Today a diarist posted about "The Math" that supposedly shows that Bernie Sanders has no path to the nomination. For a diary claiming to talk about the math, there was strangely little math actually supporting the claims made therein.
How about we actually do the math?
We begin by looking at the status and targets. With a goal of 2026 delegates, Bernie is currently at 551 delegates out of a target of 642. This means that if he were at his target today, he’d need to get 1384 more delegates; instead he has to get 1475 more. This is a whopping difference of 6,5%. That’s right, the math is supposedly “impossible” because Sanders needs to beat his targets by an average of 6.5%. Everybody, cancel the election, he just can’t win! How could a candidate who’s closed the national polling by several percent per month on average possibly beat his margins by 6,5% over a 3-month spread during which the only region which his opponent has outperformed polls will be done voting after March 15th? That’s Un-Possible!
What are the actual numbers if we apply this margin across the board?
Date |
State |
Total delegates |
Clinton |
Sanders |
Clinton % |
Sanders % |
March 15 |
Florida |
214 |
110 |
104 |
51% |
49% |
|
Illinois |
156 |
80 |
76 |
51% |
49% |
|
Missouri |
71 |
34 |
37 |
47% |
53% |
|
North Carolina |
107 |
54 |
53 |
50% |
50% |
|
Ohio |
143 |
66 |
77 |
46% |
54% |
March 22 |
Arizona |
75 |
31 |
44 |
42% |
58% |
|
Idaho |
23 |
8 |
15 |
35% |
65% |
|
Utah |
33 |
13 |
20 |
39% |
61% |
March 26 |
Alaska |
16 |
6 |
10 |
40% |
60% |
|
Hawaii |
25 |
11 |
14 |
45% |
55% |
|
Washington |
101 |
38 |
63 |
38% |
62% |
April 5 |
Wisconsin |
86 |
35 |
51 |
41% |
59% |
April 9 |
Wyoming |
14 |
4 |
10 |
31% |
69% |
April 19 |
New York |
247 |
114 |
133 |
46% |
54% |
April 26 |
Connecticut |
55 |
25 |
30 |
46% |
54% |
|
Delaware |
21 |
10 |
11 |
49% |
51% |
|
Maryland |
95 |
50 |
45 |
53% |
47% |
|
Pennsylvania |
189 |
87 |
102 |
46% |
54% |
|
Rhode Island |
24 |
10 |
14 |
42% |
58% |
May 3 |
Indiana |
83 |
36 |
47 |
44% |
56% |
May 7 |
Guam |
7 |
3 |
4 |
47% |
53% |
May 10 |
West Virginia |
29 |
11 |
18 |
38% |
62% |
May 14 |
Democrats Abroad |
13 |
6 |
7 |
47% |
53% |
May 17 |
Kentucky |
55 |
25 |
30 |
46% |
54% |
|
Oregon |
61 |
22 |
39 |
35% |
65% |
June 4 |
Virgin Islands |
7 |
3 |
4 |
47% |
53% |
June 5 |
Puerto Rico |
60 |
28 |
32 |
47% |
53% |
June 7 |
California |
475 |
220 |
255 |
46% |
54% |
|
Montana |
21 |
7 |
14 |
34% |
66% |
|
New Jersey |
126 |
61 |
65 |
48% |
52% |
|
New Mexico |
34 |
15 |
19 |
44% |
56% |
|
South Dakota |
20 |
7 |
13 |
36% |
64% |
|
North Dakota |
18 |
6 |
12 |
35% |
65% |
June 14 |
District of Columbia |
20 |
11 |
9 |
57% |
43% |
|
Total: |
|
|
1477 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Out of... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1475 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. needed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let’s reiterate: according to the actual math, tomorrow Sanders should have two losses, two wins, and a tie, not three ten-point wins. |
|
|
|
|
How did the other diarist reach those figures? They’re certainly not in any way connected to the FiveThirtyEight demographics-based targets. For example, we’re supposed to take it at face value that Clinton is supposed to win Arizona by 10%, when Sanders beat Clinton among latinos in Nevada, the state is 89% white, and somewhat below average income? Clinton’s going to take New York by 10%? Yeah, let’s agree to disagree on that one. Rhode Island, a Clinton win? Hardly. Clinton takes North Dakota by 10 points? Is that some sort of a joke, Sanders being trounced by Clinton in an open primary in a plains state?
We don’t just pull numbers out of a hat and say that a particular candidate must get X at Y time or they have no path to the nomination, just because we say so. We look at demographics — or, to save ourselves time, rely on numbers from sites (such as FiveThirtyEight) that already have. One can of course argue with their weighting — for example, given that Clinton has outperformed in the south, I would say that Sanders’ target is too high in North Carolina and a bit too high in Florida, while some of his plains targets should probably be higher and the Democrats Abroad target much higher given the early reporting. But whatever you do, you don’t just say “Sanders absolutely needs to win Wisconsin and Kentucky by 40 points!” based on… um… whatever number you felt like writing down at the time.
Let us reiterate: Sanders needs to beat his FiveThirtyEight targets by 6,5%. There’s three months left, in which anything can happen in the campaign. Nonsense claims like “Sanders has virtually no path to the nomination” based on numbers pulled out of a hat is below the quality we should expect from this site.
The future holds whatever it may hold, and when it’s done, we should all accept the results. But for now, there’s an election on. Not a coronation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|