STATE OF THE PRIMARY - February 20, 2016

[Chichiri]

[font color="blue"]Delegate Count
Total Delegates (AP): Clinton 483, Sanders 55 (Clinton +428)
Pledged Delegates: Sanders 36, Clinton 32 (Sanders +4)
Versus Targets (Cook): Clinton +7, Sanders -7.

Next Primary
Nevada caucuses, TODAY (35 pledged delegates).
Targets (Cook): Clinton 16, Sanders 19.[/font]


[font color="darkblue"] Latest Polls
South Carolina (NBC/WSJ): Clinton 60, Sanders 32 (Clinton +28).
Michigan (FOX 2/Mitchell): Clinton 60, Sanders 27 (Clinton +33).
Michigan (PPP): Clinton 50, Sanders 40 (Clinton +10).

Current Polls-Plus Projections (538)
Nevada: Clinton 71%.
South Carolina: Clinton >99%.
Arkansas: Clinton 99%
Georgia: Clinton >99%.
Oklahoma: Clinton 78%.
Tennessee: Clinton 99%.
Texas: Clinton 98%.
Virginia: Clinton 98%.
Michigan: Clinton 94%.
North Carolina: Clinton 97%.

Current Endorsement Score (538)
Clinton 468, Sanders 3.[/font]


[font color="brown"]Quick Glance at the GOP
Pledged Delegates: Trump 17, Cruz 11, Rubio 10.
Versus Targets: Trump -4, Cruz -5, Rubio -10.
538 South Carolina Projection: Trump 76%, Rubio 11%, Cruz 11%.
Endorsement Score: Rubio 91, Bush 51, Cruz 22.[/font]


Comments
Happy Nevada Day!

I'll be completely honest, I have no idea what's going to happen in Nevada today. Republicans are making organized efforts to crash the caucuses and vote for Bernie. The Nevada Democratic Party has threatened to prosecute anyone who votes in both caucuses -- I don't know if their reading of the law is correct, or how many Republicans they'll scare off; I think a lot of them would give up their GOP vote entirely rather than let Hillary win Nevada. They're that afraid of her.

But Nevada polls are notoriously unreliable. In 2008 the RCP average had Romney beating McCain by 5 points, but he ended up winning by 38 points. So if 538 gives Hillary a 71% chance of winning, or if the last poll puts her ahead by 6, as much as I'd like to read into that, I can't.

A new Michigan poll from PPP has Hillary ahead by 10; given the proximity to other polls in February that have her ahead by around 30, it's probably an outlier.

Bernie fans have been claiming, not incorrectly, that Bernie has ended up under-polled in Iowa and New Hampshire. Keep in mind, however, that (a) two states is a lousy sample size, and (b) in both states, the polls fell within the 80% confidence range in 538's projections. To that end, I've created two different predictions of the upcoming states, one that continues Bernie's luck in this area, and one that assumes a median case. You can enjoy whichever one you want.

One more thing: It's pretty obvious that Hillary supporters appreciate the hard work I'm doing, collecting the objective numbers, and that Bernie fans do not. I really want the Bernie fans to be exposed to actual data, but I don't want to waste my time publishing this in two groups (I also publish it in the Hillary group). So if you're a Bernie fan, please vote in the poll below.


How This Works
The delegate counts, pledged and total, are taken from AP. The total delegate count includes both pledged delegates, based on their margins in the states which have voted, and superdelegates, who have declared their intention to vote for one of the candidates (but may change their mind before the election).

The targets are taken from the Cook Political Report's model, based on superdelegate endorsement and demographic conditions favorable to each candidate, and represent the number of delegates each candidate must win in each state in order to stay on track to tie for the nomination. The targets are current as of February 12. The projections and endorsement scores are maintained by FiveThirtyEight; the projections indicate the probability that the candidate will win that state.

If this post is useful to you, please K&R!


[font color="purple"]Pun of the Day
In economic news: cactus sales have spiked, but aquarium sales have tanked![/font]

[hr]

1 vote, 0 passes | Time left: Time expired
	I'm a Bernie fan, and please keep posting this in GDP.
	1 (100%)
	I'm a Bernie fan, and stop posting this in GDP.
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[hobbit709]

1. Counting chickens before you even have the eggs to hatch.

take away the superdelegates and what is the actual count.

[Chichiri]

4. If you mean pledged delegates, look under "Pledged Delegates." nt

[Alfresco]

2. Thanks for the update.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

3. please keep pushing for $hillary

we want to know all the memes of the day

Your help is very welcome

[Motown_Johnny]

5. This is the correct forum for these posts.

If you want to post them anywhere they should be here.


As a gesture of good will, I offer a little story from my all time favorite author. Since you enjoy bad puns, I think you will like it.


http://www.obooksbooks.com/ScienceFiction/Asimov44/27456.html

^snip^

A Loint of Paw

There was no question that Montie Stein had, through clever fraud, stolen better than $100,000. There was also no question that he was apprehended one day after the statute of limitations had expired.

It was his manner of avoiding arrest during that interval that brought on the epoch-making case of the

State of New York vs. Montgomery Harlow Stein, with all its consequences introduced law to the fourth dimension.

For you see after having committed the fraud and possessed himself of the hundred grand plus, Stein had calmly entered a time machine, of which he was in illegal possession, and set the controls for seven years and one day in the future.

Stein's lawyer put it simply. Hiding in time was not fundamentally different from hiding in space. If the forces of law had not uncovered Stein in the seven-year interval that was their hard luck.

The District Attorney pointed out that the statute of limitations was not intended to be a game between the law and the criminal. It was a merciful measure designed to protect a culprit from indefinitely prolonged fear of arrest. For certain crimes, a denned period of apprehension of apprehension-so to speak-was considered punishment enough. But Stein, the D.A. insisted, had not experienced any period of apprehension at all.

Stein's lawyer remained unmoved. The law said nothing about measuring the extent of a culprit's fear and anguish. It simply set a time limit.

The D.A. said that Stein had not lived through the limit.

Defense stated that Stein was seven years older now than at the time of the crime and had therefore lived through the limit.

The D.A. challenged the statement and the defense produced Stein's birth certificate. He was born in 2973. At the time of the crime, 3004, he was thirty-one. Now, in 3011, he was thirty-eight. The D.A. shouted that Stein was not physiologically thirty-eight, but thirty-one.

Defense pointed out freezingly that the law, once the individual was granted to be mentally competent, recognized solely chronological age, which could be obtained only by subtracting the date of birth from the date of now.

The D.A., growing impassioned, swore that if Stein were allowed to go free, half the laws on the books would be useless.

Then change the laws, said Defense, to take time travel into account; but until the laws are changed, let them be enforced as written.

Judge Neville Preston took a week to consider and then handed down his decision. It was a turning point in the history of law. It is almost a pity, then, that some people suspect Judge Preston to have been swayed in his way of thinking by the irresistible impulse to phrase his decision as he did.

For that decision, in full, was:

'A niche in time saves Stein.'

[Alfresco]

6. The day after....kick. ;-)