The Rest of the Democratic Primary

We are in the Primary Doldrums. For the last several days and the next several days, there is not too much happening, big gaps between the action. Wisconsin is important, and it is Tuesday, Then Wyoming by itself, then New York by itself, then a sort of Super Tuesday with several states.

As you know I've created a multivariable model that has a good record of predicting primary and caucus outcomes in the contests between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. For the rest of the primary season, this is what it looks like.

Screen Shot 2016-04-02 at 12.49.47 PM

I used yellow highlighting to indicate who is expected to win the most delegates on each primary/caucus day. Sanders will do well in Wisconsin, tie (or maybe even better) in Wyoming, do well in Indiana, and on balance, do well on June 7th when there will be six contests at once including Pennsylvania. But while Sanders may win the day on three (or four) days, Clinton will win the day on five. In total, Clinton is predicted to take 886 delegates, and Sanders 790.

This is the distribution of cumulative delegates starting with now and moving across this range of primary dates, showing the evolution of the difference between the two candidates throughout.

Screen Shot 2016-04-02 at 12.50.32 PM

On balance, Clinton will, according to this model, will widen her lead over Sanders. If Sanders does better than projected this gap will narrow, but he'll have to do very well to close the gap.

More like this

Today and tomorrow we have the Alaska, Hawaii, and Washington Democratic primaries. According to the model I developed prior to the last primary, which predicts future primaries using information about primaries to date (which I've not updated from last Tuesday), Sanders will win all three…
Most polls and FiveThirtyEight predict a Clinton blow-out on Tuesday, with her winning all five states, in some cases by a large margin. My model, however, predicts that each candidate will win a subset of these states, but with Clinton still win the day. I’ve been working on a model to predict…
I recently developed a model of how the primary race will play out between Democratic presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. That model made certain assumptions, and allowed me to produce two projections (well, many, but I picked two) depending on how each candidate actually…
Almost exactly 50% of the votes have been cast in the Democratic Party primary and caucus process. I've been updating a model to predict primary and caucus results all along, and the model has done fairly well. The most recent update, however, was a bit off. That update involved separating states…

Time to remember how money corrupts -- in particular by financing the most extreme people out at all of the edges to draw strength away from the center where compromise can happen.

Time for any group to think hard about where the money coming to them really originates and whether they're being funded not to support their ideas but to disrupt the chances of anything workable happening.

It's an old tactic. It's what the tobacco companies did when fires from smouldering cigarettes became a public issue -- they funded a fire marshals organization to campaign for fireproof chemicals to be added to everything _except_ cigarettes. And they funded the chemical companies that could turn their waste products into stuff salable as additives for fireproofing. So we got: toxics in everything, and cigarettes that continued to smoulder.

You wouldn't believe this shit if it wasn't for good reporting:
http://media.apps.chicagotribune.com/flames/index.html

Well, now, think about other areas of political action where it's easy to fund groups to fight with each other -- fund the fringes, fund the most self-confident and most combatitive and least cooperative people. Tear the issue apart.

Just a few people -- wholly sincere, entirely deeply convinced they're right and everyone else is wrong -- can disrupt any group effort.

Where's their money coming from?
I hope they're wondering -- asking themselves whether they're being used.

http://assets.amuniversal.com/59104fa0b0f101333c90005056a9545d

By Hank Roberts (not verified) on 02 Apr 2016 #permalink

You lost a '7' --- "Clinton will win the day on five. In total, Clinton is predicted to take 886 delegates, and Sanders 90."

Wisconsin may be a bit of a wildcard; little is known about how the GOP passed voting restrictions are going to impact the primary, but as many as 300,000 WI voters are at risk of being disenfranchised - overwhelmingly Dem. voters. Of course not all of them would vote in the primary anyways, but that's a significant fraction of all Wisconsin eligible voters (7%).

By Kevin O'Neill (not verified) on 02 Apr 2016 #permalink

The Got-Zero-Plans Party slogan:

"We can only win by cheating, but fortunately, we're good at it!"

By Brainstorms (not verified) on 02 Apr 2016 #permalink

RealClearPolitics lists 3 NY Dem. Pres. primary polls:

Quinnipiac3/22 - 3/29693 LV3.75442Clinton +12
Emerson3/14 - 3/16298 LV5.67123Clinton +48
Siena2/28 - 3/3368 RV6.25534Clinton +21

It will be interesting to see if the recent Quinnipiac poll is a sign that Sanders is closing the gap - or just a statistical blip. It's more recent and does have a larger sample size than the other two combined.

By Kevin O'Neill (not verified) on 02 Apr 2016 #permalink

Far more important -- how's the House and Senate looking?

By Hank Roberts (not verified) on 02 Apr 2016 #permalink

Kevin, it depends on whether or not the disenfranchised voters are a random or a biased sample of the voters wrt Sanders vs. Clinton.

Hank, if we do enough down ballot, and up ballot, work, there is a high chance of a blue Senate and a blue House is within the range of possibilities.

#2,#6,

One would hope that for the general election, there would be swarms of young people, financed by many small contributions, seeing to it that voters get to vote.

Probably the most important use of such resources ever, given how hard the Republicans are working to suppress D voters.

I hope you are wrong.

In most elections there are many thousands of ballots cast in New Mexico that are not counted. It makes me wonder why elections are even bothered with.

By Desertphile (not verified) on 03 Apr 2016 #permalink