“Bernheads” is not an insult. Peruse #bernheads on Twitter and the overwhelming majority of tweets you will see are from clear Sanders supporters.
And the voters I am talking about are on my side…sort of. They oppose my president on TPP, and their blinkered ideology threatens to disrupt economic conditions both here and around the world. We are fighting ignorance, right? Then we are fighting them.
Fair enough. I’ll defer to your numbers, as I was ballparking it.
Oh yeah, people are really gonna change their mind and come to your way of thinking once you call them names. “Fighting them” and “fighting ignorance” aren’t the same thing.
Good lord. That is something else.
Some of the comments are pretty remarkable too.
I defer to 538 who say 58% needed from here to tie in delegates - i.e. a 16 point spread over Clinton from here out to get to a tie in pledged delegates.
OK, now let’s look at somewhat more realistic electoral mathemagic.
Bernie would then have 818 + 247 = 1,065 delegates (we’ll give him the odd man out.)
And he’d need 2,383 - 1,065 = 1318. So 1,318 / 2,383 = 55.3 %.
Now let’s try 30% of the supers for Bernie, a more realistic outcome:
818 + 148 = 966; 2,383 - 966 = 1,417; 1,417 / 2,383 = 59.5%.
And, if things stay the way they are with the supers:
818 + 26 = 844; 2,383 - 844 = 1,539; 1,539 / 2,383 = 64.6%.
The final percentages are rounded (all upwards, as it works out).
Also, there’s a bit of uncertainty because the final popular vote won’t jibe exactly with the number of delegates, so figure roughly a half percent or so error.
Are you looking at the most recent? ISTM, that was the percentage he needed before his losses yesterday.
Yes.
The thing that gets me is even if Bernie gets his 16 point spread, he’ll tie Clinton in delegates going into the convention. Then we are to believe:
California isn’t WTA, but “district WTA” (i.e. “the South Carolina method” - and I think Maryland, Indiana, and Wisconsin (as well as West Virginia, which is not on your list) are the same), and I for one don’t see him winning very many districts in the San Francisco area.
Nm. Realized my error
I see where I went wrong. I missed the 219 supers who haven’t expressed a preference. If the assumption is that every one of those ‘uncommitted’ supers (I know, that’s a truism) goes for Bernie, and that the current supers’ preferences remain the same, the 58% number is correct. Otherwise, the actual percentage is higher.
So 538’s estimate for the remaining vote needed for Bernie is still probably low.
538’s point with the supers is very valid: Clinton losing by a 16 point spread would only occur because of something catestrophic occurring and in that circumstance the supers would be jumping ship too.
True. It would pretty much take an act of God for Hillary not to win at this point.
So I see - thanks for pointing that out! California alone makes it a LOT harder to see how Trump gets to 1237.
I’m confused as to why someone doesn’t see Trump winning many districts in the San Francisco area. Republican primaries in liberal congressional districts are often not at all similar to those districts at large. For example Trump won around 5700* votes in the IL-04 Congressional district. Now, congressional districts are roughly equal in size across the country (excepting the states which only get one district, theirs are harder to equalize, obviously.)
So the IL-04 which is in Chicago has roughly as many voters as the IL-15 which is the rural Southeast of the State and which has a lot more Republican voters than the IL-04. But in the Republican primary process in Illinois both of these districts grant the same number of delegates: 3. Trump also won the IL-15, but with around 44,000 votes.
You actually see this effect in several other states as well, some that have voted and some that have not. For example there are districts in New York City that in a Republican primary will only see around 4-6k votes cast.
New York and California have voting schemes very similar to Illinois.
So in effect, there is no reason to assume a liberal area will be bad for Trump. The district at large isn’t voting–Republican primary voters are voting. There aren’t many of them in places like Manhattan, Chicago, or San Francisco, but the ones who are don’t necessarily tend to be liberals. They do tend to not be evangelicals, but Trump does well with both evangelical and non-evangelical voters. Cruz is probably the one who will be harder pressed in such urban districts, as past elections on the GOP calendar have shown Donald actually does pretty well against Cruz in these urban districts that only have a small number of actual Republican primary voters.
*Illinois uses a loophole primary structure in which you get to vote for three delegates by name, and the delegate’s express a preference for a candidate. So Trump delegates in total received around 16k votes in the IL-04, 5700 is the average received by a Trump delegate. New York and California have a more traditional district by district primary process.
Martin, the reason I’d think that is by comparison to Republican voters in another heavily Democratic area: the DC area. Rubio won DC, and if the Virginia portion of the DC MSA were a separate state, Rubio would have carried that too.
So if Kasich stays in the race to the end in order to give Republicans a non-Trump, non-Cruz to vote for, I’d expect Kasich to do quite well in the SF area.
Plus, I still remember the 1964 California primary, where northern California went for Rockefeller, while Goldwater won southern California (and the state, by an eyelash). (Ancient history, I know.)
Update:
It turns out that the Democratic Missouri Primary, which originally was won narrowly by Clinton, had another chapter to it. See, in Missouri, the Primary just elects delegates to a Mass Meeting, where the actual delegates to the DNC get chosen.
The Mass Meeting was on April 7. A bunch of Hillary’s Delegates To Choose The Actual Delegates didn’t bother to show. See here:
http://progressivearmy.com/2016/04/10/bernie-sanders-wins-missouri-after-all/
America really needs to get organized. It’s ridiculous that we don’t have one process for voting and getting elected. It’s just a relic of history that all these patchwork rules carry on. It’s past time to get everyone on the same page.
Various folks have argued in various threads that it doesn’t only matter who one votes for. It also matter how enthusiastically one does so.
This seems to be a corollary of that. How hard your supporters support you has consequences. Which may be Trump’s undoing (or doing) at their convention.
Are not state Democratic Parties private organizations? I suppose they can do stuff like this. It does seem hinky.
I went to my county’s mass meeting. The Bernie supporters drastically outnumbered the Hillary supporters. I think the HRC side of the room had enough people to send their batch of delegates if two-thirds of them were willing and able to go. I’m not sure if they had quite enough to have alternates.