The 538 site has just added/updated a number of states' probabilities of candidates winning....

[George II]

The numbers are stunning!

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/nevada-democratic/

These are % chance of winning, not poll results:

Nevada Clinton 69%
South Carolina Clinton >99%
Arkansas Clinton >99%
Georgia Clinton >99%
Oklahoma Clinton 81%
Tennessee Clinton >99%
Virginia Clinton 98%
Michigan Clinton 95%
North Carolina Clinton 97%

[SunSeeker]

1. K & R

[ucrdem]

2. hey thanks, that's so great to hear!

Sadly Google news is all Bernie all the time, except when there's fresh nasty about Hillary I think they need to work on the personalization ...

[Quixote1818]

3. You need to read Nate Silver closer

He tells people to basically ignore polls until about two weeks out. Anything beyond two weeks is name recognition because people don't start paying attention until the actual primary they will vote in is right around the corner. It's why states like Nevada quickly went from 30 point spreads to zero in a matter of days.

[George II]

8. Once again, these numbers do NOT refer to poll results or poll aggregates, they refer to....

....chance of winning, i.e., a 50.1 to 49.9 result for Clinton is a win.

For Sanders to get the nomination he has to come out ahead in more states than New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine. Right now it looks like those states are his "firewall".

[Dawson Leery]

4. In 92' Super Tuesday is when Clinton took Tsongas down.

Hillary may take Bernie down on the same day.

https://twitter.com/SteveKornacki/status/699989783586738176

[hoosierlib]

9. Lol...Bernie is way better funded and had a ground game bigger than Hillary in some states

If NV falls and SC is less than a 10 point victory for HRC, its going to get real interesting...

[kenfrequed]

44. Hmm

Actually for it to be a solid win she has to take it by 20 points.

Anything under 10 may as well be a loss or a tie.

[HooptieWagon]

10. From mid-March on Sanders will start rolling.

He'll rack up states in the Northeast, Rust Belt, Midwest, and West Coast. Some of them by substantial margins.

[morningfog]

15. Yep. This race is just getting started.

[George II]

18. Mid-March will be way too late. It's March 1st or never, and the smart money is on never.

[HooptieWagon]

23. Hogwash. This will go to August.

Bernie will have more pledged delegates. Then if DNClinton want to go scorched earth with Superdelegate the party split and November bloodbath fall entirely on their shoulders.

[morningfog]

14. Won't happen. Bernie will do well in NV, possibly win.

On Super Tuesday he will likely take 4 to Hillary's 7 states. Splitting delegates, it will still be a very close race on Wednesday morning.

Just settle in for a long Primary.

[George II]

24. Which states will he win on Super Tuesday?

Here are the Super Tuesday primary states/territories:

American Samoa - ?
Arkansas - Clinton easily
Colorado - Clinton but close
Democrats abroad - ?
Georgia - Clinton easily
Massachusetts - Clinton but close
Minnesota - Clinton but close
Oklahoma - Clinton but close
Tennessee - Clinton easily
Texas - Clinton easily
Vermont - Sanders easily
Virginia - Clinton easily

Remember, these are all proportional states, the few Sanders wins will have to more than compensate for Clinton's wins in order for him to be competitive overall. That's not going to happen.

[morningfog]

28. MA, MN, CO, VT.

Oklahoma a long shot.

Remember ALL of the state's are promotional, even Hillary win states.

Also remember, Sanders is the leader in pledged delegates so far. He will likely win NV and Hillary will take SC.

Settle in for a long contest. It will not be over on March 1, not by a long shot. Bernie is in it to win it. He has the fundraising ability and will bag enough delegates along the way to stay competitive. Hillary will not be able to put him away mathematically for a long time, if ever.

[HooptieWagon]

29. Okay. Y'all can just stay home and relax the rest of the way.

[Lucinda]

34. Whoa. Thats interesting! Thanks much!

[hoosierlib]

5. Lol...good...hopefully that keeps the HRC folks at home...

And their odds are based off of a very small sample size of polls...

[tiredtoo]

6. Vegas still has Hillary as the odds on favorite to be next President

However Bernie jumped up to third after recent primaries. Behind Hillary and Trump. Will the trend continue after next weeks primaries?

[mcar]

7. Woah!

Stunning numbers for sure!

[sheshe2]

11. Goooooooooooooooooooooo Hillary!

[Sheepshank]

12. Wow...that's pretty awesome. A hearty k&r. Nt

[morningfog]

13. He has sanders winning Mass.

Absent is Colorado and Minnesota. And of course Vermont.

[karynnj]

21. vt has to be Bernie better than 99.9999

Given that he has an approval rating of 83 percent as Senator and VT has an open primary. PPP polled him ahead by 78 percent.

It says something that you get that kind of approval when you have been in one elected office or another for about 40 plus years.

[kenn3d]

25. Poll Trivia - Home is where the heart is

Bobby Jindal was really not popular in Louisiana (--% when he dropped out)
Jeb! is currently at just 4% in Florida
O'Malley never got above the low single digits in Maryland
And even Hillary was just 43% in Illinois, 55% in New York, and 57% in Arkansas, as of the last Primary polls taken in those states, (not sure which/where she calls home).

Bernie Sanders is polling at 86% in Vermont (w/95% favorables)

He been their Mayor, Representative, and Senator for 4 decades, and they LOVE him.

[George II]

26. The states I didn't include don't have % chance of winning yet. As for Vermont........

........of course he'll win but that state has the 4th lowest number of delegates available (15) of all 50, and Clinton has several of the superdelegates already anyway.

[mythology]

30. That you don't have a very diverse electorate?

[reformist2]

16. Almost total speculation, and based on spotty state poll results. Nate should be ashamed of himself.

[George II]

27. I seriously doubt he he's ashamed of himself. Sorry.

[wildeyed]

39. Just because you don't like

the predictions does not mean the predictions are wrong. And these are not even predictions, just odds.

[craigmatic]

17. oh this is just primaries. I thought it was the general.

[George II]

31. That's funny, when he had Sanders ahead in a state or two he was beyond God.

[Persondem]

20. Nice to see. Thanks for posting it. K & R nt

[jfern]

22. All that because of one Hillary hack pollster (PPP)?

Does Native Silver still think Trump has no chance at the Republican nomination? He should really give up on this politics thing, he's not very good at it.

[George II]

32. You forgot the sarcasm smilie.

[kcjohn1]

33. Nate is useless

And PPP is even worse which a lot of these calculations is based off.

Nate is pretty accurate a week or two out when there is significant polling. He had Clinton at 70% to win NH early January. A week before election the election Bernie was at 99%. Huge flux to make his early predictions useless.

PPP which is doing polling work for Clinton leans her heavily. They had Clinton up +7 in early January in NH. Their last poll had Bernie +9 when he finished with +22. In Iowa they had Clinton up +9, we don't know the popular vote but there is good chance Bernie won the popular vote given his voters were clustered in areas.

If you give Bernie +10 that PPP is under counting his voters + two more weeks campaigning I suspect Bernie will close the gap in south and win heavy in some of the liberal states for tie. That is good news because he has more time to get his message out and most of the remaining states are more friendly to him.

[lovemydog]

35. Thanks.

Interesting.

If these numbers are close to accurate, Sanders has a long way to go.

I think time is running out for his campaign.

[Gothmog]

36. These are great numbers for HRC

[thesquanderer]

37. Clearly, Bernie is still the underdog. But also remember it's about delegates.

Odds of winning a state alone doesn't give a clue as to how many delegates a candidate gets... it depends on how many delegates a state has AND the margin of victory (since delegates are awarded proportionately).

For example, decisive wins in California and New York (722 delegates between them) could more than offset losses in two dozen smaller states that, between all of them, have fewer delegates than that.

[George II]

41. True, but if one candidate wins 8 out of 10 primaries, the other candidate has to win......

.....those other two by near unanimous margins.

BTW, Clinton is ahead in New York by 21% (233) and California by 14% (405), but neither have enough polls for 538 to make a % prediction. In addition, Clinton has a 25% lead in Florida (207) and 31% lead in Texas (208).

That's double-digit leads (20+ in three of the four) leads in states totaling more than 1,000 delegates. Even if they wind up being close, that would be ~ 500 each. One can't come from behind if one can't get a few decent wins, which won't happen.

It's like a chess match - when a Grand Master wins a game early in the match, he/she plays for draws the rest of the way.

[thesquanderer]

42. re: "if one candidate wins 8 out of 10 primaries, the other candidate has to win..."

"...those other two by near unanimous margins."

No... In order to come out ahead in delegates, the 2-state candidate in this example only has to beat whatever overall margin the 24-state candidate achieved, whatever that figure is.

I'm not saying it's likely to happen, I'm just discussing the math.

If candidate A wins 24 states and ends up with, say, 60% of roughly 720 delegares, which is 432 delegates, then the other candidate can theoretically win by just a hair more in two states that have about that same number of delegates, and come out ahead. For example, 61% of the roughly 720 delegates of those two states yields 439 delegates. The second candidate in no way needs to win those two states by near unanimous margins to end up ahead in total delegate count. The only way that would be true would be if the first candidate had won the first 24 states by near unanimous margins as well. Simply, in this scenario, whoever wins their group by the greater margin wins more delegates. There is no need for one's margin to be much greater than the other's, any amount will do.

I still think Hillary is likely to win the nomination, I'm just saying that "number of states won" is, by itself, not a particularly good metric.

[George II]

43. Your last statement about number of states is correct - "winning" a state is only cosmetic, and....

....I've been saying that since the spring. It's a bragging point, not a practical indication of where the two candidates stand.

Clinton barely won in Iowa, Sanders won "big" in New Hampshire (even though NH has less voters than more than 40 states), and yet they're only 4 delegates apart out of 68 delegates chosen.

Politics aside at this point, the numbers are definitely in Clinton's favor, by Super Tuesday II (March 15), it will be virtually impossible for Sanders to recover.

[leftofcool]

38. Hillary's got this.

[wildeyed]

40. Those are some great numbers!

Thanks for the update