In case you missed it, here's a table that

[MineralMan]

shows targets our two Democratic candidates have to meet to get a majority of delegates. It's arranged by primary dates, and sets up a scenario for each candidate that leads to a tie at the convention.

It's well thought-out, and is worth a look. If you go, do please read the entire article leading up to the table. It's not a prediction. It's a strategic analysis of the primary races.

This is from Charlie Cook's Political Report website. Cook is a highly-respected election analyst with a record of successful projections. As the primaries proceed, it will be worth referencing to see how the candidates are doing, based on the targets set in the table:

http://cookpolitical.com/story/9179

[Gothmog]

1. Thanks for posting

Sanders will not be the party's nominee based on the projections in that chart

[morningfog]

2. The chart is not a projection.

[lastone]

3. How on earth did you come to that conclusion?

When at totals predict a tie?
1976 to 1976

[MineralMan]

5. Those numbers are not projections. They're

what each candidate will need in each state to reach a tie. If a candidate doesn't meet those target numbers and the other candidate exceeds the targeted number of delegates, a leader will be apparent. Already, Clinton has exceeded the target in Iowa.

It's a mathematical calculation, and the targets were determined after analysis of demographic and other information. They are not the targets set by the candidates, but are targets set by the analyst.

The way to use this table is to compare actual results with the target numbers as the primaries occur. When you do that, you'll see the genius of the table.

I like using mathematics in watching primary races. It helps me clear my mind of all other issues and focus just on how many delegates each candidate needs. I have my own spreadsheet that lets me track delegate counts as each primary or caucus is held.

[lastone]

7. I see - and stand corrected.

Thank you Mineralman.

[MineralMan]

4. Well, she already beat the target of 13 in that chart

for Iowa. Looking down the chart toward the March 1 events, the target numbers for Clinton all seem low to me, based on current polling and other factors. I think she'll beat her target numbers in every state, including New Hampshire. If so, her path to the nomination will be very clear by March 2.

On the other hand, Bernie Sanders did not meet his target number of delegates in Iowa, nor do I think he'll meet them in any of the other races through March 1. He needs to do better than anyone expects, or he won't get a majority of delegates.

Again, I think the winner will be obvious by April 1. Mathematical analysis of delegate counts is a powerful way to look at the primary races.

[cali]

6. Sorry, I don't make a practice of reading shit that insults

me right off the bat.

[MineralMan]

8. OK. I can guarantee that both candidates, however,

are paying attention to Charlie Cook's analysis and that table. You can do as you please, of course. I would never insist that anyone read anything. I just linked to the article and table because I find that kind of mathematical analysis interesting.

In the end, primary elections for President all come down to the math of delegate counts. Cook has come up with a scenario that leads to a tie. Comparing actual results to his calculated targets can be very informative to those who follow the delegate counts as the primary season goes on.

You will, of course, do as you think best. You needn't pay any attention to me or Charlie Cook at all.

[cali]

9. One more time. I don't need you

to explain basic political process.

[MineralMan]

10. My dear cali: We are not in a private conversation.

You visited my thread. You commented and I replied. Frankly, you were not the audience I had in mind when I wrote this OP. I welcome you to read and comment in my threads, but informing you is not my primary consideration when I decide to write an OP.

You may be familiar with Charlie Cook and his mathematical approach to elections. Others, however, may not be as familiar. So, my OP was aimed at those other DUers, who may not have the deep understanding of politics and elections you might have.

Quite frankly, you were not on my mind as I posted. You are not my target audience. So, please feel free to comment in my threads, but they really aren't aimed at someone as politically astute as you might be. I hope you'll forgive me for not tailoring my posts on DU to your unique needs and desires, but meeting those are rarely my goal.

I will continue to post thread starting posts as I am moved to do. I do hope you won't mind if I do that.

[MineralMan]

11. Note: There are many ways to analyze primary races.

Charlie Cook's method is just one of those ways. Not everyone will agree with him, I'm sure.