I think many of us are here because we almost irrationally think that Sen. Sanders has a good chance to win the presidency.

Why is that irrational? Because the rigged party presidential election system is virtually controlled from on high, as we’ve seen and are seeing. And yet, and I believe I speak for many, we have an inexplicable gut feeling that this thing is far from over, and as Sen. Sanders says, we have a good chance at this. Why? The numbers look grim, in a conventional scenario, he has to nearly run the remaining field of primaries with yuuuge margins, which isn’t very likely, the spectacular - but still close - Michigan win, notwithstanding.

But there are yuge factors in this race that do not fit the normal pedantic nomination process. Sen. Sanders’ opponent is deeply flawed, and with at least two swords-of-Damocles hanging over her: The multi-pronged FBI investigations and an inevitable ‘reveal’ of one or more transcripts of her WallStreet speeches, the later of which she guards so ferociously as to be pretty clearly indicative of damaging material.

But how do we evaluate these factors? One way is to evaluate multiple outcomes of the future, along differing probabilistic paths, leading to the general election via the convention, where Sen. Sanders is either the (D) nominee or he is not. If he is not, I maintain (and the accompanying graphical analysis shows) he must run as an independent third candidate (against potentially Sec. Clinton and The Drumph) in order to get quite respectable probability numbers of becoming president.

In fact, running the analysis, and making a whole slew of SWAG numerical assumptions (Scientific Wild-Assed Guesses) we can see the good Senator has a better than 40% chance of taking the Presidency - if he allows the possibility of an independent run. Without that, his chances are on the order of only 10%. The Democratic establishment will and has moved heaven and Earth to keep Sen. Sanders at bay, but there is nothing the DNC can do about the FBI, nor someone who has a transcript or film of a Clinton speech, and is waiting for the general for that juicy reveal.

So, what’s the rationale for SWAGs? What’s the point of just making up probabilities? Well, this is fairly common practice in engineering, based on judgements in an initial error or failure analysis, where there are simply too many unknowns and imponderables to make accurate assessments - at least initially. We know a given event is “highly likely” or “highly unlikely” for example, but its probabilities are neither 1.0 nor 0.0, so we make qualitative judgments - .75 (75%) or 0.15 (15%) respectively, for example. Yes, it’s a SWAG, but as it turns out, over a space of multiple SWAGs, the mis-estimates average out high and low, and the overall prognostication doesn’t come out bad at all. And in any case, it’s vastly better than having no basis of estimate at all.

So, forward we proceed to follow the BernieMultiverse, through an unlikely convention(al) nomination (odds are only 32%, even including disastrous imponderables), and a hypothetical post-convention run by Sen. Sanders as an (I). On the chart, several of the predominant multi-verse threads are pursued - (please excuse the blurry type - the image size is limited.) The General election multi-verse results are shown in green, very unlikely and ignored threads in yellow, and the sum chance of Sen. Sanders taking the presidency, in passionate purple; and the number - by this SWAG analysis - is pretty damned good - 46%, considering one-third of this probability space is in a 3-way race.

I believe, that Sen. Sanders owes himself, his supporters, and much more importantly, the country and the world the maximization of his chances to become President. In these analyses, I’ve allocated only even chances of a win to Sen. Sanders, in a multi-way race, as this is what the rough polling shows - but this doesn’t take into account the mince-meat that Sen. Sanders can make of a Drumph, or a mortally wounded Sec. Clinton.

So the bottom line is, we have a very, very decent chance of winning this thing, that is, having a President Sanders, and that’s with just raw probabilities, and without fully factoring in the highly populist and popular message of Sen. Sanders. If we allow ourselves to think about an independent run, and prepare ourselves to encourage and support such a run, I think we can move the odds to a considerably better than even shot at this in November. Keep working, keep calling, keep canvassing, and if you can, keep contributing, and if you are still opposed to the I-thing, think about it, and consider what’s at stake, please.

I respectfully now await high velocity tomatoes, but I do continue to encourage my learned and thoughtful reader to consider the possibility.

Best,

Szaephod