Cos (cos) wrote,
Cos
cos

The numbers after Super Tuesday

Enough states have voted that the end is getting clearer.

TL;DR: Probably President Clinton. Well, it was already the most probably outcome before any primaries happened, but it's getting kinda close to near-certain now. Here's how I see the numbers...

Democratic primary

Bernie Sanders started his campaign with a solid, realistic chance at getting nominated, but a small one. Beating Clinton was always going to be very difficult for him, though definitely possible. He made a valiant effort, and I hope he continues at it for a couple more months, but unfortunately it looks like it's not happening. Clinton has won unless something big and unexpected happens.

Before I say why I believe that, let's get one thing out of the way: Forget the superdelegates. They don't matter. Whoever wins more pledged (elected) delegates will get the nomination, period.

Why? Imagine if one candidate won a majority of pledged delegates, but superdelegates pushed a different candidate over the top to get the nomination. We'd have a contested convention, because people wouldn't know who the nominee would be until the convention decided, which means that the process of supporters of the losing candidates getting behind the winning nominee, which normally happens before the convention, wouldn't get started until after the convention - too soon before the election. Worse, if the candidate who won more delegates in primaries didn't get the nomination, a lot of that candidate's supporters would feel, quite rightly, that the nomination was illegitimately stolen from them. It's a recipe for losing the election.

Superdelegates know that, and they're party leaders - the very people who most care about the good of the party. So they won't let that situation happen. When we know for sure who's going to have a majority of pledged delegates, superdelegates will switch their support if necessary to make sure that candidate gets the nomination. That's what happened in 2008: Clinton started with a very large superdelegate lead over Obama, but near the end of the primaries most of the undeclared superdelegates declared their support for Obama, and many of the Clinton superdelegates switched to him.

So, superdelegates are irrelevant. Just look at the pledged delegate counts.

Predicting election results from polls and intuition and demographics and experience is one thing. We're at a different stage: Now that Super Tuesday has happened, about 1/4 of pledged delegates have already been voted on. Looking at actual voting results in a primary contest is usually a very reliable indicator of future voting in the same primary contest. We can see the patterns, and have high confidence they won't change much as long as the same candidates are running.

What do we see? First and foremost, we see Clinton leading by around 200 pledged delegates. With a significant chunk of delegates already voted on, that means only 3/4 of delegates remain to be elected, and Sanders would need to make up that ~200 delegate deficit to win.

Where is Sanders going to gain 200+ delegates over Clinton? I can't see a way for him to do it.

Lots of people point to the fact that he had big wins in Colorado and Minnesota on Super Tuesday, in addition to his home state Vermont. This indicates, they suggest, that he can win some of the bigger states coming up, outside the south. But I see something different: Colorado and Minnesota were the only caucus states on Super Tuesday. What I think we saw is that Sanders' campaign is getting very good at caucuses. Which is great, but not enough.

This is actually a big part of how Obama beat Clinton: By beating her solidly in nearly every caucus state, he racked up slow but steady delegate leads to offset some of her gains in the bigger states. Coupled with very strong wins in southern states with high black populations, that allowed him to maintain a modest delegate lead she was never able to quite match.

Problem for Sanders is, Clinton is winning overwhelmingly in the southern states! We saw that on Super Tuesday and should expect it to continue. Caucus states are not numerous enough, and most of them are small; caucuses + rural northern New England won't be enough to even break even with Clinton, let alone overtake her. He needs something else.

Massachusetts is what showed us that he's not likely to get much else.

Yes, sure, it's a remarkable achievement for him to have pretty much broken even with Clinton in Massachusetts. It is indeed impressive, and it shows that his campaign has a lot more support and strength than most people foresaw. Clinton's strength is in states with a strong Democratic establishment, people with a lot of party history who have connections to the Clintons. Places where the cities big and small have strong Democratic parties with Clinton-supporting mayors and aldermen and councilors who have networks of people they can turn out to vote. Clinton should've dominated here, and instead, the result was so close that Sanders and Clinton will each get the same number of delegates.

But impressive as it is, it's not enough. If Sanders cannot win Massachusetts, he's going to do worse in the states with more established party organizations, or even similar ones that are further from Vermont. He's going to lose NY and CT and RI and CA and NJ and MD... he's going to fall further behind on delegates. Where can he make up for it?

Sanders' campaign is suggesting the midwest, but if he could win solid wins in midwestern primaries, he'd have been able to win solidly in Massachusetts too. Michigan is coming up soon, and every poll there so far - including a few within the past week - show Clinton up by double digits. Maaaybe Sanders can close the gap, but what he needs is a big win. Instead, it seems the only question is whether Clinton's delegate lead will grow just a little bit, or a lot. Other midwestern primaries will follow a similar pattern. In the meantime, Clinton will continue gaining large delegate leads in primaries outside the midwest, with the south cancelling out Sanders' gains from caucuses.

Edit: Since I first wrote this, we got results from several more states that happen to perfectly illustrate what I'm saying.

Sanders solidly won caucuses in Kansas, Nebraska, and Maine. Clinton overwhelmingly won a primary in Louisiana. Net result: About the same number of delegates for each, with Clinton's lead remaining at around 200 delegates.

Kansas: Sanders 23, Clinton 10
Nebraska: Sanders 15, Clinton 10
Maine: Sanders 16, Clinton 9
Louisiana: Sanders 14, Clinton 37
Total: Sanders 68, Clinton 66

This is actually quite representative of the south vs. caucuses in general. Sanders is not going to make up his delegate deficit this way. What remain, mostly, are the high-population coastal states and midwestern primaries. Sanders could win significantly in Oregon and Washington, but in the rest it looks like he will either lose or break even, meaning that overall Clinton's lead will probably grow, and certainly not shrink by 200.


Sanders should keep on running. Why?
  • Clinton might stumble, or some big unexpected thing might happen. It's out of his control - Sanders can't make Clinton lose. But it's always good to still be there, still running, if some shock upsets the race, so he's in a position to pick up the pieces. Not likely, but if it does happen, it's good to have a strong candidate ready as a backup to take the nomination.

  • Contested Democratic primaries and the attention paid to them will help Democrats win in November. More Democratic debates, contrasting with the ridiculous Republican spectacle, help - but they won't help much if Sanders stops running and people stop watching them. The appearance of a real contest in each state about to vote is also going to give a lot more press coverage to Democratic issues, to offset press coverage of Republican issues and prevent those from dominating people's attention. And when Clinton and Sanders organize for primary votes, they're building organization for the general election too. More Democratic organizers will gain experience, connections with voters, and familiarity with this year's neighborhoods and polling places and reporters and so on.

  • Sanders' challenge makes Clinton a stronger candidate. As she adapts to him, she becomes better able compete against others. That's especially true if Trump gets the Republican nomination, because he'll hit Clinton at her weakest point: the idea that politicians are bought and paid for and work for the corporations and lobbyists who buy them. Sanders has been hitting a similar theme, and she's learning how to respond to that and in the process developing the messages she'll need to fend off Trump.


In the 2008 primaries, when Obama's victory was clear from the numbers but Clinton kept campaigning for several more months, we had a wrinkle that worked against my usual recommendation that contested primaries are good. Obama's lead was modest and Clinton had the support of a lot more superdelegates, and various Clinton campaign sources and others were suggesting that she should try to contest the convention even if Obama won the primaries. Although I doubt she could've done so successfully, the mere attempt would've been very destructive to Obama's chances in November... and Clinton kept refusing to disavow such plans! In the face of that, it was important to ensure that Obama's delegate lead would be large enough to dissuade Clinton from even trying to contest the convention, and that's why at the time I urged everyone voting in the primaries to vote for Obama even if they preferred Clinton.

But we have no such wrinkle this year. There's no prospect whatsoever of Sanders attempting to contest the convention if Clinton wins a majority of pledged delegates. So the better Sanders does in remaining primaries, the better off we'll be. Especially in the extremely unlikely case that he pulls off a victory - a legitimate one.


Republican primary

I used to say Trump had no chance at the nomination, and I've changed my mind, but I want to tell you why: Trump is a sure loser for the Republicans, and most Republican leaders know it. Not only that, but he's antithetical to much of what they believe in. So unlike anyone else in a multicandidate race, it's not enough for Trump to win more delegates than any one of his rivals. To be sure of the nomination, he needs to win a majority, that is, more than all of his rivals combined. If he goes into the convention with less than a majority, Republicans will be very tempted to prevent him from being nominated.

Yes, as I said above, a contested convention is a recipe for losing the general election. But nominating Trump is also a recipe for losing, perhaps even more surely. So in Trump's case, a contested convention may not be the worst option.

However, what I didn't consider was the effect of winner-take-all states. I knew that in the Republican primary, some states are winner-take-all (as opposed to the Democratic primary, where they're all kinda-proportional). It turns out to be a lot of states, including some of the biggest. Including Ohio and Florida, for example. And there's a chance Trump could win them both, and get all of their delegates. So... it looks like Trump does have a chance at an actual majority.

Even if he doesn't get a true majority, if Trump wins enough of the big winner-take-all states, he could go into the convention with a very large lead over every other candidate. That would greatly increase the risk to the Republican party of not nominating him, since it would seem so very unfair to his supporters. So they might let him have the nomination.

Super Tuesday made that more likely, because Marco Rubio did just well enough to ensure he wouldn't drop out. He'll stay in long enough to try to win Florida. Whether he wins or loses there, it means enough delegates will be split between him and Cruz in the states in between, that Trump could keep a very large lead if he wins some winner-take-all states. When it comes to the convention, Republicans will be faced with a really bad lose-lose choice: Trump or contested convention.

Whichever of those they go with, chances are, Clinton will beat them in November.

Edit: Since I first started writing this, we've also had a few more Republican primaries. We see that Trump's lead is declining a little, but that he could still win Florida or Ohio or both. The chances of a contested Republican convention are increasing, especially if Trump doesn't win both of those states.
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 15 comments
So...whether or not Sanders should keep going, do you think he will?
And how do you deal with the Sanders or bust people? I have one on my flist on FB who went so far as to post that anybody supporting Clinton should defriend him now.
Yes, I think Sanders will keep going.

As for people like that, I'd just humor them for now. This is the stage of the primaries where people are prone to get the bitterest. I understand the feeling, and I'm really unhappy that Clinton is getting this nomination, and want to make it as hard for her as possible, but I also think it's important to defeat the Republican nominee and I think most people like the one you describe will come around to that. Except for some of the ones who never would've supported the Democrat in the first place, if Sanders hadn't run (and to be fair Sanders is attracting a good number of such people).
Also, any change after Michigan?

cos

March 9 2016, 13:52:08 UTC 11 months ago Edited:  March 9 2016, 14:06:25 UTC

I'm excited and happy to see how well he did in Michigan compared to the polls. But he gained 8 delegates in Clinton in Michigan while she gained 28 on him in Mississippi, and we're now 166 delegates closer to the end. Overall he's lost ground since Super Tuesday, not just in that Clinton's lead is a little bigger, but more importantly in terms of what percentage of remaining delegates he needs to win.

To actually win he needs big solid wins in states like Massachusetts and Michigan, not to hold even. However, to keep his campaign going strong, with the press covering it as a serious race, he just needs to keep winning some states, even by a little, and Michigan will serve that purpose nicely.

If Clinton were only up by 100 or less after Super Tuesday, I could see some reasonable paths for Sanders to catch up, though they'd be difficult paths, and the odds would be with her. In that scenario, yesterday's Michigan result would be very encouraging, as it would show that maybe he was doing well enough to catch up. But now, it just means IMO that if he does everything right and things break his way, he could cut her lead down to ~100 by the end. She doesn't need a big lead at the end to get the nomination, she just needs a lead of 1 or more.

I'm still going to hope that she'll stumble badly, or some unexpected event will overturn the campaign in his favor, but that's a real long shot. My expectation is that Clinton has won.
Hey, you'd be a good person to ask. What is your opinion about superdelegates? It makes me deeply uncomfortable that some people's votes count for more than other people's votes.
My view is that superdelegates don't matter in selecting the nominee, as I explained in this post. So on that level, their votes don't count at all.

However, they do count in setting media perception at the start of a primary season, so it would be nice to whittle down their voting power to the point where it didn't have that effect. On the other hand, there are so many other things that set media perception in counterproductive ways, that superdelegates aren't that big a deal on that front.
I think there are advantages and disadvantages to having superdelegates, but the "some people's votes count more than others" argument, which I've heard before in those exact words, is misleading, IMO.

At the convention, your vote doesn't count for anything directly. It only counts in that you helped select people whose votes do count. Some of those you helped select by being part of the presidential primary electorate, others you helped select by being part of the electorate that elected your senator, or whatever office makes someone a superdelegate.
I don't buy that framing for a moment.

Pledged delegates are put up by the presidential campaign. When you vote for them, you get exactly what you're voting for: national convention votes for the candidate you want. Superdelegates were selected before it's even known how the candidates are going to be, and make up their own mind, so even if you *wanted* to vote for, say, US Representative based on which presidential candidate they'd support for nomination at the convention, you couldn't do it. Not only that, but a majority of superdelegates aren't even people holding current elected office. Most of them are DNC members and state party chairs and the like; the house + senate + governors makes up less than half.

If superdelegates' votes really did matter in the same way as pledged delegate votes when selecting the nominee, then yes, absolutely it would be a case of some people's votes counting more than others. A lot more.
The party officials are also elected in primaries or other functions open to party members, or by those elected through some number of tiers by people who are. Calling them delegates (super or otherwise) is misleading, if one is drawing the general distinction between representatives and delegates. But their authority derives from the voters of a party.

The ultimate inputs to the system are all given equal weight (modulo slight differences in district size, which are small except for the US Senate). It is true that some authority is delegated to others, along with other the other measures of authority that come with various offices. It is also true that pledged (and unpledged) delegates have the authority to vote for whomever they want in the unlikely event no one gets a majority on the first ballot.

Is it wrong that they have that authority? Should we have a system by which registered party members can vote from home, electronically? Possibly that would indeed be better. But I don't think that's what the implication in the argument about some people counting more than others is about. And no merely because of the improbability of a deadlocked convention.

We invest people with authority when we select them to serve various functions. The argument as you state is makes it sound like they have special rights as some hereditary aristocracy. Too often, in practice, that is close to the truth. But only because we the people don't take sufficient care in whom we elect. The power is ours.
All I can add is that this rationalization is utterly ridiculous and you should stop digging the hole.
I think Sanders' one chance of unseating Clinton is NY. Not because he'll mathematically narrow the count by that much (I agree with you there) but because if he does to her in NY what he did in Michigan it will make her look like a much weaker general-election candidate. If he does beat her there AND superdelegates start to move toward him (I agree this has to happen pre-convention because they will surely close ranks at the convention) THEN he has life going into California which he would also need to win, and by more than 2%. Those are some long odds, but they are not zero.

I do NOT like the "Clinton stumbles" scenario, though I admit it's always possible. Her stumble will mostly hurt her in a general election. She's too smart and too well-managed to implode entirely and Democrats are too nice to kick her if she falls down. Republicans will be ALL OVER that, however.

On the Republican side I see Trump taking Florida handily; as I wrote in my own LJ I think the only question is whether Rubio calls it quits before or after FL. I'm betting on Kasich taking OH (and I see 538 is also predicting it that way right now, though not by a large margin). Despite the winner-take-all states I don't think it's going to be easy for Trump to get to the convention with a mathematical majority; I do agree that his large plurality is going to put the RNC In a tight spot.

In a Trump-Clinton general election I'm confident that Clinton can get the endorsements of Sanders, Warren, and Obama, each of whom will bring some voter segments to the polls. And if Trump continues to hover below 50% of Republican voters it could be a walk-off. But I would not bet on that - at least, not yet.
I Sanders beats Clinton in NY that would indeed be a big deal and change the race significantly, but Massachusetts tells me he won't. I should've just ignored the polls and gone based on what I said I was going by, which is the voting patterns evident from actual voting results so far. Midwestern states should be a little bit better for Sanders than MA, which the rest of the mid-Atlantic and southern New England states should be a little worse for him, and in NY Clinton has the additional home state effect. Michigan was a surprise based on the polls, but totally consistent with what I would predict without those polls, and Clinton winning NY is consistent with that.

Superdelegates will eventually close ranks around whoever is going to get a majority of pledged delegates. Continue ignoring them or what they're doing now or what they might do after the next few primaries.

Clinton is very unlikely to really stumble. But if she does, and it's during the primaries, it'd be a really good thing to have Sanders close behind her, because then he can win. But like I said, very unlikely.

> I think the only question is whether Rubio calls it quits before or after FL

That *was* the question before Super Tuesday. I think Super Tuesday's results mean that he will stick it out through Florida. Since Cruz is trying his best to prevent Rubio from winning Florida, a Trump win seems very likely. Cruz is trying the same thing against Kasich in Ohio, too, increasing the likelihood of a Trump win there.

I will bet on Trump losing to Clinton because he's so toxic to minority voters and has such sky-high negatives with the general public.

pseydtonne

March 11 2016, 23:35:37 UTC 11 months ago Edited:  March 11 2016, 23:39:44 UTC

Begging your pardon, because otherwise I loved this write-up. Your political analysis keeps getting better and is rooted in a good ground-up process -- from people canvasing to patterns arising therefrom.

Nevertheless I live in Oklahoma. I voted on Super Tuesday. I did not attend a caucus, as there weren't any. I heard NPR mention once or twice that Oklahoma would have a caucus. However we didn't, at least not in Tulsa County (the second most populous county in the state). Both Democrats and Republicans filled out ballot cards and fed them into the scanner.

(I was very happy to fill out a Dem-only ballot. The GOP one had santorum on it.)

So no, Sanders winning Oklahoma was not a caucus result. It was Sanders's folks going door to door and building the network -- I saw that. It was Sanders speaking in downtown Tulsa at the BOK Center and having to open a second room in the hall for the overflow. He came here and people were psyched. Sanders in Tulsa was a verification of the art-scene and increasingly hipster nature of Tulsa versus bigger but duller OKC.

Also: Oklahoma is not a Southern state. It wasn't a slave state. It didn't secede from the Union. It wasn't even a state until 1907. It has Southern influence, but it's more like a Canada for Texas. It's a Midwestern state, with a lot of southwestern and Native American influence. It's red, but it's not Stars and Bars.
Oooh, you're right! That paragraph was supposed to say "Colorado", not "Oklahoma". He had a nice solid win in the Oklahoma primary but the really big wins were CO and MN. I'll correct the post.

Regarding the P.S., though: I don't see anywhere I even slightly implied that Oklahoma (or Colorado, once I correct the post) is southern. Clinton is sweeping the south with big wins; Neither Oklahoma nor Colorado is part of that, obviously. If Sanders had actually won a southern state, that would've been huge news and figured really prominently in my post.
Oh, you're right. Sorry. I misread the Southern part. My bad.