Nate Silver: Bernie Sanders’s Path To The Nomination

[w4rma]

How much trouble will Hillary Clinton be in if she loses in Nevada, where Democrats will caucus on Saturday? How close does Bernie Sanders need to come in South Carolina, which votes a week later? And which states are really “must-wins” for Sanders in March, April and beyond?

We can try to answer all of those questions with the help of the gigantic chart you’ll see below. On the left-hand side of the chart, you’ll find a projection for how each state might go if recent national polls are right, with Clinton ahead of Sanders by about 12 percentage points nationally. The right-hand side is more crucial: It shows how the states might line up if the vote were split 50-50 nationally.
…
Don’t get too attached to these: The state-by-state estimates are pretty rough. But they’re calibrated in such a way2 so as to provide a reasonable benchmark of what a 50-50 race would look like. Maybe Michigan is less favorable to Sanders than this estimate holds, for example. That’s fine, but it means he’ll need to make up ground in another state.

What about the states that have already voted? We estimate that in a 50-50 national race, Sanders would win Iowa by about 6 percentage points, and New Hampshire by 26 points. He didn’t quite hit those targets in either state, although he came close — several percentage points better than you’d expect from his current national polling. As we’ve said, however, the real challenges for Sanders lie ahead.

A quick look at the calendar

Nevada. … In other words — and as much as her campaign might try to avoid admitting it — it’s a state that Clinton “should” win. Conversely, a Sanders win would be a sign he has staying power.

South Carolina. Clinton is the overwhelming favorite in South Carolina, but her margin of victory could be a useful benchmark for where the race stands nationally. Our chart projects that Clinton would win South Carolina by 11 points in a 50-50 race, so she’d be doing a little bit better than that benchmark. But not a lot better: Such a result would still suggest that the national race had tightened.

Super Tuesday (March 1). Clinton is likely to compile lots of delegates from the seven Southern states that vote on Super Tuesday, although Oklahoma — which is quasi-Midwestern and relatively white — might be Sanders’s best shot at an upset. Sanders should win Vermont by a huge margin, meanwhile. That leaves the Minnesota caucus, Colorado caucus and Massachusetts primary as the races to watch; they’re the sorts of states Sanders absolutely needs to win to have a shot at taking the nomination.
…
Big-state primaries on March 8 and March 15.
…
Favorable terrain for Sanders in late March.
…
New York, California and a big blue finale.
…
But we’re getting ahead of ourselves. If Sanders can hang tight with Clinton in Nevada on Saturday, his chance of eventually notching a win in California and securing the nomination will look a lot better.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bernie-sanderss-path-to-the-nomination/

[Betty Karlson]

1. Thanks for the link. (eom)

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

2. Nate's model is useless in NV. Thus far, we've learned nothing from him

He's too affraid to be incorrect, so he'll take a pass on NV and again, tell us what we already know: 50-50

Useless in IA (a .4 point win is as good as a 30 point win when picking winners not margins) and NH. NV is his first opportunity to prove himself, and he's taking a pass = useless. Useless in SC.

[w4rma]

3. The mistake that stands out for me is that Nate lumps all non-whites together.

The truth is that Sanders is polling extremely well among Hispanics. Hispanics can't be counted as part of Clinton's "firewall":

We can adjust those numbers though, figuring out what percentage of those with an opinion view [Sanders] positively or negatively. And what we find is that black Democrats view him with some antipathy -- but Hispanics view [Sanders] about as positively as do whites.

Which may explain the gulf between the non-white voters in Nevada and South Carolina.

The bad news for Clinton is that this may undermine the strength of that firewall. In general, non-white voters have her back, but that may depend to some extent on those non-white voters being black voters. In states with a large Hispanic population, it's not clear (at this point/from limited polling) that she can count on the same level of support. Which could be important in a state like Texas, were a third of the Democratic primary vote in 2008 was Hispanic -- though so far, according to polling from Public Policy Polling, Clinton still leads in Texas thanks to her support from black voters. As we've seen in Nevada, though, that can change quickly.

Or put another way: Clinton's firewall may be missing some bricks.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/17/hillary-clintons-firewall-may-be-missing-some-bricks/

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

5. Good article. I haven't taken the time to determine what the polls actually measure

[corkhead]

4. So it sounds like 11% is the magic number in SC. We'll see about Michigan.

thousands wait in line in the freezing cold to see Sanders at Eastern Michigan University.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511243461

[LiberalAndProud]

6. My memory may be faulty, but it seems to me that Nate has changed his tone

since the onset of silly season. Less dismissive of Sanders' run now, I think.