Where is the race now and where will the race be on April 9? The data favors Sanders

[Attorney in Texas]

Where is the race now?

Now, the race for voter-chosen delegates is tied.

Iowa

21 - Sanders
23 - Clinton

New Hampshire

15 - Sanders
9 - Clinton

Nevada (current projected allocation)

15 - Sanders
19 - Clinton

TOTAL

51 - Sanders
51 - Clinton

Where will the race be on April 9?

The demographics and scheduling of the contests over the next 50 days are interesting.

Clinton has a distinct advantage in states the tend to go Republican in general elections, and Sanders has an equal advantage in states that tend to break for Democrats (does this surprise anyone?).

Over the next critical 50 days, this demographic red-state advantage favors Clinton in the first part of this time period but then shifts to strongly favor Sanders in the last part of this period.

February 27 - March 1

Clinton's red-state advantage is strongest in the next 10 days. She enjoys a demographic red-state advantage in South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee (which borders her home state), Texas (which borders her home state), Virginia and her home state of Arkansas.

Clinton should have a red-state lock on Oklahoma, but Sanders is polling very strong in Oklahoma (Clinton has only a 46% to 44% lead) so that's a tossup despite the fact that it should be Clinton territory (it borders her home state).

Sanders looks very strong in Colorado (Sanders 49%; Clinton 43%), Massachusetts (Sanders 49%; Clinton 42%), Minnesota (there isn't recent polling but a poll a month ago indicated a margin-of-error race and Sanders is a 2-to-1 favorite in the betting markets), and Vermont (Sanders 86%; Clinton 10%).

March 5 - 15

There is not much recent polling in the early March states after Super Tuesday, and Clinton has a red-state advantage in several of those states plus a few contests involve states that border Clinton's home state of Arkansas. Notwithstanding these "should be" advantages for Clinton, the early March races are a mixed bag where it is not clear whether she can meet the expectations in a part of the primary calendar that ought to be tilted to her favor. She looks strong in Florida, red-state Louisiana (which also borders her home state), and red-state Mississippi (which also borders her home state).

But these early March contests also include Kansas and Nebraska (which even in-the-bag-for-Clinton polling analyst Nate Silver puts in Sanders' column based on demographic analysis and national polls), Maine (Sanders 56%; Clinton 41%), Michigan (which looks strong for Sanders based on the state-by-state cross-tabs within the national polling), and Missouri which should favor Clinton (it shares a border with her home state) but the last polling showed a tight race).

There is not much recent data in Illinois (Sanders is gaining but "undecided" is still in the lead), North Carolina, and Ohio (Sanders has narrowed the gap to 5% in the most recent poll), and these contests are a month away. It will be interesting to see how the race develops in these early March contests over the course of the next month.

March 22 - April 9

This is where Sanders breaks out. While Clinton owns a red-state advantage and home-state-neighbor advantage in many contests over the next month, that advantage evaporates for the 18 days that conclude the next phase of the campaign, where Sanders looks likely to win 8 out of 8 contests to pull into the lead.

Sanders is well ahead in Alaska (Sanders 48%; Clinton 34%), and multiple polls indicate that Wisconsin is a margin-of-error race with Sanders surging. Similarly, according to Silver's analysis (which has been nothing but favorable to Clinton), Idaho, Washington, and Wyoming "look favorable for Sanders." He has extrapolated the state-by-state cross-tabs in the Morning Consult national polling, the the analysis favors Sanders by a comfortable margin in Utah and Hawaii and by a narrower margin in Arizona.

Conclusion

By April 9, 34 states will have spoken.

By April 9, Sanders will likely have won at least half of these 34 states (my current estimate includes New Hampshire, Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Vermont, Kansas, Nebraska, Maine, Michigan, Alaska, Wisconsin , Idaho, Washington, Wyoming, Utah, Hawaii, and Arizona).

There are many close states that could also tip in Sanders direction, and so Sanders could easily win more than half of the first 34 states.

Hang on tight. Do not give up hope. We are on a good path to move America forward to a more peaceful, just, fair, and equal place!

[SidDithers]

1. Sanders is down by 25 points in Michigan...

How can you possibly put Michigan in the "Sanders likely" column?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/mi/michigan_democratic_presidential_primary-5224.html



ETA: even 538 says Clinton has a 98% chance of winning Michigan
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/michigan-democratic/

Your "analysis" is flawed.

Sid

[OilemFirchen]

2. Ohio...

His source is Overtime Politics.

[Attorney in Texas]

18. I specifically said there is not sufficient data to project a result in Ohio; Sanders 17 states do

not include Ohio, which may likely fall Sanders way.

[CoffeeCat]

78. Wow, Attorney in Texas--Looks like you struck a nerve!

The peanut-gallery posters are all over your enlightening and intriguing post. The mocking and chortling is at an all-time high! They even brought out their special weapon, ROFL guy!

Based solely on their attention to your post, I'd say that you're on to something!

I really like your analysis. There's no reason for Sanders to drop out. As you point out, many of the early states favor Clinton; a good number of the later states favor Sanders.

The worst thing that could happen to Clinton is that Sanders stays in the race. His continued march forward as a formidable opponent weakens HRC and gives voters additional opportunity to reconsider him.

There will be immense pressure for Sanders to drop out. Clinton won't have to say it. She'll get the media to say it--often.

It depends on what happens today (Super Tuesday) and throughout March. If he picks up 4-5 states on ST, there will be less pressure on Sanders to drop out. The longer he continues, the more he is strengthened and the more vulnerable she becomes. After all, the linchpin of her success is her "inevitability." She had that in spades, before Iowa. Slowly, Sanders eroded her "inevitability"--but now she's regained it due to her slight NV win and her solid SC win.

However, if Sanders can win enough states to erode HRC's primary weapon, her "inevitability", her campaign (once again) is vulnerable.

HRC has soaring untrustworthy numbers, in her own party. She's never had a clear message, other than what she's co-opted from Bernie's campaign playbook. Now, she's trying to talk about love and kindness--which is a fucking joke (her neocon pals and her Wall-Street owners must marvel at her shapeshifting). All she has is the notion that she's most likely going to be the nominee--"inevitability". If Sanders can toy with that a bit--just by staying in the race, it's possible that he could see a resurgence in his popularity.

He's got an uphill battle. He's currently in a trough, trying to climb out. His Feb fundraising efforts are excellent. He's still got that solid base of support behind him. She's still shilling for donations from Wall Street.

Let's hope that Super Tuesday looks decent for him! The longer he stays in, the better. However, he has to earn that--and hopefully some of these Sanders-friendly states will come through for him.

There's a reason that HRC has been campaigning in Minnesota and Mass. She wants him out as early as possible, precisely because of what you've laid out here.

Nice analysis, Attorney in Texas.

[rjsquirrel]

80. Ha ha

You seriously believe Bernie beats Clinton in Ohio?

Lol.

[workinclasszero]

61. Overtime Politics..oh my

They rank right up there with H A Goodman and this guy....

[Dr Hobbitstein]

3. If you ever need an attorney in Texas,

Don't hire him.

[CorkySt.Clair]

10. Maybe the OP can do some creative "smoothing"

[Attorney in Texas]

16. Smoothing is a variable for how you graph data points. I did not include any graphs. Otherwise, good

comment!

[Attorney in Texas]

15. So pro-Clinton PPP gives her a 10% lead (it has about a 10% house effect bias for Clinton), and Fox

"News" gives her a 33% lead so you think she has a 25% lead?

If you take comfort in that, good for you.

Pro-Clinton analysis of the cross-tabs in national polling shows Michigan leaning to Sanders (if you assume that, nationally, Clinton has a 12% lead, she should be 1% up in Michigan and if you assume the race is tied nationally, Sander should be up 11%):



In truth, the state of the national race falls somewhere between these two bookends:


(bear in mind, this polling aggregation of all likely voter polls includes a lot of polls with huge pro-Clinton house effects)

The Michigan cross-tabs in the national polling indicate that Sanders already leads Clinton with a trend toward a growing lead.

Still, if Fox "News" is bringing you the sort of comfort that helps you sleep through the night, I will not try to take that comfort from you. Rest in peace, my brother.

[SidDithers]

17. Thank you for unskewing the polls, and setting me straight...

I bow down to your clearly superior data analysis skillz.

Sid

[Attorney in Texas]

19. Unskewing polls involves taking the data gathered and applying different assumptions about the voter

base that will actually turnout and re-calculating the pollster's data using a different projected turnout model.

I'm not doing that, but thanks for your keen insight!

[SidDithers]

22. Bookmarking...

We'll keep the thread kicked until April 9, then see how close you were.

My prediction? Not very.

Sid

[Attorney in Texas]

26. Please honor your promise to keep this thread kicked until April 9.

[SidDithers]

66. Feb 24 kick...nt

Sid

[workinclasszero]

59. Sanders is down by 25 points in Michigan...

And that's Sanders likely???

Wow....

[thesquanderer]

99. Gotta give Attorney in Texas props for this one! (n/t)

Michigan (which looks strong for Sanders based on the state-by-state cross-tabs within the national polling)

Good call!

[MohRokTah]

4. OMFG!!!!

This reads like the crap the guy who used to unskew Romney's polls wrote!

[CorkySt.Clair]

11. ...

[reformist2]

12. Umm, Obama lost Texas, Pennsylvania, and California to Hillary in 2008 - and still went on to win.

[MohRokTah]

13. At this point in the 2008 election

Obama was on the eve of winning South Carolina with 55% and then 13 of 23 states on Super Tuesday and 847 of 1681 delegates.

No way does Sanders come close to matching that effort in the next nine days.

BTW, Obama lost the Texas primary and won the Texas caucus. This ended up with a total TX delegate count of Obama - 99 and Hillary - 94. By the only measure that mattered, Obama won Texas.

[Attorney in Texas]

27. No. Hillary is doing no better now than in 2008 (worse by most measures). See for yourself:

[MohRokTah]

29. You obviously did not read my post.

So there's no point in ever responding to you again.

Good bye.

[Attorney in Texas]

31. {{That's a relief}}

[Blus4u]

52. Roger that, A in T

You come out ahead on that one.

Peace

BTW, I live in TX and I would hire you.

[geek tragedy]

5. the problem is New York, New Jersey, California, Florida, Michigan, Virginia, Texas

are all big states with large numbers of non-white voters.

Sanders hasn't shown he can pick that lock yet.

[Attorney in Texas]

24. No, you are mistaken. First, this projection assumes Clinton may win Florida, Virginia and Texas but

since Florida, Virginia, and Texas mostly award delegates proportionately, that does not mean that Clinton will win an overwhelming delegate advantage by "winning" the state.

Second, I addressed Sanders' advantage in Michigan here:

So pro-Clinton PPP gives her a 10% lead (it has about a 10% house effect bias for Clinton), and Fox "News" gives her a 33% lead so you think she has a 25% lead?

If you take comfort in that, good for you.

Pro-Clinton analysis of the cross-tabs in national polling shows Michigan leaning to Sanders (if you assume that, nationally, Clinton has a 12% lead, she should be 1% up in Michigan and if you assume the race is tied nationally, Sander should be up 11%):



In truth, the state of the national race falls somewhere between these two bookends:


(bear in mind, this polling aggregation of all likely voter polls includes a lot of polls with huge pro-Clinton house effects)

The Michigan cross-tabs in the national polling indicate that Sanders already leads Clinton with a trend toward a growing lead.

Still, if Fox "News" is bringing you the sort of comfort that helps you sleep through the night, I will not try to take that comfort from you. Rest in peace, my brother.

Finally, this projection does no include states that will vote more than two months in the future (which excludes New York, New Jersey, and California) because he results over the next two months will heavily influence the results of primaries so far into the future. But, since you raise the question, analysis of state-by-state cross-tabs in national polling indicates NY currently looks like a toss up (which is shockingly bad for Clinton considering Clinton was a senator from NY), and the race will likely be over by the time California and New Jersey vote on June 7.

Thanks for your thoughts!

[Le Taz Hot]

86. You wanna bet?

Latinos in California are OVERWHELMINGLY going for Sanders. I know because we have been tabling at heavily Spanish-speaking events and they do NOT like Clinton. DO. NOT.

[Land of Enchantment]

6. Home state

for Hillary is Illinois, not Arkansas. March 12 is the Illinois primary with 182 delegates--she allegedly has 156 (Wiki). Any data on Illinois?

[greatauntoftriplets]

7. The Illinois primary is March 15.

http://elections.mytimetovote.com/dates/illinois.html

I haven't seen any data. Resources right now seem to be concentrated on Super Tuesday states.

[Kittycat]

21. See up above

I would be surprised if she holds IL with the state issues currently in play.

[Attorney in Texas]

25. Hillary was first lady in Arkansas, and she is inexorably tied to Bill Clinton who is from Arkansas

plus -- most importantly -- Clinton lost Illinois (by a HUGE margin) and won Arkansas in 2008 so I think it is more fair to treat Arkansas as Clinton's home state.

The OP includes this discussion of Illinois: "There is not much recent data in Illinois (Sanders is gaining but "undecided" is still in the lead)."

Beware of so-called delegate projections that include super delegates who have endorsed. Super delegate endorsements are not binding (i.e., if a super delegate endorsed O'Malley, the super delegate is not stuck with that endorsement), and when one candidate has a big lead in super delegate endorsements (like Clinton in 2008 and now), the super delegates flip to another candidate when the voters chose that candidate (like many Clinton super delegates flipped to Obama in 2008 even before she quit). Leaving aside a few super delegates who have not love or respect for democracy, the overwhelming majority of super delegates would not support a candidate who lost the primary vote. Super delegates are important to scaring timid challengers from entering the race, but they are generally good folks who believe in democracy and who would not betray the vote (plus, if we nominated any candidate who lost the primary vote, that candidate would be doomed in the general election; just wait, the Republicans may nominate a candidate who does not enter the convention with the most voter-allocated delegates and, if they do, it will lead to a ballot-wide massacre and may be the end of the Republican Party -- Democrats aren't that stupid).

[bigwillq]

60. Hello

Welcome to DU!

[JackRiddler]

65. Actually, I usually see the claim it's New York.

Very flexible they are!

[Joe the Revelator]

8. Spoiler Alert: Most of this lines up with the Prophet of Camp Clinton, Nate Silver's

own analysis of Bernie's path to a nomination.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bernie-sanderss-path-to-the-nomination/

[MFM008]

9. yeah and Nate Silver said

we were going to win the Superbowl last year. Nada
Seahawks.

[kgnu_fan]

14. kick

[LexVegas]

20. ...

[dsc]

23. so to use your logic

Bernie's performance in Nevada is a problem. The counties he won, with the exception of his narrow win in Reno and environs came from the counties in Nevada which are not just Republican, but overwhelmingly so. Or is it only a problem when Clinton wins states. BTW she is leading in VA, leading in PA, leading in NY, leading in IL, leading in MI among others, all states Dems have won at least the last two times and in some cases the last 6 times.

[Attorney in Texas]

30. No, by this model, you would expect Clinton to win Nevada (just like she did in 2008). In fact, by

this model, you would expect her to win by about 9% and she only won by about half that so you would take the Nevada result as confirmation that this is a conservative model of Sanders' chances.

[dsc]

33. she won the Democratic parts of Nevada

and he won the GOP parts. In your OP you say that it is somehow awful that Hillary would be winning states we can't carry but apparently it is perfectly ok for him to.

[Attorney in Texas]

37. It's not awful that Clinton does better in red states; it's fact. I want to win red states (and blue

states and battleground states).

Just look at the states where Clinton does best -- it is Southern states that tend to go Republican; Sanders does best in states that tend to go Democrat (there are exceptions, like Alaska's leaning toward Sanders).

Clinton's model is not "awful" and Sanders' model is not "divine." It is just a demographic pattern that is noticeable if you look for it.

In my opinion it has to do with the fact that red states can't imagine anything better than a centrist with one foot in the Democratic party and one foot standing on the line trying to win "third-way" welfare reforms and banking deregulation; whereas blue-state Democrats see that there is room for a better government to the left. Whether this is the correct explanation or not, you cannot deny that Clinton looks strong in states that fought for the Confederacy, but if the nomination were left only to those states that fought for the Union, Sanders would win.

[dsc]

38. so then I guess Sanders nevada voters must be of that mindset

[Recursion]

76. Bernie's advantage isn't in red states but in white states

You seem perplexed that he's leading in Oklahoma, but that's why.

[demwing]

40. Bernie's cross party pull helps us win the GE

it's less helpful in the primary, granted... In either case, not a Clinton strength.

[Attorney in Texas]

47. When the Republicans screw Trump out of the nomination, a lot of anti-establishment/anti-status quo

Trump supporters will come to Sanders.

On the Republican side, this is 1980 all over again: The Republican establishment candidates included senate minority leader Howard Baker, senator Bob Dole, CIA director/former RNC chair George H. W. Bush, and well funded ex-governor of Texas John Connally, and they loss to oddball former actor Ronald Reagan who won with a message that appealed to blue collar workers in both parties who felt like the system was rigged against them. Trump is playing Reagan's role.

If Trump gets the nomination, his change message is not as strong as Sanders' hopeful change but Trump's change message beats Hillary's status quo message.

If Trump is robbed of the nomination, his disaffected supporters will gravitate as much to Sanders as to Rubio. Clinton holds zero appeal to Trump's supporters.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

28. The question in my mind is how expectations are managed, and how that affects momentum.

Good Lord, we saw how even after a 4% loss in Nevada, some people who say they're Sanders supporters were ready to throw in the towel. They'll probably be suicidal after South Carolina.

Sanders needs to get his national polling numbers up to and tied with Clinton's on a rolling average basis. He's down 7.4 atm, which means he needs to pick up 3.7% nationally to close the gap. He's picked up 11 points since Nov 3rd, which rather suggests that if he keeps his same trendlines, it's still going to take him a month, which actually falls right in line with the 'This is where Sanders breaks out' section of the OP.

[Attorney in Texas]

34. EXACTLY! The idea is that the next 50 days are GOOD for Sanders BUT the first part of this 50 day

segment of the race is the toughest part.

We need to hold strong until March 22 - April 9 races, which should either bring Sanders into the lead or at least even the race.

We cannot lose faith or hope just because we may lose states like South Carolina and the red-states that share a border with Arkansas -- those states are very challenging, but for every South Carolina and Arkansas, there will be a Colorado and a Minnesota and a Maine.

Remember, Clinton's main campaign theme for the past year has been "better get in line, &!+<#, because we're inevitable." You don't hear that much anymore, do you? Instead, you hear Clinton adopting Sanders' platform one planc at a time. That is how Clinton triangulation works. She will move as far left as she needs to move to try to win the primary and, if she wins, she will then more as far right as she needs to move to try to win the general. There is no core, there is only tactics. There is no we, there is only she. We need to push Clinton as far into the Democratic wing of the party as possible before she starts her triangulation to the right. I'm literally hearing speculation that Hillary might choose Kasich as her running mate if Rubio doesn't. We need to stop that pathway now before it is too late.

[aaaaaa5a]

32. Any analysis that doesn't show

Clinton in command has no credibility.

Bernie Sanders has been relegated to a protest candidate. He has been banished to the outside, winning low turnout caucuses with little turnout in small rural states.


Hillary meanwhile has consolidated her base support. She is dominating among African Americans, and will win the overwhelming majority of the big state, delegate rich primaries moving forward. After Super Tuesday, where she will blow out Sanders in most of the big primary states, she will have an insurmountable delegate lead, and the race will be essentially over.

[Attorney in Texas]

39. Clinton is the favorite and Sanders is the underdog. No one says differently. I'm just saying that

the race ought to be very close to tied on April 9 in terms of states won and voter-assigned delegates.

I suspect that Clinton will win Florida and Texas (and I said as much in the OP), but they are not winner take all primaries. Winning Florida or Texas by 10% or some margin in that neighborhood is not a campaign ending event (just as Sanders winning Colorado or Maine or Wisconsin by similar margins will not force Clinton to resign).

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

51. Lol.

She's in command so far, just like she's been in command for the last year. And the entire time, Sanders has been steadily catching up, while she's been bobbling downwards, a balloon with a pinhole, slowly deflating.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-democratic-primary

She has not 'consolidated her base'. She's steadily losing them, as people realize that Sander is NOT the 'protest candidate' you proclaim. Just as in 08, her entire run rests on the quicksand notion that she was inevitable, and just as in 08, people are ready to turn away from her as soon as they see she doesn't have to be.

[pdsimdars]

35. Rational

I have a degree in math and I'm learning that I love the way lawyers make a presentation. Mike Papantonio and Ferron Cousins .. . . . not to mention Cenk Uygur. When they make the case, they do it well.
Thanks

[mythology]

36. I'm not able to that anything seriously that makes so many idiotic claims

Nate Silver isn't in the bag for Clinton.

Also Clinton polls better with those who identify as Democrats, so it's hard to claim some built in advantage in blue states for Sanders. He does well with specific demographics.

[Attorney in Texas]

42. Yes. Sanders polls better with certain demographics and Clinton polls better with other demographics

But have you noticed that the states with the demographics that Sanders does best with tend to lean Democratic in general elections and the states with demographics that favor Clinton tend to lean Republican?

Try this exercise:

Confederate states - North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Texas, Florida, Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas, Kentucky and Missouri.

Union states - Maine, New York, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, California, Nevada, and Oregon.

Do you doubt that the Confederate states lean Republican? Do you doubt that Clinton would win in a landslide if the nominee was chosen by the Confederate states only? Do you doubt that the Union states lean much more Democratic as a group than the Confederate states? Do you doubt that Sanders does much better in the Union states than the Confederate states?

If you don't think Nate Silver is in the bag for Clinton, then you don't read 538 as often or as closely as you might. I don't mean it as a criticism (any more than I would take it as a criticism if you said that Ed Schultz was in the bag for Sanders), but Silver wears his bias on his sleeve.

[mythology]

81. No he really doesn't and no matter how many times you say, it's still not true

Silver is biased towards the math. That's it. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but just because he's pointing out that the path is substantially easier for Clinton isn't a reflection of his bias. It's a reflection of reality.

[SheenaR]

41. Lot of bluster about Super Tuesday

What happens when Bernie doesn't lose a state for a month starting March 22? A large California win doesn't seem so far fetched at that point.

[Attorney in Texas]

43. Exactly. Sanders supporters need to hang on until the tide turns in late March. Sanders will win

Last edited Sun Feb 21, 2016, 08:56 PM - Edit history (1)

plenty of states in early and mid-March, but the worm will not turn until late March and then April.

Sanders will finish the election riding the momentum from his series of back-to-back wins beginning in late March, but we will need to patient until that time. Between now and then, we will win some and lose some and cannot lose heart.

[Vote2016]

44. this corresponds to what I'm hearing from friends around the country.

[Ino]

45. Missouri went for Obama last time...

so I'm hopeful Hillary is rejected this time as well, bordering Arkansas notwithstanding!

[Attorney in Texas]

46. Missouri looks like it will be close. If Sanders wins any of the close states like Missouri,

Illinois, Oklahoma, Ohio, Arizona, etc., this might get explosive.

[jonjon]

48. It sure as fuck does!

Look at the GREEN line:

http://graphics.wsj.com/elections/2016/polls/?embed=1&chart=chart-democrat-overall

[Vote2016]

49. nice graph!

[madokie]

50. We have a lot of movement towards Bernie

here in Oklahoma. I was reading this in this mornings Tulsa World newspaper.

Bernie or bust, rather it will be President Sanders one year on. I'm convinced that he has this one.

[riversedge]

53. Latest @ppppolls on Dem Super Tuesday worth a read. Issue breakdown interesting to see.

PublicPolicyPolling Retweeted
Paul Manson ‏@paulonabike 13h13 hours ago

Latest @ppppolls on Dem Super Tuesday worth a read. Issue breakdown interesting to see. http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/March2016PrimariesPollingProject.pdf …

[Attorney in Texas]

56. PPP is a robo-call pollster (unreliable method) that has more than a 10% pro-Clinton in-house effect

PPP had Clinton winning Iowa by 8% (off by 8% in favor of Clinton):



PPP had Sanders winning New Hampshire by less than 3% (off by 19% in favor of Clinton):



PPP chose not to share its wisdom in Nevada.

[Attorney in Texas]

57. Also, that is not a "Super Tuesday" poll; it excludes Colorado and Mains (Sanders leads both) and

includes states that vote after Super Tuesday.

No one disputes that Clinton has a big demographic advantage in former Confederate states and states that border her home state of Arkansas, where her husband is form and where she was first lady.

[KoKo]

54. Interesting, Thanks. Also we forget that the RW and Trump

will eventually start attack ads on Hillary if she wins SC and picks up more states in early March. Her advantage of looking like the Dem front runner makes her the target and not Bernie. Plus, Bill Clinton is now out on the campaign trail (in Oklahoma today) which also makes her campaign fair game for all the Bill escapades and impeachment dirt to be revisited. With both of them running for 2016, that's a double target.

Bernie is now being criticized for not going on the attack by the MSM pundits. But, I believe he's wise enough to know that it's better left up to the RW & Trump to spend their own resources running aggressive and cut-throat attack ads...while he continues to soldier on, spreading his message, and looking like the sane one in the middle of the fray.

[LonePirate]

55. Do you have any projected delegate counts to accompany your predictions?

The mostly proportional delegate allocation (apart from super delegates) requires candidates to be competitive in the big states. Also, Bernie will need to run up the score in some large states to counter Hillary's run in the South where she is going to claim large numbers of delegates in GA, SC and TX.

[Attorney in Texas]

58. The data is slim -- too slim to project delegate counts because Democrats generally do proportionate

delegate assignment (some Republican states are winner-take-all delegates).

All we can say with the current data is that Clinton has the demographic advantage in ex-Confederate red-leaning states, and -- outside of those states, Sanders is doing very well. Hillary will likely win more delegates than Sanders between February 27 and March 15, but Sanders will likely catch up between March 22 and April 9.

[Gothmog]

62. Lets see how these predictions work out

Sanders will be too far behind after South Carolina and Super Tuesday to catch up

[Attorney in Texas]

63. I'd be whistling that tune past the graveyard if I were a Clinton supporter.

[Waiting For Everyman]

64. Thanks, very interesting!

K&R

[SidDithers]

67. Brand Spanking New Michigan poll-Clinton 65% Sanders 31%

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2016/FEB_Mitchell-FOX_2_Detroit_MI_Poll_DEM_Primary.pdf

Is Michigan still "likely" for Sanders?

Sid

[RunInCircles]

68. Lets see 86% older than 50

Land lines only with 86% of all respondents older than 50. Might be a little off in reflecting the voter participation.
But it is FOX after all.

[coyote]

83. What a joke

look at that polling sample....85% of the United States is over 50 years old.

[SidDithers]

69. Poll: Clinton leads Sanders in Massachusetts 49% to 44%

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/02/poll-clinton-leads-sanders-in-massachusetts-219809#ixzz41GyHhWik

Sid

[SidDithers]

70. Post South Carolina kick...

Boy, Bernie sure got spanked in SC, eh?

Sid

[SidDithers]

71. Just Released: New Massachusetts poll (Suffolk U): Clinton 50 - Sanders 42

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/28/hillary-clinton-holds-eight-point-edge-over-bernie-sanders-in-massachusetts/?_r=1


Sid

[amborin]

72. K&R

[book_worm]

73. You keep using old data--there has been three polls out in MA since that one

you use and in one they are tied, the other HRC is up by 5 and the most recent (from tonight) gives HRC an 8 point lead.

Then there is momentum from SC and Super Tuesday which will narrow some of the gains that Bernie has made. The national polls which before Nevada were going towards Bernie are now reversing and showing a growing HRC lead.

[Attorney in Texas]

74. I don't "keep using" anything. The OP has a date. But since you mention Massachusetts, here is poll

aggregation chart from Pollster:



If you drop out the robo-call polls, the race is still tied:



There are too few polls for RCP to graph it, but their aggregation is similarly too close to call, and I'm happy with that.

Why should I be happy with a tie? Well, the same firms polling in Massachusetts also polled New Hampshire. Clinton's numbers based -- in large part -- on Suffolk polling, and Suffolk was biased 13% in favor of Clinton in New Hampshire. Clinton's numbers are also based on WBUR polling which was biased for Clinton by 7%.

I'm losing no sleep over Massachusetts. If you want to believe she's winning in Massachusetts, that's causes me no grief.

We'll know the truth soon enough.

[SidDithers]

75. Kick for Super Tuesday...nt

Sid

[wyldwolf]

77. Satire

[rjsquirrel]

79. Data or

your wishful thinking and very selective data set and rather improbable assumptions?

Hillary has this in the bag and won't need super delegates to win it either. That's how the math looks to be based on most polling too.

Bernie gave it a hell of a run. He should stay in all the way. It's good for the party and good for Hillary and good for progressives. He did an amazing thing.

[SidDithers]

82. Sanders lost Massachusetts...nt

Sid

[Bluenorthwest]

84. She got 19,535 more votes! 50.2% to 48.6% a landslide 1.6% victory

558,590 Hillary
569055 Bernie

1,127,645 votes cast. A win by under 20,000. Such a victory!

[SidDithers]

85. It's all about the delegates at this point...

a small loss or a small win in MA is basically meaningless.

Sanders lost so badly in the southern states, that the additional proportional delegates Clinton gained from her larger than expected winning margins more than wiped out any gains Sanders made by winning MN, CO and OK.

He was behind in the delegate count going into Super Tuesday, and came away with fewer delegates than expected due to the big margins of victory for Clinton.

He fell further behind yesterday.

Sid

[NCTraveler]

87. Impressive.

https://m.

[Attorney in Texas]

88. Sanders was projected to win 4 states and he won 4 states. He should win 3 of the next 4!

The next 4 races are Kansas, Nebraska, Louisiana, and Maine.

The betting markets favor Sanders in Kansas (Sanders at a 71% favorite), Nebraska (Sanders at a 70% favorite, and Maine (polling advantage in addition to 83% betting market favorite), while Clinton nears the end of her Dixie collection of former Confederate states in Louisiana.

Sanders has passed almost all the way though Dixie, and this is still a tight race: Clinton has earned 596 pledged delegates (over 59%) while Sanders has earned 399 (just over 40%) pledged delegates during the part of the primary calendar calculated to favor the status quo establishment moderate.

[NCTraveler]

89. Over one and a quarter more people showed up to the polls for Clinton yesterday.

She is on a great run and clearly has the momentum.

More people showed up to vote for Clinton in Georgia yesterday than in all four states you mention combined.

[Attorney in Texas]

90. No one disputes that Hillary is the Queen of Dixie. Now, we move on to the Democratic states!

[NCTraveler]

91. More people showed up to vote for Clinton in Georgia yesterday than in all four states you mention..

Combined.

You call Mass Dixie?

[Attorney in Texas]

92. Georgia is where Sam Nunn is the model for what is a Democrat. A great guy, but not my idea of what

a Democrat is like.

I much prefer Nunn over Trump, Cruz, or Rubio, but I'm not a member of the neocon hawk Nunn-Clinton wing of the Democratic party.

[NCTraveler]

93. No clue what you are going on about now. Have fun with your winning message.

And by winning I mean coming up millions of votes short of winning and still calling it winning.

[Attorney in Texas]

95. SPOILER ALERT - No matter how anyone does in the primary, we lose Georgia in the fall

[Katashi_itto]

94. K&R

[DrDan]

96. "Clinton has a distinct advantage in states the tend to go Republican in general elections" - like

Florida that went to PBO twice - it can be won by a Dem

[SidDithers]

97. And Michigan, and Ohio, and Pennsylvania...

Sid

[SidDithers]

98. LA, KS, NE kick...nt

Sid