It's not so clear. At this point it seems that he's focusing on those states he has a chance of winning on Super Tuesday
Those are Colorado, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Minnesota along with his home state of Vermont. In that vein, the poll that came out today of Massachusetts is not great news for him. It shows him and Hillary tied 46-46.
This is pretty much a must win state for him if he hopes to win the nomination. She's expected to get some big wins in SC and the other Southern states and if he can do little more than tie in Mass that doesn't bode well.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ma/massachusetts_democratic_presidential_primary-3891.html
The delegate math doesn't look at all good for him. He's trailing 502-70. To be sure this includes super delegates but these have no reason to change unless Bernie were to win decisively among pledged delegates. Yet, after Super Tuesday she could have a clear solid lead among pledged delegates.
The important thing seems to be, Hillary and her team learned from their mistakes of 2008.
"Early on, the Clinton team identified the most advantageous congressional districts for winning more delegates — especially those that include large numbers of African-Americans and Hispanics. Some allies of Mrs. Clinton said a lead of 100 pledged delegates over Mr. Sanders would be enough to make it impossible for him to catch up, assuming Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy does not collapse. If she finishes the race in June with a lead in pledged delegates, her superdelegates are all but certain to remain loyal and clinch the nomination for her."
"Mr. Sanders has his own ambitious plan to rack up delegates, but it faces tougher odds than Mrs. Clinton’s, even though only three states have voted."
"The senator was counting on momentum from Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada to hobble Mrs. Clinton and energize his campaign through Super Tuesday, and then in Michigan and elsewhere in March. But he won only New Hampshire. His campaign is now spending heavily to win four of the Super Tuesday states — Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Oklahoma — while taking victory for granted in a fifth, his home state of Vermont."
"Still, while Mrs. Clinton is far from reaching 2,383 delegates, she is poised to create the sort of mathematical quandary for Mr. Sanders that she faced in 2008. That winter, Barack Obama used an 11-state winning streak to establish a lead of 100 delegates that Mrs. Clinton was never able to surmount. While a similar streak is unlikely this year, advisers to Mr. Sanders concede that Mrs. Clinton could generate a significant delegate lead now that she has momentum from her Nevada win. But they say they are not out of the running."
“The Clintons can get a delegate lead quicker than we can, and they have a way to gut out the delegate fight,” said Tad Devine, a senior adviser to Mr. Sanders. “We have to turn victories in state after state into big momentum that can change the numbers.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/22/us/politics/delegate-count-leaving-bernie-sanders-with-steep-climb.html?_r=0&module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=Politics&action=keypress®ion=FixedLeft&pgtype=article
"Some Democrats pointed to Mrs. Clinton’s hiring of Jeffrey Berman, a consultant to the campaign and a leading Democratic thinker on delegate strategy, as a major advantage for her. Mr. Berman worked closely with Mr. Plouffe on the Obama campaign’s strategy of competing hard in every congressional district. Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 campaign focused instead on winning the most delegate-rich states."
“Hillary should have been the nominee in 2008, but Berman was an old-fashioned delegate counter who bested her campaign’s approach,” said Elaine C. Kamarck, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who studied the 2008 race for her 2015 book, “Primary Politics.” “She is clearly not making that mistake again.”
Mr. Berman said Mrs. Clinton had cleared some of the key hurdles in the delegate race, starting with a narrow win in the Iowa caucuses, where she proved she could prevail in the caucus format after losing 13 of 14 caucuses to Mr. Obama in 2008. Mr. Sanders was widely expected to win more delegates than Mrs. Clinton in caucuses because they are driven by the sort of energized voters he has inspired. Instead, she came out ahead."
“The Clinton campaign is built for the long haul, much as the Obama campaign was in 2008,” Mr. Berman said.
Those are Colorado, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Minnesota along with his home state of Vermont. In that vein, the poll that came out today of Massachusetts is not great news for him. It shows him and Hillary tied 46-46.
This is pretty much a must win state for him if he hopes to win the nomination. She's expected to get some big wins in SC and the other Southern states and if he can do little more than tie in Mass that doesn't bode well.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ma/massachusetts_democratic_presidential_primary-3891.html
The delegate math doesn't look at all good for him. He's trailing 502-70. To be sure this includes super delegates but these have no reason to change unless Bernie were to win decisively among pledged delegates. Yet, after Super Tuesday she could have a clear solid lead among pledged delegates.
The important thing seems to be, Hillary and her team learned from their mistakes of 2008.
"Early on, the Clinton team identified the most advantageous congressional districts for winning more delegates — especially those that include large numbers of African-Americans and Hispanics. Some allies of Mrs. Clinton said a lead of 100 pledged delegates over Mr. Sanders would be enough to make it impossible for him to catch up, assuming Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy does not collapse. If she finishes the race in June with a lead in pledged delegates, her superdelegates are all but certain to remain loyal and clinch the nomination for her."
"Mr. Sanders has his own ambitious plan to rack up delegates, but it faces tougher odds than Mrs. Clinton’s, even though only three states have voted."
"The senator was counting on momentum from Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada to hobble Mrs. Clinton and energize his campaign through Super Tuesday, and then in Michigan and elsewhere in March. But he won only New Hampshire. His campaign is now spending heavily to win four of the Super Tuesday states — Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Oklahoma — while taking victory for granted in a fifth, his home state of Vermont."
"Still, while Mrs. Clinton is far from reaching 2,383 delegates, she is poised to create the sort of mathematical quandary for Mr. Sanders that she faced in 2008. That winter, Barack Obama used an 11-state winning streak to establish a lead of 100 delegates that Mrs. Clinton was never able to surmount. While a similar streak is unlikely this year, advisers to Mr. Sanders concede that Mrs. Clinton could generate a significant delegate lead now that she has momentum from her Nevada win. But they say they are not out of the running."
“The Clintons can get a delegate lead quicker than we can, and they have a way to gut out the delegate fight,” said Tad Devine, a senior adviser to Mr. Sanders. “We have to turn victories in state after state into big momentum that can change the numbers.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/22/us/politics/delegate-count-leaving-bernie-sanders-with-steep-climb.html?_r=0&module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=Politics&action=keypress®ion=FixedLeft&pgtype=article
In many ways she is using Obama's 2008 strategy:
“Hillary should have been the nominee in 2008, but Berman was an old-fashioned delegate counter who bested her campaign’s approach,” said Elaine C. Kamarck, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who studied the 2008 race for her 2015 book, “Primary Politics.” “She is clearly not making that mistake again.”
Mr. Berman said Mrs. Clinton had cleared some of the key hurdles in the delegate race, starting with a narrow win in the Iowa caucuses, where she proved she could prevail in the caucus format after losing 13 of 14 caucuses to Mr. Obama in 2008. Mr. Sanders was widely expected to win more delegates than Mrs. Clinton in caucuses because they are driven by the sort of energized voters he has inspired. Instead, she came out ahead."
“The Clinton campaign is built for the long haul, much as the Obama campaign was in 2008,” Mr. Berman said.
Bernie hopes to repeat Obama's campaign in 2008. But there are some clear differences.
1. He hasn't generated the turnout Obama did in 2008.
2. He has lost two caucuses which are supposed to favor him as they did Obama in 2008. Logically if he's generating such excitement more should show up for him willing to caucus. It hasn't happened.
What is interesting is the Bernie team is convincing themselves that they would have won Nevada if it weren't a caucus! That is standing logic on its head. A 6 point Hillary win in the caucus would have been larger in a primary. All along, the Bernie team has focused on caucus states. That was what drove Obama in 2008-HRC couldn't win a caucus.
Now they are trying to flip the narrative?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sanders-has-the-resources-and-a-plan-to-go-the-distance-will-it-matter/2016/02/21/5261e30a-d8c1-11e5-891a-4ed04f4213e8_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_democrats-550pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
Of course the third big difference is race.
3. Obama won via the black vote. Bernie's path to victory would be by neutralizing the black vote.
No comments:
Post a Comment