Can Sanders Win the Nomination? Only in a Parallel Universe

[CajunBlazer]

I was going to copy and paste some paragraphs of this article, but to fully understand the nature of the challenge Bernie Sanders faces going forward you need to read the article. It is totally fact based with very little opinion. If you are a Hillary supporter you will love it; if you support Bernie you won't.


Can Sanders Win the Nomination? Only in a Parallel Universe

[dchill]

1. Welcome to Bizarro World.

We have the bearded Spock!

Welcome!

[Merryland]

2. Then we're IN a parallel universe. He's going to be your next President.

[CajunBlazer]

5. You evidiently haven't read the article

But if you have take your money to Los Vegas - thre're giving excellent odds on Bernie

[Red Oak]

30. I read the article you wrote

Your premise is that if the polls hold the way they are today, Clinton wins. I agree.

But the polls do not seem to be very static.

Five thirty eight had Clinton winning Wisconsin, and by a large margin, last week. Today, that prediction has flipped.

At the beginning of the campaign the Clinton ops said "well, Bernie may win Vermont". He seems to have done a bit better than that.

So I think the Bernie supporters, and I am one of them, would like to see this election carried to the convention and may the candidate with the most pledged delegates, win. If the "supers" decide to go against the popular vote, the nomination process will become, let's say, interesting.

[CajunBlazer]

31. You read the article

It clearly says that for Bernie to draw even with with Clinton he has to win each of the remaining contests by an average of 13% or more, not the 6% indicated in the best Wisconsin polls. He also has to win in New York, Pennsylvania Maryland and Rhode Island by that same 13% margin and he is now well over 20% points behind in each state. I don't believe in poll flips of over 33%. Do you believe in miracles?

[Red Oak]

39. Well, I believe that things can change.

Indeed things HAVE changed.

You are not discussing in your article all the other previous articles that were written on how Bernie would only win Vermont, how Bernie wouldn't get close in Iowa, how he would never win Oklahoma, no way would he blow Clinton away like he did in Washington, nor would Clinton lose to Bernie in Michigan, etc. etc. The goalposts from the Clinton camp are changing daily, as the results come in. Currently it is the math, the delegate math and that will be the social media meme until that math no longer works.

It must feel to a Clinton acolyte like a football game in the third quarter with the Clinton team ahead by a overwhelming amount, but the other team is scoring again and again. The game feels like it may come down to, and be lost, in the final few seconds. We've all seen those type games. One can argue math all one wants, but the reality is sometimes the underdog wins in an upset.

Will Clinton win? Will Bernie win?

The true fact of the matter is that neither you nor I know or can know. You are presenting reasoned probabilities. In the end they are probabilities. Did you have a Hillary loss in Wisconsin baked into the first draft of your article. My guess is yes, and then you had to edit that out. Things have changed, rapidly.

I know that I would like to see this played out to the convention. Bernie and Hillary represent two very opposed views within the political spectrum. They should battle it out. It is good for the Democratic party and it is good for America. I also know that Bernie is doing much, much better than those that would have coronated Clinton ever thought possible in their wildest dreams.

You may be able to gloat over a win in June or you may be wondering how your math could have failed you. Probabilities are often like that, when teams come from behind and win, overcoming the odds.

[CajunBlazer]

40. I believe in probablities

I don't care about articles which were written during the early days of the campaign; I didn't write them. I am only addressing the here and now.

I taken a number of statistics courses so I know a bit about probabilities. Let me give you a simple example. Right now, forgetting the super delegates for a moment. just to draw even with Hillary, he would have to win each of the remaining 22 contests by an average of over 13% and he is currently behind in all but two. Not only that but the kind of contest where has his best results caucuses, especially open caucuses, and open primaries are almost gone.

But let's be kind and say he has win all of remaining 22 contests by only one vote and that he has a 50% percent chance of winning each contest. (That's far, far better situation then he is actually in but we'll let that go for now. Okay, this is how his probabilities would work.

Chances of Bernie wining the first contest: 50%

Chances of Bernie winning 2 in a row: 50% X 50% = 25%

Chances of Bernie winning 3 in a row: 50% X 50% X50% = 12.5%

Chances of Bernie winning 4 in a row: 50% X 50% X50% X 50% = 6.25%

Chances of Bernie winning 5 in a row: 50% X 50% X50% X 50% X 50% = 3.13%

Chances of Bernie winning 6 in a row: 50% X 50% X50% X 50% X 50% X 50% = 1.56%

Chances of Bernie winning 7 in a row: 50% X 50% X50% X 50% X 50% X 50% = 1.56%

Chances of Bernie winning 8 in a row: 50% X 50% X50% X 50% X 50% X 50% 50% = 0.78%

Now we would have to do this 22 times, but I am sure you see a trend developing.

The problem is have to win all 22 with only a 50% chance of winning each. Now in reality, he could lose one or two along the way and make up the votes lost by winning big in one or two other contests.

But here is the problem - Bernie currently has a better than 50% of just winning in only two contest and far less of a chance in most of the rest. And he just doesn't just have to win, but he has to beat Hillary by 13% on average in each contests.

Let's be very charitable an say that Bernie has on average a 25% chance of winning each of those 18 contests by 13% even though he is behind in most and way behind in several. This is how the probabilities work:

Chances of Bernie wining the first contest: 25%

Chances of Bernie winning 2 in a row: 25% X 25% = 6.25%

Chances of Bernie winning 3 in a row: 25% X 25% X 25% = 1.56%

Chances of Bernie winning 4 in a row: 25% X 25% X 25% X 25% = 0.39%

Chances of Bernie winning 5 in a row: 25% X 25% X 25% X 25% X 25% = 0.10%

Now we would have to do that 22 times, but I sure you get the idea.

Now chances are that Bernie will win Wisconsin and if so he will draw somewhat closer to Hillary, but I doubt seriously that he will win by over 13% that he needs. (If he doesn't, he will just fall further behind.) He may also have a shot in Wyoming - there are no polls for state and they have the closed caucus, but Wyoming has only 18 delegates. Then Bernie faces New York, Connecticut, Maryland and Rhode Island where his chances of winning by more than 13% in each of those state are a lot closer to 0% than 25%.

Bottom line: Is it possible for Bernie to draw even with Hillary under the circumstances and if he does, is it possible that enough of the super delegates will flip to give him the nomination? Technically, yes, that's possible, but the odds against all of those stars aligning are astronomical. I wouldn't put money on Bernie in Vegas if they gave me a hundred to one odds.

[Red Oak]

42. Your statistical analysis is overly simplistic.

In some sense, what you are really trying to argue is that the current polls are what they are and that they will not change in Bernie's direction enough to allow him to win. That may be. But Iowa, Michigan, Oklahoma, Washington, and seemingly Wisconsin are examples where, in this election, the dynamic is not predicted well by stale polls and simplistic probability analysis.

If the current probabilities make you feel good, that's fine. We'll play this out and see how it goes. I like seeing the polls and the analysts get it wrong. Who in the Clinton camp predicted the Sanders wins ahead of time? If you did, and have an article about that, I'll be really impressed!

Currently the polls and analysis are changing rapidly in Wisconsin, in New York and in California.

It will be fun to watch Bernie, and this contest, all the way to the convention!

[CajunBlazer]

43. I kept it very simple - I always try to communicate at laymen's level

And you're right, the situation is always changing - but not always for the better for Bernie. A new Wisconsin poll came out today with Clinton winning by 6 points. That changed the recent poll average in Wisconsin from Sanders +2.5% to Sanders +0.6%.

That new poll must be considered to be normally pretty reliable because it flipped Nate Silver's projection of chances of wining from Bernie 51%-Clinton 49% to Clinton 51%-Bernie 49%.

[dubyadiprecession]

3. A parallel universe or a time machine to 2008...

Hillary could pick him to be her running mate.

[CajunBlazer]

12. Even Hillary didn't face the same obstacles that Bernie faces at this point in the race

And for the last time Bernie Sanders is no Barack Obama, not even close.

[TheBlackAdder]

45. Just in case you make the dimensional jump to meet Kirk Prime and Spock Prime, pack accordingly!

.





.

[ibegurpard]

4. It's not over

Until one of them has amassed the necessary delegates to clinch the nomination. Those are the facts...like it or not.

[CajunBlazer]

6. The fat lady is warming up....;

[ibegurpard]

8. she'll probably be singing

But these "it's over" posts are just fucking stupid.

[CajunBlazer]

13. Then read the article and tell me why I'm wrong

[ibegurpard]

18. you're wrong

Because neither of them has amassed the necessary delegates yet and it is still mathematically possible for Bernie to do so no matter how improbable it may be. I know that this upsets you but that's just reality.

[CajunBlazer]

24. Then tell me how Bernie can possibly win

When he probably won't even win big enough in Wisconsin and when he is losing by well over 20 points in the huge states that follow. Just to win enough of the pledged delegates he has to beat Hillary by over 13% on average in each of the remaining 18 contests and is only leading in 2 Wisconsin and West Virginia.

Are you allergic to reality? If so pull a sheet over your head and don't come out until the convention because its not going to be pretty.

[Gwhittey]

9. Wow how rude.

Hillary is not fat at all really. Angry, snobbish, ,mean, rude or elitist sure but not fat.

[Demsrule86]

38. NO POINT

There is no point in Bernie Sanders continuing...he can not win. Waste of time and money.

[tabasco]

7. If you really believe that, why bother posting this?

It seems a lot of people are trying to convince themselves that Clinton has it all wrapped up, but aren't 100% sure.

[CajunBlazer]

10. No one is trying to convince anyone of anything

Read the article and then judge for yourself. It is not written as a persuasive piece - it is filled with facts - if after you read it you disagree with the presentation of the facts, if elements are left out or if you disagree with the conclusions, say so.

Just don't say something neutral like: "It seems a lot of people are trying to convince themselves that Clinton has it all wrapped up.." and expect that to fly.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. She is ahead by 228 delegates by your own reckoning. You might want to edit it.

Clinton has already won 208 more pledged delegates than Sanders in the primaries and caucuses to date – 1266 to 1038.

[CajunBlazer]

14. Dang, though I had fixed that - Thanks

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. I am comfortable in saying she is a 1-10 favorite.

I saw my favorite NBA team lose a game the other night where they were a -11 or a 1-10 favorite so anything can happen. But sports is a poor proxy for political campaigns because there's more time to adjust.

[CajunBlazer]

19. True - something dramatic might happen still happen

but it would have to be very dramatic

[jmg257]

33. Die Hard.

You ask for a miracle Theo I give you the F B I.

[MrMickeysMom]

15. This is what you do to promote something you wrote YOURSELF?

Jesus...

[CajunBlazer]

20. No!

Notice my blog has no advertisements. Frankly, I normally couldn't care less if Bernie supporters visit it or not.

[beam me up scottie]

35. Yep, blog flogging used to be against the rules and 5 hides used to get you a timeout.

But those days are over, the rules were changed to favour one group.

"Four legs good, two legs better!"

[frylock]

17. You can tell by how often Hillary Supporter has to remind us of that.

[CajunBlazer]

21. So you agree?

[frylock]

25. jeesus fking krist

[snowy owl]

22. We aren't just about winning. We are planting seeds and teaching.

Yeah, yeah. We want to win. But sometimes changing a nation and peoples' understanding of the corruption starts with one person. It is all about the bigger picture.

You are the horse race. We are the educators.

[CajunBlazer]

26. Sanders is 74 - who is his natural socialist successor who will carry his flag?

[snowy owl]

27. That is why we are focused on marching forward but I agree few. Ellison? Feingold? An unknown?

Obama was unknown. I've donated to get Feingold back. Ellison would be fantastic. Considering we are not even close to 2020 or 2024, that's a pretty good start. If Clinton wins, I think the landscape for another real progressive will be even brighter because her policies do not help the middle class and poor so things will get even worse. If we still have a country at that point given the corporatist control which is growing.

[CajunBlazer]

28. We'll see, but.....

... most consider Bernie a once in a lifetime opportunity.

[Hiraeth]

23. blind link to your blog but, not an opinion, right. Welcome to ignore.

[CajunBlazer]

32. Obviously, you can't think of anything to refute my logic

Last edited Sat Apr 2, 2016, 07:06 PM - Edit history (1)

so you go away and hide. I like your spunk.

[Gothmog]

29. Sanders will not be successful in appealing to super delegates

[demmiblue]

34. Unrec. for blind link (which is apparently to your own blog).

I remember your mansplaining blog post about women and self defense in GD.

[CajunBlazer]

37. An admission that you can't deal with the facts

Nice!

[jmg257]

36. Die Hard...

"You ask for a miracle Theo, and I give you the F B I."

Though I think unlikely she'll be indicted.

[Recursion]

41. This whole line of argument never makes sense to me. He needs to win the remaining states by 56%

That is, he needs to win by roughly what Clinton won the first half by, in the half of the schedule that is much friendlier to him than the first half was. I literally have no idea what Clinton supporters seek to gain by imagining this is some kind of crazy impossibility (Clinton herself showed it's not remotely impossible in the first half).

[Garrett78]

44. Carolina dominated the 1st half of the Super Bowl. Seattle dominated the 2nd half.

But the political nominating process is nothing like a single sporting event. Clinton has clearly established a pattern of doing better in delegate-rich, diverse states and closed primaries. It's *highly* unlikely that pattern will suddenly get flipped upside down.

I've only seen one example of a demonstration (via a delegate calculator) of how Sanders could win a majority of pledged delegates, in spite of repeated requests for folks to do so. Dubbed the "Bern Path," it has Sanders just barely winning a majority of pledged delegates (2027-2024). But it's completely unrealistic. It has Sanders winning NY and PA and CA and NJ by anywhere from 8-16 points. It also has him doing better than expected in MD and Washington DC.