The Delegate Fight: Obama Clinches!

[Erc]

I'm assuming Erc's figures in Iowa are assuming Edwards' state delegates split 50-50 between Hillary and Obama. I just calculated that and got those figures. I'm predicting more 2-1 in Obama's favor, which would result in 27 delegates for Obama compared to Hillary's 18.

Here's a nasty figure for Hillary: Even if 70% of Edwards' state delegates go to her, so she still doesn't come out ahead in Iowa (Obama would have one more delegate.) She'd need around 77% to come out ahead in Iowa. And I think 50/50 is best case scenario for her frankly.

Until I hear an endorsement out of Edwards, I'm going to stick with the 50-50 split / Edwards delegates stay home.  (Though, privately, I do agree with you that they likely will favor Obama, though not as much as one might think).  County Conventions will be held March 15th, I think?  Assuming results of those will be made available, we'll have a much better idea of what the situation in Iowa looks like.

The other major "convention fight" to be aware of...the fight for Michigan's Uncommitted slate (should it ever be seated), to be held I believe around March 28th.

[Erc]

Added details on the March 4th contests:

Vermont:
Open Primary
7 PM Closing
23 Delegates
--15 At-Large
--8 Unpleged

At-Large Delegates:
--10 by 'District' (there's only 1)
--3 At-Large
--2 Pledged PLEO

Unpledged delegates:
5 DNC Members (3 Obama, 1 Clinton)
1 Senator (for Obama)
1 Representative (for Obama)
1 'Add-On' (selected by the district-level delegates, June 7).

Ohio:
Half-Open Primary
7:30 PM Closing
162 Delegates
--92 by District
--49 At-Large
--21 Unpledged

District Delegates:
4 for CDs: 1,2,4,5,7,8,15
5 for CDs: 3,6,12,16,18
6 for CDs: 9,10,13,14
7 for CDs: 17
8 for CDs: 11

At-Large Delegates:
31 At-Large
18 Pledged PLEOs

Unpledged Delegates:
--9 DNC Members (2 for Obama)
--7 Representatives (1 for Clinton)
--1 Senators
--1 Governor (for Clinton)
--1 Distinguished Party Leader (for Obama)
--2 'Add-Ons' (selected May 10, by State Executive Committee)

Texas
Open Primary, + Caucus/Convention
8 PM Closing (9 PM for El Paso area)
228 Delegates
--126 by District
--67 At-Large
--35 Unpledged

District Delegates:
These are what the primary elects.  They are also apportioned by State Senate Districts.
2 for SDs: 31
3 for SDs: 6, 7, 9, 22, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30
4 for SDs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 26
5 for SDs: 10, 17
6 for SDs: 23, 25
7 for SDs: 13
8 for SDs: 14

At-Large Delegates:
--45 At-Large
--25 Pledged PLEO

Precinct caucuses convene no earlier that 8:15 Eastern (after polling closes), choosing delegates to County & Senate District conventions.  On March 29, those conventions meet, choosing delegates to the State Convention, to be held June 6-7.  The State Convention chooses the At-Large delegates, proportionally to the convention delegates' preferences.

Unpledged Delegates: (Clinton 12, Obama
17 DNC Members
13 Representatives
2 Distinguished Party Leaders
3 'Add-Ons' (selected at the State Convention)

Rhode Island:
Half-Open Primary
9 PM Closing
33 Delegates
--13 by District
--8 At-Large
--12 Unpledged

District Delegates:
CD 1: 6
CD 2: 7

At-Large Delegates:
--5 At-Large
--3 Pledged PLEO

Unpledged Delegates: (8 Clinton - 2 Obama)  [only one undecided in Sen. Reed]
7 DNC Members
2 Senators
2 Representatives
1 'Add-On' (selected by State Committee, June 19)

[Erc]

Alabama has selected Alabama AFL-CIO President Stewart Burkhalter as its 'Add-On' delegate.  Burkhalter was backed by the Obama campaign, giving Obama one of the first 'Add-On' delegates this season.

Also, all sources I can find are giving Obama a larger lead in GA delegates than in my calculations:  CNN, MSNBC, the NYT, and the Green Papers are giving him a 61-26 advantage, while Obama's own website gives him 60-27 (compared to my 58-29 figures).  To be conservative, I'll be using the 60-27 figure until some official results get released, although it easily could become 61-26.

Similarly, in TN, the media sources that have decided to allocate delegates fully have a 40-28 breakdown for Clinton, and Obama has a 39-29 breakdown.  As everyone disagrees with my (admittedly quite tentative) 38-30 breakdown, I'm changing it to 39-29.

Updated results from MD tip the balance towards Clinton by 1 delegate, as well.

Net result of the GA/TN/MD updates is therefore a wash.

[Erc]

Nevada update:

The County Conventions were supposed to be held last week, on Feb. 23 (I believe).  However, due to chaos at the Clark County convention, no vote was held and the event is to be rescheduled for sometime next month.  No results have been posted from other county conventions, which may have gone more smoothly.

[lifeisapickle]

interesting. being a republican, IF i was a democrat, i'd rather have obama, just because....Life's a Bitch -- Why Vote for One?

[Eraserhead]

interesting. being a republican, IF i was a democrat, i'd rather have obama, just because....Life's a Bitch -- Why Vote for One?

Heck yeah dude.

[Erc]

McCain, with >50% wins in OH & TX, is now guaranteed (regardless of the breakdowns by CD), to have clinched the GOP nomination.  No further tracking of the Republican process will be done (esp. considering Huckabee's dropped out of the race).

[CheeseWhiz]

I have a question and this seemed the right place to ask it…  Also, I'm sorry if this has already been answered somewhere, I tried looking but I'm tried for staying up late last night and getting up early today, so I may have missed something

Anyway, I was watching CNN, and they showed something early last night, (before Ohio and Texas were called, and maybe Rhode Island, too,) that if Obama won all the remaining primaries with a 55-45 margin, he'd still be short of a majority in the delegate count, before the superdelegates voted.  But, in Obama’s almost month of wins between the super Tuesdays, he won every state by more than 55%.  So what I'm asking is, does he have an actual shot at winning a majority in the delegate before the superdelegates vote?

Sorry if that was confusing.

P.S. Looked at this new spell check thing we got, wasn’t here the last time I posted, and it told me I misspelled Obama, it wanted me to change it to Obadiah or something.  Even worse wasn’t that it didn’t recognize Rhode. *shakes head*

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Neither Clinton or Obama can win without superdelegate support - Obama would have to win every contest by a substanial margin to get over the line.

[Erc]

Delegate results from yesterday's contests:

Vermont: Obama 9, Clinton 6
Rhode Island: Clinton 13, Obama 8
Ohio: Clinton 75, Obama 66

There are a couple CD's still on knife-edge (CDs 1 & 17) that could go either way at this point.  As, currently, each candidate is ahead in one of them, the worst any last-minute changes can do is flip one delegate to either candidate.

Texas Primaries: Clinton 65, Obama 61

Results are pretty complete, though, as usual, one delegate might flip in further counting.  (The ones most sensitive to minor changes in recounting, the At-Large delegates, aren't in play here):

Texas Caucuses (TENTATIVE): Obama 35, Clinton 32.  Only 37% in, and a lot could change in that last 63% (let alone the whole convention process).


Net result of yesterday: Clinton +12

[jimrtex]

P.S. Looked at this new spell check thing we got, wasn’t here the last time I posted, and it told me I misspelled Obama, it wanted me to change it to Obadiah or something.  Even worse wasn’t that it didn’t recognize Rhode. *shakes head*

Google's spellcheck doesn't like Obama either.   It suggests ABM, IBM, AMA, and Abeam.

It is OK with Rhode.

[Mr. Morden]

A few things:

First, Erc's ~150 pledged delegate lead for Obama is correct, it looks virtually impossible for Clinton to catch up in pledged delegates sans FL/MI.  She'd have to win at least 63% of the remaining pledged delegates to do that.  Is she really going to win PA/NC/IN by some 25 points?  Doesn't seem plausible.

But what about the "popular vote"?  According to Firstread:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/05/732427.aspx

if you don't count FL or MI, Obama leads "12,920,961 votes to Clinton's 12,322,695 votes out of more than 26 million cast."  By my very rough count, based on the fraction of the country that's already voted, and what's left....if you assume that the remaining states will have comparable turnout to the ones that have already voted, then Clinton could catch up in the popular vote (sans FL/MI) if she wins the remaining states by an average 55%-45% margin.  (Since there aren't many caucuses left, the remaining turnout will probably be higher than the states that have already voted, so that means she could probably get there even if it's not quite 55-45.)  That's *really* difficult, but much much easier than catching up in pledged delegates.

Finally, we're now at the point where there are more total superdelegates (counting those who have already endorsed...but they can still switch) than pledged delegates in the remaining primaries.  The superdelegates now hold such a balance of power that, at any time starting today, if they all went en masse to either candidate, they could cause that candidate to clinch the nomination.  (Though of course they could also reverse themselves later.)

[Erc]

Let's envision the following scenario:

Clinton has a pretty good rest of the primary season...winning the states she should win in by narrow margins (incl. IN & NC, for arguments' sake--let's say she gets an Edwards endorsement), and winning PR by a substantial, if not blowout margins.

There are also revotes in FL & MI (or they're counted as normal, but with all the Uncommitted for Obama), giving Hillary substantial, if closer wins than in actuality. 


Obama still comes out of this up 31 delegates.  She'd then need to win 194 of the remaining 357 superdelegates (54.3%) to win the nomination. 

That's the best case scenario for Clinton.   She needs to win at least 194 of the remaining superdelegates to have a reasonable shot.

[Erc]

Wyoming & Mississippi details posted.

Wyoming:  Saturday, March 8
Closed Caucus
18 Delegates
--12 At-Large
--6 Unpledged

Caucuses, open to all Democrats, are held in every county.  The 7 "district" delegates are chosen in direct proportion to the total statewide vote in the caucuses (as if it were a primary).    Voters also choose delegates to the state convention (to be held 24 May), which in turn chooses the 3 At-Large & 2 Pledged PLEO delegates to the convention.

Unpledged Delegates: (2 Obama - 0 Clinton)
4 DNC Members
1 Governor
1 'Add-On' (selected at the State Convention)

Mississippi: Tuesday, March 11
Open Primary
Polls close 8 PM Eastern.
40 Delegates
--22 by District
--11 At Large
--7 Unpledged

District Delegates:
5 each for CDs 1, 3, and 4
7 for CD 2.

At-Large Delegates:
7 At-Large
4 Pledged PLEOs

Unpledged Delegates (2 Obama - 0 Clinton)
4 DNC Members
2 Representatives
1 'Add-On' (selected at State Convention, May 31)

[J. J.]

Let's envision the following scenario:

Clinton has a pretty good rest of the primary season...winning the states she should win in by narrow margins (incl. IN & NC, for arguments' sake--let's say she gets an Edwards endorsement), and winning PR by a substantial, if not blowout margins.

There are also revotes in FL & MI (or they're counted as normal, but with all the Uncommitted for Obama), giving Hillary substantial, if closer wins than in actuality. 


Obama still comes out of this up 31 delegates.  She'd then need to win 194 of the remaining 357 superdelegates (54.3%) to win the nomination. 

That's the best case scenario for Clinton.   She needs to win at least 194 of the remaining superdelegates to have a reasonable shot.

Greenpages gives this count excluding MI/FL, but counting the super delegates.


B Obama     1,457.5
H Clinton   1,404.5

+53 Obama.

Greenpages gives this count excluding MI/FL for elected delegates:

B Obama  1,264.5
H Clinton  1,165.5

+99 Obama.

Clinton has a +110 delegate gain with MI/FL and there are still 55 "uncommitted" delegates from MI and Edwards 26 to 39 delegates.

Obama needs to basically get a 204 lead in elected delegates to make the "I have more elected delegates than Hillary has."  He needs an additional 104 net gain.

The good news is, Clinton can't make the claim either.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Let's envision the following scenario:

Clinton has a pretty good rest of the primary season...winning the states she should win in by narrow margins (incl. IN & NC, for arguments' sake--let's say she gets an Edwards endorsement), and winning PR by a substantial, if not blowout margins.

There are also revotes in FL & MI (or they're counted as normal, but with all the Uncommitted for Obama), giving Hillary substantial, if closer wins than in actuality. 


Obama still comes out of this up 31 delegates.  She'd then need to win 194 of the remaining 357 superdelegates (54.3%) to win the nomination. 

That's the best case scenario for Clinton.   She needs to win at least 194 of the remaining superdelegates to have a reasonable shot.

Greenpages gives this count excluding MI/FL, but counting the super delegates.


B Obama     1,457.5
H Clinton   1,404.5

+53 Obama.

Greenpages gives this count excluding MI/FL for elected delegates:

B Obama  1,264.5
H Clinton  1,165.5

+99 Obama.

Clinton has a +110 delegate gain with MI/FL and there are still 55 "uncommitted" delegates from MI and Edwards 26 to 39 delegates.

Obama needs to basically get a 204 lead in elected delegates to make the "I have more elected delegates than Hillary has."  He needs an additional 104 net gain.

The good news is, Clinton can't make the claim either.

If you want to not be seen as a hack you need to quit basing things off only the Green Papers ones:

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/02/ultimate-delegate-tracker.html

Green Papers gives a far more pro-Hillary count than anyone else (except NY Times, but that's only because they don't count caucuses until the delegates are official allocated.) Why? Look at Illinois for starters.

It's probably just oversight or laziness on their part, but it's pretty obvious that Green Papers is not the most accurate counter, regardless of if you want it to be.

You're also posting this in a thread about counting the delegates. If you consider the Green Papers numbers to be more accurate than Erc's, you better have a good explanation as to why.

[J. J.]

Let's envision the following scenario:

Clinton has a pretty good rest of the primary season...winning the states she should win in by narrow margins (incl. IN & NC, for arguments' sake--let's say she gets an Edwards endorsement), and winning PR by a substantial, if not blowout margins.

There are also revotes in FL & MI (or they're counted as normal, but with all the Uncommitted for Obama), giving Hillary substantial, if closer wins than in actuality. 


Obama still comes out of this up 31 delegates.  She'd then need to win 194 of the remaining 357 superdelegates (54.3%) to win the nomination. 

That's the best case scenario for Clinton.   She needs to win at least 194 of the remaining superdelegates to have a reasonable shot.

Greenpages gives this count excluding MI/FL, but counting the super delegates.


B Obama     1,457.5
H Clinton   1,404.5

+53 Obama.

Greenpages gives this count excluding MI/FL for elected delegates:

B Obama  1,264.5
H Clinton  1,165.5

+99 Obama.

Clinton has a +110 delegate gain with MI/FL and there are still 55 "uncommitted" delegates from MI and Edwards 26 to 39 delegates.

Obama needs to basically get a 204 lead in elected delegates to make the "I have more elected delegates than Hillary has."  He needs an additional 104 net gain.

The good news is, Clinton can't make the claim either.

If you want to not be seen as a hack you need to quit basing things off only the Green Papers ones:

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/02/ultimate-delegate-tracker.html

Green Papers gives a far more pro-Hillary count than anyone else (except NY Times, but that's only because they don't count caucuses until the delegates are official allocated.) Why? Look at Illinois for starters.

It's probably just oversight or laziness on their part, but it's pretty obvious that Green Papers is not the most accurate counter, regardless of if you want it to be.

You're also posting this in a thread about counting the delegates. If you consider the Green Papers numbers to be more accurate than Erc's, you better have a good explanation as to why.

Interesting, Greenpapers is showing lower overall totals.  So far, they don't seem to be ideologically based and the others are still showing a well below the 200 delegate gap to really assure an Obama victory.   Now, as far as I can tell, those FL/MI delegates become key.

BTW speaking of hacks BRTD, we're you the one that said Clinton would have a net loss of delegates yesterday?  Even the best estimates show a net gain, even though she was massively outspent.


This thing is going to June, at least, and possibly to the convention, probably without Obama being able to to unambiguously claim that he has more elected delegates.  Get ready for a floor fight. 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Interesting, Greenpapers is showing lower overall totals.  So far, they don't seem to be ideologically based

And the others are?

and the others are still showing a well below the 200 delegate gap to really assure an Obama victory.   Now, as far as I can tell, those FL/MI delegates become key.

Fine. Then point out the other ones, instead of selectively quoting the one source that provides the numbers you like best (and is completely off from the count in this thread too.)

Can you explain why Green Papers is obviously more accurate than CNN/CBS/AP and Erc's count?

BTW speaking of hacks BRTD, we're you the one that said Clinton would have a net loss of delegates yesterday?  Even the best estimates show a net gain, even though she was massively outspent.

What's hackish about that? I made an inaccurate prediction, which was much less inaccurate than your Virginia prediction and your talk about how Wisconsin was tightening. What is hackish is ignoring every other count and deliberately referencing only the one that suits you best, which is exactly what you're doing.

This thing is going to June, at least, and possibly to the convention, probably without Obama being able to to unambiguously claim that he has more elected delegates.  Get ready for a floor fight. 

Because the Democratic superdelegates are going to consider Hillary's 80 delegate lead in Michigan to be legitimate. Right. Your "elected delegate" argument might have some validity when applied to Florida, but it obviously doesn't for Michigan.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Also if you give all the uncommitted to Obama he has a lead in all delegates including Florida and Michigan.

No giving all the uncommitted to Obama isn't perfectly fair, however it certainly is more fair and closer to the opinion of the state than giving no delegates to him. And the only reason he has no projected delegates from Michigan is he withdrew to show respect for the DNC rules. Is the DNC going to punish him for that?

[Erc]

Also if you give all the uncommitted to Obama he has a lead in all delegates including Florida and Michigan.

No giving all the uncommitted to Obama isn't perfectly fair, however it certainly is more fair and closer to the opinion of the state than giving no delegates to him. And the only reason he has no projected delegates from Michigan is he withdrew to show respect for the DNC rules. Is the DNC going to punish him for that?

As a purely technical note...

We should find out about the Michigan Uncommitted slate later this month (March 28th or so), when they actually choose the delegates.  If Obama's got his game together, he may be able to make sure they're in his camp.

To satisfy J.J., I'll make a post about the differences between my count and the Green Papers' in a bit.  Basically, the Green Papers errs on the side of not assigning delegates...a conservative estimate, and it's fine if you just care about totals.  But it's not so great for looking at the differences between the two...especially since the places the Green Papers haven't assigned delegates happen to be states where Obama's done well (Washington, Colorado, Illinois).

I've been trying my hardest to avoid bias in my count (I personally don't particularly favor either candidate over the other)---though it's certainly possible that there are some, and I'd be glad to know if anybody finds any.

[Erc]

Differences between Erc's count and the Green Papers (March 5, 2008)

(All delegate totals Clinton - Obama - Edwards, TGP = The Green Papers.  All net changes are what the candidate gains in my count vs. the Green Papers)

Iowa:
Erc: 21 - 24 - 0
TGP: 15 - 16 - 14

Obama +2.  Edwards won't be winning delegates out of Iowa (where the County Conventions & all the other processes haven't been held yet).  I've assumed that the Edwards supporters divide evenly or stay home---he may very well do better than that (or worse), but I'm sticking with that for now.

Illinois:
Erc: 49 - 104
TGP: 42 - 83

Obama +12. My results are based on publicly available, reliable CD breakdowns.  Why the Green Papers hasn't assigned 28 delegates is beyond me.

Tennessee:
Erc: 39 - 29
TGP: 35 - 23

Obama +2.  TGP hasn't fully allocated delegates, unsurprisingly.  There are no good breakdowns out there.  My numbers are based on my own rough guesstimates & media reporting, all of which indicate 39 - 29 or 40 - 28.

Colorado:
Erc: 18 - 37
TGP: 9 - 19

Obama +8.  TGP hasn't fully allocated delegates---it's a caucus + no good CD breakdown.  Mine is based on the best county-by-county approx. to CDs I could get.

Idaho:
Erc: 1 - 17
TGP: 3 - 15

Obama +2.  TGP, like all other sources, missed the fact that Clinton will miss viability in CD 1.

Washington:
Erc: 26 - 52
TGP: 12 - 25

Obama +13.  No good CD breakdown + it's a caucus.  Mine is a half-guess (I don't have good Seattle-area breakdowns), but it's certain that the margin out of WA will be much closer to 26 than 13 when all is said and done.

Louisiana:
Erc: 22 - 34
TGP: 23 - 33

Obama +2.  Their CD-by-CD breakdown lists my result.  They could easily be right on this one--I'll give it another check.

Ohio:
Erc: 75 - 66
TGP: 71 - 57

Obama +5.  We'll wait for more results to come in here.

Texas Caucuses:
Erc: 32 - 35
TGP: 0 - 0

Obama +3.  We'll need some more data here, and this is probably being too generous to Clinton actually.

No difference in all other states.

For a total of 49.  (There's a 54 delegate difference between my count & TGP's, but I can't find where they come from).  And, with most of these, excepting Louisiana, it's either a judgment call (with net effect 1-2 delegates) or I'm much closer to being right than they are.

[Alcon]

What do you need from the Seattle area, Erc?

[Erc]

What do you need from the Seattle area, Erc?

What else?...breakdowns by CD of the caucus results in King Co. & environs.  It's a bit of a lost cause, though, due to the complicated caucus system (there are conventions by county level and/or on SD level, which in turn might have CD caucuses within them if they straddle boundaries?)

I could get you some more specifics, but I'm going to be away from where I tabulate all of this stuff until Monday...ironically enough, because I'm going to be in Seattle for the weekend.

[Alcon]

I think I'll have that for you when you get back.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This guy agrees that California is 203-167 in favor of Clinton. Appearantly most of the media chose more favorable numbers for Clinton.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/6/18441/19312/64/470801