truly monumental). One could see that Clinton's lead would ebb and flow a bit, but it wasn't going away. And that's precisely what has happened. Not because some of us are fortune tellers, but because patterns were quite evident. We weren't reading tea leaves. We were simply observing what was obvious.

Numerous requests were made back in March for someone to demonstrate with delegate math a realistic path to victory for Sanders, and delegate calculators were readily available for use. The *only* attempt I ever saw was one dubbed The Bern Path, but it was utterly unrealistic, as I pointed out at the time (it had Sanders winning by large margins in PA, NY, NJ and CA, while only losing by 10 points in MD and 16 points in DC). And even then The Bern Path had Sanders just barely finishing ahead of Clinton in pledged delegates. Why was this unrealistic example the only one put forth? Because there simply wasn't a realistic path for Sanders, not after those aforementioned patterns became so evident. The denial of mathematical and demographic realities (or simply a failure to recognize them) justifiably earned the term BernieMath.

By the way, Clinton does better (overall) in urban areas. Urban areas are where polling place shortages are most likely to occur, which blows a pretty big hole in the theory that contests are rigged in Clinton's favor.

Technically, of course the primaries weren't "over" in mid-March. And of course nothing is "official" until the convention. Practically speaking, however, the writing was on the wall months ago.

[puffy socks]

1. "...which blows a pretty big hole in the theory that contests are rigged in Clinton's favor. "

Yes but they need a straw man to knock down to stroke their fragile egos after each Bernie loss.

[Jester Messiah]

2. So what you're saying is that you've got a flawless predictive model.

If that's the case, why even bother to hold elections?

[joshcryer]

3. It's good to know when you're behind.

So you can work to get ahead. I think Sanders' campaign put its head in the sand and just ignored the mathematical reality that they campaign was facing then, and it's why even now they argue about superdelegates when we are all in agreement they shouldn't decide the thing. At least we were until it became the only path to the nomination.

The gambit should've become NY, NJ, CA. It should've been clearly laid out, and it should've been a multi-week push in each state, alternating between them. Instead, they took an extraordinary gambit with the pope before NY, neglected CA for months, and aren't even in NJ to any significant degree. The mathematical window closed tighter and tighter each and every race there was a tie or there was a relative win for Sanders. Even as he was winning, he was losing.

[Garrett78]

4. No, what I'm saying is patterns were evident by mid-March.

And those patterns gave a very strong indication as to who would end up with a clear majority of pledged delegates. Is that true every primary season? Of course not. But it was this year.

Myself and others pointed those patterns out back in March. Again, we weren't reading tea leaves. The patterns were in neon lights.