Why you shouldn’t measure Bernie Sanders's success by how many counties he won

When you look at a map of New York's election results, it looks like Bernie Sanders absolutely dominated. And so of course that's getting attention on social media:

The Hill even wrote an article that's been shared more than 10,000 times on Facebook with the headline "Sanders wins majority of NY counties despite Clinton victory."

This is a silly way to look at election results. Winning a lot of land mass doesn't make you president of anything, which is why the county-level electoral maps for President Obama's victory in 2008, for example, is bright Republican red:

Mark Newman

When you skew the counties to show their relative population, as Mark Newman, a professor of physics at the University of Michigan, did, there's a lot more blue than red:

Mark Newman

The US consists of a lot of counties with very few people and a few counties that are very densely populated. There are more than 3,000 counties in the US. Half of the nation's population lives in 146 of them.

But the maps Robin tweeted show something more interesting, too: They show how Clinton has flipped the map in some ways from the last time she ran. Of the 19 states she has won so far, more than half of them were states she lost in 2008. That's partly just because her campaign is winning more this time around. But it's also because she's relying on some of the voters who were stalwarts for Obama.

As Vox's Jeff Stein reported in February:

"The irony of this Democratic primary so far is that Hillary Clinton's path to victory involves winning the voters she lost in 2008. And Bernie Sanders's path to victory depends on winning the voters Hillary Clinton won in 2008," says Dave Wasserman, a political analyst at the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. "That's a remarkable turn of events in just eight years."

Of course, it's delegates, not states or votes or counties, that really count. And although Clinton might have lost the majority of counties, she won the state by nearly 300,000 votes.

Will you support Vox’s explanatory journalism?

Most news outlets make their money through advertising or subscriptions. But when it comes to what we’re trying to do at Vox, there are a couple reasons that we can't rely only on ads and subscriptions to keep the lights on.

First, advertising dollars go up and down with the economy. We often only know a few months out what our advertising revenue will be, which makes it hard to plan ahead.

Second, we’re not in the subscriptions business. Vox is here to help everyone understand the complex issues shaping the world — not just the people who can afford to pay for a subscription. We believe that’s an important part of building a more equal society. We can’t do that if we have a paywall.

That’s why we also turn to you, our readers, to help us keep Vox free. If you also believe that everyone deserves access to trusted high-quality information, will you make a gift to Vox today?

One-Time Monthly Annual

$5/month

$10/month

$25/month

$50/month

Other

$

Yes, I'll give $5/month

Yes, I'll give $5/month

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via