Is this a viable path to the nomination for Sanders?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Is that assuming the superdelegates stay with Hillary?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The final nail in the coffin for Sanders was the Latino vote in TX.  Obviously Hillary has the black vote, and Bernie and her seem to trade off with the white vote depending on the state. So if it were true (as the exit poll from Nevada indicated) Sanders was winning with Latinos, then he had a shot. But actual precinct data put into doubt that NV exit poll and now with TX, it was clear that Sanders isn't winning with Latinos, which puts NM, AZ, FL and CA out of reach too and that is pretty much the ballgame, even if he could somehow pull off some wins in the rust belt.

He won Nevada Hispanics.

HE DIDN'T! QUIT SAYING IT.

It wasn't just the exit poll. The William C. Velasquez Institute found similarly.

[Likely Voter]

The final nail in the coffin for Sanders was the Latino vote in TX.  Obviously Hillary has the black vote, and Bernie and her seem to trade off with the white vote depending on the state. So if it were true (as the exit poll from Nevada indicated) Sanders was winning with Latinos, then he had a shot. But actual precinct data put into doubt that NV exit poll and now with TX, it was clear that Sanders isn't winning with Latinos, which puts NM, AZ, FL and CA out of reach too and that is pretty much the ballgame, even if he could somehow pull off some wins in the rust belt.

He won Nevada Hispanics. People have said he's won Colorado Hispanics. I think he didn't do too badly with Massachusetts minorities.

Data on Nevada is ambiguous at best and been called into question. THere is no data from CO, so that is unknown. As for MA, again there is no Latino breakout, but he lost non-whites 61/39 and Latinos are the largest portion of non-whites in MA.  And when you look at southern states where they breakout non-whites and blacks, the numbers are about the sames, meaning that Latinos, Asians and Other are not helping Sanders to offset losses with blacks. The one state where that isn't true is OK, and so the assumption is that he did well with the large native American population.

But again, there is only one state with unambiguous data on Latinos and that is TX, where he got crushed. And that is also a primary, not a caucus.  Recent polling also shows Sanders doing poorly in NM, which has a good number or liberal whites, so again if he were winning with Latinos he should be ahead.  Same is true for polling in FL.

This gets to my original point, if Sanders was winning Latinos, then he had a shot. So far, there is no evidence that is going to happen.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The final nail in the coffin for Sanders was the Latino vote in TX.  Obviously Hillary has the black vote, and Bernie and her seem to trade off with the white vote depending on the state. So if it were true (as the exit poll from Nevada indicated) Sanders was winning with Latinos, then he had a shot. But actual precinct data put into doubt that NV exit poll and now with TX, it was clear that Sanders isn't winning with Latinos, which puts NM, AZ, FL and CA out of reach too and that is pretty much the ballgame, even if he could somehow pull off some wins in the rust belt.

He won Nevada Hispanics. People have said he's won Colorado Hispanics. I think he didn't do too badly with Massachusetts minorities.

Data on Nevada is ambiguous at best and been called into question. THere is no data from CO, so that is unknown. As for MA, again there is no Latino breakout, but he lost non-whites 61/59 and Latinos are the largest portion of non-whites in MA.  And when you look at southern states where they breakout non-whites and blacks, the numbers are about the sames, meaning that Latinos, Asians and Other are not helping Sanders to offset losses with blacks. The one state where that isn't true is OK, and so the assumption is that he did well with the large native American population.

But again, there is only one state with unambiguous data on Latinos and that is TX, where he got crushed. And that is also a primary, not a caucus.  Recent polling also shows Sanders doing poorly in NM, which has a good number or liberal whites, so again if he were winning with Latinos he should be ahead.  Same is true for polling in FL.

This gets to my original point, if Sanders was winning Latinos, then he had a shot. So far, there is no evidence that is going to happen.

The exit polls and some institute showed he won Nevada Hispanics. People have mentioned evidence that he won Colorado Hispanics, but I haven't looked too closely at that. For what it's worth, he did win Oklahoma Native Americans.

[This account no longer in use.]

The final nail in the coffin for Sanders was the Latino vote in TX.  Obviously Hillary has the black vote, and Bernie and her seem to trade off with the white vote depending on the state. So if it were true (as the exit poll from Nevada indicated) Sanders was winning with Latinos, then he had a shot. But actual precinct data put into doubt that NV exit poll and now with TX, it was clear that Sanders isn't winning with Latinos, which puts NM, AZ, FL and CA out of reach too and that is pretty much the ballgame, even if he could somehow pull off some wins in the rust belt.

He won Nevada Hispanics.

HE DIDN'T! QUIT SAYING IT.

I love how you get so worked up by Jfern, of all people.

[Landslide Lyndon]

The final nail in the coffin for Sanders was the Latino vote in TX.  Obviously Hillary has the black vote, and Bernie and her seem to trade off with the white vote depending on the state. So if it were true (as the exit poll from Nevada indicated) Sanders was winning with Latinos, then he had a shot. But actual precinct data put into doubt that NV exit poll and now with TX, it was clear that Sanders isn't winning with Latinos, which puts NM, AZ, FL and CA out of reach too and that is pretty much the ballgame, even if he could somehow pull off some wins in the rust belt.

He won Nevada Hispanics. People have said he's won Colorado Hispanics. I think he didn't do too badly with Massachusetts minorities.

Data on Nevada is ambiguous at best and been called into question. THere is no data from CO, so that is unknown. As for MA, again there is no Latino breakout, but he lost non-whites 61/39 and Latinos are the largest portion of non-whites in MA.  And when you look at southern states where they breakout non-whites and blacks, the numbers are about the sames, meaning that Latinos, Asians and Other are not helping Sanders to offset losses with blacks. The one state where that isn't true is OK, and so the assumption is that he did well with the large native American population.

But again, there is only one state with unambiguous data on Latinos and that is TX, where he got crushed. And that is also a primary, not a caucus.  Recent polling also shows Sanders doing poorly in NM, which has a good number or liberal whites, so again if he were winning with Latinos he should be ahead.  Same is true for polling in FL.

This gets to my original point, if Sanders was winning Latinos, then he had a shot. So far, there is no evidence that is going to happen.

Even in Colorado evidence suggests that he got creamed among Latinos.
For example, in the state's most Latino-heavy counties (Conejos, Costilla) Clinton beat Sanders by almost 20 points.

[Figueira]

FWIW, here is the map I predict if every state is competitive to the end.

LYNDON ADMITS THAT CLINTON IS A SECRET REPUBLICAN!

[Figueira]

For what it's worth, he did win Oklahoma Native Americans.

Source? I can't find any info on Native Americans from the exit polls.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

For what it's worth, he did win Oklahoma Native Americans.

Source? I can't find any info on Native Americans from the exit polls.

He won non white and non blacks 55-39, and they were mostly Native Americans, so he presumably won them. Also he did quite well in the eastern counties that are the highest percent Native American, of them being 44% Native American.

[Ogre Mage]

Sanders getting enough delegates for the nomination is still technically possible but it would require a complete collapse by Hillary Clinton sometime soon and I don't see that happening.  If she does well on March 15 there will be no path at all.

[Panhandle Progressive]

Sanders getting enough delegates for the nomination is still technically possible but it would require a complete collapse by Hillary Clinton sometime soon and I don't see that happening.  If she does well on March 15 there will be no path at all.

This is correct. She should have somewhere in the range of 1500-1600 total delegates once Super Tuesday part II is finished. At that point she will have under 900 delegates remaining for the clinch.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

American Samoa has 200 or 250 odd votes, any1 making a judgement concerning that voting, is incredibly stupid.

Sanders can win, New York is a long distance away, Sanders can bring a head of steam by then.

He has to pull a close result in NC, Florida & win Ohio, Illinois, Missouri, etc.

And he has to win PA & CA by 15% odd points IMO.

He does have a path - But he can't loose any state big after Louisiana & Mississippi & has to get a string of 60% vote wins.

And any1 saying Hillary won Texas vote & making a blanket assumption is weird. Sanders won the Hispanic vote in Nevada, he won the Black vote in Minnesota comfortably. So these tend to be skewed to the winners.

No... it's very very very clear he didn't. So I assume you think Sanders only won the white vote in NV by 2%?

Anyway, long story short, regardless of that. Sanders cannot win the nomination without a Clinton implosion.

[rbt48]

Sanders only chances to win the nomination are:
1.  If Clinton is indicted.  Even then, I'd expect Biden or Warren to get the nomination if she is effectively eliminated from consideration.
2.  Only people under 30 years of age are allowed to vote in remaining caucuses/primaries.

[Panhandle Progressive]

2.  Only people under 30 years of age are allowed to vote in remaining caucuses/primaries.

This one is probably even worse, especially for Southern states and others with high minority populations. I'd assume Clinton would still win in these state primaries even if only under 30 were allowed to vote.