



The problem is that most of these states are sparsely polled so the forecast is only as good as the data.



On the other hand, Nate Silver has also done a







You will see that 538's primary forecasts sometime line up with Silver's state-by-state analysis (for example, they both show Vermont as a blowout for Sanders and Arkansas as a blowout for Clinton) and sometimes they don't line up (for example, Silver's analysis suggests Massachusetts is a good state for Sanders -- a state Sanders should win if the national polling has Sanders within 5% or 6% of Clinton -- and the 538 polls-only forecast says Sanders has a 68% chance of winning whereas the polls-plus forecast which puts weight on endorsements, etc., gives Clinton a 57% chance of winning).



Silver would be the first to say that 538's forecasts of caucuses and primaries are inexact (he would not want 538's primary inaccuracy averaged with his past general election accuracy and he has said as much on more than a few occasions). For example,



In short, 538 has consistently underestimated Sanders, and Silver's state-by-state analysis is generally validated by the most recent polling cited in the OP.



If the suspense is killing you, just tune out and check back on April 10.



If the voter-allocated-delegate total is close on April 10, we're in for an exciting summer. If one or the other candidate is well ahead by then, we'll probably know who will be our nominee. Keep in mind, Sanders is the underdog in this process, and Clinton is the favorite -- Sanders would have to do everything right to pull off the upset (or Clinton would have to mismanage her campaign) but, so far, Sanders has done everything right (and Clinton has helped with some mismanagement here and there).



On the one hand, when 538 has "primary forecasts," they are putting data (mainly polling analysis but other data, too, like endorsements and facebook activity) into a mathematical model . It's like what Pollster and RCP do, but it's one level more complicated.The problem is that most of these states are sparsely polled so the forecast is only as good as the data.On the other hand, Nate Silver has also done a state-by-state analysis (mostly demographic, but also including other data such as fundraising, etc.):You will see that 538's primary forecasts sometime line up with Silver's state-by-state analysis (for example, they both show Vermont as a blowout for Sanders and Arkansas as a blowout for Clinton) and sometimes they don't line up (for example, Silver's analysis suggests Massachusetts is a good state for Sanders -- a state Sanders should win if the national polling has Sanders within 5% or 6% of Clinton -- and the 538 polls-only forecast says Sanders has a 68% chance of winning whereas the polls-plus forecast which puts weight on endorsements, etc., gives Clinton a 57% chance of winning).Silver would be the first to say that 538's forecasts of caucuses and primaries are inexact (he would not want 538's primary inaccuracy averaged with his past general election accuracy and he has said as much on more than a few occasions). For example, 538's polling analysis missed Iowa by about 5% and missed New Hampshire by about 8% , with both errors in Clinton's favor (maybe Silver should do a house effect analysis on 538's forecasts). 538 has done even worse on the Republican side this primary season.In short, 538 has consistently underestimated Sanders, and Silver's state-by-state analysis is generally validated by the most recent polling cited in the OP.If the suspense is killing you, just tune out and check back on April 10.If the voter-allocated-delegate total is close on April 10, we're in for an exciting summer. If one or the other candidate is well ahead by then, we'll probably know who will be our nominee. Keep in mind, Sanders is the underdog in this process, and Clinton is the favorite -- Sanders would have to do everything right to pull off the upset (or Clinton would have to mismanage her campaign) but, so far, Sanders has done everything right (and Clinton has helped with some mismanagement here and there).