What do you mean, Hillary won Minnesota!?
Hillary's strengths are with minorities and moderates. Bernie's strengths are with hard-liberals and young folks. This means that some states obviously favor some candidates more than others -- but what's more, by looking at the actual demographics, we can actually put a number on that advantage. We can determine how many delegates from each state each candidate should win, if national polling is 50-50.
So for example, Bernie's advantage in Colorado was large enough that we would have expected him to pick up six delegates more than Hillary. Instead, however, he picked up ten more than Hillary. In this sense, he not only won Colorado, but he prevented Hillary from getting the number of delegates that she would have expected from that state.
Another example is New Hampshire: the demographics tell us that Bernie should have beaten Hillary by six delegates in that state. And that's exactly what happened. In this sense, although Bernie got more delegates in New Hampshire, as far as expectations were concerned it was a tie.
So what about Minnesota?
We're a mostly white, very liberal state with a large youth population and high voter turnout. So judging from the demographics, Bernie should have defeated Hillary by 17 delegates in the North Star State. He didn't. He beat her by 15. So in the sense that Hillary did better than expected here, and prevented Bernie from doing as well as expected, she won Minnesota.
I know it might seem counter-intuitive, but the math is what it is.
This is what I mean when I talk about targets. When I say that Hillary's target to date is 529, and Bernie's is 492, I mean this: we always knew that Hillary was going to do better than Bernie in South Carolina and the Super Tuesday states, and that she would be ahead of him at this point. But more than that: we know, from looking at the demographics, how much better she would have done if voters across the country were split 50-50. If that were the case, then Hillary should be 37 delegates ahead of Bernie right now.
She's not. She's 197 delegates ahead.
When I say that Bernie is 80 delegates behind target, what I mean is this: We know that Bernie is going to fare better in most of the states after March 15. But in order to make up ground on Hillary, he needs to pick up 80 delegates more than we already expect him to do based on the demographics.
For example, Bernie is expected to win Kansas tonight. But we can quantify that expectation, and say that Bernie should win 19 delegates from Kansas, to Hillary's 14. If Bernie wins 20 delegates from Kansas, then he is one delegate over that state's target, and that 80-delegate deficit becomes 79. If he wins 21 delegates from Kansas, his deficit shrinks to 78, and so on. Similarly, if he only wins 18 delegates to Hillary's 15, his deficit increases to 81, and Hillary's surplus over target increases to 81. In that sense, Hillary will have "won" Kansas, even though she took fewer delegates.
Similarly, if Bernie can pick up more than 18 of Louisiana's 51 delegates tonight, he will have "won" Louisiana, even though he will walk away with fewer delegates than Hillary.
One more thing: Of the 15 states and 1 territory that have voted so far, even though Bernie took home more delegates in five states, he actually "won" only three of them (VT, CO, OK), all by small margins and "tied" in a fourth (NH). Hillary has "won" everything else, mostly by large margins. And I use quotation marks to signify that this sense of the word "won" is different from everyday use, not that it is unreal or less real. Quite the contrary.
So if you're watching the results tonight, Bernie's target numbers are 19 in Kansas, 18 in Louisiana, and 15 in Kansas. He also has a target of 15 in Maine, which votes tomorrow.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Found it. It was from the 538.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats/
... to hit the 15% mark? Will he be VIABLE enough to capture ANY delegates at all from those two states?
Or will Hillary manage to get ALL of the delegates (100%) because of a poor showing from Bernie?
These two states help to illustrate the consequences of "writing-off" certain states for reasons that have already been discussed at length elsewhere on this web site. It seems like a mistake to me to trade off NECESSARY delegates for UNNECESSARY "bragging-rights" of having "won" a state with a relatively low delegate count.
After all, the winner of the nomination will be determined by DELEGATES not by STATES (which may be small or which may lack diversity.)
Go, Hillary! We love you! 
. . . I'm guessing there's a 20% chance that Bernie will fall below 15% in Louisiana. Possible, but not likely.
Mississippi is different. The latest projection is 14.5% for Bernie. 
looks like 47-44, Bernie just a hair ahead.
It takes 2,382 delegates to win the nomination.
You have to count them ALL or you'll never have a winner! What would be the point of having primaries and caucuses if you can't have a winner? 
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/MN-D
