Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread II

[TheL8Elvis]

But that doesn't make sense because it would suggest Sanders only needs 35% of the remaining pledged delegates.

No, it wouldn't.

What Ben is doing is taking the supers out of the candidates' columns but leaving them in the total needed.

Right, that's what I said here

Leaving them in the total for both and taking them out of the candidate columns, Sanders needs 1297 of the remaining pledges or 79% of the remaining pledges. Now you have 65 and 79 which doesn't add up to 100% because the supers are left out of the available delegates.

Glaring math error.

It's not a math error, it's just a stupid way to count delegates.

 

[d4m10n]

The most realistic scenario from where I'm sitting is that Bernie winds up with 1850-1900 pledged delegates, while Hillary pulls between 2150-2200 pledged delegates.

Since you need 2,383 total delegates to win, this means that the results of the convention will be in the hands of the 715 supers. Most likely they will continue to break heavily for Clinton, unless she is indicted or caught with a professional schoolgirl or something similarly black swannish.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The most realistic scenario from where I'm sitting is that Bernie winds up with 1850-1900 pledged delegates, while Hillary pulls between 2150-2200 pledged delegates.

Since you need 2,383 total delegates to win, this means that the results of the convention will be in the hands of the 715 supers. Most likely they will continue to break heavily for Clinton, unless she is indicted or caught with a professional schoolgirl or something similarly black swannish.

Get back to us after the 26th. Pretty sure your prediction will me moot by then.

 

[jhunter1163]

The most realistic scenario from where I'm sitting is that Bernie winds up with 1850-1900 pledged delegates, while Hillary pulls between 2150-2200 pledged delegates.

Since you need 2,383 total delegates to win, this means that the results of the convention will be in the hands of the 715 supers. Most likely they will continue to break heavily for Clinton, unless she is indicted or caught with a professional schoolgirl or something similarly black swannish.

I think you're probably right; I don't see Clinton getting to 2,383 pledged delegates. And the supers will be hard put to vote against the candidate who won the national popular vote.

 

[d4m10n]

Get back to us after the 26th. Pretty sure your prediction will me moot by then.

Wanna bet?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think you're probably right; I don't see Clinton getting to 2,383 pledged delegates. And the supers will be hard put to vote against the candidate who won the national popular vote.

You guys seem to be leaving out one critical point. Reality. The supers already for Clinton are not likely to switch sides.

She only needs another 610 delegates out of either 1647 or 1959 left depending on how you want to see the problem. You seem to believe those supers aren't really supporting her.

She'll have more than 2383 or be damn close to it by CA.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Wanna bet?

I don't bet forum strangers, no assurance they'd pay.

But if you just want a bet with no stakes except bragging rights, then yes, definitely.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, it wouldn't.



Right, that's what I said here



It's not a math error, it's just a stupid way to count delegates.

The glaring math error was leaving out Clinton's supers.

And if you look a little more carefully at my post you'll see I didn't disagree with you anywhere in the calculations.

 

[d4m10n]

You guys seem to be leaving out one critical point. Reality. The supers already for Clinton are not likely to switch sides.

I've said as much, filing it under the heading of a black swan event.

 

[jhunter1163]

The glaring math error was leaving out Clinton's supers.

And if you look a little more carefully at my post you'll see I didn't disagree with you anywhere in the calculations.

And if you had looked a little more carefully at my post, you would have seen that I said that the supers would be hard put to vote against the candidate who won the national popular vote (which will, in all probability, be Clinton). I (and d4m10n) simply said that the supers will most likely put Clinton over the top. I stand by that.

 

[d4m10n]

I don't bet forum strangers, no assurance they'd pay.

But if you just want a bet with no stakes except bragging rights, then yes, definitely.

I think the payoff should be avatar-related. Easy to verify, and only mildly humiliating.

As to the wager condtions, we'd have to be fairly precise about what you'd expect to be evident or moot after the 26th.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And if you had looked a little more carefully at my post, you would have seen that I said that the supers would be hard put to vote against the candidate who won the national popular vote (which will, in all probability, be Clinton). I (and d4m10n) simply said that the supers will most likely put Clinton over the top. I stand by that.

Sorry, you left this out: (which will, in all probability, be Clinton) and this being the Bernie thread, it read as you discounting the supers. I stand corrected.

And d4m10n said

The most realistic scenario from where I'm sitting is that Bernie winds up with 1850-1900 pledged delegates, while Hillary pulls between 2150-2200 pledged delegates.

Which is problematic given the supers would have swung the race before the national convention. I read his post as saying the decision wouldn't be made until the convention.

If that's not what he meant it wasn't clear.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think the payoff should be avatar-related. Easy to verify, and only mildly humiliating.

As to the wager condtions, we'd have to be fairly precise about what you'd expect to be evident or moot after the 26th.

You'll have to clarify your post then because jhunter read it differently than I did.

 

[lobosrul]

You aren't paying attention. Try again.

Care to explain that? There are 310 superdelegates "left" in the primary schedule. However there are only 200 undecideds left. That's because they are not assigned during the primary, they endorse candidates when they want to, and many of them in states that haven't had their primary yet, already have.

She only needs another 610 delegates out of either 1647 or 1959 left depending on how you want to see the problem. You seem to believe those supers aren't really supporting her.

Saying there are 1959 left doesn't make any sense. There are 1647 pledged delegates left, plus there are about 200 supers that haven't endorsed either candidate. ETA: I guess the number 1847 would make sense, sort of.

Now do you see the point I was making?

 

[The_Animus]

Anyone know what the delegate count would look like if superdelegates gave their votes to whoever won the most regular delegates in their state?

Can't really tally it up at the moment but might later if time allows.

For anyone interested here is the results

If all superdelegates for a state are awarded to whichever candidate won the state then it looks like this:
Clinton - 1549
Sanders - 1176

If all superdelegates are apportioned to each candidate based on their proportion of votes in a state then it looks like this:
Clinton - 1496
Sanders - 1229

This does not take into consideration the two states which flipped to Sanders as a result of Clinton delegates not showing up.

So even if superdelegates were apportioned fairly by proportion of votes Sanders would still be down 267 delegates.

 

[d4m10n]

...the supers would have swung the race before the national convention. I read his post as saying the decision wouldn't be made until the convention.

Assuming the superdelegates stick to their publicly announced endorsements, the first-ballot outcome is a foregone conclusion, given the pledged delegate estimates I've posted above.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

For anyone interested here is the results

If all superdelegates for a state are awarded to whichever candidate won the state then it looks like this:
Clinton - 1549
Sanders - 1176

If all superdelegates are apportioned to each candidate based on their proportion of votes in a state then it looks like this:
Clinton - 1496
Sanders - 1229

This does not take into consideration the two states which flipped to Sanders as a result of Clinton delegates not showing up. So even if superdelegates were apportioned fairly by proportion of votes Sanders would still be down 267 delegates.

Two? What was the other besides NV and I believe it only affected a couple delegates.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Assuming the superdelegates stick to their publicly announced endorsements, the first-ballot outcome is a foregone conclusion, given the pledged delegate estimates I've posted above.

Why wouldn't they and why are you even bothering with such silly hypotheticals?

 

[d4m10n]

Which bit was silly, exactly? The whole scenario seems eminently plausible to me.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Care to explain that? There are 310 superdelegates "left" in the primary schedule. However there are only 200 undecideds left. That's because they are not assigned during the primary, they endorse candidates when they want to, and many of them in states that haven't had their primary yet, already have.

Saying there are 1959 left doesn't make any sense. There are 1647 pledged delegates left, plus there are about 200 supers that haven't endorsed either candidate. ETA: I guess the number 1847 would make sense, sort of.

Now do you see the point I was making?

This has been resolved.