Both Clinton and Sanders are Quite Hopeful; Why?

Finally, the day that Sanders had promised for a long time arrived, and Hillary Clinton's campaign faced a tough challenge in the western states! On the 3rd and 7th of Farvardin, the Democratic primary elections were held in six western states, and Clinton narrowly lost in five of these six states. "Narrowly" means that, on average, about 70 percent of participants in these five states voted for Sanders! In other words, Sanders acted on what he had said after the continuous defeats in the southern states and easily wiped the floor with his opponent in the western United States. Sanders' advisors say this is the spark that will eventually lead to a massive political explosion in large states like New York and California, bringing Sanders' "political revolution" to fruition. And just when it seems everything is ready for a big victory for Sanders, the Clinton campaign behaves as if nothing has happened. Clinton's advisors still introduce her as the ultimate winner. Even she speaks like a candidate who is ready for the main competition against the Republicans and has little time for intra-party competition. How is it that despite Sanders' stunning victories in the western states, the Clinton campaign still considers itself the main contender for the final victory? In Clinton's campaign, when it comes to the final outcome, her advisors first refer to statistics and figures. She is still significantly ahead of her rival, and the number of votes she has received so far is greater than the number of votes Barack Obama received during the same period in the 2008 elections. Clinton lost the competition in five states, only one of which, Washington, was comparable to the populous southern states, while the other states had little share in the number of delegates at the Democratic National Convention. For this reason, Clinton has maintained her distance from Sanders in this regard as well. If current polls are correct, the election is essentially in Clinton's favor. She only needs about one-third of the remaining votes to continue competing, and she is ahead of Sanders in all major states, including New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and California. Another important point that could keep Clinton's campaign hopeful is the end of competition in the opponent's territory. In the continuation of the competition, states with a majority of white populations and progressive tendencies will give way to states with diverse populations; that is, where Clinton has the upper hand due to her popularity among non-white voters. Additionally, in the Democratic Party, in all states, delegates are distributed proportionally based on votes among candidates, which will add to Clinton's number of delegates regardless. The voting method is also another reason for Clinton's optimism. So far, Sanders has performed better in states where elections were held as caucuses without secret ballot voting, while he has not fared well in states where primaries were held. Meanwhile, Sanders enjoys significant popularity among independent voters, and for this reason, his status is not favorable in states where their intra-party elections are limited to registered Democrats. From now on, elections will be held in almost all major states (except California) as voting from registered Democrats. Most importantly, if current polls are correct, the election is essentially in Clinton's favor. She only needs about one-third of the remaining votes to continue competing, and she is ahead of Sanders in all major states, including New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and California. A combination of these factors has led not only Clinton and her supporters to be unfazed by Sanders' victories but also to continuously talk about the dangers posed by Donald Trump instead of discussing the intra-party elections. In fact, they are trying to maintain the posture of a winning candidate. In the rival camp, the first and foremost goal is to break this "winning candidate posture." Sanders' advisors believe that above all, they must shatter the narrative that the game is over. Sanders' supporters have sufficient tools for this task. Recent consecutive victories and, more importantly, the numbers and figures of these victories and the significant gap between Sanders and Clinton are the most important tools they have to show that the game is not over. If it were over, why did 72 percent vote for Sanders in Washington, 70 percent in Hawaii, 79 percent in Utah, 78 percent in Idaho, and 82 percent in Alaska? If Sanders can win in New York with about 60 percent of the votes, regardless of the number of delegates collected by both candidates, he will become the main contender for final victory. These votes may not compensate for the blow Sanders received in the South, but they could be the spark that the barrel of Sanders' revolution needs. How? In this way: The next Democratic election will be held on the 17th of Farvardin in Wisconsin. This state is the last place with a significant number of delegates (96) and the voting method there is open voting. This means everyone, including independents, can participate in the voting; similar to Michigan. According to polls, although Clinton is ahead of Sanders, the competition is very close; again similar to Michigan. These issues, along with the excitement generated after recent victories, fuel speculation that Sanders could win in Wisconsin, just like in Michigan. After this state and a possible victory, a somewhat insignificant election will be held in the beautiful but sparsely populated state of Wyoming, and then the decisive competition arrives: New York! According to the optimistic scenario of Sanders' campaign, the election in New York, which will be held on the 31st of Farvardin, will determine the final fate. This state, with 291 delegates, is a feast for a candidate who is popular there. And New York in 2016 is clearly caught in a strange crossroads: on one side stands Bernie Sanders, who is from New York and whose political positions have inspired the always progressive youth of this city. On the other side is Hillary Clinton, who was a senator from this state for eight years and although she is not a native of this state, she considers herself a New Yorker in every way and has a deep connection with this city. Even Clinton's campaign headquarters is located in New York. (While Sanders' campaign headquarters is in Vermont.) If, as Sanders says, a "political revolution" is on the way, the starting point of this revolution will be on the 31st of Farvardin in New York. To achieve final victory, he must defeat Clinton in this state, where according to all polls, she is still leading. And of course, this defeat must significantly impact the delegates of both candidates; something like winning in the western states with at least 60 percent of the votes. Sanders' supporters believe this is achievable. And if this happens, a powerful wave will impact the remaining competition so that Sanders can claim two-thirds of the remaining votes and push Clinton aside. If Sanders can win in New York with about 60 percent of the votes, regardless of the number of delegates collected by both candidates, he will become the main contender for final victory. Whether such an event is possible or not is a multi-million dollar question, the answer to which reveals more about the political inclination of the speaker than it does about the existing reality! Clinton's supporters say this is impossible, and Sanders' supporters say they will strive for it until their last breath.