Bernie needs to win the rest of the contests at about 58-42. Is it possible?

[thesquanderer]

No doubt it will be very difficult.

But if you think it's impossible, at least consider this: We're at about the halfway point, and that's about the margin Hillary has achieved so far. So if it was possible for Hillary to win the first half--front-loaded with states more favorable to her--by that margin, it's not entirely out of the question that Bernie could win the second half--back-loaded with states more favorable to him--by the same margin. That is, such a string of success is not unprecedented... in fact, we just had one. And the demographics do shift more to his favor after this past Tuesday.

No, I don't expect it to happen. There are numerous factors still in Hillary's favor. But it's not impossible, especially if anything of significance happens regarding the emails that might still impact the independents, in those states where they can vote in the Dem primaries.

[JackRiddler]

1. Not impossible will have to do.

Let's focus on things outside DU.

[SidDithers]

2. No...nt

Sid

[firebrand80]

3. No

Because as he fails to hit that target in more and more states, the target he needs to hit only gets higher.

Before long he'll need to run off a string of Vermont level victories in every State.

[thesquanderer]

15. re: "as he fails to hit that target in more and more states, the target...only gets higher"

Last edited Wed Mar 23, 2016, 09:23 AM - Edit history (1)

But what if he manages to *exceed* that target in the next bunch of states? Then the target he needs to hit gets lower.

[thesquanderer]

27. re: "as he fails to hit that target in more and more states, the target...only gets higher"

He exceeded the target in two states last night, for a net delegate win despite losing AZ. So actually, his target has now gotten slightly lower.

[SidDithers]

28. He has to exceed the target in ALL states...

exceeding the target in 2 of 3 last night isn't good enough.

There were 131 delegates available last night. For Bernie to have hit his target, he needs to have taken 76 delegates.

Right now, he's at 57 of 108 delegates allocated on the night (with 19 more delegates to be allocated)

57 of 108 is only 52.8%.

He needs 19 of the remaining 23 delegates to go his way, to merely hit his target.

If he doesn't get 19 of the remaining 23 delegates, then he fell short, and he'll need a larger share of the remaining delegates.

Sid

[thesquanderer]

29. re: "He has to exceed the target in ALL states..." Not true.

The math doesn't work that way. Just for a ridiculous extreme example to make the mathematical point, let's say he were to win 100% of the vote in New York and California. Then he could *miss* the target by large amounts in numerous smaller states and still be fine. Obviously, he's not going to do that, but it shows that he does not need to hit a particular target in *every* remaining state. The *average* number he needs to hit in each contest is not something he needs to achieve every time, and in fact, that figure for future contests will change (up or down) after every contest where he either exceeds or fails to hit that target. With proportional allocation, large wins in some states can more than offset losses in some others, there's no reason that every single contest has to meet a particular figure.

[SidDithers]

30. Fine...

he didn't exceed his target in Idaho and Utah by enough to offset the shortfall in Arizona.

Sid

[thesquanderer]

46. re: "he didn't exceed his target in Idaho and Utah by enough to offset the shortfall in Arizona"

Actually, yes he did.

Please see http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511565782

[SidDithers]

47. Met does not equal exceed...nt

Sid

[thesquanderer]

52. re: "Met does not equal exceed"

You said : "he didn't exceed his target in Idaho and Utah by enough to offset the shortfall in Arizona"

He DID exceed his target in Idaho and Utah by exactly enough to offset the shortfall in Arizona, in terms of the 538 target figure. That's why he was able to hit that target.

The end result was that, yes, when you look at the sum of all three, he met (rather than exceeded) his target overall. That's a different statement, though.

(He also exceeded in Idaho and Utah by more than enough to offset the shortfall in AZ terms of who got more delegates for the night, though of course, merely getting more delegates for is not sufficient.)

However, back to the original point, which was about a "percentage of delegates" target (rather than a 538 target), having done some more math, I will grant you, he did not quite meet that 58% delegate figure for the night that I was talking about in my OP. He would have had to win 76 delegates in total for the night, and he won 74.

[geek tragedy]

34. Problem is he's going to miss that 58% badly in the big states.

Clinton is going to win NY, NJ, PA and MD (closed primaries, lots of black voters, expensive, Clinton's backyard, etc).

Those four states alone have 657 delegates. To stay on pace in those states he'd need to win 381 delegates. He'll get closer to 296.

That means he'd have a shortfall of around 85 delegates in those states.

Which he'd have to exceed in the other states.

In Hawaii, Washington, Wisconsin, and Alaska there are 228 delegates.

In order to offset his failure to hit 58% in the above-mentioned states, he'd have to win 217 delegates ((228*.58)+85).

He will do very well in those states, but he's not going win 90% of the delegates.

[morningfog]

48. He hit the target Tuesday. He needs 57.8% remaining now.

He is 294 behind Hillary.

[hack89]

37. But he badly missed his target in AZ

which means that he missed his overall target for all three states combined.

[thesquanderer]

39. Though he did slightly close the delegate gap.

Any day where he wins more delegate than Hillary does, the absolute number he must win in the remaining states goes down.

How yesterday's result affects the "target" figure, I don't know.

[hack89]

43. Save this link

at the bottom it has the targets for each primary - they will change as the primary progresses. Bernie has only met his target 11 times out of 29. That is not going to win him the nomination.

Right now Hillary is over performing by meeting her targets at a 111% rate. Bernie is under performing with a 88% rate.


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

[thesquanderer]

55. re: "they will change as the primary progresses"

Are you sure? As was pointed out to me in a reply in the other thread I linked you to, that particular chart does not seem to be a rolling estimate based on performance so far, but rather a fixed estimate for each contest based on demographics.

A chart that actually did change after each contest to reflect what performance would be needed in subsequent contests would also be interesting, but I don't think that's what that is.

(p.s., in case you didn't see it, I also updated my other reply to you.)

[thesquanderer]

45. Actually, not true that "he missed his overall target for all three states combined"

Last edited Thu Mar 24, 2016, 09:46 AM - Edit history (1)

based on the link you gave me.

please see http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511565782

However, in terms of my OP about percentages, it is true that he did not quite meet that 58% delegate figure for the night. He would have had to win 76 delegates in total for the night, and he won 74.

[workinclasszero]

4. Could I win the Powerball today?

Its possible...

But not probable

[sufrommich]

5. No,it's not possible.

He won't even win the states he's depending on by those percentages.

[Live and Learn]

6. It is possible and I will do everything I can to make it happen.

If it doesn't, at least I will know I did everything in my power to stop our fall.

[Lizzie Poppet]

7. Until he's mathematically eliminated, concedes, or loses at the convention, it's possible.

I realize at least one of the Hillary crowd* seems to be confused about what "impossible" means, but aside from that rocket scientist, I think we all realize it's possible (but a long shot at this point). I think he'll close the gap considerably, but fall short. Too much stacked against him and his message...

* I almost called them "Hillstapo," but I've vowed only to use that one on those who indulge in that fucking "BernieBro" pejorative.

[pdsimdars]

11. Right, it only becomes impossible if you quit.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

17. Go tell that to John Kasich.

However, unlike Kasich, Sanders is still in a position where it is, theoretically, on paper, still within the bounds of possibility for him to win.

[morningfog]

50. Kasich is still in it. Mathematically he cannot reach 1237z

But he and Cruz combined can take enough delegates to block trump winning on the first round vote. When the delegates are released, he is as viable as anyone else.

[joshcryer]

8. I've seen no credible analysis to those ends.

Look at this reddit discussion: https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4amf3r/what_is_bernies_path_to_winning_the_nomination_at/

[MADem]

9. No.

I think he was done in by vague promises, an unreliable cadre of supporters, and negative campaigning.

All that finger pointing and tut-tutting and hand waving while HRC was speaking at the debates didn't help him either. He looked like he was constantly trying to silence her. By contrast, when he spoke, she turned, faced him, listened, and stayed STILL. She didn't try to bigfoot him at all, but he did it constantly. It was noticeable, and irritating.

Hoping for a Hail Mary email is pretty sad, frankly. "I need something BAD to happen to my primary opponent so I can win!" doesn't fit on a bumper sticker, and it's not really a very positive approach to a campaign.

[thesquanderer]

12. Negative campaigning? Really?

Please check thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511514986

[MADem]

18. Ahem.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/20/politics/sanders-negative-goldman-sachs-iraq/

https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/02/28/sanders-supporters-turn-negative-clinton/

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/16/feel_the_bern_indeed_sanders_takes_the_low_road_with_nasty_clinton_tweet_undermining_the_promise_of_his_campaign/

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/month-offense-how-sanders-upped-his-attacks-clinton-n538631

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sanders-has-gotten-nastier-does-it-explain-his-lasting-power/2016/03/13/a9e30ebc-e92c-11e5-b0fd-073d5930a7b7_story.html


I think it boomeranged on him.

[thesquanderer]

21. Ah, I was conflating "negative" with "false."

In one common usage, "negative" campaigning means to unfairly attack your opponent (using, for example, the four tactics I listed in the OP I pointed you toward). But yes, you can also say a tactic is negative even if you are pointing out what you see as truthful characterizations of your opponent's positions that you take issue with.

[pdsimdars]

10. The more delegates he wins the more influence he has on the platform. . . it makes a difference.

[MinnieBlum]

13. No

[LonePirate]

14. The states favorable to Bernie in the back half are not delegate rich for the most part.

WA is probably the largest state with 90+ pledged delegates which Bernie will win easily. All of the other big states like CA, MD, NJ, NY and PA will be hotly contested. That poll yesterday that put Clinton at 71% in NY is a campaign killer for Bernie, even if it is off by 15 points. Winning ID by 40 does not compensate for losing NY by 5 or 10, let alone more than that.

[Zorra]

16. We will make it so. nt

[bigtree]

19. Big Hillary wins in MD, NJ, NY up front

...will make that margin of necessary Sanders votes increase for later contests.

Also, Clinton is competing hard to make those Sanders margins in the states he's expected to win narrow.

[thesquanderer]

25. Yeah, that recent NY poll was pretty deadly...

...for whatever a single poll from a C+ rated source a month out is. Still, I'd rather be up than down!

Making a strong showing in New York would be yoooge. He's got a month to work at it.

I wouldn't put any money on it, but it's a big part of what he needs. We'll see...

[NuclearDem]

40. Well, not really.

New voter registration ends Friday, and the deadline for changing party affiliation passed long ago. He has to convince a lot of New York Democrats--the ones that elected Clinton Senator--to switch.

[thesquanderer]

42. The ones that elected Clinton Senator...

...were comparing her to Republicans, not to a more progressive Democrat. (She had no serious opposition in her primaries.) So I wouldn't assume that all the New Yorkers who voted for her are necessarily predisposed to choose her over Sanders.

But yeah, based on the polls, it's a big uphill climb for Sanders, for whatever reason.

[Garrett78]

20. It's more likely that Clinton will win 58% of the remaining delegates.

Especially with most of the remaining contests being closed.

[Orsino]

22. The candidate that emerges victorious will be even more ready...

...to take on a Koch-backed GOP candidate in a presidential election.

So far, neither of our remaining candidates has done that before. Why wouldn't we want it?

[One of the 99]

23. Yes it is.

[MineralMan]

24. It's not really that simple at all.

That's sort of an average, but it's clouded by the impact of delegate allocation in large states with large delegations to the national convention.

New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and California have massive numbers of delegates. What happens in those states will have a much larger impact than states like Idaho and Wyoming, for example. Even larger states like Washington and Oregon have far fewer delegates than our largest states.

In order to accumulate enough delegates to overcome Hillary's present lead, Sanders will have to do extremely well in those large states. Trouble is, they're polling poorly for Sanders at this point and those numbers may well not change.

Hillary's lead, after about half of the states have held their primary events, is larger than it seems, given the need to win in large states.

[Thinkingabout]

26. I don't see Bernie winning with 58-42 in the rest of the primaries, I can see Hillary going

58-42 in several of the states.

[geek tragedy]

31. the big states remaining are not favorable to Sanders.

NY,PA, MD, NJ are all going to be Clinton victories. Closed primaries in expensive, racially diverse states.

If you want a preview of California, look at the results in Arizona.

[DCBob]

32. Arizona is indeed a preview of California.

[JimDandy]

54. AZ has an extremely high elderly population and is a conservative state

-conservative Dems not just Repubs-and consistently votes Repub in the GE. And it has become even more conservative since 2008 when it's middle class was decimated by the huge number of home foreclosures and job losses. It is laughable to equate AZ's voting with CA's. I can see why Clinton supporters are desperate to do so, but, if you want to offend people IRL, try saying that to Dems in CA (former Californian here).

[oberliner]

33. Are NY and California favorable states for Bernie?

Because those are by far the two biggest states remaining.

California, New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey award more delegates than all the other remaining states combined.

[geek tragedy]

35. don't forget about Maryland (95 delegates, Clinton will romp there) nt

[thesquanderer]

36. He seems to think they are. Especially CA.

Of course, he could be wrong.

Polls are not promising.

But things can change. It has been a year of surprises, after all.

[oberliner]

41. He would need to win pretty big there

I can see him pulling out the win but not by the huge margin that he would need.

[Autumn Colors]

57. I think upstate NY and parts of NYC will go big for Bernie

I think he may win my native state, but it'll be close.

[oberliner]

58. Polls show Hillary with a pretty big lead in the state

But, of course, anything is possible.

[Autumn Colors]

59. Polls showed Hillary w/a big lead in Michigan, too (nt)

[oberliner]

60. Yep

If Bernie can pull out a similar upset in NY then that would certainly be significant.

[Setsuna1972]

38. In a word

NO .

[paulthompson]

44. See this thread...

Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511557293#post18

Sanders has a history of being way, way down in the polls and then closing ground. So there's no telling what'll happen in the remaining big states. Note Illinois for instance. Even though he lost by two points, he was down by 40 points in multiple polls just one week earlier. He effectively only had one week to campaign in Illinois. He'll have a month for New York.

Personally, I think he has a very good chance of having a huge win in California. By then, we should know if Clinton is going to get indicted or not. (The FBI is supposed to make a decision by mid-May, and California votes in early June.) I don't know if she's going to get indicted or not, but I'm sure a lot of damning stuff about the email scandal will be leaked to the press between now and then. That's not just some right-wing talking point. Even Clinton admits mistakes were made. We'll see just how big those mistakes were, and how much that effects voting choices.

This race isn't over.

[tgards79]

49. It is impossible

Hillary won by those margins because of the strong African American support in the south. Bernie has no such constituency. Too few young people vote.

Plus Hillary is going to win New York by a big margin. Popular Senator and huge lead in the polls. Thus add five more point to what Bernie has to do in the rest of the races.

Bernie does better in caucuses. They are small state affairs and not many left.

Give it up.

[HumanityExperiment]

51. possible... impossible...

Which side is more fearful as the primary process proceeds to conclusion?

It's that point that is most interesting to me, all one has to take notice of is the OPs created and posts made to clearly see which side is most fearful of these remaining states left in play

So let's see how this plays out since it's clearly far from over

[Orsino]

53. He needs all the delegates he can get, whether or not he wins.

Delegates = influence.

[gollygee]

56. It's unlikely but weird things happen

And he has some momentum.