David Wasserman:
Bernie Sanders’s supporters are fond of the hypothesis that Democratic superdelegates, the elected leaders and party officials who currently support Hillary Clinton by a lopsided-doesn’t-even-begin-to-describe-it 469 to 31, are going to bow to the “will of the people” if Sanders ends up winning more pledged delegates than Clinton by June.
There’s just one hiccup in this logic: Sanders fans seem to be conflating the pledged delegate count and the “will of the voters,” when in fact the two are far from interchangeable.
Sanders’s reliance on extremely low-turnout caucus states has meant the pledged delegate count overstates his share of votes. To date, Sanders has captured 46 percent of Democrats’ pledged delegates but just 42 percent of raw votes. So even if Sanders were to draw even in pledged delegates by June — which is extremely unlikely — Clinton could be able to persuade superdelegates to stick with her by pointing to her popular vote lead.
Sanders already has a nearly impossible task ahead of him in trying to erase Clinton’s pledged delegate lead. He’s down by 212 delegates, meaning he’d need to win 56 percent of those remaining to nose in front. He hasdominated caucus states such as Idaho and Washington, but only two caucus states — Wyoming and North Dakota — remain on the calendar. What’s more, the biggest states left — New York and California — favor Clinton demographically.
Including caucus results, Clinton leads Sanders by almost 2.4 million raw votes, 9.4 million to just more than 7 million, according to The Green Papers. So then, what would it take for Sanders to overtake Clinton in the popular vote by the end of the primaries in June?
To estimate how many votes remain to be counted, I first used data compiled by the handy U.S. Elections Project and The Green Papers to compare Democratic primary turnout in each state that’s voted so far to turnout rates in 2008. From 2008 to 2016, the average turnout in primary states as a share of the Voting Eligible Population has fallen from 20 percent to 14 percent. In caucus states, it’s fallen more modestly, from 4.4 percent to 3.7 percent.1
Then, I applied these average declines to the remaining 17 states and Washington, D.C.2 The result: There may be around 12.1 million votes left to be counted. That means Sanders would need to win about 60 percent of remaining voters and caucus attendees to overtake Clinton in popular votes — a very tall task for someone who’s only captured 42 percent up until now.
The much more likely scenario is that Clinton’s popular vote lead continues to expand until the race’s June 7 grand finale.
At the outset of the race, FiveThirtyEight laid out state-by-state targetsestimating how well Sanders and Clinton would need to do in each state to win half of the vote nationally. So far, Sanders has averaged about 8 percent ahead of his targets in caucus states (66 percent actual versus 58 percent predicted), but he’s averaged about 8 percent behind his targets in primary states (41 percent actual versus 49 percent predicted).
If nothing else, at least he’s honest and calls himself what he is- a socialist. The other day, Carville said Sanders shouldn’t be running as a dem because he’s not. Actually, there is really no difference so that’s exactly what he should be running as.
@another vet:
Honest,not in the least .You do realize that Bernie is there to make it seem not like an acclamation of HIllary. It must seem like an actual fight and not a coronation. This is all theatre; don’t buy it.I am curious as to what payoff the clintons have offered him though ?
The likelihood that Cruz could overtake Donald Trump is even more remote, yet Cruz remains in the republican contest.
In the case of the democratic contest, it’s not only about selecting a nominee. It’s also about setting the course of the party. A lot of people are responding very strongly to what Bernie Sanders is saying—particularly young people, who are the future of the nation. Win or lose, the Sanders campaign will be influential.
As for this:
If Sanders weren’t competitive, Wasserman wouldn’t be writing such an article. When people process a bit of what Sanders is saying, they suddenly begin listening a lot closer. You can see that in the faces of the people in his audiences. He’s not pitching to anger and divisiveness. He’s making people stop and think. He’s striking a chord that resonates across a lot of demographic divides.
If nothing else, I think he’s the most genuine of the lot. He’s a life-long idealist, taking a shot at making his ideals real.
@Rufusrastasjohnsonbrown: Perhaps I should have been more specific and said he was honest about being a socialist. The rest of his party claims they aren’t making most of them liars on that subject alone. Most pols aren’t honest to begin with regardless of their stripes.
At 74, Sanders has an estimated net worth of around $300,000—that, after 16 years in the House of Representatives and 10 in the Senate. Most of his income is his salary. He has donated the royalties of his book, The Speech, to charity. (That donation totaled $26,000, for 2011–2012 period.)
For Sanders, it has never been about the money. Nor is it about his ego. I respect that. It’s a rare thing in politicians these days.
@Greg: That’s why he pays some of his staff/helpers less than 15 dollars an hour.
Sanders support has been quietly building. The media, for some reason, hasn’t had much to say about what’s been happening. His most recent presidential match-up poll numbers are surprising. This doesn’t appear to be an anomalous poll result, either. His numbers have been steadily growing over time:
Clinton vs. Cruz, for the democratic nomination
Sanders vs. Cruz
Sanders vs. Trump
@Greg and Kitt: If anyone believes polls–Trump for instance only believes when they have him ahead—then Kasich clearly is the best choice to beat HRC or Bernie.
@Rich Wheeler #8:
That thinking is ONLY correct in the “all-other-things-being-equal case”, which does not necessarily apply here in the Twilight Zone that surrounds Donald Trump. It assumes “The Donald” doesn’t “skip-and-go-lucky” (or try to) just to screw the RNC for not loving him. Yeah, he would actually manage to get on only a few states’ ballots, but it wouldn’t take many to make the difference in a close contest, which it likely would be.
An example of what happens with a rigged system.
How would each of the various prospective nominees for the presidency address such a situation?