Can Sanders Overtake Clinton?
FiveThirtyEight has a little chart on the right of their main page today. They have established a target number of delegates that they feel each candidate needs by any given date to eventually capture the nomination:
Candidate – Won/Target – Percentage of Target
Trump – 338/297 – 114%
Cruz – 236/384 – 61%
Rubio – 112/242 – 46%
Clinton – 609/529 – 115%
Sanders – 412/492 – 84%
As you can see Trump is overperforming at 114%, while Cruz is way back at 61% and Rubio is failing at 46%. The corresponding headline: Donald Trump Is Just Barely On Track To Win The GOP Nomination.
Clinton is overperforming at 115%, while Sanders is much more competitive than the GOP rivals at 84%. The corresponding headline: Hillary Clinton’s Got This.
What gives? One difference is that Hillary is winning two-person primaries with margins around 60%, while Trump is often winning six-person primaries with just 35%. Things will certainly change, but at that rate Trump would never get to a majority of delegates.
Another is that Hillary Clinton has the full support, and collusion, of the Democratic National Committee, and a slew of uncommitted delegates that will fall her way unless she is trounced by Sanders. Trump is currently the bane of the Republican National Committee, and cannot count on uncommitted delegates. He has to trounce his rivals to avoid a brokered convention.
A Young Turks segment (on youtube) claims that Sanders actually did well on Super Tuesday, winning three out of the four tossup states and essentially tying for delegates in Massachusetts. They feel that he will overperform in enough tossup states to make it a real race.
Sander does have a lot of donated cash to work with, and time to campaign, but what has yet to be proven is how many of his younger supporters will turn out to vote. A recent Washington post piece claims that millennials only turn out for blockbuster films and big election days. His Super Tuesday victories proved that wrong in a few states.
In, War, Peace, and Bernie Sanders, Common Dream talks about Tulsi Gabbard’s endorsement of Bernie Sanders:
Gabbard, an Iraq war vet, congresswoman from Hawaii and “rising star” in the Democratic establishment, stepped down as vice-chair of the Democratic National Committee in order to endorse Sanders — because he’s the only candidate who is not financially and psychologically tied to the military-industrial complex.
“As a veteran of two Middle East deployments, I know firsthand the cost of war,” she said, cracking the mainstream silence on U.S. militarism. “As a vice chair of the DNC, I am required to stay neutral in democratic primaries, but I cannot remain neutral any longer. The stakes are just too high.”
Because of Gabbard — only because of Gabbard — the multi-trillion-dollar monstrosity of U.S. militarism is getting a little mainstream media attention amid the reality-TV histrionics of this year’s presidential race, the Donald Trump phenomenon and the spectacle of Republican insult-flinging.
As the results of Super Tuesday started coming in on Tuesday night, Gabbard was given a few minutes to talk on MSNBC. While Rachel Maddow wanted to discuss the risk her Sanders endorsement might have on her career, Gabbard insisted on addressing the slightly larger matter of our unchecked, resource-hemorrhaging military adventurism across the globe.
“War is a very real thing,” she said. “If the Syrian war continues, we won’t have the resources to fund important social programs. This isn’t a question of the past — it’s a question of today. Regime-change wars do nothing to strengthen our national security, but they do strengthen our enemies.”