Politifact: "No, Bernie did not retroactively win Nevada"

[pnwmom]

http://www.politifact.com/nevada/statements/2016/apr/07/blog-posting/no-bernie-sanders-didnt-retroactively-win-nevada/

Hillary Clinton was declared the winner of Nevada’s presidential caucuses back in February, but some supporters of Bernie Sanders are claiming the Vermont senator might have won the state after all.

The pronouncement came after Sanders delegates ended up outnumbering Clinton’s during the hectic Clark County Democratic Convention on April 2, leading many media outlets and supporters to declare that Sanders retroactively "won" the state by outmaneuvering Clinton.

So, did Sanders add another state to his column as many have claimed?

The answer is no, and it likely will remain that way.

We’ll tell you why.

SNIP

[Lucinda]

1. KNR

[mcar]

2. K&R

[eridani]

3. He lost but has more delegates. I'll take it n/t

[JimDandy]

4. So, just not true YET, but good chance of being true after the state's convention.

[pnwmom]

6. No, Politifact says at most they expect him to reduce her lead, not eliminate it. n/t

[eomer]

8. Politifact is wrong, not making any sense actually.

They start off getting it basically right by saying that each of the categories of pledged delegates will be allocated proportionally based on the number of delegates (the number preferring each candidate) at the state convention.

So far so good. But then they inexplicably jump to a greater count for Hillary than for Bernie, with no explanation for how that would happen. Since there can be expected to be more delegates at the state convention for Bernie than for Hillary, the proportional allocation will result in more national delegates for Bernie than for Hillary.

[reformist2]

14. Sorry, Politifact is WRONG. Bernie will get 19, Hillary will get 16.

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

5. Wrong...

According to Bernie internal tabulations Politifact is wrong... It is currently 19-16 estimated based off the county conventions...

https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Sanders-State-by-State-1.pdf

[pnwmom]

7. According to Bernie's self-serving calculations. Jon Ralston is far more experienced

in Nevada, and he's a neutral observer.

[eomer]

9. The national delegates will be allocated by the proportion of delegates at the state convention.

That's obviously going to be a greater number for Bernie than for Hillary at this point.

If you think that's wrong, can you please give or link to some explanation for how that can happen at this point?

[pnwmom]

10. The Politifact article explains it. And they agree with Jon Ralston, who has been watching

Nevada politics for decades.


http://www.rgj.com/story/news/politics/2016/04/05/ralston-reports-nevada-democratic-caucus-outcome-bit-surreal-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders/82684666/

The delegate switch was not that significant – Clinton had an estimated 20-15 lead after the Feb. 20 balloting and 18-17 after Saturday. But with the state convention having the final say, the embarrassing prospect of Sanders packing that event, too, and flipping the state his way must be an awful case of déjà vu for the candidate herself.

[reformist2]

15. Jon Ralston didn't do his math correctly. He adjusted the state delegates, but not the district dele

[eomer]

18. OK, I've changed my mind. I think that Ralston is correct.

What I was missing is that the 23 district-level delegates are already set based on the original caucus votes. Only the 7 PLEO and 5 at-large delegates are affected by Bernie's higher numbers that will attend the state convention.

So I think that northernsouthern has the correct calculation in post #11 (but with a typo corrected):

Hill 13 + 5(A)+7(A)= 13+2+3=18
Bern 10 + 5(B)+7(B)= 10+3+4= 17

So the 13 to 10 allocation of district-level delegates isn't changed but the allocation of the 7 PLEO delegates and the 5 at-large delegates is. That's why Bernie only gains 2 delegates and Hillary still has the most overall.

[northernsouthern]

11. Well yes, but actually...

It is unknown at this moment. I talked with board of elections, most of what they said in the politfacts is kind of true. Their use of the superdelegates is not kosher since they almost have nothing to do with the state per-say, they are more on to their own thing and don't vote until the very very end. As for as the votes got 23 are locked, 7 normal (and 1 alternate) and 5 fancypants delegates (basically 12 and one alt) are up for vote.
Hill 13 + 5(A)+7(A)= 13+2+5=18
Bern 10 + 5(B)+7(B)= 10+3+4= 17
2,964+2,386=5350
A=2,386/5350=44.5981
B=2,964/5350=55.4018

It seems like CD4 is the big win (for Hillary) since at 3.520 it rounds up to 4, thus the 13 instead of 12.

So as long as everyone shows up on every side the all that has happened is that Bernie has gained 2 and Hillary has lost 2, resulting in a gap closing by 4 points. If more people don't show up in state then it can fall further either direction...so as the elections board says, nothing has happened yet until they finalize in the next delegate vote.

Either way the true result is that it currently matches the actual win percentages of the state unlike Wyoming %52.64*35=18.424 for HRC

[eomer]

20. You've convinced me, thanks for the explanation.

But you do have a typo - you have a 5 where it should be 3 in the following line:

Hill 13 + 5(A)+7(A)= 13+2+3=18

Just to further explain why this is, the allocation of the 23 district-level delegates is set already based on the original caucus results. So that remains 13 for Hillary and 10 for Bernie and isn't affected by this recent shift of proportion that will attend the state convention. The 7 PLEO and 5 at-large delegates are affected because they're apportioned based on the numbers at the state convention.

[northernsouthern]

23. Good catch.

Fixed it. Yeah if a few more don't show in the state level on Hillary's side Bernie can take the lead, but from the 7 no the 5 since mathematically like in Wyoming those smaller numbers need such a massive change in percentage to shift. But if Bernie's don't show it can can flip back.

[NWCorona]

12. In the terms of "winning" the state. I will defer to the voters

So no Bernie didn't win the state but the delegate count I'm not so sure about. I've seen both sides of the debate and not really sure who's right.

I'm willing to wait and see what the final outcome will be.

[northernsouthern]

13. I would too.

I think every state should be won by the voters, in an open election, with plenty of time to vote, and no superdelegates. But as it stands NV is actually proportional to the win, and no longer skewed to HRC due to the CS system.

[mhatrw]

16. Who wants to bet me that Sanders does not win NV in the end? PM me!

Just wondering who actually believes that Clinton's semi-delegates will show up in force the next time around.

[Cha]

17. Nor Missouri.. thank you!

[Surya Gayatri]

19. K & R most enthusiastically.

[SidDithers]

22. DU rec...nt

Sid

[msanthrope]

24. Don't bring Math and facts into this. nt

[Cha]

25. Does of reality.