(03-15-2016, 06:02 PM)Punchwood Wrote:

(03-15-2016, 05:54 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: Every source I've read calls it an upset.

Not all. It's the way in which Sanders supports use the word. They use it as if there was no chance on earth for him to win and then he defied all the odds  and defeated this evil establishment women. It was unexpected that's it, at the end of the day he only won by 1.5% not that good of a win.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what...gan-means/
"Sanders’s win in Michigan was one of the greatest upsets in modern political history."

http://time.com/4252113/bernie-sanders-m...t-primary/
"The Vermont Senator won a major victory in Michigan’s primary, snatching a heavily fought-over prize from Hillary Clinton and upsetting polling and predictions."

It was unexpected by 20 points on most polls. People don't just magically come up with those numbers Punch. They aren't just conjured out of thin air by the "Prediction Magician". It was absolutely an upset, even if you don't believe it. People RARELY come back from numbers that low, the Sanders people didn't even think they would win. Even Five-thirty-Eight, who are actually fairly balanced in their reporting, and mainly use polling an numbers for their news piece, gave him a 1% chance to win. If you win something that you only had a 1% chance to win against a veteran opponent, is that not an Upset? If so, I'd LOVE to hear your definition of it.


As for the whole "Defeated the evil establishment women" thing, You do know that this isn't just about DWS and HRC, right? There are plenty of corrupt men in the establishment that we're looking forward to taking down a peg(Chuck Schumer, Andrew Cuomo). Just because HRC and DWS happen to be the current face of the establishment doesn't mean that us Bernie supporters aren't looking at the others with scrutiny.