Chris Bowers put together a useful document that helps guide us through the delegate process on the Democratic side. He looks only at the pledged (or earned) delegate count, excluding superdelegates. He then makes an estimate based on his best guess of who will win each primary or caucus and extrapolates from that how long it will take Clinton to win an outright majority of the pledged delegates. His guesses are based on polls where available, but also just on the exit polls of the states that have already held contests and how they map onto the demographics of future states. There’s also the caucus vs. primary, open vs. closed considerations.
His surprising finding is that Clinton won’t officially have the majority of pledged delegates until she wins California on June 7th. There are a bunch of other contests on June 7th (the Dakotas and Montana, New Jersey and New Mexico) that could also provide the majority-making delegate.
His final estimate is that Clinton will finish the process after the Washington DC primary on June 14th with 2283.9 pledged delegates to Sanders’s 1767.1. The threshold number to win the majority of earned delegates is 2,026 delegates. The threshold to win the nomination is 2,382 delegates of all types..
Now, we saw two important things demonstrated last night. The first was that the polls aren’t reliable and just because Sanders is currently not favored to win a state doesn’t mean that he won’t. The second was that narrow victories are not worth much in terms of netting delegates against your opponent, but blowout wins can be very valuable. According to Nate Silver, Bernie Sanders won the delegate fight in Michigan 69-61 but lost it in Mississippi 4-32.
Going back to Bowers’s estimates, Clinton is on track to win the pledged delegate fight with a 258 delegate cushion. To put things in perspective, it would take 32 Michigans or nine Mississippi-style blowouts for Sanders to net 258 delegates over Clinton.
Of course, we can’t ignore the superdelegates. As of this morning, the New York Times estimates that Hillary Clinton has a 461-25 advantage with the superdelegates (along with a 759-546 earned delegate lead).
I hope this information demonstrates a few things:
1. Clinton is not on track to win the nomination outright without the help of superdelegates. On current trends, she’s going to come up about 100 votes short (2,284 out of the 2,382 needed).
2. She’s unlikely to lose her pledged delegate advantage at any point, so a mass defection of superdelegates simply isn’t going to happen barring some scandal or health scare.
3. Sanders cannot put much of a dent in her lead by winning narrow victories even in big important states like Ohio, Illinois and Wisconsin.
4. Yet, Sanders should remain mathematically alive all the way to the convention.
5. Based on Chris Bowers’s projections, Sanders is on track to win almost 1,800 of the 4,762 delegates to the convention. This would be 38% of the total delegates.
After his upset win in Michigan last night, it’s certainly realistic to believe that Sanders can do substantially better than 38%, but it’s simply not realistic to believe that he can win. Still, if roughly 40% of the delegates in Philadelphia are pledged to Sanders, that’s going to be impressive and they’ll have tremendous influence over the platform and the rule-writing committees. It may be four years before you see how these delegates have had influence over how the party conducts its presidential nominating process, but they will have their influence.
The platform of the party has a more nebulous influence, as it isn’t binding on the president or the lawmakers. But, if you’re trying to change the culture of a major political party, having a big say in what’s in their platform is not unimportant.
For these reasons, it’s worth the effort for the Sanders folks to keep up the fight for delegates. He can release them to vote for Clinton on the first ballot if he wants, but they’ll still be there to vote on everything else a convention considers.
You can argue that the party needs to unify, but I think Obama ultimately benefitted in two main ways from the fact that Clinton wouldn’t drop out in 2008. First, it forced him to hone all his campaigning and debating skills, and vetted him thoroughly so that a lot of his vulnerabilities were old news by the time the general election came around. Second, and probably more importantly, it forced Obama to organize in all fifty states, including Indiana and North Carolina which he went on to narrowly win in his contest against John McCain and Sarah Palin.
Sanders might want to lower the heat a bit to make it easier to unify the party later, but he’s still got plenty to fight for and so do his supporters.
“Senator Sanders CAN and he WILL win this race.”
Ohio State Senator Nina Turner.
Go for it, Ohio.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iy3POGnetfE
yeah, but he can’t.
Not can’t.
Very long shot, but not can’t.
Momentum is hard to measure, and winning in Michigan might actually energize and activate folks who were ambivalent.
Other than that, yes. Delegates matter, platform fights matter, and having people placed on committees and councils and getting seats at the DNC matters.
He’s in til June.
I’m not saying that he can win simply because Nina Turner says he can win.
I’m saying he can win because if somebody like Nina Turner has switched from Hillary to Bernie, then that’s a powerful new factor that has not yet been seriously considered. Think of where she is and whom she represents. Then think that one Nina Turner undoubtedly means many Nina Turners. And Tulsi Gabbards.
The fact that I can’t put numbers to this yet doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. What you see here is a signal of change and a response to the dynamics of Sanders’ very dynamic campaign.
Wasn’t FDR nominated on like the 57th ballot. Am I remembering Profiles in Courage correctly?
Fourth ballot. But really can’t compare then to now because back then is was an all insiders game (no pesky voters to deal with or snooker).
Yes, 4th ballot, but the Democrats’ rule then was a two-thirds majority was necessary.
FDR had over 50% on the 1st ballot and 2nd and 3rd.
The fact that I can’t put numbers to this yet doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Can’t teach the art of analyzing and interpreting “the numbers.” 90% of the time it’s not needed; the numbers/data are telling all on their own and reinforces the notion among strictly numbers folks that they are right 99+% of the time and the success rate of non-numbers types is near zero when it’s a bit, but not much, higher than that.
“Enron was the best run company in America” or so everybody said. Yet, the numbers when I got around to looking at them were what I called spooky. “The art” got them one right.
I can read numbers as well as anyone, but I don’t think accurate numbers are available because the pollsters are behind the curve. Look at what just happened in MI, which certainly has implications for OH and IL.
It is quite normal to perceive things before they can be measured.
The map is not the territory. The finger pointing at the moon is not the moon.
http://www.awakeblogger.com/the-meaning-of-the-finger-pointing-to-the-moon
Not about an ability to read the numbers but to know what numbers to read and when to dismiss them and/or combine them with other information. The poll numbers have been no more flawed this year than in prior years.
Comparing the exit poll numbers for MA and MI (approx 1.2 million voters in both states) and similar enough age breakdown, suggests that they got bad samples for the <45 age demographic. ( >45 was far more favorable to HRC in MI than in MA and <45 far less favorable in MI.) And/or were way off on expected turnout for <45 years old in MI. The actual results suggest that younger people in MA are doing a lot better financially that younger people in MI and NH and those in MI and NH voted their “pocketbooks.”
What happened in MI is this:
The pollsters were estimating that 10% of the voters would be independents.*
The actual number, as determined by exit polls, was 28% – almost triple.
Sanders got 71% of the indies and Clinton got 28% – a 43% advantage.
So, how many WAS 28% of the total vote? 28% of 1.17 million was 328,000.
43% of that was 141,000. Sanders won by 18,000.
Of the DEMS voting, HRC got 484,000 vs Sanders’ 362,000. Among Dems, Clinton won by 122,000 votes.
Had only 10% indies had voted on Democratic ballots, HRC would have gotten 517,000 to Sanders’ 445,000 – a win by 53.8% to 46.2%.
We don’t have to look at anything ELSE. This invasion by independents was both why there was an upset, and why the pollsters could have been “so wrong”. They didn’t anticipate such a huge independent crowd coming to the primary.
* But they SHOULD have. In VT 80% of Sadners’ voter s were self-identified independents. In NH the number was 72%. Why would they anticipate only 10%?
didn’t Nina Turner change sides a couple months ago?
Yes, last November, from Hillary to Bernie.
okay, the way you said it I thought maybe it just happened and would move polls this week
It’s not only about Turner, it’s about the voting public. Politics doesn’t happen all at once. There is an intensifying of political interest and a sorting out that goes on as primary day approaches and people are paying more attention.
You’re about 1,160 delegates too soon to say “he can’t.”
What the HELL difference does it make that a lowly FORMER state senator and senate minority whip changes her mind and endorses Sanders?
Geez! How far down the totem pole are we going to go to make a big deal out of a person endorsing Sanders? Janitor in the state capitol? Ice cream vendor in NE Columbus? A hot dog guy in the left field bleachers?
He has exactly ZERO current US Senators, vs 40 (out of 44 possibles) that Clinton has. US Senators, not Ohio STATE Senators, and CURRENT, not FORMER.
How many people are touting those endorsements? Or the 158 current US Congressmen who’ve edorsed Clinton?
More from Nina Turner.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUZCbYtP3DU
Once Florida is done the rest of the country will be up for grabs. Imagine limping into the convention having lost the next thirty states.
I just got up here on the West Coast so I might still be dreaming. Nobody shove me awake until I’ve had my first cup of coffee.
Dearborn!
“Imagine limping into the convention having lost the next thirty states.”
They be spinning themselves into the ground.
Is that Rubio?
Jesus, where do they find them? There may be disagreement on the democratic side, but both candidates are good, both are qualified, and both would (more than likely) make at least a decent president.
The other side? Holy crap. They’re grifters, one and all.
.
If we would put as much passion into taking over the party from the bottom up as we do trying to do it from the top down, we might actually accomplish something.
The problem is that, unlike the GOP, we don’t have the time or money for that. Most of the supposed Democrats with money don’t believe what you are or I believe. Why do you think charter schools are a big hit with elite Democrats? Charter schools are another privatization scam meant to benefit the rich. Yet we get more pro-privatization candidates foisted upon us. Or more DINO’s, like that turd Grayson is running against in Florida. Then pundits wonder why turnout sucks in the mid-terms.
I’m talking about the county and local level, city councils, school boards, etc. Then go after the state level. That’s how the wingnuts did it. They cared enough to put in the time and effort. It wasn’t the big money boys doing it at that level. They were more simply dedicated than we are.
No, it was Koch money that did it at that level.
You have a real point but our side doesnt put in the resources to get those county council guys up to the next level AND there are still strong elements of seniority. No matter how much talent you have, there is a strong element of “wait your turn” which is detrimental in politics. This I put at the feet if the party leaders and state party leaders more than anything.
I think another problem is the philosophy itself. Qe want to use government to tackle big global or national problems so we focus our efforts on the highest levels first. This gets coupled with the lack of enthusiam you get for big races. This is what I put at the feet of “we” or “us.”
But recently with city by city initiatives for minimum wage, lgbt protections etc. this might be starting to change.
For the record, the Democrats in the VA senate recently defeated a charter school push:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/charter-school-amendment-dies-in-va-senate/20
16/02/15/681ad980-d417-11e5-be55-2cc3c1e4b76b_story.html
Here’s something you might want to read, if you haven’t already:
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/03/06/overwhelming-majority-voters-rein-charter-schools.html
Nice to see that the public is waking up to the fact that there was a bait and switch from the product charter schools were selling and what they have delivered. My preference is for the public to take back full control of public schools and let the charter schools compete in the private sector marketplace. (That should kill them off in about a year.)
I’ll bet 99% of Americans want to keep the post office public, too. Any bets on that?
I’m sure they would. This is a good wrap up of the issues.
https:/ourfuture.org/20130210/you-should-be-outraged-by-what-is-being-done-to-our-post-office
Something similar could be written about AMTRAK.
http://www.samefacts.com/2011/12/everything-else/the-public-be-damned-using-the-amtrak-script-to-des
troy-the-post-office
That first link won’t work. Just google “You should be outraged by what is being done to our postal service”
As I understood it, Grayson is running against the DINO candidate. He may not be liked in the frog pond, but I think he’s actually going to win his primary over a hand-picked DWS Republican.
And you base all of these “facts” of yours on exactly what study or research or data?
Oh? Just what happens to pop into your head?
Got it…
I LOVE the way you know what everyone is thinking. You know what elite Democrats think, what pundits think, what any Democrats with money think.
And the New York Time hasn’t offered you a job as a Senior Editor yet?
Wow.
A big part of this is actually turning out to vote in midterm elections!
For DWS and Steve Israel Republican retreads? How’s that been working for us? Those don’t even seem to get many yellow dogs to make an effort.
We turned out to vote for them in 2006, and that worked out pretty well, actually. The path to power is to always vote, and always vote for the best candidate with a reasonable chance to win. Silence=death, and in politics not voting is silence.
Well, from the nadir you might get voters once, but while you call it “pretty well”, I think a lot more Americans call the last decade a debacle. Plastic, fantastic candidates have exceeded their sell-by date.
When they bother to field a candidate at all…
Why would Sanders want ‘to lower the heat’? Whatever that might mean. Let Clinton calm down a little bit and let Sanders go first through the door. But why would she do that? In fact Sanders has been very mild and decorous towards Clinton, more than she in my opinion deserves: think Iraq, Libya, Honduras, Syria, Goldman Sachs, etc. Of course she doesn’t have to say she has had enough of Sanders emails because there aren’t any controversial ones, as far as we know. But if there were, would she have done him the same favor? Idle speculation on my part, nasty insinuation on my part too. There is no need for anyone to opine that it’s time for Sanders to call it quits. That’s his decision. And he is definitely not campaigning his ass off to make Clinton a better person, better politician, nicer mother figure for the nation, more acceptable to young and old and on and on. You can read that it’s a boon for Clinton that she loses because then somehow she will sharpen her will to benefit the common people, as if 20 years of campaigning for the White House isn’t enough time to experience her epiphany.
I wish Bernie had Trump’s tongue! Instead of being a gentlemen at at a bar fight.
I wouldn’t him to have Trump’s ugly tongue but he could inspire everyone by standing up a bit more forcefully and mercilessly. Just that shit she pulled about the auto bailout and the bank bailout warrants a stiff reprimand. Even Axelrod kind of called her on that one.
disingenuous.
Yes he supported the stand alone bill that didn’t pass (November 2008) but when the rubber met the road to vote for the bill that actually released the majority of the funding needed for it (the January 2009 bill to release the second tranche of TARP) he voted against releasing those funds because those funds would go to the banks as well.
Don’t misunderstand. I understand why he did – because of his principled opposition to TARP but I also think it is a valid point that congress men and women rarely get to vote on the clean bills they want so they have to prioritize what matters more to them. In Senator Sanders case he prioritized his opposition to bailing out the banks over releasing additional funds for the auto bailout. That was a valid stance to take but it is also one he has to own.
Same with his vote for the omnibus bill that contained the CFMA. I understand why he didn’t object to the unanimous consent motion to pass that bill but it still is a vote he has to own.
Much like Secretary Clinton has to own her vote on the Bankruptcy bill that didn’t pass. Sure she got the language in there that protected women but it was still a bad bill. She was fortunate it didn’t pass. Unfortunately an even worse version of it passed in 2005. She didn’t vote on that version because that was the day of President Clinton’s heart surgery.
Also much like Secretary Clinton has to own her AUMF. Reading her floor speeches at that time she authorized it in order to strengthen the case for inspections but in doing so she also opened the door for Bush to lead us into that disastrous war. She was completely wrong.
As far as I am concerned when someone runs for office every vote they make is up for scrutiny. Is it fair that those votes are often mixed bags because of the sausage making process? Probably not but that is up to the candidate to explain why or apologize for.
Funny, Axelrod sort of insinuated that he found Clinton’s dig crap. You’re right, though, he does have to own it: in other words he might do a better job of explaining it. Whatever, it doesn’t seem to have hurt him very much in Michigan, of all places. While his refusal to shovel money into the banks resounds positively all over the country.
Jeanne Shaheen is up for re-election in a swing state and voted the same as Sanders. Russ Feingold also voted the same as Sanders and is running a re-match in Wisconsin, another swing state.
According to Van Jones, Clinton people are really not down with this line of attack. Yet, Karen Finney keeps doing it. The voters clearly know it’s a load of shit. If that’s the best she’s got — along with “America is already great!” — she’s an even worse candidate than I thought.
It is “shit” because I think it actually is a pretty good representation of each of their philosophies and how each would govern.
They both voted for the stand alone bill because obviously that was the optimal solution. It didn’t pass, mainly because of Republican obstruction.
Then the auto bailout got a second bite of the apple through the vote to release the second tranche of TARP funds.
So there you go. Which candidate’s stance appeals more to you?
Both are valid choices when it comes to what type of leader you want but both also should also have to own the real estate they staked out with that vote.
That is why I find Senator Sander’s response disingenuous. I am questioning that he supported the auto bailout in theory. I am saying that he should own up to the real estate he staked out – principled opposition to TARP even if it meant the auto industry was not given the lifeline it needed.
Likewise Secretary Clinton has to own up to the real estate she staked out. Really no one was enthusiastically supporting TARP but those who voted for it felt was necessary. They have to accept the fall out of that particular choice good and bad – especially criticism that came along with the administration of it i.e. no haircuts, etc.
Can you say with 100% accuracy that no other funding for the industry would have been found?
It suits your narrative, here, so that is your assumption. We do not know what other possibilities were being floated at the time.
There had already been one vote for a separate auto rescue and it failed which is why Bush dipped into the first tranche of TARP funding (perhaps illegally) for the first loans (only $4b of the $80 or that was was eventually needed)
Yes. That does not mean that political pressure would not have produced a modified one that would pass. But the process was circumvented by using tranche monies. We don’t know what might have happened otherwise.
The real question for the Democratic Party if Sanders wins a populace vote. The super-delegates had best ask themselves this. To continue to support the then 2nd place Hillary is it worth risking a mass nonvoting at the poles?
Myself I will vote a straight Democratic Party ticket. On the net I here a large amount that support Sanders(I do right now) claim they will not vote for Hillary. If this does occur and they do not show up to vote for all the other Democratic Party members running it will be very bad for the USA. Unfortunately a huge amount of voters make decisions based upon emotions and the short term.
vote. Right now she leads it 4.9 million to 3.3 million. That is a 60% to 40% advantage as of right now.
Exactly. Thanks for saving me the trouble of checking up on that again. It was 60%-40% ten days ago, too.
In ANY other primary everyone would be reporting how Sanders is getting his ass handed to him. Losing by 20%? And he hasn’t given up the ghost yet?
She will go to the convention with a plurality of about 700 regular delegates.
Right now it is about 200. By Wednesday it will be close to or over 400.
He’s won all but two states the last three primary days – and lost ground every time.
And still his minions see light at the end of the tunnels.
Yeah, only because they are political newbies, as naive as they come.
I’d respect them except there is nothing there to respect. “It’s all fervor, Fervor, FERVOR!!! – We are going to win this on fervor!”
Ripe for cults, they are. Oy vey.
Statistically, giving Sanders a 1% chance to win in MI equals “impossible.”
Sure are a lot of people that appear to be highly invested in shutting down the Sanders campaign. Patting the heads of his supporters and saying, “You did your best and that’s all that counts” like a parent consoling a kid that comes in last in some competition. But at least those parents have the decency not to tell the kid that she/he is gonna lose a third of the way through the competition.
In ’08 there were more solid reasons why HRC was finished after SuperTuesday than there are for declaring that Sanders is finished. 1) She was broke 2) her percentage of the white vote was too small when combined with her percentage of the AA vote and 3) enthusiasm for her was weak compared to what it was for Sanders. That was my call and it was correct (and would have been more correct if her campaign hadn’t doubled down on the race card). The appeals to delegate and superdelegate counts for her were unpersuasive to me.
How the hell does someone best Obama in ’08 by near two-hundred thousand votes and four years later can barely manage to secure an eighteen thousand vote winning margin? (And that’s assuming there was no “ballot box stuffing” this time.) How does an old socialist Jew beat her by ten points in a primary state like OK that she comfortably won four years ago?
Sanders’ supporters down. Just like acknowledging the math in 2008 was not trying to shut Clinton’s supporters down. It is simply acknowledging the math. Even with Sanders win in Michigan last night he fell further behind in both the delegate count and the popular vote. Could he turn that around? Sure. Is it likely he will? No.
It Republicanistic…..’the math is only real if it agrees with me’
Sanders needs to win about 55% of the elected delegates to go into the convention with a lead in delegates (elected by the people). Considering the road ahead, that’s not impossible at all. The problem will be if the DNC and the super delegates decide to supercede the people’s decision.
Right now Clinton holds a 60-40% advantage in the popular vote. Could that change to where Sanders ends up leading the popular vote and the delegate count? Sure. Is it likely it will? No.
For all of the sturm and drang about how the superdelegates are going to overturn the people’s decision and “coronate” Secretary Clinton, right now it is a lot more likely that they will simply confirm both the delegate and popular vote winner
Now if Senator Sanders manages to overcome the rather daunting math, I assume the superdelegates will switch as well. There is no reason to believe they wouldn’t.
Yes, right now,after the majority of the primaries were held in states, mostly old confederacy states, demographically favourable to her.
Going forward not the case.
states that a dem won’t win in the General anyway. that’s such a weird stat to bring out
There could be some red states that go blue this time around. This isn’t an even match between two solid parties.
I agree, have been arguing for that for a long time, i.e. the 50 state strategy; but I do think Bernie has more of a chance of winning in some red states, especially vs Trump
if there’s going to be a revolution aren’t we going to have to win some red states and not just at the Presidential level?
Why did Clinton do so much worse in Michigan this time? Two basic reasons:
HRC didn’t do worse in MI in ’16 than she did in ’08 — she did considerably better. However, the ’08 MI primary isn’t good data to use because it wasn’t supposed to count in the delegate selection, candidates agreed not to campaign there (not sure HRC honored that pledge) and Obama and Edward’s names didn’t appear on the ballot.
Where HRC has done worse (raw vote comparisons ’08 and ’16) are: NH, NV, AR, MA, OK, TN, TX, VT, and ME (probably). Where she has added large numbers to her ’08 vote totals are states that Obama won in ’08, but her ’16 totals in those states are less than the total that she and Obama got in ’08 and that difference stayed home.
Republicans are too busy rat***ing their own party to bother with the DEM party.
See what happened at http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2016/3/9/104241/6197#102
It was the Independents.
328,000 of them, in a race decided by 18,000.
The pollsters estimated only 10% indies and 28% showed up.
I did a back of the envelope calculation last week that showed Bernie needing to win the remaining pledged delegates by a roughly 55-45 margin in order to hold a majority lead over Clinton by the end of the primary.
Boo, absolutes shouldn’t be used when dealing with probabilities. Sanders has a small but finite chance of winning the nomination. My hat is off to him, I didn’t think he could make it this far. If he does win, I will support him wholeheartedly. (I still expect Clinton to be the nominee though, and if so I will support her whole-heartedly as well!)
Thanks for this. My training is all math and natural sciences, and absolute statements about things that are only immensely likely drive me a little nuts. 🙂
Who’s getting the headlines from the elections yesterday? Trump (well, he did win in three states). And Rubio because he lost badly in four states, but he’s vowing to soldier on and win FL.
The MSM continues to do it’s best to ignore Sanders (when it isn’t writing garbage about him) and “lefty” bloggers have ramped up the “he can’t win” chant that has been with us since the moment he entered the race against her highness. In fear that all those people that have been saying that they really like Sanders but will have to vote for Clinton because she’s electable might reconsider?
When partisan Democrats run on fear — they lose general elections.
You know, Hillary has positives among Democrats that reach into the high 70s. She has been chosen as the woman most admired in the world by Americans a record 20 times. Bernie supporters keep insisting that no one would support Hillary if it wasn’t out of fear, but there isn’t a damn bit of evidence to support that. After studying both, some of us decided Hillary was the best choice, and insulting us is really not necessary or helpful.
voter turnout
fear. I am supporting her because I think she is the best candidate. I was leaning her way but she won me over completely when she specifically included Alzheimer’s funding in her platform. Having lost one grandparent to Alzheimer’s and another to vascular dementia research into Alzheimer’s is a big issue for me. Beyond that Alzheimer’s is quickly becoming the disease that will strain or healthcare system more than any other so it is past time to start funding it at the necessary levels.
When were the primaries for “Most Admired Woman”? I don’t remember voting for it. It must be for all those refugees flowing into Europe now. Or maybe for the coup in Honduras. Or maybe they held the vote in some swanky ballroom after Hillary gave a speech to the Deutsche Bank or B of A. Maybe the Qataris (since I presume it must be a world-wide election) because she got them that arms deal (coinciding with a hefty donation to the Clinton Foundation) for all those weapons that ended up in the hands of ISIS.
fact that Clinton is winning both the pledged delegate and popular vote count, rather handily at that.
As far as what you listed not all of us agree on your take on them.
Who voted in the Most Admired Woman in the Word?
Here are Hillary’s Favorable Ratings. Starting in April 2015, her unfavorable rating was larger than her favorable rating. This unfavorable rating continues to steadily climb. http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating
Here are Bernie’s Favorable Ratings. Prior to July 2015, there was no difference; however, the Undecided was huge since Bernie wasn’t known. Since July 2015, Bernie’s Favorable ratings have continued to steadily climb. What is interesting is that Bernie’s Unfavorable rating has not increased for months.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/bernie-sanders-favorable-rating
Then Democrats better get out the vote for her. Because Indies certainly won’t. It will be interesting to see what the turnout figures are in November compared to 2012 and 2008.
Among Democrats her rating was 82% before the primaries began and only fell to 74% right before Obama secured the nomination in June ’08 and after that jumped up to 80%. And her “favorable” rating among the total electorate was higher than it is now.
So, what’s your point?
As much as I like and respect Chris, and was thankful for the opportunity to share a page with him, he is making the same mistake everyone else makes in politics.
He is thinking it is a straight line. It isn’t. There is in fact a chance Bernie can win. There was a larger swing from Clinton to Obama in 2008 than the gap between Sanders and Clinton is now.
Polls change. If Sanders strings a number of wins together anything can happen.
Is it likely? Now.
But those who say there is no chance really don’t undertand how volatile politics is.
My own delegate estimation, which I last updated 2.26 for obvious reasons is here.
At the time my projection was Clinton 2284 for 1765 – pretty close to Chris’s.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dYGT7kqexlkjtOSyLWH5MYipoCnCS5Kwkr89TEtkMqg/edit?usp=drive_w
eb
Problem is, what Sanders really needs is superdelegate volatility. And that’s the least likely thing to change in his favor.
Even in an insanely good run of primary wins, he will never get the most pledged delegates out of this race. To come close, he’d have to win every caucus state by the same kind of margins that he just lost Mississippi, and without getting clocked anywhere (including North Carolina). Winning the primary states isn’t likely to move the needle much at all, but he’ll need to win almost all of those, too.
I’d say that he’d also have to win California, and possibly by a huge margin.
And if he accomplished all that, he might be able to beg the superdelegates to defect from Clinton.
Most likely, not enough of them would take the invitation.
And, to be clear, the scenario I just painted is not realistic, although it is at least physically possible.
To me the super delegates seem to be doing what they should….picking the establishment candidate that has long term standing in the party. Why would they switch? IMO they SHOULD go with the person who
One thing I am absolutely certain of is that if the situation was reversed Sanders and his supporters would be defending the super delegates and the present system. To me that here seems to be a huge misunderstanding on the whole thing…it’s a political party. Feel free to disagree with that parties positions, vote against their candidates, etc. but don’t look at a primary put on by that political party and gnash your teeth because the ‘leaders’ support other ‘leaders’.
If Clinton has to rely on super delegates to win…so what? Sanders would do the same thing. Contrary to what some seem to think, he also has a rather large ego, wants to win, and is extremely ambitious.
.
Sounds like government by the party rather than government by the people. That ought to bring out the vote, eh?
Since when has the US had a government ‘by the people’? Seriously.
Never. And frankly, it never will, and you should probably hope it never does.
.
“Events dear boy, events” said Harold McMillan.
Here are some:
2008 changed when Obama ripped off 10 straight wins. A series of wins, which include NY and PA in late April will raise doubts about Clinton far beyond that which is envisioned now.
Likely. no.
Possible. Absolutely.
After yesterday the odds are no longer 99 to 1 in favor of HRC.
About the best rebuttal to the Bernie Can’t Win meme that I’ve seen yet:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/5-reasons-the-clinton-sanders-race-is-much-much-closer-t
han-you-think_b_9415156.html
I think the likelihood of a superdelegate looking at a poll to convince them that Sanders is more electable than Clinton is next to zero.
Everyone knows that Clinton has been through the wringer and the Republicans will go after Sanders with everything they have, like frantic hyenas, and with all fresh stuff.
He won’t win an electability argument with the superdelegates no matter what the polls show.
If she gets indicted, they probably still figure she’s more electable.
if you’re correct .. a show primary
tried looking more positively on her candidacy for the debate last night; unfortunately just looks to me like more war and solidifying the gap between rich and poor further. imo the time is now to try for a different direction
From what’s been said the super delegates could play a key role if Sanders gets close. But close is not good enough in my view. They are not going to abandon Hillary so long as it is close, even if she is a few behind. She is the establishment, after all, and has Obama’s support. All bets are off if there is any scandal.
I actually do not look for Bernie to come even close in many of those states going forward. But like someone said, who knows in this business?
A tie will go to the Democrat. Even less than a tie will go to the……Democrat. And considering it’s called the ‘Democratic Party’, that’s how it should be.
.
Watch Sanders get his ass handed to him in FL and IL and NC.
The 200 regular delegate lead will be 400 by Wednesday.
Sanders knows he can’t change any of the five March 15th states except maybe Ohio and Missouri. He can’t have a week to focus like he did in MI (while ignoring MS and losing 32-4 there).
Missouri? Ahh, I see that FINALLY someone actually polled MO. Clinton 44 — Sanders 40%. Okay, so we will give him a small “surge” victory and a 10 delegate edge there. MO is only 11% blacks, so it will go more the way of Nebraska and Kansas than Louisiana or Alabama.
While in FL he goes down by 74 and IL by 66, and NC by 40. That is 180 right there. The polls have him down 19.5% in OH, but after MI every Bernie Bot thinks he can come back everywhere by 30% or 70%. After all, he’s BERNIE!
I think he can win but agree that this is by far the likely outcome. And while it falls short of my hopes it would be a damn sight better than what things looked like in 2015 and provide something to build on to make the dems an actual left wing party.
I will just note that many unlikely things have already happened in this election season, n’est-ce pas?
Yes, the GOP institutional/elite power has completely collapsed. And they’re now left to choose between which of the two GOP candidates they loathe the least or jump ship to a DEM candidate that they don’t loathe but have so successfully demonized for two decades that their voter base loathes her.
The DEM institutional/elite power (that has been far more proactive up to this point in the primary cycle than the GOP has) is so far holding on, but only in states with a strong DEM institutional/elite power base. Where it’s weak to absent, Sanders has won (for example OK and NH) Where it’s strength is middling and localized, it’s a tie (IA, MA, MI). Virtually impenetrable, a blowout for HRC (SC, MS).
A difference between GOP voters rejecting the power of the party and DEM voters doing it is that GOP voters don’t know what they want to replace it or what a Trump or Cruz would deliver. DEM refuseniks seem quite clear on both of those measures.
That’s based on regular, traditional, time-tested delegate math.
Not revolutionary delegate math.
We’re living a political revolution, right?
Democrats aren’t the only ones, either — even the Other Side is getting in on the excitement! Truly, we live in interesting times.
http://www.theonion.com/article/gop-statisticians-develop-new-branch-math-formulat-52463
Heck, they just found Rove’s 2006 I gotz teh Maths book.
YES! We are living in the time of MIRACLES!
Pigs FLY!
Dogs and cats, living together!
The sign of HIS COMING AGAIN!
(…face palm time…)
I am shocked – SHOCKED! – that no one has used the term “CULT” yet.
According to 538’s Who’s On Track For The Nomination?, Sanders closed in compared to what they say he needs to get in each state.
In the last week Clinton has gone from having 116% of what she would need in terms of pledged delegates from the states that has voted to 113% while Sanders has gone from 83% to 86%. Clinton is clearly ahead, but Sanders is gaining.
The point of this model is to clear it from the effect of one candidate being more popular in states that has voted then in states that will vote.
Based on that I would say Sanders can win the majority of the pledged delegates (and then the question would be if the superdelegates would overrule that, which might spell interesting times). It is of course as a rule most likely that the current frontrunner is in fact winning, but I don’t see how one could conclude that it is over.
Somewhat confusingly, although his percentage of what he needs went up, his total absolute shortfall also increased. A better way of looking at it is what he percentage he needs to win from here, and that went up.
I looked up “Most Admired Woman In The World” on wiki.
It’s a Gallup poll and presumably only taken in the US, so a more accurate title would be “Most Admired Woman In The World According To Americans.” Since Dubya won “Most Admired Man In The World” while having his troops torture Iraqis, excuse me if I don’t take the award too seriously.
Eclectablog: Bernie Sanders Proves in Michigan that the Ground Game is What Wins
The point is that candidates are having to build ground infrastructure from scratch where the Democratic presence has withered away.
If a candidate is having to do this, they might as well build every local office to handle the ground game for a wave election and build a progressive base.
It hasn’t withered away wherever HRC has won big. Plenty of small fish in tiny ponds in those areas. Too small to elect many to state and federal offices or have much of a chance for a DEM presidential candidate to carry the state, but strong enough to crack the whip for whatever the national DEM elites request.
The Sanders’ campaign can’t possibly build local DEM infrastructures in one or even two election cycles. But in this election, it can operate in areas where none currently exists and perhaps inspire the local residents to continue the effort.
Sanders’ ground game has been very good anywhere it could get a toehold. But the difference between the results in MI and MA weren’t due to a stronger ground game in MI than MA. It was the difference in the populations. Young people in MA are just doing much better in employment and income than those in MI.
Billmon perfectly describes what happened in the DEM MI primary results (without noting that it was a much larger factor in MI than it had been in MA:
Exit poll data:
Age 18-29
MA: Clinton 35% and Sanders 65%
MI: Clinton 19% and Sanders 81%
Age 30-44
MA: Clinton 55% and Sanders 44%
MI: Clinton 42% and Sanders 53%
Had MI age 45+ voters been more similar to MA 45+ voters, Sanders would have blown HRC out of the water — as he did in NH.
Ground game onw it in MI?
How about 328,000 non-Democrats voting in the Democratic Primary?
Of whom Sanders got 71%.
We don’t have to look at ANYTHING ELSE. She lost by 141,000 with those interlopers, but only by 18,000 overall.
Meaning that among Democrats Hillary kicked his ever-loving ass.