Bernie is winning the primaries and here's the proof

This article does raise some very strong points about how the Democratic primary has played out up to this point. The gist of it is, that Hillary is really strong in states that had early voting, before a coherent insurgent candidate like Bernie Sanders could actually compete for informed voters. In states where voters must caucus on election day, Bernie beats Hillary head-to-head.

It leaves an important question that deserves to be asked. If the Super Delegates are put in place in the Democratic Primary system in order to ensure that the party backs the strongest candidate, has it been grossly premature to simply assume that they will choose Hillary as the nominee?
The proof sauce is thick and juicy

What difference does winning anything make?

You will vote for who your betters allow you to vote for.

I think that by the time California comes around, the gap will be significantly tighter than it is now. We could see a real battle on our hands as long as Bernie can consistently chip away at Hillary like he did last night.

An few more 80/20 victories sure would be nice!

With Clinton, anything is possible. She is so inept. In response to Donald Trump's response to the brussels attacks, she says "Slogans are not strategies!" Then says "Donald Trump's plan will be like Christmas in The Kremlin!" Im not too convinced she even knows how stupid she sounds.

outside the u.s. people only know clinton and trump now ... this would come as huge surprise to the world ^^

Honestly I identify way more with Bernie. I'd love to see a female president, and I think Hillary would make a really kick-ass president, but given that Trump looks sure to win the nomination, I'm completely certain that Bernie would be able to rek the general election and become president.

Surprised that, here in Utah, votes were in favor of Cruz and Bernie, rather than Drumpf and Hillary

Could you imagine a debate between Bernie and Drumpf? Oh my god. The level of barely covert anti semitism would be astounding.

You have it all figured out.

Mormons which there are a lot of in Utah despise trump. That state may be go to the democrats in the general because of this. On the dem side Utah consists of the demographs that are mostly favorable for Sanders.

Anyway, bernie will continue to win more states in the future, but Hilary will end up winning the nomination for the democrats because she will win some of the bigger states left like New York.

@ianhh6

Yes. It is likely that Hilary would destroy trump in the general, but bernie is questionable because of his ideological beliefs and his past which may make it easier for the republicans to attack him even if trump is the republican nominee.

@super600:

Hillary will probably beat Bernie in my state of Pennsylvania as well, if so, Sanders isn't likely to win if he loses New York and Pennsylvania. Probably the nail in the coffin.

Didn't trump question Romney's mormonism right before the Utah primary? That seems like a really bad idea

Don't think it's true, but hope it is... -_-

Say no to socialism.

Most of the elections have been in the south. Where Clinton has a massive advantage, now we are going to the more northern states, where Bernie leads the polls.

An 80/20 victory in New York would be changing everyone's tune real quick.

Why? Most of the things we depend on and take for granted have socialist traits. Things such as roads and highways, the military, social security and medicaid, and much much more. I think you'd be surprised just how much the US is socialist, and how well it works.

Socialism, to a degree, is great.

You only need to fear socialism, the kind that is being entertained by Sanders and his supporters, if you are greedy. If you want more, much much much more, than you need. Millionaires will still be millionaires, billionaires will still be billionaires, and the people that need a bit of help will get it.

This is not about stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, it is more about asking everyone to pay their fair share, to contribute to their country and peers instead of taking advantage of it/them

Cause I like my money. I work hard for it and I don't want it going to others.

Yes it's about taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor, that's what socialism is.

there are no rich peole in socialism ... you like your money, while every sane person hates money ... its what restricts people, its not making them independant ... in opposition to what everyone is telling you ...

The problem is some people, like yourselves, view it as an "all or nothing" situation. The US will not, not ever, be socialist. Not entirely. It will likely continue to be a democratic republic for quite some time. So the fear of wealth redistribution that has occurred in other places where "pure" socialism has occurred, and often failed, is unfounded.

Many people work hard for their money, myself included, I want to keep it as well. But I also want my country to be able to educate it's children, I want my roads to be maintained, I would like to continue hiking through parks and fishing off piers, and so on.

I also want my country to be better than other countries. Our educational rating is deplorable; our roads don't receive enough attention; parks are being closed, and more. It costs money to do these things, and someone needs to chip in.

The way it is now, the people with less money chip in far more than those with the most money. That is not fair. And this is a failure of the politicians; the people that have been promising us "no more taxes" have been bleeding us dry anyway. You don't just magically make things better by cutting funding; I am not sure where the logic is. And as for keeping your own money, a nice house and college education won't mean anything when everything outside of your house and job (i.e., the country you live in) is absolute shit. Imagine the entire country as Detroit.

Last time our country elected a socialist, he was so damn popular they needed to invent term limits. I dont think you know what socialism is.......

I also want my country to be better than other countries

and this makes everything else you said in this post obsolete ... to bad

Looks like Hillary has about a 30 point lead there atm though going by polls.

Which I know will probably change, the more time that passes the more support Bernie gets generally.

And if he doesn't get New York it's pretty much over I think.

Using this article to say that Bernie is winning the primary is nonsense. Early votes count just as much as election day notes. Not to mention that those early votes could have been cast at any point up until election day. Also, how are you defining "informed voters"? How do you know which one's are "informed"?

To blame early voting for Bernie's inability to win enough delegates to win is ridiculous. He's losing because he's not winning enough African American and Latino votes, which are essential to winning the Democratic nomination.

Maybe if he'd be more realistic, he'd be doing better with these groups. I don't think idealism plays well to minority groups, who really don't have the luxury of being liberal activists. When you say "free college!" to a black person, they'll probably (correctly) think you're full of shit.

He would still have to win the remaining states by more than 10 point margins to close the delegate gap. Not happening.

Not to mention that Clinton still leads big in the huge delegate prizes coming up: New York, Pennsylvania, California. Actually, looking at the map, there's still a good number of states out that should favor Clinton. In addition to the three I named, there's Maryland (huge black population), New Jersey, Indiana, West Virginia. New Mexico (large Hispanic population), DC.

Keep in mind that Bernie has to win every remaining state to even have a shot at catching up.

lol. Why in the world would this happen? Clinton is leading there by more than 30 points and the state is one of the most demographically diverse in the nation. Almost all of Bernie's wins have been in overwhelmingly white states. If I'm not mistaken, the only exceptions to this has been Colorado and Michigan, the latter of which he won 49.8 to 48.3. If he can only win by roughly a percentage point in Michigan, how does he overcome a 30 point deficit in New York?

I've literally never encountered a supporter base so divorced from reality as Bernie's.

Every election, everybody has to deal with these kind of annoying and smug posts.

@GreySeal9:

Yeah I think Hillary will win New York and Pennsylvania and that will seal the deal for her.....pretty sure it will go down that way.

As Barack Obama proved in 08 the presidency isn't meant to be yours just because you have the most experience, and you happen to be best suited for the role. No you have to take the presidency for your own. Perhaps Bernie will do this, but my money is on Hillary this year.

For the record I do like Bernie, I just think that it will be increasingly difficult for him to catch up do to having no winner take all states.

I do, and it means I'll probably make less money.

No thanks.

Effectively, Bernie has already lost. It's just a matter of time until he is mathematically eliminated.

He did better than I thought he would, though. Frankly, I think he did better than he thought he'd do as well, but that's kind of another topic.

Bernie is really not best suited to the role. Too inflexible, can't speak to a wide range of issues, apparently doesn't work well with others, etc.

Go figure, people think the person who rubber stamped our march into this generation's Vietnam War is the one with the experience to lead... HAH!

Congrats to Sanders, he just took Wisconsin, if he somehow manages to get New York, I will be a believer. I'll still vote for Hillary but in the general I could vote for either Democrat.

The rich fuckers that I hate are the ones that can never have enough, they have billions and still want more, and will even STEAL, thats right, STEAL from the poor to have more, and than stash it all in offshore tax havens in order to pay zero taxes, then they force US to pick up the slack on taxes, and we get fucked. We are being sucked dry by the rich, yet they keep right on stealing from us, banks **** us over with there fraud, massive corporations steal right out of our pockets with corporate welfare. Why are none of you complaining about that? Why not make the rich pay the majority of the taxes, and leave us the **** alone? Why do the rich have more right to keep there money more than we do? they have plenty to go around.

Bernie is more of a Social Democrat than a Democratic Socialist.

This proud greed is sickening

It is. And also misplaced.

Last time I checked it takes a few million dollars to pave a square mile of asphalt; if you don't want to collectively pay a few dollars a year for the thousands upon thousands of miles of roads you drive on, don't drive. Or walk on the sidewalks. Or take the bus. Either that, or foot the bill yourself and then charge people for driving on it. But that's assuming you can find (and buy...you gotta spend money before you even get to building the roads!) enough private land in a continuous direction to actually make a road...

And while you're at it, you can go ahead and fight your own battles. Literally. Take your gun, maybe get some friends together, fly your privately owned jet (because airlines take government funds so the rest of us can affordably fly places) to whatever sandy hellhole ISIS inhabits, and shoot them. Or pay a PMC to do it for you, because that has totally worked in the past; nothing bad comes from privatizing things like war. Or the Federal Reserve...

Again, a bit of socialism is fine. I'd even call it necessary. And while I dislike the idea of a completely socialist government, the capitalistic and democratic aspects of our country have failed us far, far, far, far more often and significantly than the socialist aspects. We don't have to be Sweden, but we can't maintain the direction we are and have been heading, either.

I swear to god this fear of socialist programs/Sanders is the AHA all over again; the folks complaining about it are the ones that would benefit the most from it.

because people are greedy and somehow delude themselves into thinking they're going to be obscenely rich, and by buying that lie they decide to hedge their bets by voting against "socialism".

"You know, I might be rich some day, so I am going to do the selfish and harmful thing and vote against stuff that will help me and the rest of the country now so, some day, I might be slightly and needlessly richer."

Almost every single one of Bernie's wins have been caucuses or open primaries. Hillary Clinton leads Sanders by over 2 million votes. Sanders just doesn't have the general support that Clinton does. He can win when the majority of voters are grassroots but really has to fight for votes otherwise. Should the party nominee be determined by a grassroots movement or the general democratic voter? This is why Clinton will win the nomination. Not to mention an over 200 delegate lead will be nearly impossible to break especially with the remaining contests being mostly closed or semi-closed primaries.

@servomaster: Democratic Socialism=/= socialism......RESEARCH is your friend.

This whole election is taking far too long.

We in Canada just had the "longest election campaign in history" for our country this past year, and it started after the US one did, and finished in October.

Now in Manitoba, we are going to vote for the provincial premier in 9 days. After the campaign started a couple weeks ago.

I just hope neither Hillary, nor Drumpf, nor Cruz in any way get into the electable candidate pool. All would mean the end of America.

This is what I hate about political discourse on the internet. People are so hyperbolic and dramatic and have this cartoony view of the world where US completely implodes if a candidate that they don't like happens to become President.

And there's very few caucuses and open primaries left. Yet you'll still have his ignorant true believers (who don't know anything about the political process) insisting that the rest of the map looks so good for him.

Hillary and Bill are the biggest cheaters in US primary history, if she wins, it will be because she is a cheating ****.

So where is your evidence that she cheated? And I'm talking about credible sources. Don't link me a pro-Bernie YouTube rant.

Well bill clinton campaigning inside the voting stations in mass, and chicago in order to screw up the lines, which is illegal, plus the DNC helping her win, arizona closing 70% of polling stations for no reason, and many states taking bernie voters off the voter roll for no apparent reason, they probably hacked the sanders campaigns voter database. Plus the fact that hillary is the most corrupt presidential candidate in US history should be an automatic disqualify.

Why do all of the "young voters" want a 75 year old socialist to be president? Congress would eat him alive.