Politico has the headline:
"Sanders wins Wyoming caucuses."
"It's his eighth win in his last nine contests against Hillary Clinton."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/bernie-sanders-wyoming-caucus-221756#ixzz45PUWtICS
And what a big win it is: he won by just over 12 points and they ended up splitting 14 delegates 7-7 while she won 4 super delegates; she comes out with more delegates than he does in the state.
How exactly is that a win? The media has chosen to focus on 'wins' rather than delegates which in the short term helps Bernie. There is probably too much focus on the idea that NY is a must win for Hillary.
In terms of optics it certainly will be helpful for her to win-and I think she will. But in terms of math, how would a 2 point Bernie win cut into her 250 delegate lead? It wouldn't.
But symbolically a Hillary win would clamp down on the momentum talk.
At the end of the day Bernie is no different than John Kasich and Ted Cruz: they are all playing for a brokered convention. Jeff Weaver-who has so many catty things to say about Hillary-came out yesterday with a path to victory. It comes down to: winning a brokered convention.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/bernie-sanders-wyoming-delegates-221757
Sure, the same Democratic party Establishment that Bernie has shown all this shade at and which he refuses to raise a dime for, is going to choose the non Democrat in the race.
In 2008, Obama's lead was half Hillary's lead now. She didn't attempt a brokered convention.
My guess is that Bernie's team isn't necessarily serious about this either. The BC talk is just about giving him a plausible path to victory. After all, he can't just say he has no path to victory, he can't win, but he wants to keep running for his health, and send him more money.
"Sanders wins Wyoming caucuses."
"It's his eighth win in his last nine contests against Hillary Clinton."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/bernie-sanders-wyoming-caucus-221756#ixzz45PUWtICS
And what a big win it is: he won by just over 12 points and they ended up splitting 14 delegates 7-7 while she won 4 super delegates; she comes out with more delegates than he does in the state.
How exactly is that a win? The media has chosen to focus on 'wins' rather than delegates which in the short term helps Bernie. There is probably too much focus on the idea that NY is a must win for Hillary.
In terms of optics it certainly will be helpful for her to win-and I think she will. But in terms of math, how would a 2 point Bernie win cut into her 250 delegate lead? It wouldn't.
But symbolically a Hillary win would clamp down on the momentum talk.
At the end of the day Bernie is no different than John Kasich and Ted Cruz: they are all playing for a brokered convention. Jeff Weaver-who has so many catty things to say about Hillary-came out yesterday with a path to victory. It comes down to: winning a brokered convention.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/bernie-sanders-wyoming-delegates-221757
Sure, the same Democratic party Establishment that Bernie has shown all this shade at and which he refuses to raise a dime for, is going to choose the non Democrat in the race.
In 2008, Obama's lead was half Hillary's lead now. She didn't attempt a brokered convention.
My guess is that Bernie's team isn't necessarily serious about this either. The BC talk is just about giving him a plausible path to victory. After all, he can't just say he has no path to victory, he can't win, but he wants to keep running for his health, and send him more money.
No comments:
Post a Comment