Why it's most unlikely Sanders can catch up in California

[onenote]

As has been officially reported, there are around 2.5 million votes that haven't been counted yet. 1.8 million mail-in votes and 706,000 provisional ballots.

These numbers include ballots cast in any one of the 6 presidential primaries as well as non-presidential primary ballots. It was reported by the California Target Book that there were 2.7 early mail-in votes received by Monday and of these 49 percent were Democratic primary ballots, 34 percent were Republican presidential primary ballots, leaving 17 percent that were either presidential primary ballots for one of the four other presidential primaries (Green, Libertarian, American Independent, Peace and Freedom) or non-presidential primary ballots.

Let's be extremely generous and assume that of the 1.8 late mail-in ballots, 60 percent, not 49 percent, were Democratic presidential primary ballots -- that's around 1.08 million ballots. Let's also be generous and assume that Bernie is winning on those ballots 60-40 (a number that has no support in anything that has been reported thus far and is inconsistent with the fact that Clinton's lead has continued to inch up as more ballots are counted, recently moving from 449,000 to 456,700).

Using this assumption, Bernie gets 648,000 of the 1.08 million unprocessed mail in Democratic presidential primary ballots and Clinton gets 423,000. That gives Bernie a net gain of 216,000, leaving him more than 240,000 behind.

Now let's make assumptions about the provisional that are even more favorable to Sanders. First, we assume that they are all counted. Second, we assume that 65 percent or 458,900 votes are Democratic Presidential primary votes (again, a number that is higher than anything reported thus far would suggest is likely). And we'll give Sanders 65 percent of those ballots or 298,285 votes with 35 percent going to Clinton (160,615). That gives Sanders a net gain of another 137,670 votes, still leaving him more than 100,000 votes behind. And that's making assumptions that are wildly and probably unjustifiably tilted towards Sanders. The actual results are unlikely to make much of a dent in Clinton's lead and, in fact, could very well increase it.

[tonyt53]

1. Her lead will increase because of the areas that had the most mail-in ballots requested.

[LonePirate]

2. I think math has safely secured the second place spot on the "Or Bust" crew's hate list

[Agnosticsherbet]

6. It has been experience after 18 years of school that math doesn't care if you hate it.

I would actually go so far as saying that math doesn't give a damn about anything.

[MineralMan]

3. Good analysis, but it's more likely that those uncounted

ballots will break down within a percentage point or two the same as the rest of the votes. That's what generally happens, and is why people report election night counts and we never actually see the certified results unless we go look for them.

It happens again and again, in election after election, and in state after state. Same mix of voters - same results within a point or two.

[onenote]

7. Absolutely. I was just trying to show that even with unrealistic projections, he can't catch up

Those unrealistic projections assume Sanders can capture 60 percent or more of all of the uncounted votes. But the reality is that out of 40 plus districts in California, Sanders only got more than 50 percent in two and didn't come close to 60 in either.

So it is far more likely that the uncounted votes break in Clinton's favor and her margin of victory continues to grow, if not in percentage terms, in absolute number terms.

[MineralMan]

10. Yah, I know.

Math is hard, huh? Dreaming is easy. Easy is better than hard, I understand.

Still, a lot of people haven't been observing elections and vote counting for decades. They haven't really seen much, so they can dream really big dreams.

I'm thinking of a song title:

"Big Rock Candy Mountain"

[MineralMan]

4. Besides, even if he caught up, Hillary would still have the majority of

pledged delegates and the nomination.

[onenote]

8. And that too is correct.

The hurdles facing Sanders are not merely high. They are, simply put, insurmountable so long as Clinton is a candidate.

[msongs]

5. bernie who? nt

[pat_k]

9. Unlikely is not impossible.

If Sanders had dropped out the 8th, as so many were pressing for, he would have alienated supporters who believe he's bowing out prematurely. As unlikely as a turnabout may be, the volume of votes yet to be counted leaves open a possibility Alienated supporters could end up in the "fuck em all" cynical side-liners camp. Not a good thing.

By the time DC votes next week more CA votes will have been counted. Assuming Hillary maintains her margin of victory, the AP call is legitimized. Sanders' case that he's the stronger candidate is weakened. With a weaker case, the argument that superdelegates should be given the opportunity to consider the case is a loser. Bowing out at that point makes sense. Supporter complaints that he dropped out before it was really "over" have no legs.

Long story short, giving it time before making any final decisions on the course he should take is the right thing to do.

[onenote]

11. I don't disagree. But I was trying to gently point out to those thinking it would be easy

for Sanders to turn around the outcome how difficult a challenge it really is, even if one makes assumptions for which there is no evidentiary basis.

[pat_k]

18. I don't think there are any supporters...

... who believe turning things around "would be easy." At least I would be incredibly surprised to encounter one. For some time, Sanders has been perfectly clear that chances are extremely slim and getting slimmer. But he was the longest of longshots in every state (except VT) when he started, and he won 21 of them. His supporters (and I'm one of them) aren't daunted by nearly impossible odds.

Things will shake out in the coming days. If Clinton's margin of victory is maintained as remaining votes are counted, it will be time to "officially" recognize that the probably has reached 0. That time is not yet. Those who are currently saying "it ain't over 'til it's over" aren't wrong.

[Tarc]

13. Not so much impossible as it is irrelevant

Hillary leads CA 2 million to 1.5 million, so let's pretend there's 3 million outstanding votes and they all go to Sanders. Liek, literally, every single one.

Hillary: 2 million
Sanders: 4.5 million

That's 69% of the vote.

With the way the rest of the primaries went, Sanders would still be down around 120.

It's over.

[RandySF]

12. It's about as likely as finding Elvis on Mars.

[onenote]

16. sorry. couldn't resist.

[Planot]

14. 300,000 votes were counted today

The lead remains the same.


http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/president/party/democratic

[OnlinePoker]

15. I've accepted Hillary is the nominee, but this is pathetic

How can an election process be so fucked up that 3 days after, 2.5 million ballots still haven't been counted? What happens in November when there are 10 million more voters than in the primaries?

[onenote]

17. The same thing that happened in 2012?

When, as required by law, the voting was completed and the Secretary of State certified the results in early/mid December.
http://www.sos.ca.gov/administration/news-releases-and-advisories/2012-news-releases-and-advisories/db12-113/

And life as we know it didn't come to an end.

In this instance, by law, the counties have until July 5 to report final vote totals and the SOS has until July 9 to certify them.

In recent elections in CA, anywhere from 50 to 70 percent of the ballots have been "mail in" ballots. It takes longer to process those ballots because each one has to be verified -- i.e, the counties have to determine that the person who cast the mail in ballot is in fact a properly registered voter (something that happens in situ when folks vote in person).

[pat_k]

19. In CA, mail-in ballots just needed to be postmarked by 6/7.

You can't count votes that are still in the mail. The estimates of remaining votes includes estimates of the number that were likely in transit.

I too was frustrated by the slow pace, but Agnosticsherbet made good points in response to a post expressing my frustration:

There are many steps in process mail-in ballots, it is labor intensive, and everything must be properly witnessed.

In most states touchscreen computers without a paper trail go to tabulators that count the votes. Most of them do not have any way of going back and looking at the raw votes, but they are fast.

Anytime it is necessary to check and scan in votes by hand, it takes a while.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2169382

Ultimately, I much prefer slow and verifiable to a faster, automated system in which there is no verifiable paper trail.