Sanders is trailing by, what, 5% of the total pledged delegate count?

[Recursion]

With, what, slightly more than a quarter of the delegates assigned?

I just don't think anybody can seriously claim that's some kind of insurmountable lead, especially with the schedule coming up over the next three weeks (look for big wins in the west and tighter wins in the midwest). Hell, Sanders could conceivably catch up by New York (which he will probably lose, but he could easily go into that primary at or near parity).

[hack89]

1. He needs to start winning big states by big margins

he has yet to show he can do that.

[Recursion]

3. Well, no, not really

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats/

None of those numbers are impossible, and he'll definitely overperform in the northwest.

[hack89]

5. Except after the 15th those targets will get even bigger

He has only met his target 8 times out of 23 states - that is not a good omen.

[Recursion]

8. Not if he wins IL and MO

Assuming that IL poll isn't a fluke he stands to run the midwest, but more importantly for this point he wins IL or MO (and he could definitely do both) that takes the targets later on in the schedule down. And then look at the next three weeks: he's definitely going to overperform in WA and WI. Every time he beats those targets his later targets come down.

[hack89]

10. Except he will not win big

while Hillary will win big in Florida. So he will fall further behind. Let's not forget that on the weekend he won MI he fell behind Hillary by another 20 delegates. Splitting delegates with Hillary is not going to do it for him.

[Recursion]

11. He'll win WA and WI hugely

He'll have the kind of lead Clinton's been getting in the South.

Splitting delegates with Hillary is not going to do it for him.

And look at her numbers. The South is over after the 15th, and she's out of states she can win big in except NY, and even that I doubt she does better than 55/45 in. He has the whole northwest and a lot of the midwest left, and he's going to win a lot of those big: WV, OR, WA, WI, all of Big Sky.

[hack89]

12. Time will tell

But the odds of him meeting 100 % of his targets is asking a lot.

[jillan]

29. The 9 states he won aren't part of real America?

Sarah is that you ???

[hack89]

31. You do understand that all that matters is the delegate count?

those states matter very much but understand that he can win more states than Hillary and still not win the nomination. That is why the size of his victories is critically important - close wins simply means Hillary wins the nomination.

[Ed Suspicious]

51. States count because they bring momentum. They assure voters it's OK to vote for Bernie. The

longer he runs the better his chances. I know you want him out, but sadly for you, his best play is to ride this till the end. It's a good thing you Hillary supporters aren't advising his campaign, because the only sure fire way for him to lose at this point is to pack up and go home. This will be a fight till the convention, and that is OK. Even if he's leading Hillary, I don't mind if she stays in one bit.

[hack89]

94. There will come a point when Bernie knows it is over

He is not a fool. At that point he will negotiate a prominent role at the convention and endorse Hillary. That is how it works.

[Recursion]

108. That's what Warren is in the wings for, IMO

She's there to endorse Clinton as the way of saying "it's time".

[DCBob]

2. Its a big lead. Hard to imagine any scenario where he catches up

Heres a delegate calculator you can try yourself...

http://54.85.212.73/demdelcalc/

[DemRace]

4. This delegate calculator is much more accurate.

DemRace.com

[DCBob]

18. Thats a nice slick tool!

I wish I have found that before I built the one I did..

But it was fun building it.. I love the programing and the math!

[DemRace]

24. Thanks!

I did not realize you made your site... You did a good job too! Feel free to check out my code, there is a link on my site to all of the code.

[DCBob]

39. Thats some impressive scripting.

Im more of a traditional server side and sql coder. Its not as cool but much simpler code. My app is a single page with 150 lines of code... plus the data.

[DemRace]

49. Me too...

However I didn't want to have issues if the site took off. Because it is pure JavaScript there shouldn't be any performance issues, or financial cost to me (sql, traffic, etc...), if the site gets large amount of hits at one time.

[DCBob]

115. That makes sense.

I am running this on an very cheap AWS server that doenst do much else.

[Number23]

50. Why does Hillary always only win one more delegate than Sanders on this site?

And the numbers for the Northern Marianas are incorrect, I think.

I think it's odd that every win of Hillary only has her at +1 in the delegate count per state when you consider that in Texas, she beat Sanders by over 70 delegates, GA by almost 50, VA by almost 30 etc. And they have Sanders winning California which is just... weird and Hillary winning New York by -- wait for it!! -- one delegate.

That web site seems off.

[DemRace]

64. The site defaults future primaries to a 50/50 split. You can...

The site defaults future primaries to a 50/50 split. You can change the outcome by entering numbers in the text boxes or use the slider to change the percentages for each state.

If there is a tie, and an odd number of delegates for the State, the site will do a coin toss to allocate the extra delegate (example Ohio). There is a (*CT) next to each +1 to alert the user when this happens. If you refresh the page, you will notice these change and sometimes Clinton will win more than Sanders.

I have tried my best to make the site neutral and not favor any candidate.

You are more than welcome to create your own projection for each State and click the button on the bottom to share. You will get a unique URL that you can share with your friends and family.

I have had requests to default the upcoming States to the current poll numbers, I just need to find the time. Until then, you can use the share button to do this yourself and share with others.

I'll check thegreenpapers.com to review the Northern Marianas election and update them tonight if they are wrong (they do change as States finalize the results).

Let me know if you have any issues.

[Number23]

83. Oh wow, this is your own site?? As in you made this yourself???

That's very cool.

[DemRace]

109. Thanks! I hope it's a useful tool.

[Zira]

81. What does open and closed caucus mean?

[lovemydog]

113. In an open caucus or primary independents and republicans

may vote in the democratic primary or caucus.

In a closed caucus or primary only registered democrats can participate.

[enid602]

19. HRC

The calculator shows that HRC is up by over 16% over Sanders to date, not by 5%, as claimed by the OP.

[DCBob]

20. Good point.... his math is off.. maybe.

215 (HRC led) / 1317 (Total dels) = 16%

However he might be basing that on total final delegate count.. which is a bit misleading.

[DemRace]

25. Clinton is up 16.43%. Sanders would need to win 8% more delegates than Clinton going forward.

This is only for pledged delegates.

[Recursion]

112. Right, meaning he needs to win 54% of the pledged delegates going forward

I don't think that's remotely impossible, though I'd still put money on Clinton.

[Recursion]

27. 4000 delegates. Down by 200. That's 5%

Arithmetic: it's for everybody.

[Garrett78]

32. As DCBob points out, that's some seriously misleading arithmetic.

Currently, Sanders is behind by 16%. What happens going forward is, of course, TBD. But what you're doing is adding in all of those delegates that have not yet been decided and suggesting that Sanders is currently behind by 5%.

It's no wonder so many posters make unrealistic predictions (e.g., Sanders could be tied by the time New York has their primary).

[Recursion]

33. It's not remotely misleading. He needs to make up 5% of the total delegates

With 75% of the delegates still outstanding.

That's not some impossible quest.

[Garrett78]

34. It is misleading for reasons already stated.

Something can be technically accurate and still be terribly misleading.

Anyway, feel free to demonstrate why you think it's conceivable that the 2 candidates could be in a virtual tie by the time of the New York primary. Are you expecting Sanders to win a clear majority of the March 15 delegates?

[Recursion]

36. Not Mar 15; I think they basically tread water tomorrow

It's the 22nd and onward where I predict the kind of lopsided victories Clinton has been seeing in the South.

[Garrett78]

40. Breaking even tomorrow would make for...

...an exceptionally good day for Sanders. And even then it's extremely unlikely that he could tie Clinton by the time of the New York primary. He would have to win nearly 300 of the 373 delegates leading up to New York.

[Cheese Sandwich]

56. He doesn't need to tie Clinton by the time of New York. That's only in April.

He just needs to start clawing back toward parity.

Bernie does not have any path to winning that would end before June 7.

Any Sanders win would have to include a significant win in California.

Nothing is finished until June 7.

[Garrett78]

58. I know. It was the OP that suggested...

...Sanders could catch Clinton by the time of the New York primary.

I agree that, if he pulls ahead at all, it won't be until June. If tomorrow goes badly for him, he won't have a path at all.

[Cheese Sandwich]

63. Yeah

If he gets totally wiped out tomorrow, yes it could be over for a realistic shot at winning.

[Recursion]

107. Agreed. If he can't replicate MI in the rest of the midwest, he's out of time (nt)

[Cheese Sandwich]

111. Well, when the dust settles after today, we'll do this math again and see how it looks

But yes Bernie has to do well today. "Virtual ties" might be ok. 49% to 51% can leave a state with equal delegates.

[DCBob]

37. What would make more sense is what percent of the remaining delegates does he need to catch up.

That would be 8%.

215 (HRC lead) / 2754 (remaining dels) = 8%

[Garrett78]

41. Exactly.

And that's without Clinton gaining ground tomorrow, as she's expected to do.

So, while Recursion isn't technically wrong, his post is quite misleading.

[Recursion]

102. True. He has to win 54% of the remaining pledged delegates to get the pledged majority

I really don't see that as some Quixotic number.

[DCBob]

114. In fact it is "Quixotic".

That number gets bigger after today and Hillary is not going to simply collapse and lose every state from here on out. All she needs to do is win a few along the way and keep from getting blown out in the others. She will cruise to the nomination.

[Cosmocat]

44. yeah

not sure where the 5% number is coming from ...

[Garrett78]

45. Recursion is just dividing 200 into 4000.

Clinton's approximate lead divided into the approximate number of total pledged delegates. Given the way he or she worded the post, Recursion isn't technically wrong. But the post is very misleading and, thus, rather pointless.

[Recursion]

48. I still find your claim amusing

Yeah, the percent of the total by which he is down is "misleading" rather than "the only important question".

I know a lot of people are really invested in how it's utterly impossible for someone to overcome an 8% lead, so this gets emotional, but you're just being a little silly here.

[Garrett78]

54. Sanders is down by 16+%.

And he needs to win the remaining delegates by a good bit more than +5%. So, yes, your post was misleading, and several people have explained why. What's more, you know it was misleading.

Anyway, I'm still waiting for you to detail how Sanders catches Clinton by the time of the New York primary. You say they'll break even tomorrow, which would make for an exceptionally good day for Sanders. That leaves 373 more delegates before New York. So, Sanders would need to win nearly 300 of those 373 in order to catch Clinton. That's almost enough to suggest that you don't know your post was misleading. Maybe you're just really bad at math.

I'm not invested in anything aside from reality-based thinking.

[Recursion]

105. No, he needs 54% of the remaining pledged delegates

That's a much harder target than Clinton's 46%. But it's ludicrous to say it's an unheard of thing for a pol to do.

[Garrett78]

118. What do you mean "no?"

You didn't dispute anything I wrote, and I never said anything about something being unheard of. All I did was point out that Clinton's lead is currently 16+% and that Sanders would need to win the remaining delegates by +8% (a good bit more than +5) in order to catch Clinton. That is all.

[jfern]

6. Especially since all of his worst states will finish voting by tommorrow

[AtomicKitten]

7. I read after March 22nd are states more favorable to him

plus he's surging, so I am hopeful

[jfern]

9. March 22 are good too

I think Bernie can avoid losing any state by double digits after March 15. Maybe DC or a territory, but they're not states.

[BeyondGeography]

13. She has a bigger lead than Obama ever had against her

And it is going to grow again tomorrow. The only questions I have is does Sanders win his states going forward by large enough margins to defeat her (very doubtful) and is the worst over for her in terms of her performance as a candidate (less doubtful after the terrible week she just had).

[Autumn Colors]

14. I think Bernie will win New York

She'll probably win the votes of the wealthy, but I wouldn't count on voters upstate. Bernie's a native of Brooklyn and a good part of upstate NY borders Vermont.

I think Hillary's going to be unpleasantly surprised by NY.

[Godhumor]

15. He's not winning here in NY , not by a longshot

Closed primary, last day to change party registration was in October, so very few independents will be involved (And Hillary has consistently won registered Democrats by 20 points out so, even in states she had lost), and Hillary had massive support in the City. She might not win by 30, but it will not be his state.

[Cheese Sandwich]

55. New voters can still register to vote up until March 25 in New York

You must be registered to vote by Friday, March 25th in New York.

[Gothmog]

117. Sanders does not do well in closed primary states

This is a good article but this chart explains Michigan https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/14/why-hillary-clintons-delegate-lead-over-bernie-sanders-is-bigger-than-it-looks/


https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=&w=1484

[Jitter65]

16. True Democrats prefer Hillary over Sanders by a lot. It's the crossover in open primaries that are

costing Hillary. Sanders is not a true Democrat but has hijacked the process by running as one. I don't think the super delegate ought to forgive him for this.

[99Forever]

17. No True Scottsman bullshit.

Who the fuck appointed you gatekeeper?

meh.

[Buzz Clik]

28. Are you interested in the data or just cursing out people who don't share your preconceived notions?

[99Forever]

35. What fucking "data" would that be?

The "data" where this Hillarian tells us who is a "real Democrat" and who isn't?

The Democratic Party should be singing Senator Sanders praises for not running Third Party and insuring a Teapublican landslide.

If you don't like what I have to say or how I say it, put me on ignore. What you damn sure WON'T do, is censor me.

[99Forever]

42. You most assuredly would if you could.

But you can't. So quit fucking trying.


So where's thst fucking "data" you were whining about wanting to "discuss?"

[Buzz Clik]

43. Here's some data:

Here's a challenge: respond to the data. I'm betting you can't.

[99Forever]

47. What does that have to do with person I responded to...

...judging who is and isn't "a real Democrat?"

[Ned_Devine]

52. Dude, don't take that bait

You're forgetting that most of the HRC people here would be no fun at parties so they have to make up for it by being jerks here.

[ebayfool]

68. Ummm, I don't think he's gonna be able to respond for a while,

judging from the transparency page.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

79. .

[Zira]

82. I am a true Democrat. I have voted in every presidential election since I was 20 and I come from a

family line of Democrats. I am voting for Bernie Sanders. He reflects my Democratic values. Hillary Clinton leans too right for me on too many issues.

I don't know who you are speaking for. The Democrats I know are voting for Bernie Sanders.

[DCBob]

21. Recursion your math is off... maybe.

As pointed out by enid602 its 16% not 5%.

215 (HRC lead) / 1317 (Total dels awarded) = 16%

Or are you basing that percent on total final delegates? If so that's misleading.

[Recursion]

26. The total number of pledged delegates, as I wrote

There are 4000 and change and he's down 200, with a little short of 3000 left.

[Godhumor]

22. Mathematically, there is almost no statistical chance he is at or near parity by NY

After the 15th, there are only 373 pledged delegates up for grabs before NY. Just in overall terms, the following math comes into play:

If Bernie runs on Tuesday and manages to 50-50 split the entire day (Which he won't, but let's say he does), he is still down by the same 206 delegates he is today.

To get the full way back to that he needs to win over 77% of those 373 delegates before NY. A wipe-out of 290 to 84. You've already acknowledged that some states in the next few weeks will be close, and Hillary will be favored in Arizona's closed primary, probably by double digits. Arizona is the third largest delegate haul in that 3 week stretch, by the way.

So what is close to parity? Within 50? Even then he needs over 71% of all those delegates.

Now, let's assume that Hillary expands her lead by 50 on Tuesday (So I can reuse some of the same numbers, and it will be a lot closer to reality than a 50-50 split). To be at parity by NY, Bernie needs to win over 86% of all those delegates, which means multiple states where Hillary gets below the 15% voter threshold. That has only happened in Vermont so far, and even then just barely.

To be within 50 would be that 77% number from a few paragraphs before.

So let's go one step farther, let's say Bernie splits Arizona after splitting Tuesday. He would need to win 76% of the 298 remaining delegates before NY to be within 50 of Hillary by NY. If she increases her lead by 50 tomorrow and splits Arizona, he needs 85% of the delegates to be within 50.

So let's look at a more realistic scenario. Hillary increases her lead by 50 tomorrow and Bernie, even including Arizona, wins the next 3 weeks by an average of 60-40 in delegate split. He'll still be down over 180 delegates by NY. What about at 70-30? He will still be down 107.

Parity, hell even near parity as being defined by an over-generous 50 delegates, is simply not feasible.

(I like this post so much I'm turning it into an OP).

[Garrett78]

23. "Sanders could conceivably catch up by New York"

This is the sort of thing I've been talking about. People keep making predictions that have no basis in reality. Unless one thinks Sanders is going to cut Clinton's lead in half on March 15th, there's no basis for believing they could be approximately tied heading into New York.

[Cheese Sandwich]

59. The whole "he needs parity before New York" is nonsense

Bernie can run behind all the way to June 7 and then take the lead on June 7.

It fact, I hate to say it, but that's like the only way he's going to win. Bernie doesn't have any path to victory without a significant win on June 7, California. And also including wins in PA on April 26 and Wisconin on April 5.


I just used this http://demrace.com/ and I have him losing New York, but still winning the nomination.

[Garrett78]

60. Nobody said "he needs parity before New York."

The comments about parity by NY have to do with a comment in the OP.

[Recursion]

103. I confess that was me being a bit facetious

He could be within 50 though (which is "near parity" at that point). And then he'll probably lose NY and CT, pretty badly. But the west is really, really good for him.

[Garrett78]

119. I think it's more likely he'll lose DE than CT, based on the demographics.

Being down by only 50 heading into New York would be a shock. He'd have to do incredibly well tonight.

[Buzz Clik]

30. Let's have this discussion again on Wednesday morning.

With roughly 700 delegates on the line tomorrow, we'll know a lot more.

[Cobalt Violet]

46. seeing as how hillary is a one woman gaffe machine...

He really could catch up. Things look great after tomorrow. He could pull some upsets tomorrow too.

[Cheese Sandwich]

53. I did math on this for like 30 minutes yesterday.

It's not insurmountable, but it will be hard from where we are right now. It is still unlikely. Bernie is definitely the underdog. He does need to start winning and clawing back to delegate parity.

Bernie's path to win would have to include California. He can not win before June 7. For that matter Hillary probably can't win before June 7 either, but she can build up a huge lead heading into June 7. It also has to include Pennsylvania in my opinion. I guess Wisconsin too. Everything is proportional so I mean he needs significant wins in these states.

If they were to tie on total delegates tomorrow, I would consider that a pretty good result, because it would give Sanders momentum heading into states that are more favorable.

[Garrett78]

57. If Clinton is ahead by a couple hundred delegates heading into the June 7 primaries, it's over.

I agree that Sanders, however, is not likely to take a lead (if he does at all) until the end of the campaign.

If Sanders manages to break even tomorrow, that will be an exceptionally good day for him. If, on the other hand, Clinton increases her delegate lead to 350+ (or even 300+), it will be virtually impossible for Sanders to catch her.

[Cheese Sandwich]

61. Right. Agree.

If he ties tomorrow or "virtual tie", off by a few delegates, that's good for Bernie tomorrow.

He gets the psychology bump out of that. Shows that he can win.

Like you said, I'll paraphrase, he needs to get within a reasonable striking distance so it would be realistic to take the lead on June 7.

Bad news for Hillary folks, this thing might really drag out, because Bernie does not have any path without California. That's not to say it's very likely, but it is possible.

It depends a lot what happens tomorrow.

[BainsBane]

65. He needs 61% of the remaining delegates to win the nomination

By contrast, Clinton needs only 39%.

Each election in which he earns less than 61% puts him further behind. Winning only half of the delegates tomorrow (something quite unlikely) would make that percentage he would need to win even greater.

By tomorrow, half of the earned delegates will have been awarded. It's a significant milestone.

[Cheese Sandwich]

66. Show your math? I show he needs 54% of remaining delegates to win...

Maybe you can correct my math:

As of March 14...
Bernie has 552 delegates
He needs to reach 2026 to win a majority of delegates.
2026-552 = 1474. So Bernie need 1474 more delegates to win a majority.
There are 2730 delegates still left available in states that have not voted.
1474/2730 = .5399
Which is about 54%.

So Bernie needs to win about 54 percent of remaining delegates to get a majority.

[BainsBane]

67. You're wrong about the number needed for nomination

I did this math over the weekend. There have been a couple delegates adjusted since then but the difference isn't significant.


Here's the math. He currently has 576 delegates. According to Politico, there are 2962 delegates left that can be earned. http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/delegate-count-tracker
A candidate earns the nomination at 2383 delegates. That means Bernie needs another 1807 delegates, which comes to 61% of the 2962 remaining delegates.

By contrast, Clinton needs only 39% of the remaining delegates to win. Every contest in which Bernie earns less than 61% of delegates and Clinton more than 39% means Clinton is that much closer to winning.

I included Super delegates in both Bernie and Hillary's numbers because they would need a series of convincing wins by Bernie to change allegiance. Even so, the superdelegate addition makes the path a bit shorter for Bernie.

[Cheese Sandwich]

69. You're counting super delegates as if they are already allocated. They are not.

I'm assuming the superdelegates will realign to the winner of the pledged delegates.

OK I recalculated using the numbers from Real Clear Politics delegate count. Bernie needs to win 53% of remaining delegates to win a majority of the pledged delegates. I'm very confident in this number and my maths are demonstrated much more clearly than your maths.


There are 4051 total pledged delegates

As of March 14...

Bernie has 542 delegates
Hillary has 748 delegates

He needs to reach 2026 to win a majority of delegates. Because 4051/2 = 2025.5
2026-542 = 1484. So Bernie needs 1484 more delegates to win a majority.
There are 2761 delegates still left available in states that have not voted. Because 4051 - (542+748) = 2761.
1484/2761 = .5337
Which is about 53%.

So Bernie needs to win about 53 percent of remaining delegates to get a majority.

Source for numbers:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_delegate_count.html

[BainsBane]

77. The number for nomination is 2383

Not 2026. Both Politico and ballotpedia list 2383 as the number for nomination.
https://ballotpedia.org/2016_presidential_nominations:_calendar_and_delegate_rules Your own source says 2382, not 2026.
Politico says there are 2950 remaining delegates to be earned. Adding Clinton's earned delegate count with Sanders won't yield the right numbers because some of the delegates from past elections are still being sorted out. That's why you see changes over a day or two when there isn't even an election.

2950 left.

NewYorkTimes says Bernie has 553 delegates. That's me giving him 11 more than you did. That means he needs an additional 1830, which is 62% of 2950. That isn't accounting for Superdelegates.


You seem to want to assume all the superdelegates will switch to Bernie even if he has fewer delegates and a smaller popular vote. Ain't gonna happen. No way, no how. The superdelegates might change if Bernie blew Clinton away, which he hasn't done. There is no way they will switch to her if he has fewer delegates. I know that's the strategy. I saw it posted in the Bernie group, but it is not going to happen. They won't switch if he is at one delegate over half either because he'd still be trailing by millions in the popular vote.

[Cheese Sandwich]

80. That's because you care about superdelegates. I don't.

You're counting superdelegates in your numbers and maybe you don't even realize it.

I assume the superdelegates will switch to the winner of the pledged delegates. Or, at least half of them will back the winner of the pledged delegates so they cancel each other out.

There are 4051 pledged delegates total.

That is not in dispute.

You need 50% + 1 of those to win a majority of the pledged delegates.

Still following along? 4051/2 = 2025.5.

So to win a majority of pledged delegates, a candidate needs 2026 pledged delegates.

Bernie has 542 pledged delegates, according to Real Clear Politics delegate tracker (link)

Hillary has 748 pledged delegates, according to Real Clear Politics delegate tracker (link)

There are 2761 pledged delegates left to be won in the states that have not yet voted.
That is because 4051 - (542+748) = 2761.

Are you following that?

So when you say there are 2950 remaining delegates to be earned, that number is including the number of super delegates that have not yet endorsed. Do you understand that you are including superdelegates and claiming Bernie needs to "win over" nearly all of the remaining superdelegates? It's not true.

The super delegates will switch to the winner of the pledged delegates. You say they won't but you have absolutely no evidence for that. I say they will switch because if they flip the result of the pledged delegate allocation it would tear the party apart.

But regardless of that, you should be clear that the 62% number you keep repeating includes superdelegates.

It seemed like you were kind of confused on that.

[BainsBane]

85. No, I get the issue

You can say you don't care about superdelgates, but it doesn't really matter what you care about. What matters are the party rules. The party supports Clinton. Democrats and voters overall have overwhelmingly supported Clinton. She has 1.65 million votes more than Bernie. Do you get that? http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_vote_count.html

It could change, yes. But that change would need to be dramatic, not the incremental edge you are praying for.

You are trying to figure out how he can win with a minority vote. In states Sanders has won, it has been due to large independent turnout. That is not the "party." The party is comprised of Democrats, regular Democratic voters, volunteers, and party activists.

Whatever. Tomorrow will change the math anyway. I would be very surprised if Clinton doesn't extend her lead. By the end of tomorrow, half of the earned delegates will have already been allocated.

[Cheese Sandwich]

87. I just think we should follow the rules.

If the super delegates choose to reverse the results of the election, that's their choice, but I don't think they will.

You don't think regular Democratic voters are supporting Bernie Sanders? It's just nuts. It's like a bizarre conspiracy theory that all these hordes of libertarian Bernie Bros are deliberately entering the Democratic Primaries to wreak havoc

[BainsBane]

88. Of course they are

(no small number of them from my own neighborhood) but more Democrats are supporting Clinton. More voters are supporting Clinton, to the tune of 1.65 million so far. That's not a small amount.

[Cheese Sandwich]

90. Hey, less people participate in caucus states because it takes hours.

Those are the rules.

I'm just letting you know, if the superdelegates reverse the result of the election, there will be a mass exodus.

There's no way people are going to respect the result of that election. It's not going to happen.

[BainsBane]

91. I really don't think you're going to have to worry about that.

As for fewer people in caucus states, that is precisely what Jeff Weaver articulated as their strategy months ago. They thought they'd do better in lower turnout caucus states with less diverse electorates. There was a document from the campaign saying just that, touched on in a Politico article.

I know that in my state, one of Bernie's biggest wins, his margin would have been less if more people could have participated through a primary system.

Now if we could stop Clinton supporters from voting in GOP primaries and caucuses to stop Trump, that would help a lot.

[Cheese Sandwich]

92. Well I can see the Democrats are getting ready to steal the election

[BainsBane]

93. Yeah, those 4.94 million Clinton voters

stealing the election from the 3.29 Sanders voters. How dare those Democrats think their votes matter as much as the superior people who vote for Sanders?

My point was that in all likelihood Clinton's lead in earned delegates will continue to grow. Sanders has not so far been winning by the margins necessary to overtake her. He has a tendency to do better in states with fewer delegates, which also corresponds to differences in the popular vote.

Here is another take on the delegate race: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats/

[Cheese Sandwich]

95. Your point was that Bernie needs to hit a target of 61% everywhere

But the real number is about 53% or 54%.

You're counting superdelegates which are not allocated yet.

[DemRace]

71. Here is an example of 54%

http://DemRace.com/?share=G3praXjx

[Cheese Sandwich]

72. Edit: That's cool that verifies Bernie needs to win 54% of pledged delegates.

You've set it to 54% and that shows if Bernie gets 54% of remaining pledged delegates he can win the majority of pledged delegtes.

Thanks. I came up with the same number.

[DemRace]

74. Yup (nt)

[Cheese Sandwich]

76. That's interesting thanks.

[Recursion]

98. No, he needs 54% going forward to hit the convention with more pledged delegates

He'd need 61% to not need supers. But he will need supers, just like Clinton will. Which, incidentally, is why I think Team Sanders's denigration of the very idea of supers may come back to bite them.

[BainsBane]

100. The newest strategy

As posted in the Bernie group is to enable him to win with all the superdelegates and only 41 percent of earned delegates. Those numbers are about a week old. So the problem with Superdelegates is not that they override the majority but that they aren't voting for Bernie.

61% includes his current superdelegate count. Without superdelegates he needs 62%.

[Recursion]

101. The supers are going to do what they are going to do. We're talking about winning the majority

of pledged delegates.

To do that, Sanders would need to win 54% of the pledged delegates going forward. Agreed?

[BainsBane]

62. Seriously?

767 to 553 in pledged delegates, 1234 to 579 total delegates. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-results.html?_r=0 That's way more than 5%. It's something like 28% of pledged delegates alone, trailing 54% in total delegates.

By tomorrow, half of the earned delegates will have been allotted. https://ballotpedia.org/2016_presidential_nominations:_calendar_and_delegate_rules

Bernie needs 61% of the remaining delegates to win the nomination. In contrast, Clinton needs 39%. That doesn't make a win for him impossible, but it does make it extremely difficult.

[Recursion]

70. I'm probably predicting a much bigger showing for Sanders in the Midwest than you are

I think everything north of the Ohio left he takes with the kinds of margins Clinton has been getting in the South (excepting NY, of course). I can well be wrong; MI may have been a fluke, my judgment right now is that it's not.

West of the Mississippi I'm much less doubtful; everything left there (except Cali, which may end up being all that matters) is going for Sanders hard. Clinton's candidacy was literally built for this schedule and she's running out of time (NY and CA are her remaining bright spots, and NY is huge and possibly game-ending, but CA is so late that by that point nobody can say anything).

If I were putting money down it's still on Clinton, but this idea that this is locked is just ignoring what the rest of the schedule looks like.

[BainsBane]

73. Well, given that you don't know the numbers of delegates

the candidate's delegate counts or the amount remaining, I'm not terribly convinced.
You're usually more careful about things.

Unless he has some sort of blow out tomorrow, which would prove all the polls wrong, the math is going to be extremely difficult for him.

Those state you mention don't have enough delegates to earn him the nomination. He'll win WA and Oregon, Wyoming, Wisconsin, Utah. So? If he wins it by margins similar to the other Northern states, it won't be anywhere enough.
Clinton will win Florida by a good margin. That much I'd stake money on.

[Recursion]

75. I accurately stated he's down by 5% of the pledged total

You also know that's true. This is a strong lead for Clinton but it's absurd to claim he can't make that up in the 70% of the delegates that remain.

[BainsBane]

78. No, it isn't true

767 to 553 is the number of pledged delegates. That is not even close to five percent. You are off by a factor of 5-6.

[Cheese Sandwich]

84. It is 5%

Last edited Tue Mar 15, 2016, 04:50 AM - Edit history (1)

767 - 553 = 214. If that is the current delegate count then Sanders trails by 214 delegates

There are 4051 pledged delegates total.

214/4051 = .0528

That's 5%. Bernie trails by 5% of the total pledged delegates.

Hillary leads by 5% of the total.

OR, it would also be fair to say Hillary leads by 10% of the number needed for a majority of the pledged delegates.

Because you need 2026 for a majority of the pledged delegates.

This is where we are as of March 14.

[BainsBane]

86. OMG, not 5% of Clinton's votes

When someone says he trails by 5 percent, it implies he trails the other person by 5 percent. Not 5 % of votes, 2/3 of which haven't yet been allocated.

That's some pretty disingenuous math there.

[Garrett78]

89. Yes, as several of us have pointed out, the OP was very misleading.

Oh well, what are you gonna do?

[Recursion]

96. OMG did you read my OP? He trails by 5% of the total available

I literally couldn't be any clearer than that.

[BainsBane]

97. "total pledged delegates"

not so far allocated but eventually to be allocated? It's an absurd way to look at it. He trails significantly, 28% less than her earned delegate amount and less than half of her total delegate count to this point.

You were not as clear as you claim. Your metric is nonsensical. Clinton's lead might increase, stay the same, or lessen over the remaining course of the primary. By tomorrow, half of pledged delegates will be allocated, which is why Daily Kos has named it as the day when the anti-Clinton stuff stops.

[Cheese Sandwich]

104. Daily Kos is trying to call the election when it's only half over, because he supports one of the

candidates who happens to be ahead.

[Recursion]

106. The primary is not yet a third over

The schedule suggests this could easily go all the way to CA. (Or, God help us, DC. Somebody remind me why DC is last on the slate?)

[Cheese Sandwich]

110. It's clear there is some strategy afoot to make Hillary seem inevitable

I think it's partly a voter suppression tactic to discourage Sanders voters from coming out to vote today, arguably the most important day of the election.

It is also being used to inflate expectations for Bernie by rolling the superdelegates into the math and saying he needs to win 61% everywhere or he's through.

Like you said Hillary's lead is not that big with pledged delegates. 5% of the total, or we could say 10% of what is needed to win a majority of pledged delegates.

There is no precedent for superdelegates reversing an elected outcome.

Yes this thing is going to possibly undetermined all the way to the end of the primary schedule.

[senz]

99. Oh they're going to keep shouting that she's winning, he's losing,

and we can just do ourselves and our country a big favor by ignoring these seamy attempts to discourage us.

We have much better things to do.

[Gothmog]

116. Why Hillary Clinton’s delegate lead over Bernie Sanders is bigger than it looks

The Clinton lead over Sanders in 2016 is actually far greater than the Obama lead over Clinton in 2008 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/14/why-hillary-clintons-delegate-lead-over-bernie-sanders-is-bigger-than-it-looks/

But here's the thing: Whether or not Clinton wins Ohio doesn't really matter.

It's important to remember that the Democrats, unlike the Republicans, don't allocate delegates on a winner-take-all basis. When Donald Trump won South Carolina with a plurality of the vote, he got all of the state's 50 delegates, a total that right now constitutes more than half of his lead. There are no states like that on the Democratic side. There are some variations in how the states divvy up their delegates, but they're proportionally distributed from now until the primary is over.

Which is why the 2008 daily delegate totals looked like this.

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=&w=1484

As Clinton tried to play catch-up with Barack Obama, he would get some delegates every time she did. The only times she made big gains against him was in states she won by a wide margin. But the proportional delegate system kept Obama steadily out of reach.

It's worth comparing Obama's 2008 lead in the delegates to Clinton's. Clinton, by virtue of huge margins of victory in Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana, has a much bigger lead than Obama did at this point -- or than Obama did at any point. (The data below excludes superdelegates.)
https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=&w=1484

Even without super delegates, Clinton has a far greater lead over Sanders compared to the lead that President Obama had over Clinton in 2008