Bernie Sanders for President

eddiec said:

In a way, aren't the super delegates basically the same thing as the electoral college but at the primary level?
I know it never happens but technically a candidate could win a state and the electoral college could go the other way if they wanted, no?

That whole system needs to go away. Delegates, Super Delegates, & Electorates. It should be raw vote count and nothing more or less.

Nate Silver was a Jedi in 2012. Correctly predicted the outcome in every swing state. His website, fivethirtyeight.com, currently gives Secretary Clinton a 60% chance of winning here in Massachusetts.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/massachusetts-democratic/

brianlux said:

JimmyV said:

Gern Blansten said:

at this point Sanders only has a chance to win Massachusetts....and Hillary is still favored there

Vermont too. But other than that? Being blown out in South Carolina and then being blown out across the South on Super Tuesday...I don't see the case for claiming this is still a competive race. Which is a shame.

A depressing thought, JimmyV. If Sanders gets blown off, the one thing we would do well to remember is that this is a growing movement in today's youth and if so, I hope the younger generations don't flake out like boomers did.

Which might make Clinton need Sanders as VP...to unite the clans

JimmyV said:

Gern Blansten said:

brianlux said:

JimmyV said:

Gern Blansten said:

at this point Sanders only has a chance to win Massachusetts....and Hillary is still favored there

Vermont too. But other than that? Being blown out in South Carolina and then being blown out across the South on Super Tuesday...I don't see the case for claiming this is still a competive race. Which is a shame.

A depressing thought, JimmyV. If Sanders gets blown off, the one thing we would do well to remember is that this is a growing movement in today's youth and if so, I hope the younger generations don't flake out like boomers did.

Which might make Clinton need Sanders as VP...to unite the clans

Agreed. If there was ever a year for a "unity" ticket this might be it.

probably the only way that she will get my vote.

JimmyV said:

Hillary vs. Trump, regardless of VP candidates, will have me looking at 3rd party options.

EDIT:

Either that or I'll hold my nose and vote for Hillary. For all her red flags and warts she is a better choice than Donald. As was Gore over Bush and I can't make the Nader mistake again. But I won't feel good about it either way.

Funny that you mentioned that because to me this is like 2000 over again.
With Donald and Hillary being so outright FAKE that I couldn't vote for either.
I know I will get a lot of shit from my dem friends but I can't do it.
She better put Bernie on the ticket or she will lose a lot of the young people's support.
btw: I don't consider myself a young person.

Free said:

jeffbr said:

JimmyV said:

Nate Silver was a Jedi in 2012. Correctly predicted the outcome in every swing state. His website, fivethirtyeight.com, currently gives Secretary Clinton a 60% chance of winning here in Massachusetts.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/massachusetts-democratic/

Ha, was just about to post this. He gives Sanders a 66% chance of winning in his polls-only forecast, but Clinton gets the 60% chance of winning in his polls-plus forecast, which includes polls and endorsements. Again, the superdelegates make it so that Sanders can't win.

All hearsay. You guys believe all the hearsay you here?

No. I believe people with a proven track record of being correct.

Gern Blansten said:

Remember how surprised the Fox News/Karl Rove crew was when the networks called the 2012 election for Obama so early?

That voting group has only gotten stronger. Trump does not stand a chance against Clinton or Sanders.

Maybe. Maybe not. Trump is breaking the mold by bringing in new voters. No one really thought the GOP was capable of doing that heading into this cycle. That combined with traditional Republicans coming out in droves to vote against Hillary Clinton could lead to record turnouts. That wasn't something we saw on the Republican side in 2008 or 2012 and no model predicted it for 2016. This could be a lot closer than many are predicting.

Free said:

JimmyV said:

Free said:

jeffbr said:

JimmyV said:

Nate Silver was a Jedi in 2012. Correctly predicted the outcome in every swing state. His website, fivethirtyeight.com, currently gives Secretary Clinton a 60% chance of winning here in Massachusetts.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/massachusetts-democratic/

Ha, was just about to post this. He gives Sanders a 66% chance of winning in his polls-only forecast, but Clinton gets the 60% chance of winning in his polls-plus forecast, which includes polls and endorsements. Again, the superdelegates make it so that Sanders can't win.

All hearsay. You guys believe all the hearsay you here?

No. I believe people with a proven track record of being correct.

So you believe some guy who tells his opinion. Real smart.

How about we just wait and see what happens instead of taking someone else's word for it. Kill your TV and go vote.

It isn't a TV, it is a website where polls and other data are analysed and odds are given. It is OK if you either don't understand how odds are made or distrust a guy who has shown incredible accuracy in the past. You don't have to agree with it or like it. But don't pretend to be more enlightened than those of us who are interested in numbers and analysis. Are you saying that you don't believe any of the polling numbers, endorsements, or math? Are you saying that you believe Sanders is immune to math, and will win due to some miracle or divine intervention? I guess I tend to look more at numbers and less at voodoo, but we will all have to wait until the convention to know for sure who gets the nod. I admire the dedication and devotion of some of you Sanders supporters even if I don't understand the willful ignorance of data.