the arizona poll released yesterday introduced a new dynamic: 25% undecided.
i generally tend to interpret undecided voters as undecided voters and rub up against the idea that they will distribute nicely in the end. and, in this circumstance - sanders v. clinton - you'd think that undecided should benefit sanders (although it didn't work out that way in ohio).
on the one hand, these are not good numbers for sanders. on the other hand, they're not catastrophic - because of that large undecided group.
but, this isn't what sanders wants to see. a lack of momentum and a lack of exposure (are there televised debates this week? town halls? i haven't seen any.) make this a different circumstance than last week.
i mean, let's be clear, here: i argued that all the factors leading up to the 15th were going to be in sanders' favour, and they clearly were. he split illinois. a week previous, the polling had him thirty points down. he clearly got a huge bump. and, the truth is that i really should have spoken more carefully. i shouldn't have said he will win; i should have said that if turnout is high then he will win. and, if turnout was higher than he would have won! i got a little carried away by rhetoric. but, the analysis was actually spot on if you can see through that.
none of that holds, here. i don't see any particular reason to think that sanders ought to make up this spread over the next five days.
so, if you look back, you'll see that i initially reacted badly to michigan pre-polling - and then modified my prediction to something closer as more results came in. i am going to need to see some more polling before i post a negative prediction. but, i don't see any reason to suspect that the situation will repeat itself.
there's a lot of reasons to suggest that he can do well in both tuscon and phoenix. but, right now, this looks bad - even while acknowledging that we'll need more data before we should start freaking out.
i'm finally just about caught up. i'm going to be focusing mostly on editing for another day or two, still. but i should be back to my normal schedule tonight around midnight - meaning that normally scheduling should resume tomorrow at midnight.
i'm going to get this out of the way. very preliminary. all analyses are subject to adjustments as a consequence of polling. these are first impressions, really.
mar 22
arizona: arizona, i'd suspect, is the liberal flip side to nevada - roughly similar, but leaning more in his favour due to more progressive bases. tuscon and phoenix are both something like austin, and there isn't really a big base of right-leaning democrats like there is in texas. so, you'd be looking at roughly purple state demographics, with a slight boost for bernie. arizona is a melting pot of sorts - being torn in various directions. so, he can win it, but again you're looking at the factor being turnout - low turnout and it's nevada, big turnout and it's colorado.
idaho: you can't rig a caucus. i don't see any reason to think it would be different than the other western caucus states.
utah: utah is weird. no, it actually is due to the mormon vote. even non-mormons are still living in what is a broadly mormon society. utah is almost like a different country. there's a lot of reasons to think that utah would react very badly to hillary clinton, but it's not clear that they'd react well to bernie sanders. they got over obama being black in 2008. to me, that suggests that they can get over sanders being a jew in 2016. but, utah is also the kind of state that would have done it's homework and actually known that obama was to the right of clinton. i think that sanders being a bit more libertarian, even if he's less conservative, is probably important in utah. some polls would help regarding margins.
he should be aiming to make up at least fifty delegates on mar 22nd.
mar 26th
alaska/hawaii - these are caucuses, but i don't have any reason to suggest that sanders has a real advantage in alaska. clinton actually seems to do better outside of the lower 48, where the politics might be a little distant and the issue may already be the general. i'm going to bristle a little on the assumption that he's favoured in these states.
washington - washington is very, very liberal. it's practically canada. he needs a big win here. 70%+ would be great. it's the kind of bump that could save him. and, if he just squeezes out a tie, it's a death blow. i think he should be the clear favourite here, but some polling would be nice.
assuming that alaska & hawaii roughly split, which is conservative, he needs to aim for at least a 40 delegate gain in washington.
put together, he should be aiming to have made up 100 delegates by march 26th, cutting the lead to about 215 - which is what it was on mar 14th.
apr 5
is wisconsin more like minnesota or more like illinois? let's split the difference. let's say he aims for 55%. again - if he's fighting her to a draw in wisconsin, he's not pulling people out - or she's stuffing to a point that can't be overturned. he should be aiming for more like 60%. but, it's going to roughly split. he needs to win, at least.
apr 9th
wyoming is another one of these caucuses that you can't rig and all evidence does point in his favour - although i again would like some polls.
the goal for after april 9th needs to be that the difference is under 200. whatever the results in wyoming are, that's what needs to be the takeaway for the situation to remain competitive. apr 19
new york. he has to be aiming for fifty delegates in new york. that means his goal in new york is 60%. he split massachusetts. he split illinois. the idea that he can do this is perhaps bordering on the realm of fantasy. some polling would of course help!
of course, if he gets 57% or something then you can start tweaking. and, if he gets 80% in washington (or wins hawaii huge) then he has some extra space. but his goal coming out of new york needs to be a delegate difference that is less than 150. and the percentage he should be aiming for to get him the boost at the end is really 60%. if he fights her to a draw, it's going to be the same lack of enthusiasm that kicked in last night.
apr 26
connecticut & RI : i think the question is whether connecticut is more like massachusetts or more like new york. i don't think it's much like vermont or much like new hampshire. but, if he wins 60%? the reality is that this is less than 20 delegates. whether he gets 55% or 60% is really not important. he can even split them, really. he just can't lose them.
delaware/pennsylvania/maryland: my understanding is that these states almost always vote together, and that they're pretty comprehensively blue. i know that the conventional analyses will argue that maryland should be favoured for clinton due to race, but i think the results up to this point have actually completely debunked this. i would expect maryland to follow the same trends as the states to it's direct north - because it always has before. the racial breakdown has never mattered previously and should not matter now.
so, the key is pennsylvania. pennsylvania is the liberal image to ohio. where ohio is the northern tip of the southeast, pennsylvania is the southern tip of the northeast. that means that you want to give sanders a really strong chance in pennsylvania. but, that you also need to tone it done just a tad.
clinton won ohio with around 55%. i think sanders could win the pennsylvania-maryland-delaware megastate with about 55%. maryland may actually be a little kinder to sanders than pennsylvania because it's a little more liberal. but, when you work it out? if he wins those three states by 55% each, it's only +40 delegates.
combined with connecticut & RI, he wants to be walking out of april 26th with the difference very close to 100. so, he wants to make up around 50 on the 26th. i want to say less than 100. but, then the sky will fall if it's 110. around 100 is good enough.
the schedule actually shifts again in may.
may 3
clinton should be favoured in indiana. he has to hope for a split. if he can come in with it a little under 100, he might walk out with it a little over 100. it's very hard to see how he can win indiana.
may 10
she should be favoured in west virginia as well. thankfully, it's only 37 delegates. he'll be lucky to keep her under 60. but it's only a few delegates, either way - so long as he doesn't get wiped. i frankly couldn't imagine much that could be less likely than a socialist jew winning in west virginia. i hope he brings some serious security with him. so, we want to hope it's under 120 at this point.
may 17
she will likely get around 65% in kentucky and he will likely get around 65% in oregon. oregon's a little bigger, but it's basically a delegate split. we're still looking at a difference of about 100-120 or so - hopefully.
june 5
i skipped guam a little earlier. it's 12 delegates. she'll probably win a few. but, when you combine guam, puerto rico and virgin islands you have 99 delegates. and, i'd have to think she's favoured in all of these places.
unfortunately, that puts us back up to 150 as a targeted delegate difference and gives her momentum going into june 7th.
june 7th
he has to win over a hundred delegates in california, and hobble together the rest.
so, as was stated: it was always about california!
“We realist Democrats understand that collateral damage is an unavoidable by-product of the War on Terror, and me being a mother, grandmother and tireless children’s rights advocate does not mean that I will flinch even one iota in allowing Israel to obliterate every last school-cum-rocket launching pad in Gaza. Those who allow their children to be used as human shields for terrorists deserve to see them buried under one-ton bombs.”