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

[brooklynite]

Washington Post:

A key question in the wake of Hillary Clinton's surprising loss in Michigan last week is whether or not she'll suffer the same fate in Ohio, Michigan's superior southern neighbor. New polling in the state from Monmouth University shows Clinton with a wide lead, including a 42-point lead among non-white voters. But, of course, polling in Michigan was way off before voters went to the polls.

Recent polling averages in the states that are voting on Tuesday -- Florida, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio -- shows that Clinton leads in the four where there have been recent polls. She leads by a bit in Ohio and her home state of Illinois and by a lot in Florida and North Carolina. (The only recent poll in Missouri gives Bernie Sanders a 1-point lead.)

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

...snip...

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.)

&w=1484

[Bluenorthwest]

1. New Michigan Poll (Fox 2 Detroit): Clinton 61 - Sanders 33 - Undecided 6- brooklynite, March 3

New Michigan Poll (Fox 2 Detroit): Clinton 61 - Sanders 33 - Undecided 6


It's a great thread because all you sparkly emoticon friends are there making sparkly emoticons and funny memes like they do in the House of Lords.....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511403300

[brooklynite]

4. And yet, with all that surprise, Sanders didn't narrow the delegate gap...

He got EXACTLY what he needed in Michigan delegates; so did Clinton. Meanwhile, Clinton got 32 in Mississippi to Sanders' 4 (he needed 13).

[revbones]

2. Hillary supporters seem to need a lot of reassurance lately

Otherwise why constantly posting stuff like this to try to prove your supposed point?

Other polls show other numbers. There were different states involved by this time in the years you cited so the numbers won't match.

[farleftlib]

3. It reminds me of

Trump and Rubio and the penis-measuring taunts they were throwing at each other at one of the recent debates!

[brooklynite]

12. Um this has nothing to do with polling...

It has to do with performance. Clinton is AHEAD of Obama's performance in 2008; which means that Sanders has to be WAY AHEAD of Clinton at this point if he's going to win. So far, his wins (particularly in MI) aren't generating the results he needs. Perhaps blowing all the Southern States was a problem.

[revbones]

15. Check the order of the states between the years. Are those the same?

Reassure yourself if you really need to. Just thought I'd make the observation. Nice that you guys ventured outside of the Hillary Group bubble for it.

[brooklynite]

17. I wouldn't know; I don't spend any time in the Hillary Group...

I DO spend time crunching data, and I'm not seeing a sweep of NY, NJ, PA, CA, WI, MD.....

[kristopher]

18. The underlying dynamic

Last updated 3/12



Last updated 3/14

[revbones]

19. Makes sense. nt

[bigtree]

5. k&r

[Buns_of_Fire]

6. I'd like to see such a graph where the y-axis went all the way to 2223

(or whatever the requisite number is), and the x-axis stretched out to the beginning of the convention. It might put it all in a little better perspective.

Hillary's ahead -- everybody knows that. But even I could construct a chart that only goes up to 150 or so, and put Hillary clean off the chart, thereby demonstrating her awesome wonderfulness.

[NurseJackie]

8. This chart compares Hillary's lead now to Obama's maximum lead in 2008...

... it's not comparing Hillary to Bernie. (I take your point about zoomed-in graphs and relative position on the chart, but it appears that you missed the point of what the OP was trying to illustrate.)

[Buns_of_Fire]

20. I may well have missed the point (I do that at times where technical stuff is concerned).

But I see what you're saying. I still think a longer-term graph might be useful, if only for us geeks, but I'll take it for what it's meant to demonstrate.

[brooklynite]

13. Try this one...

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

[Buns_of_Fire]

21. Better. Thanks.

But there's still a ways to go, and these things can jump all over the place.

I'd put together one of my own, with trendlines and percentages and all that good stuff, but that comes dangerously close to work (which I swore off of a few years ago).

[radical noodle]

7. K&R

[morningfog]

9. No, numbers are numbers. They are not bigger than they look.

[Betty Karlson]

11. And the goalposts keep moving and moving!

[Marr]

10. And if you print the graph out, tilt it back 30 degrees and hold it one inch from your eyeball...

...Hillary's bar appears TWICE as high! She's inevitable! You just have to look it right!

[beedle]

14. Firewall all used up

The lead was expected, but Hillary's buffer is gone and her name recognition advantage is shrinking.

[Firebrand Gary]

16. K&R

[cosmicone]

22. kick n/t

[nichomachus]

23. "Objects in the mirror appear larger than they are" nt