2020 Presidential Election

[CDu]

If all 3 stay in through Super Tuesday (which is a real possibility, and maybe even likely) they'll continue to accumulate delegates...it won't just be frozen at the current 21 count. I'm not just talking about the first several states, I'm looking toward the upcoming primaries including Super Tuesday which obviously doles out quite a bit more delegates. Maybe they won't keep up the 33% rate, but even if between the three they only have 20% of the delegate through Super Tuesday I wouldn't exactly call that "just a drop in the bucket". That could certainly be enough to push a candidate from a plurality to a majority, and it isn't a given that all of them will drop out on Super Tuesday (meaning they could continue accumulating even more pledged delegates to later be redistributed). I think you're underestimating the impact here. I'll agree that it is difficult to predict where these delegates would go when their candidates drop out.

I suspect that two of the three establishment candidates not named Buttigieg will drop out either before or immediately after Super Tuesday. I suspect Warren will drop out after Nevada, and likely won't add many delegates to her 8 total so far (I'd say 8-10 delegates for her total). Then it comes down to Biden/Klobuchar/Buttigieg. The question then becomes how the next several states play out. Buttigieg probably isn't going away any time soon while he's leading in delegates, although Super Tuesday could be tough for him.

But because of the 15% viability threshold, unless we see a really balanced field with 2-3 clear candidates, I think the moderate lane will sort itself out relatively quickly. Even if they don't have that figured out until after Super Tuesday, we're probably talking about less than 200 delegates to be shared out of the ~4000 total. Possibly even less than 100, if Super Tuesday breaks strongly in one moderate's favor (or if the remaining moderates cannibalize and fail to reach 15%). That's not nothing, but it's still a pretty small chunk of the pie overall.

And especially given that we have no way of knowing for sure who would drop out and who would get the delegates post dropout, it's just really hard to chalk that up to anything beyond noise.

Is there the "nightmare" scenario in which 3 or 4 candidates consistently manage to meet the 15% threshold through Super Tuesday? Sure. And in that case, you're absolutely right that the delegate counts for dropouts would rise a lot. But I feel like we'll see the field shake out (and the DNC will push those struggling Dems out of the race) before that happens. What I really think will happen though is that Bloomberg will make it difficult for more than one moderate to achieve viability consistently, which will also help winnow the field quickly.

[CDu]

Oh, in my estimates, I'm not assuming that Bernie picks up any delegates from the "moderate" candidates that drop out. Even if/when Warren drops, I think the majority of her delegates won't vote for Bernie. I think it's likely that Bernie will enter the convention with at least a plurality of earned delegates, and then we'll see how the D establishment handles that.

Which is, essentially, what fivethirtyeight is doing as well. They are not considering the eventual swap of delegates after candidates drop out. Those delegates will of course be reallocated, but that's outside the purview of the model, which is just calculating the expected number of delegates each candidate will earn through the statewide voting/caucusing process. Really, it's the only way to do it at this point. The calculus of a constested convention is an entirely different animal and impossible to predict at this stage.

I still think Bernie's best hope to maintain a plurality will be keeping all of the moderates in the field as long as possible. As those candidates drop out, the question then becomes "can he win a 'head to head to head' with one moderate Dem and Bloomberg?" As long as there are 2, 3, or 3.5 (counting Warren as a 0.5) moderate/establishment candidates in the field, they will ciphen enough of the vote from each other that many won't be viable in a state, while also hurting the chances that a moderate/establishment candidate outdoes Sanders. So Sanders and that one other candidate will get a lot of the delegates, even with a relatively small share of the popular vote.

Basically, it would be a continuation of what we've seen in Iowa and New Hampshire. Sanders got around 26% of the popular vote in each of those two states.
Buttigieg has gotten around 25%. But each has gotten ~33% of the delegates, because Biden/Klobuchar/Warren have kept two of the moderate/establishment candidates below 15% (even though they have combined for about 40-45% of the popular vote. If that ~40-45% of the vote that those three have gotten in the first two states gets starts getting reallocated among Sanders/[mod/estab Dem]/Bloomberg in future states, it has dramatic implications. And likely in the favor of the moderate/establishment candidate.

So it's in Sanders' best interest to keep those mod/establishment Dems viable as long as possible, because it weakens his nearest rival AND it inflates his delegate count relative to vote support. Which is another reason why I think we'll start to see the DNC pressuring some of their career Dems out of the race pretty soon. If they can get it down to Buttigieg and one career Dem, they can probably figure out quickly who is viable (or if Sanders gets enough of the dropout support) through the future states' results.

[OldPhiKap]

Duval Patrick out, if we failed to note it. Down to eight announced and not yet quit candidates on the Dem side.

[Acymetric]

Just to clarify, reallocation of delegates from candidates who dropped out is not part of a contested convention, it happens before, for the initial/regular count.

The contested convention means superdelegates come into play and that pledged delegates of active candidates can change their vote (released from their pledge). Delegates pledged to candidates who drop out and withdraw their candidacy are released immediately and free to vote how they choose before it gets to a contested convention (possibly preventing one depending on how they allocate themselves and how close a candidate is to 50%).

What I'm talking about isn't a contested convention, it's the regular initial delegate count.

[CDu]

Just to clarify, reallocation of delegates from candidates who dropped out is not part of a contested convention, it happens before, for the initial/regular count.

The contested convention means superdelegates come into play and that pledged delegates of active candidates can change their vote (released from their pledge). Delegates pledged to candidates who drop out and withdraw their candidacy are released immediately and free to vote how they choose before it gets to a contested convention (possibly preventing one depending on how they allocate themselves and how close a candidate is to 50%).

What I'm talking about isn't a contested convention, it's the regular initial delegate count.

Sorry to add confusion. Fivethirtyeight (nor any of these models) also does not deal with that. And basically for the same reasons to the the idea of a contested convention. They have no way of knowing to whom the dropout votes would go, because that will ultimately depend upon who is still in contention and where the delegate counts stand.

[OldPhiKap]

Just to clarify, reallocation of delegates from candidates who dropped out is not part of a contested convention, it happens before, for the initial/regular count.

The contested convention means superdelegates come into play and that pledged delegates of active candidates can change their vote (released from their pledge). Delegates pledged to candidates who drop out and withdraw their candidacy are released immediately and free to vote how they choose before it gets to a contested convention (possibly preventing one depending on how they allocate themselves and how close a candidate is to 50%).

What I'm talking about isn't a contested convention, it's the regular initial delegate count.

Sorry to add confusion. Fivethirtyeight (nor any of these models) also does not deal with that. And basically for the same reasons to the the idea of a contested convention. They have no way of knowing to whom the dropout votes would go, because that will ultimately depend upon who is still in contention and where the delegate counts stand.

Assuming there is a second vote and formerly pledged delegates are released, who controls where they go -- the candidate to whom they were formerly pledged, or the state committee/poohbahs from whence the delegates hail?

[Acymetric]

Sorry to add confusion. Fivethirtyeight (nor any of these models) also does not deal with that. And basically for the same reasons to the the idea of a contested convention. They have no way of knowing to whom the dropout votes would go, because that will ultimately depend upon who is still in contention and where the delegate counts stand.

Right, my whole point was that this isn't being included in the analysis, but could definitely play a big role in the result.

[CDu]

Assuming there is a second vote and formerly pledged delegates are released, who controls where they go -- the candidate to whom they were formerly pledged, or the state committee/poohbahs from whence the delegates hail?

Technically, the delegates are free to “vote their conscience.” But if the dropout then endorses one candidate, that is usually how they go.

[Acymetric]

Assuming there is a second vote and formerly pledged delegates are released, who controls where they go -- the candidate to whom they were formerly pledged, or the state committee/poohbahs from whence the delegates hail?

Theoretically the delegates themselves. Some of them may be beholden to various interests (party, lobbyists, and whatnot), but I don't know what is or isn't allowed to "encourage" a delegate to vote the way you want. Supposedly it is considered "proper" for a delegate to vote for the candidate the candidate they were pledged to endorses but it isn't obligatory.

Edit: ninja'd by cDu with a more clear/concise answer.

[Troublemaker]

Just to clarify, reallocation of delegates from candidates who dropped out is not part of a contested convention, it happens before, for the initial/regular count.

The contested convention means superdelegates come into play and that pledged delegates of active candidates can change their vote (released from their pledge). Delegates pledged to candidates who drop out and withdraw their candidacy are released immediately and free to vote how they choose before it gets to a contested convention (possibly preventing one depending on how they allocate themselves and how close a candidate is to 50%).

What I'm talking about isn't a contested convention, it's the regular initial delegate count.

I didn't know that, so thank you. Still, I don't think it's going to matter to a Bernie voter whether the ratshagging occurs on the first vote or the second vote. If Bernie has the plurality of earned delegates (or the plurality of the popular vote if you want to look at it that way), good luck to the Ds in November if Bernie is not the nominee.

[CDu]

I didn't know that, so thank you. Still, I don't think it's going to matter to a Bernie voter whether the ratshagging occurs on the first vote or the second vote. If Bernie has the plurality of earned delegates (or the plurality of the popular vote if you want to look at it that way), good luck to the Ds in November if Bernie is not the nominee.

And if Sanders has less than 30% of the vote in achieving that plurality (as is the case now), I am guessing the DNC will be happy to take that chance.

If Sanders is up near 45% of the vote, maybe they change their tune.

[SouthernDukie]

I didn't know that, so thank you. Still, I don't think it's going to matter to a Bernie voter whether the ratshagging occurs on the first vote or the second vote. If Bernie has the plurality of earned delegates (or the plurality of the popular vote if you want to look at it that way), good luck to the Ds in November if Bernie is not the nominee.

No doubt. The Dems are really caught between a rock and a hard place. Conventional wisdom would seem to indicate a moderate would have a better chance than Bernie in defeating Trump. But that's only if Bernie supporters flock in mass and vote for the Dem nominee. As we saw in 2016, if even a small percentage of Bernie supporters get disillusioned and stay home, it's enough to tilt the General to Trump and the GOP. And yet, if Bernie is the nominee he may fire up his base, but he'll also be more likely than a moderate Dem candidate to fire up and expand Trump's base (fear factor of what a "Socialist" would do to the country). It's a real sticky-wicket for the Dems at this point. The next few weeks will really be interesting.

[CDu]

No doubt. The Dems are really caught between a rock and a hard place. Conventional wisdom would seem to indicate a moderate would have a better chance than Bernie in defeating Trump. But that's only if Bernie supporters flock in mass and vote for the Dem nominee. As we saw in 2016, if even a small percentage of Bernie supporters get disillusioned and stay home, it's enough to tilt the General to Trump and the GOP. And yet, if Bernie is the nominee he may fire up his base, but he'll also be more likely than a moderate Dem candidate to fire up and expand Trump's base (fear factor of what a "Socialist" would do to the country). It's a real sticky-wicket for the Dems at this point. The next few weeks will really be interesting.

The Sanders camp whined in 2016 even when he lost the popular vote getting 43%. So it is a given that his supporters will be chafed. He is polling much lower this time around. So I think we are still a long way from the point where the DNC should be concerned about alienating Sanders’ base.

But the Nevada and especially SC results (and the aftermath thereafter) should help set the stage for whether he is likely to get the plurality.

[Phredd3]

If Bernie has the plurality of earned delegates (or the plurality of the popular vote if you want to look at it that way), good luck to the Ds in November if Bernie is not the nominee.

I think this is an overblown concern. As others have stated, if Sanders has a 45% plurality, it will be hard to deny him the 5%. If he has a 35% plurality, a lot of what happens will depend on Bernie himself. He gave a lukewarm (at best) endorsement of Hillary. If he heavily throws his own support to whomever comes out of the convention as the nominee (assuming it isn't him), I don't think that needs to be a huge problem.

It does seem very likely, though, that if Bernie wins a plurality and is not the nominee, it will be a trigger point for the kind of misinformation campaign that plagued the last election. There will be plenty of bogus sources feeding the conspiracy flames if Bernie himself and the U.S. electorate allow it.

[LasVegas]

I think this is an overblown concern. As others have stated, if Sanders has a 45% plurality, it will be hard to deny him the 5%. If he has a 35% plurality, a lot of what happens will depend on Bernie himself. He gave a lukewarm (at best) endorsement of Hillary. If he heavily throws his own support to whomever comes out of the convention as the nominee (assuming it isn't him), I don't think that needs to be a huge problem.

It does seem very likely, though, that if Bernie wins a plurality and is not the nominee, it will be a trigger point for the kind of misinformation campaign that plagued the last election. There will be plenty of bogus sources feeding the conspiracy flames if Bernie himself and the U.S. electorate allow it.

Bernie did 30+ rallies for Clinton. He did his best. His supporters just didn’t follow. I agree with others that if Bernie is snubbed at the convention, Dems can kiss the election goodbye.

[Acymetric]

Bernie did 30+ rallies for Clinton. He did his best. His supporters just didn’t follow. I agree with others that if Bernie is snubbed at the convention, Dems can kiss the election goodbye.

FWIW, the defection rate from Bernie to Trump (~12%) was lower than the defection rate from Hillary to McCain (~25%). 12% is actually pretty typical historically for primary->general defections. This narrative is significantly overstated, if not outright misleading.

This is buried deep in the article, but sums it up nicely:

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/24/54581...p-survey-finds

A more important caveat, perhaps, is that other statistics suggest that this level of "defection" isn't all that out of the ordinary. Believing that all those Sanders voters somehow should have been expected to not vote for Trump may be to misunderstand how primary voters behave.

For example, Schaffner tells NPR that around 12 percent of Republican primary voters (including 34 percent of Ohio Gov. John Kasich voters and 11 percent of Florida Sen. Marco Rubio voters) ended up voting for Clinton. And according to one 2008 study, around 25 percent of Clinton primary voters in that election ended up voting for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in the general. (In addition, the data showed 13 percent of McCain primary voters ended up voting for Obama, and 9 percent of Obama voters ended up voting for McCain — perhaps signaling something that swayed voters between primaries and the general election, or some amount of error in the data, or both.)

[LasVegas]

FWIW, the defection rate from Bernie to Trump (~12%) was lower than the defection rate from Hillary to McCain (~25%). 12% is actually pretty typical historically for primary->general defections. This narrative is significantly overstated, if not outright misleading.

This is buried deep in the article, but sums it up nicely:

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/24/54581...p-survey-finds

Oh I don’t think they defected to trump, they just didn’t show up.

[CDu]

Bernie did 30+ rallies for Clinton. He did his best. His supporters just didn’t follow. I agree with others that if Bernie is snubbed at the convention, Dems can kiss the election goodbye.

Eh, I am not sure I agree. Sanders had 43% of the vote (to Clinton’s 55%) in 2016. And the Dems list by ~100,000 votes total. And that was with a candidate who was incredibly disliked at the national level.

In 2020, so far he has 26% of the vote, and none of the candidates come in with nearly the same baggage as Clinton did (rightly or wrongly). So unless Sanders’ share of the popular vote increases dramatically, I think the Dems could survive some of the Sanders crowd sitting on the sidelines.

He also waited a LONG time (well past when it was clear he wasn’t going to win) before he gave any support to Clinton. And it was most certainly tepid at best when he started. So, no, I don’t think I would characterize his efforts to consolidate support behind the Dem candidate to be “his best effort.”

[bundabergdevil]

Eh, I am not sure I agree. Sanders had 43% of the vote (to Clinton’s 55%) in 2016. And the Dems list by ~100,000 votes total. And that was with a candidate who was incredibly disliked at the national level.

In 2020, so far he has 26% of the vote, and none of the candidates come in with nearly the same baggage as Clinton did (rightly or wrongly). So unless Sanders’ share of the popular vote increases dramatically, I think the Dems could survive some of the Sanders crowd sitting on the sidelines.

He also waited a LONG time (well past when it was clear he wasn’t going to win) before he gave any support to Clinton. And it was most certainly tepid at best when he started. So, no, I don’t think I would characterize his efforts to consolidate support behind the Dem candidate to be “his best effort.”

HRC is on record saying as much. It's tough to decipher all the things that could have gone better or worse to result in different outcomes but I think it's reasonable to say that Sanders could have done more. This, again, is the difficulty with Sanders. He's not a Democrat, doesn't always play nice with them or in 2016's case do everything he could to consolidate support behind HRC, but then demands the DNC not show favoritism. Sanders is a populist and Democratic Socialist so his opposition to traditional power structures like the DNC are on brand but he's always struck me as wanting to have his political cake and eat it, too.

I think he'll do more this go around. Several of the speeches at the end of NH primary day, including those of Sanders and Warren, were noticeably conciliatory and focused on beating the common enemy (Trump).

[Troublemaker]

I think this is an overblown concern. As others have stated, if Sanders has a 45% plurality, it will be hard to deny him the 5%. If he has a 35% plurality, a lot of what happens will depend on Bernie himself. He gave a lukewarm (at best) endorsement of Hillary. If he heavily throws his own support to whomever comes out of the convention as the nominee (assuming it isn't him), I don't think that needs to be a huge problem.

We can make a pie bet then if Bernie ends up being denied the nomination despite winning the popular vote. Let's hope it doesn't come to that, but suffice to say if it does, I couldn't disagree with you more. It's death if it happens, even if Bernie endorses the nominee.