New Jersey will secure the nomination for Hillary

On Sen. Boxer and Sen. Feinstein.

It looks like Bernie will be clobbered in June.

What could go wrong?

Not buying it.

..the ONLY way Sanders can win would be for him to get 67% of California, which would be a swing ~30 points. Even if the forecast isn't right on, it certainly isn't off by >30%

is it possible that he might suspend his campaign so as to avoid this kind of humiliation?

No matter what his supporters might say, Sanders is a politician and he has at least one eye on the future.

....

He's in it until the end, either way.

Their polling average is 55/38, so they must be seeing a pretty significant trend upward for Hillary if they're forecasting 62/36.

Guess 2:1 Sanders isn't likely going to happen.

I read another post tonight saying Hillary had to have the required delegates with only pledged delegates, well it means Sanders can not find the pledged delegates necessary to get to 2383 in pledged delegates only. Can't have two rules here.

...none of them have been realistic.

by 26%, it will be A LOT MORE than 125 delegates. Try about 300.

counties she carried. McCain got 93% of all delegates in California in 2008 because he carried all but 3 counties.

for their primary.

Last edited Wed May 25, 2016, 04:29 AM - Edit history (1)

And IIRC, there was one poll in Oregon which allegedly showed Hillary Clinton winning that state by big margins, which I never believed--her winning Oregon by big margins. Here in California, it's a totally different story with SO many polls showing a California win for SoS Clinton in a couple of weeks. The good thing is that these polls are RECENT, and most quite credible.

uses a forecast model to get their numbers. Here is what they say about the forecast model:

"In designing the polls-plus forecast, we considered an array of possible predictors, including: endorsements, state and national fundraising totals, favorability ratings, ideology ratings and national polls. Just about all of these have some positive correlation with primary and caucus outcomes: Candidates with higher favorability ratings are more likely to see their ballot-test numbers go up than down, for example. And candidates who are good ideological “fits” for their states overperform their polls more often than not.

In the end, however, we opted for a relatively simple three-variable model, rather than a “kitchen sink” approach. The variables are state polls, endorsements and national polls. The model also considers how the projected results in Iowa might affect New Hampshire and how the results in those states might affect subsequent states. I’ve already described the process by which state polls are used, so I’ll focus on the other factors now."

"In theory, the polls-plus model should be more accurate than the polls-only model, but it’s a pretty small difference; in our backtesting, polls-plus was more accurate at predicting a candidate’s actual result 57 percent of the time"

What that tells me is that they willingly leave out specific information like favorability and ideology. They also include endorsements in their factors which means all of those super delegates who pledged their support already who haven't voted and won't vote until well after the California primary. They even state that their forecasts are correct only about 57% of the time.