NH Strange Rules - If Bernie gets less than 57% Votes, equal delegates split

[Shadows]

Each district has 8 delegates allocated to it and Sanders needs to win by ~57% to get a delegate edge 5 vs 3 for Hillary. Hillary knows this and is trying to cut the lead to 5-6% so that even if Sanders ends up winning the popular vote, that by itself may not mean a lot as the delegates will be awarded 4-4.
Bottom line: Vote vs Delegates (out of | <15% - 0 | 15-18% - 1 | 19-31% - 2 | 32-43% - 3 | 44-56% - 4 | 57-68% - 5 | 69-81% - 6 | 82-85% - 7 | 86% - 8

Apart from this, NH also has 5 "at-large" (proportional to state vote) and "3" PLEO (Party Leaders and Elected Official) delegates for a total of 24 from this state.

http://m.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/3/1479118/-New-Hampshire-Delegate-Mathematics

If Sanders gets 56% & Clinton 44%, Bernie gets 4 out of 8 Delegates, Clinton takes 4 (probably). With a 12% lead he gets the same delegate.

Can some from NH or nearby confirm this?

Weird rule, Hillary could loose by over 10% & get a tie in the number of delegates

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The important thing to remember is that there are a lot of also rans on the NH ballot because the ballot access rules are laughably lenient. Those also rans + O'Malley (yes, he's on the ballot as well) probably combine for 2 to 3 percent of the vote. So Bernie getting 55% would be a 55-43 or 55-42 win, not 55-45.

[Shadows]

The important thing to remember is that there are a lot of also rans on the NH ballot because the ballot access rules are laughably lenient. Those also rans + O'Malley (yes, he's on the ballot as well) probably combine for 2 to 3 percent of the vote. So Bernie getting 55% would be a 55-43 or 55-42 win, not 55-45.

You are right - It's not a caucus & there's no 15% rule here. He needs 57% & say 3% gets wasted.

He needs Clinton to be 40 or less. In other words a 17-18% odd victory to get a decisive edge in the delegates

[Torie]

Bernie has a pretty good shot to get a 5-3 split in NH-02.

[Shadows]

Bernie has a pretty good shot to get a 5-3 split in NH-02.

Details? Reasons?

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Although, this does raise an interesting question. If a district does vote 55-43, then according to your table, that would be a 4-3 allocation with 1 delegate left over. Who gets the final delegate?

[RI]

I would fully expect NH-02 to be more favorable to Sanders than NH-01. It borders Vermont, contains the Birkenstock Belt/Dartmouth region in Grafton County, Obama/Dean both did much better on that side of the state, etc. I expect Sanders to break 60% in that CD if he's winning statewide at about 55%.

[Torie]

Bernie has a pretty good shot to get a 5-3 split in NH-02.

Details? Reasons?

See the post above.

[Ebsy]

I'm going to bet that the delegate split in New Hampshire will be inconsequential in regards to selecting the nominee.

[emailking]

I'm going to bet that the delegate split in New Hampshire will be inconsequential in regards to selecting the nominee.

Probably, but it could factor into the narrative if the delegate split is a tie or near tie. I remember in '08 the Obama team was claiming victory in Nevada because he won more delegates even though he lost the "raw" vote.

[Torie]

I'm going to bet that the delegate split in New Hampshire will be inconsequential in regards to selecting the nominee.

I delegate either way does not matter much, but given that in the Dem primary, everything is proportional, each delegate does really matter a lot more than on the Pub side, where there are some winner take all primaries, and where there are congressional districts with very few Pubs, so a candidate can get the lion's share of those "rotten borough" CD's, like McCain did in CA against Romney, and get most of the delegates.

[IceSpear]

Delegates don't matter. Early contests are solely about momentum.

Besides, if you start getting into the minutiae of delegate allocation, Hillary has already won. Sanders' only hope is to defeat her comfortably or in a landslide and make it a moot point.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Not quite right. He needs to beat Hillary 9-7 in a Congressional district or statewide to get a 5-3 split for those 8 delegates.

[muon2]

The math is actually pretty simple. In each district there is a whole number of delegates awarded to each candidate. The vote share is rounded to the nearest number of whole delegates. With 8 delegates the midpoint between 4/8 and 5/8 delegates is 9/16. That translates to 56.25% in a two person race, so any amount above that rounds up to 5/8. The 2008 Obama campaign was masterful in targeting CDs around the country where they were close to the point where one rounds up instead of down and consistently picked up extra delegates in districts.

[muon2]

The math is actually pretty simple. In each district there is a whole number of delegates awarded to each candidate. The vote share is rounded to the nearest number of whole delegates. With 8 delegates the midpoint between 4/8 and 5/8 delegates is 9/16. That translates to 56.25% in a two person race, so any amount above that rounds up to 5/8. The 2008 Obama campaign was masterful in targeting CDs around the country where they were close to the point where one rounds up instead of down and consistently picked up extra delegates in districts.

However, in a big state, there's no way of telling whether an extra vote might make the difference with the statewide delegates. California has a whopping 158 statewide.

True, it's harder to move percentages in a large state. That's why Obama's team polled districts and targeted resources at delegates awarded by CD.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Actually looking some more at NH, it has 3 PLEO and 5 at large delegates. Getting the majority but less than 70% of the 2 person vote gets you 5 of those 8.

Most likely Bernie wins 4 of NH-01, 5 of NH-02, and 5 statewide, for a total of 14 out of 24.

[Badger]

The math is actually pretty simple. In each district there is a whole number of delegates awarded to each candidate. The vote share is rounded to the nearest number of whole delegates. With 8 delegates the midpoint between 4/8 and 5/8 delegates is 9/16. That translates to 56.25% in a two person race, so any amount above that rounds up to 5/8. The 2008 Obama campaign was masterful in targeting CDs around the country where they were close to the point where one rounds up instead of down and consistently picked up extra delegates in districts.

However, in a big state, there's no way of telling whether an extra vote might make the difference with the statewide delegates. California has a whopping 158 statewide.

True, it's harder to move percentages in a large state. That's why Obama's team polled districts and targeted resources at delegates awarded by CD.

See PA for an excellant example of this.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The math is actually pretty simple. In each district there is a whole number of delegates awarded to each candidate. The vote share is rounded to the nearest number of whole delegates. With 8 delegates the midpoint between 4/8 and 5/8 delegates is 9/16. That translates to 56.25% in a two person race, so any amount above that rounds up to 5/8. The 2008 Obama campaign was masterful in targeting CDs around the country where they were close to the point where one rounds up instead of down and consistently picked up extra delegates in districts.

However, in a big state, there's no way of telling whether an extra vote might make the difference with the statewide delegates. California has a whopping 158 statewide.

True, it's harder to move percentages in a large state. That's why Obama's team polled districts and targeted resources at delegates awarded by CD.

See PA for an excellant example of this.

My earlier comment was wrong, California has 105 PLEO and 53 statewide, which are awarded separately based upon the statewide vote. Still basically impossible to tell with polling.

[Figueira]

Delegates don't matter. Early contests are solely about momentum.

Besides, if you start getting into the minutiae of delegate allocation, Hillary has already won. Sanders' only hope is to defeat her comfortably or in a landslide and make it a moot point.

This. I don't get why people are obsessing over delegates.

[muon2]

Delegates don't matter. Early contests are solely about momentum.

Besides, if you start getting into the minutiae of delegate allocation, Hillary has already won. Sanders' only hope is to defeat her comfortably or in a landslide and make it a moot point.

This. I don't get why people are obsessing over delegates.

Because in 2008 Obama's team knew that in a drawn out campaign people would start looking at the delegate counts as the horse race, not the number of states won. So they fashioned a campaign to get a lead in the delegate count and hold it. In the end the delegates nominate the candidate for president.

[This account no longer in use.]

Delegates don't matter. Early contests are solely about momentum.

Besides, if you start getting into the minutiae of delegate allocation, Hillary has already won. Sanders' only hope is to defeat her comfortably or in a landslide and make it a moot point.

Fun fact: It's possible for superdelegates to switch endorsements. It's already happened earlier this election cycle.

[Shadows]

Delegates don't matter. Early contests are solely about momentum.

Besides, if you start getting into the minutiae of delegate allocation, Hillary has already won. Sanders' only hope is to defeat her comfortably or in a landslide and make it a moot point.

Fun fact: It's possible for superdelegates to switch endorsements. It's already happened earlier this election cycle.

Yup Hillary has almost all of them, but they will switch, or a large section if Bernie gets a big victory. There will be a huge hue & cry about undermining the process & it will go against the people's mandate.

But Bernie overall needs to have a solid victory over Hillary to get a large portion to switch. If it's like Iowa, Super-Del will give Clinton a big victory

[Figueira]

Delegates don't matter. Early contests are solely about momentum.

Besides, if you start getting into the minutiae of delegate allocation, Hillary has already won. Sanders' only hope is to defeat her comfortably or in a landslide and make it a moot point.

This. I don't get why people are obsessing over delegates.

Because in 2008 Obama's team knew that in a drawn out campaign people would start looking at the delegate counts as the horse race, not the number of states won. So they fashioned a campaign to get a lead in the delegate count and hold it. In the end the delegates nominate the candidate for president.

Right, I know delegates are important. But there's no reason to care about New Hampshire delegates more than any other state.

[Bacon King]

Actually looking some more at NH, it has 3 PLEO and 5 at large delegates. Getting the majority but less than 70% of the 2 person vote gets you 5 of those 8.

Most likely Bernie wins 4 of NH-01, 5 of NH-02, and 5 statewide, for a total of 14 out of 24.

PLEO = Superdelegates, they aren't awarded proportionally

[Torie]

Actually looking some more at NH, it has 3 PLEO and 5 at large delegates. Getting the majority but less than 70% of the 2 person vote gets you 5 of those 8.

Most likely Bernie wins 4 of NH-01, 5 of NH-02, and 5 statewide, for a total of 14 out of 24.

PLEO = Superdelegates, they aren't awarded proportionally

PLE0 = unelected political hack delegates who show up no matter how unwanted by the voters.