In a 2 person race one or the other will win?

n/t

All I see is a list of states and numbers also when you averaged them out the 2 candidates were close in there %, what did you expect to find out.

Clinton's wins in Texas, Ohio, Virginia and Florida alone almost entirely cancel out every state Sanders won, in terms of delegates.

If you aggregate by margin alone the thinly populated states will have a disproportionate impact on your total.

Wyoming has fewer people than a small city, for example, so it's not meaningful to compare with Texas, for example. If you added the margin-of-victory numbers for the two together it would seem as if Bernie were strongly in front, but this wouldn't be reflected in the delegate count because that is based on population.

To be honest I think the two-senators-per-state scheme has turned out to be a bad idea and leads to widespread confusion about how elections work.

If only every state had equal delegate representation like they do in the Senate then those averages would mean something. As it stands winning a state with very few people doesn't make much of an impact on the race even if you win it by a lot.

Also, Bernie has won Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, and Alaska. Not exactly blue bastions there.

Your argument is incorrect and you should feel a little personally diminished for having made it.

I'm pretty sure nobody thought Utah would lean so hard for Bernie, but we'll take what we can get ...

All of those states are RED ... Controlled by GOP governments ... Obviously voters wanted it that way ...

In order to feel better about myself, I figured I would go ahead and let you go ... I'll wave Byebye from the DU dock as your boat floats away ...

Byebye ...

See? ... All better!

What's much harder is to ensure that your results are not biased by your personal opinion. That takes a Ph.D. and years of experience.

That tallies with what I've seen. Presenting the average performance by state without weighting for size is misleading.

I do agree that the wide spread is striking, though.

but the wide spread IS striking, as is the fact that taken as an average, there's no logical reason at all why their numbers should look so similar, but they do.