Election Analyst 538 Says There Is A 40% chance sanders Wins the nomination outright
538, a well known web site that analyzes elections and polls has a new article indicating their conclusion that Bernie Sanders has a 2 in 5 chance of getting to the 1,900 delegate total that is needed to win the nomination without a second ballot at the convention.
Sanders has a 39% chance of winning the majority of delegates
Biden has a 12% chance
Bloomberg has a 2% chance
all the others have a less than 1% chance. There is a 47% (the plurality) chance that NO ONE will get to the 1990 total before the convention.
Of course this is all subject to change with new developments, but it is eye opening.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo
Tags
Who is online
57 visitors
The graph with the squiggly lines is interesting. Sanders, Biden and "none" are the only ones that have ever been over a 25% chance. Buttigeg got close to 20% chance at one point, but has dropped steadily since. Warren's chances have tanked. Bloomberg started to rise, but, evidently, in the wake of his two debates, has fallen to a low number.
If 538 is accurate, this is a two person race with Sanders far ahead.
Go, Bernie, go!
Make Democrats admit that they are heading to become Democratic Socialists.
Make them vote for an admitted, proud, Democratic Socialist.
Should not the Democratic Party change its name to be more accurate now?
The best chance is that no one will get the nomination before the convention.
Elizabeth Warren won't drop out because if it becomes a brokered convention she would be the most logical compromise candidate , being both a progressive and a moderate. "progerate"
If Bernie Bros feel as though they are getting screwed again by the DNC, don't count on their votes for Warren or anyone else is Bernie isn't nominated.
Seems like an amazingly weak Democratic field now.
these are the BEST Democrats have to offer America?
Really?
LMFAO!
Any one of these people would be a much better president than Trump. So would all of the Democrats who have already dropped out.
This from a person that supports this guy?
What's wrong with Bernie?
Do you want him to get screwed again?
I could pick a random name out of a phone book and the odds are he/she would be a much better president than Trump.
Unless you get to 50% you are not being "screwed".
Nice to know you will vote for a Democratic Socialist when he wins the Democratic nomination.
Never figured you for a Bernie Bro.
Every patriotic American would vote for Sanders over Trump.
If you think I would cast a vote for the worst president in the history of our country, or fail to vote for his main opponent, you are sadly mistaken.
I dont prefer Sanders by any means, I think most of the other Democratic candidates could get more done, but he is far preferable to Trump.
By the way, a vote for Bernie Sanders does not make you a democratic socialist.
It does not matter unless they win.
Are you upset that not a single one of the Dems running, believe that windmills cause cancer?
Clearly false. Even a sweeping generalization.
JR, no one who has EVER read some of your posts would EVER think you would vote for Trump. So not sure where THAT crap came from. We know you would vote for a Democratic Socialist before you'd vote for Trump.
That's the way I look at it.
This would indicate that the best chance to "stop" Sanders is that it become a two person race between Sanders and Biden, or somewhat less preferable, a two person race between Sanders and Bloomberg.
Why are Democrats hellbent on "stopping" Bernie?
“...best chance to "stop" Sanders ...”
Rig is the word you’re looking for.
Sanders would put a big chill on economic growth. Businesses would see him as an adversary and would react accordingly (less growth risk, etc.)
Bloomberg could easily encourage businesses that he is not their enemy. Bloomberg, in total, could make an argument that Sanders could not possibly make. Bloomberg could convince the electorate that he will keep the economy going strong. Sanders cannot do that.
This, in my view, is a major difference and why I see Bloomberg as having a chance to beat Trump whereas Sanders has no prayer.
Also, do you want a PotUS who will necessarily cause the economy to take a hit or one who likely would encourage growth?
I want a POTUS who is not a known liar, crook, bigot, moron, and cheat. And so should you.
John, did you read what I wrote? You did not provide any content that even remotely relates to my point. Instead you seem to have simply dropped one of your canned general comments — you know, the comments that presume your interlocutor is a Trump supporter unless they make bat-shit crazy emotional comments against Trump.
My comment was about Sanders vs. Bloomberg in terms of winning the general. Did you notice?
You have made many times more derisive comments about Sanders than you have about Trump. That is a fact that is not my problem.
I dont doubt that you disapprove of Trump, most intelligent people do.
We need an "anyone but Trump" mentality in this country expressed much stronger than we currently see among the nations "moderates".
As for your particular comment, I disagree that my comment in reply was not related.
Gee, some here seem to think I am a Sanders supporter. I have even been accused of normalizing Sanders. Pretty funny, eh?
I think people need to get a grip. Put aside biases and just read what people write. If there is ambiguity, ask a question. Do not presume intent, ask and listen to the answer. You know, normal protocol if someone is honestly trying to understand someone else.
Are you keeping a tally on the number of 'derisive' comments I make on candidates? If so, that is extremely strange. But, nonetheless, I actually do not typically write comments to deride the candidates. I will do so, but that is not my normal approach. I tend to be analytical about this stuff.
You, in contrast, seem to live to write derisive comments on Trump and on anyone on this site who is not bat-shit crazy emotional against Trump.
That is a fact that is not my problem.
Sanders could win the nomination. It is possible. I think much of the electorate goes with the flow. That is why momentum is so critical. Far too many people will vote for Sanders simply because he is the front-runner under the lazy hypothesis that other people think he is a good choice so therefore he must be a good choice.
This is the same dynamic that enabled Trump to win the nomination.
My opinion.
I think Bernie will be beaten by Trump if he wins the nomination.
Down-ballot Democrats will suffer from his being the top of the ticket.
I don;t see the Democrats making any headway in the Senate, and stand a good chance at losing the House with Bernie as the leader of Democrats.
I agree. I do not see Sanders prevailing in a general election. People are not going to vote for a radical change when the economy is good and they are personally content.
It would be hilarious if Bernie wins the most primaries and the crooked Dems give the prize to one of the losers.
Unless you get to 50% you havent really won.
That is why they have runoffs in many state and local elections.
Kind of like if the Dem wins the most votes but the prize is given to the Republican?
No matter how much you would like it to be the same, it isn't. Comparing the DNC and their convention and what they want and the EC is a fools errand.
Please feel free to cite one instance of someone garnering at least the required amount of electoral votes for President who wasn't declared the winner. Party won't even matter.
IF YOU CAN, OF COURSE.
Never said it was, just comparing the humor as Dean stated. Are you commenting without reading what you are commenting on?
Why, are you trying to change the subject again? Have you nothing to say about Dean's humor? Or are you once again making comments that have nothing to do with the subject at hand?
I don't know why you seem to have so many issues with the 2016 election, that you keep bringing it up no matter the subject matter. Just get over it.
My reply is in direct response to your post: Kind of like if the Dem wins the most votes but the prize is given to the Republican?
If that troubles you because you don't like being questioned, that is a little sad for you.
[removed]
I suggest you show someone the posts here. Have them read them to you. You'll find, despite your histrionic blubbering, that YOU are the ONLY one who even mentioned the 2016 elections.
Maybe you should heed your own fucking advice and get the fuck over it already. Isn't almost 4 years enough time to grow up?
SMMFH at people bitching about what they alone did.
So you are taking my comment out of context. Would suggest you read the entire comment string [Deleted]
And I suggest you read Dean's comment that I responded to, so you will stop going off topic. We are talking about Dean's sense of humor. You seem to be trying to read more into it, and deflect to a sore point you seem to have.
You're the one bringing it up, off subject. I would suggest you "heed your own fucking advice and get the fuck over it"!!
Already did. YOU are the ONLY one who brought up the 2016 elections, yet you accused me of doing so.
QUOTE me doing it, because I already can quote YOU doing it.
Tell you what--here is YOUR post. Tell us all how it is taken out of context!
The ENTIRE post YOU responded to:
And YOUR entire response:
Go ahead, please be my guest and explain what CONTEXT you expected from YOUR statement.
No one discussed Republicans until YOU dragged them into it, for some unknown reason. How does YOUR response relate in context to what you replied to?
[Deleted]
[Ozzie and Texan, this has become too personal. Please dial it back.]
In response to Dean's comment about HUMOR.
And you keep ignoring the subject...
I have, over and over, Dean's sense of humor.
AGAIN, and again, and again, and again. The context is about what Dean finds hilarious.
You accused me of bringing the elections of 2016 into the discussion. You were wrong.
As usual.
Your own comments show you wrong.
I'm done with this, as Sandy stated, you're taking this personally and still denying facts that are shown on this very page.
A likely scenario.
I'm not so sure. I'm sure people would talk about it, but I'm not sure the DNC would want to fracture the party that badly. But then the dishonesty of people always surprises me when it actually happens.
Well the Rs chose to suck it up and just accept Trump. They grumbled about it but for the most part the leadership tried to keep the party intact. Maybe the DNC leadership will do likewise. If Sanders is the nominee, maybe they will suck it up and try to salvage congressional seats knowing that their nominee is going to lose.
On a personal level I'd love the Bernie supporting progressives to split from the Party along with the Trump supporting Alt+Right. It won't happen but a guy can dream. lol!
Anyway - things will be a little clearer by next Wednesday and then the race will be that much more interesting.
Yes. But what if Bernie emerges as the presumptive nominee? Then that clarity will be mitigated with a cloud of shit because it will certainly hit the fan.
LOL! That would be the interesting part. The DNC, I think, would almost be forced to put all their eggs in one basket to oppose Bernie (either Bloomberg or Biden?) until the math proved unavoidable. I don't know if the other candidates would go along though. I just don't think they would go so far as to have a contested convention. Everything else prior to that would be not surprise me so much.
In other words, "Not Very Likely"...
Well the wheels are already turning......................
Giving the nomination to anyone else if Sanders has a strong plurality and not a majority of the votes will probably be worse than simply nominating Sanders. People think Sanders supporters are angry now.....
I can't imagine how they will react if homelike Warren, who has been rejected overwhelmingly by Democrats, is handed the nomination at Sanders expense.
I am not a fan of any of the Democrat candidates and not a fan of Trump either, but it seems to me that Bernie is in a much better position now than in 2016 to launch a candidacy as an independent if he feels that the DNC power brokers are giving it (I do not mean the nomination) to him again! He has a loyal base, lots of money and will generate news coverage wherever he goes. That is something for the DNC elite to think about as they will have no chance to win if there is a legitimate independent siphoning off votes.