Hillary Clinton affirmed her status as the likely democratic nominee for President with a smashing 58%-42% victory in her home state of New York. Her victory means that her pledged delegate lead is 237 at the time of writing and with only 1400 pledged delegates left to be earns (less than 35% of the total) Bernie Sanders needs to win 58.46% of remaining pledged delegates in order to catch the former Secretary of State. That percentage of pledged delegates needed by Senator Sanders is about as high as it was on March 15, when Sec Clinton swept the five states that voted on that Tuesday.
In my previous delegate race diary, I wrote that because of how various demographic groups have voted this primary season, Sec Clinton was almost certain to be the democratic nominee, since the voting patterns were remarkably static and her coalition was broader than the coalition Sen Sanders had built. I wrote
I’m of the opinion that this race has effectively been over for some time now, with the demographic trends of the race seemingly baked in. What could change my mind about this race being over? For that I would need to see some evidence that the demographic dynamics have changed, and changed not in a way that this race is now a 50-50 one, instead changed in such a way that the dynamics indicate that Bernie can overcome the very big delegate hole he finds himself in. That would mean something around a 5 point (or greater) win for Sen Sanders in New York.
Obviously, Sen Sanders fell well short of the kind of result in New York that would allow the possibility that the underlying dynamics of the race had indeed changed.
Delegate Race
As usual, all numbers are from The Green Papers (I have Nevada projected at 18-17 due to the results of the county conventions — the Green Papers still has it projected at 20-15). Since the time Wyoming caucused on April 9, Colorado has shifted from being projected 38-28 to being projected at 41-25 for Bernie.
|
PLEDGED DELEGATES |
COOK'S CLINTON TARGET |
COOK'S SANDERS TARGET |
CLINTON TARGET ADJUSTED |
SANDERS TARGET ADJUSTED |
538 CLINTON TARGET |
538 SANDERS TARGET |
538 REVISED CLINTON TARGET |
538 REVISED SANDERS TARGET |
CLINTON RESULT |
SANDERS RESULT |
TO BE ALLOCATED |
CLINTON DIFFERENCE FROM COOK'S TARGET |
CLINTON DIFFERENCE FROM 538'S TARGET |
CLINTON TOTAL |
SANDERS TOTAL |
RAW LEAD |
Iowa |
44 |
16 |
28 |
18 |
26 |
18 |
26 |
|
|
23 |
21 |
|
5 |
5 |
23 |
21 |
CLINTON BY 2 |
New Hampshire |
24 |
9 |
15 |
10 |
14 |
9 |
15 |
|
|
9 |
15 |
|
-1 |
0 |
32 |
36 |
SANDERS BY 4 |
Nevada |
35 |
16 |
19 |
18 |
17 |
17 |
18 |
|
|
18 |
17 |
|
0 |
1 |
50 |
53 |
SANDERS BY 3 |
South Carolina |
53 |
27 |
26 |
30 |
23 |
32 |
21 |
|
|
39 |
14 |
|
9 |
7 |
89 |
67 |
CLINTON BY 22 |
Alabama |
53 |
27 |
26 |
30 |
23 |
35 |
18 |
|
|
44 |
9 |
|
14 |
9 |
133 |
76 |
CLINTON BY 187
|
American Samoa |
6 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|
|
4 |
2 |
|
1 |
1 |
137 |
78 |
Arkansas |
32 |
13 |
19 |
15 |
17 |
18 |
14 |
|
|
22 |
10 |
|
7 |
4 |
159 |
88 |
Colorado |
66 |
30 |
36 |
33 |
33 |
30 |
36 |
|
|
25 |
41 |
|
-8 |
-5 |
184 |
129 |
Georgia |
102 |
52 |
50 |
57 |
45 |
65 |
37 |
|
|
73 |
29 |
|
16 |
8 |
257 |
158 |
Massachusetts |
91 |
35 |
56 |
40 |
51 |
41 |
50 |
|
|
46 |
45 |
|
6 |
5 |
303 |
203 |
Minnesota |
77 |
32 |
45 |
36 |
41 |
30 |
47 |
|
|
31 |
46 |
|
-5 |
1 |
334 |
249 |
Oklahoma |
38 |
16 |
22 |
18 |
20 |
18 |
20 |
|
|
17 |
21 |
|
-1 |
-1 |
351 |
270 |
Tennessee |
67 |
30 |
37 |
33 |
34 |
33 |
34 |
|
|
44 |
23 |
|
11 |
11 |
395 |
293 |
Texas |
222 |
111 |
111 |
122 |
100 |
126 |
96 |
|
|
147 |
75 |
|
25 |
21 |
542 |
368 |
Vermont |
16 |
4 |
12 |
5 |
11 |
2 |
14 |
|
|
0 |
16 |
|
-5 |
-2 |
542 |
384 |
Virginia |
95 |
43 |
52 |
48 |
47 |
52 |
43 |
|
|
62 |
33 |
|
14 |
10 |
604 |
417 |
Kansas |
33 |
14 |
19 |
16 |
17 |
14 |
19 |
|
|
10 |
23 |
|
-6 |
-4 |
614 |
440 |
CLINTON BY 192
|
Louisiana |
51 |
26 |
25 |
29 |
22 |
33 |
18 |
|
|
37 |
14 |
|
8 |
4 |
651 |
454 |
Nebraska |
25 |
10 |
15 |
11 |
14 |
10 |
15 |
|
|
10 |
15 |
|
-1 |
0 |
661 |
469 |
Maine |
25 |
9 |
16 |
10 |
15 |
10 |
15 |
|
|
9 |
16 |
|
-1 |
-1 |
670 |
485 |
CLINTON BY 185 |
Michigan |
130 |
55 |
75 |
62 |
68 |
63 |
67 |
|
|
63 |
67 |
|
1 |
0 |
733 |
552 |
CLINTON BY 209
|
Mississippi |
36 |
18 |
18 |
20 |
16 |
23 |
13 |
|
|
32 |
4 |
|
12 |
9 |
765 |
556 |
Northern Marianas |
6 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|
|
4 |
2 |
|
1 |
1 |
769 |
558 |
CLINTON BY 210 |
Florida |
214 |
94 |
120 |
105 |
109 |
116 |
98 |
|
|
141 |
73 |
|
36 |
25 |
910 |
631 |
CLINTON BY 312
|
Illinois |
156 |
73 |
83 |
81 |
75 |
85 |
71 |
|
|
78 |
78 |
|
-3 |
-7 |
988 |
709 |
Missouri |
71 |
30 |
41 |
34 |
37 |
36 |
35 |
|
|
36 |
35 |
|
2 |
0 |
1024 |
744 |
North Carolina |
107 |
54 |
53 |
59 |
48 |
57 |
50 |
|
|
60 |
47 |
|
1 |
3 |
1084 |
791 |
Ohio |
143 |
60 |
83 |
67 |
76 |
71 |
72 |
|
|
81 |
62 |
|
14 |
10 |
1165 |
853 |
Democrats Abroad |
13 |
6 |
7 |
7 |
6 |
6.5 |
7 |
|
|
4 |
9 |
|
-3 |
-2.5 |
1169 |
862 |
CLINTON BY 307 |
Arizona |
75 |
33 |
42 |
37 |
38 |
34 |
41 |
|
|
42 |
33 |
|
5 |
8 |
1211 |
895 |
CLINTON BY 282
|
Idaho |
23 |
10 |
13 |
11 |
12 |
9 |
14 |
|
|
5 |
18 |
|
-6 |
-4 |
1216 |
913 |
Utah |
33 |
12 |
21 |
14 |
19 |
14 |
19 |
|
|
6 |
27 |
|
-8 |
-8 |
1222 |
940 |
Alaska |
16 |
7 |
9 |
8 |
8 |
7 |
9 |
|
|
3 |
13 |
|
-5 |
-4 |
1225 |
953 |
CLINTON BY 216
|
Hawaii |
25 |
13 |
12 |
14 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
|
|
8 |
17 |
|
-6 |
-4 |
1233 |
970 |
Washington |
101 |
44 |
57 |
49 |
52 |
42 |
59 |
|
|
27 |
74 |
|
-22 |
-15 |
1260 |
1044 |
Wisconsin |
86 |
33 |
53 |
37 |
49 |
38 |
48 |
36 |
50 |
38 |
48 |
|
1 |
0 |
1298 |
1092 |
CLINTON BY 206 |
Wyoming |
14 |
6 |
8 |
7 |
7 |
5 |
9 |
3 |
11 |
7 |
7 |
|
0 |
2 |
1305 |
1099 |
CLINTON BY 206 |
New York |
247 |
127 |
120 |
139 |
108 |
122 |
125 |
119 |
128 |
139 |
108 |
|
0 |
17 |
1444 |
1207 |
CLINTON BY 237 |
|
|
|
|
1153 |
1151 |
1175 |
1130 |
|
|
1444 |
1207 |
0 |
+108 |
+105 |
|
|
|
|
|
Delegate Target Surplus
Hillary Clinton is doing more than 100 delegates better than her targets in both the Cook and 538 delegate target models. In fact, Bernie Sanders is falling behind even his revised 538 targets that had taken into account his previous delegate hole. In short, Sen Sanders finds himself in an untenable position in the pledged delegate race. A simple way of looking at the delegate target surplus, is that if Hillary’s surplus were 0, it would mean that both candidates are on track for 50% of the pledged delegates according to the model being considered.
Up Next
Next up on April 26 are a mix of states (PA, MD, CT, DE, RI) that overall should be favorable to Sec Clinton because of the type of contest (closed primary) and/or the demographics of the state. April 26 should be another good day for the former Secretary, and with Bernie Sanders’s campaign already past the point of having no room for error, he will find it increasingly hard to describe a path that leads to him winning the pledged delegate race.