In winning Florida, Ohio and North Carolina by wide margins and Illinois and Missouri by narrow ones, Hillary Clinton has pushed her candidacy to near presumed nominee status. With a pledged delegate lead of over 300 (having won about 58% of all pledged delegates awarded so far) and with the endorsement of well over half of superdelegates, unless something extraordinarily unlikely happens, Hillary Clinton will be the 2016 democratic nominee for president. Hillary’s big pledged delegate lead means that, in order to catch her, Bernie Sanders would need to win approximately 58% of all remaining pledged delegates. A tall order considering he’s only won about 42% of them so far. My count (from thegreenpapers.com, and the AP) has Hillary’s lead at 318 with 42 delegates left to be allocated.
Whatever validity there was to the Sanders camp’s argument that Clinton is a regional candidate who struggles outside the South, has been left in tatters in the wake of her sweep across the three midwestern states, including an unexpectedly large double digit win in Ohio.
The Delegates
DATE |
|
PLEDGED DELEGATES |
COOK'S CLINTON TARGET |
COOK'S SANDERS TARGET |
CLINTON TARGET ADJUSTED |
SANDERS TARGET ADJUSTED |
538 CLINTON TARGET |
538 SANDERS TARGET |
CLINTON RESULT |
SANDERS RESULT |
TO BE ALLOCATED |
CLINTON DIFFERENCE FROM COOK'S TARGET |
CLINTON DIFFERENCE FROM 538'S TARGET |
CLINTON TOTAL |
SANDERS TOTAL |
RAW LEAD |
2/1/2016 |
Iowa |
44 |
16 |
28 |
18 |
26 |
18 |
26 |
23 |
21 |
|
5 |
5 |
23 |
21 |
CLINTON BY 2 |
2/9/2016 |
New Hampshire |
24 |
9 |
15 |
10 |
14 |
9 |
15 |
9 |
15 |
|
-1 |
0 |
32 |
36 |
SANDERS BY 4 |
2/20/2016 |
Nevada |
35 |
16 |
19 |
18 |
17 |
17 |
18 |
20 |
15 |
|
2 |
3 |
52 |
51 |
CLINTON BY 1 |
2/27/2016 |
South Carolina |
53 |
27 |
26 |
30 |
23 |
32 |
21 |
39 |
14 |
|
9 |
7 |
91 |
65 |
CLINTON BY 26 |
3/1/2016
|
Alabama |
53 |
27 |
26 |
30 |
23 |
35 |
18 |
44 |
9 |
|
14 |
9 |
135 |
74 |
CLINTON BY 199
|
American Samoa |
6 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
2 |
|
1 |
1 |
139 |
76 |
Arkansas |
32 |
13 |
19 |
15 |
17 |
18 |
14 |
22 |
10 |
|
7 |
4 |
161 |
86 |
Colorado |
66 |
30 |
36 |
33 |
33 |
30 |
36 |
28 |
38 |
|
-5 |
-2 |
189 |
124 |
Georgia |
102 |
52 |
50 |
57 |
45 |
65 |
37 |
74 |
28 |
|
17 |
9 |
263 |
152 |
Massachusetts |
91 |
35 |
56 |
40 |
51 |
41 |
50 |
46 |
45 |
|
6 |
5 |
309 |
197 |
Minnesota |
77 |
32 |
45 |
36 |
41 |
30 |
47 |
31 |
46 |
|
-5 |
1 |
340 |
243 |
Oklahoma |
38 |
16 |
22 |
18 |
20 |
18 |
20 |
17 |
21 |
|
-1 |
-1 |
357 |
264 |
Tennessee |
67 |
30 |
37 |
33 |
34 |
33 |
34 |
44 |
23 |
|
11 |
11 |
401 |
287 |
Texas |
222 |
111 |
111 |
122 |
100 |
126 |
96 |
147 |
75 |
|
25 |
21 |
548 |
362 |
Vermont |
16 |
4 |
12 |
5 |
11 |
2 |
14 |
0 |
16 |
|
-5 |
-2 |
548 |
378 |
Virginia |
95 |
43 |
52 |
48 |
47 |
52 |
43 |
62 |
33 |
|
14 |
10 |
610 |
411 |
3/5/2016
|
Kansas |
33 |
14 |
19 |
16 |
17 |
14 |
19 |
9 |
24 |
|
-7 |
-5 |
619 |
435 |
CLINTON BY 202
|
Louisiana |
51 |
26 |
25 |
29 |
22 |
33 |
18 |
37 |
14 |
|
8 |
4 |
656 |
449 |
Nebraska |
25 |
10 |
15 |
11 |
14 |
10 |
15 |
10 |
15 |
|
-1 |
0 |
666 |
464 |
3/6/2016 |
Maine |
25 |
9 |
16 |
10 |
15 |
10 |
15 |
9 |
16 |
|
-1 |
-1 |
675 |
480 |
CLINTON BY 195 |
3/8/2016
|
Michigan |
130 |
55 |
75 |
62 |
68 |
63 |
67 |
63 |
67 |
|
1 |
0 |
738 |
547 |
CLINTON BY 219
|
Mississippi |
36 |
18 |
18 |
20 |
16 |
23 |
13 |
32 |
4 |
|
12 |
9 |
770 |
551 |
3/12/2016 |
Northern Marianas |
6 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
2 |
|
1 |
1 |
774 |
553 |
CLINTON BY 221 |
3/15/2016
|
Florida |
214 |
94 |
120 |
105 |
109 |
116 |
98 |
130 |
63 |
21 |
25 |
14 |
898 |
613 |
CLINTON BY 318
|
Illinois |
156 |
73 |
83 |
81 |
75 |
85 |
71 |
68 |
67 |
21 |
-13 |
-17 |
964 |
677 |
Missouri |
71 |
30 |
41 |
34 |
37 |
36 |
35 |
36 |
35 |
|
2 |
0 |
1000 |
712 |
North Carolina |
107 |
54 |
53 |
59 |
48 |
57 |
50 |
61 |
46 |
|
2 |
4 |
1061 |
758 |
Ohio |
143 |
60 |
83 |
67 |
76 |
71 |
72 |
78 |
65 |
|
11 |
7 |
1139 |
823 |
TOTALS |
|
|
|
|
1013 |
1005 |
1050 |
968 |
1147 |
829 |
42 |
+134 |
+97 |
1147 |
829 |
|
The Numbers That Matter — Hillary’s Delegate Target Surplus
As impressive as Hillary’s pledged delegate lead is, the number that actually matters more is how she is doing relative to her targets. I will refer to numbers in excess of the delegate target as a delegate target surplus (and numbers below targets as a delegate target deficit). A delegate target surplus (or deficit) of 0, simply means that both candidates met their targets to win half of the pledged delegates. According to both 538’s and my adjusted version of Cook’s targets, Hillary met or exceeded her targets in every state but Illinois. Further, her 30 point win in Florida resulted in her exceeding her delegate targets by potentially more than 20 delegates. Her outstanding performance in Tuesday’s primaries means that she added to her delegate target surplus in both models. To put her dominance in perspective, Hillary’s delegate target surplus so far (approaching 120 in 538’s model and approaching 140 in Cook’s model) rivals Barack Obama’s total delegate lead in 2008. Roughly speaking, Hillary’s lead exceeds expectations by the same amount that made up Barack Obama’s entire lead in 2008. In plain language, what Hillary’s delegate target surplus means is that her lead is not due to an accident of the calendar, but due to that fact that she is objectively doing much better than Bernie Sanders.
Hillary’s dominance in the pledged delegate race can be summed up in the numbers 8 and 0, which are the numbers of states where Hillary and Bernie respectively have exceeded their targets by at least 10 delegates in one or more of Cook’s and 538’s models. Included among those 8 states are Texas and Florida where Hillary exceeded her targets by at least 20 delegates each.
One thing to note with this concept of a delegate target surplus, is that winning a state does not guarantee that you’ll make a change to that number. Indeed, Bernie won Michigan but he just met his targets there, so his win their had no effect on Hillary’s delegate target surplus. So while Bernie may win future states, especially western caucuses, his task is not solely to win them — he needs to win them by margins greater than his targets indicate. In order to win the delegate race, Bernie needs to get Hillary’s delegate target surplus to 0. A tall order, considering that he has only been able to make small dents in it so far this primary season, while Hillary’s multiple large wins ensure that t grew to large numbers. One way to look at it, is that Bernie needs his own version of Texas, plus a lot more Kansases (his best state relative to delegate targets) and fewer Michigans (a win that does not cut into Hillary’s delegate target surplus).
The Road Ahead
Bernie’s campaign has been making the argument that the calendar favors them from now on and that provides a path for them to win the nomination. However, Hillary’s delegate target surplus means that Bernie cannot count on whatever advantage the calendar now provides him. Instead he will need to win contests by margins exceeding his targets, which account for states that are more favorable to him. While Bernie will be favored in 8 of the 9 contests over the next two weeks (including Delegates Abroad), 6 of the 7 following those would favor Hillary, including the state she represented in the Senate, New York and its 247 pledged delegates. Further, while the terrain ahead is more favorable to Bernie than the contests that have already been fought, of the 29 remaining contests remaining (including Democrats Abroad (DA), Guam, the US Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico), Bernie is only favored in 13 of them, according to 538’s projections. (I took the liberty of assuming DA will go to Bernie while the island territories will favor Hillary). So while we are likely to see both candidates win numerous contests in the remaining months of the primary calendar, Sen. Sanders has to completely change the dynamics of the race and do so in a hurry, otherwise whatever wins he will gain in the near future simply won’t be enough to wrest the nomination from Sec. Clinton.