Bernie Sanders’ double digit win in the badger state yesterday continued his stretch of winning 7 of 8 contests in this period where the calendar is favorable to him. Sen. Sanders’ win in Wisconsin seems to have netted him 10 delegates according to the Green Papers’ projection (although three congressional districts are close enough that he could net anywhere from 10 to 16). When combined with his activist base flipping two delegates at the Nevada county convention, leaves him at most 214 delegates behind the front runner Hillary Clinton. Unfortunately for Sen Sanders, his favorable stretch of contests is coming to a close with the Wyoming caucuses and the delegate race will turn to a string of closed primaries in states with sizable minority populations — contests that have generally favored Sec Clinton so far. What’s more, the exit polls showed him losing African American voters by ~40 points, which doesn’t augur well for his prospects in upcoming states, such as NY, MD and PA. The results mean that Sen Sanders needs to win a bit over 56% of all remaining pledged delegates just to tie Sec Clinton, and with contests favorable to Sec Clinton looming in the second half of April, that number will almost certainly inch closer to 60% by the time this month’s contests are concluded.
Delegate Race
As usual, these numbers are from the Green Papers and are subject to minor changes once vote counts become finalized. As things currently stand, with a 48-38 projection from Wisconsin, both candidates would have made their original targets from 538, but Sanders would be just shy of his adjusted target from 538. 538’s adjusted targets were done as a thought exercise to show how hard it would be for Sen Sanders to even tie Sec Clinton in the delegate race.
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 |
|
|
9 |
24 |
|
-7 |
-5 |
616 |
438 |
CLINTON BY 196
|
Louisiana |
51 |
26 |
25 |
29 |
22 |
33 |
18 |
|
|
37 |
14 |
|
8 |
4 |
653 |
452 |
Nebraska |
25 |
10 |
15 |
11 |
14 |
10 |
15 |
|
|
10 |
15 |
|
-1 |
0 |
663 |
467 |
3/6/2016 |
Maine |
25 |
9 |
16 |
10 |
15 |
10 |
15 |
|
|
9 |
16 |
|
-1 |
-1 |
672 |
483 |
CLINTON BY 189 |
3/8/2016
|
Michigan |
130 |
55 |
75 |
62 |
68 |
63 |
67 |
|
|
63 |
67 |
|
1 |
0 |
735 |
550 |
CLINTON BY 213
|
Mississippi |
36 |
18 |
18 |
20 |
16 |
23 |
13 |
|
|
32 |
4 |
|
12 |
9 |
767 |
554 |
3/12/2016 |
Northern Marianas |
6 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|
|
4 |
2 |
|
1 |
1 |
771 |
556 |
CLINTON BY 215 |
3/15/2016
|
Florida |
214 |
94 |
120 |
105 |
109 |
116 |
98 |
|
|
141 |
73 |
|
36 |
25 |
912 |
629 |
CLINTON BY 316
|
Illinois |
156 |
73 |
83 |
81 |
75 |
85 |
71 |
|
|
78 |
78 |
|
-3 |
-7 |
990 |
707 |
Missouri |
71 |
30 |
41 |
34 |
37 |
36 |
35 |
|
|
36 |
35 |
|
2 |
0 |
1026 |
742 |
North Carolina |
107 |
54 |
53 |
59 |
48 |
57 |
50 |
|
|
60 |
47 |
|
1 |
3 |
1086 |
789 |
Ohio |
143 |
60 |
83 |
67 |
76 |
71 |
72 |
|
|
81 |
62 |
|
14 |
10 |
1167 |
851 |
3/20/2016 |
Democrats Abroad |
13 |
6 |
7 |
7 |
6 |
6.5 |
7 |
|
|
4 |
9 |
|
-3 |
-2.5 |
1171 |
860 |
CLINTON BY 311 |
3/22/2016
|
Arizona |
75 |
33 |
42 |
37 |
38 |
34 |
41 |
|
|
44 |
31 |
|
7 |
10 |
1215 |
891 |
CLINTON BY 290
|
Idaho |
23 |
10 |
13 |
11 |
12 |
9 |
14 |
|
|
5 |
18 |
|
-6 |
-4 |
1220 |
909 |
Utah |
33 |
12 |
21 |
14 |
19 |
14 |
19 |
|
|
6 |
27 |
|
-8 |
-8 |
1226 |
936 |
3/26/2016
|
Alaska |
16 |
7 |
9 |
8 |
8 |
7 |
9 |
|
|
3 |
13 |
|
-5 |
-4 |
1229 |
949 |
CLINTON BY 224
|
Hawaii |
25 |
13 |
12 |
14 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
|
|
8 |
17 |
|
-6 |
-4 |
1237 |
966 |
Washington |
101 |
44 |
57 |
49 |
52 |
42 |
59 |
|
|
27 |
74 |
|
-22 |
-15 |
1264 |
1040 |
4/5/2016 |
Wisconsin |
86 |
33 |
53 |
37 |
49 |
38 |
48 |
36 |
50 |
38 |
48 |
|
1 |
0 |
1302 |
1088 |
CLINTON BY 214 |
TOTALS |
|
|
|
|
1153 |
1151 |
1175 |
1130 |
|
|
1302 |
1088 |
|
+111 |
+90 |
1302 |
1088 |
|
Delegate Target Surplus
Since both candidates are projected to meet their original delegate targets, Sec Clinton’s delegate target surplus remains unchanged by the results from Wisconsin. Her 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). Additionally, as things stand with a +10 delegate spread from Wisconsin, Bernie would have fallen just shy of 538’s adjusted target for him. 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.
Ultimately, despite Bernie’s string of wins in a stretch of the calendar favorable to him, Hillary still retains a very substantial lead and has to be seen as a near certain lock to be the nominee.