Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

MineralMan

(146,189 posts)
Wed Mar 9, 2016, 12:32 PM Mar 2016

Close Primary Elections Don't Affect Much

In the Democratic primaries, pledged delegates are allocated proportionally to the vote in each state. That's a very significant factor in the primaries. For example, Bernie Sanders' surprise win in Michigan was dramatic, but the election was close. Sanders won 52% to 48%. That means that he got roughly the same percentage of that state's available delegates. Bernie got 69 delegates to Hillary's 61 delegates. Rounding algorithms made the allocation actually 53% to 47%.

Bernie got 8 more delegates from his victory in Michigan than Hillary did.

On the same day, the Mississippi primary was a different situation. Mississippi has only 36 delegates to send to the Democratic convention. Hillary won in Mississippi by a 83 to 16 margin in the popular vote, rounded off to even numbers. That means that in Mississippi, she was allocated 32 pledged delegates to Bernie's 4. There are a few delegates still undecided. Bottom line though, is that she got 28 more delegates than Sanders.

The result of the two elections actually increased Hillary's overall pledged delegate margin by 20 delegate, despite the Sanders win in Michigan. Proportional delegate allocation.

Close primary elections affect the actual delegate count minimally. Big margins in even a small state can be more important that actually winning or losing in a large state if the election is close.

Hillary Clinton still has a 59% to 40% (rounded off) lead in the national popular vote. (Note: some caucus states do not report the popular vote.)

Hillary Clinton has increased her lead in the pledged delegate count, as of the March 8 election.

Still a long way to go, and on every primary date, the margin in each election is crucial. Proportional allocation is the rule. It smooths out overall wins and losses in primaries.

37 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Close Primary Elections Don't Affect Much (Original Post) MineralMan Mar 2016 OP
As long as we're counting DELEGATES (and not individual states) Hillary will be the nominee ... NurseJackie Mar 2016 #1
That seems highly likely, and MineralMan Mar 2016 #2
It does affect one thing. HassleCat Mar 2016 #3
The primary contests will continue. No question. MineralMan Mar 2016 #5
I did notice she didn't win 60-40% as some predicted. Punkingal Mar 2016 #4
Yup. I was wrong, just as were a lot of people. MineralMan Mar 2016 #7
Everything's going to be okay. Mufaddal Mar 2016 #6
Sanders was never supposed to break into double digits in the first place Fumesucker Mar 2016 #8
My primary event is over. MineralMan Mar 2016 #11
On the other hand, if Bernie keeps on SheilaT Mar 2016 #9
On the other hand, I have four fingers and a thumb. MineralMan Mar 2016 #12
She struggles outside the deep south AgingAmerican Mar 2016 #18
The close primaries are a shot across the bow of the center-right leadership of the Dem party apnu Mar 2016 #10
The close primaries are just that: close primaries. MineralMan Mar 2016 #13
Its not opinion, its reality. apnu Mar 2016 #16
Yes they do ibegurpard Mar 2016 #14
Momentum is hard to measure, really. MineralMan Mar 2016 #15
Yep. Analysis relative to targets is looking very good. pat_k Mar 2016 #20
She can't win outside the deep south AgingAmerican Mar 2016 #17
Massachusetts is in the deep south? Cali_Democrat Mar 2016 #24
So is Nevada. CorkySt.Clair Mar 2016 #27
Yup. Cali_Democrat Mar 2016 #30
She has won 1 state outside the deep south AgingAmerican Mar 2016 #32
Nevada is in the Deep South? Cali_Democrat Mar 2016 #33
Analysis relative to targets demonstrates good, very possibly winning, trajectory. pat_k Mar 2016 #19
Do you know if the targets are routinely updated? LonePirate Mar 2016 #21
I assume they adjust targets for remaining elections as polls come in. pat_k Mar 2016 #22
Yes, but Hillary is at 113% of her traget, while Sanders is at 86% Beacool Mar 2016 #23
It's the trajectory. Think about it this way: pat_k Mar 2016 #25
I think that Hillary would still be ahead on delegates (pledged). Beacool Mar 2016 #31
Yeah, it's a long shot. But, remember... pat_k Mar 2016 #34
I bet it took a toll on Nate Silver's xanax stash.... Bluenorthwest Mar 2016 #26
Mr. GOTV forgot to vote at his own caucus. SixString Mar 2016 #28
Why is that odd? MineralMan Mar 2016 #29
Oh! I had no idea! TY for pointing this out! ebayfool Mar 2016 #35
As you've implied, every primary/caucus being proportional... Garrett78 Mar 2016 #36
. enigmatic Mar 2016 #37

NurseJackie

(42,862 posts)
1. As long as we're counting DELEGATES (and not individual states) Hillary will be the nominee ...
Wed Mar 9, 2016, 12:40 PM
Mar 2016

... I'm certain of that!

MineralMan

(146,189 posts)
2. That seems highly likely, and
Wed Mar 9, 2016, 12:41 PM
Mar 2016

that's exactly what we'll be doing. At the convention, the only thing that matters is the delegate count. Numbers of states won or lost is irrelevant. Only the delegates matter.

 

HassleCat

(6,409 posts)
3. It does affect one thing.
Wed Mar 9, 2016, 12:42 PM
Mar 2016

The media story has been how Bernie would be dead meat any day now. He would win one primary and then be a footnote to Clinton's smashing victory. Then it was Super Tuesday that would put him away. Then it was the following Saturday. Then it was Michigan. Finally, finally, finally the media are admitting that this primary is a real contest, that it could go on for while, maybe right down to wire.

MineralMan

(146,189 posts)
5. The primary contests will continue. No question.
Wed Mar 9, 2016, 12:45 PM
Mar 2016

Anyone observing this Democratic primary race should be paying attention to actual numbers of delegates, not states. It's easy. The link below shows an objective summary of that data and more:

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D

It's not over until we have the last primary or one of the candidates has the necessary majority of delegates. People can make projections, but there are numbers to watch. They tell the real story.

MineralMan

(146,189 posts)
7. Yup. I was wrong, just as were a lot of people.
Wed Mar 9, 2016, 12:47 PM
Mar 2016

Now, we have the actual results. Predictions aren't what determine outcomes. It's fun to make predictions, but smart people watch the results. Michigan was quite a surprise to many people, including myself.

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
8. Sanders was never supposed to break into double digits in the first place
Wed Mar 9, 2016, 12:51 PM
Mar 2016

And even if he did manage to get a few votes he would never have the funding to run a serious challenge to HRH.

How can this be? Has the world gone mad?

MineralMan

(146,189 posts)
11. My primary event is over.
Wed Mar 9, 2016, 12:55 PM
Mar 2016

I'm in observer mode, now, just watching results.

Since I'll be supporting whoever the Democratic nominee turns out to be, it's up to others to decide at this point.

As of today, Clinton still has a strong lead in pledged delegates. That's what I'm observing. Next Tuesday, we'll all get to observe some more races. Election years are very interesting to watch, which is what I'll be doing right up to the convention. From time to time, I'll make observations on what I see.

Good luck to both candidates, and congratulations to Senator Sanders on his surprise win in MI.

 

SheilaT

(23,156 posts)
9. On the other hand, if Bernie keeps on
Wed Mar 9, 2016, 12:53 PM
Mar 2016

getting more delegates than Hillary from here on, she stands an excellent chance of conceding before the actual convention.

And to try to minimize Bernie's win in Michigan because it was close, manages to totally overlook her supposed 22 point lead in the polling. And Nate Silver's sticking with his "greater than 99 percent" chance that she'd win.

Not to mention, a lot fewer than half of the states have voted yet, and the lion's share of delegates is still up for grabs.

As the mutual funds always say, Past performance is no predictor of future performance.

She's going to continue to underperform going forward.

MineralMan

(146,189 posts)
12. On the other hand, I have four fingers and a thumb.
Wed Mar 9, 2016, 12:57 PM
Mar 2016

Yesterday, Hillary got more delegates than Bernie, which is the point of my post. He didn't get more delegates than Clinton, after all. In fact, her pledged delegate lead went up by 20. That's the point of my post. Next Tuesday, we'll see how it turns out, and so on, right up to the convention. The delegate count tells the story.

apnu

(8,722 posts)
10. The close primaries are a shot across the bow of the center-right leadership of the Dem party
Wed Mar 9, 2016, 12:54 PM
Mar 2016

Bernie's whole point, when he started, was to drag the party back to the left where it belongs. Along the way he's ignited a firestorm of sleeping liberal and progressive frustrations, which he has righteously fanned into a full blaze.

Liberals and progressives are putting the Democratic Party leadership on notice that we're here, and we are motivated. But not for this Republican-lite center-right bullshit they've been peddling since the W years.

If the party continues to pooh-pooh us on the left, they're going to be getting their teeth kicked in by the Republicans in November, up and down the ballot.

MineralMan

(146,189 posts)
13. The close primaries are just that: close primaries.
Wed Mar 9, 2016, 12:59 PM
Mar 2016

I did not say anything to the contrary. What I wrote wasn't opinion. What you wrote is an opinion. We all have opinions. I posted information, not opinion.

apnu

(8,722 posts)
16. Its not opinion, its reality.
Wed Mar 9, 2016, 01:39 PM
Mar 2016

There is a fire that Bernie has light. The Democratic Party can either put out that fire or use it. The party will have to live with its decision. If you can't see that, clean your glasses.

ibegurpard

(16,685 posts)
14. Yes they do
Wed Mar 9, 2016, 01:00 PM
Mar 2016

With so many delegates still at stake they can create momentum and change the narrative for the upcoming contests. I took particular pleasure in the Bernie Sanders blowout in Minnesota by the way...

MineralMan

(146,189 posts)
15. Momentum is hard to measure, really.
Wed Mar 9, 2016, 01:04 PM
Mar 2016

It's not a factor I think about much. There may be a momentum change after Michigan. That remains to be seen. I'll be watching next Tuesday closely, for sure, though.

 

CorkySt.Clair

(1,507 posts)
27. So is Nevada.
Wed Mar 9, 2016, 07:36 PM
Mar 2016

Honestly, I wish they'd just say what they mean when they talk about the south and low info voters. Not fooling anyone.

pat_k

(9,313 posts)
19. Analysis relative to targets demonstrates good, very possibly winning, trajectory.
Wed Mar 9, 2016, 04:54 PM
Mar 2016

Here's a look at how it's going relative to targets. From http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats/

Delegate targets for yesterday:
MI 67. He got 69
MS 13. He got 4
Total Target 80. He got 73. That's 91% of target. Pretty damn good.

The future positive effect of the win in MI far outweighs missing overall target for the day.

With every primary, he's getting closer.

March 1 -- 83% of cumulative target for that day
March 5 -- 85%
March 8 -- 86%

That movement is a big deal. He is going in the right direction big time.

And the better he does, the better he'll do. It's one of those virtuous cycles. If it gets exponential, all bets are off!

And, BTW, Hillary superdelegate endorsers are already committing to switch to pledged delegate winner:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1444473

LonePirate

(13,386 posts)
21. Do you know if the targets are routinely updated?
Wed Mar 9, 2016, 05:38 PM
Mar 2016

If the targets are updated/increased regularly, Bernie reaching 100% should be sufficient for him to win. If the targets are unchanged or mostly flat in the weeks ahead, then Bernie will need to exceed 100% in order to make up ground from the weeks where he has been below 100%.

pat_k

(9,313 posts)
22. I assume they adjust targets for remaining elections as polls come in.
Wed Mar 9, 2016, 06:19 PM
Mar 2016

Think about it this way. He needs to get from his current 86% of cumulative target to at least 100% of cumulative target at the end. He's been gaining 1% on each primary/caucus day. I think there are 15 primary/caucus days scheduled. If he were to gain 1% on each day, he would be at 101% at the end.

Adjustments in targets for a given primary/caucus day based on more recent polling will only adjust expectations for that given day. (For example, if his target for a given day is lower than Hillary's target for the same day, then he is doing great if he gets more than target, even if that number is still fewer than what Hillary gets.

Hope this makes sense.

Beacool

(30,244 posts)
23. Yes, but Hillary is at 113% of her traget, while Sanders is at 86%
Wed Mar 9, 2016, 06:31 PM
Mar 2016

She only missed her target in MI by 2 delegates and surpassed her target in MS by 9 delegates.

Hillary

MI: won 61/target 63

MS: won 32/target 23

pat_k

(9,313 posts)
25. It's the trajectory. Think about it this way:
Wed Mar 9, 2016, 06:40 PM
Mar 2016

He needs to get from his current 86% of cumulative target to at least 100% of cumulative target at the end. He's been gaining 1% on each primary/caucus day. I think there are 15 primary/caucus days scheduled. If he were to continue to gain 1% on each day, he would be at 101% at the end.

Doable.

pat_k

(9,313 posts)
34. Yeah, it's a long shot. But, remember...
Thu Mar 10, 2016, 03:57 AM
Mar 2016

It always seems impossible until it's done.
--Nelson Mandela

I present a scenario below. I put it out there just for fun. I like comparing results to the FiveThirtyEight targets and wanted to have a more concrete scenario for winning the nomination. I don't want to "get into it" about feasibility.

NOTE
The portion of delegates won doesn't directly translate to vote share. For example, in Michigan it was 49.8%/48.3% in favor of Sanders, but according to FiveThirtyEight he won 69 of the 130 delegates (about 53%).

Here it goes. His cummulative target as of yesterday was 639. He has 551. So, over the upcoming races, he needs to "make up" 88 delegates.

The target delegate numbers below are from the FiveThirtyEight.com delegate tracking table for Sanders at http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats/

For any state not included below, it is assumed that Bernie meets the target number of delegates listed in the table.

Each entry is in the form:

State XX/YY +Z

State = Name of state
XX = Target Delegates from FiveThirtyOne chart.
YY = Total Delegates for state.
+Z = Number of additional delegates needed relative to target.

FL 98/214 +6
IL 71/156 +10
NC 50/107 +2
OH 72/143 +4
AZ 41/75 +2
HI 13/25 +1
WA 59/101 +6
WI 48/86 +2
NY 125/247 +6
MD 42/95 +3
PA 96/189 +4
Dems Abroad 7/13 +1
OR 37/61 +3
NJ 61/126 +4
NM 18/34 +1
CA 239/475 +34

Total additional +89








 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
26. I bet it took a toll on Nate Silver's xanax stash....
Wed Mar 9, 2016, 07:17 PM
Mar 2016

It's fun that you can be so incredibly wrong about Michigan and still keep up the 'I speak with authority' routine.

MineralMan

(146,189 posts)
29. Why is that odd?
Wed Mar 9, 2016, 08:28 PM
Mar 2016

It was way busy, and I was running the caucus. I simply didn't have time to think about it. I'd have voted for Hillary, but Bernie still would have won. I congratulated him in the same thread.

ebayfool

(3,411 posts)
35. Oh! I had no idea! TY for pointing this out!
Thu Mar 10, 2016, 04:21 AM
Mar 2016

Even though it has been posted ad nauseam like the feeding schedule for newborn every 2 hours on the dot.





Y'all are gonna wear yourselves out with that furious pace.




Garrett78

(10,721 posts)
36. As you've implied, every primary/caucus being proportional...
Thu Mar 10, 2016, 05:07 AM
Mar 2016

...makes overcoming a 200+ delegate deficit quite difficult. It seems to me there are basically 3 paths to the nomination for a person with such a deficit when approximately 3/5ths of the states remain.

1) The candidate who is trailing has to win every small state by a wide margin (so wide, perhaps, that the opponent doesn't meet the threshold for that state), while breaking even in the big states.

2) The candidate consistently wins the small states but not by a large margin, and they win several big states (New York, New Jersey, Ohio and Pennsylvania, for instance) while breaking even in the other big states.

3) The candidate could win really big (by, say, 30+ percentage points) in a delegate-rich state or two (like California and New York), while winning a slim majority of the delegates everywhere else.

I think #1 is Sanders's most viable path, but it seems highly unlikely. #2 is probably the most realistic hypothetical scenario, generally speaking. #3 seems implausible--not just for Sanders, but in general.

On the Republican side of the ledger, however, Trump could be kept from winning a majority of the delegates. Thanks to winner-take-all states, as well as the number of candidates he's running against.

I believe your Michigan percentages are a bit off. Anyway, the fact that Sanders won in spite of being expected to lose badly impacts the narrative. But it doesn't impact the delegate math.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Close Primary Elections D...