People actually believe this "8 out of 9 = Momentum" nonsense?

[firebrand80]

I see why Bernie's campaign would want to push that narrative, but I can't believe that people are actually buying it.

The reason Bernie has had a good run is because the recent calendar happened to have a lot of states favorable to him. If NC and FL were on the schedule, there would be no "winning streak."

Right now, the odds very heavily favor a Hillary victory. Bernie can demonstrate that this race has actually changed by winning a state we would expect Hillary to win.

Not only that, a small shift in the race won't catch him up in delegates, he needs a dramatic turnaround.

[geek tragedy]

1. they get to maintain the fantasy another 5 days.

then the illusion dies, and the fantasy with it

[firebrand80]

2. They're already moving to the next argument

Contested Convention!

[geek tragedy]

8. that will last another week, then it too goes away nt

[firebrand80]

10. I think that one will last to the convention

After all, the lifelong Dem Super delegates could still abandon a PD-leading Hillary for the Bernie-come-lately.

[geek tragedy]

13. that's based on their current momentum fantasy talk

beat downs in NY, PA, and MD will make that talk go away right quick.

[LexVegas]

3. He is losing much worse than Clinton was in '08...yet he is still viable to some.

[KingFlorez]

4. Momentum is quite overrated

Especially in a primary that is spread out over a wide calendar.

[MineralMan]

5. Well, next Tuesday, and then a week later,

a number of states with large delegations to the convention will hold their primaries. "Momentum" may shift, I expect.

But, any port in a storm.

[ShrimpPoboy]

6. The more people see him win, the more he looks like a legit contender

And people will give him consideration that they might not have otherwise. So, yeah, momentum is a real thing in politics.

Will it be enough to overcome Clintons historical lead and the less favorable states/formats? I don't think so but he's got a better chance than he would have if he had been consistently losing.

[morningfog]

7. She's not only lost. She has had her ass kicked by large margins.

As in winning only one county out of 7 States. She is being rejected late in the race.

[geek tragedy]

9. Clinton Beats Obama Handily in West Virginia

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/14/us/politics/14dems.html?_r=0

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton arranged to meet with uncommitted superdelegates on Wednesday following her lopsided win in the West Virginia primary, as her supporters argued that her appeal to some traditional Democratic voting blocks may change some opinions despite the continued long odds that she can secure her party’s nomination.

Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, a supporter of Mrs. Clinton, said “superdelegates have to have second thoughts” after West Virginia, speaking in an interview Wednesday morning on CNN.

But Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico minimized the impact of the West Virginia, saying the state was “tailor made” for Mrs. Clinton. Mr. Richardson a supporter of Senator Barack Obama, said the continuing contest between the Democratic candidates was becoming harmful to the party. Also speaking on CNN, he said “We have to unite behind the nominee.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_Democratic_primary,_2008

Results:

Clinton 66.93%
Obama: 25.77%

[morningfog]

11. Nothing close to being creamed seven states in a row.

[geek tragedy]

15. one week later, similar margins in Kentucky

Obama also got thumped in Ohio, Pennsylvania, had to deal with "bitter clingers" comments and Jeremiah Wright, and deal with the mess from Michigan and Florida primary situations. While trailing in super delegates.

He was always the obvious nominee.

Sanders win streak product of the calendar (caucus states plus Wisconsin, which is tailor made for him), not fundamental changes in race.

Just like her ringing up 100+ net delegates on him in one night on March 15 was a product of the calendar.

Sanders will lose NY, PA, and MD, and that will be that.

[tabasco]

19. Yes, Clinton does well in states with large racist populations.

We already knew that.

[geek tragedy]

20. in 2016 she's winning the African-American and Latino vote

by huge margins.

[tabasco]

23. I wish they'd show up to vote in November

All those states swing republican in the general election.

[geek tragedy]

24. You mean places like Virginia and Florida? nt

[tabasco]

25. I mean places like Georgia, S. Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, Tennessee

Kentucky, and usually N. Carolina, Florida, West Virginia and Virginia.

[LuvLoogie]

26. Well Hillary is even with Bernie in the number of states Barack won in 2012

But she Beata Bernie in their electoral weight in the General. She is beating Bernie in all metrics you cite.

[NuclearDem]

29. Not like Nebraska, Idaho, Utah, Alaska, Oklahoma, and Kansas.

Those bastions of tolerance.

[anigbrowl]

27. ...in tiny populations

If Sanders wins are so significant, how come he's picking up such small numbers of delegates? Oh that's right, not a lot of people live in states like Wyoming. WY's population is just shy of 600,000, which means the entire state has less people in it than a city the size of Las Vegas. Congratulations on the win and all, but when the stakes are small a large margin of victory just doesn't mean very much.

It's like bragging about winning big at poker when you and three friends threw in $5 each to make a $20 pot...I'm sure you outplayed your poker buddies and that it was a satisfying win, but it doesn't make you a high roller.

[morningfog]

28. He's cut her lead by a third.

If these small states are so easy to pick off, why has HIllary gotten the shit kicked out of her there? A monied and powerful front runner cannot even make a showing?

[anigbrowl]

30. A miss is as good as a mile

I don't think she has had the shit kicked out of her, and suggest that you're mistaking hype for reality. If you look at a small state and see the numbers are against you, why spend valuable resources to hang onto a small number of delegates when you could get a much bigger payoff by spending those resources in a place where there are more delegates at stake?

I don't think Sanders supporters really get electoral strategy or basic economics (which are arguably the same things). Once again, a huge margin of victory is meaningless when the number of delegates at stake is very small. Margins of victory are nice but delegates are what actually counts. To continue with the poker analogy, when you win a hand it doesn't matter how much better your hand was than your opponents', and that isn't going to help you with the next hand. Sanders fans are falling victim to a version of the gambler's fallacy...all the talk of momentum and margins is going to ring painfully hollow if he can't win in the large states which have significant numbers of delegates up for grabs. Clinton knows that states like NY and CA are the races that actually matter because that's where the largest numbers of voters are.

[lumberjack_jeff]

12. No, I'm sure that losing 8 out of the last 9 is just a fluke.

The Washington Generals will win the next one for sure.

[firebrand80]

16. I didn't say it was a "fluke"

But you already know that

[riderinthestorm]

14. For political junkies, no. For the general public, yes. Momentum is a real thing nt

[firebrand80]

22. For a media narrative, maybe

Actually influencing votes, I don't think so

[SHRED]

17. It's about more than just Bernie

It's about his following, a movement to the Left that the HRC camp failed to predict the size of.

It's probably a good idea to respect it politically speaking.

[bobbobbins01]

18. That is pretty much the definition of momentum.

And yes, its working in his favor.

[CalvinballPro]

21. "Let all states vote" quickly became "Only these 9 states matter." Hilarious, right? nt