Anyone know the approximate net delegate gain for Sanders?

[pantsonfire]

Last edited Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:55 AM - Edit history (1)

Bernie/Hillary approximate delegate gain:

Alaska +13/3
Washington +72/29

Hawaii +17/8?

Canceling out Hillary's approximate delegate count:

10 + 41 + 9 = 60+ for Sanders.

303 - 60 = 243.

Net delegate gain ostensibly at least 60+

[HerbChestnut]

1. Final results haven't come in yet...

From WA or HI. Doubt he will gain 100 delegates on Hillary tonight. Probably closer to 50-70.

[Dawson Leery]

2. No more than 60.

[pantsonfire]

5. Didn't he win more then 60 just in WA? n/t

[jfern]

7. By net, I assume you mean how many more than Hillary he won

But the previous poster is incorrect, it will most likely be a bit more than 60.

[morningfog]

6. It's like he could get up to 65, depending on HI.

[morningfog]

3. He's at +55 with 12 out still in WA and 25 out in HI.

[jfern]

4. Around 62

Alaska net exactly 10. Washington about 45. Hawaii somewhere around 7.

[pantsonfire]

10. Echoing the poster below...

13/3 AK Sanders final
73/28 WA Sanders final

HI 69%/30% would yield 17/8 pending.

Net gain: 10+45+9=64 (not certified)

[jfern]

15. I have Washington 73-27 with 1 too close to call

Bernie getting around 69% in Hawaii could give him anywhere from 16 to 18 of the 25 delegates. It's near the 68.75% threshold for another delegate in both congressional districts.

Note that the close Washington delegate depends on whether he wins the 10th congressional district 3-1.

[pantsonfire]

24. 10th District is Olympia...correct? He needs 88% (3-1)?

[jfern]

36. 3-1 is 75% of the two candidate vote (ignore votes for anyone else)

And the district doesn't follow county lines.

[pantsonfire]

41. Looks like he won 5-1....http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/WA-D#0326

[jfern]

42. 4.523-1.477, but someone said those are estimates

[pantsonfire]

43. They are....I can't find any sources about the specific district...

Is there a website that has mapped out the precincts specifically in the 10th?

[jfern]

44. Green Papers might be the best site for now

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. I was gessing 60-65 before sitting down

not bad

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. It is proportinal, not winner take all

and WA gets strange. It is not just straight, but also delegates assigned by how much was won

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. Not a problem

[edgineered]

9. So far:

13/3 AK Sanders final
73/28 WA Sanders final

HI 69%/30% would yield 17/8 pending.

Net gain: 10+45+9=64 (not certified)

eta: TheGreenPapers updated: 74/27 for WA
10+47+9=66

[pantsonfire]

12. Where is the WA delegate net gain shown? link? nt

[edgineered]

14. Here it is:

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/WA-D#0326

[pantsonfire]

25. The ten soft unpledged delegates....they all voted for Hillary???

Senator Maria Cantwell
Congressman Suzan DelBene
Congressman Denny Heck
Governor Jay Inslee
Congressman Derek Kilmer
Congressman Rick Larsen
Congressman Jim McDermott
Senator Patty Murray
DNC Member Rion Ramirez
Congressman Adam Smith

[edgineered]

29. It seems that they have expressed support for her.

Come June 7th at the convention the super-delegates will actually pledge to one candidate or the other. What their motives are, how their constituents voted either in popular vote totals for primary states or through earning delegates at a caucus level, or just about any factor the creative minds following this process can think of gives life to some rather barbed points of view around here. Those of us who keep up with this nonsense just for the fun of it are not taking the super-delegate math too seriously, yet.

[pantsonfire]

37. Didn't realize they were the superdelegates...the website called them "soft" delegates.nt

[edgineered]

38. Maybe I should examine that more closely?

Wouldn't be the first (or nth) time that I've confused the facts with the truth or even worse.

[edgineered]

45. Here's a bunch of verbage, if you're awake enough

It's from TheGreenPapers definitions. Good luck.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Definitions.html#Soft

SOFT PLEDGED, SOFT UNPLEDGED, SOFT TOTAL - estimated allocation
The "soft count", on the other hand, will reflect the support for each presidential contender by either Pledged or Unpledged delegates- whether formally allocated yet or not- as best can be estimated by "The Green Papers"; it could, conceivably change even day to day as presidential contenders might be forced out of the nomination race- perhaps releasing any delegates which might have already been formally allocated to them- or delegates once in the ranks of the "Uncommitted" might begin to indicate support of a given presidential contender even before the National Conventions convene this Summer! Delegates listed as "available" in the soft count, are "not yet estimated".

The differences between the two counts- "hard" and "soft"- will probably first become apparent in the differences between the first tier events in caucus/convention states and those states holding binding primaries (that is, primaries where the results of the voting itself directly affect delegate allocation). To take one early (and obvious) example, the Iowa precinct caucuses on Monday 24 January 2000 did not choose one single National Convention delegate in either major party (the first Democratic National Convention delegates were not formally allocated until early May; National Convention delegates from Iowa's GOP were not be formally allocated until a month thereafter!) but it might be possible to estimate the likely breakdown of the Iowa delegation to the major parties' National Conventions from an analysis of the voting in these Iowa caucuses. Any such estimate of the support of the delegates from Iowa to either National Convention would appear in the "soft count"- but NO Iowa delegates appeared in the "hard count" immediately after 24 January (the first delegates to appear in the "hard count" were those in each major party from New Hampshire, where the primary on Tuesday 1 February 2000 formally allocated National Convention delegates as a result of the voting in that primary).

[NWCorona]

40. There's some names there that I think

Might switch if Bernie keeps going well.

[DLnyc]

16. That's what I am guessing, or close.

GP has it, currently (shifts around as more precincts come in, but they are mostly in), as:
13/3 Sanders AK
74/27 Sanders WA
so Sanders cuts Clinton's lead by 57, before Hawaii. Maybe 66, after? We'll see!

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/WA-D
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/AK-D

[edgineered]

17. Yeah, GP updated giving Bernie one more.

That's a good thing!
Now I'm hoping to make a bigger mistake. Go Bernie!

[strategery blunder]

11. I think you're posting raw, not net, Bernie delegates

WA has 101 I think, so for Bernie to net 81, it would have to be a 91-10 split.

Clinton did get 27% here

Thinking 75-26 here. So net of around +50 from WA. Could be slightly more depending on geographical factors, doubt it'd go beyond about 80-20 though

Think Alaska went 13-3?

[pantsonfire]

19. Wait 91 - 10 wouldn't that be, 91 delegates (WA has 101 total)...

At this time, with almost 100% reporting in WA it's 72.7 to 27.2. So, we're both wrong it looks like, he'll probably net 71 from WA alone.

Alaska +13

Hawaii unofficial but looks like it'll be around 67% to 32%....(25 delegates total).

2-1 vote result yields bernie with approximately +16.

71 + 13 + 16 = 100.

[strategery blunder]

21. 91 Bernie, 10 Hillary would have had to be the delegate result for Bernie to have netted 81

It was a hypothetical, I was replying to the +81? in the OP.

But my reply came a bit late because I was doing math in my head, not to mention projecting what I thought the result would actually be (without having seen the "official" delegate estimation yet, only the county delegate count).

[pantsonfire]

28. I don't understand...if the state has virtually 100 delegates....

Last edited Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:48 AM - Edit history (1)

Wouldn't 90-10% be roughly 90 delegates....80-20% be 80 delegates? His current total 73-27% be 73 delegates?
Edit: I meant percentages.

[strategery blunder]

35. ...

Put it into a basic math problem.

WA has 101 delegates, who were apportioned between Bernie and Hillary. Suppose Bernie won 81 more delegates than Hillary. How many delegates did Bernie win?

Under this hypothetical, we can set up 2 equations

B+H=101

H+81=B

and we can use substitution here

H+81+H=101
2H+81=101
2H=20
H=10, so Hillary got 10 delegates under this scenario, which we can turn around and use to solve the first equation for Bernie

B+10=101
B=91

So for Bernie to have netted 81 delegates over Hillary in WA, the actual delegate count would have had to been Bernie 91, Hillary 10.

Hope that explains it; it's been a long time since I've had to "show my work" for this kind of thing

[pantsonfire]

39. I really am at a lost, looking at your confusing math, no need too explain further. n/t

[strategery blunder]

47. I used the substitution method from algebra

First year or so of high school math.

I know it rarely comes into play for most people years or decades later. And also, quite frankly, typing out "show your work" on a computer keyboard is more a PITA than writing it out by hand.

If you'd like a refresher on the concepts I used, you can try http://www.purplemath.com/modules/systlin4.htm

Note that the ability to "solve for x" is a prerequisite for this, so if that is something you always struggled with (and some people are not math inclined; my parents didn't understand this stuff until their 30s), this would indeed be very confusing to you. :/

[pantsonfire]

49. Ok seriously...edit: disregard this post.

If someone wins 72% of the vote in a state with 100 delegates......how does that not mean that person would win 72 delegates? That was my point from the beginning.

[pantsonfire]

50. I understand now, sorry it's been a long day, I missed your point...nt

[lmbradford]

13. 63

I predict he gains about 63 delegates on her tonight. Thats my guess.

[dogman]

26. 25 net now

36-11 with 95 outstanding. Could pick up 60+ out of those 95 if early HI reports are correct.

[paulthompson]

27. I just checked Wikipedia

They already have some numbers up.

They have Sanders gaining 47 delegates on Clinton in Washington, plus another 10 in Alaska.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016

Plus, if the reports from Hawaii so far are true, he'll gain about 9 more. So that would be 66!

That means he cut her 300 delegate lead by 22% just from those three states! That'll put her lead at 234 or so. If he does well in Wisconsin (84 delegates at stake) and Wyoming (14 delegates), he might have her lead down to something close to 200 by the New York primary. Not too shabby!

[pantsonfire]

30. I could see him win Wisconsin and Wyonming by 70+%....

It seems plausible the pledged delegate lead will be under around 189 soon....

[StevieM]

33. It's insane to think he will win Wisconsin by 70 points.

It is not a caucus state. He would not have won Washington or Hawaii by such wide margins if they had been primaries.

Wisconsin should be a close race, at least according to the polls.

[pantsonfire]

46. I'm hoping the #birdiebernie and his crushing wins tonight....

lead into the Wisconsin primary. Especially being the state of Walker, democrats are going to be on high alert to avoid any messing with voter turnout, long lines, etc...

[Liberal_in_LA]

31. Then Hillary will cleanup in cali and new york

[pantsonfire]

32. Cali is going to be 50-50 at best for HRC. n/t

[ReallyIAmAnOptimist]

34. On track for Net +65

WA: Bernie 0.727 (73 delegates) Clinton 0.271 (27 delegates)
AK: Bernie 0.816 (13 delegates) Clinton 0.184 (3 delegates)

HI with 57% reporting:
Bernie 69% (17 delegates), Clinton 30% (8 delegates)

Western Saturday projection:
Bernie: 103 delegates
Clinton: 38 delegates

NET GAIN of 65 Delegates for Sanders!

[pantsonfire]

48. Awesome, where are you getting the HI reporting? nt

[Biaviians]

51. Thank you! Going to bed and only want good suprises in the morning!