Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

SunSeeker

(58,124 posts)
10. Yup, it's about the votes, and Sanders will never get enough to catch up.
Wed May 4, 2016, 04:08 AM
May 2016

Those spreads I list are the numbers Nate Silver et al. calculated that Sanders would have to win the vote by in order to get the necessary number of delegates to be on track for a majority. Since the delegates aren't awarded strictly proportionately but by precinct or district, if the vote is even moderately close, then the delegate count will be nearly tied.

Indiana is overwhelmingly white. Sanders won, but barely. Given the former, the latter was, at this point in the race, absolutely predicable. Right on the regression line.

Moreover, because Sanders needed to do better than a near-tie, he would now need to get 70% rather than 66% of the remaining votes, to tie — not win, tie — in the pledged delegate races. I emphasize: Sanders is in worse shape than he was in yesterday.

And CA is 39% white. Sanders is not going to get 70% of the remaining votes.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Hillary Clinton»Tonight’s Win Is Not Like...»Reply #10