The 48 point victory in the South Carolina primary has placed Hillary Clinton firmly in control of the delegate math. Sec Clinton has taken a clear lead of 26 pledged delegates and more than that, is ahead of where David Wasserman’s initial model indicated she needed to be after the first four states in order to secure a majority of pledged delegates.
Wasserman’s Initial Model
DATE |
STATE/
TERRITORY
|
PLEDGED DELEGATES |
CLINTON TARGET |
SANDERS TARGET |
CLINTON RESULT |
SANDERS RESULT |
CLINTON DIFFERENCE
FROM TARGET
|
FEB 1 |
Iowa |
44 |
13 |
31 |
23 |
21 |
+10 |
FEB 9 |
New Hampshire |
24 |
9 |
15 |
9 |
15 |
0 |
FEB 20 |
Nevada |
35 |
15 |
20 |
20 |
15 |
+5 |
FEB 27 |
South Carolina |
53 |
29 |
24 |
39 |
14 |
+10 |
TOTALS |
|
156 |
66 |
90 |
91 |
65 |
+25 |
LEAD |
|
|
|
|
+26 |
|
|
Table 1: David Wasserman’s initial model.
Wasserman’s Updated Model, Adjusted
Wasserman has since updated his model to take into consideration new polls and well as results from the initial states. Unfortunately, Wasserman includes superdelegates in his revised targets, which as we all know are unpledged and theoretically could change their support. Additionally, Wasserman includes the delegates from the territories he hadn’t put in his model initially( e.g. Guam, Puerto Rico etc). This results in 2026 being the number needed for a majority of pledged delegates, rather than 1976 in his initial model.
To make things simpler, I would rather focus on the pledged delegates, since I think it’s fair to expect that if the democratic primary voters express a clear preference for one candidate, then enough superdelegates will support that candidate to make him or her the nominee.
To try to get a rough idea of what Wasserman’s model would suggest as targets for pledged delegates, if superdelegates were not a factor, I removed the superdelegate targets for each candidate and then applied the difference in pledged delegates needed to reach 2026 proportionally to all contests (this results in Clinton needing more pledged delegates and Sanders less, in comparison to the targets shown in Table 2 from Wasserman’s updated model). The adjusted targets are shown in table 3 below. One thing to note, is that Sanders, while still behind, has done better in the initial four states among some demographics, than Wasserman initially anticipated, resulting in him having needed fewer delegates from the first four states than initially thought. Still, by both Wasserman’s initial model, and his updated one, Sanders is behind where he needs to be.
DATE |
CONTEST |
PLEDGED DELEGATES |
WASSERMAN'S CLINTON TARGET |
WASSERMAN'S SANDERS TARGET |
CLINTON TARGET ADJUSTED |
SANDERS TARGET ADJUSTED |
CLINTON RESULT |
SANDERS RESULT |
CLINTON DIFFERENCE FROM TARGET |
CUMMULATIVE
CLINTON DIFFERENCE FROM TARGET
|
CLINTON TOTAL |
SANDERS TOTAL |
RAW LEAD |
2/1/2016 |
Iowa |
44 |
16 |
28 |
18 |
26 |
23 |
21 |
5 |
+5 |
23 |
21 |
CLINTON BY 2 |
2/9/2016 |
New Hampshire |
24 |
9 |
15 |
10 |
14 |
9 |
15 |
-1 |
+4 |
32 |
36 |
SANDERS BY 4 |
2/20/2016 |
Nevada |
35 |
16 |
19 |
18 |
17 |
20 |
15 |
2 |
+6 |
52 |
51 |
CLINTON BY 1 |
2/27/2016 |
South Carolina |
53 |
27 |
26 |
30 |
23 |
39 |
14 |
9 |
+15 |
91 |
65 |
CLINTON BY 26 |
3/1/2016
|
Alabama |
53 |
27 |
26 |
30 |
23 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
American Samoa |
6 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arkansas |
32 |
13 |
19 |
15 |
17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Colorado |
66 |
30 |
36 |
33 |
33 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Georgia |
102 |
52 |
50 |
57 |
45 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Massachusetts |
91 |
35 |
56 |
40 |
51 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minnesota |
77 |
32 |
45 |
36 |
41 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oklahoma |
38 |
16 |
22 |
18 |
20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tennessee |
67 |
30 |
37 |
33 |
34 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Texas |
222 |
111 |
111 |
122 |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vermont |
16 |
4 |
12 |
5 |
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Virginia |
95 |
43 |
52 |
48 |
47 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3/5/2016
|
Kansas |
33 |
14 |
19 |
16 |
17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Louisiana |
51 |
26 |
25 |
29 |
22 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nebraska |
25 |
10 |
15 |
11 |
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3/6/2016 |
Maine |
25 |
9 |
16 |
10 |
15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3/8/2016
|
Michigan |
130 |
55 |
75 |
62 |
68 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mississippi |
36 |
18 |
18 |
20 |
16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3/12/2016 |
Northern Marianas |
6 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3/15/2016
|
Florida |
214 |
94 |
120 |
105 |
109 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Illinois |
156 |
73 |
83 |
81 |
75 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Missouri |
71 |
30 |
41 |
34 |
37 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
North Carolina |
107 |
54 |
53 |
59 |
48 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ohio |
143 |
60 |
83 |
67 |
76 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3/22/2016
|
Arizona |
75 |
33 |
42 |
37 |
38 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Idaho |
23 |
10 |
13 |
11 |
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Utah |
33 |
12 |
21 |
14 |
19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3/26/2016
|
Alaska |
16 |
7 |
9 |
8 |
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hawaii |
25 |
13 |
12 |
14 |
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Washington |
101 |
44 |
57 |
49 |
52 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4/1/2016 |
North Dakota |
18 |
7 |
11 |
8 |
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4/5/2016 |
Wisconsin |
86 |
33 |
53 |
37 |
49 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4/9/2016 |
Wyoming |
14 |
6 |
8 |
7 |
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4/19/2016 |
New York |
247 |
127 |
120 |
139 |
108 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4/26/2016
|
Connecticut |
55 |
22 |
33 |
25 |
30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Delaware |
21 |
9 |
12 |
10 |
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maryland |
95 |
45 |
50 |
50 |
45 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pennsylvania |
189 |
77 |
112 |
87 |
102 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rhode Island |
24 |
9 |
15 |
10 |
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5/3/2016 |
Indiana |
83 |
35 |
48 |
39 |
44 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5/7/2016 |
Guam |
7 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5/10/2016 |
West Virginia |
29 |
11 |
18 |
12 |
17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5/14/2016 |
Democrats Abroad |
13 |
6 |
7 |
7 |
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5/17/2016
|
Kentucky |
55 |
22 |
33 |
25 |
30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oregon |
61 |
23 |
38 |
26 |
35 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6/4/2016 |
Virgin Islands |
7 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6/5/2016 |
Puerto Rico |
60 |
27 |
33 |
30 |
30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6/7/2016
|
California |
475 |
228 |
247 |
252 |
223 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Montana |
21 |
8 |
13 |
9 |
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Jersey |
126 |
58 |
68 |
64 |
62 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Mexico |
34 |
16 |
18 |
18 |
16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
South Dakota |
20 |
8 |
12 |
9 |
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6/14/2016 |
DC |
20 |
10 |
10 |
11 |
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4051 |
1822 |
2229 |
2026 |
2026 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table 3: Adjusted delegate targets, not including superdelegates.
The Super Tuesday Danger for Sen. Sanders
It is difficult to overstate just how dangerous the situation Sen. Sanders finds himself in with the larger than expected defeat in South Carolina. According to the excellent MattTX, the worst case scenario from which it is reasonable to expect Sen. Sanders to be able to win the pledged delegate race, involves him being behind by 104 pledged delegates after Super Tuesday. In that worst case scenario projection for Sen Sanders, MattTX’s model had expected Sec. Clinton to net 11 delegates from South Carolina. However, the larger than expected victory resulted in her netting 25 delegates from South Carolina.
If we see similar, unexpectedly large victories for Sec. Clinton across the south on Tuesday, then Hillary Clinton’s pledged delegate lead may be well above 104 when the counting is done on Tuesday.