Even here on DU. Not me, though. I knew Nate Silver was going to have to eat crow. Again.

I thought he'd be likely to win Indiana, but after the results last week, I dared not hope.

I'm so glad my earlier assessment proved right!

What went wrong?

in witnessing their utter disbelief and confusion.

He noted, the day before the election, that while the model showed Hillary with a clear advantage, the state was demogrpahically favorable for Sanders and with it being an open primary, he doubted the polls.

I've been saying that for a bit too. I live in Indiana, and I expected a Sanders victory. I certainly was not shocked.

I love how we talk about him like we know him.

Silver did not conduct the polls. He's a data wonk, not a fortune teller. I'm just pointing put that before the electin he expressed his doubts that the polls were actually correect, based on the fundamentals of the state.

Why is this so difficult to understand?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

if she lost. It's verbiage that covers his own ass. And that rhetorical twist is very much not 'The Math'. It's rhetoric.

Depending on what the meaning of 'is' is, here, of course.

No matter what, his projections will forever favor the establishment candidate in some manner regardless of what is truly happening in the real world. It's more about painting a picture for the masses, weaving a scenario of electoral inevitability that cannot be changed no matter how much one might wish it. Next week nobody will recall how wrong he was about Indiana, and soon we will once again be seeing posts touting 'Nate Silver predicts Hillary has a 99.9998% percent chance going in to the (insert state name here) primary'.

The percentage of remaining delegates that he needs to win actually *increased* following the Indiana primary. He needed to average at least 64%, and now he needs to average a slightly higher percentage.

It was not a fantastic night for Sanders. He can put a W in his column, and that beats an L for sure, but in contests where the delegates are given propritionally, the "victory" itself is meaningless. Delegates count, and he needs to be winning big. Winning by 4-5 delegates just ain't gonna cut it.

Yes, heard from the same doofi on CNN and MSHRC last night.

Shameful.

In the end, it barely made a dent in the gap between them. He still must win 2/3 of all remaining pledged delegates to get the majority.

That won't happen.

Don't be nervous about West Virginia, Oregon, or California at all...

He will have more pledged delegates than Clinton, going into the convention.

No wonder camp Weathervane is so eager for him to start endorsing her. Her path to victory is narrowing dramatically and closing fast.

You really think he's going to win 65% or more of the remaining pledged delegates?

That's all the more reason to believe he won't come close to winning a majority of the pledged delegates.

And Indiana shows that Sanders can still win handsome victories whenever Nate Silvers says that Clinton has 92% chance of winning.

Because they account for more than half of the remaining delegates. He won't win NJ and he's not going to win CA by a huge margin, if he wins it at all.

I wouldn't give it to Clinton in a walk.

Voters in New Jersey who are unaffiliated with any political party can declare as Democrat at the polls.

As of 11/30/2015

2,605,919 Unaffiliated
1,747,551 Democrat
1,058,277 Republican
4,816 Other

She is the one standing up for loan sharks, rather than standing up against them. And theft is only optically different from usury.

You accused Hillary, now shifting to DWS of voter theft. That says a hell of a lot about a person that can, without conscience, blindly and with no information, of something as serious as voter theft.

Try writing English. And while you do so, please note that in all of this thread, I have not accused Clinton of election fraud. I don't trust Clinton for different reasons. Debbie however, I think she really doesn't care for democracy as much as she cares for getting her way.

the same: one is willing to get her hands dirty, the other one likes to triangulate her way into plausible deniability.

The chances of all the irregularities, mishaps, and voting problems that helped Clinton all happening by accident: less than 1 in a million. The math doesn't speak in favor of the establishment there.

That delusional.

delusion is the sense of entitlement pervading camp Weathervane.

Also, you completely misunderstand how Silver's models work. If you look at his demographic models, both Michigan and Indiana favor Sanders.

Do yourself a favor and avoid outcome-based thinking. At this point there are cold, hard numbers involved. There is no way Sanders is going to win the nomination without a massive, I mean MASSIVE (30+ points) victory in California. There is also NJ on that day, and NM. Those are two other spots where a Sanders victory of that magnitude are incredibly unlikely.

Scratch that: you want Clinton to win the nomination, no matter the risk in the GE. Of course we are not on the same wavelength.

Too bad, so sad.

Can't wait to see the shock over Oregon and California.

I thought he had a chance there. However the victory does not net enough delegates to help him win the primary...He is done. Time for him to go.

Time for him to go to Oregon, then to California.

The math presented by Bernie people shows he needs to win big...it is not happening. It won't happen in California. The supers will vote with the candidate with the most pledged delegates as they always do. Hillary is the nominee...it doesn't matter how long Bernie stays in that won't change...however, he is now joining in attacking her with Trump...that is a fact. This negates any good he did.

Seems to me he's joining in on attacking Trump.

that Bernie couldn't possible win any states outside of Vermont, and maybe New Hampshire...

NT