The two primaries this year are a case study in how the two political parties are little alike and the folks who claim otherwise have the political sophistication of a tuft of moss. The Republican primary is a hot mess of terrifying extremism swirling around in a white hot Strom Thurmond Brand™ cauldron with a dash of South American-style fascism for flavor. The Democratic primary is startlingly adult by comparison, focusing on the positions and methods of progress sought by Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.
The way the two primaries are playing out is about as different as the candidates themselves. The GOP is hellbent on repeatedly shooting itself in the foot as it limps toward Cleveland, deciding whether or not Donald J. Trump will be the party’s standard-bearer or if they’ll wrestle the nomination from his tiny, sweaty hands.
The outcome of the Democratic primary is decidedly clearer.
That last fact is a huge point of contention between the two camps right now, with Hillary supporters—full disclosure: I proudly voted for Hillary here in North Carolina—all but certain that the former Secretary of State will win the right to run against whatever goat rodeo the Republicans set loose this summer. Bernie supporters look at a mostly blank map and see more than half the races left, giving Bernie what they say is a solid path to the nomination.
I know plenty of people who are tired of hearing about the much-vaunted “delegate math,” but just like electoral votes are what elect a president (until we amend the Constitution otherwise), delegates are the deciding factor in a primary cycle.
That delegate math is pretty ugly if you want Bernie Sanders to be the next Democratic nominee.
Hillary’s pledged delegate lead has steadily grown since she won the Nevada caucuses on February 20, 2016.
The grave mistake the Bernie campaign made at the beginning of this cycle was essentially writing off the south, an error that allowed Hillary to run up enormous margins in delegate-rich states like Georgia and Texas while scoring a blend of small wins and solid losses in other states with smaller delegations. This discrepancy has allowed Hillary to amass a significant lead in pledged delegates, earning 776 to Bernie’s 551 through Saturday’s caucus in the Northern Mariana Islands.
A 225-delegate lead doesn’t seem like much, but the Democratic Party allocates pledged delegates proportional to the vote received. This theoretically helps non-front runners accrue delegates despite falling behind in the vote, but it winds up hurting them more than it helps. This proportionality cements even a small delegate deficit, sometimes growing so large that it requires the runner-up to achieve landslide wins to catch up. Build up enough of a deficit and that’s the ball game. That’s how Obama edged out Hillary in 2008.
We’re heading into what is arguably the most favorable stretch of the primary calendar for Bernie Sanders, who has performed exceedingly well in smaller and more liberal caucus states. This advantage is exemplified by his decisive wins in Colorado and Minnesota on Super Tuesday, where he finished ahead of Hillary by about 20 points in each case. It’s not a stretch of the imagination to figure that he could win almost every contest after March 15 until New York votes on April 19.
However, while the optics of winning state after state looks great for fundraising and morale-building, the delegates are what matters, and the current trajectory is not kind to Bernie.
In order for Bernie to catch up with Hillary, here’s an example of the kind of margins by which he needs to win the remaining 34 races in order to virtually tie with Hillary:
MarGINS BY WHICH BERNIE NEEDS TO WIN REMAINING RACES
IN ORDER TO virtually tie HILLARY’S DELEGATE LEAD
States |
Hillary Clinton |
Bernie Sanders |
FLORIDA
|
55% |
45%
|
ILLINOIS |
45%
|
55% |
MISSOURI |
45% |
55% |
NORTH CAROLINA |
55% |
45% |
OHIO |
45% |
55% |
DEMS ABROAD |
30% |
70% |
ARIZONA |
55% |
45% |
IDAHO |
35% |
65% |
UTAH |
35% |
65% |
ALASKA |
35% |
65% |
HAWAII |
35% |
65% |
WASHINGTON |
30% |
70% |
NORTH DAKOTA |
35% |
65% |
WISCONSIN |
30% |
70% |
WYOMING |
35% |
65% |
NEW YORK |
55% |
45% |
CONNECTICUT |
51% |
49% |
DELAWARE |
51% |
49% |
MARYLAND |
51% |
49% |
PENNSYLVANIA |
51% |
49% |
RHODE ISLAND |
51% |
49% |
INDIANA |
49% |
51% |
GUAM |
50% |
50% |
WEST VIRGINIA |
30% |
70% |
KENTUCKY |
30% |
70% |
OREGON |
30% |
70% |
VIRGIN ISLANDS |
20% |
80% |
PUERTO RICO |
40% |
60% |
CALIFORNIA |
45% |
55% |
MONTANA |
35% |
65% |
NEW JERSEY |
45% |
55% |
NEW MEXICO |
45% |
55% |
SOUTH DAKOTA |
40% |
60% |
WASHINGTON D.C. |
55% |
45% |
*DELEGATE TOTALS:
|
2,022 |
2,028 |
If we’re being realistic about the outcome of the primary, you can play around with the numbers a little bit, but this is roughly what needs to happen between now and the middle of June if you want Bernie Sanders to take the stage as the victor in Philadelphia. Bernie needs to keep Hillary’s margins down everywhere she wins, and he needs to run up the numbers everywhere he wins.
We start with this Tuesday, where I very generously give Bernie ten-point wins in Ohio, Illinois, and Missouri. I did that because a virtual tie like we saw in Michigan (he won by 1.5% and netted 8 delegates) is not enough to cancel out Hillary’s performance in states like Mississippi and Georgia. If I followed polling averages in this Tuesday’s races, Hillary would still come out of this scenario with a 64-delegate lead.
Continuing on, Bernie needs to score enormous victories (70% to 30%) in states like Wisconsin, Washington, Oregon, Kentucky, and West Virginia. He would need to replicate his performance in Kansas across the west and outstanding Plains states. He also needs to severely cut into Hillary’s margins in the Northeast to the extent that all of the states (save for New York) are virtual delegate ties.
Here’s what that theoretical outcome would look like, using the same format as the graph above:
Under this scenario, Bernie’s constant string of lopsided wins would close the gap by the end of May.
This scenario comes with a margin of error of probably one or two dozen delegates, as pledged delegates are based on both statewide results and results in congressional districts (the scenario above is based solely on statewide results). Either way, this theoretical outcome brings Bernie close enough that he could make a serious pitch to superdelegates to come to his side in time for the convention.
Keep in mind that any slip in those margins would result in a greater delegate lead for Hillary, requiring Bernie to win an even larger share of the vote in whatever states are left.
You can argue about the numbers all you want—“what are you talking about!? he’ll get more than xx% in Connecticut! you’re a shill!”—but the overall trend doesn’t lie. Bernie Sanders needs to win and win big from here on out if he wants to win at all, and it’s exceedingly unlikely that he’ll be able to pull it off.
That being said, nothing is entirely impossible in politics. I mean, who thought a year ago that we’d be living through a rejected MadTV sketch this year? But if we’re looking at the remainder of the Democratic race without loyalty glasses, it’s clear that Bernie’s path to the nomination is so narrow an ant would have to suck in its gut to squeeze through.
*I simply multiplied the candidate’s percentage of the vote against the number of delegates in each state or territory.
You can follow me (or yell at me all night) on Twitter @wxdam.