Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The fact that Nevada is third for the Democrats isnt given the attention it needs IMO. Sanders will do better in Nevada than SC IMO and could win even that third state if he does well in the first two. That's yuuuuuuuuge momentum.
Disclaimer: I am not a registered Democrat (GA's an open primary state, so I wouldn't even need to register even if I wanted to vote in the Dem primary).
Anyway, for Bernie Sanders, HE MUST WIN IOWA. Short of Clinton being co-opted by the FBI and sent to the Big House, every path for Bernie Sanders to become the nominee goes through Iowa. In my opinion, if he loses Iowa, he will have little to no momentum going to New Hampshire and Nevada, then the crush job in South Carolina happens...never mind the slaughter that would be Super Tuesday. At that point, Vermont would likely be the only state he could count on moving forward.
However, if Sanders wins Iowa, he has momentum going into New Hampshire, where he's maintained a small but stubborn lead, and Nevada, where he's behind but the gap isn't as large as it is in Southern states. If he wins Iowa, I can see him winning NH's primary by a sizable amount and even wringing out a close win in Nevada, a caucus state.
That brings us to South Carolina. Personally, even if he does sweep IA, NH, and NV, I still think he loses South Carolina. The name recognition problem would decrease if Sanders completes the three-state sweep, sure, but he's still far, far, far behind HRC among minority voters, 40 points behind HRC in general, and there's a sizable centrist-to-conservative Southern Democrat contingent who might not be keen on voting for Sanders. Never mind a win, from my perspective, Sanders must minimize his losses in South Carolina. Like many other states, South Carolina awards its delegates proportionally, so it is in Sanders' best interest to lose to Clinton by ten points instead of 40.
After that, Super Tuesday. Now, what I said about South Carolina still holds true in the rest of the South; Sanders has to minimize his losses and pick up delegates. I still include Arkansas in HRC's so-called "southern firewall", despite one recent poll showing Sanders and HRC neck-and-neck in that state. Outside of the South, the picture looks better for Sanders, where demographics are friendlier. Vermont is basically a lock, and many of the northern states that go on Super Tuesday look better for Sanders. Massachusetts goes on Super Tuesday as well, so it will be interesting to see what impact a possible Warren endorsement could do. Now, those wouldn't necessarily translate to wins (outside of Vermont,) but his chances are better in those states than in states like Georgia.
To answer the question, yes, it is possible for Sanders to still win the nomination even if he loses South Carolina. However, it's not at all likely, and absolutely improbable if he doesn't win Iowa.
Disclaimer: I am not a registered Democrat (GA's an open primary state, so I wouldn't even need to register even if I wanted to vote in the Dem primary).
Anyway, for Bernie Sanders, HE MUST WIN IOWA. Short of Clinton being co-opted by the FBI and sent to the Big House, every path for Bernie Sanders to become the nominee goes through Iowa. In my opinion, if he loses Iowa, he will have little to no momentum going to New Hampshire and Nevada, then the crush job in South Carolina happens...never mind the slaughter that would be Super Tuesday. At that point, Vermont would likely be the only state he could count on moving forward.
However, if Sanders wins Iowa, he has momentum going into New Hampshire, where he's maintained a small but stubborn lead, and Nevada, where he's behind but the gap isn't as large as it is in Southern states. If he wins Iowa, I can see him winning NH's primary by a sizable amount and even wringing out a close win in Nevada, a caucus state.
That brings us to South Carolina. Personally, even if he does sweep IA, NH, and NV, I still think he loses South Carolina. The name recognition problem would decrease if Sanders completes the three-state sweep, sure, but he's still far, far, far behind HRC among minority voters, 40 points behind HRC in general, and there's a sizable centrist-to-conservative Southern Democrat contingent who might not be keen on voting for Sanders. Never mind a win, from my perspective, Sanders must minimize his losses in South Carolina. Like many other states, South Carolina awards its delegates proportionally, so it is in Sanders' best interest to lose to Clinton by ten points instead of 40.
After that, Super Tuesday. Now, what I said about South Carolina still holds true in the rest of the South; Sanders has to minimize his losses and pick up delegates. I still include Arkansas in HRC's so-called "southern firewall", despite one recent poll showing Sanders and HRC neck-and-neck in that state. Outside of the South, the picture looks better for Sanders, where demographics are friendlier. Vermont is basically a lock, and many of the northern states that go on Super Tuesday look better for Sanders. Massachusetts goes on Super Tuesday as well, so it will be interesting to see what impact a possible Warren endorsement could do. Now, those wouldn't necessarily translate to wins (outside of Vermont,) but his chances are better in those states than in states like Georgia.
To answer the question, yes, it is possible for Sanders to still win the nomination even if he loses South Carolina. However, it's not at all likely, and absolutely improbable if he doesn't win Iowa.
- skbl17
And if he wins Iowa, NH, and SC? You think he's got it? I think a big surprise might occur in SC.
Remaining states -- Trump, Hillary (Sanders will only get Vermont, Oregon, and other very white states)
If Hillary is indicted, Biden will get nominated at the Democratic Convention. But Hillary almost certainly will not get indicted, even though she is certainly guilty. Obama's justice department won't prosecute her.
Republican establishment leaders hate Trump and will want Rubio or Bush instead. But, if they're smart, they will know that too many Trump supporters will stay home if Rubio or Bush get the nomination -- in which case the Democrats win another four years.
So they will reluctantly support Trump.
In the general election it should be Trump vs. Hillary
Trump appeals to a lot of Democrats and to voters who have stopped voting in past elections. If they come out, he will win. His best move is to give the VP slot to a moderate Republican like Kasich, who also can bring a swing state like Ohio to Trump's side, or Christie who has appeal in the northeast. Another possibility is Rand Paul to appeal to the young libertarians, pacifists and pot smokers.
The Obama base that loves Sanders will stay home. Hillary's best move to counter that might be to offer Sanders the VP slot or, even better, a popular guy with the left like Julian Castro to solidify the Latino vote.
So in the end, it will be Trump/Kasich or Christie or Paul vs. Hillary/Sanders or Castro.
My prediction: Trump wins -- unless he says something so outrageous that he turns off the whole country....
Last edited by dechatelet; 01-18-2016 at 01:04 AM..
Are people not putting too much emphasis on skin color here?
Iowa and NH are solidly middle income and highly educated states. No matter what the skin color, middle income and highly educated people are in general more tuned into the political process early on. Hillary does well among low income voters in the South, that's her firewall, but there is no objective reason why she would do well among low income voters when name recognition of Sanders increases alot in the coming weeks, as familiarity is the main reason for Sanders' poorer showing among low income voters. His policy platform I would argue is better for low income people than Hillary's.
trump is great for car-wreck enthusiasts & reality-show type entertainment, but a lot of his supporters are not among those who will be bothered to go out and vote. You need to add a third choice...
o YES - trump will lose Iowa and NH, get mad, spit out invective about the stoopid voters who don't appreciate him, and take his balls home
Unfortunately, that will leave a huge sucking sound on the republican side, and Ted Cruz will inherit a lot of the trump supporters because he has yet another brand of nastiness that some of the same people who support trump find terribly appealing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
