Someone check my math, please

[TheDormouse]

Seth Abramson has pointed out something the mainstream media don't mention:

Hillary is unlikely to win enough pledged delegates in the remaining primaries to be able to clinch the nomination before the superdelegates can vote at the convention.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/sanders-is-right-on-super_b_9695718.html

As far as I am aware, Abramson's last post running the numbers was made before the NY primary.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/a-contested-democratic-convention_b_9672328.html

So can someone check my back-of-the-hand calculations?
It looks to me that Hillary remains unlikely to win enough pledged delegates outright to secure the nomination without having to rely on superdelegate votes--which will not be cast until the convention.


Hillary has already won 1,443 pledged delegates in primaries and caucuses. (This is 538's count. Other sources report slightly different numbers; Bloomberg says 1,428; NY Times/AP says 1,446. We'll kep it simple and use 1,443.)
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats/
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-delegate-tracker/
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-results.html

Based on polls summarized at RealClearPolitics, we are looking at the following in upcoming primaries (I've tried to generally lean toward using the figures that give Hillary a higher percentage of votes; so for Pennsylvania, for example, I used 55%):
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html

Legend:
state---total pledged delegates available---Hillary's predicted take (based on polling)---Hillary's likely delegates yield

CT 55--0.51--28
MD 95--0.58--55
PA 189--0.55--104
IN 83--0.48--40
CA 475--0.48--228
NJ 126--0.53--67

(In other words, for Connecticut, for example, there are 55 total pledged delegates available. Polling predicts Hillary will win about 51% of the votes, meaning about 51% of the pledged delegates will be awarded to her. 51% of 55 means she should get about 28 pledged delegates from Connecticut, based on recent polls.)

total pledged delegates Hillary is likely to win from these 6 states, based on recent polling:
28 + 55 + 104 + 40 + 228 + 67 = 522

That will give Hillary 1,443 + 522 = 1,965 pledged delegates.

There are an additional 13 states & territories that will also contribute pledged delegates, but I haven't seen polling for them, so I can't say what fraction Hillary is currently expected to win. These states/territories are:

DE 21
RI 24
Guam 7
WV 29
KY 55
OR 61
Virgin Is 7
PR 60
MT 21
NM 34
ND 18
SD 20
DC 20

The total yield from all of these latter states/territories is 377. In other words, if Hillary won 100% of all the pledged delegates from these states/territories where we don't have good polling, she would take an additional 377. (Obviously, she won't will ALL of their delegates in reality.)

The magic number to clinch the nomination is 2,383.

Since Hillary's pledged delegates haul is likely to be 1,965 after winning the 6 upcoming states for which we do have polls, she will need 2,383 - 1,965 = 418 additional pledged delegates from the states/territories for which we don't have good recent polls.

However, as noted above, even if she won ALL of the pledged delegates from those 13 states/territories, she would still fall short by 418 - 377 = 41 pledged delegates.

Of course, anything could happen in the next few weeks. The polls could dramatically change based on a terrorist attack or huge gaffe or something--or the polls could just be wrong. But if the polls are reasonably accurate and nothing changes, if my math is correct, Abramson is still right.

[Peace Patriot]

1. This is an important post & I hope it gets K&Red a lot!

Your methodology and numbers look pretty good to me. But I only have time right now for a quick scan of it. I will bookmark and come back later.

I've had the impression for weeks that this was the case--Clinton can't reach the magic number. And I think I've seen some other articles to this effect. (Seth Abrahmson?)

Thanks for making this effort. Very important work, to gage just where we are!

[ALittleBirdie]

2. K & R

[TBF]

3. There has been tremendous push

the past few days on social media to dispirit Bernie voters. I have even seen it on forums that are supposed to be pro-Bernie. Calls for civility while folks insist on posting the question "would you vote for Hillary". The reason for the constant barrage is that they want to make her SEEM inevitable so that we give up. Even some pretty experienced Bernie advocates are falling for this and giving these people the benefit of the doubt.

I have also seen a few glimmers of where it's coming from - the Koch Bros.: http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/hillary-clinton-president-gop-pick-charles-koch/story?id=38622141

OK, this is Koch money and they are switching to Hillary, or at least hedging their bets by supporting her as an establishment candidate along with the chosen repug. If the repugs actually run Trump they may even support her more strongly. If we had any doubt where the sudden media stirrings are coming from it's got to be a public relations firm hiring folks to post on behalf of Hillary - and Koch money can afford that. They are going to have scripts and they are going to push certain ideas. I think that is what we're seeing.

So they will try their best to dispirit us, and especially dispirit voters in California. That is a huge state with a lot of delegates. A big win there for Bernie will push Hillary out of the race. Do you think they don't realize this?

Thank you very much for putting up the numbers as a defense. They may be getting drowned out by the white noise, but for thoughtful folks who are still reading we DO still have a chance here.

[greymouse]

6. Well, when I see those would you vote for Hillary

posts, I take pleasure in enumerating all the reasons I would never vote for her. In fact I can cut and paste at this point. It doesn't dispirit me, it just makes me more and more mad as hell.

[TBF]

7. Awesome, thank you -

I think part of their strategy is not only to ask that question (which implies she is inevitable), but also just to get her trending (Twitter and other social media sites). They want the buzz to be about her. Her super PACs are investing big in this.

Our best defense is likely a good offense. Just keep talking about why Bernie is awesome (which isn't difficult to do).

[LiberalElite]

4. K&R nt

[findrskeep]

5. K & R nt