Charlie Cook: Bernie-Mania's Barrier: Democratic Delegate Math

[brooklynite]

Cook Political Report:

In the wake of new Iowa and New Hampshire polls showing Bernie Sanders gaining, some say it's time for Hillary Clinton to hit the panic button. "Clinton should ABSOLUTELY be nervous about the state of the race with less than three weeks before voters in Iowa head to the caucuses," the Washington Post's Fix blog blared last week.

There are just two obstacles in this theory's way: demographics and delegate arithmetic.

In poll after poll, Sanders's best group within the Democratic Party is liberal whites. Unfortunately for Sanders, Iowa and New Hampshire couldn't be much further on the extreme end of the party's demographic or ideological spectrum. According to our estimates, based on past exit polls and Census data, there is only one state where whites who self-identify as liberals make up a higher share of the Democratic primary electorate than Iowa and New Hampshire.

You guessed it: Vermont.

In fact, 98 percent of pledged Democratic delegates will come from states with lower shares of liberal whites than Iowa and New Hampshire. Just 447 of 4,051 pledged Democratic delegates - 11 percent - are tied to results in states or districts with higher shares of college-educated whites than New Hampshire. Moreover, just 13 percent of pledged Democratic delegates will be awarded in caucus states like Iowa, which as 2008 proved, tend to bring out more liberal participants than primaries.

[Iliyah]

1. K & R

HRC got this.

Iowa for the win.

[workinclasszero]

86. Math is hard

When it proves your candidate is gonna lose.

That's why there is so much magical thinking on the Bernie Underground.

[Gothmog]

2. K&R

[artislife]

3. Momentum. nt

[Alfresco]

10. Arithmetic. nt :-)

[artislife]

15. Remember 2008, when h was leading Obama...then came some Obama wins?

Yeah, that.

[Alfresco]

17. Believe what you will.

[artislife]

19. It isn't deja vu all over again

The slide is actually happening earlier.

[Alfresco]

20. Time will tell.

[artislife]

22. Yup. nt

[snoringvoter]

84. The time is now.

The slide is underway. There is no more momentum. It's all downhill from here.

[George II]

74. What "slide"? She's expanding her leads in most states, defying gravity that might cause a "slide".

[snoringvoter]

85. On what alternate planet?

Her leads are getting narrower by the minute, and she already lost Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada is now likely closed for Clinton, and South Carolina on its way to closing off Clinton. None of the polls matter much this close to the first primary. Iowa is closed for Clinton, and has been for weeks. She will not win anything, except second place finisher.

[George II]

87. Damn, I must have slept through those primaries and caucuses. By how much did she...

....lose Iowa and New Hampshire?

She's going to win manny, manny states, Sanders will win two, maybe three tops.

[snoringvoter]

89. It is done.

The numbers are there. It took a while to develop, but the numbers are finally solidifying for Bernie. There is no win for Clinton, despite how hard you try to hope for one. It's just not there.

[George II]

91. I'm sure you can explain how you arrived at that conclusion?

[snoringvoter]

93. Sure, Clinton has an enthusiasm gap.

She's just as inspiring as watching paint dry.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511051232

Just found a new article posted today that perfectly explains the problem.

And another.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511051298

[riversedge]

26. Remember that Bernie is no charismatic Obama

[artislife]

27. Hillary is still Hillary.

And we all know how that goes.

[riversedge]

28. Smart, intellegent strong, caring-yup Hillary is still Hillary.

[pinebox]

49. Caring? Caring about money from speaking fees and bombing civilians maybe

[Gothmog]

68. And Sanders is still not making inroads with African American and Latino voters

Many of these states have demographics that are not favorable to Sanders

[artislife]

69. latina here..His numbers are rising

So your statement is false.

[snoringvoter]

88. You hear bullshit.

We don't. We know that Bernie is our man. Clinton won't even give another glance towards PoC.

Yes, I said it. Clinton is worse with PoC than Bernie is.

[synergie]

99. Yeah, the numbers and the reality doesn't really back that up. I applaud your dedication

and devotion to your creed, you just keep chanting so that reality doesn't penetrate, and ensure that you keep ignoring what people outside your groups are actually saying.

[pinebox]

48. You're right, he's more

He's outperforming Obama at this stage of the race, you seem to forget that. He's passed Obama's fund raising and his crowds are larger.
You should be very afraid.

[PyaarRevolution]

66. Actually

I think the way he delivers his message opens a lot of people up to hearing more from him. He might not be inspiring in the sense of a JFK speech but his straight talk AND record really draw people. A lot of Obama supporters have become much more cynical after that election. But they see Bernie's record over his long term in public service and know he's not going to pull a bait and switch and are willing to donate and engage. Also, young people are heartened on his message of paid college and I'm sure the Medicare for all doesn't hurt. I don't know how many people in terms of age are informed on TPP but I'm SURE Bernie's stance on TPP has helped him tremendously.
So Bernie has Unions, young people(men and women) and he will get more and more independents, likely disenfranchised Eisenhower Republicans, rural Republicans. As far as minorities go, Bernie will get more and more groups. Bernie has spoken on immigration reform, for Civil Rights and marched with Dr.King.
If you're part of the Democratic base and believe in those issues then you likely support Bernie. I haven't even reached more into Social Justice, pay equity, etc. If it's from the old school Republican/Democrat/Liberal values chances are Bernie supports this. I threw in Republican in terms of the tax rate that Eisenhower pushed. I'm not saying Bernie would jack it up that high but he definitely believes the rich should pay their fair share I just find it utterly tragic that the mechanism to make our economy thrive again is increasing taxes on the rich instead of paying their employees at a much more comparable rate. NO CEO, not even the founder of a company deserves to be paid 300:1 or more versus their lowest paid worker. Heck even 100:1 seems too high in my opinion

[artislife]

70. Great response. nt

[Uponthegears]

103. So Obama

beat Hillary based on charisma? I have to tell you, I thought he had more over Hillary than just charisma. Silly me.

[Stuckinthebush]

37. I mentioned this a few posts below, but the article explains the differences

There's another gigantic Sanders math problem the Post failed to mention: thanks to Clinton's early dominance of superdelegates, he effectively begins the race eight points behind in the delegate count, before any votes are even cast.

Unlike on the GOP side, 713 of Democrats' 4,764 convention delegates (15 percent) are unpledged superdelegates. By the AP's count last November, Clinton had the support of 359 superdelegates. Since then, according to FiveThirtyEight's endorsement tracker, Clinton has picked up 21 congressional endorsements, for an estimated total of 380. The most recent count has Sanders at 11.

This is a much different story from a comparable point in the 2008 primaries, when Obama had already amassed a respectable number of superdelegates and most were still uncommitted. Unless uncommitted superdelegates switch allegiances or flock to Sanders in droves, he wouldn't just need to edge out Clinton in primaries, he would need to beat her soundly just to offset this huge deficit.

[TM99]

52. If the super delegates defy the will of the voters

Hillary is toast. No, not just toast, but worse. The GOP will win in a landslide. All branches and most states will be under GOP control. The Party will fracture. More voters will go independent. And the Third Way is done.

[Stuckinthebush]

53. Perhaps but likely not

The will of the voters is clearly in Clinton's camp at this moment per national and state polling.

[TM99]

54. Sure doesn't seem that way any more.

[Stuckinthebush]

55. It kind of does....

400+ superdelagates plus....

2/1
Iowa: split (depends on the poll but close)

2/9
New Hampshire: S +6

2/20
Nevada: C +19.5

2/27
South Carolina: C +40

3/1
Alabama: C +68
Arkansas: C +5
Colorado: C +13
Georgia: C +57
Massachusetts: C +13
Minnesota: C +28
Oklahoma: C +10
Tennessee: C +12
Texas: C +21
Vermont: C +34
Virginia: C +15

3/5
Kansas: ??
Louisiana: C +35
Nebraska: ??

3/6
Maine: S +1

3/8
Michigan: C +7
Mississippi: ??

3/15
Florida: C +28
Illinois: C +37
Missouri: C +5
North Carolina: C +39
Ohio: C +16

3/22
Arizona: C +28
Idaho: C +20
Utah: C +8

[riversedge]

56. Whow--thanks for taking the time to go all that work. Much appreciated.

[Stuckinthebush]

57. You are welcome!

I'll update it every week or so.

The math just isn't in Bernie's corner. It's really kind of over before it started.

[George II]

72. Good job - that's pretty much close to what I have - essentially a split in Iowa and NH....

....and the nomination will be all but over by mid-March. Considering her Super Delegates she'll have have roughly 1750 delegates to Sanders' 900, with about 1800 to be selected in later primaries. At that point, Clinton will need less than 1/3 of the remaining delegates.

I think you're being generous about Maine, but if you're correct Sanders will win 3 states (Vermont, possibly NH and possibly Maine), Clinton wins the remaining 47 and the territories.

Unfortunately for him, Sanders won't even win enough states/delegates to be in a negotiating position on the platform at the Convention.

[Stuckinthebush]

102. You are correct

Mid March and it's over. Maine number is from the last poll I could find. It may flip.

There is a lot of sound and fury on DU right now. The math says that it is signifying nothing.

[George II]

76. Sorry, no comparison.

First and foremost, Obama is charismatic and a long-time Democrat, Sanders is neither.

Second, Obama was from Iowa's neighboring state of Illinois and was able to flood Iowa with supporters for the caucuses. Sanders' ground game in Iowa is a fraction of the ground game Obama had.

Third, Obama didn't win New Hampshire.

Fourth, Obama had more than 400 Super Delegates, Sanders has TWO.

I'm glad that many Sanders supporters and campaigners are relying on a repeat of 2008. Their complacency is going to win the nomination for Clinton.

[Still In Wisconsin]

43. Meanwhile Shillary has got that JOE-mentum going on!

[riversedge]

63. No need to name-call a Democratic candidate. The RW does that.

[Still In Wisconsin]

79. Aw, OK you're right. Besides, Hillary's supporters would NEVER call Bernie names.

[riversedge]

81. Thanks. Lets just mind our selves first.

[Still In Wisconsin]

83. OK, fair point.

I'll remember that next time a Hillary supporter calls me a moonbat lefty, though

[DFW]

98. As well you should

We don't need that kind of thing among ourselves. If an coherent argument can be made without it, then it doesn't need to be made with it.

[DFW]

80. Cook is one independent I take seriously

Most pollsters have their own agenda. Charlie Cook does not. He's one of the few I listen to when he has something to say. That doesn't mean he's necessarily right, but he often is. I desperately wanted him to be wrong about the 2014 midterms, but, as usual, he wasn't.

[riversedge]

82. I hear you. I trust him

[George II]

75. Do we really need the silly name calling here?

[George II]

73. The big "MO" will be hers before April Fool's Day.

[MineralMan]

4. Yes. People need to watch the delegate counts

as the primary season progresses. Those are the only numbers that matter. IA and NH contribute minimally to those numbers, and even they will be nearly equal following the caucuses and primaries there.

Once SC and NV have results, Hillary will be in the lead in the delegate count, and I doubt that lead will ever be reversed.

Super Tuesday is another matter altogether. The states in those primaries and caucuses will completely overwhelm the results from February primary events.

Pay close attention to Texas on March 2.

[Dawson Leery]

29. +1

[Stuckinthebush]

36. Texas, Virginia and Colorado

It'll all be over Super Tuesday.

[snoringvoter]

90. Yep, Colorado is a Bernie state, and she insulted Texans,

and I don't know much about Virginia.

[Stuckinthebush]

95. Hope is good

The numbers indicate otherwise.

[snoringvoter]

96. The ground game is underway for Bernie.

Right here in Denver. Bernie's got offices all over town. Just opened his third office last week.

I don't see Hillary office anywhere. She isn't set up here, despite the fact she came here to kick off her "ground game" on November 24th.

[Stuckinthebush]

97. I'm sure your anecdotal evidence is predictive

Carry on

[Alfresco]

5. Thanks for the link. Rec'd.

[MoonRiver]

6. Great read!

[SoLeftIAmRight]

7. Red states picking our candidate?

that is a problem

[brooklynite]

9. Red States like Ohio? Florida? Pennsylvania?

[hrmjustin]

11. It was ok in 2008 it is ok now.

[KingFlorez]

12. There are Democrats in red states

They have a right to vote in the primary just like Democrats in the blue states.

[MineralMan]

39. Democrats voting to pick our nominee.

There are Democrats in all 50 states. Each one of them has a vote in a caucus or primary. You have a problem with that? Please explain.

[Codeine]

94. That is the most bullshit argument ever.

Plenty of Democrats live in red states. Should they lose their voice because of how other people in their state vote.

Seriously, that's an unbelievably stupid argument.

[Fawke Em]

8. Just makes us work harder.

And people who believe that only young people are for Bernie are gonna be surprised soon.

[artislife]

18. They are counting on Latinos to come to vote

So both sides are hoping that historically non engaged voting blocs actually make it to the polls. Why Bernie has the edge, is that he is running on issues that directly affect the group that is historically apathetic.

What is Hilary running on that appeals to Latinos? I am Latina and all I see is that it won't be a great change. So she is appealing to those who want things to remain the same but a little better. That is hardly an enticing line.
2008 was electrifying for Latinos because we saw a non WASP making a good run. Personally, it meant a lot to me to see this and that added a lot of inspiration to getting out the vote and voting.

[azmom]

31. Bernie will get the Latino vote.

He will win it with the young latino votes. They constitute well over half of the latino vote. And you know how the milleneals feel about Bernie.

[artislife]

50. Well yes, because of intersectionality.

But Latinos as a whole are a hard group to go to the polls.

But the younger ones have a big stake in this and they see themselves a differently. I think social media allows this to happen. You are not just socializing with the same ethnic group in the neighborhood, but with people who meet you where your interests are. This is actually pretty shattering to the monolithic group think of yesteryear.

[firebrand80]

13. I don't believe in corporate math nt

[Stuckinthebush]

35. What math do you believe in?

Math is math.

[firebrand80]

38. The people's math nt

[snoringvoter]

92. Which is Bernie's people.

Not Clinton's people. Mind you, the graphics in your signature are just too telling, and how much entrenched you are with the Third Way.

[zappaman]

44. "corporate math"

[Gothmog]

64. Math is math

[William769]

14. Kick & highly recommended!

[KingFlorez]

16. Numbers matter

A candidate always has to expand outside of their base, that's basic political math.

[mcar]

21. K&R

[azurnoir]

23. sounds almost as if the DNC is telling us

we don't care who you want this is what we're gonna give ya

way to win the nomination but not the election, and don't worry about who's going to vote fpor Hillary on this site worry about the millions who don't post here

[mythology]

24. Wait, you're saying that the outcome of voting

Is the DNC forcing the candidate you think is their choice? I'm confused. Whichever candidate gets the most delegates from the primaries will be the nominee.

[azurnoir]

41. it's about the superdelegates which we're told Clinton has sewn up before a single vote is even cast

[MineralMan]

46. Superdelegates votes are earned by candidates.

They are earned through associations, mutual work together, and other factors. The Democratic Party has superdelegates. It's part of our system of selecting nominees for President. There's a reason for them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate

Most are elected Democrats, House Members, Senators, Governors. Most of the rest are members of the DNC from each state. Then, there are a few long-time Democrats who are recognized for their leadership and accomplishments.

They make up about 16 or 17% of all delegates. Every last one of the other delegates, who are pledged to vote in accordance with the proportion of voters in each state for candidates, is selected based on caucus and primary results.

Votes make the difference. Votes by Democrats in all 50 states. That's how it works. It's not going to change in 2016. The rules have been set for some time and won't change now.

That's the reality that the candidates face. It's numbers, and every state's delegates count. To win delegates, candidates have to get votes in those states. The more votes they get, the more delegates they get. It's really, really simple. If the voting is tied, each candidate would get 50% of that state's delegates. If it's 60% to 40%, delegates would be selected in proportion.

It's pure math. The article has a chart, showing what it would take for there to be a tie of pledged delegates. Look at it. Compare the numbers with poll results. The story it tells is not one of a Sanders nomination.

[azurnoir]

58. again they have nothing to do with what the rank and file want it's political

mutual hand washing

[KittyWampus]

61. It's politics and political organization.

[azurnoir]

62. why yes it is indeed

[Stuckinthebush]

34. The DNC isn't saying anything to you

The system worked for Obama to beat Clinton in 2008. He worked it.

Sanders hasn't done that so Clinton has the superdelegate edge now. The DNC has their process...it's been that way for awhile.

[azurnoir]

40. did Obama have the superdelegates sewn up BEFORE the first primary was even held?

your statement about Clinton "working" the superdelegates would only seem to substantiate what I said.

[Stuckinthebush]

42. Yes he did

This is a much different story from a comparable point in the 2008 primaries, when Obama had already amassed a respectable number of superdelegates and most were still uncommitted. Unless uncommitted superdelegates switch allegiances or flock to Sanders in droves, he wouldn't just need to edge out Clinton in primaries, he would need to beat her soundly just to offset this huge deficit.

[azurnoir]

45. you confess at this point in 2008 most superdelegates were not yet committed

nothing you have said refutes my original statement

[Stuckinthebush]

47. Your original statement

"Sounds almost as if the DNC is telling us we don't care who you want this is what we're gonna give ya"

I said:

"The DNC isn't saying anything to you. The system worked for Obama to beat Clinton in 2008. He worked it. Sanders hasn't done that so Clinton has the superdelegate edge now. The DNC has their process...it's been that way for awhile."


So, I am saying that the DNC has a system in place. That system worked for Obama over Clinton because he did have substantially more committed SDs in 2008 than she did when things kicked off.

Right now Clinton has a massive edge in SDs which will help her with the system that the DNC established long long ago.

Therefore, I'm refuting that the DNC is "telling us we don't care". In fact, they are telling us nothing. They have a system which is being used well by the Clinton campaign which will help her win.

[azurnoir]

60. again nothing you've refutes my statement

[brooklynite]

51. Why are you worried about Superdelegates?

They'd only make a difference if the delegate count was almost even. And Bernie's going to win in a landslide.

Isn't he?

[azurnoir]

59. ah so you're saying your own OP is Crap -thanks for that

[DesertRat]

25. K&R

[DefenseLawyer]

30. No offense

but the IDENTICAL argument was made in 2008. I'm not saying it won't happen that way this time, only that I've heard it before.

[Stuckinthebush]

33. The piece does a great job of explaining the differences

There's another gigantic Sanders math problem the Post failed to mention: thanks to Clinton's early dominance of superdelegates, he effectively begins the race eight points behind in the delegate count, before any votes are even cast.

Unlike on the GOP side, 713 of Democrats' 4,764 convention delegates (15 percent) are unpledged superdelegates. By the AP's count last November, Clinton had the support of 359 superdelegates. Since then, according to FiveThirtyEight's endorsement tracker, Clinton has picked up 21 congressional endorsements, for an estimated total of 380. The most recent count has Sanders at 11.

This is a much different story from a comparable point in the 2008 primaries, when Obama had already amassed a respectable number of superdelegates and most were still uncommitted. Unless uncommitted superdelegates switch allegiances or flock to Sanders in droves, he wouldn't just need to edge out Clinton in primaries, he would need to beat her soundly just to offset this huge deficit.

[Stuckinthebush]

32. I posted this without seeing this previous posted one

Sorry about that. I deleted mine.

This is a great piece that describes exactly what I and others have been saying. The math isn't with Sanders.

I find the comments above fascinating because many of them ignore the mathematical realities. It's not about liking Sanders or not liking Sanders - it's about Clinton's mathematical command of this race and how the odds of him winning are so incredibly low due to this mathematical command of the race.

For Sanders supporters - I understand the gnashing of teeth against this type of report. I do because it makes the race seem futile. There is still a statistical possibility of a Sanders win but the probability is very low.

For Clinton supporters - I understand why you aren't sweating it.

I am very glad Sanders has been in this race because his message has been one that the Dems need to hear. It is my hope that Clinton chooses Bernie as her running mate. I think the pair would be amazing as a team in the White House.

[KittyWampus]

67. I truly hope Clinton and her supporters (I am not one, btw) ARE sweating it.

It makes for a better candidate if they have to really fight.

The issue is how she and her surrogates fight. Not just to win, but so she doesn't look petty, bigoted or hypocritical.

[lumberjack_jeff]

65. Whistling past the graveyard.

Hillary will lose both Iowa and NH and it is a very bad thing to their campaign.

Anyone who says "Cuz demographics!" doesn't know what they're talking about.

[Bread and Circus]

71. Win or Lose... I don't think all of you "realpolitik" folks had any foresight see Hillary...

falter as much as she has.

Bernie should still be polling sub 10% considering the advantages Hillary has had.

My god he is 74 year old liberal socialist hippie from an all white state.....and yet Hillaryland is having a freakout.

Clinton is a failure of a leader. Her decisions turn to shit it seems.

[synergie]

100. I think you're a little too swayed by the polls and the media's need to add drama to the

the race. You've got more than a little confirmation bias going on, and your last statement really does show just how blinded you are due to your simple hate.

All before the first primary has happened. When all you see is shit, and it's what you wish to see, everything shall seem shitty to you. I see that the framework is already being laid to whine and protest about how everyone is being so unfair to Bernie and that his 'win' has been stolen from him.

The two first all white states vote in the next weeks, and should he win them, it will be confirmation of what a great leader he is and how infallible, even when his he reverses his own statements and decisions that will not be "shit" in your eyes just daisies and unicorns, and evidence of his perfection.

[Bread and Circus]

101. right...

[SidDithers]

77. DU rec...nt

Sid

[JackRiddler]

78. Assumptions assumptions.

Nothing becomes true just because something it is claimed over and over and over by David Brock and other polit-mercenaries, or the notoriously unreliable and fluid primary polling with its 20-point spreads every day, or by people like yourself who have foot-soldiered their way through literally a thousand OPs reproducing the day's Clinton talking-points. No one's voted yet, not white or black, "liberal" or independent. Except for the political and monied elites, of course. Superdelegates and banksters certainly have Clinton's back.

[Alfresco]

104. Demographics and Delegate Arithmetic = Hillary #45 :-)