Do any Bernie supporters here still think he can win?

[ProgressiveCanadian]

So this is a bash Bernie supporters thread? Real classy.

Yea it's pretty much that. Pretty unbearable TBH.

Do you think he can still win?  If so, explain your reasoning.

I say let the people vote, we still have the other HALF of the country to count.

[Wells]

He could win, but it would take a miracle (or an indictment). So, I've moved on to supporting Hillary against Trump in the general.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Theoretically yet, but the odds are very, very slim.

Here's your answer.

[Leinad]

I've never been a Bernie supporter, but I've openly preferred him out of the Democrats since Chafee dropped out. I'll go with what some of the others have said: he could still technically win, but it's very unlikely.

I know you're posing this as an "honest question," but your original post is basically "look at these idiots who still think he can win, do we have anyone that idiotic here?" I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that it really was an honest question, but I could clearly see how someone would interpret it differently.

[DS0816]

Prior to Tuesday, March 15, 2016, there were 21 states which had held their caucuses and primaries for Democrats. Five more on that date brought it up to 26 states.

Hillary Clinton ekeing out wins in Blue Firewall states by less than 3 percentage points were made possible because the two oldest voting-age groups—45 to 64 and 65+—represented a larger size of the votes cast than that of the two youngest voting-age groups.

This doesn't change results. It just forces the winning campaign, for nomination, to review and assess how to shore up the weaknesses.

Bernie Sanders should not end his campaign. He has a hell of coalition—18 to 29, from which he has had support in so many states with 80 or more percent, was the only voting-age group which carried for the losing 2004 Democrat John Kerry. In elections the Democrats don't win, 18 to 29 are their back support. (In close states, or in ones he wins, he carries 30 to 44 voters by +10 or more.)

In the general election, Hillary Clinton, if she's ends up the nominee and going to win election to the presidency of the United States, is going to need about 95 percent of those Bernie Sanders' numbers. That's because, when you look at self-identifying Republicans and Democrats, the winning party typically holds party support by over 90 percent (something like 92 or 93 percent). With 18 to 29 generally the strongest voting-age group for Democrats, upping that by two to three percent is a realistic estimate. (We don't know yet the direction of the 2012/2016 shift nationwide and state after state.)

On CNN's 03.15.2016 Election Night coverage, Paul Begala said something along the lines that he senses we're approaching a point in which the Democratic Party is going to get serious. Well, the caucuses and primaries are serious. The coalition for Bernie Sanders, with all their votes cast, are serious. And if Bernie Sanders doesn't win the nomination, and Hillary Clinton does, the Hillary Clinton Campaign wanting to seriously win the November 8, 2016 United States presidential election will have to earn the serious support of about 95 percent of the votes cast in the caucuses and primaries for Bernie Sanders. That cannot be done without taking Bernie Sanders's platform as a part of Hillary Clinton's. And I perceive the Bernie Sanders platform as one that is more ideologically driven toward the left. And that means the Clinton DLC Democrats are going to have to get in touch with the previous FDR New Deal Democrats for a new modern party. Fail to do that…the Democrats will lose more than just with midterm elections.

[GOP732]

Hate to say it, but Bernie supporters are positively sane compared to the disillusions held by Rubio/ Kasich supporters. 

[Chaddyr23]

Not this one, I just send the other Bernie backers the delegate count and say time to not bash the presumptive nominee. They are in still the denial phase

[Smash255]

Barring something major happening in the race, no.  The states that are left do favor him, but he needs to win 58% of the remaining delegates.  Some of those he isn't going to win and others. will be close, so he is going to need to average over 60% of the delegates in a bunch of states.  Getting 60% of delegates in a handful of states?  Yes, average 60% or so in 10-15 states?  Virtually no chance.  The race isn't over, but its about as close to being as over as it can possibly get unless something major happens.

[Gustaf]

If you don't think Bernie can win, pointing that out isn't an insult. If you do think he can win there is no reason to run away from the thread, you could just point out how delusional Joe is being.

The choice to not respond beyond some whining is pretty telling. Race is over and while Sanders can feel free to stay in the race if he wants his supporters should start thinking about their general election choice more.

[The Other Castro]

Nah I've moved on. Just when I thought I was out with South Carolina, y'all try to pull me back in with Michigan. I can count to 50%+1, and the numbers just aren't there.

[Dr. Arch]

Honestly, no. I'm still voting for him in the primary here in WI, but I don't think so. I've already had multiple clashes online with Sanders supporter groups because I'm not "passionate or dedicated" enough. I'm just living in reality and he would need to beat Clinton in her home state by reasonable margins and win the rest -MD and -NJ by ridiculous margins, including CA, not happening...

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Secondly, somebody else posted this brain-melting article from some low-energy #analyst:

One of my FB friends posted that as well and I thought for a good moment I started hallucinating or something.

[°Leprechaun]

Logic says "YES". Common sense says "NO". Of course he can still win. Clinton supporters KNOW this, otherwise they would stay home and not bother to vote.
I'll go with logic. I am an atheist, but not all Clinton supporters are, so I refer you to "David v Goliath". Clinton has a huge lead. It doesn't look good for Sanders, and I feel like giving up. Sanders has not given up. Why should he?

Can he win the nomination? yes. Will he? Probably unlikely unless Clinton supporters get smart and realize reality.
Clinton could lose the general election. (although probably not, of course). Sanders does better in the general election.
So the simple answer is "YES" he can win if more people are willing to vote for him.
If you look at the LONG TERM, the question is not just whether Clinton can win in 2016, but whether she can also win in 2020. Why not go for the real winner, Sanders?

The question is not whether Sanders will win, but whether all the voters voices should be heard. I can vote for him if his name is on the ballot (or write his name in if it is not) even if he drops out, in the primaries (and in the general election as well). Although I haven't currenlty decided to do the latter.
I am not being unrealistic. I am not saying that a Sanders victory is likely only that there is no reason to stop suporting him.

[Blair]

Even on the reddit page for Sanders a fair chunk of his supporters accept that he can't win.

They just seem to be saying 'he fights for me, I'll fight for him' or talking about getting the eldery/African-Americans to start voting for him (6 months too late) It's just like Hillary in 08

[emailking]

Probably unlikely unless Clinton supporters get smart and realize reality.
Clinton could lose the general election. (although probably not, of course). Sanders does better in the general election.

If the election could be magically arranged for tomorrow then yes, Sanders would do better. The polls show that.  But there's a real question whether that will hold after a general election campaign and people become more familiar with his views. it could be the case that right now many independents are turned off by Clinton but see Sanders as Generic D.

If you look at the LONG TERM, the question is not just whether Clinton can win in 2016, but whether she can also win in 2020. Why not go for the real winner, Sanders?

A zillion different things could happen between now and 2020. Clinton could have 70% approvals and win in a landslide. Or her approvals could be in the gutter and she carries DC only. The same could be true for Sanders. Or even Trump.

I agree with you Sanders' supporters have a right to have their voices heard. And it's probably a good thing for the party if both Clinton and Sanders keep campaigning, as it will engage more people in the process and lay groundwork for the general, including downballot.

[°Leprechaun]

Probably unlikely unless Clinton supporters get smart and realize reality.
Clinton could lose the general election. (although probably not, of course). Sanders does better in the general election.

If the election could be magically arranged for tomorrow then yes, Sanders would do better. The polls show that.  But there's a real question whether that will hold after a general election campaign and people become more familiar with his views. it could be the case that right now many independents are turned off by Clinton but see Sanders as Generic D.

If you look at the LONG TERM, the question is not just whether Clinton can win in 2016, but whether she can also win in 2020. Why not go for the real winner, Sanders?

A zillion different things could happen between now and 2020. Clinton could have 70% approvals and win in a landslide. Or her approvals could be in the gutter and she carries DC only. The same could be true for Sanders. Or even Trump.

I agree with you Sanders' supporters have a right to have their voices heard. And it's probably a good thing for the party if both Clinton and Sanders keep campaigning, as it will engage more people in the process and lay groundwork for the general, including downballot.

Ultimately we'll never know "what would have been", but I hear the argument that Clinton would do better, and don't see that as  a valid argument. Just my opinion, of course.

[RightBehind]

Yeah. I do believe that, and my support is not ending just yet.

[IceSpear]

Salon is even worse.
Sad!

https://www.salon.com/2016/03/16/our_nominee_is_a_disaster_time_may_be_running_out_but_democrats_will_come_to_rue_clinton_over_sanders/

Bryan Pagliano’s immunity will allow him to tell the FBI every detail of Clinton’s server, in addition to why she had the server in the first place. The moment Bryan Pagliano was given immunity was the moment Bernie Sanders became the nominee; indictments are most likely around the corner.

...

That being said, Bernie Sanders is still the front-runner. Clinton could get FBI and Justice Department indictments at any moment, and future primaries are favorable to Sanders. This is far from over.

Funnily enough, even Salon's own readership is starting to turn on them. Just look at the top comments:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And this is from a vehemently anti-Hillary website, when finding a pro-Hillary comment even on a neutral site is like finding a needle in a haystack. I noticed the same thing on the NYT as well. The professional pundits may continue their hate mongering/temper tantrums for clicks, but the anti-Hillary blockade is already beginning to fall among the proletariat.

[IceSpear]

Oh, and the "true progressive who will accept no substitutes for Bernie" who wrote that piece is a former Paulbot. LMAO. Just when you thought it couldn't get any funnier.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

This is why I think there should be oe simultaneous primary (with internal controls on party funding). It's cruel to stretch people's hopes like we're seeing.

[Virginiá]

I love how some of this forum's biggest Bernie supporters came here and either took offense to the proposition Hillary will win, or flat out denied the reality facing Sanders.

Originally made for Trump but edited for Sanders:

[PeteB]

I would say he can win, but I do not necessarily define "win" as being the Democratic nominee.  I do think that ship has sailed some time ago.  Of course, if Clinton is indicted, all bets are off.

However, I am thinking that a lot of Sanders' policies could get serious consideration under a potential Clinton administration.  Sanders should stay in and see where this goes.  He already has substantial leverage and, depending on other developments, his position may only be improved!

[Gass3268]

Salon is even worse.
Sad!

https://www.salon.com/2016/03/16/our_nominee_is_a_disaster_time_may_be_running_out_but_democrats_will_come_to_rue_clinton_over_sanders/

Bryan Pagliano’s immunity will allow him to tell the FBI every detail of Clinton’s server, in addition to why she had the server in the first place. The moment Bryan Pagliano was given immunity was the moment Bernie Sanders became the nominee; indictments are most likely around the corner.

...

That being said, Bernie Sanders is still the front-runner. Clinton could get FBI and Justice Department indictments at any moment, and future primaries are favorable to Sanders. This is far from over.

Salon also has articles like this

[Joe Republic]

I know you're posing this as an "honest question," but your original post is basically "look at these idiots who still think he can win, do we have anyone that idiotic here?" I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that it really was an honest question, but I could clearly see how someone would interpret it differently.

No, you summed it up quite accurately.  It is possible to criticize widespread delusion and ask if it also exists on this forum at the same time.  If people want to feel insulted or 'bullied', then that probably says more about the stability of their own position.  But by and large it appears we have mostly realistic Bernie supporters here, so nobody should have felt insulted anyway.  Why would they need to?

[Tender Branson]

There might be some, but not me.

Hilldog has it in the bag in ca. 1 month after NY and much of the East Coast has voted.