Tuesday, March 22, 2016

One of Several Sanders Paths to a Win


Robert W. McChesney, Prof. of Media and Communications, University of Illinois, comments on the Sanders-Clinton race going forward (source: DKos diarist Get The Word Out)

by Gaius Publius

Recently we took yet another look at the Clinton-Trump side of the race and found, shall we say, some risk for the Democratic Party, should they choose that path.

Here I'd like to take the first of several looks at the Sanders side of the race, in particular, one of several paths he has to a victory. We've looked at work by DKos diarist and master data-stitian MattTX (here); I've seen analyses that take social media indicators into account (image source), and several others, including some indication of a much more promising path by Nate Silver's site that adjusts for their "mistake" in Michigan.

But let's take a look at this, a thoughtful projection by a former DKos-diarist and now redditor (yep, another escapee) that looks at five factors — [1] racial diversity, [2] internet penetration, [3] the intersection of both race and internet penetration, [4] youth voting, and [5] income average — to see which were present in which of Sanders' wins, and then projects a result for post-March 15 contests. (For a fuller explanation of the factors and how they played out in the pre-March 15 contests, I refer you to the piece.)

For reference, I personally have Bernie Sanders winning at least seven of the eight contests between March 15 and April 9, just prior to the New York primary on April 19, with nearly 375 delegates to be decided in that period. Sanders should also win 12 of the next 15, those following New York. (Sanders delegate deficit, with all March 15 delegates finally allocated, along with the Democrats Overseas primary, in which he beat Clinton by more than two-to-one, is a manageable minus-321.) My personal projection is that between March 15 and the New York primary in mid-April, Sanders will have reduced that lead by 100 delegates or more, assuming his momentum continues.

Here are the projections (made prior to the remaining March contests) by the diarist mentioned above. As you read or reread this, some of these contests may have been decided, but I present it anyway as one template for a Sanders win, to encourage you going forward and so you can keep score at home.

I've grouped his predictions by contest date and added (slightly rounded) delegate counts per date:
[March 22 — more than 130 delegates]
Arizona: Bernie will either win or lose by 5% margin. [Factor 1, 4]
Idaho: Bernie will win by 15%+ [Factor 1, 4]
Utah: Bernie will win by 15%+ [Factor 3, 4, 5]

[March 26 — more than 140 delegates]
Alaska: Bernie will win by 15%+ [Factor 3, 4, 5]
Hawaii: Bernie will win by 15%+ [Factor 3, 5]
Washington: Bernie will win by 15%+ [Factor 3, 4, 5]

[April 5 and 9 — 100 delegates]
Wisconsin: Bernie will win by 15%+ [Factor 3, 5]
Wyoming: Bernie will win by 15%+ [Factor 3, 4, 5]

[April 19 — more than 380 delegates]
New York: Bernie will either win or lose between 5% (him) or 10% (Clinton). [Factor 2]

[April 26 — 20 delegates]
Connecticut: Bernie will win or lose within 5% [Factor 2, 5]
Delaware: Bernie will lose by around 15%+ [Factor 5]
Maryland: Bernie will win or lose by around a 5% [Factor 2, 5]
Pennsylvania: Bernie will win or lose within a 5% [Factor 2, 5]
Rhode Island: Bernie will win by 15%+ [Factor 3, 5]

[May 3 through June 5 — more than 300 delegates]
Indiana: Bernie will lose by around 10-15% [Factor 4]
Guam: Bernie will win by around 15%+ [Factor 3]
West Virginia: Bernie will win or tie within +-5%. [Factor 1]
Kentucky: Bernie will win or lose within a factor of +-5%. [Factor 1]
Oregon: Bernie will win by 15%+ [Factor 3, 5]
Virgin Islands: Bernie will lose by 10%+ margin. [A major lack of internet connectivity cancels out Factor 1]
Puerto Rico: Bernie will win or lose within +-5% [Factor 1]

[June 7 — almost 700 delegates]
California: Bernie will win by 20%+ [Factor 3, 4, 5]
Montana: Bernie will win by 10%+ [Factor 1]
New Jersey: Bernie will win or lose by +-5%. [Factor 2, 5]
New Mexico: Bernie will win or lose by +-5%. [1, 4]
North Dakota: Bernie will win by 15%+ [Factor 3, 4, 5]
South Dakota: Bernie will win by 15%+ [Factor 1, 5]

[June 14 — 20 delegates]
District of Columbia: Bernie will lose by around 10%+ [Factor 5]
In total, between March 15 and the last contest on June 14, more than 2000 delegates (2020 to be exact) will have been allocated.

By the way, most of those wins by ">15%" will be by much greater than 15%. Some will be blowouts. The average of the Sanders' wins prior to March 15 is 65%, a 30-point differential over Clinton in those contests. Note that the projections in New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey look especially promising. Close losses in those states are as good as close wins, especially in light of likely large winning margins elsewhere.

This is an exciting contest, as well as, unfortunately, a seriously consequential one for the Party and the nation. Stay tuned. I'll offer my own projections in due course.

(Blue America has endorsed Bernie Sanders for president. If you'd like to help out, go here. If you'd like to "phone-bank for Bernie," go here. You can volunteer in other ways by going here. And thanks!)


Labels: , , , ,


At 3:13 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Somewhat encouraging. Imagine what a string of endorsements from prominent pols and other respecteds would do (I'm still seething about Warren not endorsing him prior to the Mass. primary). But I don't look for them. The money (or fear of hilbillary's wrath) is holding several anvils over the heads of even the pols who would seem logical Bernie endorsers from doing so, evidently... like Warren.

I'm going for Bernie in my primary no matter. And if hilbillary buys her nom in the end, I'm going to be torn between writing in Bernie or punching in for Jill Stein (who will be on the general ballot).

I'd lean toward Stein just because of her actual presence on the ballot. But I'd still prefer Bernie.

At 4:58 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So - can you project what has to happen for the media in general to cover Sanders' wins? Maybe his mere existence?

When you look at the actual pledged delegate count at this moment, Clinton is winning, but her lead is not YUUUUUGE and there are many states to go. Major daily papers and the TV are still covering this as though it's impossible for Sanders to overcome her lead.

Not serious. Just bitter. Honestly, if Sanders won all the pledged delegates and Hillary admitted she was out of the race, the headlines would be about how graciously the presumptive nominee handled the situation.

At 7:13 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the above Anonymous: A lot of media are adding in the already bought... er... pledged superdelegates to her total to make her lead seem very YUUUUUGE. As you might know, the superdelegates have no relationship to the voters anywhere. They are owned by the dnc's donors and will vote as they are told.

Bernie needs a large plurality of elected delegates to make it difficult for the superdelegates to be so openly corrupt at the convention... not that they would hesitate for a second to be so. If the media and the dnc succeed in suppressing turnout enough that Bernie doesn't have that plurality, hillbillary will gain the nom and we'll have benito drumpf as our 10th Reagan admin (or maybe our first emperor... you think he doesn't have that much ambition?). Not that hillbillary wouldn't be just as big a disaster, but in a somewhat different direction.

It's quite fascinating, really, if it weren't so tragic. D voters are proving to be even more gullible, ignorant and clueless and lacking in principle than R voters. They have a REAL Democrat, a viable one finally, to support and they just cannot make themselves resist their third way addiction. Honestly, if it weren't for obamanation's unknowns and pigment in 2008 (we didn't yet know he was THAT awful and the black turnout was yuuuuge), we'd have had 2 terms from mcpalin to enjoy. D voters are proving themselves to be the worst... again.

At 7:30 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ironic that it was the R sect of the money that was moribund after the collapse of 2008. They should have gone poof into history's pile of extinct ideologies... except that obamanation gave them cpr by being black and just a dreadfully corrupt jellyfish of a president.

Now it seems that the Ds may be facing that same fate as their voters first back a MORE corrupt candidate and a *female* (further bolstering the hate sect's comeback) and then stay home out of disgust and revulsion for their horrible candidate.

Honestly, if people are this stupid, they deserve whatever they get.

At 1:20 PM, Anonymous MojaveWolf said...

Yes, people who are that stupid/corrupt do deserve what they get, but the rest of us don't. And for damn sure all the rest of the biosphere that we are killing doesn't deserve it.

So we gotta somehow get Bernie in.

For starters, how bout calling them out on clear and obvious cheating in Arizona, Ill & MA, and who knows what else they did behind closed doors? Make it obvious we will not recognize a Clinton win as legitimate. At the very least, this might stop more cheating, giving us a real chance to win outright. Not that I would recognize a Clinton win as legitimate under any circumstances at this point.

At 7:09 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I feel you, mojavewolf. I truly do.

But... who will call out cheating? The Ds were victims of all manner of electoral fraud in 2000 and ever since and said... nothing at all. Since then, we've had "legal" suppression passed ITFO voter id laws, voter disenfranchisements (due to felonies, etc.); we've seen suppression spread from Fla and Oh to almost everywhere in the south and Midwest (people of color targeted) and we will almost certainly see more of the corporate paperless vote counting be openly fraudulent (remember the "impossible" flip of voting on Ohio's recent cannabis bill).

And all through this pandemic of fraud and suppression, the intended victims (Ds) say and do nothing.

When voters just sat down and took the 2000 theft of Florida and the SC's injunction on counting of votes... well, it does not encourage the MINORITY that you and I are in.

When the majority of people who vote are evil and/or stupid, the "democratic" government we all get cannot be very good.


Post a Comment

<< Home