US Super Tuesday discussion and results

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.

Live voting results: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/03/03/us/elections/live-analysis-super-tuesday.html

Polls close in Vermont and Virginia at 4pm PST/7pm EST, North Carolina at 4:30pm PST/7:30pm EST, Tennessee, Maine, Texas, Alabama, Massachusetts, and Oklahoma at 5pm PST/8pm EST, and in Arkansas at 5:30pm PST/8:30pm EST. Polls close in Colorado and Minnesota at 6pm PST/9pm EST, in Utah at 7pm EST/10pm EST, and in California at 8pm PST/11 p.m. ET.

Joe Biden
1582582155486.jpg

Bernie Sanders
1579043026074.jpg

Michael Bloomberg
1582647669172.jpg

Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth_Warren,_official_portrait,_114th_Congress.jpg


The first day of the Democratic contest that really matters for the cold, hard delegate math — Super Tuesday — is almost here.

Tuesday, March 3, will be enormously important because it’s the first day that a lot of the delegates necessary to win the nomination are at stake, and the biggest delegate day overall. A total of 14 states and one territory — including California and Texas, the two most populous states in the country — will hold their primaries or caucuses.

Candidates are competing for about a third of the overall delegates at stake. Those 1,344 delegates allocated on Super Tuesday could effectively settle the race, if one candidate locks down a gigantic lead that will be nearly impossible for anyone else to overcome. The candidate with the best chance of doing that is Sen. Bernie Sanders — his current lead in the polls indicates he can theoretically rack up enough plurality wins in a crowded field to clean up in delegates.

But it’s also possible that Super Tuesday’s delegate haul ends up split among several candidates, with no one having gotten anywhere close to being on track for a majority. That may well mean Democrats are headed to a contested convention.

Whether we’re headed for one of these outcomes (or something in between) depends to a significant extent on Democrats’ complicated delegate allocation rules.


Broadly, delegates are allotted proportionally based on candidates’ performance — the better you do, the more delegates you get. But quirks in the rules mean relatively small differences in the exact split of the votes can lead to large differences in delegates.

We’ll get into the nitty-gritty below. The big picture is that if one person ends up with a commanding lead and gets nearly half the delegates, that candidate will become the overwhelming favorite for the nomination. But if the delegate leader has a narrow edge and is well below half of the delegates, a long, close-fought contest will likely ensue.

1) Why is Super Tuesday a big deal?
It’s simple: There are a whole lot of delegates at stake.

The way to win the Democratic nomination is by winning delegates — specifically, winning 1,991 out of 3,979 pledged delegates, enough for a majority to get the nomination at the Democratic National Convention. And there are 1,344 delegates — one-third of the total — up for grabs in Super Tuesday’s contests.

Though there will be several more months of primaries remaining, it’s possible that Super Tuesday can settle the nomination contest. It’s not mathematically possible to reach the “magic number” of delegates yet — but Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004 won so convincingly on Super Tuesday that their opponents quit shortly afterward.

Yet Super Tuesday can also pave the way for a very long race. In 2008, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ended up nearly tied after an early February Super Tuesday, and they battled it out through four months of remaining contests. In 2016, Clinton locked in a solid advantage over Sanders on Super Tuesday that she never relinquished — but it wasn’t such an overwhelmingly dominant performance as to drive Sanders to quit the race, so he stayed in.

2) Why is there a Super Tuesday?
No one person or group dictates the primary calendar from the top down. The national Democratic and Republican parties have declared that the month of February is reserved only for the four early states — Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina. But after that, it’s just up to states to schedule primaries whenever they want between March and June.

Many states that want to influence the outcome of the nomination have calculated that the best way to do that is to go as early as possible: on the first Tuesday in March. (This dynamic has been called “frontloading.”)

Super Tuesday actually began as a plot to help President Jimmy Carter stave off a primary challenge from Ted Kennedy in 1980, as Carter’s strategists got three large Southern states where he was expected to do well to schedule their primaries early. From 1984 through 1992, other Southern states joined in an attempt to give their region more influence (as did a few non-Southern states).

super_tuesday_delegate_board_fix.jpg


Eventually, big states from elsewhere in the country wanted in, and the first Super Tuesday that truly spanned the nation took place in 2000. That’s been the norm ever since, though the exact lineup varies from cycle to cycle as states move their nominating contests around. (Super Tuesday 2008 is still the record-holder for the number of states and the proportion of the total delegates at stake.)

3) What are this year’s Super Tuesday states?
From most delegates at stake to least, they are:
  • California (415 delegates)
  • Texas (228 delegates)
  • North Carolina (110 delegates)
  • Virginia (99 delegates)
  • Massachusetts (91 delegates)
  • Minnesota (75 delegates)
  • Colorado (67 delegates)
  • Tennessee (64 delegates)
  • Alabama (52 delegates)
  • Oklahoma (37 delegates)
  • Arkansas (31 delegates)
  • Utah (29 delegates)
  • Maine (24 delegates)
  • Vermont (16 delegates)
  • American Samoa (6 delegates)
Another contest, involving “Democrats Abroad” — Democratic voters living overseas — will begin on Super Tuesday, but won’t end until March 10. So it’s those 14 states and one territory that will have their voting conclude on Super Tuesday, with 1,344 delegates at stake overall.

That’s a lot to get your head around, so it can be helpful to break down the lineup into groups:

  • California (31 percent of Super Tuesday delegates): The biggest single prize.
  • Seven Southern states (46 percent of the day’s delegates): Like Super Tuesdays of old, this year’s map is skewed toward the South, though it’s a grab bag of very different states from that region — most notably Texas, but also North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama, and Oklahoma.
  • The rest (23 percent of delegates): There’s a trio of New England states, Minnesota from the Midwest, Colorado and Utah from the West, and American Samoa.
Finally, it’s worth remembering that even though Super Tuesday is just one day, several of the states involved began early voting or mail balloting weeks ago. So a chunk of the vote will have been locked in before Tuesday itself.

4) How does someone win Super Tuesday?
In one sense, the way to ensure Super Tuesday delegate dominance is simple — win by a lot, in a lot of places. If Sanders or anyone else manages to do that, they’ll end up with a big delegate lead.

But if most outcomes are closer or if the results are mixed, the delegate situation will be highly contingent on the exact breakdown of the vote, because of Democrats’ complex delegate allocation rules.
Democrats have no “winner-take-all states” (where whoever comes in first place gets all that state’s delegates) — instead, they allot delegates proportionally based on each contest’s results.

That means winning isn’t all that matters: The margin of victory is crucial. A narrow win will barely provide an advantage in the delegate count, because proportional rules mean the second-place finisher usually gets close to the same amount of delegates. But winning in a landslide will provide a big delegate edge.

Beyond that, the devil is in the details, particularly when the field is as large as this one is.

5) Why is the devil in the details?
First off, there’s the threshold: Candidates need to get 15 percent of the vote somewhere to get any delegates there. Those below 15 percent are nonviable and get nothing.

Second, it’s not quite so simple as “30 percent of the vote gets you 30 percent of delegates.” Instead, it’s your percentage of the viable candidates’ vote that matters. Basically, votes for any candidate who’s below 15 percent are excluded, and your percentage of whatever’s left determines your share of delegates.

So let’s say you get 30 percent of the vote, but there are three other viable candidates, getting 25 percent, 20 percent, and 15 percent of the vote. The viable vote adds up to 90 percent, and your 30 percent is one-third of that — so you get one-third of the delegates. Here’s how it would play out under a sample scenario, if there were 10 delegates at stake. (Note: Former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Amy Klobuchar dropped out of the race just before Super Tuesday.)
steps_1_3_vox_tag.jpg


A very different situation transpires if you get 30 percent of the vote and only one other candidate is viable, getting 20 percent, with the rest of the vote split among several others. The viable vote would then add up to 50 percent. Your 30 percent is three-fifths of that — so you get many more of the delegates at stake.
steps_1_3_copy_80.jpg

This means a great deal can depend on the exact breakdown of the vote — particularly in big states with many delegates at stake.

Finally, as if all this wasn’t enough, a candidate’s statewide performance is not all that matters for delegates. The majority of the Super Tuesday delegates (about 65 percent) are in fact allotted based on results in individual districts (mostly congressional districts, except for Texas, which uses state senate districts instead).

Proportional allocation with a 15 percent threshold applies separately in all these districts. That means that if you do well in a state overall but are at 14 percent in a district there, you’ll get zero of that district’s delegates.

Take California. There are 415 total delegates at stake there. But only 144 of them will be awarded proportionally based on statewide results. The other 271 are divvied out according to the proportional results in California’s 53 congressional districts (with 4-7 delegates at stake in each district).

It’s all quite complicated. But all in all, Super Tuesday is a contest to top 15 percent by as much as possible in as many places (states and districts) as possible. Every time candidates get zeroed out by falling below the threshold is bad news for them.

6) So if you get the most delegates, you win, right?
Well, technically, you don’t win the Democratic nomination just by winning more delegates than anyone else. The party’s rules state that you need an outright majority of the 3,979 pledged delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot.

So another key thing to watch for in the Super Tuesday results is whether the delegate leader is on track for an actual majority — or, if not, just how far off track they are from it.

Again, Democrats’ lack of winner-take-all states makes this question very important.

  • If a candidate finishes Super Tuesday with 40 percent of delegates so far, he or she needs to win 56 percent of the remaining delegates for a majority.
  • If the top candidate has 35 percent of delegates after Super Tuesday, he or she needs to win 59 percent of the remaining delegates.
  • If the post-Super Tuesday leader has 30 percent of delegates so far, he or she needs to win 62 percent of the remainder.
The problem is that those proportional delegate allocation rules make it difficult to rack up large delegate advantages. Again, narrow wins in states result in the delegates being split. To gain the upper hand, you can’t just win states — you have to win big.

So if the leading candidate is significantly off track from a majority after the Super Tuesday delegate haul is locked in, he or she may never get back on track for one — paving the way to a contested convention in which no candidate wins the majority on the first ballot (something that’s never occurred in the modern nomination system).

That’s the theory, anyway. Many believe that in practice, Democrats would face enormous pressure to give the nomination to whoever wins the most delegates, even if that person is short of a majority. The specifics could depend on just how big that first-place person’s lead is, and how close to a majority they end up — which shows why, again, the delegate details of Super Tuesday are crucial.

7) What will happen on Super Tuesday this time around?
Overall, despite all the drama in the Democratic contest so far, it’s important to remember that barely any delegates (just 4 percent of the total) will have been allotted before Super Tuesday.

So while the expectation now is that Bernie Sanders is the frontrunner, and polls appear to back that up, this won’t really be set in stone until we see how he — and everyone else — does on Super Tuesday.

Sanders could, as many now expect, win most states by significant margins and build a sizable delegate lead that will carry him to the nomination. But if there’s a late swing to another candidate — such as Biden, who just won big in South Carolina on Saturday — Sanders could also lose his frontrunner status quite quickly.

For the other candidates who have had more mixed outcomes or little success, Super Tuesday is really do or die. If you don’t get a significant chunk of the Super Tuesday delegates, it becomes all but impossible to get a pledged delegate majority.

Super Tuesday is also the first electoral test for former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, who has spent half a billion dollars on advertising across the country but skipped the four early states. Bloomberg rose in national polls and in polls of Super Tuesday states over the past month, but scrutiny of his past and his rocky performance in the Democratic Las Vegas debate have lately sent his numbers in the other direction.

But the crowded field this year means that, depending on how the ball bounces on March 3, there are several possible outcomes with very different implications for the race. Here are the main ones:

  • One candidate emerges with a large delegate lead and on track for the majority: This would mean they’re a commanding favorite to win the nomination.
  • One candidate emerges with a large delegate plurality in a split field but is not on track for a majority: This means that person is the favorite to get the nomination eventually, but one or more of their rivals could continue campaigning to try and deprive them of the majority and make things interesting at the convention.
  • Two candidates split almost all the delegates: This would likely mean a two-person race going forward, with the outcome up in the air, but likely to be settled before the convention (since it’s extremely likely, in a two-candidate race, that one person ends up with a majority).
  • Three or more candidates split delegates, and no one’s on track for a majority: This is the scenario where a contested convention would be most likely.
Finally, it’s entirely possible that we won’t actually know the Super Tuesday outcome on Super Tuesday. For instance, California takes a famously long time to count votes (due to the need to verify late-arriving mailed ballots), and the exact vote shares and margins both statewide and in its 53 congressional districts could be important.

If one candidate does end up winning almost everywhere, that might not be such a big deal. But in this nomination contest so far, it’s usually prudent to expect that things could get messy

------------------------
Super Tuesday looks to be interesting with Klob and Mayor Pete dropping out, I imagine Biden and Bloomberg will pickup most of those delegates. Looks to be lots of fun.


Polls: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/democratic_nomination_polls/

CNN interviews with all the candidates from last night:
Michael Bloomberg

Elizabeth Warren:

Bernie Sanders:

Joe Biden:

My super tuesday choices:
Alabama(Biden), Arkansas(Biden), California(Bernie), Colorado(Bernie), Democrats Abroad(Biden), Maine(Biden), Massachusetts(Biden), Minnesota(Biden), North Carolina(Biden), Oklahoma(Biden), Tennessee(Biden), Texas(Bernie), Utah(Bernie), Vermont(Bernie), and Virginia(Biden)

Update: All but Texas I got correct, based. I forgot American Samoa but that's tribes of people and my guess is as good as any. Democrats abroad takes a week to trickle in.
 
Last edited:
You appear to be under some sort of mistaken view that I don't already support voter I.D. I do. But what there is lacking right now is proof that there is any form of coherent, organized attempt to use dead people or illegals to vote. Also, out of all the numbers you listed you failed to list the number that matters most for context... the number of registered voters.
6.9 million.
Really puts the above in perspective.
A ton of registered voters don't vote and elections are not infrequently decided by margins that small on down ballot issues.
 
A ton of registered voters don't vote and elections are not infrequently decided by margins that small on down ballot issues.
And? The 75K people in the -article you posted- didn't all vote. In fact, there is a chance -none- did because it was a preemptive purging of the voter rolls.
 
The democrats have spent the last three and a half years repeating the same mistakes again and again. I'm sure Trump will take the campaign seriously (he's been doing tons of rallies already and you know he can't wait to start sparring with sleepy Joe) but the democrats absolutely will screw this up hard every chance they get. They just can't seem to help themselves.

With the added error of telling everyone who voted for Trump that they, personally, are racist/sexist/stupid/evil, the "temperature" of Trump in 2016 was "This idiot can't beat us" , in 2020, it's "Don't you morons DARE elect this IDIOT again!!!" and that's going to MOTIVATE people to go to the polls and kick a pair of metaphorical DNC balls when they yank that lever, where had the Dems run a morally-neutral campaign, the complacency that Trump would surely win may have set in and eroded his actual numbers, but all the MSM pundits and clickbait writers have spent the last 4 years stoking the outrage fires in the belief they can shame away Trump supporters when in reality, they're only providing "Exhibit A" as to why they NEED to get out and vote, if they lose, the MSM and the establishment is going to come for average Joe American and make him PAY for his insolence....
 
With the added error of telling everyone who voted for Trump that they, personally, are racist/sexist/stupid/evil, the "temperature" of Trump in 2016 was "This idiot can't beat us" , in 2020, it's "Don't you morons DARE elect this IDIOT again!!!" and that's going to MOTIVATE people to go to the polls and kick a pair of metaphorical DNC balls when they yank that lever, where had the Dems run a morally-neutral campaign, the complacency that Trump would surely win may have set in and eroded his actual numbers, but all the MSM pundits and clickbait writers have spent the last 4 years stoking the outrage fires in the belief they can shame away Trump supporters when in reality, they're only providing "Exhibit A" as to why they NEED to get out and vote, if they lose, the MSM and the establishment is going to come for average Joe American and make him PAY for his insolence....
Something else that differentiates the two, Trump has a ground game.

Clinton's groundgame was infamously terrible with things coming out after that they just outright ignored key states. Meanwhile, Trump is revving up to ensure a blitzkrieg on every state to get people out to vote.
 
And? The 75K people in the -article you posted- didn't all vote. In fact, there is a chance -none- did because it was a preemptive purging of the voter rolls.
Sure. Though other instances were in the article in other states, including a couple alleged conspiracies I should probably check up on. I just didn't choose to summarize them all. But hey even if they aren't nefarious...you can't have this happen. And in some states it's hard to flag this sort of thing. There's really no argument against it that doesn't amount to "lol black people have no IDs" which is ridiculous.

I do find the where and whens these objections are raised to be way too specific to be coincidence, but that's not gonna convince your average Polly Anna lefty, true.

What proof would you like exactly? A major conspiracy uncovered of millions of fake votes? That would be national news already. How would we even know that was happening, if there's no voter ID requirements and little paper trail?
 
Sure. Though other instances were in the article in other states, including a couple alleged conspiracies I should probably check up on. I just didn't choose to summarize them all. But hey even if they aren't nefarious...you can't have this happen. And in some states it's hard to flag this sort of thing. There's really no argument against it that doesn't amount to "lol black people have no IDs" which is ridiculous.

I do find the where and whens these objections are raised to be way too specific to be coincidence, but that's not gonna convince your average Polly Anna lefty, true.

What proof would you like exactly? A major conspiracy uncovered of millions of fake votes? That would be national news already. How would we even know that was happening, if there's no voter ID requirements and little paper trail?
A lack of arguments against something is not an argument for it. Yes, the arguments against Voter I.D. laws are weak as shit. The problem is that the argument for it is also weak as shit, and amounts to "better safe than sorry". Screw convincing the "Polly Anna lefty", this is insufficient to sway most moderates. They can cite, rightly, that it would mean more regulations, which means more people to check those regulations, which means more government money spent.

So, what you need is a proactive case for it. You need to be able to point at a problem and say "This justifies the cost". So what proof do I need? Literally anything that justifies the cost and doesn't break down under even basic scrutiny and consideration.
 
not to question your math but i literally checked and the under 18 pop is 25% not 61%. Also i'm sure we would be getting articles out the asshole if 2/3rds of the population was under 18.
That's my fault. All those numbers are basically double except for the 45-64 bracket.
 
You appear to be under some sort of mistaken view that I don't already support voter I.D. I do. But what there is lacking right now is proof that there is any form of coherent, organized attempt to use dead people or illegals to vote. Also, out of all the numbers you listed you failed to list the number that matters most for context... the number of registered voters.
6.9 million.
Really puts the above in perspective.

So in short, "oh they don't want you looking into it!" is not evidence, your numbers have a ton of explanations other than anything vaguely nefarious, and all you are left with is "We should safeguard our elections" which is already agreed with and... not evidence for anything.

Anyone else want to take a crack at this?

FYI, I am not asking to be a contrarian. I -fully- support Voter I.D. laws on the basis that "A simple precaution used and unneeded is better than a simple precaution unused and needed". I also, though, acknowledge that preventing minorities from voting is something that historically has happened, and with the left as absolutely batshit as it is something that is steeped in actual historical contention is something that must be argued for beyond maxims. Thus, if there is evidence of a pressing -need-, it can be used as an argument against the left.

absentee ballot fraud is very real. bruce frank vs penny hubbard is the example that comes to mind. this was for a postage stamp alderman seat in st louis city. I dont think its too much to extrapolate that it happens for bigger, more important seats.


whining about the cost of voter ids is stupid. non driver's license ids can be used for voting are cheap and they cost $10 in my state. you get them at the dmv and the voter board just scans your id/driver's license and it takes all of 10 seconds to validate.
 
That's my fault. All those numbers are basically double except for the 45-64 bracket.
Then redo the math. Because if you have to double those numbers that means the under 30 have roughly the same voting rate as the over 65
 
Then redo the math. Because if you have to double those numbers that means the under 30 have roughly the same voting rate as the over 65
18-29 18% of the population and 15% of exit polling. 65+ 11% of the population and 25% of exit polling. I'll let you do the rest.
 
Have read two /pol/ threads so far on a Biden vs Trump matchup with roughly 60% of the comments in favor of a Trump win.

Some anti Trump points that came up were the rust belt states like Michigan and Pennsylvania may go for Biden. Also Arizona and North Carolina can go to Biden as well combined with loss of suburban women voters, non white demographics and people who are tired of Trump and want to go back to the Obama days. Also that this isn't 2016 anymore also. Also that the jobs benefiting Americans are mostly democrats and its mostly white non college educated whites.

I believe no matter how shitty Biden is, like 2012, its gonna go down to the wire and Trump will get a narrow margin of victory.

Some pro trump points were that there is more visibility of Trump signs in the rust belt now than it was 4 years ago and independents favoring Trump over Biden. Also incumbency advantage and good economy.

 
Last edited:
Eh, that could be REASONABLY blamed on the Bush administration because it was the american government that was in part responsible for the housing crisis even if Bush realistically had nothing to do with it. Hell, Bush was far more hated for how he handled Katrina than the housing crisis.

The slipping economy we see now is an almost direct result of the coranavirus caused by China, something the american government can do little about. Something most people know and only those suffering from TDS could reasonably blame Trump. Most moderates are more likely to be angry at china rather than Trump.
 
Have read two /pol/ threads so far on a Biden vs Trump matchup with roughly 60% of the comments in favor of a Trump win.

Some anti Trump points that came up were the rust belt states like Michigan and Pennsylvania may go for Biden.


Except (and I live there) the Rust Belt benefited from Trump, so why would those who voted for him in 2016 NOT do so now? Everyone is just saying "He can't win PA this time" as if last time was a fluke, not a hard-fought actual meaningful win..... and it's being treated that as a matter of conventional wisdom OF COURSE we'll go blue this time barring a miracle because..... reasons.

For him to lose PA, either there has to be a lot of Dems who didn't vote in 2016 who will come out NOW or who backed Trump in 2016 and will feel he didn't deliver, so, which is it and what's the evidence?

What specifically is going to fire everyone around here up for Biden/Bernie or make the blue-collar Trump bloc stay home?

Because I haven't seen any wavering of Trump support, and on the other side, I've seen signs for Warren, Yang, Bernie, even fuckin' BETO, and not a one for Biden, the presumptive favorite of the party and electorate...... and my proximity to a University means I'm a VERY blue area. Not ONE sign for Joe as of yet, not one bumper sticker.... nothing...... that can change, of course, but can anyone saying "Trump's probably gonna lose PA" tell me WHY?

I'm not arrogant enough to think it's not possible to see a reversal of 2016, but can someone show me the road map as to why and how it will happen? Because I'm at ground zero here, and not due to any blindness or denial on my part, I can't see it.
 
Last edited:
Back