Democratic Primary Prediction

Who Will Win The Democratic Primary? (Updated model)

gregladen — Wed, 09 Mar 2016 10:44:26 +0000

Who Will Win The Democratic Primary? (Updated model)

I have been presenting various versions of a model to predict the outcome of upcoming Democratic primaries. The earlier version of the model worked like this: Make some assumptions about the ratio of voting preference (for Sanders vs. Clinton) among the different major ethnic groups, and using the known distribution of said ethnic groups, predict the future.

I started out with the assumption that among whites, the ratio would be 50:50, based on one datum, the outcome from Iowa, which is essentially a white state. I used a bias for African Americans and Hispanic voters favoring Clinton. That worked well to predict several primaries, with the caveat that what happens in Vermont and New Hampshire would be biased by favorite son effects.

The second part of the model is to update the within-ethnic group biases with further information as it became available, using primarily exit polling. At no point did polling for future races come into play except to demonstrate in advance that the model might work (by comparing polling for some Super Tuesday state polls with the model predictions).

Again, the model predicted Super Tuesday's outcome pretty well, but there were some surprises especially in order of magnitude where Sanders won. In those states I had predicted either something close to a tie or a modest Sanders win, and he did better.

Now that there have been several other races (Louisiana, Nebraska, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi and Michigan), with more exit polling and some more surprises (that, again, I predicted in polarity but not magnitude) I can see that the model works very well in predicting states where Clinton ultimately won, but under-estimates Sanders' delegate take in states where he won. And, the states where the latter happens are those that are not part of the "deep south." This indicated that both "black" and "white" voters (and maybe "hispanic" voters) are doing different things in those different states, and that ethnic mix alone is insufficient. I also considered that whether or not a primary is "open" or not may be a factor (or a primary vs. a caucus) and I'm sure this has an effect. However, the simple characterizations of "open" vs "closed" or even "caucus" vs. "primary" come nowhere close to actually capturing the real variation among these kinds of states. Plus, sadly, there is a general lack of exit polling information for some of the odder states, so the two factors (a different ethnic pattern vs. the effect of the kind of contest) can't be compared in relation to each other.

So now I have a new model. This is exactly the same as the first model, but uses different ethnic patterns (how each ethnic group is likely to vote) for states that are "southern" (deep south, not the southwest) vs. states that are not "southern". This could have been done by looking at the proportion of African Americans in each state to produce an adjustment, and I may well do that eventually, but for now a simple binary distinction seems appropriate. I calculated, using exit polls, ethnic patterns for these two kinds of states.

I have data for eight southern states indicating that the ratio of Clinton to Sanders support for White, Black and Hispanic should be 60-40, 88-12, and 71-29. In contrast, for non-southern states, for which I have data from six states, the ratios are 45-55, 69-31, and 46-54. Note, however, that this "black" ratio is based on only four data points, and the hispanic ratio for both types of states is based on one state each.

In other words, Black voters always favor Clinton but much more so in southern states, white voters favor Sanders in non-southern states but the reverse is true in southern states. Hispanic voters strongly favor Clinton in southern states, and mildly favor sanders in non-southern states.

Applying this model to the past, it does less well than earlier versions of the model did on the first few primaries, and better on later primaries. This may mean that there is a change in voting behavior, or simply differences in the states that happen to go earlier or later. Indeed, the current model still somewhat underestimates Sanders performance where he does well, and if the smaller number of later states (i.e, excluding Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada) is used to estimate these ratios, the White ratio is unchanged but the Black ratio works a bit less against Sanders. But at this point we have broken the data down into too-small units and are nitpicking. (By the way, if I recalculate the ratios weighing for state population size, which might be better because larger states may be better samples, there is no significant difference. More likely, a weighted average that ranks the quality of the exit polling data would be more logical and useful, but I do not have any such quality measures.)

When retrodicting previous contests with the new model, to see how well it works, the outcome isn't too bad. It fails to predict Iowa, Nevada, Colorado, and Massachusetts, but is close. The new model predicts a 65-65 split in Michigan, which actually had a 61-69 split, so that's wrong (but a tie is better than the wrong win.)

I could easily adjust the Sanders numbers to make the model predict the outcomes better in those states where he won, and that might be reasonable because of the status-quo part of the status-quo-ethnic model. But it would be an arbitrary adjustment with respect to the ethnic part of the model, so it is better not to.

This model retrodicts that Clinton takes 785 committed delegates and Sanders takes 536 committed delegates to date. By my count (which may vary from other counts because sometimes the delegates are counted funny) Clinton has actually won 769 and Sanders has won 502. That's not bad, I'll take it.

So, if this model is any good, I should be able to tell you now who will win the various races in the all-important upcoming Son of Super Tuesday, next week.

Clinton will win Florida, barely. The model projects a tiny lead for Sanders in Illinois, so that may be a tie. Clinton handily wins Missouri and North Carolina. Sanders barely wins Ohio. At the end of the day (aside, again, from delegate awarding oddities) Clinton will have added 376 committed delegates to Sanders' 314. A Clinton win, but not a big one, is expected for next Tuesday.

Finally, according to this latest version of the status quo ethnic mix model, Clnton will win the nomination. The following graph shows the cumulative delegate count for each candidate, with the first several dates (up to yesterday's primaries in Mississippi and Michigan) using actual committed delegate counts, and the rest using the projections from the model.

It is very important to note that this model probably underestimates Sanders' performance in a subset of states. In other words, Sanders actual delegate count will be somewhere between the two lines shown here for a few weeks. The question then remains, can he get his line to cross Hillary's line?

Note that in this scenario, Sanders wins both New York and California, but just by a little. If there is a handful of big states where my "just by a little" actually turns out to be "by a surprising amount" there could be a different outcome. Indeed, Sanders is expected to outperform Clinton from New York onward in many primaries, and if he does "a surprising amount" (which by then won't seem like a surprising amount anymore) wherever possible, he could pull ahead.

gregladen Wed, 03/09/2016 - 05:44

Tags

Election 2016

clinton

Democratic Primary Prediction

Democratic Primary Results

Sanders

Sustained, but also possibly increased.

"the ratio of Clinton to Sanders support for White, Black and Hispanic should be 60-40, 99-12, and 71-29."

I'm pretty sure that "99-12" is a typo unless the ratio is supposed to add up to 111 while the others are only 100, which is technically perfectly fine in ratios, but seems out of place here.

88-12

I still don't see how Sanders could pull ahead that easily, given the proportionality of the delegate counts. He would still mathematically speaking have to win not just by a little, but pretty decisively in NY, PA, OH, IL, NJ and hit the 50-50 mark in FL and NC. (He'd need a net win over Clinton of about 20 delegates per state). And in California, even if he got every single delegate from every state not on the above list (AZ, UT, IN, NM, et al) and did a 50-50 split of the others he's still need a pretty crushing win by my back-of-the-envelope calculation.

Yes his Michigan win was an upset, but the trouncing he got in Louisiana actually meant Clinton's lead expanded. Proportionality means he has to win by a lot, not just squeakers.

That said, I don't mean to dump on your model -- I think it's a good approach though I suspect the openness of a primary is a bigger factor than we often realize. Remember that open primaries will skew the picture of the party faithful who vote in primaries to begin with. Those party faithful would tend to back Clinton for no other reason than she is a Democrat and Sanders hasn't been. (We follow this stuff closely; most people do not, Sanders was a relative unknown compared to Clinton just a few months ago). Not that they are fools or votebots, it's just that people have habits. I'd not expect voting to be much different -- Sanders in a closed primary has to get people to vote for him to a greater degree than in an open one where you can go find your voters and get them to the polls.

Jesse,

I have a question for you and Greg and all our fellow political junkies. I think my numbers are sound if approximate.

In presidential elections of late, we observe that White Males break (say) 45D v 55R.

In the primaries for the Dems, we see that White Males break (say) 45H v 55B.

Can anyone explain that? If H is "Republican Lite" and B is "True Progressive", shouldn't it be the other way around?

(Greg, this is the kind of thing I think your broad-brush assumptions hide.)

I think they are not the same males. I think a good portion of the Extra Bernie Male Fraction (EBMF) is that subset of citizens who don't normally vote at all, but show up now and then because it becomes the thing to do. They are the people who put Jesse Ventura over the top in a three way race in Minnesota a few years ago. They are unreliable voters year to year, largely disengaged, and so they tend to be less partisan.

Another part of the HB difference is simply sexism, mild and in the background mostly, where guys are going to tend to vote for a guy and against a girl, combined with the basic idea that if all else is equal (and to MANY voters, Sanders and Clinton are very equal compared to Trump/Cruz!) you vote for the woman because it is about time to have a woman in the White House.

So I think the RD and HD difference is not a parallel cause, exactly, but for different reasons.

In addition, although the H camp has wisely moderated their tone of late, past rhetoric has tried to suggest that women have an obligation to step up and vote H (1970's style?) just because. Note the kerfuffle a little while ago over millennial women backing B.

As with some of Zebra's comments, there's been a sort of meta-emphasis in the H group on herding in lockstep. It's a way of creating white noise that obscures problems with this third-way-oligarchy stuff. It seems a little stale to me, but it may have efficacy in quarters where "keep on keepin' on" is an ethic.

@#6
Basically it's because the Democratic primaries attract a more liberal portion of the demographic group; those who would vote Republican in the general election aren't generally voting in the Democratic primaries. Thus of the 45% of the larger group that are Democrats, 55% of those prefer Sanders (but will probably vote for the Democrat even if Clinton is nominated.) This 55% of 45% is just under 25% of the entire group, but generally the most liberal 25% of the entire group. The 45% that support Clinton are 45% of the 45% who vote Democratic (or just over 20% of the entire group.

I hit "submit" a bit early. To continue:
The total group (white males in your example) can be divided into three groups: [1] republicans (55%) [2] democrats supporting Clinton (20%), and [3] democrats supporting Sanders (25%).
Assuming both groups of democrats vote for the democratic candidate in the general election, we have your 55-45 republican split. But the republicans don't vote in the democratic primary (they're the guys over there choosing between Trump and Cruz). So only 45% of them vote in the democratic primary, and so in the primary it's your 45/55 H/S split.

So the answer to your question is that republicans cans don't vote in the democratic primary.

Greg,

That last sentence is pretty confusing. But let me make a clarification on terminology before going on.It isn't sexism to say "it's time for a woman President", just as it isn't racism to say "it's time for an AA President".

When there was great enthusiasm and turnout for Barack Obama from the AA community, that might be termed "ethnic solidarity"-- it wasn't because they thought whitefolks were less qualified for the position by virtue of being white. The latter would be racism.

Likewise, sexism would be thinking that a woman couldn't possibly be (for example) CinC material. It isn't "boys voting for boys", it's boys being uncomfortable with having a woman in charge. That is, attributing lack of competence (or other characteristic) based on gender.

But, moving on from that, and again I am pretty sure about the approximate numbers, turnout in the Dem primaries has been down, not up. So (and I know you aren't super-invested in your model, and you aren't putting a lot of time into trying to defend it) you are weaving a bit of a just-so-story with your ephemeral, "hidden variable" voters.

RickR: The premise of Greg's model is that "It is well established fact, undodgable fact, that voting patterns vary across ethnic groups." So if we take the sub-group White Males, as I said, consistently voting "conservative" rather than "liberal", you can't then say that the subset who participate in the Dem primaries have an opposite distribution.
(And still defend the model.)

@#11

Take the group white males. 55% of them vote republican, both in the primaries and the general election. 45% of the vote democratic, both in the primaries and the general election.

Not take the 45% subgroup that votes in a democratic primary. 45% of them vote for Clinton, 55% of them vote for Sanders.

If you want to claim that we must to assume, for some level of consistancy, that those white males voting in the republican primary would, if faced with the choice between Clinton and Sanders, make the same 45/55 split, go right ahead; it doesn't affect the analysis at all. What leads to the difference being asked about is based upon the fact that republicans don't vote in the demographic primary, which leads to that difference, even if we assume that the republican white male voters would, if faced with a choice they are not in fact being
faced with, would break in exactly the same way the democratic white male primary voters do.

And this assumption of consistancy of groups is a simplifying assumption that is, well, false. The African-American vote share for Sanders, for example, varies from 5% in Arkansas to 31% in Michigan. We can assume an average value of 17%, but this is one of sources of error in matching the results of the model to reality. Which does not mean it may not be close enough to be useful, but it is an estimate based upon simplifying assumptions that are, strictly speaking, wrong.

but there were some surprises especially in order of magnitude where Sanders won.

There was that twenty point reversi surprise upset in michigan.

Does your model reflect any *hidden* dependancies on 'official' polling data? I ask because I'm given to believe that only those with landlines are counted in those polls -- old fogies.

""beep, beep, beep: The pollster who now calls is already on your lawn. beep, beep, beep

Rick 12,

Well, yes, the point I was making to Greg is that this invalidates his assumption.

But now you are claiming that D WM voters are "more liberal" than their R counterparts based on the split in the primaries, which is circular-- they're liberal because they're liberal. It doesn't answer my question.

I deplore unnecessary recourse to elite-speak, but much of the dithering over sex ratios can be most succinctly explained as the fallacy of division: i.e., the technical term for the wrong assumption that a characteristic of a group as a whole can be imputed to every portion of that group. If males as a group, in the U.S., are more conservative than females as a group, it does not follow that Democratic males (who are selected for being less conservative than average) must be more conservative than Democratic females.

Consider a reverse argument: because black Americans are less conservative than whites, black Republicans must be less conservative than white Republicans. This cannot be assumed to be true. In fact, the few black Republicans disproportionately often seem to be the extremely religious, who are more conservative than average.

By the way, every group in America is skewed towards voting mostly for one party or another, and partisans of both parties have an ugly habit of assuming that the skew in groups favoring the other party shows that those groups are biased and unworthy of having political influence, whereas the groups that skew in their own direction are the only groups that matter or should matter. Republicans are increasingly losing with every demographic but rural white men? Well, those are the only people whose opinons and concerns are important; everyone else are sinners or Takers who don't count. Clinton is increasingly losing with everyone but African-Americans? Well, a person who can't win the African-American vote isn't worthy of nomination. Where does that leave rural white Democrats?

Jane #15,

So we are all agreed that Greg is engaging in the fallacy of division?

@zebra (#6) you're assuming the males are the same group. This will differ depending on whether the primary is open or not, but even then, the people voting in the primaries (as a couple of people have mentioned) aren't the same cohort voting in general elections. In fact between the GOP and Democratic primary voters there's rather little overlap, even in an open primary system. (Some of this is cultural- Brits and Canadians, I suppose, are more into strategic voting)

@jane while to a degree you're right -- parties will go for who votes them in -- it's also true that parties will try to win back voters if they think the new group can get them to win. This is why the Democrats moved to the right -- the party elites were upset that many Democrats voted for Reagan. From my end I think many misread that phenomenon as a problem with policy in itself; I'd chalk it up to a screamingly successful Southern Strategy (or Southern Strategy lite in Northern states).

And it's not crazy to say that if a certain group of people is unlikely to vote for you that you take your time and energy elsewhere. People who do racist things are unlikely to vote for Obama and are unlikely to be convinced to do so; so at a certain point you have to cut your losses and focus somewhere else.

This is my huge issue with the Democratic party (even though I vote for Democrats). To me it was a losing game to try and out-conservative Republicans, you have to man up and take an unapologetic stand for certain progressive causes if you want to win. Otherwise your victories are bot solid enough to survive any challenges.

Jesse,

Let me clarify this because, while it's all interrelated, the points are getting mixed together.

1. Everybody seems to agree that Greg's model would be better if there were less simplification/generalization. But that's easy for us to say since we don't have to do the extra work.

2. RickR: When I ask "Why do WM in the Dem primary vote for Bernie, you say "because they are more liberal". But if we ask "how do you know they are more liberal" the answer is "because they vote for Bernie". It doesn't follow just from voting in the Dem primary that the distribution 45/55 should flip to 55/45.

3. Jesse: I keep saying "Hillary will win the general election but Bernie will lose", because the electorate consistently elects moderates, and Bernie's supporters are extreme, not representative of the population in general.

Your response is: "No, no, you've got it all wrong; don'tcha see, Bernie's supporters are not representative of the population in general! The way to win is to be more extreme!"

Which, sorry, makes no sense at all to me.

zebra #18

The initial question, in #6, was that in the general election the observed white male split is about 45/55 D/R, and in the primaries the Sanders/Clinton split is about 55/45. You, in that comment, seemed to think this was somehow odd, because you seemed to think that if the entire group of white male voters split 45/55 D/R, then the subgroup of white male voters that vote in the democratic primaries should vote 45/55 S/C rather than the observed 55/45 S/C.

Basically, there is no reason, mathematically, to think that the subgroup of white male voters that vote in the democratic primaries should mirror the D/R split in the entire group of white male voters, any more that one should assume that, if in the all black democratic primary voters 17% vote for Sanders, that the sub-group of black democratic voters in Michigan would vote 17% for Sanders, rather than the 31% that was observed, of the black democratic primary voters in Arkansas would vote 17% for Sanders, rather than the 5% that was observed.

Regardless of the D/R split in the general election, then S/C split in the democratic primaries could be anything from 100/0 (every white male democrat prefers Sanders) to 0/100 (every white male democrat prefers Clinton). It is simply not odd that the ratios are different. No S/C ratio is inconsistent with the D/R ratio.

As for the exact numbers, these are empirical results. We know the white males split about 45/55 D/R because they do; this is an empirical measure. The same for the 55/45 S/C split, it is an empirical result.

As for an explanation of these empirical numbers, you suggest it is circular to suggest that some folks have a more liberal (or progressive, if you prefer that term) political orientation than others, and that these folks are more likely to vote democratic and in a democratic primary for Sanders, and some other folks are less liberal/progressive and these folks are thus more likely to vote republican and, if voting in a democratic primary, for Clinton. But then you will then have to accept that there probably is no expiation beyond "that's the way the world turned out to be".

Dunno who will win the Democratic nomination.

But yegods, Iezeus H FSM and for pity's sake that person -Clinton or Sanders had better also win the main event which is the actual US presidential election otherwise as Bender from Futurama would say : "We're all boned!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2vjmgtD1_A

Rick 19,

If you go back and read #6, you will see that I said:

"Can anyone explain that? If H is “Republican Lite” and B is “True Progressive”, shouldn’t it be the other way around?"

You appear to be ignoring that second sentence.

I think you are missing the continuity of the discussion I was having with Jesse prior to that, and that's what #18 was intended to clarify.

If we thought that the voting results were completely random, why would Greg make his model, or Jesse and I be arguing back and forth?

zebra

Let's look at a different ethnic group - African-Americans. We know in the general election the R:D split for them is somewhere in the neighborhood of 10:90. But in the democratic primaries so far the C:S split is around 83:17. But 'if H is “Republican Lite” and B is “True Progressive”, shouldn’t it be the other way around?”

Your comment seems to divide the electorate up along a line from uber-republican at one end to uber-progressive on the other, with Clinton being slightly more progressive than the middle center and Sanders being on the far progressive end. You seem to discount the possibility that the white male segment is somewhat polarized with more "bunched up" at the two ends, where the republicans and Sanders are, while, for African-Americans, they tend to be more strongly bunched up around slightly left of the middle, where Clinton is. There is no reason to assume the various groups are evenly distributed along your republican-progressive scale.

Zebra - The public has consistently elected (relative) moderates in ordinary times, when business as usual was not conspicuously disintegrating and the populace was not desperate, deeply divided, and angry. These are not ordinary times. The GOP's leading candidate is a fascist, in the accurate sense of that term, who has studied Hitler's speeches and may be deliberately working from his playbook. In better times, could you have imagined that happening? If Herr Drumpf is nominated and the Dems run against him a woman who is well known for her elite ties, support for BAU, and condescension towards the "little people", we will all be in serious trouble.

Rick 22,

If there is a bimodal distribution as you describe, then each party would have been selecting extremist nominees in the past. But that is not what the data tells us-- each party has traditionally selected moderates (or those who pretend to be moderate, in some R cases.)

So, you have to come up with some better argument. A "normal distribution" where moderation predominates is a well supported model.

jane,

Nonsense. Go read the NYTimes research on Trump supporters.

The center is holding just fine in the USA. Employment is up, the market is up, gay people are having delightful weddings, poor people are getting health insurance, the unfortunate violence we are engaged in internationally is far. far less destructive than it was ten years ago, and there's a really good chance that SCOTUS will once again become an institution that will protect citizen's rights rather than diminish them. Thanks to the efforts of moderates, against vicious opposition.

You bring up fallacy of division-- look up Nirvana fallacy.

Also look up "if if sounds like a Republican troll using every opportunity to slip in negative Republican talking points about Hillary, maybe it is not a duck."

zebra:

You asked about a particular sub-group, white males. Even after the earlier discussion of the division fallacy, you still are insisting that the subgroup of white males is totally representative of the total electorate. Looking at the exit polling, this is simply false; white males are unrepresentative of the larger group of democratic primary voters. There is simple nothing inconsistent with the sub-group of white males being slightly bi-modal white the larger electorate being unimodal.

Secondly, as I noted before, your question is based upon a linear model running from very republican at one end to very progressive at the other, with Clinton being a "republican lite", that is, on the scale between republicans on one side and Sanders on the other. Then you gave some numbers for the three groups you identify (republicans, Clinton, Sanders). The math is not difficult: you are assuming the three groups, as referenced to white males in the entire electorate, are substantially republicans: 55%, Clinton: 20%, Sanders: 25%. Notice that this distribution - which is yours, not mine - is in fact bi-modal; the center group is the smallest.

Now you have several choices. You can reject your linear model, and assume that either Clinton is more progressive than Sanders, or assume that the relationship between the three groups in not a linear one as you supposed in you original comment. This would mean that your original question is ill-framed since it is based on a false linear model.

Or you can reject your suggested data, and say that you made a mistake in the numbers you presented and that Sanders is not really more popular amount white male voters than Clinton is.

Or you can accept that the white male subgroup is non-representative and there is nothing unreasonable in taking it to be somewhat bi-modal.

Now what you cannot do, at least reasonably and rationally, is to present a bi-modal distribution and then reject an explanation of this distribution because it is bi-modal. You presented a bi-modal distribution, and asked for an explanation. You may be able to reasonably reject my explanation, but not because it accurately reproduced the bi-modal characteristic of the distribution you yourself provided.

So you are insisting that (1) the white male subgroup must mirror the characteristics of the larger group from which it is taken, which is a logical fallacy, (2) that the white male subgroup is in a totally representative sample of the larger electorate, which is emprically false, and (3) that an explanation of a bi-modal distribution cannot be accepted it if explains a bi-modal distribution, which is simple bizarre.

SInce you are obviously immune to both facts and reason, I suppose there is no point in continuing this conversation.

Zebra - Look up "ad hominem fallacy." Rather sad.

Yeah, some things are good, for some people. The market is up? Whee - but that doesn't do much good for the majority of the population who have less than $1000 in the bank and aren't buying a lot of stocks. In fact, it means that the disparity in nominal wealth between the stock-holding class and the wage-earning class is getting even larger. Heavily massaged unemployment numbers are lower now, true. That doesn't mean that things are getting better for the "lower" classes. They aren't. Pointing to these numbers to say that everything is just peachy economically denies the experience of a huge fraction of Americans.

Parsing demographics, FWIW, "So, Who Are Donald Trump's Voters?"
http://billmoyers.com/story/so-who-are-donald-trumps-voters/

Super Tuesday: What does it mean for the Democratic Primary?

gregladen — Wed, 02 Mar 2016 11:23:15 +0000

Super Tuesday: What does it mean for the Democratic Primary?

As you know, I developed a simple model for projecting future primary outcomes in the Democratic party. This model is based on the ethnic mix in each state, among Democratic Party voters. The model attributes a likely voting choice to theoretical primary goers or causers based on previous behavior by ethnicity. Originally I made two models, one using numbers that the Clinton campaign was banking on, and one using numbers that the Sanders campaign was banking on.

The results of the Super Tuesday primaries demonstrated that the Sanders-favoring model does not predict primary outcomes. Those same results showed that the Clinton-favoring model worked better. But the numbers also indicated that the Clinton favoring model estimates Clinton's ultimate delegate take somewhat inaccurately.

I adjusted the model parameter so the model now matches reality for a subset of the primaries that have already happened to within five percent. The model still slightly favors Clinton, but not by much. The subset of primaries includes only the US states (not territories, where I don't expect the ethnic mix approach to work at all) and excludes states with a strong favorite son effect. This therefore excludes New Hampshire and Vermont. Due to oddities in the Texas delegate system, the adjustment was also made by excluding Texas, though the model results for Texas match very well proportionately.

(Note: Using only the subset of states, the model predicts previously held primaries and caucuses to within less than two tenths of a percent).

The new model now only has one version, which as noted matches primaries so far very well. While there is a somewhat southern bias in the set of primaries that have been carried out so far, that bias is probably not important. I have a fairly high level of confidence in the model.

The result is best seen in this graphic, which shows the cumulative delegate count of committed delegates in US states. So this excludes non-committed delegates (known as "Super Delegates") and it excludes territories and other non-states (but it does include DC, because DC is like a state).

Assuming a large proportion of the Democratic Party's uncommitted delegates support Clinton, Clinton will probably achieve the necessary number of delegates to lock the nomination either on the 19th of April with the New York primary, or on the 26th of April, with the Maryland, Connecticut, Delaware, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island primaries.

There are two phases of primaries coming up. First we have a series of weeks with only one or two primaries happening at once, with a total of 300 committed delegates (130 from Michigan). Then we have what is effectively Return of Super Tuesday, with 691 committed delegates, including Florida with 214. For Sanders to regain traction, he has to do well in some of these big states. In particular, Sanders has to outperform the model in Michigan, Florida, Illinois and possibly North Carolina and Ohio.

When we look at many of these states, the model seems to fit very well with the available polling data, except in cases where the polls suggest a stronger outcome for Clinton. The following table compares the model projections with estimates of the delegate split based on polls. All delegates are assumed to be awarded (among the committed delegates only) and the polling data is not very dense and in some cases not too recent, so this is a very rough estimate.

Prior to Super Tuesday, the then-current version of this model projected results that conformed closely with polls. For most states, the outcome of the actual voting matched the projections and the polls pretty well, except in a couple of places. Now, the refined model matches polling data even more closely, but the polling data is not necessarily to be trusted because there has not been enough polling. (I avoided comparisons with really old polls which are entirely useless).

Clinton's path to the nomination is clear. Sanders' path to the nomination requires something to change, and to change dramatically and quickly.

gregladen Wed, 03/02/2016 - 06:23

Tags

Election 2016

Bernie Sanders

Democratic Primary Prediction

Hillary Clinton

Super Tuesday Results

Who will win?

I agree with your analysis, and like your model very much. As a progressive and a Sanders supporter, I am, however, saddened by a couple of facts.

1 - Sanders enjoys a higher favorability rating among ALL voters than Clinton, which is often a fair indicator of ultimate success if that rating holds.

2 - In General election head-to-head polling among ALL voters, Sanders typically achieves better results against any GOP opponent than Clinton by fair margins. In some cases, he provides the needed margin to win, whereas Clinton loses narrowly.

3 - Sanders is stronger with Independents than Clinton is, and Sanders provides a conduit away from becoming Trump voters (I am not commenting on the psychology of this decidedly weird situation, only on the apparent math).

In choosing their "favorite" candidate as the nominee, the Democrats are also choosing the mathematically weaker and arguably less able of the two contenders when gauged among the overall voting populace.

I am sad, but not yet resigned.

Bruce, the differences are there but not vast, and this is the kind of thing that changes a lot once there is a nominee. Your point 3 is interesting, and odd, and psychologically disturbing. I think, and this is a guess but a semi-educated guess, that Trump did less well in Minnesota than he might have because some of those Trump supporters decided to caucus with the DFL for Bernie.

Thank you for the update, but I only accept graphs that look like hockey sticks.

:-)

#1
"Sanders provides a conduit away from becoming Trump voters..."

This may be wishful thinking. The evidence I've seen shows that very few Trump supporters would vote for Sanders and visa versa.

"1 – Sanders enjoys a higher favorability rating among ALL voters than Clinton, which is often a fair indicator of ultimate success if that rating holds."

Polls I've seen show that the people polled overwhelmingly distrust Ms Clinton.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/189524/dishonest-socialist-lead-reactions-de…

But then, USA citizens still believe communism is "socialism," judging by the words used to describe Sanders.

In the previous election the approval rating of Congress was what--- 9%? Yet about 92% were re-elected. That's spooky.

I refer everyone to the running poll of polls by RealClearPolitics - in every case, Sanders is stronger in head-to-heads in November. In choosing Clinton, with her questionable fave ratings (whether you believe she is untrustworthy or not), I believe that the Dems are choosing the weaker candidate out of party loyalty. BTW - my comment about a conduit away from Trump is a guess on my part, not a fact, based in part on what *I* have seen...a lot of so-called "Bernie Bros" say if Hillary wins, they'll switch to Trump. Again, I do not get the psych on this one.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/pres_general/

Desertphile - here is a poll of polls for Clinton faves you may be interested in:

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-…

Sanders:

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/bernie-sanders-favorable-r…

With respect to independents:

There are no independents.

Look at the results for Oklahoma. Look at the results for Massachusetts.

As for polls: Polls become relevant after the conventions, not before. Apart from the opinion of the actual experts on polling, if you look at some of the numbers you see that they are irrational/contradictory at this point-- Trump wins among Republicans while having really bad fave ratings among the same Republicans.

I'm becoming more and more confident that the craziness of this election cycle has everything to do with the prospect of a female POTUS, and little to do with populism. White Males are, consciously or not, reacting to the steady withdrawal of privileges they have become used to. Not even the exclusive privilege of being in a combat arm of the military remains.

Sanders may have a mathematical chance, but from the articles I've seen, Super Tuesday has revived the mainstream media's ability to present Clinton as the inevitable nominee. Many articles now have her 'swinging' or 'turning' to the general election, so the idea that Sanders will continue to pull her to the left isn't all that convincing.

#6
This may help explain the psychology of Trump supporters and why crossovers should be relatively seldom.
http://www.vox.com/2016/2/23/11099644/trump-support-authoritarianism

"Again, I do not get the psych on this one."
Spite? Temper tantrum? Political immaturity?

"I believe that the Dems are choosing the weaker candidate out of party loyalty."

I don't doubt that the party favors Clinton. After all, she's been on the front lines supporting other Democrats for years, and Sanders hasn't.
But there's something else you might consider: Clinton has been savaged for years, and not all attacks against her have been justified. What attacks has Sanders been subjected to from Republicans and their organizations? If he were the nominee do you think he'd be attacked? Even if the attacks are false, do you think they'd affect his favorability ratings?

Zebra says:

"As for polls: Polls become relevant after the conventions, not before. Apart from the opinion of the actual experts on polling, if you look at some of the numbers you see that they are irrational/contradictory at this point– Trump wins among Republicans while having really bad fave ratings among the same Republicans."

Actually, this is not contradictory at all. It is not the same Republicans that vote for Trump who give him bad marks - it is, rather, his minority of supporters who allow him to have more than a zero rating.

"White Males are, consciously or not, reacting to the steady withdrawal of privileges they have become used to. Not even the exclusive privilege of being in a combat arm of the military remains.'

*Perceived* withdrawal of privileges. As a white male, I feel like I've had the world handed to me on a silver platter, and no more so than now.

Donal said:

"Sanders may have a mathematical chance, but from the articles I’ve seen, Super Tuesday has revived the mainstream media’s ability to present Clinton as the inevitable nominee. Many articles now have her ‘swinging’ or ‘turning’ to the general election, so the idea that Sanders will continue to pull her to the left isn’t all that convincing."

It is the last line that has me most concerned. More of the same under Clinton means more of the same income disparity and lack of real progress. I have a sinking feeling that she might be a one-term president, if she wins, because this issue won't go away.

#9
"I’m becoming more and more confident that the craziness of this election cycle has everything to do with the prospect of a female POTUS"

I don't agree. Tea Partiers seem to have a soft spot for women spouting reactionary talking points: Palin, Bachmann, Angle, Brewer, O'Donnell, Haley, Ernst.
The craziness of this election cycle is limited to the Republican party, and has everything to do with that party's escape from reality. It's also a result of the Republican conviction that the U.S. is a great democracy, but that Democratic control of the Presidency is usurpation.

Zebra says:

"With respect to independents:

There are no independents.

Look at the results for Oklahoma. Look at the results for Massachusetts."

Are they open primaries? Because if they are not, then Independents / Third Party cannot vote in for the Dems or the Reps.

Many people are comparing Trump to Hitler; I think the comparison is not accurate. He seems more like Stalin than Hitler, or Pol Pot--- where the educated were the Designated Enemy.

This morning I heard Trump speak for the first time (I don't have TV or radio, so it was via The Young Turks video). It was like a parody of Stalin, only with a squeaky soprano voice. Ejecting black students from his Klan-supported rallies is sure to get the Fundamentalist Christian vote.

More than 45K sign petition to arrest Bill Clinton

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/02/more-than-45k-sign-petition-to-arrest-bi…

"State officials have said he acted legally." However, I suspect if I had done the exact same things Mr Clinton did, I would have been arrested and fined by now.

"In a stunning report by the New York Times, Republican sources confirm that party leadership is planning to destroy Trump and give Hillary Clinton the win rather than let him have control of the GOP."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/donald-trump-republican-p…

I have my doubts. The Republican Party will not wish to "curb" President Clinton's executive office decisions: she works for them.

Bruce Jensen #14,

"Are they open primaries? Because if they are not, then Independents / Third Party cannot vote in for the Dems or the Reps."

Sorry, you don't have the security clearance for that kind of information. You know, "if we tell you we have to kill you" and all that.

Sigh.

#15 I thought of Trump as a strongman like Mussolini or Peron, but I recently read a comparison to Gaius Julius Caesar that also makes a lot of sense. Caesar was a wealthy man who took office as a reformer in a republic that had become dominated by plutocrats, then took power by force. He soon got stabbed, but that was the end of the republic.
I was thinking today about who I voted for in primaries, like Jerry Brown & Paul Tsongas, and one that I wanted to vote for, Dennis Kucinich.

cosmicomics @ 13

Largely correct. There is nothing new here. We've long been sitting in a rotting theater. Suddenly Trump drips on the stage and "pundits" work themselves in a lather as though the walls haven't been positively oozing for years.

Many people are comparing Trump to Hitler; I think the comparison is not accurate.

I dislike the comparison for a different reason: I think the only people who should be compared to Nazis are other Nazis. (This is not an attack on your comment.)

I wonder about the Republican "old guard" and their view of Trump. It seems to me that Trump is simply bringing to the view of the wider public the philosophy that Reagan used back in the 1980s when he started making racism and, let's be clear, blatant dishonesty, an important tool to gain power.

But: Rubio is currently running ads here in Michigan in which he begins by pointing out that Trump didn't immediately condemn the KKK, and then he says "The party of Reagan has no place for (the behavior Trump is demonstrating: exact wording escapes me at the moment)." He may or may not believe it, but the old guard wants that message to be believed: if they think Trump will clearly demonstrate it to be false, they'll be screwed for a long time. I can see them wanting to head him off before the pass.

Depends who you believe:
Hillary Clinton's Got This
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/hillary-clintons-got-this/
Bernie Wins Three of Four Tossup States
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdWd0wV44mk
Are we too tough on Clinton?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt-jMLPJv0Q

I heard the Rubio quote yesterday morning on Danish radio, and I had to react.

Marco Rubio is very aware of rhetorical devices, but what he says consists of Republican platitudes and self promotion. Compare:

Churchill:

“We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender...”

Rubio:

“No matter how long it takes, no matter how many states it takes, no matter how many weeks and months it takes, I will campaign as long as it takes and wherever it takes to ensure that I am the next president of the United States.”

Where Churchill speaks of we, the British people, Rubio speaks of I, himself. Where Churchill speaks of a common struggle, Rubio focuses on personal aggrandizement. Great, inspirational oratory on the one hand, and petty, imitative self-promotion on the other.

cosmicomics,

You are making some obvious mistakes, and while it is OK to react emotionally sometimes, it is important that this stuff be discussed with some degree of "scientific" accuracy.

Rubio is addressing the Republican Party (specifically anti-Trump, establishment elites) here. So he is in fact "selling himself", not trying to inspire anyone-- the words are perfectly reasonable in the circumstance. Now, are they a little obvious in terms of rhetoric, sure-- he's immature and not really ready for prime time. But making a moral judgement on this is over the top.

Referring to the previous thread where you answered my point about Hillary motivating minorities: Bush didn't win the election. In fact, it is extremely rare for the electoral college not to reflect the popular vote. The structural, anti-democratic problems with the US system are great, but that is the least of our worries right now.

But mostly, and this isn't directed at you, the extent to which people (on our side) don't even try to be rational about this is really depressing.

Greg's refined model may or may not eventually exhibit exceptional skill, but the fat that it seems pretty close to predictive means that those fundamentals really do matter. And the science says polls don't do well until after the conventions, and so on, but people just don't want to accept anything that refutes their narrative. That's what they call denial.

"but that (the electoral college system) is the least of our worries right now"

#24
“You are making some obvious mistakes, and while it is OK to react emotionally sometimes, it is important that this stuff be discussed with some degree of “scientific” accuracy.”

I will readily admit to being emotionally involved in the outcome of the election. A Republican victory would be a disaster for the entire world. I'm not aware of making obvious mistakes and being inaccurate. My comments are usually based on evidence, and I often provide sources.

“In fact, it is extremely rare for the electoral college not to reflect the popular vote. The structural, anti-democratic problems with the US system are great, but that is the least of our worries right now.”

To the best of my knowledge it's happened four times. If the 2000 election had been based on the popular vote, Gore would have won.
The “structural, anti-democratic problems with the US system” are a great part of your worries now. Among other things, they enable an undemocratic restructuring of voting districts and the disenfranchisement of voters who could determine the election.

My remarks on Rubio are valid. He's full of empty rhetoric and he's trying to inspire his audience by showing his pertinacious dedication to his cause – himself. The parallel to Churchill isn't subtle. To a great extent it's the discrepancy between his rhetoric and his vacuity that makes him appear robotic.

A New York Times op-ed provides relevant information on the background for the Trump phenomenon.

“In other words, the economic basis for voter anger has been building over forty years. Starting in 2000, two related developments added to worsening conditions for the middle and working classes.

First, that year marked the end of net upward mobility...

The second adverse trend is that trade with China, which shot up after China’s entry into the World Trade Organization in December 2001, imposed far larger costs on American workers than most economists anticipated, according to recent studies. And the costs of trade with China have fallen most harshly on workers on the lower rungs of the income ladder...

The tragedy of the 2016 campaign is that Trump has mobilized a constituency with legitimate grievances on a fool’s errand.

If he is shoved out of the field somehow, his supporters will remain bitter and enraged, convinced that a self-serving and malign elite defeated their leader.

If he prevails, a constituency that could force politicians to confront the problems of the working and middle class will waste its energies on a candidate incompetent to improve the lives of the credulous men and women lining up to support him.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/02/opinion/campaign-stops/why-trump-now…

On a previous occasion I noted that Trump wasn't a fascist, but that he had much in common with a populist right-wing party like the Danish People's Party. A commentary in today's Washington Post picks up on that:

“Well, actually, the package Trump offers — “save Social Security without cuts,” a vaguely pro-single-payer position on health care, plus temporarily banning Muslims and walling off Mexico — bears an eerie resemblance to the Danish government’s current policy mix.
His astonishing success selling it to the Republican base may portend ideological convergence between the U.S. right and Europe’s...
Not surprisingly, the recent Rand Corp. Presidential Election Panel Survey of Republican primary voters found that Trump supporters are more likely than others to feel threatened by immigrants and resent demands for equality by African Americans and women.
But that’s not the whole story. Trump also led among the 51 percent of GOP voters who support tax increases for those with incomes over $200,000; the 47 percent who favor a higher minimum wage; the 32 percent who favor “government paying necessary medical costs for every American citizen”; and the 38 percent who like labor unions.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-wants-to-make-america-mor…

I'd also mention that Trump has no program aiming at replacing liberal American democracy (flawed though it may be) with an authoritarian system, that he has no ideology, that he is far less militaristic than members of the Republican establishment, that his positions change opportunistically and are often self-contradictory.

FWIW, there's winning and then there's winning. Some food for thought at Common Dreams:
http://commondreams.org/views/2016/03/03/war-peace-and-bernie-sanders

Have you given any consideration to including the type of equipment used to count the votes in your model? It has an effect!

Beth, no, I haven't. The nice thing about this model is how simple it is.

But I would like to know what sorts of effects you are thinking about.

I'm very certain that the method of doing the voting affects things very strongly here in Minnesota, but that isn't specifically about equipment.

See: http://mnprogressiveproject.com/how-to-fix-the-minnesota-presidential-c…

Specifically, the electronic machinery used to record (voting machines) or count (scanning equipment) votes is suspect. In particular, the larger the number of votes cast, the larger the share of votes that go to the candidate preferred by the establishment (This is usually Republican candidate. It was Romney and Clinton in 2012 primaries).

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1500319856 Code Red does an excellent job of detailing the problem and supporting it with historical results and empirical studies.

I have a website set up www.ShowMeTheVotes.org that details my own analysis, which confirms what others like Simon (wrote the Code Red book) have done. It also details my struggles and failure (to date) to be allowed to examine the paper records that exist where I live (Sedgwick County Kansas) and determine the accuracy of the official results compared to an audit of the paper records.

As Simon details in his book, exit polls are 'adjusted' to match the outcome of the official vote count. If the official vote count has been rigged, then the population statistics of the exit polls are skewed when this adjustment is made. The bizarre population data that results becomes another piece of evidence that our voting systems has been compromised.

The lack of transparency that results from the use of electronic election equipment isn't acceptable even if we assume that no one is successfully taking advantage of that darkness.

I seem to recall independents don't make a difference. http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2012/11/14/infographic-of-the-day-…
Getting out the base wins elections. Sanders may indeed lead with independents but they are notoriously fickle. I don't know but I would assume independents vote less than party faithful.

Also we know young people don't vote, if they did Sanders would be leading. I say this as a Sanders supporter let me be quite clear.

Phil 32,

There are no "independents"-- or very few, as I recall the numbers.

This is one of those areas where we kind of know the answers based on fundamentals but people keep trotting out numbers as if they are relevant.

In 2008, Obama/Biden faced McCain/Palin. People who mostly vote R but are not crazy/self-destructive had an easy choice. With the more reasonable Romney/Ryan ticket, they went back to their normal pattern of voting R.

Calling this group "independents" is useful to make headlines and rhetorical arguments to support one's position, but not really helpful. It's like the meme that African-American voters "deserted" Hillary in 2008. Nationally, AA voters were not some kind of fan-base for her, so there was nothing surprising about what happened once Barack Obama was seen as a very good candidate.

And now we will perhaps hear that the probably misogynistic Jim Webb is "deserting" Hillary because he is such a liberal populist.

And so it goes....

PolitiFact: MOSTLY TRUE. "Bernie Sanders says he consistently beats Donald Trump by bigger margins than Hillary Clinton does"

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/08/bernie-s…