By what objective metric is Bernie winning the race?

[Chichiri]

I know some would like to cite popular vote, but that only includes New Hampshire since they don't officially count popular vote in caucuses, so any cited figure of popular vote is only speculation -- and it doesn't count in the end anyway, or Hillary would have been elected in 2008.

What does that leave us? Total delegate count? Hillary 503, Bernie 70. Pledged delegates only? Hillary 52, Bernie 51. Number of states carried? Hillary 2, Bernie 1. Cook Political Report targets? Hillary is 11 delegates ahead, Bernie 11 delegates behind. Nate Silver's benchmarks? Hillary is 15 points ahead, Bernie is 15 points behind.

A subjective, qualitative metric such as ideological purity? Such things may indicate a future turnaround in Bernie's fortunes, or they may mean nothing. There's no way we can say the former will probably or definitely come to pass.

It seems to me that by any available objective, quantitative metric, Hillary Clinton is winning the race for the nomination. And this is where we stand before South Carolina and Super Tuesday.

[Starry Messenger]

1. *cough*

You can't argue with emotions with logic, unfortunately.

[Treant]

2. There is no metric.

Any subjective choice is just that, subjective. It can't be measured objectively and does not have quantitative validity as it can be evaluated from a different perspective and a different answer achieved.

Currently, Clinton wins by any objective metric (except, as noted, popular vote--which has to wait for Saturday evening or, at worst, Tuesday evening, before she takes a commanding lead there).

You can also add money, where Clinton leads Sanders 2:1, and Sanders is backing out of SC almost completely (the reverse of the error he made in NV where he committed too many resources).

Measurable campaign consistency? Clinton, again. Sanders is running a stochastic campaign and bouncing around like a Plinko chip.

Now Sanders is leading on PAC money spent on the Primary (which costs him, for me, in ideological purity rather badly and erodes his subjective score). So, y'know, there's that.

Of course, it's quite early in the game, but I don't foresee any major changes at this time.

[jmowreader]

3. Internet polls, I think...

They love the guy. Hillary is, to some people, a bit cold. (OTOH, I feel that Bernie is too harsh. I really don't want to be SCREAMED AT by my president for the next eight years.) I'm not voting for a friend. I'm voting for a president, and Hillary is better qualified for that job.

[sheshe2]

4. Chi

Facts and Figures,

Dayum good post,

[mr_liberal]

5. A couple nights ago I saw an analyst say that Sanders

isn't even spending any money in the "big states". Im not exactly which ones he was referring to, but it was his opinion that someone thats really trying to win would have already invested in them, and therefore he's not convinced that Sanders is even trying to win.

Sanders himself said he's going all the way to the convention. Why would you say that if you plan on winning enough delegates to get the nomination? It seems to me like he meant he's just going to stay in it to have influence on the process and play a role at the convention.

[Lucinda]

6. I think that is why he hasn't been bothering to raise money for down ticket Dems too

To me, it seems like he's just trying to have influence on the platform.

[fontagobay]

7. THE POPULAR VOTE

By a margin of 22.45% in fact!!