2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumProject 538 has updated their California forecast! It's not good for Sanders..
In just two days they went from a 93% Clinton win to a 98% Clinton win.
And the actual vote forecast is now 62.3% to 36.1%, a 26.2% margin for Clinton. That translates to about a 125 delegate advantage.
This one is over folks, on to the general election!
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/california-democratic/
StayFrosty
(237 posts)New Jersey will secure the nomination for Hillary
Demsrule86
(68,869 posts)On Sen. Boxer and Sen. Feinstein.
Sancho
(9,072 posts)It looks like Bernie will be clobbered in June.
TwilightZone
(25,525 posts)What could go wrong?
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)Not buying it.
George II
(67,782 posts)Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)..the ONLY way Sanders can win would be for him to get 67% of California, which would be a swing ~30 points. Even if the forecast isn't right on, it certainly isn't off by >30%
sheshe2
(84,101 posts)She won.
Logical
(22,457 posts)TwilightZone
(25,525 posts)Tal Vez
(660 posts)is it possible that he might suspend his campaign so as to avoid this kind of humiliation?
No matter what his supporters might say, Sanders is a politician and he has at least one eye on the future.
George II
(67,782 posts)....
TwilightZone
(25,525 posts)He's in it until the end, either way.
TwilightZone
(25,525 posts)Their polling average is 55/38, so they must be seeing a pretty significant trend upward for Hillary if they're forecasting 62/36.
Guess 2:1 Sanders isn't likely going to happen.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)I read another post tonight saying Hillary had to have the required delegates with only pledged delegates, well it means Sanders can not find the pledged delegates necessary to get to 2383 in pledged delegates only. Can't have two rules here.
George II
(67,782 posts)...none of them have been realistic.
lancer78
(1,495 posts)by 26%, it will be A LOT MORE than 125 delegates. Try about 300.
George II
(67,782 posts)lancer78
(1,495 posts)counties she carried. McCain got 93% of all delegates in California in 2008 because he carried all but 3 counties.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)for their primary.
grossproffit
(5,591 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)TwilightZone
(25,525 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)TwilightZone
(25,525 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)LenaBaby61
(6,979 posts)Last edited Wed May 25, 2016, 04:29 AM - Edit history (1)
And IIRC, there was one poll in Oregon which allegedly showed Hillary Clinton winning that state by big margins, which I never believed--her winning Oregon by big margins. Here in California, it's a totally different story with SO many polls showing a California win for SoS Clinton in a couple of weeks. The good thing is that these polls are RECENT, and most quite credible.
George II
(67,782 posts)ThinkCritically
(241 posts)uses a forecast model to get their numbers. Here is what they say about the forecast model:
"In designing the polls-plus forecast, we considered an array of possible predictors, including: endorsements, state and national fundraising totals, favorability ratings, ideology ratings and national polls. Just about all of these have some positive correlation with primary and caucus outcomes: Candidates with higher favorability ratings are more likely to see their ballot-test numbers go up than down, for example. And candidates who are good ideological fits for their states overperform their polls more often than not.
In the end, however, we opted for a relatively simple three-variable model, rather than a kitchen sink approach. The variables are state polls, endorsements and national polls. The model also considers how the projected results in Iowa might affect New Hampshire and how the results in those states might affect subsequent states. Ive already described the process by which state polls are used, so Ill focus on the other factors now."
"In theory, the polls-plus model should be more accurate than the polls-only model, but its a pretty small difference; in our backtesting, polls-plus was more accurate at predicting a candidates actual result 57 percent of the time"
What that tells me is that they willingly leave out specific information like favorability and ideology. They also include endorsements in their factors which means all of those super delegates who pledged their support already who haven't voted and won't vote until well after the California primary. They even state that their forecasts are correct only about 57% of the time.