A Best-Case Scenario for Bernie

[Chichiri]

Here's what I did: I looked at every primary from now through March 15. For states where FiveThirtyEight has a spread projection, I took the 90th percentile of Bernie's projected vote (the right side of the blue bell curve). For example, while the projected vote in Nevada right now is 52-46 Hillary, the 90th percentile of Bernie's range is at 54, which would give Hillary 46, for total margin of +8.

For states where FiveThirtyEight doesn't have a projection, I took the most favorable (to Bernie) recent reputable poll and gave Bernie the undecideds. For example, Alabama's most recent poll is 59-31 Hillary, so I bumped Bernie up to 41, for a -18 margin. The exceptions are Colorado and Minnesota; the most recent polls there are very favorable for Hillary, but those polls are old, and they're caucus states which favors Bernie, so I simply assumed a tie in both those states.

I then compared these numbers to Nate Silver's target numbers at 538, the margins that Nate says Bernie needs to beat in each state in order to be on track to win the nomination.

Here's how it shakes down -- and again, this is a best-case scenario for Bernie.

[font color="red"]NEVADA: Needs -3; has +8.

[font color="blue"]SOUTH CAROLINA: Needs -11, has -24.

[font color="red"]VERMONT: Needs +49, has +76.

[font color="blue"]MINNESOTA: Needs +17, has 0.

[font color="blue"]COLORADO: Needs +13, has 0.

[font color="blue"]MASSACHUSETTS: Needs +11, has +7.

[font color="red"]OKLAHOMA: Needs +2, has +4.

[font color="blue"]TENNESSEE: Needs -4, has -18.

[font color="blue"]VIRGINIA: Needs -9, has -12.

[font color="red"]ARKANSAS: Needs -20, has -18.

[font color="red"]TEXAS: Needs -20, has -16.

[font color="blue"]GEORGIA: Needs -24, has -26.

[font color="red"]ALABAMA: Needs -27, has -18.

[font color="gray"]KANSAS: Needs +13; no data.

[font color="gray"]NEBRASKA: Needs +11; no data.

[font color="red"]LOUISIANA: Needs -22, has -20.

[font color="gray"]MAINE: Needs +27; no data.

[font color="blue"]MICHIGAN: Needs +11, has -16.

[font color="red"]MISSISSIPPI: Needs -32, has -20.

[font color="gray"]MISSOURI: Needs +4; no data.

[font color="blue"]NORTH CAROLINA: Needs 0, has -10.

[font color="blue"]OHIO: Needs -2, has -6.

[font color="gray"]ILLINOIS: Needs -3; no data.

[font color="blue"]FLORIDA: Needs -15, has -24.


[font color="black"]Anyone want to see a more realistic scenario?

(Originally posted in GDP -- I think, like most of you, I'm done there.)

[Treant]

1. Iiiiiinteresting!

Edit: I was counting colors, a no-no. Corrected below!

So he ends up winning 4 states, and losing all others with sufficient data.

Of course, we'd need to analyse delegate counts for those states (and those do tend to be a bit arcane), but a flat count doesn't turn out well for him.

And this is assuming a complete break of undecideds and that every performance be in the top ten percent. I think we all know exactly how likely that is (hint: off the cuff, 1 in 10,000).

Momentum can't be underestimated either. I simply don't see that moving in Sanders' direction at the moment.

[fun n serious]

2. Thank you.

I needed a boost of confidence.

[George II]

3. Lot's of work there, nice job, and I like the scenario. I did one through March 1st based on....

....the polls and came up with Clinton leading by anywhere between 80 and 100 delegates after Super Tuesday.

And that includes Sanders' strongest states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, and possibly Minnesota. After March 1, there are few if any states in which Sanders has a chance of winning.

Practically speaking, by the time the polls close in all of the Super Tuesday states, Sanders will be all but mathematically eliminated.

[workinclasszero]

4. March 2nd

Bernie's promise everybody everything campaign is dead in the water

[Chichiri]

7. Here's hoping. nt

[rpannier]

5. Question

Did you factor in for states that divvy by county? I think most states do. Pretty sure Nevada does. As I recall HRC got a greater share of the popular vote in 08, but Obama still got a larger share of the delegates.
ie I could get 60% of the popular vote, but if it all comes from two or three sites I can still lose the delegate count. Also districts are proportional. They're arranged so that even with a super majority vote, you're still looking at 3 of 5 or 4 of 6

[Chichiri]

6. I went with overall vote percentage in each case

Because that's what Nate did. I would have preferred he put the required number of delegates instead, as the Cook report does.

[rpannier]

8. Okay

Thank you for the explanation
Have a good day (or evening depending on location)
(I like pumpkins and Halloween)