Delegate Math: Where we stand as of March 14. It's closer than you might think.

[Cheese Sandwich]

This does not include super delegates. Those can switch at any time. They are not allocated until the national convention.

It's quite possible the superdelegates will align with the winner of the pledged delegates. If at least half the super delegates align to the winner of the pledged delegates, it will neutralize the effect of super delegates.

These numbers are from Real Clear Politics delegate count. Bernie would need to win about 53% or 54% of remaining delegates to win a majority of the pledged delegates. Some people are being misleading and reporting that Bernie needs very large wins, because they are including super delegates in their math.

There are 4051 total pledged delegates

As of March 14...

Bernie has 542 delegates
Hillary has 748 delegates

He would need 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 or 54 percent of remaining delegates to get a majority.

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

[Peace Patriot]

1. The Bernie Sanders campaign continues to amaze!

Just a few weeks ago, Daily Kos and Clintonbots were calling for Bernie to withdraw from his campaign and "unify." Though he'd had significant wins to that point, he was 20 points down in Michigan, the first big diverse industrial state.

Then Sanders won Michigan.

This kind of thing keeps happening. A few weeks ago, none of the states voting this week were in play (except maybe Missouri?). Now they all are, with some polls showing Sanders ahead in Illinois, polls showing Ohio very, very close, Missouri an almost sure win for Sanders, and THESE developments, combined with Michigan, make a good showing in Florida even possible.

Sanders has an electric campaign, with vigorous young volunteers, who are doing some incredible things with canvassing and phone banking (50,000 phone calls in a day), the organization of tens of thousands of people for rallies all over the map, and of course the most astonishing fundraising effort in modern political history.

Sanders is attracting thousands of young voters, new voters, independent voters, disgruntled voters, and non-voters, including many young women voters--as voters and as volunteers.

Most Sanders supporters here at DU know all this, but it's good to be reminded of how unprecedented this campaign is, in so many ways--how improbable, how "impossible." It just keeps breaking through the improbable/impossible barriers.

I've been thinking about, a) the dreariness of Clinton's campaign--its complacency and its dependence on complacent voters (of the kind that just see the Clinton name and vote yes, thinking they're voting for a "liberal," thinking it's a safe bet for the GE, and/or who don't know much about Sanders), and b) the INCREDIBLE HANDICAPS that the Sanders campaign has been up against.

I want to list the handicaps (which are severe):

1. Summer 2015: Sanders virtually unknown (as to most voters across the country). At 3% in the polls.

2. Blatant, outright hostility of the Clinton-run DNC (early, and on-going).

3. (By choice) NO superpac money. NO billionaire money. NO corporate money. Impossible to run for president with that handicap, right? (Also, no personal fortune.)

4. Corporate Media not just hostile, but black-holing Sanders--giving him not even a mention, not even a footnote, until recently; every Corporate venue a hostile venue, still; and, of course, Trump, Trump, Trump--the other anti-establishment candidate gets non-stop coverage on TV news, even when he's just picking his nose, and in every other medium as well, while Sanders just starting to become a footnote, and, more recently, the last paragraph or sentence (and a headline or two, 2nd to Trump, after Michigan).

5. Nearly the entire Democratic Party leadership--most office holders--endorsing Clinton, most likely because they are bought and paid for (tit for tat relationship), they want DNC-controlled money, they naturally cozy up to power, and their thinking is "inside the Beltway," i.e., Clinton is "inevitable."

6. Clinton dirty tricks campaign on Sanders civil rights activism in the '60s, which may have hurt him with black voters in the South; there are likely other factors, but Southern blacks have gone overwhelmingly for Clinton. Black voters are a constituency that should have shown more liking for Sanders, given his populist, FDR-like proposals, and his civil rights record.

7. Sanders is from a small, rural, very white state--VT. Though he was born in Brooklyn and has a Brooklyn accent still, and although he is Jewish (& lost family in the Holocaust), it has taken voters some time to understand how broad and inclusive his views and policies are, and what a great president he would make. (There are advantages to being from VT--he has made his mark there and VT-ers love him--but I think he was more vulnerable on racial, cultural diversity and urban issues than he realized, and thus got stabbed in the back by Clinton and her Rovian operative, David Brock, on what should have been a big strength--his civil rights record.)

7. Sanders is a democratic socialist, which lent itself to the "oddball" campaign meme in the beginning, though it may turn out to be a plus in the end. (People are truly fed up with politics as usual.) He is an independent caucusing with the Democrats in Congress, but is not part of the Democratic establishment (a weakness early on, but is likely turning out to be a strength). (As a handicap, for instance, the Black Caucus Pac endorsed Clinton. The Pac raises corporate money for black Congress people. Most establishment black Congress people and other black officials support Clinton.)

8. Union leaders, as opposed to union members, came out with big endorsements of Clinton; with the above, a combination of punches aimed at knocking him out of the race.

9. His proposals are revolutionary, in the New Deal sense, and they pose a grave threat to the wealthy that they might have to pay their fair share of taxes, and to our transglobal corporate rulers, whose power may be curtailed, and to the banksters, who could find themselves in jail if Sanders becomes president, and to the profiteers of the "military-industrial complex," and to the private prison industry--in short, Sanders is a grave threat to all of Clinton's donors. Clinton can use (and probably has used) this threat to extract millions of dollars of support.

10. There is something going on in Hollywood, that Susan Sarandon reported, whereby women in the Hollywood community who say they support Sanders are afraid to come out and endorse him, for fear of "being shamed." Sarandon didn't explain this further in the interview I read. Hollywood is generally to the left of Clinton, and they--like all of us--have never had a leftist alternative before. This should be fertile ground for Sanders endorsements. Danny deVito (who joined Sanders at a rally this week) might be the breakthrough. (He is very well liked.) I mention this because Sanders needs to win California big, and the state Democratic Party is as Corporatist as Clinton and the DNC. He needs leftist allies in L.A. and S.F. and in the Latino community to win big in California.

Well, I'm sure DUers could add to this list of the handicaps that the Bernie Sanders campaign has faced and still faces. And despite all this, he and we have created a viable campaign for president With a lot of work and good luck, he could actually win the Democratic nomination! And I have no doubt at all that if he does, he will win the presidency.

That would be the most wondrous thing that ever happened in U.S. politics. But the Sanders campaign is already a wonder. It is already edging into revolutionary as to its impact. The young, in particular, will never go back to politics as usual. They will never be satisfied with that. Nor will some of the rest of us. It's like the light is flooding in.

[reformist2]

2. That pie chart provides a whole new (and much more accurate) perspective! Thank you!!!

[me b zola]

3. K&R

[oberliner]

4. Another 700 pledged delegates will be divided up today

Let's say it's an even split between Hillary and Bernie.

That would give Hillary 1100 and Bernie 900, with 2000 still up for grabs (approximately).

In that case, Bernie would need to win 55 percent of the remaining pledged delegates.

If Hillary gets more delegates today than Bernie, then, of course, that percentage would go higher.

With no winner-take-all states on our side, it is tough to overcome a lead like this, but anything is possible.

A lot would depend on the big states like New York, Pennsylvania, and, in particular, California.

[Happenstance24]

5. "A lot would depend on the big states like New York, Pennsylvania, and, in particular, California."

All closed or semi-closed primaries. Add Jersey to that list as well. No Independents or Pugs flipping things around to create chaos. Good luck with that.

[oberliner]

6. Exactly

It would be quite an historic upset.

[Happenstance24]

7. This isn't really fair but...

Hillary is at 1200 delegates including supers. The second she reaches 2383 (supers included) then Bernie's media following (what little he and Hillary get with the MSM being in the tank for Trump 24/7) will disappear. He'll have a real hard time getting his message out at that point when no one covers him. It's not fair but it is the way the media operates. Same thing is gonna happen to Rubio after Florida tonight whether he wins or loses. His "story", or what he can contribute to the story the MSM wants to tell (Trumps rise and being denied the nom) will be over. Bernie doesn't have until June to make a statement. He has until Hillary reaches 2383. At that point the little media Dems get will be all about Hillary challenging Trump. We'll see what happens tonight.

[restorefreedom]

8. thankfully, the only people for whom m$m is relevant

is largely older folks, and many of them are already with clinton anyway. most everyone else realizes that m$m is corrupt and works for tptb. the peoples media (social media) is where the truth lives.

the msm have been spinning for hillary this whole time and there was a bernie blackout until very recently, and it still hasn't stopped bernie.

this will not be a major issue, esp since the shameless media shilling has forced dws to come out and tell the media that they should not be including supers in their calculations.

people are onto their game

[Happenstance24]

9. Don't be so sure of that.

A ton of people love to back a winner. If you think Hillary crossing the required 2383 delegate number (supers or not) won't cost Sanders a ton of voters you're kidding yourself.

[restorefreedom]

11. not kidding at all. hillary has been "inevitable" this entire time

according to m$m. and ever since super tuesday, they have been trying in vain to convince us that bernie can't possibly win because, math.

it hasn't worked. people know about the supers, and the game the msm is playing.

besides, since bernie will likely vastly outperform in the upcoming contests, the likely scenario is that this gets resolved at the convention.

[Happenstance24]

14. I can't be too bothered about the MSM and the math arguments since

she went through the exact same thing in 08. I don't think Bernie has a prayer though. He is down too far and the big delegate states he'll need to win huge to catch up are closed so no Indies and he's losing Dems by 20 points.

[restorefreedom]

17. i guess we will have to wait and see....big bernie states coming up.

m$m is largely out of my life at this point.

[nichomachus]

15. So, you're saying

That the party insiders and elite will frustrate the will of the people. Yeah -- that will bring out the vote in November. We may see President Trump yet -- and Democratic Party goes down in flames. We could lose the White House, the House, the Senate, and three Supreme Court justices because the party elite thought they were better than the voters. That will be the end of the party.

[vintx]

16. This.

[restorefreedom]

18. probably the end of both parties

its looking more and more like an establishment coup on the gop side, too.

maybe its the opening this country needs to have multiple parties....

[Happenstance24]

21. What people?

She's winning the delegates and popular vote. Among Dems she leads by 20 points. She's winning big even tonight. Sorry you're on the losing end but counting the supers is short cutting things but not denying the will of the people.

[Gothmog]

10. 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

[Hortensis]

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

Thanks for the good info, Gothmog. Hillary's lead is pretty solid. At best it's likely that Bernie will fall behind in smaller increments. But we'll see.

I'm just so glad to be a Democrat, especially on a day like this. I have now heard so many unhappy conservatives I know say they don't know what they are going to do.

[Uncle Joe]

12. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Cheese Sandwich.

[Gothmog]

13. Here is a good video on the delegate math

I found this video to be interesting

[Cheese Sandwich]

20. That's interesting