The state-by-state case for Bernie
Soon the “superdelegates” will have to make a decision to elect the nominee for the Democratic Party. It is unlikely that either Hillary Clinton (currently at 1,769) and Bernie Sanders (1,501) will have enough delegates from the state primaries and caucuses to reach the 2,383 without the superdelegates. There is a fair argument that superdelegates should just vote for whoever wins the most delegates otherwise (which, oddly, renders them redundant and irrelevant). There is another argument that in case the mandate is not clear, they can make a decision for the party. And since the mandate is not clear, i.e. no one reached the target by themselves, let’s go with the second option - that the superdelegates can, and should, vote to put the strongest candidate forward, whoever they think it is. If you don’t agree with the premise then you are basically saying let’s get rid of the superdelegates, which is outside the scope of this post.
So who is the strongest candidate forward? In light of recent polls showing a raising popularity for Bernie and falling numbers for Hillary, I have heard arguments that National polls are “beauty contests”, one need to look at state-by-states, where Hillary is (supposedly) to clean Trump’s clock. I thought I’d do just that.
TL;DR version: A Clinton nomination brings the Donald dangerously close to a win in November. If we pick Bernie over Clinton, the current polls suggest the following: Colorado comes back in play. Ohio goes blue. Virginia and New Hampshire too. Pennsylvania goes a deeper shade of blue. North Carolina flips from red to blue! That’s an election for you.
The starting point of this post is the 270towin.com “toss-up map”, which shows how the states stand in red/blue in terms of poll numbers, historical trend, and leave the ones out that are expected to be competitive. You can dig deep into their criteria, but at the starting point the map is believable, so I am choosing to accept it and move on.
Here is the screenshot of where we start: D 217, R 191, and as the name suggests, we will need to reach 270 to win.
Below are breakdowns on those toss-up states - the number of electoral college votes, along with data I gathered from realclearpolitics.com (a site that aggregates polling data). The goal of this is to take a look at the two Democratic options and trying to identify exactly where this election can change if we pick Hillary or Bernie, or if there is a difference at all. I admit that missing from this post will be closer looks at each of these states, and what goes for/against each candidate, but we will leave those discussions for followups.
One methodology question could be that why just polls, as opposed to other metrics and models. Some say that Bernie’s poll numbers will fall once Trump and the GOP starts attacking him. True, to some extent. Hillary Clinton hasn’t faced the full wrath of Trump and GOP machinery just yet either. Also, a candidate that energizes their base more are more likely to exceed poll-based expectations, as Bernie has done during several primaries. So I think, it is a good proxy overall. Happy to get deeper with more complex models in the coming days, let me know if you want to work with me. For now, let’s just start looking at the states and poll numbers.
NV (6 ECVs)
No recent polling data available
CO (9 ECVs)
Clinton -11.0 (last poll in November, Quinnipac)
Sanders -2.0 (last poll in November, Quinnipac)
IA (6 ECVs)
Clinton +4.0 (average of polls in January)
Sanders +5.0 (same polls above)
WI (10 ECVs)
Clinton +11.6 (average of multiple recent polls)
Sanders +17.3 (average of those same polls)
NOTE: Why is this considered a toss-up by 270towin? Looks blue either way.
OH (18 ECVs)
Clinton +1.4 (average of multiple recent polls)
Sanders +5.0 (average of those same polls)
PA (20 ECVs)
Clinton + 5.3 (average of multiple recent polls)
Sanders +12.7 (average of multiple recent polls)
NOTE: One of the three polls have Clinton up by +15, while the other two are virtual ties. Outlier alert!
VA (13 ECVs)
Clinton +2.0 (average of multiple recent polls)
Sanders +22 (last poll in January)
NC (15 ECVs)
Clinton -4.0 (Civitas and PPP, same outcome)
Sander +4 (PPP)
FL (29 ECVs)
Clinton +2.5 (average of multiple recent polls)
Sanders +1.0 (average of multiple recent polls)
NH (4 ECVs)
Clinton +2 (WBUR/MassINC)
Sanders +16 (WBUR/MassINC)
Other non-toss-up states with recent polling available. This is just for your curiosity and doesn’t make any changes in the outcome by our criteria.
NJ (14 ECVs)
Clinton +9.0 (avg of Fairleigh Dickinson, Quinnipac)
Sanders +18.0 (avg of Fairleigh Dickinson, Quinnipac)
CA (55 ECVs)
Clinton +10 (PPIC)
Sanders +17 (PPIC)
If we assign each state to a party if their candidate is ahead in 4+ points in poll, understanding that most of these polls have a 3 point margin of error, the picture becomes clearer:
http://www.270towin.com/maps/588mQ
You can follow that link above the map and can further play with scenarios, of what Mrs. Clinton needs to do to get over that 270 mark. But it cannot be denied that Donald Trump looks dangerously close to the Presidency!
http://www.270towin.com/maps/az8e8
If the current trends hold, we are safe! This time without Florida!
