List to use. The Dem side is all “proportional” I think.
Currently we’ve apparently got Clinton and Sanders each with 51.
I’ll bet on big wins for Hillary in most southern states and near ties in CO and MA. I give OK to Sanders, and of course Vermont big.
I’ll call SC for Clinton 31 to 22. Which brings the running total to 82 C to 73 S going into March 1.
Alabama similar 30 to 23
American Samoa? 3 to 3
Arkansas 19 to 13
Colorado 33 to 33
Georgia 58 to 44
Mass 45 to 46
Minn 38 to 29
Oklahoma 17 to 21
Tenn 37 to 30
Texas 120 to 102
Vermont 1 to 15
Virgina 50 to 45
Total Super Tuesday 451 to C and 404 to S with running total 533 C 477 S.
If I was Team Sanders I’d be focusing my resources on the Austin and Houston markets (where Democratic voters are concentrated) with lots of appearances and ad buys there as job 1 and MA secondarily. If he does not significantly outperform in both of those there is really no way to make any path. Even eking out a win by a delegate or so in CO won’t make any significant impact.
For kicks let’s play this for delegates is it goes by way of Sanders would hit in each state per demographics if his overall support is 50% as per 538. Note so far he has not hit those marks in any state. So far his numbers are consistent with national polling below 50% by somewhere between 3 to 9%.
SC for Clinton 29 to 24
Alabama 34 to 19
American Samoa? 3 to 3?
Arkansas 19 to 13
Colorado 29 to 37
Georgia 63 to 39
Mass 40 to 51
Minn 32 to 45*
Oklahoma 19 to 19
Tenn 35 to 32
Texas 133 to 89
Vermont 4 to 12
Virginia 52 to 43
*Note: error found in previous calculation - I used 67 instead of 77.
Net running total end of Super Tuesday for pledged delegates if he hits what Silvers says he should hit if he was nationally 50/50: Clinton 543 to Sanders 477.
Delegate math. It’s a bitch.
3/5 would be a near wash, winning as much in Kansas and Nebraska as he’d lose in Louisiana.
Kansas 14 to 19
Nebraska 11 to 14
LA 42 to 31
Total 67 to 64; running total 610 to 541
3/6
Maine 9 to 16
3/8
Michigan 58 to 72
Miss. 24 to 12
Then 3/15
FL 123 to 91
IL 80 to 76
NC 53 to 54
MO 34 to 37
OH 73 to 70
Running total by mid March Clinton 1064 to Sanders 969.
True from there he runs into states with a bit more favorable demographics, but he’d be playing out of a major hole. 16 states lost to 12 won if I counted up right and nearly 100 delegates down.
OK, I’ll try. I will hypothesize that Sanders will win the nomination, but will do so by underperforming in the South while overperforming in the rest of the country (aka Real America)
SC 39-14
AL 42-11
TX 153-69
GA 73-29
TN 38-29
AR 21-11
OK 17-21
VA 49-46
VT 3-13
CO 23-43
MA 31-60
MN 29-52
Leaving Sanders with a net deficit of 573-445 coming out of Super Tuesday, but with big margins in the Northern states pointing the way to the glorious socialist future.
Gosh. You have him down by 128 pledged delegates after Super Tuesday and that’s your path to him winning the nomination? With supporters like you who needs detractors?
Apparently I am now not the only one playing the delegate math game. And Team Sanders is playing it your way. Relatively letting Hillary stack up a ton of delegates from Texas and hoping to play up their demographic advantages in Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Oklahoma, with hopes that big wins there can be spun well even as the delegate count becomes … more challenging. Note: per 538’s analysis he should win all of those states in a 50/50 national race and win both Colorado and Minnesota even if Clinton is ahead nationally by 12. NYT article.
You are positing a 30 point win in Colorado, a 32 point win in Massachusetts, a 28 point win in Minnesota, and a 10 point win in Oklahoma. Meanwhile the most recent Massachusetts poll had then tied with the previous one showing him +7. Do you seriously think that he will come off the Nevada loss to outperforming by that much in those states?
Let me ask this another way - what would you consider the minimum delegate deficit he can leave Super Tuesday with and still have a realistic chance at victory or even at keeping his campaign viable? Noting that he needs wins to generate the buzz that funds. He’s been spending a ton on advertising, significantly more than Hillary is and also much more than he is taking in, while starting with relatively little in his war chest. And as above notes, he continues to spend heavily in the states that he really should have wins in, Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Oklahoma.
I’m working on managing expectations for Super Tuesday.
Seriously, I’m just making stuff up for fun. I don’t claim to have the level of political knowledge to beat the experts at predicting delegate counts. If there were a large cash prize associated with this thread (I didn’t miss that part, did I?) I would just cut and paste the predictions from 538, but where would the fun be in that? And of course it wouldn’t be fun if I didn’t pick him to eventually win!
As far as what he* needs *on Super Tuesday, I don’t have specific delegate counts in mind. I don’t see him playing well in the Deep South, and I don’t think that even massive losses in all of those states would necessarily be a non-survivable wound for him. What he does need is to win MA, MN and CO, ideally by impressive margins. If he only hits two of three, the campaign is in deep trouble. Less than that, he can hang it up. If he takes those three and also manages to pick off another state or two (OK, VA and TN looking like the likeliest candidates, I will be optimistic about his chances.
I think demographically, it’s very reasonable to argue that many of his worst states vote on ST, and that he could rally from a deep deficit in delegates once the campaign moves on to the English-speaking world. I do fear that the media narrative of “momentum” could sap his supporters’ morale make it difficult for him to sustain his campaign if he does lose big in the South.
Meh to the experts. Most of the experts are invested to keeping a few narratives that keep people clicking or tuning in alive: what matters is a good storyline, not actual analysis.
No prizes, just the fun of reading the tea leaves before the media spoon feeds it to us.
Sanders won the white vote and the Latino vote in Nevada, but he lost the black vote by 50 points. The black vote is why he lost that state despite blacks only making up 1/8 of Nevada primary voters.
Many of the super Tuesday states are southern, where blacks will make up a huge chunk of democratic primary voters. So I’d wager overall about 55-60% delegates for Clinton vs 40-45 Sanders.
I do not go by the media narrative emerging after Nevada that says Sanders is doomed, sure Clinton has more super delegates and that can’t be discounted, but South Carolina and Super Tuesday need to pass before writing a narrative that involves Bernie Sanders’ obituary. But this notion that Clinton is will for sure win the nomination is way too premature. She also won Nevada in 2008, guess we should have written Obama off. Also she should have lead Nevada by twenty pojnts, but only did so by five. Clinton worked hard in Nevada, it was her stay to win.
Bernie has shown he can do surprisingly well and over perform while Clinton has shown doing not so great in places where it was predicted she take a home run.
Just because she won Nevada does not mean she will sweep all states on super Tuesday. On the flip side had she lost in nevada, I also would not have wrote her off as doomed, she could have done well on Super Tuesday even if Sanders got the silver state.
So media narratives are not always be counted on, heck you would think Marco Rubio is the Republican frontrunner.
I won’t do percentages but just names. Clinton wins South Carolina, Arkansas, Georgia and Alabama. I give the rest to Bernie Sanders: Massachusetts, Minnesota, Virginia, Texas, Colorado, Vermont, Tennessee.
That is pretty crazy. Clinton is leading in Texas, Virginia and Tennessee. And without percentages affixed to each State you aren’t really getting a picture of the race - winning by 5% in Texas means more than winning by 5% in Tennessee.
Obviously I missed on SC. Actual was 39 C to 14 S (not the 31 to 22 I had expected).
Going into ST it’s 91 to 65.
I think my guess underestimated how well Clinton will do on Tuesday. 538 estimates she’ll win 508 delegates and Sanders 357 that day, which would bring the total to 599 to 422.
I tried to do this mathematically using 538 and PredictWise data, but the answer I’m getting is pretty far from anything I’m seeing anyone else predict. So here’s my wishy washy not too confident prediction for post super Tuesday pledged delegate counts…
Clinton 625 - Sanders 396
That is pretty out there, but is directly derived from a strictly proportional awarding of delegates based on projected state margins.
There’s a new page on 538 that dives into the concept of who’s “on track” for their party’s nomination.
It gives Super Tuesday delegate targets of 453 for Clinton and 412 for Sanders. It also shows that Clinton has so far earned 120% of her target to Sanders’s 81%. If that trend continues, my prediction in the the previous post seems reasonable.
I can think of a few reasons why that trend won’t continue. The main one being that the trend is heavily influenced by recent events in South Carolina, and that might just have been a perfect storm for Clinton that won’t be duplicated elsewhere.
