Cook Political Analysis: Bernie must win 70% of IA delegates & 63% of NH just to stay competitive

[Godhumor]

Bernie-Mania's Barrier: Democratic Delegate Math

The key takeaway from our model below: in order for Sanders to be "on track" to break even in pledged delegates nationally, he wouldn't just need to win Iowa and New Hampshire by a hair. He would need to win 70 percent of Iowa's delegates and 63 percent of New Hampshire's delegates.

Early primary results can be misleading, but presidential primaries tend to follow clear patterns. In 2008, Super Tuesday produced a virtual tie for Democrats; Barack Obama edged Clinton 847 to 834 in delegates that day. But thanks to Obama's heavy backing from African-Americans and liberal whites, savvy number crunchers could discern that he was "on track" to build an insurmountable delegate lead in upcoming primaries like Maryland and Virginia. In other words, the race was already over. This time around, close finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire would be good news for Clinton.

Furthermore, even if Sanders did hit every delegate target on our scorecard below and won 50 percent of pledged delegates, he would be at a severe disadvantage heading into the Philadelphia convention because our model doesn't even take into account his severe superdelegate deficit.

...

However, when placed in the proper mathematical context, this year's Democratic primary remains a much steeper mountain for Sanders than many chroniclers of the campaign trail seem to realize or acknowledge.

http://cookpolitical.com/story/9179

Rationale, methodology and more at the link.

[TheBlackAdder]

1. Standard intelligentsia's ignorance is astonishing. SoDetached--failing to observe an organic event.

.


Granted, most have never seen a national campaign like this, but they should at least be able to apply local politics to this and view what is happening with nuance.


The standard models of politics do not come into play in this cycle. Trump was to have been gone, Sanders too.


.

[Autumn]

2. I won't bother to read it but my guess is Hill only needs 1 delegate to stay competitive

[mythology]

4. Just to be clear

You're admitting you didn't read the article, and thus are making up what it says so you can laugh at it.

And that's rather sad. Sticking your fingers in your ears doesn't make math less true.

[Autumn]

5. Yeah I read the headline and stopped there. Benrie needs 70% to stay competitive.

[karynnj]

15. Maybe even zero -- as they note they are not considering the superdelegates

That this is called "analysis" actually disturbs me. The delegate math is such that getting 70% or 63% is pretty tough - even if you assume that O'Malley gets zero in both states. Note that 2004 ended with Kerry(24), Edwards (18), and Dean (10) -- this was based on Kerry getting 38%, Edwards 30% and Dean 18%. In 2008, when Obama had 28%, and Edwards and Clinton both rounded up to 30%, delegates were Obama 16, Clinton 15, Edwards 14.

Note that there is no simple relationship between the % they get and the delegates. Also note that while both Obama and Kerry had pretty significant wins, that gave both momentum - they certainly did not meet the bar given Bernie here.

One last thing, in both 2004 and 2008, there were strong results by 3 candidates - here are the numbers for the Gore Bradley race of 2000. Though Gore got nearly 63% of the vote - a real blow out, he got 29 delegates to Bradley's 18. This is slightly below 63%. Note that a blowout of this proportion - if done the same way - still fails the bar that Sanders needs 70% of the delegates there. (Note this is also ignores that there is O'Malley!)

In reality if Sanders were to defeat Clinton by Gore/Bradley numbers, there would be utter shock and it would impact everything after it - just as it did in 2004 and 2008. Not to mention, those superdelegates are not GLUED into position - they will move if Sanders gets the majority of pledged delegates.

[Senator Tankerbell]

3. There are a couple of problems with this analysis

While it is true that Obama's support among black voters skyrocketed quickly after the Iowa caucuses, and Sanders won't see such a dramatic swing, I don't think he necessarily needs to have such a dramatic and quick groundswell of support. Obama essentially had the nomination wrapped up months before Clinton finally decided to give up. It may take longer for Sanders and it may be more difficult but there is still a strong possibility that he can win. It may go all the way to the convention though. I also disagree with the contention that "there are few hints of a Sanders "expansion" constituency beyond liberal whites." I do see hints. Plenty of them actually. But then, I'm pretty sure I know more black people than David Wasserman.

Wasserman does not take several factors into account including momentum, media narrative, potential endorsements from key political figures, etc. Many things are are unknown and unpredictable at this point.

He also mention super-delegates as if they aren't able to change their minds after the votes are counted. Does anyone actually believe that elected Democrats will still vote for Clinton at the convention if Sanders wins more delegates by way of primary and caucus voters? That would be a good way to alienate the base and lose the general election. They may be loyal to the Clintons but they aren't stupid.

[Gothmog]

6. Demographics of this race do not favor Sanders

Sanders is polling well in four states which have 90+% white voting populations and is polling poorly everywhere else. Sanders must win Iowa and win big in Iowa to be competitive

[Health Wagon]

11. You're 100% wrong.

Watch.

[Gothmog]

22. New Poll Shows ‘Surging’ Sanders Losing Ground With the Voter Group He Needs Most

And Sanders is still not polling well with African American or Latino voters and so maybe he needs to change what he is doing http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/01/poll-sanders-gains-stop-short-of-minorities.html#

Team Sanders is certainly focused on the problem, with a variety of campaign efforts focused on minority voters in the works. The talking points they are putting out there, however, are less than convincing, as I learned as a guest on the public radio show "To the Point" yesterday, when I heard a Sanders supporter argue that an Iowa win would greatly boost Bernie's African-American support just like it did for Obama in South Carolina in 2008. The idea that Sanders's potential to win the black vote in South Carolina is analogous to that of the first African-American president does not pass the laugh test. Still, any early-state win for Sanders, even in exceptionally honkified Iowa and New Hampshire, will likely create some sort of generalized bounce. The question is how high, and how loyal minority voters prove to be to Hillary Clinton, her husband, and her implicit ally Barack Obama. It's worth remembering that she defeated Barack Obama handily among Latinos in 2008, and that Bill Clinton enjoyed robust support in both communities.

Monmouth University has a new national poll out that casts some fascinating, if very preliminary, light on this subject. Compared to its poll in December, Monmouth shows Sanders making pretty big gains: Clinton was up 59-to-26 last month, and only 52-to-37 now. But among black and Latino voters, Clinton has actually expanded her lead from 61-to-18 to 71-to-21. In other words, a legitimate "Sanders surge" nationally has coincided with a deterioration of his standing with the voters he will most need for a breakthrough after the first two contests of the primary season.

Sanders is actually losing ground with African American voters and Sanders' current tactics are not evidently working.

Sanders will not be the nominee unless he can expand his base of supporters. Super Tuesday will be a long day for Sanders. Vermont is one of the last states with 90+% white voting populations

[Alfresco]

21. You are correct.

[Skwmom]

7. There a a LOT of shoes that can drop during the primary. n/t

[morningfog]

8. He's not entirely incorrect. Bernie does need to win approximately 59% of ALL pledged delegates to.

That is assuming the race runs through its entirety and assuming ALL unpledged (super) delegates go to HIllary.

Each of those scenarios are unlikely to happen.

What is more likely to happen is that Bernie will collect enough delegates to stay competitive in the sense that Hillary will not be able to secure the nomination mathematically for quite a while. If Bernie wins NO super Tuesday states, he won't really be competitive anymore.

However, even then, it may be worthwhile for him to stay in, in case Hillary implodes or suffers a debilitating scandal.

[karynnj]

16. Mathematically, you could say he needs 59% of the delegates

But as you note that assumes that ALL the superdelegates go to Clinton. I would bet that at a very high proportion of superdelegates will go to whomever has the most pledged delegates. Therefore, the % he needs is likely to be only slightly higher than 50%.

[catnhatnh]

9. Boy-I hope you got a warranty

on the motor moving the goal posts...

Not a single state

Maybe close in New Hampshire

OK-but NH is it

OK NH and Close in Iowa

Maybe just those two

But it's not a real win unless he takes both by 10%

Any thing less than a 40 point win in both and he's done

How long before it has to be unanimous and must include all three Clintons voting???

[Betty Karlson]

14. I'm not sure that your post counters the entire argument, but the timing of the OP

suggests that you were right to post this amusing retort. It certainly made me laugh.

[mhatrw]

10. LOL. So his victories against all odds are already "mathematical" defeats!

Because there is no such thing as positive feedback in the primary election cycle.

Right?

[Fearless]

12. Specious claims without evidence.

[Romulox]

13. Even when Hillary loses, she wins! LOLOL. nt

[winter is coming]

17. Reverse limbo: let's keep raising the bar!

If all Clinton needed to do was keep Bernie from reaching those targets, her campaign wouldn't be throwing everything including the kitchen sink at him. If Bernie takes Iowa and NH, his support in other states is likely to go up. Just look at '08. Clinton was well ahead in SC. As soon as Obama won Iowa, the bottom dropped out of her support there.

[Matariki]

18. Quick! Move the goalpost!!

To actually win, like win win, he has to extra double win. Otherwise he actually loses, even though he wins.

[Matariki]

19. Or perhaps this is some sort of 1984 thing?

Win means lose and lose means win?

[SheenaR]

20. Primaries

are driven by the recency effect a great deal, which is not taken into effect here.

If Sanders "wins" (forger delegates, just wins the popular vote), each state that follows will begin to coalesce toward the winning candidate. If he wins the first two, Nevada is his and the South will be reading only about Sanders and NOT about Clinton. And all of the people who say "I would vote for him if he could win" will be out in full force.

I'm less concerned about the delegate count and am looking big picture. Perhaps I will be wrong