Bernie's path to victory: Wisconsin and Beyond!

[This was written before Wisconsin. I'll have an update after NY/PA]

After the March primaries/caucuses and re-allocation from earlier races, Bernie has 1038 delegates. Bernie’s pledged delegate deficit now sits at 228. That means he needs to win 988 of the remaining 1747 delegates or 56.5% to secure the majority of pledged delegates.

We started out on March 16 needing almost 60% of remaining delegates, that is now down to 56.5% of those remaining.

This is a difficult task, but it is doable. If we can GOTV and organize in the remaining states.

Here is what’s been achieved since Super Tuesday:

STATE DELEGATES TYPE 538 TARGET SUBIR TARGET result Net Gain
AZ 75 Closed Primary 41 46 31 -13
ID 23 Open Caucus 14 16 18 13
UT 33 Open Caucus 19 21 27 21
Abroad 13 Open Caucus 6.5 7 9 5
AK 16 Closed Caucus 9 10 13 10
HI 25 Closed Caucus 13 15 17 9
WA 101 Modified Caucus 59 66 74 47
TOTAL 286 161.5 181 189 92

Hillary won 97 delegates over the same period and the delegate deficit was reduced by 92 delegates. When we factor in delegates re-allocated to Bernie in GA, TX and IL, the delegate deficit has been reduced by almost a hundred. I have not factored in unconfirmed pickups in CO, NV and other states. Will wait on Green Papers to confirm. Demosten has been tracking county/state conventions carefully and has noticed that Clinton pick-ups are rather rare. We’re not certain exactly why, perhaps more Clinton delegates are no-shows or switch to Bernie. We hesitate to ascribe reasons, but the Clinton campaign has to bear some responsibility for not being able to protect primary/caucus night margins through the complete state process.

We need 988 additional delegates. In the table below, I’ve taken the 538 delegate estimates for a nationally-tied race and scaled them up to arrive at 988.

Like all models, the 538 model doesn’t reflect reality. It has consistently under-estimated the strength of both Bernie and Hillary in the regions more amenable to their respective messages. However, it is widely used and cited, both in the press and here. In the absence of a better public model, I’ll stick with my simplistic approach of scaling up the 538 figures till I arrive at the required number. I will publish a diary next week giving my own take on NY. But for this analysis, I just like to keep it simple, so here are the targets.

STATE DELEGATES TYPE 538 TARGET SUBIR TARGET % VOte TARGET VOTE ‘08
WI 86 Open Primary 48 53 60.6% 1,113,753
WY 14 Closed Caucus 9 10 68.8% 8,753
NY 247 Closed Primary 125 138 58% 1,891,143
CT 55 Closed Primary 28 31 54.2% 354,539
DE 21 Closed Primary 10 11 50% 96,374
MD 95 Closed Primary 42 46 50% 878,174
PA 189 Closed Primary 96 106 56.3% 2,336,480
RI 24 Modified Primary 13 14 56.3% 186,657
IN 83 Open Primary 44 48
GU 7 Closed Caucus 3.5 4
WV 29 Modified Primary 17 19
KY 55 Closed Primary 28 31
OR 61 Closed Primary 37 41
VI 7 Closed Caucus 3.5 4
PR 60 Closed Caucus 30 33
CA 475 Modified Primary 239 264
MT 21 Open Primary 13 14
NJ 126 Modified Primary 61 67
NM 34 Closed Primary 18 20
SD 20 Closed Primary 12 13
ND 18 Open Caucus 11 12
DC 20 Closed Primary 8 9
TOTAL 1747 896 988

Torilahure provided the popular vote percentages that you see above in a diary she kindly put together. I should note that Torilahure is not necessarily rooting for Bernie, but has helped us out here in the best spirit of collaboration.

A number of people believe Wisconsin and Wyoming might outperform the targets presented above (both 538’s and mine). Just keep in mind that 60.6% and 68.8% are already aggressive targets.

The underlying support for Bernie and his policies means we can win the primary, but it will require an all out effort to GoTV. So please, phonebank, canvas, do what is needed.

Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

Thank you for the good work Subir.

I can't speak in the general sense why Bernie pickups would be more common than Clinton in county/state conventions. But in my precinct here in WA state almost all the Clinton votes were absentee ballots whereas Sanders were mostly in-person. As such the delegates we had 6 enthusiastic Sanders supporters (3 dels, 3 alts) and only 1 Clinton supporter kinda reluctant to go on (so 1 del, 0 alts, and the del wasn't sure they'd be able to make it!) I have heard she does best in early voting, so if other precincts have similar issues finding suitable delegates because all her votes were absentee then that could explain it.

up
0 users have voted.
WindDancer13's picture

to be a problem if Independents haven't registered as they are such a huge block of Sanders' supporters. I do wish a lot of them would quit voting in the Republican primaries. Some seem to think that getting Trump out is more important, and it isn't.

Meanwhile, keep an eye out for changes from the caucuses as there are some numbers that could change there.

Nice work. Thank you.

up
0 users have voted.

We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass

magiamma's picture

ty for this. GO BERNIE!!!

up
0 users have voted.

Stop Climate Change Silence - Start the Conversation

Hot Air Website, Twitter, Facebook

new minas's picture

Hi,
just wanted to follow up on a previous discussion

When considering the costs of replacing coal power generation (a 24-hour generation or "baseload" source") with renewables the simple cost of per unit generation is not the appropriate tool. The correct tool is called "Levelized Cost of Energy" http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/tech_lcoe.html LCOE takes into account the capacity factor or amount of generation produced as a percent of time. Since solar and wind have about 35% or so then it will take 3 times more solar generation installed to produce the same amount of power in a given year. In addition, since the time of generation for solar is only during the day, additional infrastructure must be put into place to store the energy generated and then returned to the grid during after hours. this also significantly increases the costs.

The development of social costs of carbon, the basis a carbon tax. Is a function of the perceived future economic and societal impacts of climate change over the next 100 years. Very complex models are used to show impacts of heatwaves, rising sea levels, food production and infrastructure development (due to human relocation). Many of these models miss a significant (majority) of the known impacts and they all underestimate key factors, such as sea level rise. the values are often placed at a discount rate of 3% or more so that the value of 100.00 of damage in 2099 is worth only pennies of cost today. This is an obviously flawed process and is a severe hurdle to the real work that must be accomplished.

I hope that this clears up some of your questions on this. Thanks for your work on the info contained in this diary.

up
0 users have voted.

If you do not understand that being part of the "establishment" is a slur in the minds of 99% of the U.S. population then you are completely out of touch and probably are one.

Nice to see you here!

up
0 users have voted.