Clinton Delegate lead drops below 200... Now at +194

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/clintons-delegate-lead-do_b_9711160.html

1,299 to 1,105.

That’s the “insurmountable” delegate lead Hillary Clinton has over Bernie Sanders.

And there are still 1,674 pledged delegates yet to be awarded in twenty primaries and caucuses to be held over the next two months; scores of up-for-grabs delegates yet to be decided via state and county Democratic conventions; and hundreds and hundreds of super-delegates to be wooed by both candidates in Philadelphia this summer — with not a single one of them having officially committed themselves to anybody.

That’s the cold, hard truth — the indisputable numeric data of the current election cycle — but it’s not the story Americans are being told.

Why?

Well, put it this way: say what you will about Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight.com — for instance, that its projections for Bernie Sanders in primaries and caucuses have routinely been low, a fact which sits uncomfortably beside its penchant for publishing articles marginalizing Sanders and his supporters as quixotic — but they’ve consistently had the most accurate delegate counts for the Democratic Primary race.

And even they can’t keep up with Sanders.

In just the past week, Sanders has cut Clinton’s delegate lead by 20 — by 12 in Colorado (Sanders +6, Clinton -6) and by four each in Nevada and Missouri (Sanders +2, Clinton -2) — without a single statewide primary or caucus being held, and even Nate Silver and his crew haven’t been able to amend their usually accurate delegate tallies fast enough. That’s understandable; it’s easy to fall behind in reporting on a candidate who’s beaten Hillary Clinton eight Election Days in a row — President Obama having never lost more than two in a row in 2008 — when you also have to publish esoterically misleading stories like “Clinton Is Winning the States That Look Like the Democratic Party” and “Bernie Sanders Is Even Less Competitive Than He Appears”.

[RandySF]

1. He had a good run, but it's about to turn.

[speaktruthtopower]

3. Axelrod had a good line today..

Bernie's running out of runway.

NY and PA are critical.

[roguevalley]

48. Funny how many times that has been wrong

[libdem4life]

97. Isn't that when the plane takes off and becomes airborne? n/t

[speaktruthtopower]

99. If it does, it will be like the Lindbergh movie

[lagomorph777]

102. Which, if I recall correctly, ends with a ticker tape parade.

[SCantiGOP]

108. Hey, OP

You better tell Google, because they (and everyone else) have it wrong. Or is Google part of the huge conspiracy against Sanders?

[cui bono]

85. You missed an "S".

And it wasn't so good, it was sleazy. She would do better if she just cut the smears and dirty tricks.

.

[RepubliCON-Watch]

2. Edited: See Seth's post below and...

Last edited Sun Apr 17, 2016, 08:56 PM - Edit history (1)

An upset in NY really sets the alarms in Camp Hill big time!!

[StevieM]

6. At this point in would take an outright loss to set off the alarm bells.

If Hillary wins NY by double digits, and then wins 4 out of 5 states that vote on April 26 (PA, MD, DE, CT, RI), then I think the race will settle down real fast.

Of course, that hasn't happened yet. But we are only two days from the NY primary and nine days from the next Super Tuesday.

[RobertEarl]

17. Nice dream you have there

Be a shame to see it ruined.

Given the trend of the Bernie campaign - and the trend downward of H's, the idea that H was a shoe-in has become a nightmare!

Less than 200 separate the two, and given the tends, well, the chicken counting by the H camp has proven illogical and deluded.

[StevieM]

74. Actually, I thought I was being restrained and balanced.

I actually think that she will sweep all five Super Tuesday states.

It isn't exactly an insane prediction given the current polling in those states. Of course, polls change and Sanders could pull off some wins. I'm just giving my guesses.

We'll see about NY in two days and the Super Tuesday states in nine days.

[SheilaT]

114. Wasb't Super Tuesday in March?

She certainly won then, a sweep as I recall. So why are you referring to something from over a month ago as if it is still to happen? What am I missing here?

[StevieM]

117. Sorry, I should have been more clear. The media likes to recycle the Super Tuesday label

several times in an election. So we have had two or three Super Tuesdays already.

The next one will be on April 26 when there will be voting in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, Connecticut and Rhode Island. That was the day I was referring to.

[SheilaT]

72. There is no way on god's green earth that she will

win NY by double digits. Her best hope is that she only loses by single digits.

[StevieM]

76. I disagree with that assessment.

I don't see how you can say that her best hope is a single digit loss, when every single poll has her up by double digits.

It's always possible that the polls will be wrong and Bernie will win. But it isn't exactly crazy to suggest that Hillary will win by the margin that many are predicting, given that the polls are what is determining the predictions.

Of course, we will find out in two days.

[SheilaT]

82. I guess his beating all of the polling, usually by double digits,

in recent races just isn't real.

[thesquanderer]

90. It will be much harder for BS to substantially beat expectations in NY...

...due to the fact that it is a closed primary (independents can't vote), voters who weren't registered Dems had to have changed to Dem by last October (so recent "converts" can't necessarily vote), first-time voters have had to have registered by last month (ditto).

I discussed this at http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511712837

[bvar22]

103. Won't Hillary NEED those Independemnts in the GE if she gets the nom?

Really too bad they won't show up for her after being shut out of the New York Primary.

[thesquanderer]

104. The Dem will win NY in November, regardless. (n.t)

[SheilaT]

113. According to the latest poll Bernie is within 2 points of Hillary.

You are also pretending that Bernie has not won a single closed primary or caucus, and that's simply not true.

[thesquanderer]

115. Polling shows him within 2 points of her nationally, but still 10+ points behind in NY.

Also, re: "You are also pretending that Bernie has not won a single closed primary or caucus, and that's simply not true" - no, you are putting words in my mouth, I never said that. However, fully closed primaries are tougher for him (since independents can't vote), and NY even more so because of needing to have registered as a Dem so far in advance. I hope to be surprised, but this is a tough state for him.

[StevieM]

96. Of course it is real. And I said that he could win. But what I was responding to was

you saying that there was no way Hillary could win and a single digit loss was her best possible hope.

There's a difference between saying that you think Bernie will win and saying that it is crazy to think that Hillary will win.

The polls may have been wrong in Michigan, but that contest was followed by races in Ohio and Florida where the polls did hold up. Which was followed by a wider-than-expected win for Bernie in Wisconsin.

I think the dynamics in NY are ones that will lead the polls to hold up. I believe she will win by double digits. Maybe I am wrong, but I don't think you can argue that it is an insane and baseless prediction.

We'll know tomorrow who is right.

[SheilaT]

116. And I'm responding to the Hillarybots who don't know that she's

lost seven in a row.

If this were a football season she would not even be in the playoffs.

[StevieM]

118. The calendar favors different candidates at different points.

If this were a football season she would be in the playoffs. She is leading in the pledged delegates.

I realize that she is lost a lot in a row. But I am optimistic about the upcoming contests, given where they will be held.

We will find out about NY tonight and about the other states in one week.

[SCantiGOP]

107. I sure wonder how

Clinton has managed to get 2.4 million more votes than Sanders when - according to a lot of people on this thread - she is losing so badly.
Just hope the tone changes after Tuesday's night's results - as in, people begin to accept reality.

[FarPoint]

12. It just will not happen.

She has New York.... End of the dream fest for Bernie Sanders. He talks the talk, giving credit where it warranted.... But, he has yet to walk the walk...ever....and without a business plan to reach his dreams.. That is the biggest problem with the Sanders Campaign.

[pkdu]

4. Funniest line in the piece ...

That’s the cold, hard truth — the indisputable numeric data of the current election cycle — but it’s not the story Americans are being told.

[Kang Colby]

5. #berniemath

[FarPoint]

9. It's all smoke and mirrors....

Sanders Campaign appears to be managed by a used car salesman from a Buy- Here/ Pay Here Dealership....

[pkdu]

11. Right!.....but " NY is not must-win for him but it is for Hillary" nt

[redstateblues]

29. A close loss for Bernie would be catastrophic.

He needs to win by 10 points or he's done

[pkdu]

32. Exactly, but the "moral victory" , "up from 3% a year ago" , " we can still do this" crowd

Are apoplectic , and increasingly so . It's sad.

[morningfog]

36. No, that is stupid.

[XemaSab]

42. New York is Hillary's state; it's where she was elected senator

Anything within 10 points is grim for Hillary.

She got 55% of the total vote (dems, inds, and reps) in 2000, so the idea that many of the people who voted for her then aren't voting for her now should be alarming.

[onehandle]

7. 2.4 million+ votes ahead. Will be a LOT more after Tuesday.

Not that the 'Not Hillary' Party cares about voters.

[Fawke Em]

10. That's not true.

In many caucus states, the raw vote total has never been released - only the delegate counts.

That figure is a flat out lie.

[metroins]

13. It's the official reported numbers

[JackRiddler]

19. It's also apples and oranges.

What would it be if the caucuses were all primaries? No way of knowing.

[metroins]

20. So we will use the official recorded numbers

[JackRiddler]

21. "official" "recorded" "numbers"

None of those words mean correct, accurate or truthful.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

40. Yeah, but it is so "Hillarian" to do so. It fits her MO

[paulthompson]

23. You don't understand

There are no official numbers.

In caucuses, thousands of people show up. In primaries, millions can show up. And in some caucuses, you don't even know how many showed up. For instance, in Iowa the only numbers given on the Democratic side were the delegates chosen, not how many people participated. (The Republicans reported the numbers, and the Democrats had them but refused to release them even though they did in 2008, probably because they showed Sanders got more.)

Furthermore, not even all the primaries are the same. Turnout varies widely from state to state, depending on how easy it is to vote. For instance, Florida has early voting and makes it easy to do so, so over 80% of voters voted early and the turnout there was way higher than in some other states. New York by comparison has no early voting, so to compare the numbers in those two states would be unfair. Ditto with open and closed primaries, and so on.

To say it's like comparing apples and oranges doesn't even begin to explain it. It's more like comparing a whole basket of fruits.

[metroins]

25. These are the official numbers.

Reported by the election officials in the states.

The American public overwhelmingly voted for Hillary Rodham Clinton.

[silvershadow]

26. Delegates win elections, not raw votes. Has been discussed here ad nauseum. nt

[metroins]

31. I know, and Hillary Leads the delegates by a huge margin nt

[Admiral Loinpresser]

95. Pledged delegate lead equals 194 and shrinking. n/t

[metroins]

106. Get back to me tomorrow

and after PA, MD, NJ.

Remember, it's a proportional delegate state. After tomorrow Bernie would have to win 70% of delegates to win. After PA, MD and NJ it's even further.

It's not going to happen.

[SCantiGOP]

109. some good advice, metroins:

Don't engage your adversary in a battle of wits when they are obviously unarmed.

Everything critical of Sanders is just part of a huge conspiracy, as proven by the fact that he was anointed as the reincarnation of St Francis of Assisi by a bird.

[TransitJohn]

110. I wouldn't say that <200 is a huge margin.

It's a very close race.

[metroins]

111. Oh wow.

No, it is a HUGE margin.

Proportional Delegates.

There's only 20 states left and only 5 large delegate states....which Hillary is favored to win all 5 (NY, MD, PA, CA, NJ) Unless something insanely crazy happens to Hillary to where she has to drop out of the race; she has already won.

The race was over on March 15th.

[SusanCalvin]

28. It has been clearly explained above

(thanks, explainers!) that that number leaves out a good number of people.

[mythology]

43. Given how poorly Sanders does in primaries overall

you may not want to find out. For all the talk of Sanders bringing in new voters, he mostly wins caucuses which inherently have lower turnout.

[JackRiddler]

47. Could be. I don't believe that but...

Like the "popular vote" in this mad process we call a democratic election - which lasts TWO YEARS with the run-up - it's another unknown.

[floppyboo]

68. oh my goodness mythology. Read what you wrote in light of the facts

caucuses which inherently have lower turnout. hmm. How do you know this? Especially since these numbers are not included in the official totals? I'm betting I'm not the only one who wants to know your source. Could put much of this debate to rest.

[floppyboo]

69. btw - I am not contesting Hillary having more votes

from registered democrats.

[dchill]

58. Whose official? Who's the official?

It's nothing but a false narrative being used by a falser campaign. Look into it.

[metroins]

60. Feel free to look into the source

And verify them yourself in each reported state.

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

[dchill]

62. "each reported state."

Delegates are the metric.

[metroins]

65. And Hillary is dominating them

The American people overwhelmingly support Hillary in votes and delegates.

[dchill]

66. I agree she's dominating.

Very.

[greiner3]

98. Uhhh

That term brings to mind; Miss Hillary. Her speciality is lying to you and when you try to correct the lie with facts she'll (fill in her punishment)

[1StrongBlackMan]

64. Do yo know how few people participate in caucuses? ...

Why would you think that the raw vote total would affect the number?

[cui bono]

87. That is exactly why claiming one has more votes in a mixed primary is ludicrous

and mere propaganda. You can't compare apples and oranges. It's just silly and a purposeful attempt at disinformation.

.

[1StrongBlackMan]

92. Okay.

[morningfog]

37. We don't nominate on pop vote. The "Not Bernie Party" should

understand that.

[cui bono]

86. Keep catapulting the propaganda. It's all you got.

Just happens to not be true at all since caucus states don't tally up individual votes.

And your childish "Not Hillary Party" shows you don't take anything seriously and that no one need take anything you say seriously. Just name calling and disinformation from you.



.

[Fawke Em]

8. Didn't he just gain more in Washington State, too?

http://kdvr.com/2016/04/16/bernie-sanders-wins-majority-of-delegates-at-colorado-democratic-convention/

Interesting how he's picking up delegates on the back-end.

[artislife]

55. I think we picked up one or more in my precinct alone

but we were in a very hot gym with over 800 people, so I still feel pretty loopy.

[floppyboo]

70. Yay to you and thanks artislife! Upfull!

[SidDithers]

14. The Green Papers has it at 1307 - 1097 still...

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

And Seth Abramson has become the new HA Goodman.

Sid

[w4rma]

15. Seth's analysis of the delegate count is accurate, unlike *everything* from Hillary's defenders.

Don't you have some "BlueNationReview" propaganda to tout, SidDithers?

[mythology]

44. Seth Abramson hasn't been accurate about anything

He's an idiot.

[paulthompson]

16. I'm a Sanders supporter, but...

I'm a Sanders supporter, but Green Papers has the best numbers. I just checked, and they have Sanders with a 41 to 25 lead in Colorado, which is a change of 2 delegates in Sanders' favor that happened yesterday. So when they say Clinton leads by 210 delegates, I believe them.

Still, this article has a good point that most media outlets are reporting bad numbers:

ABC: 244
Fox News: 244
RealClearPolitics: 244
CNN: 229
New York Times: 220

[paulthompson]

18. Wait a sec

I just noticed that Green Papers hasn't changed their numbers in Nevada, and it's been widely reported that Sanders picked up two delegates there.

So it turns out that 538.com has the best numbers, and Clinton has a 206 delegate lead.

It looks like Seth Abramson was off by one in Colorado, off by two in Missouri, and didn't realize the 206 number already included the two delegate change in Nevada, so those got counted twice. So that's five, which makes a mistaken swing of 10 delegates. I'm not sure where he got the other delegate wrong.

[w4rma]

30. Missouri: Sanders projected to win 37 delegates. Clinton to get 34 delegates

http://progressivearmy.com/2016/04/10/bernie-sanders-wins-missouri-after-all/

[paulthompson]

34. Yes, but...

Yes, but is that true? The Progressive Army is a biased source and could be wrong. Whereas the link you have to Colorado numbers comes from a mainstream Colorado newspaper.

Please show me a mainstream Missouri newspaper that says the same thing about the change of the Missouri numbers. I'd love to see it, but I haven't seen it. At best, I've seen conflicting reports floating on the Internet, with nothing definitive.

I hate to be a buzzkill, but we have to keep it real with what the numbers are, not what we wish they should be.

[w4rma]

39. It boils down to the Clinton campaign insisting that non-binding votes are binding.

It appears to me to be a misreading (intentional or not) of the rules.

I can't see how the Clinton campaign will be able to force those Sanders voting delegates to vote for Clinton at the upcoming conventions, though.

[w4rma]

33. Colorado: The Vermont senator takes 41 of the state's 78 DNC delegates, as Hillary Clinton claims 25

http://www.denverpost.com/election/ci_29775876/bernie-sanders-bests-hillary-clinton-at-colorado-democratic-convention

[Number23]

77. NY Times has 1307 to 1087. But I love how a 194 delegate deficit is somehow "manageable"

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-results.html?_r=0

Seth Abramson has become the new HA Goodman.

So it would seem.

[SethAbramson]

22. This is the author of the article in the OP, and I did not make any calculation errors.

Hi,

I agree FiveThirtyEight.com has the most accurate numbers.

Which is why the numbers in my Huffington Post article are the numbers from that website MINUS the delegate shifts they missed.

Missouri is Bernie 37-34, per the link in my article.

Nevada is Clinton 18-17, per the link in my article.

Colorado is Bernie 41-25, per the link in my article.

Nate Silver's website does not have all of these numbers correct. So I corrected them.

The result is 1,299 to 1,105 -- a 194-delegate lead.

I wish people would click on the links in articles before making comments about someone else's math -- frustrating.

Seth

[paulthompson]

24. Look at this

Seth, please see this post I just made above yours:

I just noticed that Green Papers hasn't changed their numbers in Nevada, and it's been widely reported that Sanders picked up two delegates there.

So it turns out that 538.com has the best numbers, and Clinton has a 206 delegate lead.

It looks like Seth Abramson was off by one in Colorado, off by two in Missouri, and didn't realize the 206 number already included the two delegate change in Nevada, so those got counted twice. So that's five, which makes a mistaken swing of 10 delegates. I'm not sure where he got the other delegate wrong.

I would add to that that while more Sanders supporters than Clinton supporters showed up in a Missouri delegate event recently, I've heard that won't actually change the numbers there due to a rule that the delegate count has to match the final vote count. If you have evidence otherwise, please provide it. I would love to hear I'm wrong about that.

[RepubliCON-Watch]

27. Welcome to DU and sorry about the misspeak.

I used 538 numbers so my apologies if I'm incorrect!

[w4rma]

35. I think that you are low balling Sanders's numbers in Nevada, Seth.

The congressional district delegate vote was non-binding and, therefore, the delegates elected to represent their CDs still have yet cast their final binding votes until May the 14th.

Bernie's campaign data, from the 9th of April, shows a 19-16 delegate estimate, in favor of Sanders, also.
https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Sanders-State-by-State.pdf
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/dem-primaries/275719-sanders-releases-delegate-numbers-list-of-superdelegates

[SethAbramson]

41. 538 has 1305-1099 (they made a change while I was writing the article so I edited "210" to "206")...

...but they're still off.

S.

[SethAbramson]

50. Apologies...

...for edits to my post above. 538 has made substantive changes to their count just tonight--both as I was writing my article and since. So I want to be certain I am speaking correctly about the 538 count as it exists at the moment. We can see that 538 disagrees with the NYT (and other) reporting making it 34-34 in MO, which of course is nonsensical anyway because MO has 71 delegates to award. I concur with those calling it 37-34 in MO for Sanders should this come to a roll call in Philly, though yes, it's an arcane rule dispute in play here. That would have 538's totals two too high for Clinton and two too low for Sanders. 538 is now calling Nevada 18-17 Clinton, though the Sanders campaign told the NYT they had netted at least four and possibly eight delegates from the 20-15 Nevada was originally called as. The Sanders website thereafter announced, based on their interviews with Nevada delegates, that they had netted the eight, putting 538 still off by two for both Clinton (+2) and Sanders (-2). I think the Sanders camp is right on those Nevada numbers from all I have read, though we can't know for certain until June 9th/10th. Those changes would put the 538 count down to 1,301 to 1,103 (a 198 lead for Clinton). The question is whether Arizona is ultimately still off +2/-2 on 538 as compared to what a roll call in Philly would produce, on the basis of reporting by Progressive Army and others will respect to changes enacted by provisional ballots. More on this soon.

[w4rma]

63. You wrote a great analysis and it's the most accurate that I've seen, to date. Thank you, Seth! (nt)

[TexasTowelie]

80. Welcome to DU, Seth.

Please excuse any remarks that I made about you elsewhere in the thread. Some of the critiques were due to the revisions in the delegate count at 538 this evening. I agree with you regarding your analysis with the caveats that you provided about Missouri, Nevada and Arizona noting that you are using data from the Sanders campaign and the Progressive Army in your calculations. At this point, I think that a statement that Sanders is about 200 delegates behind Clinton is suitable at this point.

[IamMab]

38. Hey look, Seth Abramson joined DU explicitly to defend this thread! How convenient!

[morningfog]

61. Your point?

[TexasTowelie]

79. The point is that the other day Bill Palmer of the Daily News Bin

joined to defend some of the material on his site and was raked over the coals by the membership here and even was mentioned as a malicious intruder. If Democrats are supposed to be the party of inclusion then we treat our guests hospitably rather than with suspicion. If they get out of line on DU then the moderation systems will provide accountability.

We can have different opinions and quibble about the mathematics, but we should also be courteous to new members who join to defend their work. Since he has done so I certainly want to withdraw my comments elsewhere in the thread and I'm off to welcome him to DU.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

84. What is your point? Please explain. nt

[cui bono]

88. And why do you rate that 5 crazy faces? n/t

[IamMab]

93. Because it's crazy to believe that Seth Abramson joined DU just to defend the terrible OP.

[cui bono]

100. Why do you think he joined?

[IamMab]

101. I don't think he joined. This isn't Twitter, there are no "verified accounts."

It's a fake account desperately trying to make it look like Seth Abramson cares about this thread.

I feel sorry for anyone who falls for it.

[cui bono]

112. How do you know that?

[jillan]

89. Hi Seth - Welcome to DU! I'm glad you are here.

Warning - grab your hard hat whenever you stop by.

[cwydro]

45. You are funny.

I find your posts to be very revealing.

Good luck here!

[still_one]

46. Responses to the link you supplied by the Seth blog put some things into perspective:

"Your data and conclusions are inaccurate. I double checked some of your data - you mentioned there are"1,674 pledged delegates yet", but you are incorrect, there is only 1135!!! I know that you are emotional towards Bernie, but I am sorry your arguments and math are less than wanting .. please, I wish you peace, but please stop continous non-sensical information... Again, on the planet Earth in our reality, your data and conclusion are inaccurate!"

"Interesting, I am sorry but your data distribution does not quite match the final formal democratic party data on various sites !!! Yet, even with your numbers, still it would not cut - say by 100 still does not cut, and guess what most of the states ahead are worse for Bernie, and thus the gap will enlargened for Hillary. This is what Nate Silver or anyone with any math background which include uncercetainties, which are much larger than 20 delegates, it still give Hillary the winner of nomination.

"The numbers proposed by authors are incorrect. Just double check with agglomorate data of wiki, or democratic party!!!!! I think that Bernie and his supporters are very poor in math and stat, or live in a parllel universe ..."

[KingFlorez]

49. Still way behind

I don't know why people act like that lead is so easy to erase. When it comes to delegates it's not easy to erase such a wide lead, especially at this stage.

[smiley]

51. he's erased much of her lead already.

[KingFlorez]

53. Because he had a decent amount of caucuses left on the calendar

Even with those big wins, Clinton is still holding a bigger delegate lead than Obama had in 2008. With closed primaries coming up it's highly likely that Clinton's lead expands.

[smiley]

57. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

But I think it's foolish think he doesn't have a chance. He's given her a run for her money and will continue to do so right up to the convention.

[SheilaT]

73. Not to mention she's lost, what is it?

Eight in a row?

[Tarc]

52. Despite the best efforts of Camp Sanders to subvert the will of the voters

Missouri and others have rules in place to prevent such shenanigans.

[artislife]

54. I think we gained one or two out of our WA precinct!

So we should watch the WA state numbers as well.

[TexasTowelie]

59. So we are supposed to rely on the data from an English professor

over data from media outlets instead? While there are variations in the difference between the major media outlets, I don't know why I would consider his data to be more accurate than others who have jobs at stake for presenting reliable information.

The English professor needs to go back to grading essays. Some students are probably waiting to learn how they did on their last exam so they can determine whether to drop his courses.

[w4rma]

67. Your logical fallacy is 'appeal to authority', TexasTowelie.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

Since Seth provided all of his work for anyone to peer review, anyone can check his work for accuracy. Your 'appeal to authority' fallacy does not.

[TexasTowelie]

75. Okay, I decided to check the data for Colorado, Missouri and Nevada.

I'm looking at this article from the Denver Post today:

http://www.denverpost.com/election/ci_29775876/bernie-sanders-bests-hillary-clinton-at-colorado-democratic-convention

In the article it stated that Sanders won the pledged delegate count 41-25.

The information on the New York Times at (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-results.html?ref=politics) shows Sanders 38 and Clinton 28, so instead of gaining 6 delegates the correct number is a gain of 3 delegates for Sanders. Where did Seth pull the other 3 delegates to come out with +6?

BTW, I just checked the 538 delegate tracker and it shows the delegate count as 1,305 for Clinton and 1,099 for Sanders. The data for Colorado shows the same 41-25 split as the Denver Post had in their newspaper article after the convention meeting. There do appear to be two delegate differences between what 538 and what the Progressive Army reports for Missouri and Nevada so it would put Clinton at 1,301 and Sanders at 1,103 if the Progressive Army source is correct.

English professors are great at teaching literature and reading compositions. However, they aren't that great at doing math or keeping count of things. I don't believe that 538 is an authority any more than I would consider the Progressive Army blog to be an authority, but i would yield to their counts compared to those of an English professor. You are welcome to believe what you want and I will believe is the correct count.

I suspect that within the next 10 days that Clinton will widen her lead and Sanders is running out of states where he will be able to catch up. After April 26 there are only 1,022 delegates remaining so if he is 240 or 250 behind then the race will be over and Sanders will need over 60% everywhere else to catch up.

[imagine2015]

71. K & R

[potone]

78. From reading the responses to this thread...

There does seem to be a lot of confusion about what the actual numbers are at this point. Why? Shouldn't there be a straightforward and consistent count of the pledged delegates up to now?

[bvar22]

105. The numbers keep changing in the Caucus States.

There are several levels of voting in a Caucus state. At the initial Caucus, delegates are elected to attend a regional Caucus, and from there elected to attend the State Convention/Caucus.
When elected Hillary delegates fail to show up at the regional or state, and Bernie delegates care enough to show up, Hillary loses those delegates. Hillary's delegates not caring to show up has caused several states to flip to Bernie.
.
.
.
or, at least that it my understanding of the Caucus process.

[BeanMusical]

81. Kick and R

[Land of Enchantment]

83. Welcome to DU, Seth. your voice is most welcome here!!!

[Uncle Joe]

91. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, GeorgiaPeanuts.

[GreatGazoo]

94. "Inconceivable !"