NYT: The Democratic coalition ≠ True Leftists and coastal liberal elites

[IceSpear]

Ironic coming from the NYT, considering how many "Hillary not inevitable!", "Hillary vulnerable!", "Democrats uneasy about Hillary!", "Democrats desperate for Hillary alternative!", etc. etc. stories they've published.

[IceSpear]

Pointless article. Sanders isn't the race to win and he knows this, otherwise he would have run as an Independent. He wants to debate Clinton on national TV.

His chances are obviously extremely slim regardless, but he'd have a better shot at winning as a Democrat than an independent. If he somehow managed to win the nomination, he'd at least start with 40-45% of the vote. As an independent he'd be lucky to crack 5%.

[IceSpear]

Pointless article. Sanders isn't the race to win and he knows this, otherwise he would have run as an Independent. He wants to debate Clinton on national TV.

His chances are obviously extremely slim regardless, but he'd have a better shot at winning as a Democrat than an independent. If he somehow managed to win the nomination, he'd at least start with 40-45% of the vote. As an independent he'd be lucky to crack 5%.

I'd say his slim chances are higher as independent. The intrigue of a serious independent candidacy brings out high turnout from people who normally check out of the political process. 1992 was a huge year.

He'd have an easier time convincing 30% of Democrats, 30% of Independents, and 10% of Republicans in a general than 51% of Democrats to roll the dice on him being able to win. Both impossible scenarios, but one slightly less so.

Assuming a similar partisan breakdown to '12, that would only give him 24%. There's also the problem that even if he won a plurality, the electoral college would probably shut him out, with the GOP House electing the Republican anyway.