Thursday, March 3, 2016

Democratic Report Card

We had Clinton picking up 516 delegates to Sanders’ 349. Clinton actually got 518 delegates and Sanders obtained 347.

Sanders ran 13 delegates better than we predicted in the five states he contested: 4 delegates in Oklahoma; 4 in Massachusetts, 2 in Vermont; 1 in Colorado; 2 in Minnesota.

Clinton ran 15 delegates better in what seemed liked marginally contested states: 5 delegates in Alabama; 4 in Georgia; 3 in Tennessee; 2 in Virginia; 1 in Texas.

Oklahoma was the only state we had wrong when we predicted a Clinton victory.

We only incorrectly predicted the winner in seven contests: Oklahoma PLEO and CD 1, 2, and 4; Massachusetts CD 6 and 9; Texas SD 30 (the margin there is currently 57 votes.)

What follows are the specific contests we got wrong and the way we did. Correct predictions are not included.

ALABAMA

Clinton + 5 delegates over prediction

PLEO

Prediction: 5-2 Clinton
Actual: 6-1 Clinton

CD 4

Prediction: 2-2 tie
Actual: 3-1 Clinton

CD 5

Prediction: 2-2 tie
Actual: 3-1 Clinton

CD 7

Prediction: 7-2 Clinton
Actual: 9-0 Clinton

AMERICAN SAMOA

Perfect

ARKANSAS

Perfect

COLORADO

Sanders + 1 over prediction

CD 1

Prediction: 5-3 Sanders
Actual: 4-4 tie

CD 3

Prediction: 3-3 tie
Actual: 4-2 Sanders

CD 7

Prediction: 3-3 tie
Actual: 4-2 Sanders

GEORGIA

Clinton + 4 over prediction

CD 2

Prediction: 4-1 Clinton
Actual: 5-0 Clinton

CD 4

Prediction: 4-2 Clinton
Actual: 5-1 Clinton

CD 12

Prediction: 3-2 Clinton
Actual: 4-1 Clinton

CD 13

Prediction: 4-2 Clinton
Actual: 5-1 Clinton

MASSACHUSETTS

Sanders + 4 over prediction

At Large

Prediction: 11-9 Clinton
Actual: 10-10 tie

PLEO

Prediction: 7-5 Clinton
Actual: 6-6 tie

CD 6

Prediction: 4-3 Clinton
Actual: 4-3 Sanders

CD 9

Prediction: 4-3 Clinton
Actual: 4-3 Sanders

MINNESOTA

Sanders +2 over prediction

CD 5

Prediction: 5-4 Sanders
Actual: 6-3 Sanders

CD 8

Prediction: 3-3 tie
Actual: 4-2 Sanders

OKLAHOMA

Sanders + 4 over prediction

PLEO

Prediction: 3-2 Clinton
Actual: 3-2 Sanders

CD 1

Prediction: 3-2 Clinton
Actual: 3-2 Sanders

CD 2

Prediction: 3-2 Clinton
Actual: 3-2 Sanders

CD 4

Prediction: 3-2 Clinton
Actual: 3-2 Sanders

TENNESSEE

Clinton + 3 over prediction

CD 6

Prediction: 2-2 tie
Actual: 3-1 Clinton

CD 8

Prediction: 3-2 Clinton
Actual: 4-1 Clinton

CD 9

Prediction: 5-2 Clinton
Actual: 6-1 Clinton

TEXAS

Clinton +1 over prediction

At large

Prediction: 31-17 Clinton
Actual: 32-16 Clinton

SD 9

Prediction: 3-1 Clinton
Actual: 2-2 tie

SD 19

Prediction: 3-2 Clinton
Actual: 4-1 Clinton

SD 20

Prediction: 3-2 Clinton
Actual: 4-1 Clinton

SD 22

Prediction: 2-2 tie
Actual: 3-1 Clinton

SD 24

Prediction: 4-2 Clinton
Actual: 3-3 tie

SD 30

Prediction: 2-1 Clinton
Actual: 2-1 Sanders

VIRGINIA

Clinton plus 2 over prediction

CD 4

Prediction: 4-2 Clinton
Actual: 5-1 Clinton

CD 10

Prediction: 3-3 tie
Actual: 4-2 Clinton

VERMONT

Sanders +2 over prediction

CDS:

Prediction: 9-2 Sanders
Actual: 11-0 Sanders

*Math mistakes.

As you might expect with so many delegates at play, there were also a few cases where our assessment of the situation was correct but slight errors were made in mathematical calculations. Fortunately for us this time, such mistakes largely cancelled each other out.

In Virginia, we simply added our individual totals incorrectly, wrongly listing a 65-30 overall split when the allocations we made actually added to 60-35. This led to a plus 5 error on Clinton’s behalf. In contrast, in Texas, we misapprehended the number of PLEO delegates at 24 when there were actually 29. That led us to list a 140-82 split when our separate totals should have produced a 145-77 total. This error was plus 5 on Sanders’ side.

Finally, in Oklahoma, we thought there were 39 delegates when in fact there were 38. Since we picked Clinton to win, our original estimate had her one delegate too high.

Share:

0 comments:

Post a Comment

The Scorecard

The Scorecard

The Scorecard is a political strategy and analysis blog. Our hope is to provide information and insight that can be found nowhere else into how and why things are happening in American politics. Unlike many political pundits, we will tell you who we think is going to win as an election approaches; we will tell you why; and we will give you a sense of our level of confidence. Ours is a holistic approach, one that takes in as many numbers as possible but is also willing to look past the numbers if need be. When we turn out to have been wrong, we will let you know. When we are right, we’ll let you know that too.

Our Delegate Math


Delegate Count


Delegate Contests

About Me

Delegate Count

Author Jason Paul is a longtime political operative who got his start as an intern in 2002. He has been a political forecaster for almost as long. He won the 2006 Swing State Project election prediction contest and has won two other local contests. He had the pulse of Obama-Clinton race in 2008 and has been as good as anyone at delegate math in the 2016 race. He looks forwards to providing quality coverage for the remainder of the 2016 race.

Blog Archive