2015-2016 Democratic Primary Season - Bernie Math

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by stevew

Do States that go early have additional primaries later in the year? Cause that's kind of silly if they do.

Varies by state most likely, I imagine some do & some don't.

Georgia had a "Presidential Preference Primary" on March 1 (along with a couple of minor special elections in localities that needed them).

The "General Primary Election, Non-Partisan General Election, and Special Runoff Election" is coming up May 24.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by stevew

Do States that go early have additional primaries later in the year? Cause that's kind of silly if they do.

Depends on who and why. A state that tries to jump the party-established queue risks losing delegates if they do, so their early primary may be non-binding, just to get into the news cycle, with the 'binding, this one counts, please don't penalize us' primary happening later.

[stevew]

I just meant "Early" in the sense that they are among the first to hold a primary. Not that they were jumping the line

[Neuqua]

This Democratic debate tonight has been unwatchable. Neither candidates are answering the questions given to them and the crowd can't keep themselves quiet at all.

[albionmoonlight]

Democrats moving toward the center gave me two of the best presidents of my lifetime: Bill Clinton and Obama. Further, it allowed them to capture moderate voters and win the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections.

So I am sad to see Bernie push the party back to the left. He won't win the nomination, but last night's debate showed that he has been successful in getting the rhetoric to shift leftward. I think that this is the first step toward a Walter Mondale level drubbing 8 or 12 years from now.

[larrymcg421]

Sanders' supporters are lashing out, but here's how they might be hurting his campaign - LA Times

[larrymcg421]

2014 Effective Tax Rates:

Bernie Sanders - 13.5%
Hillary Clinton - 35.7%

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

Is there any kind of useful point you are trying to make here? There is absolutely no real value in providing this tidbit of info without providing their income. Wouldn't you want a couple making $200,000 (i.e. upper middle class) to have a MUCH lower effective tax rate than a couple making tens of millions of dollars?

They absolutely should. And I didn't think it was a secret that Clinton makes more money than Sanders, so the context of their incomes was clear by their name.

The point is that Clinton is painted as this Romney-like capitalist who makes all this money from big speeches and takes all this money from big banks, but she definitely pays her "fair share" in income taxes. There's a reason Bernie didn't want to release his returns. He probably never thought he'd get this far or he would've arranged a higher tax rate. Don't think for a second that Hillary couldn't have paid way less if she tried to game this system like the corrupt career politician people make her out to be.

[miked]

People who are upset about Hilary's speaking fees are not upset about her not paying taxes on them. They are upset that she gave the speeches to employees of companies that nearly destroyed our economy that were "allegedly" pro-banks.

[stevew]

Will be interesting to see if any new Pennsylvania polls come out. I assume that Hillary will win something like 54-46 but the fact that Sestak is currently up by 10 points over party-backed hopeful McGinty is at least interesting. Not sure how much of the Sestak/Sanders crossover there is but there could be something there.

[ISiddiqui]

I thought Fetterman was the candidate for Sanders' supporters? He's the only one backing Sanders after all.

And Sestak, while not endorsing anyone this go around, did back Clinton in 2008 over Obama.

[stevew]

I guess what I'm saying is that the "Establishment" D is only running at 30some percent so I wonder if the Hilary/Sanders thing will become a lot tighter than expected.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

I guess my issues with this line of thinking is:

2. We all know (as you mentioned) that Clinton's generous tax payment was a very calculated move on her part. That makes her look even more conniving/manipulative to

Maybe she just used H. & R. Block software to do her taxes.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by stevew

I guess what I'm saying is that the "Establishment" D is only running at 30some percent so I wonder if the Hilary/Sanders thing will become a lot tighter than expected.

While McGinty may be the "establishment" D, to say Sestak is some anti-establishment outsider is a bit silly, considering he was the party's nominee in 2008, and while in Congress he was a super-centrist. The big time Dems are lining up against Sestak mostly because he already lost to Toomey.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

I guess my issues with this line of thinking is:

1. My personal opinion is that the effective tax rate for $200,000 should be <13% and $15,000,000 should be >50%, so at least for me the release of this info doesn't make me think any worse of Sanders or more highly of Clinton.

2. We all know (as you mentioned) that Clinton's generous tax payment was a very calculated move on her part. That makes her look even more conniving/manipulative to

I don't see how anyone who has watched the last 8 years doesn't think we need someone who can be conniving/manipulative. Is Bernie going to 'nice' the Republicans into submission? Especially since he's doing NOTHING to help ensure a Democratic majority will be there to support him?

I posted 4 years ago that I didn't get why Romney was so weird about his taxes since he's been running for so long. If he'd just avoided deductions for a while then he could've released them with no problem. Hillary was smart enough to avoid that same mistake.

The fact that Bernie has been so unwilling to release his returns is a big red flag. I mean the Democrats spent the previous Presidential election excoriating Romney for refusing to release his returns. How would it make ANY sense to then nominate someone who so far has done the exact same thing?

The tax return issue doesn't at all change my view of who Hillary or Bernie are as people, but it does hammer home the point that I've said all along. While I agree with Bernie more on an ideological level, he is completely unprepared for the general election campaign and the Presidency.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

While McGinty may be the "establishment" D, to say Sestak is some anti-establishment outsider is a bit silly, considering he was the party's nominee in 2008, and while in Congress he was a super-centrist. The big time Dems are lining up against Sestak mostly because he already lost to Toomey.

Also, many of them are upset that he ran against and beat Specter.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

While I agree with Bernie more on an ideological level, he is completely unprepared for the general election campaign and the Presidency.

This.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

The tax return issue doesn't at all change my view of who Hillary or Bernie are as people, but it does hammer home the point that I've said all along. While I agree with Bernie more on an ideological level, he is completely unprepared for the general election campaign and the Presidency.

Yep. I like a lot of what Bernie has to say ideologically, but I think in a practical sense, Hillary can be a much more effective President. And her election can help drive the balance in Congress more toward the D side, since she will try to help people down the ballot. I like Bernie the person better, but I think I also like Hillary the President better. I think based on that, I will vote for her in the upcoming CT primary.

[JPhillips]

Hillary being kept honest by Bernie is the optimal outcome for me.

[Solecismic]

New York Primary today. Clinton is +12 in the RCP.

Sanders has won several caucuses in a row, but that doesn't necessarily mean there's momentum. If he were to win New York somehow, that would show momentum and maybe this would turn into a race.

[ISiddiqui]

If he were to win New York, it'd be more stunning than Michigan, I'd think. And would cut into the delegate lead quite dramatically.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

New York Primary today. Clinton is +12 in the RCP.

Sanders has won several caucuses in a row, but that doesn't necessarily mean there's momentum. If he were to win New York somehow, that would show momentum and maybe this would turn into a race.

If Clinton does win by 12, is there any math that gets Bernie the nomination?

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

If Clinton does win by 12, is there any math that gets Bernie the nomination?

Because the Dems do things proportionally, there is no math to get Bernie the nomination. There are no winner-take-all states to give him huge bites of delegates.

Bernie gets the nomination if

Clinton becomes critically ill (like cancer or a major stroke or something)
Clinton gets indicted over the State Department email scandal

Clinton gets the nomination in all other circumstances.

[molson]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

If Clinton does win by 12, is there any math that gets Bernie the nomination?

I posted this earlier, but I think this a good starting point to answer questions like this. This pathway was a long-shot scenario to a Sanders win. Since then, he's under-performed these targets in Wisconsin (by 2 delegates) and Wyoming (by 4 delegates). So you can distribute those 6 delegates over the rest of the states to make a new long-shot target. If Sanders loses by 56-44% or so in New York and only gets 44% of the New York delegates, 109, then he will have missed his target there by 19. So he'd be a total of 25 in the hole from the already long-shot path. It's statistically possible to make that up. But he would need double-digit wins in several states where he's currently down in the polls. Or he could, for example, hit all of the targets from this list, but then win California by +28%. Extraordinary unlikely, but I don't think we're close to the Sanders campaign slowing down. If he underperforms this path in New York (which means he loses or wins by less than 4%), and every state next Tuesday, then I think maybe there will be a change in tone in this campaign.

It’s Really Hard To Get Bernie Sanders 988 More Delegates | FiveThirtyEight

[Solecismic]

Sanders needs 68% of the remaining delegates and superdelegates. It's not realistic to think he has a chance unless something critical changes - and changes quickly.

[flere-imsaho]

If Clinton becomes critically ill (per one of albion's scenarios), my money's on Biden before Sanders.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

If Clinton becomes critically ill (per one of albion's scenarios), my money's on Biden before Sanders.

If that happened, I'd never go on Facebook again.

[larrymcg421]

By the way, did you guys know that the very first closed primary in the history of the United States is happening tonight? I mean that's just my guess based on how the Sanders campaign and their supporters have acted in the past week.

[NobodyHere]

Well Bernie has to be somewhat heartened that they didn't call the race immediately.

[larrymcg421]

Clinton so far is ahead 60-40 in majority white precincts of New York City. This does not look like a good night for Sanders.

— Nate Cohn (@Nate_Cohn) April 20, 2016

[Solecismic]

The Sanders narrative of this race has grown rather fanciful - the polls seem to have underestimated Clinton's lead a little.

Another fact that should encourage the Clinton camp - Trump likes to boast that he'll put New York in play. He won't. The vote total from the Democrats is dwarfing the vote total from the Republicans. New York and California remain reliably blue anchors around the legs of any Republican candidate, orange or deep red.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

The Sanders narrative of this race has grown rather fanciful - the polls seem to have underestimated Clinton's lead a little.

Indeed. You have to wonder when the Sanders supporters would accept this... my Facebook feed will be happy, I'm sure.

[NobodyHere]

Well the New York result is in

[Solecismic]

Early estimate of New York results.

Clinton +16%, 139-108 in pledged delegates.

Totals to date:

Pledged - Clinton 1446, Sanders 1205
Wins - Clinton 21, Sanders 17
Superdelegates - Clinton 478, Sanders 40

Total - Clinton 1924, Sanders 1245
Delegates remaining - 1,407 pledged, 196 superdelegates

Percentage needed of remaining delegates, Clinton - 28.9%
Percentage needed if superdelegates were assigned WTA - 37.9%
Percentage needed if superdelegates were assigned proportionally - 42.3%

The difference between the last two calculations is interesting. Sanders has won 17 contests, but mostly smaller states in caucuses. So if superdelegates were assigned winner-take-all, Hillary has most of the major ones. Her lead would be 304-138 among decided states. But if it were done proportionally, her lead would only be 231-211. However, her lead is 309-31 (102 undecided) with superdelegates in states that have already voted (and 169-9, 94 undecided in those that haven't).

I get why Sanders supporters are unhappy, but I don't think the race is close enough where they should feel anything is being stolen.

[JPhillips]

It's amazing how closely the vote totals of Clinton/Obama in 2008 match Clinton/Sanders in 2016.

[molson]

I'm reading a lot on reddit and my facebook wall about how Sanders really won because he won far more counties.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm reading a lot on reddit and my facebook wall about how Sanders really won because he won far more counties.

Haha, I love that. That's actually a pretty radical right wing argument. If Sanders somehow won the nomination, he would have zero chance in the general if it was decided by counties.

[molson]

Ya, 1964 was the last time a Democratic presidential candidate won more counties than the Republican. Johnson won all the big rural states that have a lot of counties and low population density.

[ISiddiqui]

Sometimes Sanders' supporters really put their feet in their mouth, re: race. Those big population counties they are poo-poohing... where do they think the vast majority of African-American and Hispanic New Yorkers live?

[Radii]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm reading a lot on reddit and my facebook wall about how Sanders really won because he won far more counties.

I have all of the politics subs filtered out on reddit so I don't normally have to see them. Last night I went to /r/all so that I would just get everything and read through a few threads to have a good laugh.

There is some admirable stuff there, phone bank organization and the like, where people are trying to actually do something to make a difference. I absoultely respect that. Outside of that though there is an unbelievable amount of delusion.

[PilotMan]

.

[NobodyHere]

Well here's a calculator for the Democratic race

The Race to 2026 Delegates

[Ben E Lou]

[Kodos]

That's pretty good.

[molson]

Bernie math is real. /r/politics is a fascinating place right now. It's probably warping my view of the average Sanders voter, but, it's fascinating.

I just wonder how long this will all go. If Sanders gets swept today and only matches or under-performs the polls, will this all still be portrayed by Sanders, the Bernie Bros, and the media as a race in which Sanders is building momentum to an inevitable coronation and revolution?

[ISiddiqui]

Well, some of them are actively thinking that superdelegates will leave Hillary's side "as they did in 2008" (forget that that was completely and totally different in terms of how many superdelegates shifted and how many were undeclared at this point in the cycle), and that Sanders may be able to then win on the 2nd ballot.

[larrymcg421]

Tim Robbins says that the election is being stolen from Bernie because the exit polls don't measure the actual results.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by molson

Bernie math is real. /r/politics is a fascinating place right now. It's probably warping my view of the average Sanders voter, but, it's fascinating.

I just wonder how long this will all go. If Sanders gets swept today and only matches or under-performs the polls, will this all still be portrayed by Sanders, the Bernie Bros, and the media as a race in which Sanders is building momentum to an inevitable coronation and revolution?

The talk right now is that losing every state today wouldn't hurt him that much because they'll win the last 10 states and only need roughly 65% of the delegates from those 10.

The enthusiasm his supporters has is admirable, but the fact that they truly believe Hillary is stealing the election makes them look crazy. At no point do they accept that there may be an issue with his platform or his message.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Atocep

The talk right now is that losing every state today wouldn't hurt him that much because they'll win the last 10 states and only need roughly 65% of the delegates from those 10.

The enthusiasm his supporters has is admirable, but the fact that they truly believe Hillary is stealing the election makes them look crazy. At no point do they accept that there may be an issue with his platform or his message.

I don't think the problem is his platform. I think Sander's problem was that he didn't build a national brand soon enough. The more people hear of him the more they like him.

Although it doesn't help that many of his supporters treat him like a messiah and are insufferable.

[larrymcg421]

Just from a strategic standpoint, this Bernie or Bust movement seems like a terrible idea. Let's say the progressives make all this noise about staying home and Hillary still wins the election, the progressive movement is completely marginalized. Hillary can easily claim the center on day one because that's who put her in office.