Sanders aims to win 40% in NY

[°Leprechaun]

A month from now, we'll have a better idea. People are making predictions about the future based on what has happened so far. Sanders hasn't done well enough to be looking viable to most people here.

Alright, well, sure. But just to be clear here - Your argument, at least to me, is basically that "anything can happen, so lets wait and see", which is, no offense (really) a terrible argument to make for a losing candidate in an election.

Do you at least agree that based on his performances so far, and the current delegate math, that a win seems improbable unless something big happens that drastically degrades Clinton's performance/poll numbers? It's one thing to be highly optimistic, but another to deny the raw data and reality of the situation, considering politics is not completely random and there are patterns at work.

Yes, I agree completely (with the part in bold) Clinton supporters have every reason to be optimistic. I am just saying that we don't know with 100% certainty that she will win.

[°Leprechaun]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I haven't decided yet, but certainly not before April 26th which will be more critical, in my opinion than Wiscosin or New York. I think that Clinton will not, however, have a majority of elected delegates before June, although it is possible that she could. Expecting a big win for Sanders on June 7 if he is even further behind might be a little unrealistic. It could be argued realistically that I am being unreasonable to hold out any hope at this point in time, but it doesn't really do any harm to wait until April 26th.

[Holmes]

Democrats in closed primaries in the Northeast will finish him off in little over a month.

[Shadows]

What is the credibility of this article? So many ridiculous post based on some ridiculous gossip!

I also see a lot of lies being used by Clinton hacks - Sanders needs around 55 or 56% of the pledged delegate not 65% . I think he needs as close to 50% in NY as possible to split delegates. But a shock win will give tremendous momentum. You need shock upsets now IMO & Clinton has a huge lead!

Also I don't know why are people using junk polls as a reference - I mean people can go check the methodology n realize it's junk - You have to really dumb to go with that poll!

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The "at least" part is important.

[dspNY]

Tad Devine and Jeff Weaver, March 9: We're going to win New York

Tad Devine, March 28: We're viable if we win 40% in New York.

Their internal polling must look awful

A 60-40 Clinton win in NY erases all of the results on 3/26; she would net at least 50 delegates

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

...
Preeetttyyy shore they're just setting low expectations for the Media.

[Holmes]

...
Preeetttyyy shore they're just setting low expectations for the Media.

Probably. But 40% is what Obama got in 2008, and Sanders has underperformed him everywhere except  for some caucuses and some primaries where Obama-hating Dixiecrats weren't able to vote in the Republican primary. In closed primaries with a large chunk of non-white voters, like Florida, Arizona, Louisiana and Mississippi, Clinton has overperformed her 2008 results significantly. New York is a closed primary, it will have a lot of non-white voters, and there will be no Dixiecrats present to vote against her.

[henster]

Sanders literally started out as a protest candidate he wasn't supposed to win anything more than NH & VT. If anybody told you last year that Sanders even had a chance to crack 40% in NY against Clinton you'd probably call me crazy, yet here we are.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

A 60-40 Clinton win in NY erases all of the results on 3/26

Yep. The math for 3/26 to cancel out a 60-40 NY win gets pretty insane. I fiddled with the demrace.com calculators and got this:

NY: 60-40 Clinton (Clinton +49)
CT: 63-37 Sanders (Sanders +15)
DE: 52-48 Clinton (Clinton +1)
MD: 55-45 Clinton (Clinton +9)
PA: 60-40 Sanders (Sanders +37)
RI: 66-34 Sanders (Sanders +8)

Sanders gets 60, Clinton gets 59 - Net: Sanders +1

Sorry, Beet, but the above calculations do not foretell Sanders's future.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

...
Preeetttyyy shore they're just setting low expectations for the Media.

Probably. But 40% is what Obama got in 2008, and Sanders has underperformed him everywhere except  for some caucuses and some primaries where Obama-hating Dixiecrats weren't able to vote in the Republican primary. In closed primaries with a large chunk of non-white voters, like Florida, Arizona, Louisiana and Mississippi, Clinton has overperformed her 2008 results significantly. New York is a closed primary, it will have a lot of non-white voters, and there will be no Dixiecrats present to vote against her.

Ahh yes, those Obama hating Dixiecrats who couldn't vote Republican helped Bernie win the Michigan caucuses.

[Xing]

Maybe Sanders knows he isn't going to win, but wants his supporters to feel proud of the work they've done? I know many of you want to believe that Sanders is a delusional insurgent who wants to destroy the Democratic Party, but maybe the truth is a little more complex than that.

[dspNY]

A 60-40 Clinton win in NY erases all of the results on 3/26

Yep. The math for 3/26 to cancel out a 60-40 NY win gets pretty insane. I fiddled with the demrace.com calculators and got this:

NY: 60-40 Clinton (Clinton +49)
CT: 63-37 Sanders (Sanders +15)
DE: 52-48 Clinton (Clinton +1)
MD: 55-45 Clinton (Clinton +9)
PA: 60-40 Sanders (Sanders +37)
RI: 66-34 Sanders (Sanders +8)

Sanders gets 60, Clinton gets 59 - Net: Sanders +1

Sorry, Beet, but the above calculations do not foretell Sanders's future.

A 20 point win for Clinton in NY pretty much ends the race because PA will act much like NY, OH and FL in primary season, MD and DE are pretty much locks for her and CT and RI are close, but won't give any kind of margin to Sanders to really cut into her lead

[Sorenroy]

The "goal" of the Sanders campaign is to take 40% of the vote?   Sanders need to win ~66% of the vote in ALL remaining states to win a majority of delegates, what will 40% in NY make that figure?  75%?  70%?

Actually, I did the math and it's roughly 56.55% (if we're talking pledged). A 60-40 split in New York delegates (148-99) would put that number at about 59.27% (disregarding that Wisconsin and Wyoming come first).

[Young Conservative]

Actually he needs 56% not 66%. BIG Difference.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

So I too think that it would be a bad idea for Bernie to start packing up his things in boxes marked  1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVE, WASHINGTON DC 20500, but I don't really think that that's relevant to the conversation.

First of all -- Sanders basically got into the race because no other prog would. Excepting the time between Feb 9,  8:00 pm eastern and the morning of the NV caucus, wining was never his* plan. I think he mainly wanted to remind everyone that Progs are a growing faction in the party, since Warren wasn't going to contest the nom. 

Second -- there are a LOT of other things you can do at a party convention other than get nominated for President.  Think of this primary campaign as a trojan horse to sneak in 1900-2100 progressive activists into the smoke filled room. Think of those activists demanding strong anti-super PAC, anti free-trade planks in the platform. Think of a speaking schedule with Warren, Ellison, Gabbard, Sanders grabbing the top spots.

There's every reason for him to stay in until the end and grab every delegate he can.

*by his, I of course mean Bernie, Jane Sanders, Devine, Briggs, and the rest of the inner circle

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So I too think that it would be a bad idea for Bernie to start packing up his things in boxes marked  1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVE, WASHINGTON DC 20500, but I don't really think that that's relevant to the conversation.

First of all -- Sanders basically got into the race because no other prog would. Excepting the time between Feb 9,  8:00 pm eastern and the morning of the NV caucus, wining was never his* plan. I think he mainly wanted to remind everyone that Progs are a growing faction in the party, since Warren wasn't going to contest the nom. 

Second -- there are a LOT of other things you can do at a party convention other than get nominated for President.  Think of this primary campaign as a trojan horse to sneak in 1900-2100 progressive activists into the smoke filled room. Think of those activists demanding strong anti-super PAC, anti free-trade planks in the platform. Think of a speaking schedule with Warren, Ellison, Gabbard, Sanders grabbing the top spots.

There's every reason for him to stay in until the end and grab every delegate he can.

*by his, I of course mean Bernie, Jane Sanders, Devine, Briggs, and the rest of the inner circle

Bernie isn't running to have the delegates get to be overruled on the party platform like Obama did in 2012 when the DNC ignored the votes.

[RaphaelDLG]

So I too think that it would be a bad idea for Bernie to start packing up his things in boxes marked  1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVE, WASHINGTON DC 20500, but I don't really think that that's relevant to the conversation.

First of all -- Sanders basically got into the race because no other prog would. Excepting the time between Feb 9,  8:00 pm eastern and the morning of the NV caucus, wining was never his* plan. I think he mainly wanted to remind everyone that Progs are a growing faction in the party, since Warren wasn't going to contest the nom. 

Second -- there are a LOT of other things you can do at a party convention other than get nominated for President.  Think of this primary campaign as a trojan horse to sneak in 1900-2100 progressive activists into the smoke filled room. Think of those activists demanding strong anti-super PAC, anti free-trade planks in the platform. Think of a speaking schedule with Warren, Ellison, Gabbard, Sanders grabbing the top spots.

There's every reason for him to stay in until the end and grab every delegate he can.

*by his, I of course mean Bernie, Jane Sanders, Devine, Briggs, and the rest of the inner circle

This is spot on.  Obviously for people who aren't morons like us we understand that he has to get a miracle like 60% in New York to win the nomination, not 40%, but Sanders isn't trying to win, he's trying to stay in the race as long as possible to collect delegates to influence the convention, get media attention for his message, and put pressure on Clinton and the DNC from the left (which I am extremely glad that he is doing).

Therefore he's going to stay in the race until it's mathematically impossible even if it is already a practical impossibility, and managing expectations in NY helps this.

[Adam Griffin]

If Sanders gets 40% in NY, he could get 60% in every other remaining state and would only win by 25 delegates.

Make Maryland, Guam, Virgin Islands and D.C. 50/50 while leaving everything else the same, and he loses.

[Smash255]

A month from now, we'll have a better idea. People are making predictions about the future based on what has happened so far. Sanders hasn't done well enough to be looking viable to most people here.

Alright, well, sure. But just to be clear here - Your argument, at least to me, is basically that "anything can happen, so lets wait and see", which is, no offense (really) a terrible argument to make for a losing candidate in an election.

Do you at least agree that based on his performances so far, and the current delegate math, that a win seems improbable unless something big happens that drastically degrades Clinton's performance/poll numbers? It's one thing to be highly optimistic, but another to deny the raw data and reality of the situation, considering politics is not completely random and there are patterns at work.

Edit: At what point do you consider Bernie's campaign no longer viable?

Bernie should stay in until Clinton has half of the Pledged Delegates.   His chances of getting the nomination are very slim, but he shoudn't just give up because Clinton is very likely going to be the nominee.  If anything by staying around he forces Clinton away from turning back to the center, which is the last thing the Democratic Party needs.

[Virginiá]

Bernie should stay in until Clinton has half of the Pledged Delegates.   His chances of getting the nomination are very slim, but he shoudn't just give up because Clinton is very likely going to be the nominee.  If anything by staying around he forces Clinton away from turning back to the center, which is the last thing the Democratic Party needs.

I'm all for Bernie staying in past the point where he no longer has any realistic shot, as long as he stops attacking her and stops doing anything that forces her to waste resources. I love Bernie's platform and I'm glad he has had almost an entire year to spread the love, but his unrelenting campaign has reminded me why ideologues can sometimes be toxic under the right circumstances - Even ones with promising messages. They stir up absolutists and uncompromising assholes.

As for the going to the center thing - Sure, he can delay this, but she will moderate her message eventually to try and pick up swing voters/disillusioned Republicans.

The thing is, though, is that "running to the center" does not mean what it did in say, the 90s. Bill did what he thought he had to do. Liberals were operating in hostile electoral territory at the time, whereas now the shoe is on the other foot. Democrats are free to run on their real platform with the wind at their backs while Republicans should be moderating their message and adopting more liberal ideas. So I get people are afraid of her turning into a Republican-lite, but that simply isn't necessary anymore and doubtful it will happen in any meaningful way.

It should be even more obvious with Trump. Here, in 2016, we have a country that's been trending left for years now, with a well-known Democrat against the most vile moron this country has to offer. She doesn't really need to change her platform to pick up those voters. They will come to her.

[Antonio the Sixth]

That would be a honorable showing, yes.

Oh course it won't make him win, but he has no chance to win regardless.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

He will get beyond that.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Sanders literally started out as a protest candidate he wasn't supposed to win anything more than NH & VT. If anybody told you last year that Sanders even had a chance to crack 40% in NY against Clinton you'd probably call me crazy, yet here we are.

Yeah, it was also Atlas Opinion (mine included) that he would only win Vermont, I wasn't even sure he'd win NH.

But, he'll be lucky to even get 40% in NY, he'd have to do exceptionally well in NYC for that to happen and I just don't believe he will atm, we have no anecdotal evidence of that happening.

[Seriously?]

Sanders literally started out as a protest candidate he wasn't supposed to win anything more than NH & VT. If anybody told you last year that Sanders even had a chance to crack 40% in NY against Clinton you'd probably call me crazy, yet here we are.

Yeah, it was also Atlas Opinion (mine included) that he would only win Vermont, I wasn't even sure he'd win NH.

But, he'll be lucky to even get 40% in NY, he'd have to do exceptionally well in NYC for that to happen and I just don't believe he will atm, we have no anecdotal evidence of that happening.

I'd don't think the Bern! will be felt in Hillary's "home" state, even though the Bern! was born there. Maybe he'd play well in some upstate college towns and in the hipster parts of the city. But he'll likely get crushed in the black and hispanic parts of NYC.

Washington, Alaska and to a lesser extent Hawaii are better demographically for Weekend At Bernies than New York.

New York favors the ethically challenged one. Although, Bill doesn't have the power to trade pardons for votes in the Hasidic Jew enclaves in Rockland County anymore.