Sen. Sanders’ 12 point victory in Wyoming’s caucuses was tempered by the fact that the delegate allocation rules mean that the nation’s smallest state population wise, split its delegates evenly 7-7 between him and his opponent Sec. Clinton. The victory caps an impressive stretch where Bernie has won 8 or 9 contests — mainly in caucus states where he has racked up big leads. However, there are three reasons why I don’t consider Bernie’s good stretch to be an indication of the race turning towards him.
- His good stretch was entirely predictable. Last October, I wrote a diary outlining which candidate I thought was the stronger in each of the contests in this race. In that October diary I had stated that Hillary should be favored in Arizona, and Bernie in each of the other 8 states. In that diary, I underestimated Bernie’s strength with working whites, but otherwise the demographic trends that were obvious then in polling data have held throughout this primary season, indicating a remarkably static race in how major demographic groups have been voting. This runs counter to the argument that the race has somehow changed in any meaningful way since March 15.
- As good as Bernie’s stretch since March 15 has been, he’s netted just about the same amount of delegates (106) as Hillary netted in one day on March 15 (101). Meaning that it has taken his best stretch of favorable territory just to make up for Hillary’s really big day on March 15. Which leads us to
- The fact that calendar wise, the past three weeks always looked like the most fertile part of the schedule for Sen. Sanders. The race now turns to territory much more favorable to Sec. Clinton. Indeed, only one more state has a caucus remaining, caucuses being much better for Sen Sanders than primaries have been. And the remaining states this month — NY, PA, CT, MD, DE, RI are either closed primaries or/and contain a relatively high percentage of black voters — the very types of contests that have been very good for Sec. Clinton.
It is entirely possible that, should the remaining contests play out as expected later this month, that Sen Sanders has hit his post-March 15 high point in terms of proximity to Sec Clinton’s delegate total.
Delegate Race
As usual, numbers below are from the Green Papers.
DATE |
|
PLEDGED DELEGATES |
COOK'S CLINTON TARGET |
COOK'S SANDERS TARGET |
CLINTON TARGET ADJUSTED |
SANDERS TARGET ADJUSTED |
538 CLINTON TARGET |
538 SANDERS TARGET |
538 REVISED CLINTON TARGET |
538 REVISED 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 |
|
|
18 |
17 |
|
0 |
1 |
50 |
53 |
SANDERS BY 3 |
2/27/2016 |
South Carolina |
53 |
27 |
26 |
30 |
23 |
32 |
21 |
|
|
39 |
14 |
|
9 |
7 |
89 |
67 |
CLINTON BY 22 |
3/1/2016
|
Alabama |
53 |
27 |
26 |
30 |
23 |
35 |
18 |
|
|
44 |
9 |
|
14 |
9 |
133 |
76 |
CLINTON BY 193
|
American Samoa |
6 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|
|
4 |
2 |
|
1 |
1 |
137 |
78 |
Arkansas |
32 |
13 |
19 |
15 |
17 |
18 |
14 |
|
|
22 |
10 |
|
7 |
4 |
159 |
88 |
Colorado |
66 |
30 |
36 |
33 |
33 |
30 |
36 |
|
|
28 |
38 |
|
-5 |
-2 |
187 |
126 |
Georgia |
102 |
52 |
50 |
57 |
45 |
65 |
37 |
|
|
73 |
29 |
|
16 |
8 |
260 |
155 |
Massachusetts |
91 |
35 |
56 |
40 |
51 |
41 |
50 |
|
|
46 |
45 |
|
6 |
5 |
306 |
200 |
Minnesota |
77 |
32 |
45 |
36 |
41 |
30 |
47 |
|
|
31 |
46 |
|
-5 |
1 |
337 |
246 |
Oklahoma |
38 |
16 |
22 |
18 |
20 |
18 |
20 |
|
|
17 |
21 |
|
-1 |
-1 |
354 |
267 |
Tennessee |
67 |
30 |
37 |
33 |
34 |
33 |
34 |
|
|
44 |
23 |
|
11 |
11 |
398 |
290 |
Texas |
222 |
111 |
111 |
122 |
100 |
126 |
96 |
|
|
147 |
75 |
|
25 |
21 |
545 |
365 |
Vermont |
16 |
4 |
12 |
5 |
11 |
2 |
14 |
|
|
0 |
16 |
|
-5 |
-2 |
545 |
381 |
Virginia |
95 |
43 |
52 |
48 |
47 |
52 |
43 |
|
|
62 |
33 |
|
14 |
10 |
607 |
414 |
3/5/2016
|
Kansas |
33 |
14 |
19 |
16 |
17 |
14 |
19 |
|
|
10 |
23 |
|
-6 |
-4 |
617 |
437 |
CLINTON BY 198
|
Louisiana |
51 |
26 |
25 |
29 |
22 |
33 |
18 |
|
|
37 |
14 |
|
8 |
4 |
654 |
451 |
Nebraska |
25 |
10 |
15 |
11 |
14 |
10 |
15 |
|
|
10 |
15 |
|
-1 |
0 |
664 |
466 |
3/6/2016 |
Maine |
25 |
9 |
16 |
10 |
15 |
10 |
15 |
|
|
9 |
16 |
|
-1 |
-1 |
673 |
482 |
CLINTON BY 191 |
3/8/2016
|
Michigan |
130 |
55 |
75 |
62 |
68 |
63 |
67 |
|
|
63 |
67 |
|
1 |
0 |
736 |
549 |
CLINTON BY 215
|
Mississippi |
36 |
18 |
18 |
20 |
16 |
23 |
13 |
|
|
32 |
4 |
|
12 |
9 |
768 |
553 |
3/12/2016 |
Northern Marianas |
6 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|
|
4 |
2 |
|
1 |
1 |
772 |
555 |
CLINTON BY 217 |
3/15/2016
|
Florida |
214 |
94 |
120 |
105 |
109 |
116 |
98 |
|
|
141 |
73 |
|
36 |
25 |
913 |
628 |
CLINTON BY 318
|
Illinois |
156 |
73 |
83 |
81 |
75 |
85 |
71 |
|
|
78 |
78 |
|
-3 |
-7 |
991 |
706 |
Missouri |
71 |
30 |
41 |
34 |
37 |
36 |
35 |
|
|
36 |
35 |
|
2 |
0 |
1027 |
741 |
North Carolina |
107 |
54 |
53 |
59 |
48 |
57 |
50 |
|
|
60 |
47 |
|
1 |
3 |
1087 |
788 |
Ohio |
143 |
60 |
83 |
67 |
76 |
71 |
72 |
|
|
81 |
62 |
|
14 |
10 |
1168 |
850 |
3/20/2016 |
Democrats Abroad |
13 |
6 |
7 |
7 |
6 |
6.5 |
7 |
|
|
4 |
9 |
|
-3 |
-2.5 |
1172 |
859 |
CLINTON BY 313 |
3/22/2016
|
Arizona |
75 |
33 |
42 |
37 |
38 |
34 |
41 |
|
|
42 |
33 |
|
5 |
8 |
1214 |
892 |
CLINTON BY 288
|
Idaho |
23 |
10 |
13 |
11 |
12 |
9 |
14 |
|
|
5 |
18 |
|
-6 |
-4 |
1219 |
910 |
Utah |
33 |
12 |
21 |
14 |
19 |
14 |
19 |
|
|
6 |
27 |
|
-8 |
-8 |
1225 |
937 |
3/26/2016
|
Alaska |
16 |
7 |
9 |
8 |
8 |
7 |
9 |
|
|
3 |
13 |
|
-5 |
-4 |
1228 |
950 |
CLINTON BY 222
|
Hawaii |
25 |
13 |
12 |
14 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
|
|
8 |
17 |
|
-6 |
-4 |
1236 |
967 |
Washington |
101 |
44 |
57 |
49 |
52 |
42 |
59 |
|
|
27 |
74 |
|
-22 |
-15 |
1263 |
1041 |
4/5/2016 |
Wisconsin |
86 |
33 |
53 |
37 |
49 |
38 |
48 |
36 |
50 |
38 |
48 |
|
1 |
0 |
1301 |
1089 |
CLINTON BY 212 |
4/9/2016 |
Wyoming |
14 |
6 |
8 |
7 |
7 |
5 |
9 |
3 |
11 |
7 |
7 |
|
0 |
2 |
1308 |
1096 |
CLINTON BY 212 |
TOTALS |
|
|
|
|
1153 |
1151 |
1175 |
1130 |
|
|
1308 |
1096 |
|
111 |
91 |
1308 |
1096 |
|
With the 7-7 pledged delegate tie from Wyoming, Hillary retains her 212 pledged delegate lead over Bernie (since my last diary on the delegate race, 1 delegate shifted from Bernie to Hillary in Kansas, as final caucus numbers were adjusted there). However, since an outright delegate win was projected for Sen Sanders in WY in both 538’s and the Cook Report’s delegate targets, he slips marginally in trying to reduce Hillary’s delegate target surplus, which remains around 110 according to the Cook model, and around 90 according to the original 538 model. However, he lost a fair bit of ground in 538’s adjusted targets which were aggressive to account for Bernie’s previous delegate hole.
Delegate Target Surplus
Hillary’s delegate target surplus simply means that she is doing ~90 delegates better than what 538’s model projected her to need at this point in order to get to 50% of the pledged delegates (and ~110 delegates better than the Cook Report’s model). A simple way of looking at the delegate target surplus, is that if Hillary’s surplus were 0, it would mean that both candidates are on track for 50% of the pledged delegates according to the model being considered. Also shown in the chart is Hillary’s surplus according to 538’s updated “here’s how Bernie theoretically could win” model.
Up Next
Up next is New York, the state that elected Sec Clinton to the US Senate twice and which should be favorable ground for Hillary. I’m of the opinion that this race has effectively been over for some time now, with the demographic trends of the race seemingly baked in. What could change my mind about this race being over? For that I would need to see some evidence that the demographic dynamics have changed, and changed not in a way that this race is now a 50-50 one, instead changed in such a way that the dynamics indicate that Bernie can overcome the very big delegate hole he finds himself in. That would mean something around a 5 point (or greater) win for Sen Sanders in New York. As of now, I do not see that happening.
Special Commentary
Perhaps realizing just how difficult it is for their candidate to win the pledged delegate race, Jeff Weaver and Tad Devine have started talking about contesting the race to the convention in the event that Bernie Sanders loses the pledged delegate race, in the hopes that superdelegates would give the nomination to Bernie. And there are two things I’d like to say about that
- It is highly ingenuous (or perhaps simply the sign of a losing campaign) for Bernie’s Team to have insisted at the start of the race that superdelegates support the winner of the pledged delegate race, and now, when they are losing, suggest superdelegates don’t have to back the winner of the pledged delegate race. There’s a reason I’ve been meticulously keeping track of pledged delegates for months — that reason is simply that the superdelegates should not (and will not) overturn the expressed will of the democratic party electorate.
- Let’s just take a moment to appreciate just how risible the notion that superdelegates would make Bernie Sanders the nominee at the convention if he doesn’t win the pledged delegates outright. Think back to June 2008. When the final contest voted, Hillary was much closer to Obama then than Bernie is to her now, and yet, was there ever any shadow of a doubt that Barack Obama had clinched the nomination on that night in June 2008 when he gave his victory speech in Minnesota? Similarly, if and when Hillary clinches the majority of pledged delegates in early June of this year, her superdelegate support will make it obvious that she is the presumptive nominee — just as happened with Barack Obama back in 2008. The media will call her the presumptive nominee. Party leaders, such as President Obama will call her the presumptive nominee. Any attempt by Bernie to insist that the race isn’t over at that point would be laughable. His only path will be to do what Hillary did in early June 2008 — concede, and work as hard as he can to elect the democratic nominee.