Real Delegate Count:

[silvershadow]

[Vincardog]

1. Thank U

[silvershadow]

2. You're welcome. We rock! nt

[AgerolanAmerican]

3. if my math is right

Bernie needs 1093 of the 1977, or 55.28% of remaining pledged delegates, to obtain a majority.

That seems extremely achievable.

[DLnyc]

4. Delegates so far seems about right, but I'm not sure what to make of "Delegates Remaining"

Green Papers has it Bernie 1088 and Hillary 1302, so pretty close to what Nate seems to be getting.

But Green Papers has 1661 remaining. This makes sense to me, since 4051 - (1088 + 1302) gives 1661.

I don't see how Nate gets 1977 ? ? ?

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D

[thereismore]

5. I'd say Nate is wrong. nt

[DLnyc]

6. I agree, but still I wonder how he got there

Seems like he put the goal 320 delegates further away than it is???

Oops, on edit, 313 further away.

[eomer]

7. Agreed, that number of 1977 for delegates remaining is incorrect.

Not sure whether that came from Nate or someone else who made the graphic that's in the OP. (Link?)

But anyway, based on the Green Papers current delegate count Bernie needs 938 of the remaining 1661, or 56.47%.

[Fast Walker 52]

8. my math says he needs 58% of remaining delegates to tie

FWIW

[DLnyc]

9. I'm curious as to how you come up with that number.

I get 2026 to win, Bernie has 1088, so he needs 2026 - 1088 = 938.

With 1661 delegates left, Bernie needs 938/1661 = .56472005... or 56.47% (rounding) of the remaining delegates to win.

I would be interested to see how you got 58% ? ? ?

[Fast Walker 52]

10. I did it by the remaining delegates, with the assumption that Bernie needs to get 210 more

then Hillary to win.

I calculated that he needs ~1149 out of 1977 = 58% remaining to get the majority overall.

I think he would need to get this to make the claim that he has more support, to get at least some super-delegates to switch.

I'm not really sure what the best way to figure this is. Either way, it's doable but will be tricky.

[DLnyc]

12. Interesting, but I don't see where you are getting that 1149 number, the 1977 number is probably

wrong (see posts above), and the 210 number seems absolutely arbitrary? ? ?

I feel like your explanation just raises more questions, in all fairness.

And as far as super-delegates, Hillary also had most of the super-delegates at first in 2008, but once Obama had more pledged delegates, the super-delegates moved over to support him. So I think the right way to figure it is to just look at the 4051 pledged delegates, of which Sanders has about 1088 and Clinton has about 1302, so far.

(Green Papers seems to have moved one from Sanders to Clinton today, so it's maybe 1087 to 1303.)

[Fast Walker 52]

13. I don't claim to have made a definitive calculation, was just trying to calculate it based on the OP

If it's lower than 58%, great.

The 1149 is how Bernie could catch up the 209 delegate difference shown in the OP, and move 1 point ahead of Hillary with the remaining 1977. That was my thinking, anyway.

[greymouse]

11. I'd like to see a breakdown by states as to how these numbers were reached.

When I look at such numbers, it always seems like there are delegates missing from states that are like 100% reporting but the delegates sum up short of their pledged count. If we could see the innards, we'd be able to find errors.

I haven't checked this: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D-PU.phtml

[DLnyc]

14. Yes, that is a very good site, I think, for figuring out where the numbers come from.

That page has a breakdown by states. There is a good summary here: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D, and if you click on individual states below that summary table, you get a detailed explanation of how the got the numbers for that state.

As I understand it, for caucus states they use the data for individual congressional districts to get a (probably pretty reliably close) estimate for what the eventual numbers will be, once the state-level caucus has been done.