The Delegate Fight: Obama Clinches!

[Erc]

Currently, Obama has a 166-delegate lead in pledged delegates?  (All figures excluding MI & FL)

Where did this astoundingly large lead come from?

We all have a general idea (Caucus states, his February streak, etc.), but let's break it down for a moment and see what happened:

State-by-State Obama Margins:

1.	Illinois	+55
2.	Georgia	+33
3.	Washington	+26
4.	Virginia	+25
5.	Minnesota	+24
6.	Colorado	+17
7.	Idaho	+16
8.	Maryland	+14
8.	Kansas	+14
10.	South Carolina	+13
11.	Iowa	+11
12.	Wisconsin	+10
12.	Louisiana	+10
....
38.	Oklahoma	-10
39.	New Jersey	-11
40.	Tennessee	-12
41.	Massachusetts	-17
42.	Arkansas	-19
43.	California	-36
44.	New York	-46

Caucuses vs. Primaries:

Caucus States:  Obama +152
Primary States:  Obama +14

"February Primaries" vs. All Others
February States: Obama +121
All Other States: Obama +45


Superior organization in caucus states (Obama picked up +16 in Idaho, for goodness' sake), + her decision to completely ignore February...that's why (despite a relatively close national popular vote) Clinton is in the situation she's in at the moment.

In fact, if Clinton does reasonably well in the last month of the process, it's possible that she'll win the delegate count in primary states (another rather messed-up argument that the desperate Clinton campaign could use to sway superdelegates).

[Erc]

So if Hillary does well in May, it may end up coming down to the superdelegates.

Well, it was always (after Super Tuesday) going to come down to the superdelegates.  What Obama's done is make it progressively harder and harder for Clinton to use her natural (if, by now, small) advantage amongst the superdelegates to come back.

Right now, Obama's got a 137-delegate lead.  It's going to be pretty tough for Clinton to overcome that in the remaining states and in the 340 remaining superdelegates.  A restoration of MI & FL (either partial or complete) may make it much easier, but, even in the absolute best case scenario for Clinton, she only nets 91 delegates out of MI & FL.

The only thing this "I won the primaries" argument would do for Clinton is maybe make it slightly easier to convince a superdelegate or two (at best).

But, in the end, Clinton really doesn't deserve to win this race.  She's essentially thrown away delegates at many opportunities.  She could have done better in caucuses than she did, she could have at least tried in February...she could have tried to be organized and fight for every delegate, but she didn't.  Last week's loss of a good 10-ish delegates in Iowa shows that---Obama was organized and courted Edwards supporters, and it paid off.  Clinton didn't even bother, and ended up losing a delegate herself.  And Obama gained as much out of that one move in Iowa as Clinton did out of her vaunted win in Ohio.

Not that Obama hasn't had his problems (the NH loss, March 4th)--but at least he's got the mechanics and the organization down right.

[Erc]

Added a timeline of upcoming events for those interested.

Remember, there are important events that aren't the primaries and caucuses...

Between now and the Pennsylvania Primary:

On March 29, Texas is holding its 2nd-tier caucuses (County / SD level).  These (if results are published) should give us a good idea, for the first time, of Obama's exact margin out of the TX caucuses (still only 41% reporting as of now).

On April 12, Democrats Abroad will be holding their Global Convention, which should give us a final figure on the 'At-Large' totals from Democrats Abroad (what we have now is only an estimate, one which could swing either way depending on how Democrats Abroad Committee members feel).

On April 19, Michigan will be having its Congressional District Conventions (postponed from March 29).  These will be choosing the Uncommitted delegates to Denver...so, in the event any of those are ever seated, these could be quite important.  As discussed elsewhere, Obama is all but guaranteed 30 of the 36 delegates up for grabs here, with 6 in the Detroit area possibly in contention.


On a separate note, some interesting discussion in this thread as to the possibility (or lack thereof) of Clinton regaining the pledged delegate lead.  (mainly saving this for my own reference).

[Erc]

On March 29, Texas is holding its 2nd-tier caucuses (County / SD level).  These (if results are published) should give us a good idea, for the first time, of Obama's exact margin out of the TX caucuses (still only 41% reporting as of now).

Not that it matters as far as delegates are concerned but my Senate district convention that I'm a delegate to is also then.

Yes, there are plenty of other events that officially have an effect on the delegate selection process that I didn't list (mainly in caucus states).  Minnesota's results are bound to the caucus results, so there's little chance of a surprise.

Other important caucus state events:

April 6:  North Dakota State Convention (though delegates "shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of the 5 February 2008...vote")
April 12:  Clark County Convention (Nevada) [postponed from Feb. 23]
May 17:  Kansas State Convention
May 17:  Washington Congressional District Caucuses
May 18:  Nevada State Convention
May 24:  Alaska State Convention
May 31:  Maine State Convention
June 14:  Idaho State Convention
June 15:  Washington State Convention
June 22:  Nebraska State Convention

[Erc]

The other events of note are, of course, the selection of the Unpledged 'Add-On' delegates, chosen by the state parties.  These 76 delegates could be quite important in the final balance.

A timeline of Add-On selection is given below.  For each date, each state is listed, followed in parentheses by the number of Add-Ons to which the state is entitled.  For a state that has already chosen its Add-Ons, the names and known endorsements [(C) = Clinton, (O) = Obama, (U) = Unknown/Uncommitted] are also listed.

Timeline of Add-On Selection:

Those Already Chosen:
February 23:  Oklahoma (1) [Reggie Whitten (U)]
March 1: Alabama (1) [Stewart Burkhalter (O)]
March 8: Arkansas (1) [Mark Wilcox (U)]
March 15: Tennessee (2) [Vicki Harwell (U), Jerry Lee (U)]

Those Yet to be Chosen:
March 26: Connecticut? (1)
April 3:  D.C. (2)^
April 4:  North Dakota (1)
April 5:  Delaware (1), Florida (3*)
April 17:  New Jersey (2)
April 19:  Arizona (1)
April 26:  New Hampshire? (1), New Mexico (1)
May 1:  Maryland (2), New York (4)
May 3:  Louisiana? (1), South Carolina (1)
May 5:  Illinois (3)
May 10: Missouri? (2), Massachusetts (2), Ohio (2), Utah (1)
May 17: Colorado (1), Kansas (1), Michigan (2*)
May 18: California (5), Nevada (1)
May 24: Alaska (1), Georgia (2), Wyoming (1)
May 25: Hawaii (1)
May 31: Maine (1), Mississippi (1)
June 7: Kentucky (1), Pennsylvania (3), Texas (3), Vermont (1)
June 8: Minnesota (2), Montana (1)
June 13: Wisconsin (2)
June 14: Idaho (1), Iowa (1), Virginia (2), West Virginia (1)
June 15: Washington (2)
June 19: Rhode Island (1)
June 21: Indiana (1), North Carolina (2), Oregon (1), Puerto Rico (1), South Dakota (1)
June 22: Nebraska (1)

* The fate of all of Michigan & Florida's delegates (including the Add-Ons) is still uncertain.

? represents some uncertainty as to the exact date.  In the case of Missouri, we are unsure whether the Add-Ons are selected on May 10 or five days earlier, on May 5.

^  There's been some confusion as to D.C.'s 'Add-Ons.'  By the D.C. delegate selection plan, Statehood Representative Mike Panetta (D.C.'s second "Shadow Representative") should automatically be an Add-On, but this does not appear to be the case.  In any event, we'll find out by early April.

[Erc]

"Uncommitted" Superdelegates who have donated to campaigns (incomplete):

[No year given implies this year]

Joe Turnham (AL): Clinton

Alabama Democratic Party Chair

$2300 for Clinton.

Reggie Whitten (OK): Clinton, (Edwards)

Oklahoma City lawyer, Finance Chairman of the Oklahoma Democratic Party.

$9200 to Edwards (2/15/07 - 3/31/07)
$2300 to Clinton (1/31)

Bob Mulholland (CA):  Clinton

Campaign Advisor to the California Democratic Party.

$150 to Clinton (2/08 - 2/24)

[Erc]

Pennsylvania: If Hillary wins with 57-58% of the vote it would mean 31-24 in at-large delegates. I know a couple of people have gone through the districts, so I'll try to add some average of those predictions later on. EDIT: seems like BRTD was the only one who gave a full analysis. He had Clinton +1, but looking at the results out of Wyoming and Mississippi and his idea of a 10% Clinton win I suspect he was a bit biased.  Clinton +8 for now, but I hope someone else can add something to this. 

I know nothing about PA politics (why bother, when we have so many experts here), but it seems pretty ludicrous to me that Clinton would only come out +1 in the district delegates if she got a >15% margin, regardless of how well Obama might do in Philly.

Here's the CD breakdown:

CD 9: 3 delegates
CDs 5, 10, 16, 17, 19: 4 delegates each
CDs 3, 4, 11, 12, 15, 18: 5 delegates each
CDs 6: 6 delegates each
CDs 1, 7, 8, 13, 14: 7 delegates each
CD 2: 9 delegates

[Erc]

If Hillary is doing as well as she is statewide given Obama's strengths in those 7-delegate districts, I should think that Hillary would crack 62.5% in a fair number of those four-delegate districts (as has occurred in many other states).

[Erc]

Thanks to the discussion here, shifted one delegate to Obama in MS.  Late returns from Hinds County gave him an extra pledged PLEO.

[Erc]

Cantwell (although personally a Clinton backer) has made it clear that she will back the 'delegate leader' at the end of the primaries.

Barring an Obama collapse, that means she's going to be supporting Obama, and this change is now reflected in my counts.


In other news, it looks as though Obama may, after all, go 38-29 in the TX At-Large delegation.  However, with still-incomplete results and no overwhelming evidence to convince me that he will gain that extra delegate, I will (for now) be sticking with my initial estimate of 37-30.

[Erc]

I'm going to be on hiatus until April 16th, so there likely won't be any updates until that time (unless anything really earth-shattering happens, like a MI/FL resolution).

As this is a quiet time in the Presidential race, you won't be missing anything but slightly updated Superdelegate counts.


Final updates:

--The "Pelosi Club" of superdelegates has been added to Obama's column.  Those who are pledging to vote for the leader in pledged delegates are pledging to vote for Obama, even if they don't say so explicitly (I've shown before how Clinton winning in the pledged delegate count is impossible barring him dropping out of the race).

--Burnt Orange Report confirms the 37-30 split in Texas At-Large delegates.  Final confirmation of this number will have to wait for the final 7% of counties, and, more critically, the State Convention on June 7th (where, if I understand the process correctly, there are many ex officio delegates [Texas 'superdelegate equivalents,' I suppose], which could swing the final result somewhat).

[Erc]

The Popular Vote:

Much is beginning to be made of the final 'popular vote count' in the primary and caucus process.

Of course, what this actually is will be a matter of some dispute.

How do you count caucuses? 
First, there's the matter of certain states (IA / NV / WA / ME) not reporting popular vote totals.  They have reasons for doing so (the reallocation process due to viability cuts, making sure that more Democratic parts of the state are represented more fairly in the media reports, etc.), but it means we don't have accurate popular vote totals.  We can get good estimates of support for each candidate where we have good turnout reports, but it is still an estimate.  Thankfully, the margin for error here is not more than a couple thousand votes either way, so it won't affect the results.

Turnouts in each State:  [If anyone has any better numbers, it'd be much appreciated]
Iowa: ~239,000
Nevada: 117,599
Maine: 43,866
Washington: ~250,000

More fundamentally, is it proper to even count caucuses?  Most of them are rather undemocratic institutions...the set times at which they occur, the lack (in certain cases) of a secret ballot, and so forth.  Most of these probably gave an unfair bias towards Obama---there's no way that Obama would have done so well in a state like Minnesota (for example, sorry BRTD) had it been a primary.  Or, compare the two votes in Washington, where Obama did a full 16 points better in the caucus than the primary.  Of course, this advantage is somewhat offset by the extremely depressed turnout in caucuses---Obama can dominate a caucus vote, but if few people show up, his popular vote margin will be pretty minimal.  Thus, on net, the two effects may cancel out and the popular vote margin in the caucus could be rather reflective of the margin in a hypothetical primary.
However, what evidence exists (Washington, again) suggests that Obama may still have come out on top, on net.  In the caucus, Obama had ~91,000 vote lead over Clinton.  In the primary (which, despite the fact that it didn't matter one bit, still had 2.7 times the turnout of the caucus), Obama had only a 38,000 vote lead.
As a result, there is a case to be made (and Clinton will make it) that caucuses are hardly representative and should not be included in the total.

Then there's the entire MI/FL debacle.

Should one include these states in the total, despite the sanctions?  In the case of Florida, the case may be made that, since the primary didn't matter, this depressed turnout, and the election wasn't 'real' in some sense.  However, turnout in FL was incredibly high (despite the fact that one half of the contest didn't count)....larger, percentage-wise, than any of the Super Tuesday contests but CA & MA.  So it hardly seems fair to disenfranchise (in some sense) the voters of Florida.

Michigan is even more ridiculous.  Here, the turnout argument carries more weight.  Turnout was rather low for a primary state (20.2%), with the Democratic turnout much lower (by over 250,000 votes) than the Republican one.  Additionally, Obama wasn't even on the ballot, so how do you even count the state's votes?  You could give all of Uncommitted's support to Obama, but that's hardly a good reflection of reality---Edwards was still in the running at this time, and certainly would have attracted at least 8% support (no poll showed him below 10% while they were still polling him).


Not to mention the question of counting WA's caucus vs. WA's primary results---I'll be doing the former, since that is what matterred, after all.


Personally, I think the best and fairest thing we can do is count everything (& include Uncommitted MI for Obama)---Obama's unfair advantage in caucuses is cancelled out to some extent by depressed turnout, Clinton's unfair advantage in MI/FL is cancelled out to some extent by giving Edwards' MI vote to Obama.  Obama still probably comes out ahead of where he should in caucuses, and Clinton better in MI/FL, but those two should still roughly cancel.

But both campaigns may try to spin the final results, so I'll be keeping track of these permutations.

Primary Vote:
Clinton 12,502,593
Obama 12,974,497 (+471,904)

Caucus Vote: (approximate)
Clinton 388,143
Obama 699,252 (+311,109)

Michigan:
Clinton 328,309
Uncommitted 238,168  (-90,141)

Florida:
Clinton 870,986
Obama 576,214 (-294,772)

And switching from the Washington caucus to the Washington primary results subtracts 52,447 from Obama's lead.

Currently:
Best Case Obama (Primaries + Caucuses, No MI/FL, WA Caucus):
Obama +783,013

Best Case Clinton (Primaries + MI/FL, Uncommitted MI stay Uncommitted, No Caucuses, WA Primary):
Clinton +203,624
[This is, admittedly, a rather silly number, resting on entirely on not counting the Uncommitted votes in MI].

Realistic Count (Primaries + Caucuses + MI/FL, Uncommitted MI for Obama, WA Caucus):
Obama +398,100


I'll be updating this "Realistic Count" on the main page in future.  Note that there are no more caucuses (excepting Guam), so you are free to modify this number to your heart's desired scenario by adding or subtracting the appropriate set amount:
No Michigan:
Obama +90,141
No Florida:
Obama +294,772
No Caucuses:
Clinton +311,199
Uncommitted MI -> Uncommitted:
Clinton +238,168
Washington Primary:
Clinton +52,447

[Erc]

I'm not advocating counting both the Texas primary and the caucuses. I'm responding to Erc's analysis on how to put primary and caucuses on an equal footing for the purpose of determining who would be the "legitimate" winner of the Democratic nomination.

Very good point.  Don't ask me how that extremely obvious example slipped my mind. 

Unfortunately, I can't find any solid figures for the caucus turnout in Texas.  But, as in Washington, there's still a point to be made---the caucus was far more pro-Obama (and the fact that she won the primaries means that the argument that the raw vote margin should be the same is, again, proved wrong).

In the end, caucuses do seem to have a pro-Obama lean (even when reduced turnout is taken into effect)...though my bet is that this may be canceled out by Clinton's advantage in MI/FL.

Or, we could agree to just count primaries, excluding MI & FL.

[Erc]

I'm not advocating counting both the Texas primary and the caucuses. I'm responding to Erc's analysis on how to put primary and caucuses on an equal footing for the purpose of determining who would be the "legitimate" winner of the Democratic nomination.

Very good point.  Don't ask me how that extremely obvious example slipped my mind. 

Unfortunately, I can't find any solid figures for the caucus turnout in Texas.  But, as in Washington, there's still a point to be made---the caucus was far more pro-Obama (and the fact that she won the primaries means that the argument that the raw vote margin should be the same is, again, proved wrong).

In the end, caucuses do seem to have a pro-Obama lean (even when reduced turnout is taken into effect)...though my bet is that this may be canceled out by Clinton's advantage in MI/FL.

Or, we could agree to just count primaries, excluding MI & FL.

The fact that this is up for debate shows just how meaningless the "popular vote" is.

Besides, Pelosi, leader of the Pelosi Club (obviously) has outright said it shouldn't matter, it's a delegate race.

I couldn't agree more.  If this was meant to be a popular vote contest, there would be a popular vote kept in all states.

But the Clinton campaign will try to spin it if they come back and win it, the Obama campaign might have already spun it, the media will try to spin it, and I believe at least one superdelegate has said he'll base his vote on it (with the differing definitions giving him some wiggle room, of course).

[Erc]

The Democrats Abroad Global Convention was on April 12 (last Saturday), in Vancouver.  Does anyone know what happened?  I haven't been able to find any results reported.

[Erc]

According to Democrats Abroad France, Obama has won 13 out of 22 delegates, Clinton 7 and 2 are still uncommitted (?).

That matches up with what I have (the numbers include superdelegates), but is that a post-April 12 count?

[Erc]

Just out of curiosity...does anyone know how close Edwards got to picking up a delegate in Oklahoma?  Clinton & Obama didn't hit 85% combined in CDs 2 and 3...

[Erc]

Just for a little update on the whole Idaho situation:

The Idaho Democratic Party has posted a list of all delegates (along with addresses and telephone numbers, think you might be a little too open guys?) and candidate supported here: http://www.idaho-democrats.org/ht/a/GetDocumentAction/i/1165191
It appears Hillary actually did narrowly reach viability despite failing in Ada County, largely due to rounding (for example in a small county with 3 delegates where she gets a little under 20% she gets a delegate, thus 33.33% of the total) and overrepresentation of the rural counties. However it's very close. Out of 380 delegates, she has 58, thus only 2 away from losing viability. If 2 switch/don't show up, she will fail viability.

The convention is in June and by then there might be an overwhelming sentiment the race is over and it's time for Hillary to concede, thus influencing switchers, also if the state convention is in Boise that's a hell of a drive for the delegates from the outer rural areas, many might not bother showing, it's possible you might have a small county with about 20 Hillary supporters, no one really wanting to be a delegate but one being picked just because they need someone, and then that person doesn't bother. I wouldn't even rule out the possibility of the Obama campaign implanting a few "Trojan horses". So for now, Hillary has viability, but it's far from guaranteed.

That applies only to her one at large delegate too. The two allocated by district are directly tied to the votes cast in each district. So she has at least two delegates no matter what, and that third is up in the air.

Upon looking it up, the convention is in Boise. That's as far as a 7 hour drive from places in northern Idaho.

Interesting...I'll give it another look and compare it to my old figures to see what's up.

[Erc]

Saturday is Convention Day...so what's happening this Saturday?

Arizona is holding its State Convention.  They'll be choosing the At-Large delegates to the Convention, though the result is already set in stone at 11-8 Clinton.  The only thing they have control over is the selection of 1 'Add-On' delegate (presumably for Clinton).

New Mexico is holding its CD Conventions today---though, again, the results were set by the Feb. 5 primary (3-3 in CDs 1 & 3, and 3-2 Clinton in CD 2).

Washington is holding its County Conventions this Saturday.  Those areas that did not already have Legislative District Conventions on April 5th will be choosing delegates to the CD conventions [May 17] State Convention [June 15].  Any counties that are split between several LDs will break up into LD caucuses, where every caucus (for those LDs that did not hold their own conventions) choose delegates to CD & State Conventions.

In all counties except: Spokane, King, Pierce, Thurston, and Snohomish, everybody will be voting today.

In Spokane County:
Only those living in LDs 7 and 9 will vote.

In Thurston County:
All but those living in LD 2 will vote.

In Pierce County:
Only those living in LD 26 will vote.

In King County:
Only those living in LD 39 will vote.

In Snohomish County:
Only those living in LDs 39 and 10 will vote.

Michigan will be holding its Congressional District Conventions today, as if the state had not been sanctioned.  Supporters of Clinton and 'Uncommitted' will each hold their own caucuses within each convention, in order to choose the delegates (using at least some vaguely proportional method).  Clinton has the right of review of her delegates, Uncommitted (not being a person) does not.

The delegates up for grabs today are the 36 Uncommitted delegates.  Barring a complete Clinton takeover of these conventions, Obama is guaranteed at least 30 of these (due to the manner in which they are selected, see earlier in this thread), the other 6 being in the Detroit metro area.

[Erc]

Last Saturday (April 12), Clark County, NV finally held its County Convention (postponed from February 23 because the first attempt collapsed into anarchy).

Obama gained somewhat from his results in January, swinging the result from 1366 - 1097 Clinton to 1330 - 1133 Clinton (a 36 State Delegate swing).  This swing was not enough, however, to overcome Clinton's margin in the state at large, where she still leads 1718 - 1645.  Due to Obama's wins in Washoe and the rural counties, Obama will still win Nevada's delegates to Denver 13 - 12, but it does not appear (barring a significant swing to Obama amongst Clinton delegates in the next month) that he will be able to capture the third Pledged PLEO delegate from Clinton.

Nevada will be holding its State Convention on May 17 and 18, where it will be choosing all 25 pledged delegates and one unpledged 'Add-On.'


Also last Saturday was the Democrats Abroad convention.  As I've heard nothing about the results, I am now going to assume that the 4.5 - 2.5 breakdown in pledged delegates is an accurate count.

[Erc]

Michigan Congressional District Convention Results:  (to be updated as more info comes in)

Unofficial Projected Tally:
Obama 25
Uncommitted 11

Link to original discussion on Michigan's CD Conventions

(All delegates being discussed are the 'Uncommitted' ones)

The contests of note are for:
CD 9 Female
CD 12 Female
CD 13 Female
CD 14 Female
CD 14 Male
CD 15 Female

All delegate listings without citations come from the Michiganders for Obama website.  Delegates listed with an [M] below were endorsed by Michiganders for Obama or Students 4 Obama, and can be firmly relied on to be Obama supporters.

CD 1 Delegates:
Abby Dart (Obama) [MFO]
Miles Baker (Obama) [Students 4 Obama]

CD 2 Delegates:  (Forum Post, better source when available.)
Joe Zainea (Obama)
Rillastine Wilkins (Obama)

CD 3 Delegates: (Media Source)
Armand Robinson (Obama)
Alice Corey (Obama) [MFO]

CD 4 Delegates:
Mary Bacon (Obama) [MFO]
Bob Ciaffone (Obama) [MFO]

CD 5 Delegates:
Floyd Clack (Obama) [MFO]
Geraldean Hall (Obama) [MFO]

CD 6 Delegates:
Marletta Seats (Obama) [MFO]
Mark Miller (Obama) [MFO]

CD 7 Delegates:
Leonard Smigielski (Obama)
Fran Sibly (Obama)

CD 8 Delegates: (Media Source)
Griffin Rivers (Obama)
Irene Cahill (Obama) [Teamsters]

CD 9 Delegates: (Party Website, Media Source)
Catherine Martin (Uncommitted) [UAW]
Doris Toney (Obama) [MFO]
Aldo Vagnozzi (Obama)

Martin, a UAW member, was remaining officially Uncommitted "because the UAW has not endorsed a candidate yet."  She beat out an MFO-endorsed candidate, perhaps by one vote.
Vagnozzi, a State Legislator, had long ago endorsed Obama.

CD 10 Delegates:
Rosie Fessler (Obama) [MFO]
Unknown Male (presumably Obama?)

CD 11 Delegates: (Forum Post, better source when available.)
Mike Siegrist (Obama) [MFO]
Marian Novak (Obama) [Teamsters]

CD 12 Delegates:  (Forum Post, better source when available.)
Rory Gamble (Uncommitted)
Jennifer Miller (Uncommitted)
Nancy Quarles (Uncommitted)

This 'Unity Slate,' endorsed by the UAW, SEIU, and other unions, won with apparently little opposition at the convention itself.  None of them have officially endorsed candidates---Quarles appears to have at one point been an Edwards supporter (to the tune of $2000), though she may have donated to Obama before then.

Reports indicate that all 3 have endorsed Obama.

CD 13 Delegates:
3 Union Delegates?

CD 14 Delegates:
4 Union Delegates?

CD 15 Delegates: (see discussion below)
Christina Montague (Obama) [MFO]
Lynne Schwartz (Obama) [MFO]
Derrick Jackson (Obama) [MFO]


Elsewhere in the state: (Media Source)

"In the two districts that cover Detroit [Kilpatrick's and Conyers' districts, CD-13 and CD-14], as well as in Rep. Sander Levin's district [CD-12], which covers part of Oakland and Macomb counties, Obama supporters lost to union-banked slates of candidates on Saturday."

"Elsewhere, Obama supporters fared well on Saturday....they captured both uncommitted slots at the 7th District Convention in Lansing, and...the group also succeeded at meetings in Flint [CD-5] and Western Michigan districts."

"The group's top two leaders, Montague and Washtenaw County Deputy Clerk Derrick Jackson, captured slots at the 15th District Convention in Romulus, along with another Obama supporter, Ann Arbor psychologist Lynne Schwartz....Montague won the first of two female uncommitted slots to be determined, but the second took three ballots to resolve. The Obama-backers' votes were split between Lynne Schwartz, an Ann Arbor psychologist, and Rachel Friedlander, a University of Michigan student. That kept Monroe County Democratic Party Chairwoman Denise Brooks in the running, until after the second round of voting and under more than a little pressure, Friedlander dropped out, giving Schwartz the necessary votes to win."


Not all of the Union supporters are necessarily covert Clinton supporters.  In the 15th CD...

"But as in other Southeast Michigan districts, there also was a group, apparently made up mostly of union members and centered on a group from Monroe County that argued uncommitted delegates should remain uncommitted....Jackson, Washtenaw County's chief of elections [and an Obama supporter], defeated Kevin Moore, a local Teamsters Union official, for the single male uncommitted slot from the district. Moore's union has endorsed Obama, and Moore said he would have cast his ballot for Obama at the convention if he'd won."


So, apparently I was wrong...Obama was not guaranteed 30 of these delegates, as Union-backed candidates were able to win an outright majority in the Detroit districts, apparently (?) winning all the delegates in CDs 12, 13, and 14, plus 1 in CD 9 [while losing in CD 15].  Obama did not have similar losses across the rest of the state, however.

Although the systems used to select delegates are 'proportional,' in a close race, in which neither side wants to give up a chance at winning all the delegates, it can devolve to a slate vs. slate race, in which one side or the other gets all the delegates.  If the Obama supporters had realized they weren't going to win all the delegates outright, they could have combined behind one candidate and at least 4 of the 10 delegates in CDs 12-14, but instead they lost them all.

[Erc]

Delegate Slots that Michiganders for Obama [MFO] candidates lost:

(Recall that the Teamsters [who have at least two delegates] have endorsed Obama).

CD 1:  Dick West (Cheboygan Co. Party Chair) lost to Miles Baker.  Miles Baker, a member of Students 4 Obama, is a clear Obama supporter.

CD 2: Melissa Post and Bill Traynor narrowly lost to more establishment candidates, Rillastine Wilkins (fmr. Muskegon Mayor), and Joe Zainea (2nd District Chair).  Both support Obama.

CD 3: MFO did not appear to endorse a male candidate.  Armand Robinson won the seat.  According to The Grand Rapids Press, he is an Obama supporter, and he can be seen sporting a prominently-placed Obama pin in this (Warning: LARGE) picture

CD 7:  No delegates endorsed, though Obama supporters won, according to the Detroit News.

CD 8:  Pauline Johnson-West and James Gill lost to Irene Cahill and Griffin Rivers.  Rivers is chairman of the Ingham Co. Party.  Cahill is an active Teamsters member.  According to the AP, both support Obama.  Rivers wore a "No Drama With Obama" shirt, and saying "I think he'll be a tremendous asset in building the Democratic Party back to the status it once was...the groundswell is there."
There was apparently some 'grumbling' amongst the MFO folks that they might be closet Hillary supporters, however.

CD 9:
Denise Littlejohn lost the second female slot by a narrow margin to Catherine Martin, a UAW member.  Martin is remaining uncommitted as the UAW has not endorsed a candidate.
Bill Maxey lost the male slot to State Legislator Aldo Vagnozzi, who had endorsed Obama well before the January primary.

CD 10:
No male candidate was endorsed, and we don't know who won that slot.

CD 11:
No female candidate was endorsed, and Marion Novak (a Teamsters member and Obama supporter) won the slot.

CD 12:
Solon Phillips, Indira Shelton-Pierce, and Thomasina Lentz all lost to union candidates---Rory Gamble, Jennifer Miller, and Nancy Quarles.  All three are uncommitted---Quarles appears to be an ex-Edwards supporter.  (It's good to see Edwards get some representation, I suppose, as many Uncommitted voters were voting for Edwards).

CD 13:
Robert Mitchell lost to a union candidate.  No female candidates were endorsed, but the media seems to report that a union slate won here.

CD 14:
Edna Bell, Jeanene Bryant, Rick Blocker, and Raymond Solomon (and alternate Edna Moore) all lost to union candidates.

In CDs 4, 5, 6, and 15, the MFO slate swept.

[Erc]

Sounds like it was just a show of strength from the UAW. I doubt they'll endorse Hillary (if they were going to, they would've done so long ago.) and probably were just planning on sitting it out and endorse the eventual winner, which means likely Obama, but whatever. I doubt the slate will even be seated until there's a presumptive winner.

Can't disagree with that analysis.

[Erc]

Doesn't look like we'll get any significant results out of the Washington County Conventions, but nobody was expecting much.  Certain counties (like Benton) aren't even having theirs until next Saturday.

[Erc]

I still haven't heard anything out of Arizona. Odd.

There's really not that much to report (apart from the add-on) out of there, so it's not too surprising.  We'll find out about the add-on eventually.