# What would it take for Bernie Sanders to get the nomination? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [March 21, 2016, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-bernie-sanders-to-get-the-nomination/749813 "2016-03-21T23:55:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2016, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-bernie-sanders-to-get-the-nomination/749813/101 "2016-03-27T17:50:41Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > There’s the misunderstanding. I was responding to the Pew typology link in that post. As I said, tens of millions of people. Well I can certainly agree that the Pew Typologies are inadequate descriptors. I had just been looking for something to place me in addition to Political Compass since its placement of me is so other than my self-identification. [“The World’s Smallest Political Quiz”](https://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/quiz.php#) also places me the same way as Political Compass does … nowhere near their “centrist” box and pretty dang far left and libertarian, despite the many positions I take that are anathema to many “true progressives.” I wonder what answers do result in hitting their “centrist” box if I’m that far away from it? And to your point - does _anyone_ occupy it? ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2016, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-bernie-sanders-to-get-the-nomination/749813/102 "2016-03-27T18:19:10Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > “Sharpening attacks” isn’t going negative. You mad he’s actually trying to win? Maybe the disturbing symbolism of a Jewish socialist rising from the dead (to sweep 3 states) has him rattled. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2016, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-bernie-sanders-to-get-the-nomination/749813/103 "2016-03-27T18:24:46Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > I wonder what answers do result in hitting their “centrist” box if I’m that far away from it? And to your point - does _anyone_ occupy it? From what I can figure, the only way to hit “centrist” is to pick “Maybe” for everything or alernate between “agree” and “disagree” on everything. Which results in a pretty random set of opinions. I end up just a shade in to the Liberal box, which feels about right. Consider that the “small government” box says “Cut taxes and government spending by 50%”. Now, personally, I think that’s a crazy number. And pretty much impossible. So I have to say “Disagree” (pushing me towards Liberal). However, you could make that number something like 20% and I’d be more of a “Maybe”. And at 5-10% I might click “Agree”. By comparison, Bernie supporters would, in general, even answer “Disagree” to a question that wanted to keep taxes and spending the same (preferring a larger government, in general). The window on the debate has moved so far to the right on the size of government that almost anybody that isn’t Grover Norquist is going to end up Liberal on that question. ---
**Author:** ![blue\_infinity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blue_infinity/32/2817_2.png) [@blue\_infinity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blue_infinity)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2016, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-bernie-sanders-to-get-the-nomination/749813/104 "2016-03-27T18:43:39Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > He needs two thirds of the remaining delegates. Not happening. It’s time to form an honorable exit strategy, even if you don’t execute it for a few weeks. “Agent Smith: Why, Mr. Anderson? Why do you do it? Why get up? Why keep fighting?” ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2016, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-bernie-sanders-to-get-the-nomination/749813/105 "2016-03-27T19:40:54Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > “Sharpening attacks” isn’t going negative. Yeah, it pretty much is. > [@](#): > > You mad he’s actually trying to win? Now that it’s no longer feasible, trying to damage your party’s candidate is hard to justify. One has to wonder how much his cheerleaders ar goading him into it. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2016, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-bernie-sanders-to-get-the-nomination/749813/106 "2016-03-27T20:02:11Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Now that it’s no longer feasible, trying to damage your party’s candidate is hard to justify. … ^This. Does Sanders care how much gratification he’s giving to the right, as he hacks away at Clinton’s reputation? Also: I’m curious to know how many of his supporters \*genuinely believe \*that the fact that the GOP has been largely silent on Sanders is “proof” that Sanders is Acknowledged-by-All as a “man of integrity.” I do know that if I were a marketer, I’d pay big bucks for a list of those who believe the above-- because those are some easily-bamboozled dim-bulbs. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2016, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-bernie-sanders-to-get-the-nomination/749813/107 "2016-03-27T20:56:23Z")
I think it’s mainly that all the adulation has gone to his head. He’s forgotten why he’s in it. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2016, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-bernie-sanders-to-get-the-nomination/749813/108 "2016-03-27T21:03:56Z")
I mean the fact that the largest Republican involvement with Sanders has been Karl Rove’s PAC sometimes running anti-Hillary ads in primary states to _help_ Sanders should suggest how the Republican strategists view Sanders–as a guy they’d love to face in November. I suspect the Super PACs haven’t been doing that for him since early on (like in Nevada) because it’s obvious the votes just aren’t there so it’s a waste of money. FWIW I don’t think Sanders is doing much lasting harm to Hillary. Largely because so much negative stuff has already been thrown at her by the GOP, and will be thrown at her once she wins the nomination, that I’m not sure an “attack from the left” will do lasting harm. I heard on the FiveThirtyEight podcast the other day that 13% of Sanders voters say they will never support Hillary Clinton. Well, that’s only maybe 40% of the Democratic electorate in the first place, and only 13% of that is saying they’ll never support Clinton. Now, we can all agree that some number \> 0 are being genuine, but we can also agree that some number \> 0 will actually rethink this once Sanders has conceded, the convention has happened, and they’ve been subjected to 4 months of non-stop Donald Trump vs Hillary (with Sanders no longer relevant in national news) and some of them are going to come out to vote against Trump. Not to mention all of the people who aren’t voting in the Democratic or Republican primaries at all, independents and swing voters, who are likely to be turned off by Trump’s insanity. Finally of course the Democrats have a registration advantage, and a demographic advantage among non-whites. Trump’s rhetoric is likely to spur pretty high non-white turnout to vote against him, I’ve read several op-eds by Latinos who said they never considered themselves politically active on “Latino issues” but Trump’s candidacy has energized them in that regard. Once the nomination is wrapped up Obama will also hit the campaign trail and will be campaigning very, very hard for Hillary, which is likely to get black turnout very high just like it was in 2012 and 2008. Due to the registration advantage Republicans have largely only won the White House because of winning over some centrist Dems (Reagan had a lot of Dems vote for him, for example, and so did Bush I in 1988) and independents. Their base just isn’t big enough to win elections alone, which is why it’s madness my party has been promulgating strategies and rhetoric designed to double down exclusively on the base–our base isn’t big enough to win elections. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2016, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-bernie-sanders-to-get-the-nomination/749813/109 "2016-03-27T21:20:20Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Yeah, I’ll say this–I’m 100% not a progressive, so I’m happy to see Bernie fail. But I actually look at his campaign and if I was a progressive, I’d be annoyed/maybe even pissed at it. > > On one hand, yes, he has done a lot to get progressive ideas more air time in this campaign cycle. On the other, he’s done **absolutely nothing** to make it a sustained movement. … > > He’s shown himself to have the ability to raise an enormous amount of money. It is traditional for the candidate at the top of a ticket to share the largesse with supporters down ticket–this process generally starts even in the primaries (Hillary has sent money to several congressional campaigns.) Additionally one usually starts to offer endorsements, which Sanders hasn’t done. There are progressive out there right now trying to win seats in congress and from what I can see, they are totally disconnected from the most famous and influential progressive in the country right now because he simply has no interest in them. … I’m not exactly annoyed, because my baseline is Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich. Realize that Sanders only got really forked on March 15th, less than 2 weeks ago. So I’d cut him some slack. Still, it’s disappointing that he hasn’t pivoted to a Plan B. Indeed, it looks like he has no Plan B. Relevant thread, which I hope to resurrect next month: [Bernie Sanders supporters: what should the medium term plan be?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=784628). ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2016, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-bernie-sanders-to-get-the-nomination/749813/110 "2016-03-27T21:52:42Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Still, it’s disappointing that he hasn’t pivoted to a Plan B. Indeed, it looks like he has no Plan B. If you were involved in the campaign you would know that there is a Plan B. How else would you imagine you’d hear of it? But there is no plan (or reason) to pivot before the convention. It’s always been about a 50 state strategy, and they want every state to have the opportunity to cast their votes in the primary. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2016, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-bernie-sanders-to-get-the-nomination/749813/111 "2016-03-27T22:23:40Z")
**camille** , a) Is there in your mind any belief that Sanders going hard negative, with attacks on Clinton’s character from the Left, can harm, even marginally, the chances of a Clinton victory in November (hypothetically assuming she is the candidate)? Or do you think that no matter how negatively he campaigns the power of his authentic personality endorsing her at the end will transform his supporters (some of whom now boo at Clinton’s name at his events) into strong supporters of the team with her as holder of the banner? b) Do you think that Sanders is being less than honest with his statement that if he is eliminated and Clinton wins that he will only endorse Clinton if she accedes to his demands and changes some of her clearly stated positions to his and adopts his priorities as those of her campaign? (Something that I doubt any winning nominee would agree to do.) c) If you accept that there is indeed the potential for harm from hard negative attacks from the Left flank, is there _any_ point of Sanders success improbability (other than absolute mathematical elimination) that continuing to attack negatively (as opposed to continuing to run with an issues focused campaign, arguing for Medicare for all, a $15/hr minimum wage, etc.) is not something that should be continued? Or is there, to you, no such point? If there is any such a point, where would _you_ place it? ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2016, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-bernie-sanders-to-get-the-nomination/749813/112 "2016-03-27T23:21:31Z")
> [@camille](#): > > Maybe the disturbing symbolism of a Jewish socialist rising from the dead (to sweep 3 states) has him rattled. Three states that he was already projected to win comfortably. Granted, he did better than expected, but certainly not enough to think he has a legitimate shot at the nomination. According to 538, he’s running at 92% of their projections for him, and he’s running out of nice, comfy pro-Bernie caucus states. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2016, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-bernie-sanders-to-get-the-nomination/749813/113 "2016-03-27T23:41:53Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Well I can certainly agree that the Pew Typologies are inadequate descriptors. I had just been looking for something to place me in addition to Political Compass since its placement of me is so other than my self-identification. [“The World’s Smallest Political Quiz”](https://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/quiz.php#) also places me the same way as Political Compass does … nowhere near their “centrist” box and pretty dang far left and libertarian, despite the many positions I take that are anathema to many “true progressives.” > > I wonder what answers do result in hitting their “centrist” box if I’m that far away from it? And to your point - does _anyone_ occupy it? **Exapno** and anyone else who might be interested, I have started [a GD thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=788552) about the place, or lack of place, of centrism in American politics today. Please join in! ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2016, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-bernie-sanders-to-get-the-nomination/749813/114 "2016-03-28T04:23:23Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > **camille** , > > a) Is there in your mind any belief that Sanders going hard negative, with attacks on Clinton’s character from the Left, can harm, even marginally, the chances of a Clinton victory in November (hypothetically assuming she is the candidate)? Or do you think that no matter how negatively he campaigns the power of his authentic personality endorsing her at the end will transform his supporters (some of whom now boo at Clinton’s name at his events) into strong supporters of the team with her as holder of the banner? > > b) Do you think that Sanders is being less than honest with his statement that if he is eliminated and Clinton wins that he will only endorse Clinton if she accedes to his demands and changes some of her clearly stated positions to his and adopts his priorities as those of her campaign? (Something that I doubt any winning nominee would agree to do.) > > c) If you accept that there is indeed the potential for harm from hard negative attacks from the Left flank, is there _any_ point of Sanders success improbability (other than absolute mathematical elimination) that continuing to attack negatively (as opposed to continuing to run with an issues focused campaign, arguing for Medicare for all, a $15/hr minimum wage, etc.) is not something that should be continued? Or is there, to you, no such point? If there is any such a point, where would _you_ place it? a) I don’t see the hard negative attacks to her character, and frankly, that is not the major concern of the Clinton camp. b) Did you see the interview or are you relying on Clinton team talking points? There is nothing out of the ordinary for a candidate with a certain number of delegates having input writing the party platform. That’s SOP. That’s what delegates are for. And there is nothing radical about his positions - universal health care was part of the Dem platform from 1948 to 1992… Again, this outrage is more from people like you and Elvis; Clinton has co-opted so many of Sanders’ positions already, there is no way she’ll have a problem paying lip service to positions that are favored by the majority of Americans - again, not just liberals/progressives, but across the spectrum. c) I’m not psychic, and since you’ve made it clear you don’t respect my thinking\*, I’m not sure why you’re asking me. If you consider pointing out her record and official positions as “negative attacks” then there’s no point in going any further. HRC is her own worst enemy, just like WJC was/is (even with all his natural talent as a politician). As I mentioned earlier, I campaigned for them. WJC was lucky that Tsongas was ill, and Perot ran, and then HRC got lucky when she ran against a virtual ferret that even the GOP couldn’t stomach (after Giuliani had to drop out). Now she seems to be lucky again that the GOP is in meltdown, because in truth she is a lousy candidate. Without WJC and the machine behind her it would be like selling Carly Fiorina. I think she will beat Trump, but if it’s someone else… I don’t know. But it won’t be my problem. If you think she’s so great, and so much is at stake, then it’s up to you to do the groundwork (general Clinton supporter you). I’ll work for certain candidates, but I’m done with the party machine. \*I’m cutting you slack, because I don’t even know wtf you’re talking about. I haven’t posted in months, and not at all about the election until now. Are you mistaking me for someone else? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2016, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-bernie-sanders-to-get-the-nomination/749813/115 "2016-03-31T19:19:04Z")
[Nate Silver calculates the possibilities:](http://www.alternet.org/analytics-whiz-nate-silver-just-figured-out-bernie-sanders-miracle-path-victory) > [@](#): > > Earlier today, famed statistician Nate Silver (currently the editor-in-chief of ESPN’s FiveThirtyEight blog and a special correspondent for ABC News) offered up his calculations mapping out Bernie’s miracle path to victory. Disregarding the remaining likely Sanders-friendly states (such as Oregon, Rhode Island, West Virginia and Montana), the real fight, according to Silver, will come down to the states with the bulk of the remaining delegates: namely, California, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Maryland. According to the polls, it’s going to be a real tough couple rounds for Sanders. > > Then again, polls aren’t everything. > > In a Huffington Post article, Seth Abramson pointed to the shift in Sanders’ support on voting days. Abramson cited the Democratic primary in Florida, which saw 18 percent of voters change their minds in favor of Sanders, according to exit polls. > > “The point here,” said Abramson, “is that Hillary Clinton has been losing the primary for a month now in votes cast after the race began to favor Sanders on March 5th. This means that most of the projections the media is making about how Bernie Sanders will do going forward are based on election results, exit polls, and voter surveys compiled before that critical March 5th date.” > > Looking at the numbers, New York has Sanders polling at a paltry 29 percent. Taken together with Pennsylvania and Maryland, if the decision came down to these numbers, Sanders would be out of the race today. As Silver notes, “to reach a pledged delegate majority, Sanders will have to win most of the delegates from those big states. A major loss in any of them could be fatal to his chances. He could afford to lose one or two of them narrowly, but then he’d need to make up ground elsewhere—he’d probably have to win California by double digits, for example.” ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2016, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-bernie-sanders-to-get-the-nomination/749813/116 "2016-04-01T01:55:11Z")
Wisconsin will decide it. If he wins big there, it might affect what happens in New York. Is New York solid Clinton country or could it swing? ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2016, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-bernie-sanders-to-get-the-nomination/749813/117 "2016-04-01T02:13:21Z")
Bernie Sanders, like it or not, is a legit force. He will most likely be able to say that he won more contests than Hillary Clinton. He may also be able to say he has better poll numbers than Hillary Clinton. He will also be on a major win streak, whereas Clinton will be on a major losing streak. Moreover, there will be questions about Hillary’s FBI problem. Sanders will be able to convince a lot of voters, for reasons that are understandable, that he would be a better candidate than Hillary. It doesn’t matter. He’d be another George McGovern or Walter Mondale in the general. But you can’t blame Bernie for that. If anything, you have to blame team Clinton for not being able to put him away early in the race. If Clinton somehow does get indictment, I hope that the DNC can whip up someone palatable like Joe Biden. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2016, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-bernie-sanders-to-get-the-nomination/749813/118 "2016-04-01T02:15:30Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > Wisconsin will decide it. If he wins big there, it might affect what happens in New York. Is New York solid Clinton country or could it swing? Clinton will win NY, but will she win in a landslide, or will Bernie make it interesting? That’s the question. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2016, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-bernie-sanders-to-get-the-nomination/749813/119 "2016-04-01T04:56:05Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > Clinton will win NY, but will she win in a landslide, or will Bernie make it interesting? That’s the question. Why? Unless _he_ wins it in a relative landslide he still ends up significantly behind in both pledged delegates and popular vote. No question that losing it even narrowly hurts her going forward into the general, but an “interesting” close race there does nothing for his chances. Per that 538 article a possible path would include winning WI by 16 or more, and NY by 4 or more. That path also includes a 15 point win in CA. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2016, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-bernie-sanders-to-get-the-nomination/749813/120 "2016-04-03T06:43:42Z")
I don’t understand much of this argument myself, but apparently 538 was both over-selling Sanders’s support in the South & low-balling Sanders support outside the South. An effect of trying to treat blacks and whites as defined voting blocs instead of some more relevant criterion? > **[On Nate Silver and 538’s 12.2% Clinton House Effect](https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/01/on-nate-silver-and-538s-12-2-clinton-house-effect/)** > > Nate Silver has taught us all a lot of things about how to accurately assess good and bad polling and how to forecast difficult to forecast political Anyway, a Sanders nomination, while neither guaranteed nor easy, is looking reasonably possible now even as Clinton supporters are trying to tell Bernie to go home. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-bernie-sanders-to-get-the-nomination/749813.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-for-bernie-sanders-to-get-the-nomination/749813.md?page=7)