The After-MATH: Guam

after math image

|The After-MATH|

Greetings, friends — as most of you have probably heard, we’ve suffered a narrow loss in Guam and Clinton has picked up one more pledged delegate than us. Take heart! And worry yourselves not, my friends — ’tis but a flesh wound! As the polls are strongly foreshadowing, May 10th should be a good day for us, as well as May 17th, when Oregon will weigh in. But, before I get into the latest numbers from West Virginia, Oregon, and Kentucky, let’s take a quick look at how the math is evolving, shall we?

When I last wrote to you, just after the glorious victory in Indiana (thanks Indiana!), our original target (64.4%) had shifted slightly to 65.5% and the pledged delegate count looked like this:

Clinton  | 1,703 pledged delegates
Sanders | 1,415 pledged delegates

Remaining Delegates: 933

In Guam, Clinton grabbed 4 delegates and we’ve grabbed 3 — because the net delegate gain was but one, the math shifts only slightly. Adding the delegates that we’ve gained to our total and subtracting Guam’s pledged delegates from the remaining ones, we end up with:

Clinton | 1,707 pledged delegates
Sanders | 1,418 pledged delegates

Remaining Delegates: 926

Sanders now needs 608 more pledged delegates to reach 2,026 because:

2,026 – 1,418 = 608

And, with 926 delegates remaining to be won, he’ll now need to win 65.6% (instead of 65.5%) of the remaining contests because:

608 ÷ 926 = .656

This difference of 0.1% is slight but we will still have to make it up in the races to come. Therefore, now, more than ever, it is important to donate whatever change you all still have in your pockets (or your couch cushions or the cupholders in your cars) to the Sanders campaign — Clinton’s corporate thugs helped her to outspend us in Guam and we mustn’t allow that to happen in places like California, where it will really matter. Now, let’s move on to some very encouraging-looking numbers…


What the Polls are Saying

There are three contests left in May:

May 10th
WV — 29 pledged delegates, Sanders polls: +4-8%
May 17th
KY — 55 pledged delegates, Sanders polls: no data
OR — 61 pledged delegates, Sanders polls: no data*

Aside from in Kentucky, where there is strangely little data, Sanders is in a position to win the remaining states that vote in May — but, regardless of the polls, this is the time for us all to get on the phones! Remember: phonebanking and donations are how we will be increasing our margins — those who are #StillSanders should be #StillDonating! I cannot stress that point enough.

In West Virginia, all polls have us leading — PPP has us up +8%, Repass Research has us +4%, and FiveThirtyEight’s polls-based forecast gives us a 78% chance of winning there! Those are good chances — let’s run with that and make the gap bigger! While there is very little polling data for Oregon, we do know that a record-breaking number of independent voters have switched their registrations to vote in the Oregon democratic primaries — which is very, very good for us. The only recent poll that I can find in Oregon is’s online poll (though it’s important to note that online polls can be prone to “coverage errors”), which has Sanders polling in Oregon at 68% and Clinton at 32%.

Kentucky seems to be something more of a wild card — aside from a poll in June of last year, I’ve only been able to find one Public Policy poll, which was conducted in early March and had Clinton up +5%. It could be anyone’s game, really — I wish that I could offer you more numbers from the Bluegrass State but there simply doesn’t seem to be any (if any of you have information that I don’t, please don’t hesitate to email me or comment below).

That should do it for the Guam After-Math — I’ll write to you all again after West Virginia on the 10th. In the meantime, keep your math-goggles on and watch out for dishonest reporting and outright lies‡, like this garbage from the New York Timesremember, the Clinton-machine and her corporate media lackeys will stop at nothing to destroy your hope with misinformation! But be at ease and, again, take heart because they are no match for you — not while we stand in solidarity and not when you are armed with knowledge, determination, and humor (and, perhaps, a calculator — you’ll look more intimidating that way).

In solidarity,
John Laurits #SeeYouInPhilly



We’ve gained a delegate, according to the Green Papers, from Washington
‡ If you find any particularly horrendous lies, please send them to me so that I can write an article to expose the jerks.

*Also, John has just joined Twitter (finally) and you may follow him and send him pictures of your dinner and crappy mainstream media math to debunk @JohnLaurits. (If ye’d like) You can also buy John coffee HERE.  [twitter-follow screen_name=’@JohnLaurits’]

Best Comment Section in the Galaxy

Notify of
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Brian W Hitchcock

In the link to this article on the home page, Guam is misspelled as “Gaum”.

Another Matt

The WV numbers are complicated by the third candidate, who pulled in ca. 12%. It looks like Bernie nets 5 delegates in this race, is that right? If so, his target crept up from ca. 65.5% of the remaining to ca. 65.9%. It could inch back down next week depending on how Kentucky votes.

John Donnelly
The award for most deliberate and egregious burying of a lead has just been handed out. It goes to NBC News, for a story entitled, “Bernie Sanders Makes Things Awkward for Hillary Clinton’s DNC Takeover.” Put aside for a moment that the story’s central premise is the uncritical repetition of a nonsense: the idea that a major-party convention can’t — as in literally cannot be — planned without a nominee being declared at least a month and a half in advance. We know that’s untrue because, up until a week ago, that’s exactly what the GOP was (with minimal public grousing by RNC Chair Reince Priebus) planning to… Read more »
Another Matt
Quick point: ex ante coalition building in the form of seeking endorsements and in this case superdelegate support is part of running for office. If this were a parliamentary system like the ones we revere in Europe and Canada, this kind of thing has to happen before there can even be an election, because you’re voting for the coalition that has already been built. Given that things in US governance get done through the two parties, I’d hope that my party has some ducks in a row. I see the superdelegate thing as a show of small-r republican party organization to be presented to the public to be… Read more »
As if being a Democrat for the last 2 election cycles would have made a hill of beans difference in Bernie’s ability to garner the support of party insiders. That assumes that Bernie’s being a longer term member of the party would have accomplished anything at weeding out the corruption and pay-to-play that defines the modern Democratic Party. You either fundamentally do not understand what Bernie’s candidacy and all of its support are about or you willfully misrepresent the facts. Bernie would be running against the Democratic Party establishment no matter whether he had been a long time insider or an outsider as a long time caucus member… Read more »
Another Matt
Fair points all. Like I said, if we keep the superdelegate system, its influence would be quite a bit more benign at the beginning. None of the major candidates of the last few primary cycles would have been weeded out by such a process early on. Certainly Bernie would not have been, since he is a superdelegate himself; he has support elsewhere and would easily have made the cut. It would be a way of keeping out someone like Trump, not someone like Sanders. Have you looked much at how Canada selects their Prime Minister? You vote for PM by voting for an MP of the same party.… Read more »