STATE OF THE PRIMARY - February 15, 2016

[Chichiri]

Last edited Mon Feb 15, 2016, 10:12 PM - Edit history (4)

[font color="blue"]Delegate Count
Pledged Delegates: Sanders 36, Clinton 32 (Sanders +4)
Total Delegates (AP): Clinton 394, Sanders 44 (Clinton +350)
Versus Targets (Cook): Clinton +7, Sanders -7.

Next Primary
Nevada caucuses, February 20 (35 pledged delegates).
Targets (Cook): Clinton 16, Sanders 19.[/font]


[font color="darkblue"] Latest Polls
Nevada (TargetPoint): Clinton 45, Sanders 45 (tie).
South Carolina (ARG): Clinton 65, Sanders 27 (Clinton +38).
South Carolina (CBS/YouGov): Clinton 59, Sanders 40 (Clinton +19)
South Carolina (Gravis): Clinton 59, Sanders 41 (Clinton +18).
South Carolina (PPP): Clinton 55, Sanders 34 (Clinton +21).

Latest Polls-Plus Projections (538)
Nevada: Clinton/Sanders 50%.
South Carolina: Clinton 99%+.
Michigan: Clinton 97%.
North Carolina: Clinton 95%.

Current Endorsement Score (538)
Clinton 467, Sanders 2.[/font]


[font color="brown"]Quick Glance at the GOP
Pledged Delegates: Trump 17, Cruz 11, Rubio 10.
Versus Targets: Trump -4, Cruz -5, Rubio -10.
538 South Carolina Projection: Trump 73%, Rubio 17%.
Endorsement Score: Rubio 75, Bush 51, Kasich 20.[/font]


Comments
The Nevada poll is a bit old now, and is a pro-Bernie push poll, but it's still literally the only recent poll we have. Nevada was conducted both before and after the NH primary; the two SC polls were conducted after.

With the two new SC polls today, it seems that the ARG poll that had Clinton +38 was an outlier, and that she's ahead by around 20 points. For reference, Bernie's margin of victory in New Hampshire was 22 points. Between that and the fact that Hillary's target number is slightly higher in SC than Bernie's (28 to 25), it seems that Bernie fans have some small glimmer of hope in SC.

I've tweaked this a bit to make it a bit more readable, to accommodate Bernie fans who want to give more weight (or all weight) to pledged delegates, and because I enjoy tweaking things.


How This Works
The delegate counts, pledged and total, are taken from AP. The total delegate count includes both pledged delegates and superdelegates. Superdelegates are not bound to any one candidate, and while the count reflects their stated intentions, they can change their minds before the convention.

The targets are taken from the Cook Political Report's model, based on superdelegate endorsement and demographic conditions favorable to each candidate, and represent the number of delegates each candidate must win in each state in order to stay on track to tie for the nomination. The targets are current as of February 12. The projections and endorsement scores are maintained by FiveThirtyEight; the projections indicate the probability that the candidate will win that state.

Additions and changes made after the thread is posted will be denoted by italics.

If you have a suggestion for a scorecard or model not covered above, let me know. If this post is useful to you, please K&R!


[font color="purple"]Pun of the Day
When I dropped the piano down the mineshaft, I got A-flat minor.[/font]

[hr]

[kydo]

1. LOL AbM LOL

Sorry that made me LOL

[Chichiri]

4. Oh, AbM = A-flat minor.

That took me a minute.

[Thinkingabout]

2. The Nevada poll was for a RW source and shortly we shall see the results.

I am looking forward to the polls from SC and NC, those should start to tell the future story.

[Stuckinthebush]

3. This is the truth!

Also, the Cook targets show that all Clinton needs is 16 versus Sanders need for 19 in Nevada. So, she only needs 46% of the delegates. She'll get more but that is all she needs to stay on target.

Then.....SC. BOOM!

[Lucinda]

5. Thanks much!

[Alfresco]

6. Nicely done, thanks.

[Chichiri]

7. ADDED: New Gravis polls in SC.

Hillary has gone down in 538's projection from over 99% to just 99%. Oh snap. Also, Cruz has replaced Rubio in second place there.

[liberal_at_heart]

9. I'm glad the polls are showing Hillary at 99%. High expectations mean more

disappointment when they don't come true. I'm not saying Bernie will win SC, but it will be much closer than 99% to 1%.

[Chichiri]

10. No, that's not a poll. That's a probability of who will win.

The most recent polls have Hillary close to 60%.

[Chichiri]

11. I updated the post to clarify that. nt

[liberal_at_heart]

12. Well given SC is supposed to be Hillary's firewall, I'll take that. There is plenty of

room there for a surprise. Who knows? Maybe we'll get another tie.

[Chichiri]

14. If you like. nt

[Dawson Leery]

8. k/r

[Persondem]

13. Thank you for assembling the data. K & R nt

[stonecutter357]

15. K&R!

[Chichiri]

16. EDITED: New GOP data.

Good news for Trump in SC and Rubio in the endorsements. Also a couple small tweaks to the Dem models.

[Motown_Johnny]

17. Super delegates do not vote until the convention. Your count is wrong.

Also, not much of a pun when you need to imply the death of a child to try to get a laugh.

[Chichiri]

18. Read "how this works," and think of the homophone for "minor." nt

[okasha]

20. Some people apparently have a deep-seated need

to be offended.

[Chichiri]

21. I think it's more a knee-jerk reaction to a Hillary supporter telling the truth or being funny.

Because if he posts accurate data, or tells a funny joke, it's a short and slippery slope from there to accurately predicting the electoral catastrophe that awaits Bernie over the next couple months.

[okasha]

23. It may be an habitual or even conditioned response

but the reward is the adrenaline high. Have a look at the threads about the Clintons' speaking fees. Absolutely nowhere in the normal world are they a "scandal." Here they're an excuse to bring out the pitchforks and torches.

[Motown_Johnny]

22. Then why not A flat major?

Why is "minor" necessary for the pun?


How about a better pun?


So a Buddhist walks up to a hot dog vendor and says "Make me one with everything".

[Chichiri]

24. Mineshaft. Minor. Come on, it's not hard. nt

[Chichiri]

19. ADDED: New PPP polls in SC.

Also added some commentary in the comments.