vox--2020-03-02--BTS just landed an unprecedented spot on the Hot 100 — with virtually no radio play

You might have heard , the unstoppable K-pop group BTS released a new album recently , and it ’ s a pretty significant one .
Map of the Soul : 7 offers much to say about the band and its international success , as well as the obstacles to mainstream acceptance in the US — obstacles BTS is steadily eroding .
Sporting a new single , “ On , ” another version of “ On ” featuring Sia , and new music largely written by each of the band members , Map of the Soul : 7 debuted at No @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sales , capturing a slew of other notable firsts in the process .
“ On ” topped Billboard ’ s Digital Sales chart and became the song with the best debut performance since Taylor Swift ’ s “ Me !
” last year , which featured Panic !
At the Disco ’ s Brendon Urie .
And while it didn ’ t debut at No .
1 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart , “ On ” captured an unprecedented position , coming in at No .
4 , the highest chart position @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Solo artist Psy ’ s 2012 smash “ Gangnam Style ” is the only Korean act to slot in higher , at No .
2 . )
This huge milestone signifies how dramatically the music industry landscape has shifted away from radio play and toward nontraditional methods of promotion and distribution .
And it is indie and international artists who end up most benefiting from that change .
BTS ’ s enormous international fandom has only grown since the group ’ s 2012 debut .
Plus , the band recently took a break @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this album a major comeback ( in K-pop terms ) and pushing anticipation for its release even higher .
In its first week of release , Map of the Soul : 7 sold over 411,000 album-equivalent units in the US alone .
( By comparison , perennial chart-topper Eminem ’ s recent surprise album sold 279,000 units in its first week .
The only recent album to outsell BTS in its first week was Harry Styles ’ s Fine Line , which sold 478,000 units in December . )
In “ pure sales @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and downloads , it ’ s already the bestselling and fastest-selling album of 2020 , with over 3 million copies sold globally in just three days .
The album topped the Billboard Top 200 and Rolling Stone Top 200 charts .
It also had the best debut week of any album released so far in 2020 and outsold all of the other albums in the top five combined .
Even before the album dropped , BTS started off 2020 by setting chart longevity records with its sleeper hit single from last year , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , eleven of the band ’ s many releases had spent a jaw-dropping three years straight on the Billboard Top 200 list .
Then came news of the February 21 release date for Map of the Soul : 7 , which immediately broke presale records .
The album ’ s enormous success also gave it plenty of room to nab a bunch of other chart milestones as well .
It ’ s important to list them all because the list puts the sheer magnitude of BTS ’ s success in perspective , not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US-based pop bands : • With Map of the Soul : 7 , BTS charted their fourth No .
1 album in a row ( in terms of both major album charts and global sales upon debut ) .
• This was also the band ’ s fourth No .
1 album in both overall sales and charts in less than two years — a pace that puts them in the same league as the Beatles , who were the last band to generate four No .
1 albums in less than two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ • The band is the first Korean act to chart 10 or more songs on the Hot 100 .
• BTS placed a total of seven songs in the week ’ s top 10 digital sales .
• The YouTube-exclusive live premiere of the music video for “ On ” garnered 1.54 million viewers , making it the most-watched video premiere stream in YouTube history .
An earlier attempt by TikTok to preview “ On ” resulted in a legion of ARMY members , as BTS fans are known , crashing the entire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ milestones even more impressive is that record labels often sell merchandise bundles — a physical CD , say , combined with additional swag — to encourage the sale of physical album copies , which can help an album rank higher on the charts .
But BTS didn ’ t bundle Map of the Soul : 7 with any additional merchandise , meaning the album ’ s sales were primarily organic .
With all of these notable successes , you might be wondering what possible difference one chart more or less might possibly make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Billboard Hot 100 , the answer is : quite a lot .
BTS ’ s promotional strategy was designed to land the band on the Hot 100 The Billboard Hot 100 measures the popularity of individual songs , not albums .
BTS has charted on the Hot 100 before ; before this week their songs had appeared eight times , most notably in 2019 when “ Boy With Luv , ” which featured the popular American artist Halsey , debuted at No .
8 on the list .
But debuting a song at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a goal the group has had for a while , explicitly because it involves a level of mainstream saturation that spells US success at its highest level , and because the band wants to attain that level without compromising its identity .
“ A Hot 100 and a Grammy nomination , these are our goals , ” the band ’ s de facto leader , rapper Kim Namjoon a.k.a .
RM , told Entertainment Weekly last year .
“ But they ’ re just goals — we don ’ t want to change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the No .
1 .
Like if we sing suddenly in full English and change all these other things , then that ’ s not BTS.
” Still , he added , “ We ’ ll do everything , we ’ ll try ” — and with “ On , ” the band and its studio BigHit clearly went all-out .
Upon the song ’ s initial release , the online download price of the single and each of the other tracks off Map of the Soul : 7 was discounted to just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to purchase them individually .
In addition to the remix featuring Sia , BTS also released a total of three videos for “ On.
” The first , a “ Kinetic Manifesto Film , ” featured the band dancing the full song alongside dozens of backup drummers , dancers , and a brass marching band ; since its February 21 debut , it ’ s already garnered 110 million views on YouTube .
Then came a proper official music video ( 65 million views on YouTube since February 27 ) and a dance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was all pretty standard practice for a K-pop group , though the scale was much larger than usual .
Less standard : The band took over Grand Central Station in the album ’ s first week of release to perform “ On ” for a special episode of The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon that followed the band around New York City .
Then BTS traveled to Los Angeles for a round of Carpool Karaoke with James Corden , where they sang “ On ” along with a mix of US hits and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ promotional stops emphasized the band members ’ cultural fluidity , senses of humor , and talent , with the clear goal of making them seem relatable and familiar to US audiences .
But would this marketing ploy be effective ?
The Billboard Hot 100 relies on radio play .
That makes it a different kind of milestone for an international band to achieve .
On one level , yes .
Clearly , interest in BTS was high , and album sales were enormous .
But in the early days of the single ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggested that album sales didn ’ t seem to be translating to either radio play or individual track sales for “ On , ” which the report suggested was abysmally low .
This news sent fans into a panic ; many were begging each other , particularly US fans , to buy the single in order to push the band ’ s potential position higher on the Hot 100 list .
It ’ s unclear whether that initial source was inaccurate or whether the extra push among fans was wildly effective , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sales estimates for “ On ” were much , much higher : Typically , sales of over 100,000 units would easily put “ On ” within range of the No .
1 spot on the Hot 100 .
But the Billboard chart is finicky , as it gives the most weight to streams of songs ( with streams on paid tiers like Spotify Premium weighted ahead of streams on ad-supported platforms like YouTube ) , followed by radio air time and digital sales .
So even if a song has performed well enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in terms of overall streams and digital sales without a significant amount of radio play , it likely doesn ’ t stand a chance of charting on the Hot 100 .
BTS fans , having been burned by the band ’ s lack of US radio play in the past , were all too aware of this , and they didn ’ t seem to believe things would be different this time around .
Fans ’ complaints that xenophobia is behind the lack of radio play seem to have merit .
In 2018 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote a list of reasons why stations might not give BTS airplay .
At the top : The group doesn ’ t sing in English .
( Though the majority of its singles include at least some lyrics in English , BTS , like most K-pop groups , sings primarily in Korean . )
Other potential contributing factors included their unwillingness to relocate to America and do extensive get-to-know-you interviews and participate in events sponsored by US radio stations .
So fans were in deep suspense leading up to Monday ’ s announcement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the chart .
Some tracked radio plays across the national US market to chart the band ’ s progress , even as US radio stations seemed to pay little attention to the band .
All of this culminated in Monday ’ s news that BTS had landed in the Hot 100 ’ s Top 5 .
It ’ s hard to overstate what an achievement it is for any band to land this high on the Hot 100 with as little radio play as BTS seems to have gotten .
For comparison , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last year , it had promotion from Halsey and ample radio play , and it still only managed to squeeze in at No .
8 on the list .
An international band , singing mainly in a language other than English or Spanish , landing this high on the chart without the influence of mainstream radio suggests a powerful cultural change .
More people are finding their way to the band independently , and traditional industry promotional methods are becoming less effective than ever .
A number of factors all serve to aid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to break through the wall of industry gatekeeping and the power of individual radio stations to determine what gets played .
The proliferation of music streaming platforms , the rise of SoundCloud culture as a way of promoting talent , and highly self-organized fanbases acting as taste arbiters and music promoters — all of these factors can work in the favor of international and unknown artists .
( It ’ s worth noting that BTS ’ s original public debut way back in 2012 featured the band releasing a few tracks on SoundCloud @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toward artists curated by crowdsourcing allow otherwise unsuitable artists to break through when the industry itself would ordinarily keep them at bay .
It ’ s hard to think of a band with BTS ’ s level of success as an underdog , but in terms of breaking into the US mainstream , it has been — until now .
And while No .
4 is still a long way from No .
1 , BTS ’ s story so far has been about a perpetual ascension higher through the charts and into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t be surprised if Map of the Soul : 7 continues to make chart-topping cultural inroads .
After all , this was just the first week .

You might have heard, the unstoppable K-pop group BTS released a new album recently, and it’s a pretty significant one. Map of the Soul: 7 offers much to say about the band and its international success, as well as the obstacles to mainstream acceptance in the US — obstacles BTS is steadily eroding.
Sporting a new single, “On,” another version of “On” featuring Sia, and new music largely written by each of the band members, Map of the Soul: 7 debuted at No. 1 in terms of global cumulative sales, capturing a slew of other notable firsts in the process. “On” topped Billboard’s Digital Sales chart and became the song with the best debut performance since Taylor Swift’s “Me!” last year, which featured Panic! At the Disco’s Brendon Urie.
.@BTS_twt's "On" debuts at No. 1 on this week's #DigitalSongSales chart with 86,000 downloads sold, marking BTS' best sales week ever for a song and the strongest for any song since @taylorswift13's "Me!" opened with 193,000 on May 11, 2019. — Billboard Charts (@billboardcharts) March 2, 2020
And while it didn’t debut at No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart, “On” captured an unprecedented position, coming in at No. 4, the highest chart position ever for a Korean group. (Solo artist Psy’s 2012 smash “Gangnam Style” is the only Korean act to slot in higher, at No. 2.) This huge milestone signifies how dramatically the music industry landscape has shifted away from radio play and toward nontraditional methods of promotion and distribution. And it is indie and international artists who end up most benefiting from that change.
BTS’s enormous international fandom has only grown since the group’s 2013 debut. Plus, the band recently took a break from performing for several months, making this album a major comeback (in K-pop terms) and pushing anticipation for its release even higher.
In its first week of release, Map of the Soul: 7 sold over 422,000 album-equivalent units in the US alone. (By comparison, perennial chart-topper Eminem’s recent surprise album sold 279,000 units in its first week. The only recent album to outsell BTS in its first week was Harry Styles’s Fine Line, which sold 478,000 units in December.) In “pure sales,” which means without counting streams and downloads, it’s already the bestselling and fastest-selling album of 2020, with over 3 million copies sold globally in just three days. The album topped the Billboard Top 200 and Rolling Stone Top 200 charts. It also had the best debut week of any album released so far in 2020 and outsold all of the other albums in the top five combined.
Even before the album dropped, BTS started off 2020 by setting chart longevity records with its sleeper hit single from last year, “Make It Right.” By February, eleven of the band’s many releases had spent a jaw-dropping three years straight on the Billboard Top 200 list. Then came news of the February 21 release date for Map of the Soul: 7, which immediately broke presale records.
The album’s enormous success also gave it plenty of room to nab a bunch of other chart milestones as well. It’s important to list them all because the list puts the sheer magnitude of BTS’s success in perspective, not only globally but also compared to other US-based pop bands:
With Map of the Soul: 7, BTS charted their fourth No. 1 album in a row (in terms of both major album charts and global sales upon debut).
This was also the band’s fourth No. 1 album in both overall sales and charts in less than two years — a pace that puts them in the same league as the Beatles, who were the last band to generate four No. 1 albums in less than two years, between 1966 and 1968.
The band is the first Korean act to chart 10 or more songs on the Hot 100.
BTS placed a total of seven songs in the week’s top 10 digital sales.
The YouTube-exclusive live premiere of the music video for “On” garnered 1.54 million viewers, making it the most-watched video premiere stream in YouTube history. An earlier attempt by TikTok to preview “On” resulted in a legion of ARMY members, as BTS fans are known, crashing the entire platform.
What makes many of these milestones even more impressive is that record labels often sell merchandise bundles — a physical CD, say, combined with additional swag — to encourage the sale of physical album copies, which can help an album rank higher on the charts. But BTS didn’t bundle Map of the Soul: 7 with any additional merchandise, meaning the album’s sales were primarily organic.
BTS, A SOUTH KOREAN BOYBAND GOT 411K UNITS WITH NO BUNDLING, NO PLAYLISTING, NO RADIO PLAY, MFS DIDNT EVEN TWEET ABOUT THEIR ALBUM ONCE ON THEIR ACC.....THE MUSIC INDUSTRY IS SHAKING FR pic.twitter.com/DnjHUi5YtG — ⁷ (no 422k, no opinion) (@vantestaegi) February 28, 2020
With all of these notable successes, you might be wondering what possible difference one chart more or less might possibly make.
But in the case of the Billboard Hot 100, the answer is: quite a lot.
BTS’s promotional strategy was designed to land the band on the Hot 100
The Billboard Hot 100 measures the popularity of individual songs, not albums. BTS has charted on the Hot 100 before; before this week their songs had appeared eight times, most notably in 2019 when “Boy With Luv,” which featured the popular American artist Halsey, debuted at No. 8 on the list. But debuting a song at the top of the Hot 100 was a goal the group has had for a while, explicitly because it involves a level of mainstream saturation that spells US success at its highest level, and because the band wants to attain that level without compromising its identity.
“A Hot 100 and a Grammy nomination, these are our goals,” the band’s de facto leader, rapper Kim Namjoon a.k.a. RM, told Entertainment Weekly last year. “But they’re just goals — we don’t want to change our identity or our genuineness to get the No. 1. Like if we sing suddenly in full English and change all these other things, then that’s not BTS.”
Still, he added, “We’ll do everything, we’ll try” — and with “On,” the band and its studio BigHit clearly went all-out. Upon the song’s initial release, the online download price of the single and each of the other tracks off Map of the Soul: 7 was discounted to just 69 cents as an incentive for fans to purchase them individually.
In addition to the remix featuring Sia, BTS also released a total of three videos for “On.” The first, a “Kinetic Manifesto Film,” featured the band dancing the full song alongside dozens of backup drummers, dancers, and a brass marching band; since its February 21 debut, it’s already garnered 110 million views on YouTube. Then came a proper official music video (65 million views on YouTube since February 27) and a dance practice video showcasing the choreography. This was all pretty standard practice for a K-pop group, though the scale was much larger than usual.
Less standard: The band took over Grand Central Station in the album’s first week of release to perform “On” for a special episode of The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon that followed the band around New York City. Then BTS traveled to Los Angeles for a round of Carpool Karaoke with James Corden, where they sang “On” along with a mix of US hits and their own songs.
This mix of promotional stops emphasized the band members’ cultural fluidity, senses of humor, and talent, with the clear goal of making them seem relatable and familiar to US audiences. But would this marketing ploy be effective?
The Billboard Hot 100 relies on radio play. That makes it a different kind of milestone for an international band to achieve.
On one level, yes. Clearly, interest in BTS was high, and album sales were enormous. But in the early days of the single’s release, an early viral report suggested that album sales didn’t seem to be translating to either radio play or individual track sales for “On,” which the report suggested was abysmally low. This news sent fans into a panic; many were begging each other, particularly US fans, to buy the single in order to push the band’s potential position higher on the Hot 100 list. It’s unclear whether that initial source was inaccurate or whether the extra push among fans was wildly effective, but by late last week, the reported sales estimates for “On” were much, much higher:
.@BTS_twt's "ON" has now sold over 100,000 units in the US (combined total). — chart data (@chartdata) February 27, 2020
Typically, sales of over 100,000 units would easily put “On” within range of the No. 1 spot on the Hot 100. But the Billboard chart is finicky, as it gives the most weight to streams of songs (with streams on paid tiers like Spotify Premium weighted ahead of streams on ad-supported platforms like YouTube), followed by radio air time and digital sales.
So even if a song has performed well enough to hit the No. 1 spot in terms of overall streams and digital sales without a significant amount of radio play, it likely doesn’t stand a chance of charting on the Hot 100. BTS fans, having been burned by the band’s lack of US radio play in the past, were all too aware of this, and they didn’t seem to believe things would be different this time around.
I’d like just once for a radio station to publicly admit they won’t play BTS because it’s not in English. Just admit your xenophobia and let’s stop pretending it has ANYTHING to do with BH or programming BTS is the biggest group in the world with the worst radio play. — BTS #1 Billboard ⁷ (@MyGalaxyBTSArmy) February 24, 2020
Fans’ complaints that xenophobia is behind the lack of radio play seem to have merit. In 2018, a Chattanooga, Tennessee, DJ wrote a list of reasons why stations might not give BTS airplay. At the top: The group doesn’t sing in English. (Though the majority of its singles include at least some lyrics in English, BTS, like most K-pop groups, sings primarily in Korean.) Other potential contributing factors included their unwillingness to relocate to America and do extensive get-to-know-you interviews and participate in events sponsored by US radio stations.
So fans were in deep suspense leading up to Monday’s announcement of where the band would land on the chart. Some tracked radio plays across the national US market to chart the band’s progress, even as US radio stations seemed to pay little attention to the band.
Just as an FYI, this is where we are with US radio play as of yesterday. Please send love to the stations playing ON!!
The song will hopefully be picked up by more stations this week - in the meantime, please stream & buy the album & ON as much as you can!! @BTS_twt pic.twitter.com/JWHKJCDK74 — msbeatrice⁷ (@msbeatrice_81) March 1, 2020
All of this culminated in Monday’s news that BTS had landed in the Hot 100’s Top 5.
ON IS #4 ON THE HOT100 WITHOUT ANY FCKIN RADIO PLAY OR PLAYLISTING BTS ARE CHANGING THE FCKIN GAMR pic.twitter.com/JHzIkvzRxa — krissy⁷ | Billboard Hot 100: #4(new) ON, @BTS_twt. (@HYYHOYA) March 2, 2020
It’s hard to overstate what an achievement it is for any band to land this high on the Hot 100 with as little radio play as BTS seems to have gotten. For comparison, when “Boy With Luv” charted last year, it had promotion from Halsey and ample radio play, and it still only managed to squeeze in at No. 8 on the list. An international band, singing mainly in a language other than English or Spanish, landing this high on the chart without the influence of mainstream radio suggests a powerful cultural change. More people are finding their way to the band independently, and traditional industry promotional methods are becoming less effective than ever.
A number of factors all serve to aid bands that otherwise would have been unable to break through the wall of industry gatekeeping and the power of individual radio stations to determine what gets played. The proliferation of music streaming platforms, the rise of SoundCloud culture as a way of promoting talent, and highly self-organized fanbases acting as taste arbiters and music promoters — all of these factors can work in the favor of international and unknown artists. (It’s worth noting that way back in 2012, before BTS’s original public debut, the band released a few tracks on SoundCloud.) Shifts away from label-friendly artists toward artists curated by crowdsourcing allow otherwise unsuitable artists to break through when the industry itself would ordinarily keep them at bay.
It’s hard to think of a band with BTS’s level of success as an underdog, but in terms of breaking into the US mainstream, it has been — until now. And while No. 4 is still a long way from No. 1, BTS’s story so far has been about a perpetual ascension higher through the charts and into the eye of the public. Don’t be surprised if Map of the Soul: 7 continues to make chart-topping cultural inroads.
After all, this was just the first week.


vox--2020-03-02--The race for presidential delegates has begun. Track them here.

Share All sharing options for : The race for presidential delegates has begun .
Track them here .
The magic number to win the Democratic Party ’ s nomination for president is 1,991 delegates .
It could take months to officially get there .
Presidential candidates are all competing for a majority of 3,979 pledged delegates .
Separately , there are also 771 automatic delegates , otherwise known as “ superdelegates.
” But after a contentious 2016 primary , the Democratic National Committee changed its rules around superdelegates so they may now vote on the first ballot to select a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if a campaign has secured a supermajority of pledged delegates .
( Otherwise , they weigh in in the event of a second round of voting at the convention . )
Candidates are competing for these delegates against a backdrop of complex rules : Delegates are awarded proportionally , and most states and districts require a minimum threshold of 15 percent of the primary or caucus vote to earn pledged delegates .
This makes the contest a bit fairer , but also means it ’ s much harder to secure that magic number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the year .
The Iowa caucuses officially kicked off the delegate race on February 3 .
But while the early states are all about gaining momentum , the race is ultimately about who can bag the most delegates and get to that magic number .
This could all be over very quickly if one candidate racks up an insurmountable lead , or it could drag on into the spring and summer , ahead of the Democratic National Convention in July .
Vox has a delegate tracker , in partnership with our friends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Politics .
It ’ s easiest to think about the primary race in three phases , as we explained in our primary delegate calendar .
• Phase one : The early states .
This is the all-important opening salvo of Iowa , New Hampshire , Nevada , and South Carolina , but their importance is all about momentum — not delegates .
Taken together , these four states account for 155 delegates , or just 4 percent of the total pledged allocated delegates .
• Phase two : Super Tuesday and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Super Tuesday and its 15 contests are when the presidential race shifts into a true national primary .
A total of 1,344 delegates will be allotted on Super Tuesday alone — about 33 percent of the total .
And 11 more state contests are up for grabs on March 10 and 17 .
By the time March 17 rolls around , 61 percent of the pledged delegates will be allotted .
• Phase three : The slog .
As Vox ’ s Andrew Prokop noted , we could either have a pretty good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by mid-March , or the primary could still be contested , as it was in 2016 .
If the latter , the contests to decide the winner will happen from March 18 to June 6 .
Those three months will be when the remaining 39 percent of delegates will be allotted ; the most important day in this stretch is April 28 , when New York and Pennsylvania vote , among others .
The four earliest states don ’ t contain a lot of delegates , but they act to winnow the field @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be especially important this year , with more than 10 candidates still in the race .
Winnowing the field is half the battle .
The race to bag delegates starts in earnest on Super Tuesday .
“ It ’ s a virtual national primary because there are so many states .
The math itself changes , and every network has some sort of chart showing the projected delegate count , ” longtime California Democratic consultant Bill Carrick told Vox recently .
And this is not just about winning states , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ congressional district level .
Most states award both delegates based on state-level totals as well as delegates in each individual district .
District-level delegates are the voters and local activists who sign up through their state party to act as delegates — together they make up the vast majority of eligible delegates .
It is critical for Democratic candidates to get at least a 15 percent threshold in states or individual congressional districts in order to qualify for pledged delegates .
And a big part of figuring out delegate math means campaigns have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ target certain districts with demographics that could be favorable for them .
Here ’ s a breakdown of the delegate math , both pledged delegates and automatic delegates : Again , it ’ s worth noting the biggest DNC rules changes were around superdelegates .
That means these 771 superdelegates will largely sit on the sidelines on the first ballot , unless there ’ s already a candidate with a supermajority of pledged delegates .
Correction : An earlier version of this story said it takes 1990 delegates to win the Democratic nomination @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Share All sharing options for: The race for presidential delegates is well underway. Track them here.
The magic number to win the Democratic Party’s nomination for president is 1,991 pledged delegates.
No candidate has yet reached that number, but following the March 17 primaries, former Vice President Joe Biden became the first to cross the 1,000 pledged delegate mark, and has established a significant lead on his closest rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders. The final candidate remaining in the race, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, has won only two delegates so far.
Beyond the race’s 3,979 pledged delegates, there are also 771 automatic delegates, otherwise known as “superdelegates.” After a contentious 2016 primary, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) changed its rules around superdelegates so they may now vote on the first ballot to select a nominee at the Democratic National Convention only if a campaign has secured a supermajority of pledged delegates. Otherwise, they weigh in during a second round of voting at the convention.
Candidates are competing for these delegates against a backdrop of complex rules: Delegates are awarded proportionally, and most states and districts require a minimum threshold of 15 percent of the primary or caucus vote to earn pledged delegates. This may make the contest fairer but means it’s harder to secure that magic number in a contested primary until much later in the year.
The Iowa caucuses officially kicked off the delegate race on February 3. But while the early states were all about gaining momentum, the race is ultimately about who can bag the most delegates and get to that magic number. March was a critical month for delegate math: Super Tuesday, March 10, and the three contests on March 17 got us more than 50 percent of the way there.
Now that those contests have concluded, Biden has racked up a delegate lead that will be difficult for Sanders to surmount. But many states have still yet to vote, and the contest could continue on further into the spring and summer, ahead of the Democratic National Convention in July.
Vox has a tracker for the total number of delegates awarded, in partnership with our friends at Decision Desk and the Virginia Center for Politics.
Delegate math, briefly explained
The four earliest states — Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina — didn’t contain a lot of delegates, but they did winnow the field. This was especially important this year, as several Democratic candidates were still in the race on Super Tuesday, March 3, the first time a large number of delegates were up for grabs.
Winnowing the field — now down, essentially, to Sanders and Biden — is half the battle. The other half is winning enough of the vote to rack up an insurmountable delegate lead.
Doing this is not just about winning states: It’s also about winning delegates at a congressional district level. Most states award delegates proportionally based on state-level totals as well as delegates in each district. District-level delegates are the voters and local activists who sign up through their state party to act as delegates to the convention — together they make up the vast majority of pledged delegates.
It is critical for candidates to get at least a 15 percent threshold in states or individual congressional districts to qualify for pledged delegates. And a big part of figuring out delegate math means campaigns have to focus on crunching the numbers to target certain districts with demographics that could be favorable for them.
For instance, Sanders focused heavily on states with Latinx voters in March, counting on big wins in California and Nevada to boost his delegate count. That did not quite work out as the senator’s campaign hoped, but Biden’s big bets on Southern states that had large black electorates did pay dividends.
Here’s a breakdown of the delegate categories, both for pledged delegates and automatic delegates:
Pledged delegates
District level: 2,591
At-large: 898
Party leaders and state and local elected officials (PLEO): 490
Total: 3,979
Automatic (“super”) delegates
Democratic National Committee members: 445
Democratic members of Congress: 280
Democratic governors: 24
Party leaders: 22
Total: 771
It’s worth noting the DNC’s biggest rules changes were around superdelegates. That means these 771 superdelegates will largely sit on the sidelines on the first ballot unless there’s already a candidate with a supermajority of pledged delegates.
Correction: An earlier version of this story said it takes 1,990 delegates to win the Democratic nomination. The correct number is 1,991.


Super Tuesday, explained

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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 ) .
Eventually , big states from elsewhere in the country wanted in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 : Another contest , involving “ Democrats Abroad ” — Democratic voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 : • Seven Southern states ( 46 percent of the day ’ s delegates ) : Like Super Tuesdays of old , this year ’ s map is skewed toward the South @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 . )
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you get many more of the delegates at stake .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .
Correction : A previous version of a lead graphic showed incorrect information on the states holding elections on Super Tuesday .

The first day of the Democratic contest that really matters for the cold, hard delegate math — Super Tuesday — is almost here. Follow our live results 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 national polls and strong position in some big Super Tuesday states indicate he could rack up enough plurality wins in a crowded field to clean up in delegates. (Some recent polls, however, have shown late movement toward Joe Biden, which could spoil those plans.)
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).
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-state prize.
The biggest single-state 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.
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 still larger than usual.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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).
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 wrinkle 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.
Correction: A previous version of a lead graphic showed incorrect information on the states holding elections on Super Tuesday.


vox--2020-03-02--Why Turkey launched a major offensive against the Syrian government

Turkey has launched a military offensive against the Syrian regime in direct retaliation for the killing of about three dozen of its troops last week in Idlib , Syria .
As part of Operation Spring Shield , as the offensive is being called , Turkey has already shot down two Syrian warplanes and killed more than 2,000 Syrian regime troops , according to Turkey ’ s defense minister , Hulusi Akar .
Akar also said Turkey destroyed 103 tanks , 72 artillery and rocket launchers , and three air defense systems .
Turkey escalated its operations in northeastern Syria last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ push to reclaim the last rebel-held territory in the country , in Idlib province .
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad , backed by Russia and Iran , is trying to retake the territory through a brutal military offensive that has , according to United Nations estimates , already displaced about 1 million people since December 1 , 2019 .
About 3 million people live in Idlib province , and about half of them came from other parts of Syria after being displaced by fighting over the nine-year civil war .
Those civilians , many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now being pushed into an ever-shrinking area close to the border with Turkey in dangerous and freezing conditions that are increasing the humanitarian toll .
Turkey , which backs the anti-regime rebels , has sealed its borders to additional refugees .
The country already hosts nearly 4 million refugees , and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is under increasing domestic pressure to prevent more people from crossing the border .
This has left millions of Syrians essentially trapped in Idlib — unable to find refuge in Turkey and being closed in by Assad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is raining down bombs and recapturing territory .
And now , Turkey and the Syrian regime are directly attacking each other in Idlib , making the crisis even more precarious .
Erdogan had threatened action .
Now he ’ s following through .
Erdoğan had intensified his rhetoric against the Syrian regime as Assad advanced into Idlib , threatening to intervene if Assad did not curtail his offensive .
He has also tried to reengage Moscow to revive the outlines of a 2018 ceasefire deal in Idlib that has since imploded .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ airstrikes killed at least 36 Turkish soldiers and wounded more than two dozen more in a dangerous escalation between the two sides .
The strike put pressure on Erdoğan to respond , and increased the chances of a confrontation between Turkey — a US NATO ally — and Assad ’ s benefactor , Russia .
Turkey has insisted that its “ only aim is to stop the Syrian regime ’ s massacres ” as well as “ radical groups [ and ] the displacement of civilians , ” Akar , the Turkish defense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said Turkey had no “ desire or intention to clash with Russia.
” Russian President Vladimir Putin and Erdoğan have confirmed that they will meet for talks this week , on March 5 , to try to find a solution to the crisis in Idlib .
This may be a chance for both Ankara and Moscow to pause the fighting and avert some of the humanitarian catastrophe in Idlib .
But it will likely only be a temporary fix .
What Turkey really wants — and what it means for Idlib Syria ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drove it to respond with force .
But this is less about taking down Assad and more about Erdoğan ’ s domestic political considerations , experts told me .
In Erdoğan ’ s view , Turkey can not take in any more refugees .
There has already been a massive backlash against refugees , especially as Turkey ’ s economy struggles .
And Assad ’ s attacks on Idlib are increasing the chances of mass slaughter and displacement at Turkey ’ s doorstep , something Turkey absolutely can not afford .
“ Turkey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point , ” Lisel Hintz , assistant professor of international relations and European studies at Johns Hopkins University , told me .
Syria ’ s attack on Turkish forces gave Erdoğan a rallying point for his domestic audience , who otherwise might not have been eager to commit troops to the fight in Syria .
Turkey has also told refugees that its borders with Europe are open , allowing refugees to travel by land or sea to Greece or Bulgaria .
But those European borders remain sealed , with refugees being turned away @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of refugees shot by border guards and groups being dispersed with tear gas .
Ankara is trying to put pressure on both European and NATO allies to come to its aid in Idlib ( Turkey is a member of NATO ) .
As part of a deal in 2016 , the European Union paid Turkey to stop the flow of migrants into the EU from Turkey after the continent was overwhelmed by asylum seekers fleeing Syria , Iraq , and other places in the Middle East and Africa .
Now Turkey is raising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loosening those restrictions and allowing migrants and refugees to travel to Europe .
It ’ s a pretty blatant attempt to bully NATO forces into backing Turkey in Idlib , Hintz said .
“ Note this bullying is only possible because , again , the US and European actors largely if incorrectly see Syrians fleeing conflict as a threat.
” It ’ s not clear how effective this strategy will be , though .
NATO has called for an end to the fighting in Idlib but has reiterated its “ full solidarity ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ publicly come to Turkey ’ s defense , and there are some signs that the Trump administration may want to do a bit more to back up Turkey .
“ The United States is engaging with our Turkish Allies and reviewing options to assist Turkey against this aggression as we seek to prevent further Assad regime and Russian brutality and alleviate the humanitarian suffering in Idlib , ” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a statement last week .
James Jeffrey , the US Syria envoy , is also reportedly pushing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help Turkey fend off Assad ’ s air force .
Jeffrey , along with US Ambassador to the UN Kelly Craft , is meeting with Turkish officials Monday , according to pro-Turkish media .
Soner Çağaptay , director of the Turkish research program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and author of Erdogan ’ s Empire : Turkey and the Politics of the Middle East , told me he thinks the public support from the United States has already had some impact on Turkey ’ s calculations .
The US and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and a big reason has been Erdoğan ’ s increasingly friendly relations with Putin and recent decision to purchase Russian-made weapons .
But the Syrian crisis is proving to Turkey that Russia may not be as reliable a partner as it would like .
“ The crisis in Idlib with Putin reminded Turkey that Russia is Turkey ’ s nemesis , and that even when they have bargains with the Turks , they will ultimately undermine Turkey , ” Çağaptay said .
On the other hand , “ the US did come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Turkey does not want to provoke Russia in this conflict , and Russia doesn ’ t want to squander its rapprochement with Turkey .
That ’ s likely why Russia has largely stepped aside in this latest fight between Syrian and Turkish forces .
If Putin and Erdoğan can come to some sort of ceasefire or deescalation agreement , Turkey can save some face , and Putin can avoid a dangerous provocation of both Turkey and its NATO allies .
That could spare millions of Syrian people in Idlib from being displaced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it may be much harder to find a long-term solution to the crisis .

Turkey has launched a military offensive against the Syrian regime in direct retaliation for the killing of about three dozen of its troops last week in Idlib, Syria.
As part of Operation Spring Shield, as the offensive is being called, Turkey has already shot down two Syrian warplanes and killed more than 2,000 Syrian regime troops, according to Turkey’s defense minister, Hulusi Akar. Akar also said Turkey destroyed 103 tanks, 72 artillery and rocket launchers, and three air defense systems.
Turkey escalated its operations in northeastern Syria last week amid the Syrian regime’s push to reclaim the last rebel-held territory in the country, in Idlib province.
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, backed by Russia and Iran, is trying to retake the territory through a brutal military offensive that has, according to United Nations estimates, already displaced about 1 million people since December 1, 2019.
About 3 million people live in Idlib province, and about half of them came from other parts of Syria after being displaced by fighting over the nine-year civil war. Those civilians, many of them women and children, are now being pushed into an ever-shrinking area close to the border with Turkey in dangerous and freezing conditions that are increasing the humanitarian toll.
Turkey, which backs the anti-regime rebels, has sealed its borders to additional refugees. The country already hosts nearly 4 million refugees, and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is under increasing domestic pressure to prevent more people from crossing the border.
This has left millions of Syrians essentially trapped in Idlib — unable to find refuge in Turkey and being closed in by Assad who, with Russia’s help, is raining down bombs and recapturing territory.
And now, Turkey and the Syrian regime are directly attacking each other in Idlib, making the crisis even more precarious.
Erdogan had threatened action. Now he’s following through.
Erdoğan had intensified his rhetoric against the Syrian regime as Assad advanced into Idlib, threatening to intervene if Assad did not curtail his offensive. He has also tried to reengage Moscow to revive the outlines of a 2018 ceasefire deal in Idlib that has since imploded.
Then, last week, Syrian regime airstrikes killed at least 36 Turkish soldiers and wounded more than two dozen more in a dangerous escalation between the two sides. The strike put pressure on Erdoğan to respond, and increased the chances of a confrontation between Turkey — a US NATO ally — and Assad’s benefactor, Russia.
Turkey has insisted that its “only aim is to stop the Syrian regime’s massacres” as well as “radical groups [and] the displacement of civilians,” Akar, the Turkish defense minister, said Sunday. He also said Turkey had no “desire or intention to clash with Russia.”
Russian President Vladimir Putin and Erdoğan have confirmed that they will meet for talks this week, on March 5, to try to find a solution to the crisis in Idlib. This may be a chance for both Ankara and Moscow to pause the fighting and avert some of the humanitarian catastrophe in Idlib. But it will likely only be a temporary fix.
What Turkey really wants — and what it means for Idlib
Syria’s attack on Turkish forces last week drove it to respond with force. But this is less about taking down Assad and more about Erdoğan’s domestic political considerations, experts told me.
In Erdoğan’s view, Turkey cannot take in any more refugees. There has already been a massive backlash against refugees, especially as Turkey’s economy struggles. And Assad’s attacks on Idlib are increasing the chances of mass slaughter and displacement at Turkey’s doorstep, something Turkey absolutely cannot afford.
“Turkey’s capacity is at a breaking point,” Lisel Hintz, assistant professor of international relations and European studies at Johns Hopkins University, told me.
Syria’s attack on Turkish forces gave Erdoğan a rallying point for his domestic audience, who otherwise might not have been eager to commit troops to the fight in Syria. Turkey has also told refugees that its borders with Europe are open, allowing refugees to travel by land or sea to Greece or Bulgaria.
But those European borders remain sealed, with refugees being turned away by force. There have been reports of refugees shot by border guards and groups being dispersed with tear gas.
Ankara is trying to put pressure on both European and NATO allies to come to its aid in Idlib (Turkey is a member of NATO). As part of a deal in 2016, the European Union paid Turkey to stop the flow of migrants into the EU from Turkey after the continent was overwhelmed by asylum seekers fleeing Syria, Iraq, and other places in the Middle East and Africa.
Now Turkey is raising the specter of that crisis again, loosening those restrictions and allowing migrants and refugees to travel to Europe. It’s a pretty blatant attempt to bully NATO forces into backing Turkey in Idlib, Hintz said. “Note this bullying is only possible because, again, the US and European actors largely if incorrectly see Syrians fleeing conflict as a threat.”
It’s not clear how effective this strategy will be, though. NATO has called for an end to the fighting in Idlib but has reiterated its “full solidarity” with Turkey. The United States has publicly come to Turkey’s defense, and there are some signs that the Trump administration may want to do a bit more to back up Turkey.
“The United States is engaging with our Turkish Allies and reviewing options to assist Turkey against this aggression as we seek to prevent further Assad regime and Russian brutality and alleviate the humanitarian suffering in Idlib,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a statement last week.
James Jeffrey, the US Syria envoy, is also reportedly pushing the Pentagon to deploy Patriot surface-to-air missiles to help Turkey fend off Assad’s air force. Jeffrey, along with US Ambassador to the UN Kelly Craft, is meeting with Turkish officials Monday, according to pro-Turkish media.
Soner Çağaptay, director of the Turkish research program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and author of Erdogan’s Empire: Turkey and the Politics of the Middle East, told me he thinks the public support from the United States has already had some impact on Turkey’s calculations.
The US and Turkey have had frosty relations of late, and a big reason has been Erdoğan’s increasingly friendly relations with Putin and recent decision to purchase Russian-made weapons.
But the Syrian crisis is proving to Turkey that Russia may not be as reliable a partner as it would like. “The crisis in Idlib with Putin reminded Turkey that Russia is Turkey’s nemesis, and that even when they have bargains with the Turks, they will ultimately undermine Turkey,” Çağaptay said. On the other hand, “the US did come to Turkey’s assistance.”
Still, Turkey does not want to provoke Russia in this conflict, and Russia doesn’t want to squander its rapprochement with Turkey. That’s likely why Russia has largely stepped aside in this latest fight between Syrian and Turkish forces.
If Putin and Erdoğan can come to some sort of ceasefire or deescalation agreement, Turkey can save some face, and Putin can avoid a dangerous provocation of both Turkey and its NATO allies.
That could spare millions of Syrian people in Idlib from being displaced or killed by immediate fighting — but it may be much harder to find a long-term solution to the crisis.


vox--2020-03-02--Apple’s $500 million iPhone settlement, briefly explained

Apple has agreed to pay up to $ 500 million to settle a class action lawsuit over its phone batteries — and you might get a ( small ) cut of that .
According to Reuters , Apple will pay qualified iPhone owners $ 25 per phone , although this amount could be adjusted depending on how many claims are filed .
( Think of that Equifax settlement that was supposed to give us $ 125 each , except so many people submitted a claim that it was significantly reduced ) .
Nevertheless , the minimum amount that Apple must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 310 million .
The settlement will cover models 6 , 6 Plus , 6s , 6s Plus , 7 , 7 Plus , and SE devices that installed the software updates before December 21 , 2017 .
If that ’ s you , don ’ t spend that $ 25 yet — the settlement still has to be approved by a federal judge .
The settlement puts a punctuation mark on what became known as “ Batterygate.
” In 2016 , iPhone 6s owners began complaining that their phones suddenly shut down despite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Apple eventually responded by admitting that a “ very small number ” of the iPhone 6s had an issue with their batteries and offering free battery replacements to those models .
Then , owners of other iPhone models claimed that their devices were having similar shutdown issues and that the problem was more widespread than Apple would admit .
Apple responded with a software update that reduced the number of shutdowns significantly .
But by December 2017 , Apple was forced to admit that the update had fixed the problem by throttling the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was merely trying to compensate for the degradation that naturally comes with aging batteries .
Many customers , however , believed the company was really trying to force them to purchase new phones by making their old ones that much harder to use .
Apple ’ s lack of transparency — that is , its only acknowledging problems after a preponderance of evidence made them impossible to deny and not telling users that the software updates would slow their phones down — didn ’ t help its case .
In response to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offered to replace batteries in certain phones for $ 29 — cheaper than the usual $ 79 price tag , but not free .
It also released another software update that allowed users to turn off the throttling feature .
Customers were not placated by this .
Multiple class action lawsuits were filed in the US and were later consolidated into this one lawsuit , which Apple is now settling .
Countries including France and Italy fined Apple millions of dollars over this issue , but those fines pale in comparison to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out .
Then again , according to its latest earnings report , Apple has over $ 207 billion in cash on hand , so half a billion bucks might not seem like a big deal to the company .
All this still hasn ’ t stopped Apple from throttling aging iPhones .
The company said in November 2018 that the practice would continue for the iPhone 8 , 8 Plus , and X models , explaining in a note to Congress that doing so would provide users with “ a more advanced performance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to anticipate and avoid an unexpected shutdown.
” The difference now is that it would inform consumers that it was doing so — something it did not do before , and which raised the ire of consumers who perhaps would not have updated their software if they had known how it would affect their phones ’ performance .
Still , the symbolic impact of such a large settlement might lead some to wonder how Apple feels about recent pressure from Washington over antitrust concerns .
After all , Apple is no stranger to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the company settled a lawsuit brought by the Department of Justice over price fixing its ebooks to the tune of $ 450 million , with customers receiving between $ 1.57 and $ 6.93 per book .
That case dragged out over several years , with Apple taking it all the way to the US Supreme Court — a much different response from this agreement to settle without admitting fault .
“ In this case , Apple , may be trying to and appease federal officials to create a repository of goodwill in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remedies that can be imposed , ” Daniel A. Hanley of the Open Markets Institute told Recode .
“ History has shown that being aggressively adverse does not bode well.
” Indeed , Apple has recently been in the crosshairs of antitrust investigations from the Federal Trade Commission and the subject of lawsuits from app developers and consumers over its app store monopoly .
Apple and other massive tech companies are currently the subject of a Justice Department probe into whether its market dominance has made it impossible for others to compete .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ app developers accuses Apple of creating a monopoly through its App Store , which is the only way iOS users can get apps on their devices and therefore the only way app developers can sell their product to them .
Oh , and the US Supreme Court ruled last May that an antitrust lawsuit against the company could proceed .
There , iPhone owners accused Apple of passing along the cost of the 30 percent commission it takes from App store purchases to consumers , inflating prices while — due to users ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — also creating a monopoly .
While the recent iPhone lawsuit is different from the ebooks situation in many regards , it doesn ’ t look good that Apple is paying out a nine-figure settlement linked to deceiving customers .
By the same token , it probably would have looked a lot worse — and cost Apple a lot more — had Apple gone to court and lost .
Update , March 2 , 2020 , 3:35 pm ET : This article has been updated throughout .

Apple has agreed to pay up to $500 million to settle a class action lawsuit over its phone batteries — and you might get a (small) cut of that.
According to Reuters, Apple will pay qualified iPhone owners $25 per phone, although this amount could be adjusted depending on how many claims are filed. (Think of that Equifax settlement that was supposed to give us $125 each, except so many people submitted a claim that it was significantly reduced). Nevertheless, the minimum amount that Apple must pay out will be at least $310 million.
The settlement will cover models 6, 6 Plus, 6s, 6s Plus, 7, 7 Plus, and SE devices that installed the software updates before December 21, 2017. If that’s you, don’t spend that $25 yet — the settlement still has to be approved by a federal judge.
The settlement puts a punctuation mark on what became known as “Batterygate.” In 2016, iPhone 6s owners began complaining that their phones suddenly shut down despite having plenty of battery life remaining. Apple eventually responded by admitting that a “very small number” of the iPhone 6s had an issue with their batteries and offering free battery replacements to those models. Then, owners of other iPhone models claimed that their devices were having similar shutdown issues and that the problem was more widespread than Apple would admit. Apple responded with a software update that reduced the number of shutdowns significantly.
But by December 2017, Apple was forced to admit that the update had fixed the problem by throttling the phone’s performance. Apple said it was merely trying to compensate for the degradation that naturally comes with aging batteries. Many customers, however, believed the company was really trying to force them to purchase new phones by making their old ones that much harder to use. Apple’s lack of transparency — that is, its only acknowledging problems after a preponderance of evidence made them impossible to deny and not telling users that the software updates would slow their phones down — didn’t help its case.
In response to a growing outcry, Apple apologized and offered to replace batteries in certain phones for $29 — cheaper than the usual $79 price tag, but not free. It also released another software update that allowed users to turn off the throttling feature.
Customers were not placated by this. Multiple class action lawsuits were filed in the US and were later consolidated into this one lawsuit, which Apple is now settling. Countries including France and Italy fined Apple millions of dollars over this issue, but those fines pale in comparison to the $500 million Apple will now pay out. Then again, according to its latest earnings report, Apple has over $207 billion in cash on hand, so half a billion bucks might not seem like a big deal to the company.
All this still hasn’t stopped Apple from throttling aging iPhones. The company said in November 2018 that the practice would continue for the iPhone 8, 8 Plus, and X models, explaining in a note to Congress that doing so would provide users with “a more advanced performance management system that more precisely allows iOS to anticipate and avoid an unexpected shutdown.” The difference now is that it would inform consumers that it was doing so — something it did not do before, and which raised the ire of consumers who perhaps would not have updated their software if they had known how it would affect their phones’ performance.
Still, the symbolic impact of such a large settlement might lead some to wonder how Apple feels about recent pressure from Washington over antitrust concerns. After all, Apple is no stranger to lawsuits over anticompetitive behavior. In 2016, the company settled a lawsuit brought by the Department of Justice over price fixing its ebooks to the tune of $450 million, with customers receiving between $1.57 and $6.93 per book. That case dragged out over several years, with Apple taking it all the way to the US Supreme Court — a much different response from this agreement to settle without admitting fault.
“In this case, Apple, may be trying to and appease federal officials to create a repository of goodwill in hopes of mitigating the plethora of antitrust remedies that can be imposed,” Daniel A. Hanley of the Open Markets Institute told Recode. “History has shown that being aggressively adverse does not bode well.”
Indeed, Apple has recently been in the crosshairs of antitrust investigations from the Federal Trade Commission and the subject of lawsuits from app developers and consumers over its app store monopoly. Apple and other massive tech companies are currently the subject of a Justice Department probe into whether its market dominance has made it impossible for others to compete. Yet another class action lawsuit filed by app developers accuses Apple of creating a monopoly through its App Store, which is the only way iOS users can get apps on their devices and therefore the only way app developers can sell their product to them. Oh, and the US Supreme Court ruled last May that an antitrust lawsuit against the company could proceed. There, iPhone owners accused Apple of passing along the cost of the 30 percent commission it takes from App store purchases to consumers, inflating prices while — due to users’ inability to get apps any other way — also creating a monopoly.
While the recent iPhone lawsuit is different from the ebooks situation in many regards, it doesn’t look good that Apple is paying out a nine-figure settlement linked to deceiving customers. By the same token, it probably would have looked a lot worse — and cost Apple a lot more — had Apple gone to court and lost.
Update, March 2, 2020, 3:35 pm ET: This article has been updated throughout.