Talk Elections

In this thread, I'll be keeping a running tally of the delegates, and, as before, explaining upcoming contests and projecting delegate counts.

State	Clinton	Obama	Super (Clinton)	Super (Obama)	Super (Uncommitted) + Edwards	Total
Iowa	15	26	3	11	2 + 0	57
New Hampshire	9	9	3	8	1 + 0	30
Michigan	34.5	29.5	3.5	7	4	78.5
Nevada	11	14	2	3	4	34
South Carolina	12	25	2	14	1 + 0	54
Florida	52.5	33.5	4.5	8.5	5 + 1.5	105.5
Georgia	27	60	4	9	2	102
Alabama	25	27	3	2	3	60
Connecticut	22	26	2	10	0	60
Delaware	6	9	2	4	2	23
Illinois	49	104	0	28	3	184
Massachusetts	55	38	11	13	4	121
Missouri	36	36	5	6	5	88
New Jersey	59	48	12	5	3	127
Oklahoma	24	14	1	5	4	48
Tennessee	40	28	6	4	7	85
Kansas	9	23	1	6	2	41
Arkansas	27	8	11	0	1	47
Arizona	31	25	4	5	2	67
Minnesota	24	48	3	10	3	88
New Mexico	14	12	6	5	1	38
New York	139	93	46	1	2	281
North Dakota	5	8	0	7	1	21
Colorado	19	36	4	7	4	70
Idaho	3	15	0	4	1	23
Utah	9	14	1	3	2	29
Alaska	3	10	1	4	0	18
California	204	166	31	28	12	441
American Samoa	1.5	1.5	4	2	0	9
Virgin Islands	0	3	2	3	1	9
Nebraska	8	16	0	6	1	31
Washington	26	52	7	8	4	97
Louisiana	23	33	4	3	4	67
Maine	9	15	1	5	2	32
Virginia	29	54	5	7	6	101
D.C.	3	12	9	13	2	39
Maryland	28	42	10	12	6	99
Wisconsin	32	42	2	12	4	92
Hawai'i	6	14	2	7	0	29
Democrats Abroad	2.5	4.5	1.5	2.5	0	11
Vermont	6	9	1	5	2	23
Rhode Island	13	8	8	2	2	33
Ohio	74	67	6	6	9	162
Texas	95	98	14	13	8	228
Wyoming	5	7	1	5	0	18
Mississippi	13	20	0	5	3	41
Pennsylvania	85	73	17	6	6	187
Guam	2	2	2	3	0	9
North Carolina	48	67	3	10	6	134
Indiana	38	34	5	7	1	85
West Virginia	20	8	3	4	4	39
Kentucky	37	14	3	2	4	60
Oregon	21	31	2	8	3	65
Puerto Rico	38	17	4	2	2	63
South Dakota	8	7	0	6	2	23
Montana	7	9	0	4	5	25
"Unassigned"	0	0	0	0	2	2
Total	1635	1736	288.5	387	169 + 1.5	4233

Obama has clinched the nomination.

Recent Updates: (Superdelegates are generally updated daily).
6/3: SD results added, 1 Edwards At-Large delegate from Obama to Clinton (to be conservative)
6/2: PR results added, 6 Edwards FL delegates back to Edwards, Pelosi Club removed from Obama.
5/31: MI/FL ruling included.

Italicized States represent Caucus/Convention states that have not yet finished their processes.  As a result, their final delegate counts may be slightly different than those listed here.  A few of these are especially prone to change:

TX:  There are a form of local 'superdelegates' at the state convention (though they only form about 1.6% of delegates), which could have an effect.  Additionally, Obama is challenging results from Bexar and El Paso counties that may swing enough support his way to make the caucus result 38 - 29, not 37 - 30.
IA: Obama will likely gain a delegate from Clinton, assuming he gets a large majority of Edwards' supporters.
ID: Clinton is on the verge of losing viability statewide, so she may lose her one statewide delegate to Obama if enough of her supporters fail to arrive at the convention in Boise.

Notes:  Edwards still has 19 pledged delegates (8 in SC, 4 in NH, 4 and perhaps 3 more in IA)--plus 13 half-delegates in Florida.  With his recent endorsement of Obama, I am giving two of his At-Large Iowa delegates to Obama, and the third to Clinton [although, most likely, all three will go to Obama].  Of his named pledged delegates, all but 3 Florida delegates have endorsed Obama.

Although the Michigan delegate selection process may yet have its hurdles, I will assume that 59 delegates will be seated for Obama, as prescribed by the DNC.  Hillary may yet challenge the ruling on MI, but the five-delegate difference is not large enough to change the outcome (Obama has clenched in both scenarios).

The so-called 'Pelosi Club' of superdelegates (currently numbering 5) has pledged itself to vote for the candidate with the lead in pledged delegates at the end of the contest.  Even thoiugh Obama has now won the majority of pledged delegates, I consider members of the 'Pelosi Club' to be Uncommitted until they officially pledge to support Obama, to be conservative.

Timeline of Upcoming Events:

June 3:  Montana, South Dakota Primaries (Details (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=70003.msg1577675#msg1577675))
June 7:  Texas State Convention
June 14:  Iowa, Idaho, Michigan State Conventions
June 15:  Washington State Convention
June 22: Nebraska State Convention

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aHVRn9HAldqg&refer=us

Interesting article...hearing michigan and florida may do caucuses now...

Good stuff.

Not sure if you are just picking the totals from somewhere, but if you are computing them are you able to see where there are narrowly won delegates or maybe just a count of them?  May be only of academic interest but I think it would be neat to see how many each candidate won just barely.

Interesting that your estimate is more favorable to Obama than even the Obama campaign.

http://origin.barackobama.com/resultscenter/

Very nice summary. Perhaps the moderators would sticky this.

Assuming Edwards' state delegates in Iowa split 2:1 for Obama, 11 of his estimate delegates would go to Obama and 3 to Clinton. Resulting in a total of 27 for Obama and 18 for Clinton.

But is that reasonable? What I've seen so far doesn't really indicate that Edwards supporters break heavily for either candidate.

Good work, Erc :)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html

Clinton 865 pledged / 211 super (1076)

Obama 878 pledged / 137 super (1015)

(Delegate Counts Come From AP, Wash Post, CBS News & RCP)

Most delegates in Colorado yet to be allocated, which will favor Obama

Dave

Great point on Colorado, didn't notice that.  He should pick up a net of maybe 10.  That would give him a lead of 20-25 pledge delegates going into tonight's primaries.
Very nice indeed

Updated given (preliminary) 2/9 results.

Updated Delegate Estimate:

Base: RCP

Clinton: 1.112 Total Delegates so far (incl. 211 SD) => 901 Pledged Delegates
Obama: 1.096 Total Delegates so far (incl. 137 SD) => 959 Pledged Delegates

Future States Obama will win incl. their number of pledged delegates:

Hawaii (20), Oregon (52), Montana (16), Wyoming (12), South Dakota (15), Wisconsin (74), Mississippi (33), Indiana (72), North Carolina (115), Virginia (83), DC (15), Maryland (70), Maine (24) and Vermont (15).

Total Pledged Delegates: 616 - Obama estimated to receive 55% and Clinton 45% = 339/277

Future States Clinton will win incl. their number of pledged delegates:

Texas (193), Kentucky (51), Ohio (141), West Virginia (28), Pennsylvania (158), Rhode Island (21), Guam (4) and Puerto Rico (55).

Total Pledged Delegates: 651 - Clinton estimated to receive 55% and Obama 45% = 358/293

So from now on, Clinton will receive 635 delegates, Obama 632.

New total among pledged:

Obama: 959 + 632 = 1.591
Clinton: 901 + 635 = 1.536

Super-Delegates-Estimate (796):

Clinton: 448
Obama: 348

Total Delegates as of June 7, 2008:

Clinton: 1.536 + 448 = 1.984
Obama: 1.591 + 348 = 1.939

RCP base as of Sunday at noon

Clinton  1121  Super Delegates 211  Pledge Delegates  910
Obama 1118  Super Delegates 137  Pledge Delegates   981

Clinton +3 overall due to +74 lead in Super delegates

Obama +71 in Pledge delegates

He is starting to really surge

Added details on how the January 12 contests work (Democrats Abroad, DC, MD, VA), for those interested.

February 10:
Maine:
Closed Caucus
34 Delegates
--16 by District
--8 At-Large
--10 Unpledged

The caucuses are electing delegates to the State Convention (May 31), which selects Maine's delegates to the National Convention.

District Delegates:  9 for CD 1, 7 for CD 2.
At-Large Delegates: 5 Regular, 3 Pledged PLEO
Unpledged Delegates: 4 DNC Members, 2 Representatives, 1 Governor, 2 Party Leaders (George Mitchell, Kenneth Curtis), 1 Add-On (chosen at State Convention).  2 of these are for Clinton, 8 Uncommitted.

February 12:

District of Columbia:
Closed Primary
38 Delegates
--10 by District
--5 At-Large
--23 Unpledged

District Delegates are assigned 5 per 'district.'  District 1 = Wards 1-4 [N & W: Georgetown, Downtown, etc.]  District 2 = Wards 5 - 8 [S & E]
5 At-Large: 3 Regular, 2 Pledged PLEO
Unpledged Delegates: 17 DNC Members, 1 Representative (DC's delegate to Congress), 2 "Senators," 1 "Governor" (DC's Mayor), 2 'Add-Ons' (of which one is a 'Shadow Representative').
Add-Ons selected April 3, by the State Party Committee.

Maryland:
Closed Primary
99 Delegates
--46 by District
--24 At-Large
--29 Unpledged

District Delegates:
4 for CDs: 6
5 for CDs: 1, 2
6 for CDs: 3, 5, 7
7 for CDs: 4, 8

At-Large Delegates:
--18 DNC Members
--6 Representatives
--2 Senators
--1 Governor
--2 'Add-Ons' (selected May 1, State Democratic Central Committee meeting)

Virginia:
Open Primary
101 Delegates
--54 Delegates
--29 At-Large
--18 Unpledged

District Delegates:
4 for CDs: 1, 2, 5, 6, 9
5 for CDs: 4, 7, 10
6 for CDs: 3, 11
7 for CDs: 8

At-Large Delegates:
18 At-Large
11 Pledged PLEO

Unpledged Delegates:
10 DNC Members
3 Representatives
1 Senator
1 Governor
1 Party Leader (Terry McAuliffe)
2 'Add-Ons' (selected by State Convention, June 12)

According to CBS, Obama just trails by 2 delegates anymore and 20 are still left to be allocated in Washington and 30 in Colorado ...

http://election.cbsnews.com/campaign2008/d_delegateScorecard.shtml

They also don't have the USVI's delegates on there, which would put Obama in the lead by a single delegate.

Making up the +74 super delegate lead in an election this close before the Potomac primaries is very big. 

If he has a big night with the Potomac primaries, it will be difficult for her to overtake him in pledge delegates even if she wins OH and TX

And I just noticed: they have the same miscalculation in Idaho as everyone else. Clinton failed viability in Ada County, and therefore both statewide and in ID-02. She gets only 1 delegate from Idaho, not 3.

It's funny how much various organizations are screwing up the counting of delegates. One common mistake is to hear that American Samoa has 3 delegates, and give Clinton 2 and Obama 1, without realizing that there are actually 6 delegates, each worth half a vote.

I've heard conflicting reports as to the territories' superdelegates:  do they get full or half votes?  (or even, as I've heard strange reports of, some mix of full and quarter delegates in American Samoa).

Update in for Maine:
Obama won big in CD 1 [6 - 3] and won in CD 2 [4 - 3], giving him a very healthy delegate lead there (gains a margin of +6 delegates)

()

Interestingly, Obama's "leaked" memo once again (drastically) underestimated his perfomance.

So Obama has taken the lead w/ supers even factored in, correct?

Yes (although actually he had after yesterday).

Deliberately perhaps. I don't see him doing that bad in the three Tuesday states either.

Aren't there still some delegates that haven't been factored in still from Colorado and another state?

The Obama campaign had him up in the pledged delegate count 910-882 after Super Tuesday.  He won Louisiana 34-22, Nebraska 16-8, Virgin Islands 3-0 and was up in Washington 43-15 with 20 delegates still to be allocated and won maine 15-9.  that puts Obama up 1021-936 with 20 delegates from Washington still outstanding.   Considering his current 43-15 margin in Washington if the breakout is similar to what is known Obama wins the remaining Washington delegates 14-6 or 15-5.  So he pretty much sets himself with about a 1035-942 or 1036-941 margin heading into the Primaries on Tuesday.

Assuming those future contests are projections, they are expecting close finishes in OH/TX/PA.  I believe those may be overestimating his performance there.  WI & IN as solid wins look optimistic also.

But they are projecting almost exactly a wash from this point forward, and that sure sounds reasonable.

Hey, If the trend keeps on continuing and they out-preform their predictions then yah for him.

The Washington state Democratic chair estimates the following delegate breakdown:
52 Obama
26 Hillary

Ha, identically proportional to Minnesota!

Guess I was wrong in thinking that the margin would be similar to the breakdown we have seen already in the state.  Anyway if that is true and the info on Obama's website after Super Tuesday was right and other sources since it would put Obama at a 1030-947 advantage.

Fixed Washington (I had given 9 too many delegates to the state, so Obama's lead drops by 3), and modified the Republican count (Romney loses his 26 delegates in Michigan by dropping out of the race).

Added preliminary results from the Potomac Primary.

In Virginia, Obama wins all but one CD (CD 9, the far western portion of the state, where he was crushed).  This nets him 54 delegates to Clinton's 29.  The totals could change slightly as more results come in.

In DC, we're still waiting on ward-by-ward breakdown, but unless Obama was under 70% in Wards 1-4 (or Clinton didn't meet viability in Wards 5-8), it looks like 12 Obama - 3 Clinton.

In Maryland, these are very partial results, so it'll be a while before we have a definite delegate result.  Best guess so far is Obama 45 - Clinton 25.

The last Democrats Abroad polling station closed at 11 PM (in Calgary).  We probably won't have definite results (apart from a few sporadic countries) for a while, though.  (If I'm mistaken, I'd be appreciated if I could be directed to results).


Net results of today's primaries:
Obama increases his delegate position immensely.

Amongst pledged delegates, he's up by 134.
Amongst all delegates, he's up by 59.
Even when you throw in MI & FL into that mix, he's only down by 8.

Not looking good for Clinton...every delegate she loses now is another superdelegate she'll have to fight for.

(As usual, my counts of superdelegates only include those from states which have already voted--which I feel is more representative of how the final picture may look.  [Although, at this point, that only excludes 30% of the superdelegates].  As a result, other numbers you see may be more friendly to Clinton amongst all delegates.  Combine that with the usual slowness to assign delegates in caucus states [where Obama does well], and that explains why delegate counts in the news media may not agree with mine).

According to Wikipedia, there are 1075 pledged delegates in the remaining primaries.  If Clinton is down by 134 pledged delegates, she needs to win more than 56% of the remaining pledged delegates in order to catch up to Obama in pledged delegates (unless she can get the FL/MI delegates restored).  That seems like a *really* tough hill for her to climb, given the PR system for allocating delegates.  Basically, her average margin of victory in all the remaining primaries has to be comparable to her margin of victory in California.

I saw that Politico has a running superdelegates count: http://www.politico.com/superdelegates/ (http://www.politico.com/superdelegates/)

That may be the magic number, or at least some variation of it.  If Obama can lead in pledged delegates even with MI & FL in the count, that will be some heft.  If he can somehow after Mar4 lead the count including pledged, decided superdelegates, plus MI & FL, that may be it.

This person has the same 134 margin for delegates, although they have fewer allocated.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/13/02536/6000/923/455720

That's a very problematic number for her. I can see 56% in Texas and Ohio and Pennsylvania, but she's going to get routed in some upcoming states; I think there are few who would argue that Mississippi, Vermont, Oregon, Montana, South Dakota, Hawaii, North Carolina and Wyoming are within reach, and some of those will be blowouts. Significant victories in West Virginia and Kentucky won't cut it to rebound against those.

At best for her, I can see 53% of the remaining delegates, and that's assuming 10-12 point margins in the big states without Idaho and Kansas-style blowouts in some of Obama's strong states.

That might though still be enough for her.  Looking ahead I think OH/TX/PA push the balance of states from somewhat unfavorable to her to somewhat favorable.

More than just being able to hang on, Obama needs to have a more bullet-proof lead - like "even if MI & FL delegates are counted" and/or "even if Clinton's advantage in superdelegates is counted".  That could be the sort of thing to compel the fence-sitting superdelegates his way.

If Clinton wins 53% of the remaining delegates, then I guess that would cut Obama's pledged delegate lead about in half, which means that even if the FL/MI delegates are reinstated, that just brings Clinton and Obama roughly into parity in pledged delegates (assuming that the uncommitted delegates in MI break heavily for Obama).

That means the best case for Clinton is basically being even in pledged delegates come the Convention. And there's no way MI and FL are being seated as is anyway. The DNC will end up shelling out the money for caucuses; that's really what the resistance to the plan from the state parties is about.

Thanks to the mods for the sticky.


Comparisions of superdelegate counts:

What I use (DemConWatch):
Clinton: 180
Obama: 105
[Clinton +75]

Politico (mainly based on DemConWatch, but has a few extra sources) [thanks for referring me to this, gmo]
Clinton: 184
Obama: 110
[Clinton +74]

CNN (no sources given, they poll some of the superdelegates themselves)
Clinton: 184
Obama: 123
[Clinton +61]

Final VA results by CD are in, Obama wins delegates 54-29.

Obama is about 170 votes [0.1%] short of winning a fifth delegate in CD 8, so it's possible that result might change...but all precincts in the district are reporting, so it seems unlikely at this point.

Updated the Superdelegate Count.
Obama's now only down 2 in all delegates when MI & FL are included.

Upcoming Contest Details:

February 19:

Wisconsin:
Open Primary
92 Delegates
--48 by CD
--26 At-Large
--18 Unpledged

District Delegates
5 for CDs: 5, 6
6 for CDs: 1, 3, 4, 7, 8
8 for CDs: 2

At-Large Delegates:
16 At-Large
10 Pledged PLEO

Unpledged Delegates:
8 DNC Members (1 Clinton, 1 Obama)
5 Representatives (1 Clinton, 2 Obama)
2 Senators
1 Governor (1 Obama)
2 'Add-Ons' (selected by the Administrative Committee of the Wisconsin Democratic Party, either in early June or mid-August)

Hawaii:
Closed 'Caucus' (Firehouse Primary)
29 Delegates
--13 by District
--7 At-Large
--9 Unpledged

Note that, although this is a caucus, the delegates are to be assigned directly based on the results of the caucus--this is more like MN than IA.

District Delegates:
CD 1: 6 delegates

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

Unpledged Delegates:
4 DNC Members (1 Clinton)
2 Representatives (1 Obama)
2 Senators (1 Clinton)
1 Add-On (selected by the State Party Committee, May 25)


Democrats Abroad will be reporting their final numbers on February 21.

Nice list you have going here.  California should be:

   Clinton - 204
   Obama - 166

This is per my own calculations based on California returns at:
http://vote.ss.ca.gov/Returns/dcd/all.htm (http://vote.ss.ca.gov/Returns/dcd/all.htm)

Also, Green Papers came up with the same numbers as of today (02/15):
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/CA-D.phtml

Also, for Illinois I have:

Clinton - 49
Obama - 104

This is based on:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/elections/2008/by_cd/IL_Page_0205_VD.html (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/elections/2008/by_cd/IL_Page_0205_VD.html)

A candidate must have at least 15% in a congressional district to qualify for delegates from that district. There are 2 CDs in Illinois where Senator Clinton only reached 12 or 13%. Most reporting organizations are missing this (including, oddly enough, the Obama campaign).

Thanks, american woman.  My counts are based on the breakdowns as of Feb. 6th or so (when I did the math), so if additional votes have come in here or there, that may change my results.

I'll also give another check-through of the other states to make sure that isn't the case elsewhere.

Obama gained slightly statewide and in a few key CDs in the last portion of counting, which gave him an additional delegate in CDs 16 & 51, and one additional delegate statewide.  (In CD 16, he got that second delegate by a margin of about 22 votes).

So Obama gains three delegates (and thus widens his lead over Clinton by 6 delegates) based on late returns in CA.

Late returns gave a boost to Obama in CD 1, pushing Clinton under viability (accounting for one of those two delegates).  A couple of the downstate districts gave Obama two more delegates, to make it 104-49, as you said.

The corrections to CA & IL put Obama in the lead for the first time amongst all delegates (including MI & FL), if one assumes that MI's Uncommitted slate is entirely for Obama.  However, there's no guarantee of this whatsoever.  Obama does not get to review the Uncommitted slate (they're not his, after all), so there could be many Clinton supporters under the "Uncommitted" label.  The uncommitted district delegates are chosen at District Conventions on March 29, while the At-Large delegates are selected by the State Party Central Committee on May 17.

As a result, until we know how those Uncommitted delegates are going to vote, I'm going to put Michigan's Uncommited delegates in with the unpledged PLEOs (which is fair enough, since the Uncommitted delegation could easily split down the middle [or even split for Clinton, depending on who shows up at the District Conventions / who controls the State Party Central Committee]).

As a result, under the new count, Clinton still has a 45-delegate lead when MI & FL are included.

Delegate Estimate until March 4:

Now (Real Clear Politics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html))

Obama: 1.301 (1.133 Pledged+168 Super)
Clinton: 1.235 (996+239)

Wisconsin (74): Obama 41 - Clinton 33
Hawaii (20): Obama 12 - Clinton 8
Democrats Abroad (7): Obama 5 - Clinton 2

Texas (193): Obama 87 - Clinton 106
Ohio (141): Obama 63 - Clinton 78
Rhode Island (21): Obama 9 - Clinton 12
Vermont (15): Obama 9 - Clinton 6

Total Obama until March 4: 226
Total Clinton until March 4: 245

Total Delegates - March 4:

Obama: 1.527 (1.359+168)
Clinton: 1.480 (1.241+239)

Is Real Clear Politics a conservative site in practice?

...and I do imagine that NC and MS will combine to create a gap that Clinton's advantages in PA will not be able to overcome.

I see Obama with a 120 pledged delegate advantage coming into May and at least 60 or 70 at the end of the race.

Erc, I know this thread is primarily for tracking the Democratic delegates, but you also list the GOP totals, so I figured you might be interested in these stories about McCain picking up delegates in MI & LA:

http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2008/02/states_delegates_move_to_mccai.html

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gUSEb3otSltjMiqOhs0CLj_ma5CAD8URK9HO1

This appeared in NY Post on 2/16.  It would effect some district counts and maybe some delegates.  Limited details.  Might want to look at official NYC results when published.  Might change a few delegates 

"OBAMA ROBBED IN NY
By GINGER ADAMS OTIS
PrintEmailDigg ItRedditPermalinkStory Bottom

February 16, 2008 -- Barack Obama's primary-night results were strikingly under recorded in several congressional districts around the city - in some cases leaving him with zero votes when, in fact, he had pulled in hundreds, the Board of Elections said today

Unofficial primary results gave Obama no votes in nearly 80 districts, including Harlem's 94th and other historically black areas - but many of those initial tallies proved to be wildly off the mark, the Board of Elections confirmed.

Truth is, in some districts getting a recount, the senator from Illinois is even close to defeating Hillary Clinton.

Initial results in the 94th District, for example, showed a 141-0 sweep for the New York senator, but Board of Elections spokeswoman Valerie Vazquez said today that the ongoing recount had changed the tally to 261-136.

As yet, none of the results has been certified, Vazquez said, adding that the Board of Elections had begun a painstaking ballot-by-ballot canvassing of all voting machines four days after the Feb. 5 election.

"We are doing a recanvass, and we will be counting all paper ballots, including absentee ones," Vazquez said.

"Some initial tallies had zeros, but it was most likely due to human error. Those were unofficial numbers, and no confirmed results have been released yet."

In a predominantly black Brooklyn district for which Clinton was given credit for a 118-0 victory on Primary Night, the Board of Elections' latest figures indicate that she may not even come out the winner - Obama currently has 116 votes to her 118. "

Thanks for the update.  I was wondering about the LA convention results.

Any news out of Guam?  They were supposed to have a convention yesterday, I think.

Very preliminary delegate estimate for Wisconsin:

Obama 41
Clinton 33

If anyone has (any) by-district breakdown, it'd be appreciated.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=719365#president_cd_dem

Thanks, BRTD.

Looks like Obama's going to pull out decisive wins in CDs 3 & 4, so Obama 43 - Clinton 31 looks very likely.

On the Republican side, Huckabee is within 13 votes in CD 3.  Otherwise, McCain wins all the delegates handily.  McCain 37, Huckabee 0, with 3 still too close to call.

Huckabee appears to have pulled ahead in CD 3, so it looks as if he may get 3 delegates tonight out of Wisconsin.

The win in Wisconsin means that McCain and Romney's delegates now form a majority of all delegates.  This means that (A) Huckabee cannot win this short of a floor fight, and (B) McCain has clinched the nomination if Romney delegates follow the endorsement of their candidate.

Just a quick something to note:

If Hillary goes 50-50 in pledged delegates from here on out (certainly not unfeasible), and wins 60% of the remaining unpledged delegates (she's won about 60% of the ones who've endorsed so far), she beats Obama by 3 delegates in the end, even without MI & FL being restored.

So don't declare her dead just yet.

Obama just barely falls short of 75% in Hawai'i's CD 1, so the final delegate count in HI is 14-6 Obama, not 15-5.

Hmm? I thought the numbers required were higher than that.

Unpledged delegates are mainly superdelegates, right?  I'm guessing that's the point, although I suspect it won't break that way.  But who knows?

No, the number of superdelegates is so large (nearly 800), that if Clinton won 60% of them (to Obama's 40%), that's a 160 delegate advantage right there, which wipes out Obama's current lead among pledged delegates.

Of course, the problem for Clinton is that if Obama does in fact finish the primary season with a pledged delegate lead of over 100, then she is *not* going to be able to get 60% of the superdelegates, barring some extraordinary circumstances.  I just can't see the supers going with Clinton if Obama's pledged delegate lead is that significant.

Yes, but even so I'd assumed the numbers needed were higher. That's the trouble with being terrible at maths I guess.

Right now, Obama is up 162 in pledged delegates [1207.5 - 1045.5, with 988 yet to be assigned]

Clinton is up 74.5 in superdelegates, including states which haven't voted yet [237 - 162.5, with 395.5 yet to commit and 12 pledged Edwards delegates (who are effectively superdelegates at this point)].

This is a net Obama lead of 87.5 delegates.

If Obama and Clinton split the remaining 988 pledged delegates 494 - 494 (being a bit unfriendly to Clinton here), she would need to win the remaining superdelegates 248 - 159.5 [i.e. 61% of them], gaining back a 88.5 delegate margin and winning the nomination 2024.5 to 2023.5.


Note that Clinton is likely to do better than even in the remaining states, however.  In a not unreasonable scenario (Obama wins DA, MS, OR, WY, MT, SD, and Clinton wins the rest [though none by huge margins]), Clinton wins 515.5 delegates to Obama's 472.5.

Net pledged total:
Obama 1680 - Clinton 1561 (+119 Obama)

Including superdelegates:
Obama 1842.5 - Clinton 1798 (+ 44.5 Obama)

Clinton would then only have to win 226.5 out of the remaining 407.5 superdelegates (or 55.6%) in order to win the nomination.

And if, somehow, she gets MI & FL reinstated, she'd only need to win 43% of the remaining superdelegates to win the nomination.

In any case, there are enough superdelegates that they can pretty much decide the nomination, no matter what happens in the remaining primaries (barring some extremely improbable results, like 80%/20% margins).  So the real question is what kind of results in the remaining primaries will cause the supers to break one way or the other.

If, for example, Obama ends the primary season with a pledged delegate lead of more than 100, and a lead in the "popular vote", is Clinton really going to be able to get a majority of the superdelegates, let alone 60% of them?

Democratic Bonus Delegates:

In addition to penalizing MI & FL for going early (by stripping them of all of their delegates), the DNC also offered incentives for states to go later in the cycle:

5% more delegates for going in April
10% more delegates for going in May or June
15% more delegates for moving into April (from March or earlier)
30% more delegates for moving into May or June (from April or earlier).

Most states didn't take them up on the offer.  A few states were simply lazy and didn't move their primaries up, and only two states (NC & Guam) actually took advantage of these rules to get more than 10% bonus delegates.

The net result is that states going later in the cycle will be slightly overrepresented at the convention (NC significantly so).

54 'bonus' delegates have been awarded to states as a result:
NC: +24
PA: +7
IN: +6
KY: +4
OR: +4
Puerto Rico: +4
WV: +2
SD: +1
MT: +1
Guam: +1

If Pennsylvania had decided to move their primary back a week (into May), instead of forward a week, they'd have gotten the +30% bonus, and would have received 39 bonus delegates instead of 7.

Will these 54 bonus delegates matter?  Probably not. It'll be hard for anyone to get more than   a +5 delegate margin out of them, anyway.  Though, if either candidate wins NC decisively, who knows.

Both the Representatives from WI-03 and WI-08 have said that they would endorse and vote for as a superdelegate for whoever carried their district (with the WI-03 Rep also condemning the superdelegate system and calling for its elimination.) So there's two more superdelegate votes for Obama if not tallied yet.

I got WI-03, but not WI-08 (I don't think he's issued an official statement yet that he's endorsing Obama, so I hadn't caught it).  I'll add him in though.

who is the one New York Obama superdelegate?

Marianne Spraggins, a DNC member.  (She was also a superdelegate in 2000 & 2004).  There's a slight possibility that she's moved to Georgia, but she's still a superdelegate (At-Large DNC member).

Democrats Abroad Results:

Obama wins 2 half-delegates to Clinton's 1 in each of the 3 worldwide districts.

Those 9 half-delegates and the 8 half-superdelegates pick the remaining 5 At-Large delegates. 

Of the 8 half-superdelegates, 3 have endorsed Obama, 2 have endorsed Clinton, and 3 are as of yet uncommitted.

Unless all 3 uncommitted ones endorse Obama, the final breakdown in pledged delegates will be Obama 4.5 - Clinton 2.5  (would be 5-2 if the supers all break his way).



Democrats Abroad:
Closed Caucus / Convention
11 Delegates
--4.5 by District
--2.5 At-Large
--4 Unpledged

Democrats Abroad will have 22 delegates, each of whom will have a half vote on the convention floor (hence the half-delegates).

Democrats in each country vote (in person, by mail, or online) to select delegates to Regional Caucuses (to be held March 15 - April 11).  The Regional Caucuses select 3 half-delegates each.  The three regions are:  Americas, Asia-Pacific [Australia, Japan, India, SE Asia], Europe-Middle-East-Africa.

On April 12, the 8 Unpledged delegates [All DNC Members] and the 9 delegates selected at the regional caucuses select the other 5 half-delegates (3 At-Large, 2 Pledged PLEO).

Obama's High Water Mark?

If Clinton is to stage a comeback, it's going to start on March 4th.  Which means that March 3rd may be his high water mark.

Pledged: +165 Obama
Total: +126 Obama
Total Incl. MI/FL: +5 Obama
All Delegates: +3 Clinton

Russ Feingold endorses Obama.

Today's superdelegate endorsements put Obama ahead, even if one includes superdelegates in states already voted & MI & FL.

This leaves only one count in which Clinton is still ahead:  All pledged delegates, all superdelegates (including those from the March & on states), and ML & FL.  Even in that count, she's only up by 8.

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.

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 8)
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)

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.

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 (http://www.lasvegasnow.com/global/story.asp?s=7916209), 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.

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.

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).

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 :P

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*

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.

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

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

It is OK with Rhode.

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.)

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.

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)

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.  :)

And the others are?


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?


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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

CA: Hillary's final margin of victory: 8.9%. The final delegates will be 203 for Clinton to 167 for Obama.

There are 615 pledged delegates left now (928 if MI & FL re-vote).

Obama currently leads Clinton 1.366 to 1.222 among pledged delegates (RCP).

If Clinton wins 55% of the 615 outstanding delegates, its:

Obama: 1.643
Clinton: 1.560

With FL & MI included, its:

Obama: 1.784
Clinton: 1.732

Clinton would have to win 58% of all remaining pledged delegates to reach parity with Obama if FL and MI are indeed holding a re-vote.

But what if they're seated?

Without Michigan and FLorida included Clinton probably needs about 60% of the remaining super delegates. Not impossible, imo.

Is that the right way to look at it though?  IMHO, the question isn't what fraction of the supers she needs, as much as it is "What does she need to do in the remaining primaries in order to win those supers?"  Because I just can't see the majority of supers supporting her if she loses both the pledged delegate count and the popular vote.  It's not going to happen.

Bless the Democrats - they managed to create a nomination system that's so farking convoluted.

But if she wins the popular vote, most of the delegates toward the end of race and polls show her having more national support than Obama, all of which are definite possibilities, I don't think it will be that hard. I think it's actually pretty likely that she wins the overall popular vote and I think that pretty much negates the "most pledged delegates" argument.

Definition of wishful thinking.

Well, I don't think it's that likely that she'll win the popular vote, but setting that aside for the moment.....you're making my point for me.  Which is that the operative question isn't "What fraction of the remaining supers does she need?".  It's "What does she need to do in the remaining primaries in order to win over the bulk of those supers?"  With one possible answser being "win the overall popular vote".

Yes...but I never meant anything else, so we were never in disagreement. :P

And, Flem, your answer could be considered the definition of hackery. If you have something you want to criticize, do it. Don't make up smart-ass one-liners that you can't back up.

According to the Hamilton County Elections office (but not the secretary of state, which, apparently has not updated its vote totals), Obama gets an extra delegate in OH-01 for a 3-1 split there.

I don't think any of the outlets reporting delegates have included this increase in his delegates in their Ohio delegate counts...  if I'm correct, this change makes the total 67-74.

I also noticed that the secretary of state transposed the totals for District 6 in Mahoning County incorrectly.  Clinton's total there is 22,714 votes, not 22,174 votes.  That, of course, will not change Clinton's 4-1 delegate lead in that district.

Ultimately, given his popular vote totals in the state, it looks like Obama did very well in the district divisions of delegates, barely keeping 3-3 margins in OH-09 and OH-13 and meeting the threshold of 4-3 in OH-17.

Party sources have released final counts for WA, LA, & TN: (reported by the green papers)

WA: 52 - 26 Obama
TN: 40 - 28 Clinton Source (http://www.tndp.org/files/Total_Delegation.pdf)
LA: 33 - 23 Obama

Net result of these changes: +4 Clinton.


For the Super Tuesday states, we're still awaiting official confirmation of delegate totals from Utah, Missouri, Massachusetts, and Arkansas--we have no by-CD breakdown, but all sources agree on the delegate counts there.  In Georgia, sources disagree between 60 - 27 Obama or 61 - 26 Obama.  My count uses the former.

Thanks for the info...I'll check on it.  It's certainly quite possible that Obama could pick up another delegate there...by my last count, he was about 192 votes short of doing so.

58-40 65% in.

Assuming Obama nets 7 delegates from MS....by my count, Clinton needs to win a whopping 65% of the remaining pledged delegates in order to catch up to Obama in pledged delegates *sans FL/MI*.  And, assuming comparable turnout in the remaining states to those that have already voted, she would need about 56.5% of the remaining popular vote in order to catch up in the popular vote *sans FL/MI*.

OTOH, if there are new contests in FL & MI, and they get full delegate slates from those new contests, then Clinton needs just under 60% of remaining pledged delegates to catch up in pledged delegates, and about 54% of the remaining popular vote in order to catch up in total popular vote.

Put simply she needs a higher percentage of delegates than what she got in Jake's best case scenario for her outlined. Catching Obama in pledged delegates is not going to happen.

I also put in superdelegate calculations, even with 25 more delegate than Obama won in Pennsylvania, she still needs over 65% of the truly in play superdelegates, and if the rumor of a 50 superdelegate bloc for Obama turns out to be true, she could end up needing around 90% of the truly in play superdelegates, aka at that point it becomes impossible.

Didn't the Obama camp confirm that rumor?  Whatever happened to them?

I only heard that on the night of Super Tuesday II - and nothing else since.

3/5, last Wednesday.  What happened?

He didn't win Texas (come on you spin f****ts, try me... :P)

Well he did win it in terms of delegates, though I agree that popular vote should be more important (emphasis on should).

I wasn't really stressing the importance of either - I was pointing this out as the primary reason why the 50 superdelegates didn't appear.

My taunt there is more towards the usual suspects who like to discuss this issue.  :)

That's what I was saying all along. They were going to be the heroes bringing the party together behind the presumptive nominee, forcing Clinton out of the race. After her wins that couldn't be done, so they waited.

Update on this point...

Most of CD 1 is indeed in Hamilton county, where Obama got 63.2% of the 2-way vote (65449-38056 in CD-01, Hamilton Co.).

However, there is a small portion in Butler, which Clinton won decisively, 2085 - 1108, meaning that the total for the district is 66557 - 40141, or 62.38% of the vote.  Shift 130 Clinton votes to Obama, and he picks up that extra delegate, but, otherwise, looks like she's hung on to a 2 - 2 split there.

No change in CD 17...looks like Obama is holding her to a 2 - 2 split there, by a 78 vote margin.

Unless I can be convinced otherwise, or more results come in, I'm sticking with my projection of 37 - 30 Obama for the TX caucuses.  The raw numbers would suggest 38 - 29, but a more detailed analysis shows that the 'raw numbers' appear to be biased slightly (on the order of 1-2%) towards Obama...his areas are marginally more likely to have reported than hers.

We may know more on March 29, should any results from the County/SD caucuses be released.

New Iowa Results: (in terms of delegates to the State Convention, changes are with respect to my earlier estimates)

Obama 1299 (+333)
Clinton 802 (+45)
Edwards 388 (-389)
Uncommitted 11 (+11)

Of the defecting Edwards delegates, Obama appeared to pick up over 85% of them.  (Or, more likely, he got somewhat less than that and there was a net Clinton -> Obama defection).

Edwards is still viable, if barely, with 15.52% of the statewide total.  If only 8 of his supporters defect / don't show up, he will lose statewide viability---which I expect will happen.  He has already lost viability in CDs 1 & 4.

Net effect on delegates:
Statewide: Obama gains 2 from Edwards (1 At-Large, 1 Pledged PLEO)

CD 1: Edwards loses viability, Obama gains both Edwards' delegates.

CD 2: Obama gains a single delegate from Edwards (Edwards is at 18.7%, comfortably viable for now).

CD 3: Obama gains a single delegate from Edwards (Edwards at 18.2%)

CD 4: Edwards loses viability, Obama gains both his delegates.

CD 5: Clinton had held a narrow lead here...but Obama is able to take the lead thanks to the defection of Edwards supporters.  As a result, Obama gains one delegate from Clinton.  Edwards is unaffected, remaining just barely over viability (15.4%---if he loses 2 delegates here, he loses viability).


In total:
Obama 25 (+9)
Clinton 14 (-1)
Edwards 6 (-8)


What can we expect from here on out?

District Conventions are held April 26 (post-PA).  These choose the first delegates to the National Convention out of Iowa (the CD ones only, not the At-Large ones).  Edwards will fail to meet viability in CDs 1 & 4, will most likely fail to do so in CD 5, and may have some trouble in the other two CDs (personally, I expect that, of those delegates who were going to defect, most would have done so by now, so Edwards won't lose more than a percent or two between now & the final tally---though that can be a critical percent).

On June 14, the State Convention is held, choosing Iowa's 16 At-Large delegates.  Edwards will probably lose viability...though don't discount the possibility of Clinton supporters defecting to Edwards strategically in order to keep Obama's delegate count down (or prevent Edwards supporters from defecting to Obama if such a move is expected---even if there is no net defection, Obama would be expected to gain Edwards' one pledged PLEO delegate).  Similarly, in CD 5, Obama supporters may defect to Edwards strategically, as, if Edwards loses viability there, Clinton gets his delegate.

Due to the possibility of these strategic defections, I'll keep Edwards' total at 6 in my count, even though one might normally expect him to fail to reach viability in CD 5 and At-Large (dropping his count to 2 delegates).

As it's now appearing clear that the MI/FL delegations are going to be restored in some fashion, I'm including the states' superdelegates under the 'superdelegates in states yet to vote' section, giving Clinton a +10 advantage there.  I'm also removing the 'Total Including MI/FL' line.  The old MI & FL results will remain listed for reference until plans for revotes are finalized.

Where are the conventions being held? That might make a difference. If you live in southern Iowa and the district 5 convention is being held in Sioux City (largest city in the district), is it worth it to make the drive to vote for Edwards?

True enough.  Unfortunately, the Iowa Democratic Party website only gives the date, April 26.  Locations are "Across the State."

makes it sound like there are many, which makes it seem as if more people are likely to show up.  but if Edwards only needs 8 out of several hundred defections/absentees he is going to lose viability.

The "loss of 8 delegates for viability" line is for the State Convention (to be held June 14).  There is only one meeting place (in Des Moines).  However, it's well-announced ahead of time, and there are only 2500 delegates in total---generally, these should be pretty committed party activists (they had to campaign for their seat, after all).  So we should probably be more concerned about defections than no-shows (although, as you said, given that he only needs to lose 8 out of nearly 400, no-shows are a concern as well).

Edwards is thus in risk of losing viability---what will determine whether he does or not is likely the Clinton camp, who, if they're smart, lend him some support to make sure he makes viability.  Yes, this means Clinton loses a delegate to Edwards, but Obama loses two delegates, which makes it worth it.  Whether the Clinton camp will be savvy enough to pull it off (or there are enough Edwards supporters by June 14 to make viability a possibility / enough Edwards supporters willing to play along), is something that remains to be seen.

Florida is not holding a revote, after all, it seems.

This means the only possible determiner of the final delegation is that January 29th primary.

The final decision is going to be up to the DNC Rules & Bylaws committee, which meets again next Month.

Personally, I'd bet that half of Florida's delegation (each delegate gets a half vote, not only half get seated) will count (the Bill Nelson plan), with superdelegates either completely unaffected, equally affected, or completely stripped of their positions (the latter is only fair, but quite unlikely).

Florida's Original Delegate Count:
Clinton: 105
Obama: 67
Edwards: 13
Clinton-Super: 8
Obama-Super: 4
Uncommitted-Super: 14

What effect would different seating plans have on the delegate margin:

(Across, % elected delegates seated, Down, % superdelegates seated.  'Reasonable' scenarios in bold)

	0	.5	1
0	0	19	38
.5	2	21	41
1	4	23	43

Clinton has a lot to gain here, and Obama's going to fight it, understandably.  But I'd be surprised if Clinton didn't net at least 20 out of Florida.

And Edwards may start to be a factor again...with as many as 31 delegates if FL is fully counted, he's beginning to accumulate a moderately sizeable bloc.

Edwards is 4 delegates short of viability in CD 1.  Clinton supporters would be well advised to throw a few delegates' support to Edwards, shifting one Denver delegate from Obama to Edwards.

The same could theoretically be done in CD 4...however, there Edwards is a good 24 delegates short of viability (he only has 53 at the moment), so it's rather unlikely it can be pulled off.

In CD 2, Edwards is a good 21 delegates above viability, and in CD 3 16 delegates above viability.  If these should slip, Clinton should help him out in CD 3...whereas Obama, in CD 2, should probably bet on convincing Edwards' delegates to defect to Obama (if he gets more than 2/3 of them, he can make the split 5-2).


If this sort of behavior happens in each district and statewide, the final total would be:

Obama 23
Clinton 14
Edwards 8

If, instead, Edwards pretty much folds everywhere, Clinton & Obama can be expected to split Edwards' 6 delegates (he gains statewide & in CD 3, she gains in CDs 2 & 5), making the final count...

Obama 28
Clinton 17

Click on the quote if you'd like more details on Michigan's March 29 District Conventions (which will choose those 'Uncommitted' Delegates).

Executive Summary:
At all parts in the process, Uncommitted delegates are chosen by Party members who claim to support Uncommitted.  This means they will need to explicitly deny being Clinton supporters in order to have a say in the process.
Clinton has the right of review of her delegates (while Uncommitted, obviously, does not) so Obama supporters cannot pull shenanigans with her delegates.
Of the 55 Uncommitted Delegates, 36 are by District.  Of these, Obama is guaranteed (barring extremely good organization by the Clinton camp) at least 30.  A few of the other 6 (all in the Detroit area) may go to Clinton if she has decently good organization.

The remaining 19 are At-Large delegates, chosen at the State Central Committee.  If it is dominated by Clinton supporters, Clinton may grab a significant chunk of these (if enough of them claim to be 'Uncommitted'), though the voting is proportional, so it is unlikely that she'll steal all of them.

I really doubt the current slate will be seated. What'll likely happen if Michigan doesn't revote is the DNC goes back to its plan of half of Florida's delegates seated and seating Michigan's 50/50.

Probably true.  But then the Democrats in Michigan would have to hold these District Conventions all over again, so just 'seating them 50/50' is not as easy as it sounds.

In any event, barring a resolution / revote agreement in the next week, these District Conventions will be happening and the MDP (and Clinton) will be doing its utmost to seat that delegation, so it's worth reporting on (if only to see what Clinton's 'best case scenario' is).

Couldn't the Clinton and Obama campaigns just propose a list of delegates?

Anyone notice now that Obama now leads in pledged delegates including Florida and Michigan?

Kind of puts an end to that BS point J. J. has copy and pasted about 893 times and the whole superdelegates overturning the vote issue.

That may change once Pennsylvania and all the other remaining states roll in though.

Obama will gain pledged delegates from Michigan once the uncomitted are seated, not that that delegation will even remotely reflect the will of the state still but that was always obvious and why J. J.'s argument was always invalid and never going to be taken seriously by the DNC (if it included just Florida maybe, but not Michigan.)

Yes, but generally it's accepted practice in the Democratic party to have some sort of selection procedure in which party members (usually those supporting that candidate) can choose between delegates.  It may violate party rules (not to mention pissing off your own supporters in a state) to just say "here are my delegates, you will seat them."

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).

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.

This is a very very good point. People keep saying "Obama blew this, Obama screwed up here...", they keep leaving out the countless Hillary screwups and it's impossible to deny that Obama has plain and simple ran the better campaign. The same also applies to the "Obama needs to do this to get the nomination" talking points, the ball is in his court undoubtedly at this point. It's quite stupid to continue to assume Hillary is the nominee by default now.

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 (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=73014.0) as to the possibility (or lack thereof) of Clinton regaining the pledged delegate lead.  (mainly saving this for my own reference).

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

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.

"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)

So, isn't it time to do some calculations on the remaining states? Some of my guesses on the states where complex district knowledge seems less required..:

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. 

Indiana: Based on BRTD's reasonings, which seems sensible and assumes a 10-point Clinton victory, she goes +3 in district delegates and another 3 on at-large ones. So, +6 in total. Unless someone else steps in with more info, I'm not gonna change this one. :P

North Carolina: Seems like a racially polarized, close state. I'm gonna make it a wash right now, till I have more info.

West Virginia: All districts are even-numbered. As is the at-large count. So if Clinton wins somewhere in the 60s she'll win the at-large 6-4 (possibly 7-3) and probably get all of the districts 4-2. I'm guessing Clinton +8.

Kentucky: Closed. Southern. White. Rural. Yeah, not going to be nice for Obama at all. I'd expect Clinton to take the at-large delegates 12-5. Arbitrarily I'll guess the district one break in a similar fashion, Clinton +11. Total gives Clinton +18.

Oregon: Alcon? Anyway, closed primary while Washington was an open caucus. So I'd expect Clinton to do a lot better than she did in Washington. Which she lost bya 2-1 margin. So...I'd expect the at-large ones to split about 10-8 for Obama. Possibly 11-7. I'll just throw a random guess and triple that for the districts until someone enlightens me on the district break-down. So Obama +8 in total.

South Dakota: Obama +2 among the at-large and +3 among the district ones (It's a closed primary so I doubt he breaks two thirds of the vote, but I'm assuming he can break 58%) Obama +5.

Montana: At large will probably split 4-2 for Obama. If we assume each half ends up as an Obama win with between 50% and 70% that gives him 3-2 wins in each. So, overall that's +4 Obama.

Puerto Rico: Closed. Hispanic. Likely to be ugly for Obama but hard to tell how ugly. No fancy stuff, simlpe allocation  by percentage. Given the previous results in the Hispanic vote (and keeping that Dominican result in mind) I'm gonna randomly put Clinton at 60% here. That makes it 33-22 and Clinton +11.

So total from those would be +34 for Clinton.

Actually my initial projections are incorrect because they were based off the raw delegate numbers for Indiana and not the actual numbers that'll be used because of the delegate bonus deal. With the bonus, only one district exists with an odd number of delegates, 6. Hillary will win that one. 3, 4 and 5 are all 4 delegates, the rest are 6. So the issue becomes if Obama can hold Hillary below 58.333% in all of the rural districts and break that number in the Indianapolis one.


Unlikely to be a wash with the polling numbers. Also the delegate allocations benefit Obama, simply because he's stronger in most of the districts with odd numbers of delegates.



I did one earlier debunking J. J. Here's it in a nutshell:

CD 1 - Obama wins 4-3. It contains some blue collar areas but they only make up 20% of the vote. The bulk of the district is part of Portland and affluent Portland suburbia.
CD 2 - Obama wins 3-2. This district is a lot like Idaho and the west, it's a primary unlike those, but the largest city where most of the Democrats live (Bend) favors Obama. Hillary can only win here if the Hispanics actually vote (and they hardly ever do.)
CD 3 - The main Portland district. Obama wins 6-3. 7-2 might even be doable.
CD 4 - Obama wins 4-3. Hillary can't win a district that contains Eugene.
CD 5 - Hillary's best chance for a win probably, but it's also 6 delegates. She can't win it by enough to get more than 3-3 (especially since it contains Corvallis).


In South Dakota, a closed primary might actually benefit Obama, when you consider the type of people who are actually Democrats and the people who voted for both Bush and Daschle.


It's not closed. It'd be impossible to be closed actually considering the Democratic party doesn't even officially exist in Puerto Rico.

Remember, 20% of Puerto Ricans are black or mullatto.

For the record I came pretty close in Mississippi. The only mistake I made was calling all the districts for Obama, Hillary narrowly took one.

By law, all conventions (this included the precinct conventions) are open to the press. 

I received an e-mail from the chairman Texas Democratic Party - apparently because I registered to get access to the precinct caucus results.  It says in part:


I do not know which "one campaign" made the suggestion.  But even if they go through the formal credentials process, it could make for a pretty ugly scene at a one-day convention with a lot of amateurs involved.

Texas law permits delegates present at 2nd tier convention to cast all votes for their precinct.  So if a precinct were entitled to 18 county delegates and 6 showed up at the county convention, each would cast 3 votes.  The Democrats apportioned one delegate for every 15 votes in the 2006 gubernatorial election so there are huge numbers of potential delegates (88,000) so there is the potential for stacking the conventions, at least for procedural matters.

However, the state convention delegates are selected by election precinct(s) based on the sign ups on election night, with one delegate for every 180 votes in 2006.  There may be some effects due to differential turnout on election night, since precincts will be combined at the county convention.

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

Oh, I agree. I just don't know where to start in calling the districts there.

As for the points BRTD raised:

1. Ok, so Indiana is somewhat in the air again.
2. I understand that it may not be likely. But until I see an analysis I'm not gonna call delegates for anyone. North Carolina is the only state where I'm really unsure about the winner as well.
3. Well, you're analysis of Oregon seems to yield the exact same results I had on pure guesswork. :)
4. You're entitled to your opinion, but I think Western indpendents and Republicans is a very ugly electorate for Clinton and is part of the reason why she did so badly in those Western states. Before you start looking it up, yeah, Obama has landslided some closed Western states previously. I still think it's a factor meaning SD will not be another Idaho.
5. It says closed on the site. But I've no idea what it means, considering they have their own parties, so I guess you're right. Not that there's likely to be many Republicans in Puerto Rico even if they had American parties. :P As for the mulatto thing, I didn't know. But are these fostered in the same traditions as African-Americans, with those voting patterns?
6. I don't think your predictions were that bad. But you, as did many others, apparently underestimated white turnout/percentage for Clinton. 

Here's basically what I was thinking:

CD 9: 2-1 Hillary
CDs 5, 10, 16, 17, 19: All split except 10, 3-1 Hillary
CDs 3, 4, 11, 12, 15, 18: All 3-2 Hillary
CD 6: 3-3 split
CDs 1, 7, 8, 13, 14: All 4-3 Obama except 14 (4-3 Hillary)
CD 2: 7-2 Obama (few Hispanics or Reagan Democrats, Obama wins Center City whites easily.)

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).

Well looking at them:

5 - Very unlikely, it's got Penn State.
16 - Well maybe but as Rob has pointed out Lancaster County Democrats, while fairly rare, do appear to be more liberal than the state average. Also the part of Chester should favor Obama.
17 - Possible, but this is also probably the blackest rural district outside the south.
19 - I suppose this depends on if there are enough Democrats in the affluent parts of the York area.

Thanks to the discussion here (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=73163.0), shifted one delegate to Obama in MS.  Late returns from Hinds County gave him an extra pledged PLEO.

Obama'08 ResultsCenter(Pledged Dels)+AP(Superdelegates)

Obama  1418+215=1633
Hillary  1251+250=1501

The MI 55 uncommitted delegates.  What are the minimums that each candidate can get?

Which candidate will the remaining 21 uncommitted members of the US Senate back ?

Barbara Boxer - CA (won by Clinton)
Ken Salazar - CO (won by Obama)
Joe Biden - DE (won by Obama)
Tom Carper - DE (won by Obama)
Daniel Akaka - HI (won by Obama)
Tom Harkin - IA (won by Obama)
Mary Landrieu - LA (won by Obama)
Ben Cardin - MD (won by Obama)
Carl Levin - MI ("won" by Clinton)
Amy Klobuchar - MN (won by Obama)
Max Baucus - MT (TBD)
Jon Tester - MT (TBD)
Harry Reid - NV (state won by Clinton)
Frank Lautenberg - NJ (won by Clinton)
Jeff Bingaman - NM (won by Clinton)
Sherrod Brown - OH (won by Clinton)
Ron Wyden - OR (TBD)
Jack Reed - RI (won by Clinton)
Jim Webb - VA (won by Obama)
Robert Byrd - WV (TBD)
Herb Kohl - WI (won by Obama)

.....

So far for Obama (13):

Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.)
Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.)
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.)
Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.)
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)
Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.)
Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.)
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.)
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.)
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.)
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.)
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.)

So far for Clinton (13):

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.)
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.)
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)
Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.)
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.)
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.)
Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.)
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.)
Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.)
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich)
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.)

Feingold has already endorsed Obama.

Changed

Isn't Landrieu for Clinton?

I thought Evan Bayh was too.

Source ?


Yes, he endorsed Clinton. He is included in the Clinton column.

lol, I'm just mad dumb.

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.

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).

I's expect a net gain of 10-12 in district delegates, conservatively.  Obama has four districts, max, where he can get a majority.  Liberally, Obama could have a 25 seat loss in the district seats, but that is unlikely.

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

I disagree with the use of the Washington primary to claim that the various biases of counting the primary votes of caucuses cancel themselves out. You have a perfectly fine model with Texas where both the primary and the caucuses counted. Use that.

Some people get to double-vote?

What's with the obtuse response? I'm saying that Texas is irreplaceable when it comes to any analysis of the difference in results between primary and caucuses.

I didn't mean to be obtuse.  I was asking an honest question.

I'm objecting to the idea that it's "perfectly fine" because it artificially inflates the vote total in given states.  That's not to say any system is perfectly fine, but there is nothing "perfect" about that.

I'm not advocating double counting anything.

Counting both the primary and caucus would essentially be doing that, especially in Texas, no?

Or, more specifically, giving one voter twice the representation as in another state.

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.

Oh, yikes.

Zoom, right over my head.

Sorry.

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 see a figure of a million reported at several places. So, in order not to penalize states that hold caucuses instead of primaries, taking the popular vote of the primaries that mattered and then adding in all caucuses except that of Texas with Obama's and Clinton's extrapolated caucus-goer vote multiplied by about 2.4 and 3.3 respectively would be close to my idea of a fair count.

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).

Political aspects aside I would say that the point is that the winner of the pledged delegates is not necessarily the "choice of the the people" in any meaningful way. Which could allow for the super delegates to overrule the pledged delegates result. But Clinton needs to spin more in order to get there, I suspect.

Well let's look at the "Pelosi Club":

Nancy Pelosi - Outrighted dismissed the idea of the "popular vote" in an interview, saying "This is a delegate race."
Christine Pelosi - No quote, but I have a tough time seeing her going against her mother on this.
Roy Romer - unknown
Tom Daschle - Promised to support the winner of delegates in a debate with Rendell representing the Obama camp on MSNBC. When asked about the popular vote though he also dismissed it, saying the delegates are the ones that vote and decide.
Maria Cantwell - Said "most delegates and most states won", but it's pretty clear Obama will be the leader in both. Also seems to reject the "popular vote"


Betty Richie - DNC member married to the chairman of the Texas Democratic Party. Here's an interview segment with them:


Zoe Lofgren - Probably the trickiest one, since her quote is saying that she'd support who is ahead in "delegates and the popular vote". No sign as to which takes precedence if they differ. Of course, Lofgren is also personally an Obama supporter, so it's not much of a question who she would vote for.

So no one appears to consider the "popular vote" of more importance (and for the record none of them appear to consider Florida and Michigan as counting either, regardless of what J. J. thinks.)

I'm going to project all the remaining add-on delegates:

AL - 1. Chosen, Obama supporter.
AK - 1. Safe Obama (chosen at overwhelmingly pro-Obama convention.)
AR - 1. Chosen, Hillary supporter.
AZ - 1. Chose, undecided.
CA - 5. Tossup. Likely to split actually.
CO - 1. Safe Obama (chosen at overwhelmingly pro-Obama convention.)
CT - 1. Chosen, Obama supporter.
DC - 2. Chosen, both backing Obama.
DE - 1. Chosen, Obama supporter.
GA - 2. Toss up. Might split.
HI - 1. Lean Obama. Chosen by the State Party Committee, but it's tough to see them bucking Obama, especially in light of the state results.
IA - 1. Safe Obama. He has a majority at the convention now.
ID - 1. Safe Obama. Seriously now.
IL - 3. Chosen, all for Obama.
IN - 1. Tossup. Chosen at another convention.
KS - 1. Safe Obama. Obvious.
KY - 1. Tossup. Chosen by state party chair, and who knows, he might give it to Obama despite the state results.
LA - 1. Chosen, uncommitted.
MA - 2. Tossup. The establishment in this state seems to be more pro-Obama than the voters (oddly.) Split is possible.
MD - 2. Chosen, one for Obama, one for Hillary.
ME - 1. Safe Obama. Another one elected at a convention he has in the bag.
MN - 2. Safe Obama. :)
MO - 1. Chosen, one Obama supporter, one undecided.
MS - 1. Safe Obama. Mississippi holds caucuses too even though presidential preference is not an issue at them and they don't affect the delegate numbers. But even if one isn't required to state a presidential preference that's not necessary in Mississippi, you can tell by skin color and the convention is obviously going to be pro-Obama.
MT - 1. Tossup. Obama seems to own the state party though.
NC - 2. Tossup. There's a convention but I don't know how the delegates are chosen.
ND - 1. Chosen, Obama supporter.
NE - 1. Safe Obama.
NH - 1. Chosen, Hillary supporter.
NJ - 2. Chosen, both for Hillary.
NM - 1. Chosen, uncommitted.
NV - 1. Lean Hillary. County conventions are finally done, and Hillary has a majority of state convention delegates even though Obama will pick up more national convention delegates from those. But it's a narrow lead, and who knows, possible defections plus no shows...
NY - 4. Chosen, Hillary supporters.
OH - 2. Tossup.
OK - 1. Chosen, former Edwards supporter now backing Obama.
OR - 1. Tossup, but how is that convention chosen? That might change things...;
PA - 3. Lean Hillary, but who knows, maybe they'll throw a token Obama supporter in.
PR - 1. Tossup.
RI - 1. Tossup.
SC - 1. Chosen, Obama supporter.
SD - 1. Lean Obama. Close to safe. Obama owns the state party here lock, stock and barrel. Anyone else got the impression Tom Daschle has some sort of personal vendetta against the Clintons?
TN - 2. Chosen, one uncommitted, one "leaning" Hillary.
TX - 3. Lean Obama. Chosen at pro-Obama state convention, the lean is only there if Hillary can pull some major hijinks at the convention, unlikely but who knows...
UT - 1. Tossup. Another state I know little about in this area.
VA - 2. Safe Obama. Virginia has caucuses too but the delegate allocation is directly tied to the primary results, so you'll end up with a state convention electing the superdelegates dominated by Obama supporters.
VT - 1. Lean Obama. Close to safe.
WA - 2. Lean Obama. The only reason this is lean is because they're chosen by the state chair and confirmed by the convention, and the state chair is still undecided, but seeing him try to force two Hillary delegates down the convention's throat is very unlikely (especially since if he was that die-hard of a Hillary supporter he wouldn't be undeclared.)
WI - 2. Lean Obama. Chosen by the state party committee, but this is a state where the establishment strongly backs Obama.
WV - 1. Tossup. Another state where the establishment supports Obama more than the voters.
WY - 1. Safe Obama. Another convention chosen one.

That equals:

12 Safe or declared Hillary
6 Lean Hillary
21 Tossup or undecided
10 Lean Obama
27 Safe or declared Obama

So Hillary's best case scenario seems to be around 40, which is 53% of the total, pretty bleak considering she needs around 71% of remaining superdelegates and over 60% of all superdelegates...in addition a 50/50 split of the tossup/undecideds gives her less than 37%.

It appears with some research that the NH add-on is elected by a committee of convention delegates who are elected by the local Democratic parties at local meetings. So basically activists in a caucus type setting. It's easy to see who that benefits. For that reason I'm moving NH to Lean Obama.

We'll see in the next four weeks. 

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.

I left a message with them earlier today to find out.

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?

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...

He got 13.11% in CD 2

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.

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.

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.

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 (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=72759.msg1492231#msg1492231)

(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 (http://www.michigandersforobama.com/).  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 (http://www.michiganliberal.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=11942), better source when available.)
Joe Zainea (Obama)
Rillastine Wilkins (Obama)

CD 3 Delegates: (Media Source (http://blog.mlive.com/grpress/2008/04/democratic_delegates_selected.html))
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 (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MI_PRIMARY_SCRAMBLE_MICHIGAN_MIOL-?SITE=MIPON&SECTION=STATE&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT))
Griffin Rivers (Obama)
Irene Cahill (Obama) [Teamsters]

CD 9 Delegates: (Party Website (http://www.9thdistrictdems.org/), Media Source (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080419/NEWS15/80419021))
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 (http://www.michiganliberal.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=11942), better source when available.)
Mike Siegrist (Obama) [MFO]
Marian Novak (Obama) [Teamsters]

CD 12 Delegates:  (Forum Post (http://www.michiganliberal.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=11942), 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 (http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080419/POLITICS01/804190422))

"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.

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 (http://blog.mlive.com/grpress/2008/04/robinson.JPG)

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.

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.

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.

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.

Reports indicate that all three delegates in MI-12 have endorsed Obama.  As these are very sketchy reports, I'll keep them as Uncommitted for now.

Democrats Abroad Results were released today:

22 delegates (Each overseas delegate to the convention gets half a vote)

Obama: 6.5 votes (13 delegates)

Clinton: 3.5 votes (7 delegates)

2 superdelegates are still undecided.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/21/dems-abroad-slate-ready-for-denver/

Pennsylvania Primary

Closed Primary
187 Delegates
--103 by CD
--55 At-Large
--29 Unpledged

Voting will take place from 7 AM to 8 PM EDT.  This is a closed primary, so only registered Democrats can vote (though there are anecdotal reports of significant registration, even of Republicans, in the last few months).

Bonus delegates:  
For going so late in the season, Pennsylvania has received a 5% bonus in delegates, giving them 5 more district delegates and 2 more at-large delegates (these are incorporated into the totals below).

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

At-Large delegates:
35 At-Large
20 Pledged PLEOs

Unpledged Delegates: (15 Clinton - 5 Obama - 9 Uncommitted)
13 DNC members
11 Representatives
1 Senator
1 Governor
3 'Add-Ons' (selected June 7 by the State Democratic Committee)

(Note that Ed Rendell is both Governor and a former DNC chair---this does not mean, however, that he gets two votes at the convention).

So, no surprise changes at the Vancouver Convention.

Looking over what they have vs. my projections from February, the differences are:

CD 1:
I messed up in Valley County, and thought Clinton had achieved viability--in fact, she was one vote shy of it.  So, a swing of one delegate to Obama from Clinton.

The pdf has no results available for Lewis County.  Clinton won Lewis County, so she should have one delegate out of here.

Clinton still meets viability, with 15.8% of delegates.

CD 2:

The pdf has no results for Lincoln County, which Obama won---so he should have an additional delegate there.

In Blaine County, my results (and, mind you, the official caucus results on the ID Dem website, as well) had Clinton failing to meet viability by 2 votes, but she apparently won 2 delegates here.

In Power County, my results had her getting 21.8% of the two-way vote, not enough to win one of this county's two delegates.  However, she apparently did win one.  (No, there isn't a rule stating that you have to get a delegate if you made viability, as in Iowa---compare Fremont County, where she won 21.3% of the vote and did not get one of Fremont's two delegates).


If we trust their results for Blaine & Power Counties, and give the one delegate from Lincoln County to Obama, the final result for CD 2 is:

Obama 158
Clinton 28

Clinton has viability by 1 delegate, having 15.05% of delegates.  If I were Obama, I'd challenge the result in Power County---there's no way Clinton should have a delegate there.

In any event, more likely than not, one of the Clinton delegates won't show up and she'll fail to meet viability in CD 2.

If two Clinton delegates fail to show up, she loses viability statewide.



Although I'm extremely skeptical about the Power & Blaine County results, I can't go against a physical list of delegates.  Clinton regains viability in CD 2 and statewide, gaining two delegates from Obama.

New Result: 15 - 3 Obama.

Upon a closer inspection of the Idaho Delegate Selection Plan:

There is a period of recaucusing in Idaho, as in Iowa---voters supporting candidates that failed to meet viability may recaucus.  In Blaine County, Clinton was 2 votes short of viability, but there were 7 Edwards supporters and 28 'Uncommitted' supporters---if more than 15% of these went for Clinton upon recaucusing, she may have been able to gain viability.

"The allocation of National Delegates shall be determined by totaling the votes of all presidential preferences (and uncommitted status, if applicable) that are at or above the 15 percent threshold following the final recaucus for each county, and allocating the available delegates proportionately among them."


Power County is still inexplicable---there were 0 Edwards & 2 Uncommitted supporters.  Even if both of them recaucused to Clinton, she still shouldn't have gotten a delegate.


If we accept the Blaine result, Clinton should have statewide viability.  Only through shenanigans in Power County does she get viability in CD 2.

And, upon even closer reading, all of the discussion about viability is a bit moot, perhaps?

"Idaho is a caucus/convention state. Accordingly, delegate and alternate positions shall be allocated so as to fairly reflect the expressed presidential preference or uncommitted status of the caucus participants in each district. Therefore, the national convention delegates elected at the district level shall be allocated in proportion to the percentage of the caucus vote won in that district by each preference, except that preferences falling below a 15% threshold shall not be awarded any delegates or alternates.  Percentages shall be determined at the County caucus level. (Rule 12.B.)  See Section III.A.2 and 3 for further details."

Even if Clinton doesn't have 15% of the delegates in Boise, she still broke 15% of the popular vote in each district & statewide, so I believe that entitles her to three delegates anyway, if I'm reading this correctly.

I read it as that's the case for the congressional districts but not the state convention. So she's guaranteed her 2 delegates from the districts, but not her state one if too many of her delegates don't  show up/switch.

You're right.

"a. At-large delegate and alternate positions shall be allocated among presidential preferences according to...the division of preferences among convention participants...
b. Preferences which have not attained a 15% threshold on a state-wide basis shall not be entitled to any at-large delegates."

But, as it stands right now, given that Clinton met viability in Blaine after recaucusing, she should have viability statewide.  Of course, if three Clinton delegates fail to show up, she loses viability (or, if Obama challenges the Power County results [which appears unlikely as there's only a 10-day window to do so which has probably already passed], she loses statewide viability if one person fails to show up).

So, barring no-shows or defections (which can't be counted on), Clinton should pick up 3 delegates here.

Updated with (very) tentative PA results.

Obama's lead drops by 24, but much of that is due to the introduction of PA's superdelegates into the official count.

The next event of note are the Iowa Congressional District Conventions, to be held this Saturday, April 26.

Iowa, the first state in the Union to vote this year, will finally choose the first of its delegates to Denver this Saturday.

The main question to be answered at these conventions is "What happens to Edwards' support?"  He did place second statewide in January, though much of his support eroded (almost exclusively to Obama) at last month's County Conventions.  Right now, he still has enough support to retain 6 delegates (3 At-Large and 3 CD), but can he hold onto them? Or, will Clinton and/or Obama supporters vote for Edwards tactically to ensure he meets viability and depriving the other candidate of delegates---making Edwards' support increase?

My original discussion on these conventions can be found here (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=70003.msg1489666#msg1489666) and here (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=70003.msg1491890#msg1491890), earlier in this thread.

In more recent news....it appears that Clinton has learned her lesson from the embarassing County Conventions (where Edwards lost more than half of his support, all to Obama---even causing a loss of one Clinton delegate in CD 5), and is making a serious play for Edwards supporters.

Source (http://iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2247)

There are five conventions throughout the state, in Dubuque, Mount Vernon, West Des Moines, Boone, and Council Bluffs.  Registration begins at 8 AM, and the Conventions themselves begin at 9 AM Central.

Would an Edwards endorsement for either side do anything?

Someone said Elizabeth Edwards is campaigning with Clinton, and even that could swing Edwards delegates a bit.

I will look at it again when I get home from work and have more time, but I believe the delegate split is 83-75 for Clinton (if she holds onto the small lead in PA-7)

It's 84-74 if she wins PA-7; 83-75 if she loses it.

Depending on the source the numbers seem to change, Philly.com has PA-1 5-2 and Pa-2 7-2, meanwhile green papers has them 4-3 & 6-3.  Philly.com has much larger vote totals in those districts that green papers, meanwhile in PA-12 Philly.com has it 4-1, and Greenpapers has it 3-2 with higher vote totals on green papers. 

5-2, 7-2 and 4-1 are the results from those districts.

Thats what I thought.   Philly.com seems to be more accurate than green papers, PA-10 is another district with stark differences.  PA-10 is another district with large differences between the two (in the vote total)   Philly.com has seemed to be more accurate so far, so if they are right that might be one to look at.   As of now according to Philly.com she has a 3-1 lead in the district, but barley has that.  She has 62.69% of the vote with 20% of the precincts remaining, if she dips below 62.5%, its 2-2.

I had 64.5% with 30% remaining, so I don't know. I thought it was unlikely that Clinton would fall below 62.5% then, but if she's that close with 20% remaining, it all depends on what's not reporting. So Clinton could theoretically end up with only 6 net delegates from PA if she falls below the threshold in PA-10 and Obama ends up winning PA-7.

Well PA-10 just updated again and Clinton is up to 66% with 93% in, so its pretty much going to stay at 3-1.   Pa-7 is still up in the air though.

Inspired by a suggestion in another thread:

Would the race be significantly different if delegates were simply assigned proportionally statewide?  (No district delegates, no pledged PLEOs, just At-Large delegates taking their place):

The answer: Obama's the one who's actually, on net, been getting the short end of the stick.

Excluding TX & IA from consideration (due to strange caucus systems), his pledged delegat lead would be 28 delegates larger under a simpler proportional system.

Map of where each candidate has benefited from the current system:

()

(Grey represents Not Yet Voted / No Advantage / TX / IA / FL / MI)

Obama has gotten an advantage out of the system in OH & PA, yes, but Clinton made equally large gains in places like NY & AL, and others---and the net effect is for Clinton.

Today's Saturday, which means it's Convention Day!

New Mexico chooses one Add-On today at the State Central Committee meeting.

New Hampshire has its State Convention today, where 1 Add-On will be selected by open ballot by majority vote, by the District-level delegates.  As these were split 6-6-2 Clinton-Obama-Edwards, this should be a fun vote (though, more likely than not, it will be determined by no-shows).

Iowa, as mentioned previously, is having its Congressional District Conventions today, finally picking the first of its delegates to Denver.  Reports (http://iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2251) from the last few days indicate that the sort of tactical voting I predicted may be happening---Clinton may be lending support to Edwards to allow him to reach viability in CDs 1 and 4 (good job, Clinton campaign!).  In CDs 2, 3, and 5, Edwards appears to have viability, though it is closest in CD 5.  Obama would be well-advised to help Edwards out in CD 5 if he looks shaky.

Conventions began at 9 AM Central, with certain conventions allowing stragglers through to 11 AM, so we likely won't know results for a few hours yet.

It looks like the Edwards folks stuck together, and the Clinton camp was able to vote tactically to make him reach viability in CD 1.  In CD 4 (where the required margin was higher), there was no such luck and Edwards failed to reach viability.

Net effect of this on the delegate count:

Obama loses one, Edwards gains one, due to tactical voting.

Good job Clinton campaign.  Shame you lost 10 delegates here last month, though...

New Hampshire chose Hillary supporter Kathy Sullivan. Arizona chose Attorney General Terry Goddard, who is still undecided. Obama did pick up a superdelegate though, the vacant party co-chair position went to one of his supporters, Charlene Fernandez.

With today's endorsement by William George (D-PA) for Clinton, Clinton now has more superdelegate endorsements in the states that have already voted than there are uncommitted superdelegates remaining (240 - 238).

Colorado    Obama 35 Clinton 20/Obama 36 Clinton 19
American Samoa    Clinton 2 Obama 1/Clinton 1.5 Obama1.5
Louisiana    Obama 34 Clinton 22/Obama 33 Clinton 23
Democrats Abroad    Obama 4.5 Clinton 2.5/Obama 5 Clinton 2

California    Clinton 204 Obama 166
Ohio    Clinton 74 Obama 67

Colorado has a long caucus/convention process, in which the final allocation of delegates will not be clear until May 17.  The last good estimate I had had Obama 35 - Clinton 20.  The Green Papers now estimates 36-19, based on results from the County Conventions (which I was never able to find, myself), so I will change my results.

American Samoa:  Although I've seen sources say Clinton 2 - Obama 1, that should not be the final result, and I suspect all reports to that effect are people who don't understand the half-delegate concept.  Ditto with Democrats Abroad.

Louisiana:  Earlier reports had indicated 34 - 22, but 33 - 23 appears to be correct.  If you can find a source contradicting that, let me know.

California: You appear to be right on this count...it appears that Clinton broke 62.5% in CD 51, after all, and gained a delegate from Obama here.

Ohio:  The discrepancy, yet again, appears to be over that pesky CD 1 (a point raised earlier in this thread).  Last I checked, Obama still didn't have enough to make the margin 3 - 1...but it now appears, on the strength of late-arriving absentee ballots, that Obama has broken 62.5%.


Thanks for the corrections, xzcyhj...if you can find a source for your LA numbers, let me know.

If the Democrats had allocated delegates in the same manner as the Republicans (with some states winner-takes-all, etc.), how would the race look now?

[Some of these are estimates, MI/FL are dealt with in the Republican manner (penalized by half), many delegates listed for a candidate would still be officially unpledged (the At-Large NY & IL delegations, for example)]

Surprisingly, Clinton isn't in the lead:

Obama: 987
Clinton: 945
Edwards: 9
Yet to Vote: 237
Superdelegates: 126

To Win: 1153.

Note that Obama's lead is entirely due to his razor-thin margins of victory in Connecticut and Missouri, which bagged him 79 delegates.

Assuming a similar breakdown of superdelegates as the current Democratic lineup (not necessarily a good assumption:  superdelegates are spread evenly, usually 3 per state, so small states are overrepresented in the Republican system):

After Puerto Rico (assuming Clinton doesn't break 2/3rds there), one would expect:

Obama 1155
Clinton 1095
Edwards 9
Uncommitted 45

...due to the lower number of Superdelegates, Obama is able to clinch the nomination on the last day of primaries.

I assume you apportioned the delegates by state using Democratic formulas and not Republican ones?

Using Republican formulas as if they were for the Democrats (i.e. giving California a huge bonus for voting for Kerry, giving Massachusetts 2 bonus delegates for having two Democratic Senators, etc.).

Ah, ok, that's more or less what I meant. I would have thought this to boost Clinton substantially since she's won most of the Democratic states, I thought? (NJ, CA, NY) while most Obama states are GOP strongholds? But if memory serves me Republicans don't "bonus" their own states as much?

Just FYI, according to the AP, the final PA total was Clinton 85-73, according to the unofficial 100% report from the state on the CDs.

The only change I noted from our first round-up is that CD11 is 4-1 Clinton, instead of 3-2 Clinton, as was mentioned earlier.  She held onto CD-07 by about 1,600 votes.  And even though it doesn't matter because it's 3-3, Obama won CD-06 by about 35 votes.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hUPSXLSf9BMjfyPSCc2sdK8RtV8QD90DP66G0

It's Saturday, so it's Convention Day!

Guam chooses its 8 half-delegates to the Convention today.  Incomplete results suggest Clinton and Obama will split them evenly, 4-4.

South Carolina and Louisiana have their State Conventions today, each choosing 1 'Add-On.'  South Carolina has chosen (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i7qdo43mtqGM0LGp45uX2TO6e8JQD90E8JGO0) Inez Tenenbaum, an Obama supporter, as their Add-On.

Colorado's 6th Congressional District is having its Convention today, choosing 5 delegates to the National Convention.  5 are to be chosen...it is expected that 3 will be for Obama and 2 for Clinton.

LA numbers   Obama 33 Clinton23

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/LA-D.phtml
http://www.lademo.org/

I was wondering how many super delegates have gone "the wrong way" i.e. against the votes of their constituents?

Henry, Richardson, Bingaman, Casey, Napolitano, Kerry, Kennedy and Patrick all come to mind as Obama supporters who "should" be for Clinton. Chandler will join this group.

On Clinton's side, I've thought of Nutter. Easley will become one, I'm sure. Does anyone have access to a list or something? I thought it could be interesting. 

...which confirms what I already had.  Thanks.

Nutter isn't a superdelegate.

American Samoa  C/O 1.5-1.5->2-1  GP changed it

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/AS-D.phtml

Ah, my bad. But surely there is bound to be some supers going for Clinton while their voters went Obama?

On what basis did they change it?

Until I see a good reason why it isn't 1.5-1.5 (or an actual list of delegates with support listed for each), I will not be changing AS to 2-1.

As for the Clinton supporters in Obama districts...the vast majority of black Congressmen who have endorsed Hillary would fall under that category, I'd assume.

Only 6 Senators/Governors/Representatives in primary states have endorsed Clinton despite both their district and their state voting for Obama:
Gov. Ruth Ann Minner (D-DE)
Gov. Martin O'Malley (D-MD)
Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Tammy Baldwin (WI-2)
Emanuel Cleaver (MO-5)
Dutch Ruppersberger (MD-2)

Half of these were from Maryland...

Plenty of Representatives had Clinton lose their district but win the state, or vice versa, but they can claim an out that way...or were from caucus states, which might not be seen as truly democratic.

I don't see any caucus state (other than maybe Maine), where Hillary would've won a primary.

With the new Illinois add-ons selected, the current superdelegate count (over all states) is:

Clinton 268.5
Uncommitted 267.5
Obama 260

Hillary has now won more superdelegates than there are remaining, across all states.

An analysis of how many of these superdelegates Hillary will actually have to win will be forthcoming after we have a good idea of the delegate numbers out of IN & NC tonight.

I'm assuming you're including Pelosi and co. in Obama's column then?

I actually calculated a Hillary lead of 7.5 among superdelegates with them thrown in.

A difference of one from what I have...it's entirely possible that I missed one Obama delegate somewhere (I do a thorough check once every couple weeks, which will catch any serious mistakes I made).

Indiana

'Open' Primary
85 Delegates
--47 by CD
--25 At-Large
--13 Unpledged

Polls close at 6 PM local---meaning mainly 6 PM EDT, though with a few on the Illinois border closing at 7 PM EDT.  Therefore, we likely won't get any results reported until 7 PM, though we should get a good influx of results right after 7 PM.

This is an Open Primary---anyone may decide to vote in the Democratic Primary if they choose, and are considered to be Democrats once they vote.  However, other voters may 'challenge' them if they believe they are not adherents of the party, filling out an affadavit to the effect that they have not voted in Democratic primaries in the past.  If the challengee agrees to fill out a counter-affadavit, asserting that they intend to vote for 'a majority of the candidates of the Democratic Party in the next General Election,' they are permitted to vote in the Primary.

CD Breakdown:
4 for CDs: 3, 4, 5
5 for CDs: 6
6 for CDs: 1, 2, 7, 8, 9

At-Large Breakdown:
16 At-Large
9 Pledged PLEOs

Unpledged Breakdown:
5 DNC Members
1 Senator
5 Representatives
1 Distinguished Party Leader (Joe Andrew)
1 'Add-On' (selected June 21, State Convention)
 
Indiana received a 10% bonus to its delegates for holding a May primary.

North Carolina

Half-Open Primary
134 Delegates
--77 by CD
--38 At-Large
--19 Unpledged

Polls close throughout most of the state at 7:30 PM EDT.  Certain counties may have decided not to close until 8:30 PM EDT, but it is quite likely that the media will begin to report results at 7:30 (as few places utilize the 8:30 closing option).

CD Breakdown:
4 for CDs: 3
5 for CDs: 5, 6, 8, 10
6 for CDs: 1, 2, 7, 9, 11
7 for CDs: 12, 13
9 for CDs: 4

At-Large Breakdown:
26 At-Large
12 Pledged PLEOs

Unpledged Breakdown:
9 DNC Members
7 Representatives
1 Governor
2 'Add-Ons' (selected at June 21 State Convention)

Preliminary IN & NC results added.

Looks like Obama 66-49 in NC, Clinton 38-34 in IN.


Total Delegate Counts (including all superdelegates):

Obama 1852
Clinton 1694.5

How does Clinton win, from here?

First, she needs to do well in the remaining contests.  Let's assume (for the sake of argument) that Clinton gets big wins (2/3 of the vote) in WV, KY, and PR, and suffers narrow losses in OR, MT, and SD.  She'll pick up 128 delegates to Obama's 89, narrowing the gap by 39 delegates.

On June 3 (neglecting any superdelegate endorsements between now and then), the delegate count would then be:

Obama: 1941
Clinton: 1822.5
Uncommitted: 266.5
Edwards: 19

Remember, 2025 is the magic number...so Obama would only need 84 of the Uncommitted or Edwards delegates to win.

Clinton would need 70.9% of remaining Superdelegates (I include the 19 Edwards supporters in this number) in order to win the nomination.

If things break her way in MI/FL, this becomes easier. 
Under a 'Half-Nelson' plan (delegation seated but with half-votes), she'd only need 63.9% of the superdelegates.
If the delegations are fully seated, but with MI Uncommitted voting for Obama, she'd need only  58.0% of the superdelegates.
If the delegations are fully seated, and with 30 of the MI Uncommitted remaining truly Uncommitted, she'd need only 50.5% of the superdelegates (including the 30 MI Uncommitted as superdelegates).

We'll learn more about MI/FL at the end of the month.

Is Hillary completely out?  No, a win is not mathematically impossible for her.  But, barring any major scandal that would force the remaining superdelegates in her favor by a 7-3 margin, she won't be able to pull it off.

With today's wave of endorsements, Obama is now ahead of Clinton in total superdelegate endorsements, and only one half-delegate behind Clinton in superdelegates from states already voted.

Clinton now needs 74.3% of remaining superdelegates to win, barring a resolution in her favor in MI & FL, which is up about 4% from just after IN/NC.

Something worth noting: I'm currently projecting Hillary to win 19 of West Virginia's 28 delegates. That's about 68%...less than what Hillary needs here. Hillary will actually be FURTHER behind after West Virginia.

The current numbers are already assuming a "good scenario" for Hillary in the remaining states, to wit:

WV: 19 - 9
KY: 33 - 18
OR: 25 - 27
SD: 7 - 8
MT: 7 - 9
PR: 37 - 18.

So nothing will change about the number listed in the thread title if she does win 19 - 9.

Of all delegates (pledged and unpledged) remaining, she needs to win 66.8%, so a 19 - 9 win actually keeps her on track there.  But considering her likely losses in OR/SD/MT, she won't win   more than 59% of the remaining pledged delegates...hence the higher 76.3% of remaining unpledged/Edwards delegates that she has to win.

Those Oregon numbers are more than slightly optimistic for her. So is Puerto Rico (where 24/55 delegates are allocated from 4 delegate districts.)

I'm assuming she gets around 2/3 of the vote in PR, so she gets those 3 - 1.

It's overly optimistic, but it's intended to be.  This is meant to be a best case scenario number.

Colorado Congressional District Conventions.

Over three weeks, Colorado has been holding its Congressional District Conventions.

On May 3, CD 6 held its.
Obama 3 - Clinton 2 [as expected]

On May 10, CDs 1, 2, and 7 held theirs.

CD 7:
Obama 3 - Clinton 2 [as expected]

CDs 1 & 2 have not yet reported results.

On May 16, CDs 3, 4, and 5 will hold theirs.

On May 17, the State Convention will pick the At-Large & Pledged PLEO delegates to the National Convention.

If anyone (from Colorado or otherwise) knows the results from the CD 1 or CD 2 conventions, please let me know.

West Virginia: May 13, 2008

Half-Open Primary
39 Delegates
--18 by CD
--10 At-Large
--11 Unpledged

Polls close at 7:30 PM EDT.

CD Delegates:
Each of the three CDs has 6 delegates.

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

Unpledged Delegates:
4 DNC Members
2 Senators
2 Representatives
1 Governor
1? Distinguished Party Leader (Byrd may accidentally be counted twice)
1 'Add-On' (selected June 13/14 by State Democratic Executive Committee)

And my first post is now abutting 10000 characters.  Hopefully after May 17 I can cut down on some of the bloat.

So, not much wiggle-room in WV, right? The districts must be very likely to all split 4-2 if current poll numbers hold, whereas the at-large ones should 6-4. It seems to me that Obama will hope to get a 3-3 in one of the districts while Clinton will hope for a 7-3 at-large split.

At-Large Breakdown (by Clinton two-way %age in state)

50%: 6 - 4
64.2%: 7 - 3
78.6%: 8 - 2
83.3%: 9 - 1
85%: 10 - 0

In each CD:
41.7%: 3 - 3
58.3%: 4 - 2
75%: 5 - 1
85%: 6 - 0

So, really the question is whether Clinton breaks 64.2% statewide or not (with subsidiary questions of whether Clinton can break 75% in a CD or Obama 42% in a CD).

Clinton in the upper 60's should give a 19 - 9 breakdown, as BRTD & I predict.

Basically. WV-2 is Obama's best shot at 3-3. Maybe Hillary can pull off 5-1 in WV-3.

More on the Colorado Conventions:

Obama won 4 out of 6 delegates in both CO-1 and CO-2.

Projections for CDs 3, 4, and 5:

CD 3:
Obama 3 - Clinton 2.   
This is pretty much the guaranteed result.

CD 4:
Obama 3 - Clinton 2.
Obama's sitting on 3.36 delegate-equivalents right now---if there's a significant swing to him or many Clinton no-shows, he may pick up another delegate here.

CD 5:
Obama 3 - Clinton 1.
Pretty much the guaranteed result.

Statewide (convention on May 17),
Obama should win the PLEO delegation 5 - 2, but he's on a knifeedge there...if he loses any support, it may slip to 4 - 3.
At-Large is pretty securely 8 - 4 Obama.

AP is reporting that provisional ballots have given Obama two "uncalled" pledged delegates in Ohio.  I'm not sure whether you have that in your numbers, Erc.

Everyone see the pledged delegate that switched from Clinton to Obama?
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Delegates_pledged_and_un.html#comments

One in the Cincinnati area switched over a few weeks ago (CD 1 I believe)...I haven't heard anything else recently.   All the official results I can find seem to agree with my current numbers.

With Edwards' endorsement of Obama, I'm going to switch his 19 delegates to Obama's column (as 'superdelegates').  They are, of course, free to vote their own conscience, but I will be assuming they vote for Obama unless I hear a statement from any of the delegates to the contrary.

This also probably makes it much less likely that Edwards will pick up those last 3 delegates in Iowa on June 14.

Ah. I was wondering about the jump in the no.s

On second thought, I've decided to reverse my earlier decision, and keep Edwards' delegates as uncommitted unless they say otherwise.  They really are superdelegates, at this point---and there's good reason to keep the scenarios I list optimistic for Clinton (to see what possible justification she has for staying in the race).  I may not update the main page for a few hours yet, though.

Edwards' Delegates:

New Hampshire:

District Level Delegate: Joshua Denton, (Portsmouth):  Endorsed Obama
District Level Delegate: Deborah Bacon-Nelson (Hanover)
Pledged Leader Elected Official: Senator Peter Hoe Burling (Cornish)
At-large Delegate: Representative Sharon Nordgren (Hanover)

Bacon-Nelson and Nordgren have decided to "wait a little longer before making an announcement on who they'd support."  Burling could not be reached by the AP.

South Carolina:

Robert Groce:  Endorsed Obama
Marilyn Hemingway:  Endorsed Obama
E Tim Moore
Christine Brennan-Bond: Endorsed Obama
Lauren Bilton: Endorsed Obama
Daniel Boan: Endorsed Obama
Michael Evatt: Endorsed Obama
Susan Smith: Endorsed Obama

Iowa:
4 CD-level delegates have already been chosen:

Machelle Crum:  Endorsed Obama
Marci Wolff
Arlene Prather-Kane:  Endorsed Obama
David Redlawsk

Edwards still has enough support in Iowa to pick up 3 At-Large delegates in Iowa (to be chosen on June 14th).  However, the co-chair of Edwards' Iowa campaign has made it clear they won't be going for them now that Edwards has made an endorsement:


I will operate under the assumption that Edwards delegates do line up behind Edwards and Tully, and support Obama at the state convention.  This gives Obama all of Edwards' delegates in the state.

Florida:
Edwards' 13 district-level delegates were chosen on March 1st.  Edwards, who got only 14.4% of the vote in Florida, did not receive any At-Large delegates.  Of course, none of these delegates have votes currently, but they may prove a factor if Florida is partially or completely restored.  At least 8 of these delegates (though it is unclear which 8) will be supporting Obama.

Bill Vincent [CD 1]
E. Alan Brock [CD 2]: Endorsed Obama
Mary Mooney [CD 2]
Deborah Courtney [CD 4]
Fred K. McDowell [CD 5]
Debbie Boyd [CD 6]
Joseph Beutenmuller [CD 7]
Justin M. Troller [CD 12]
Rita Ferrandino [CD 13]
Sally Gene Frederick [CD 14]
Barry Randall Birdwell [CD 15]:  remaining Uncommitted.
Linda Spisak [CD 16]: Endorsed Obama
Gregory M. Shimkaveg [CD 24]

Summary of what I've done with Edwards' delegates:

1 of 4 NH delegates to Obama (Denton has endorsed).
6 of 8 SC delegates to Obama (reports indicate).
3 At-Large Iowa delegates to Obama (Edwards' co-chair in Iowa expects to rally Edwards delegates for Obama).
0 of 13 FL delegates to Obama [I have no information out of the state].

Final results in NC-13 have Obama with 64.35% of the two-candidate vote and thus splitting the delegates 5-2 rather than 4-3, gaining a delegate from initial reports.

http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/NC/1875/4207/en/reports.html (Select Dem, All, CD13)

I was wondering about the whites in that district. Kind of a tough one to gauge, but looks like they are more affluent than I figured.

CNN confirms that 6 of 8 SC delegates, plus Machelle Crum of Iowa, have endorsed Obama.

Link (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/16/edwards-delegates-in-south-carolina-move-to-obama/)

One of Edwards' 13 FL delegates, Linda Spisak, has endorsed Obama:

Link (http://www.palmbeachpost.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/palmbeach/floridapolitics/entries/2008/05/15/edwards_delegate_to_support_ob.html)

I'm going to have less convenient access to computers over the next week and a half.

Updates of delegate numbers will continue through next Tuesday night (but don't expect regular updates of the percentage figures--the 84.9% number will be there for a while).

For approximately a week after KY/OR, there likely won't be any updates period.

It's Saturday, so it's Convention Day!

And my, what a Convention day it is.

Colorado is holding its State Convention today, the final leg in its long caucus process that began on February 5th.  The convention will be deciding the allocation of Colorado's 7 Pledged PLEO delegates, 12 At-Large delegates, and 1 'Add-On.'

The Pledged PLEOs are expected to break down 5 - 2 for Obama, but this is the race to watch...it may yet be 4 - 3 Obama.  The At-Large delegates are pretty safely 8 - 4 Obama, and the Add-On is at this point guaranteed to be for Obama.

Also expect soon announced results from the Congressional District Conventions held yesterday in CDs 3, 4, and 5.

Kansas is holding its State Convention today, selecting 7 At-Large, 4 Pledged PLEO, and 1 Add-On delegate.  These are expected to go 5 - 2, 3 - 1 and presumably 1 - 0 in favor of Obama.

Washington is finally selecting the first of its delegates to Denver at its Congressional District Conventions.  This should clear up most of any mystery remaining regarding the Washington delegation.

Michigan was originally scheduled to have its State Central Committee meeting on May 17th.  This would have picked the At-Large delegation based on the results of the primary---most importantly for our purposes, they would have picked the Uncommitted delegation.  However, due to the uncertain fate of the Michigan delegation, the State Central Committee meeting has been moved to June 14th, after an expected resolution of the MI/FL delegate issue around May 31.

Nevada has the first day of its State Convention today.  Delegates (both CD, At-Large, and Add-On) should be chosen tomorrow.

Given that a compromise on MI/FL is looking increasingly likely (the current leading plan appears to be halve Florida's delegation and divide MI 69 - 59 for Clinton), I've decided to change the 'Magic Number' to correspond with that division of MI/FL delegates.

Not that this improves Clinton's chances all that much---she still needs to win 77% of remaining superdelegates (compared to the 86% in her worst-case scenario).

The Obama campaign apparently dominated the Nevada convention, with 55% of state-level delegates who showed up supporting him. That means he managed to break the even split of the statewide delegates in his favor and probably also got the add-on (no confirmation on that yet):

http://blogs.rgj.com/inside-nevada-politics/

Nevada splits 14-11 Obama (instead of the original 13-12).

How does this even happen? Does this mean that many people who agreed to be delegates for Hillary and were elected as such just decided not to go?

Possibly. It may simply be that many of Clinton's delegates switched over and voted for Obama. It has been months since they were selected at the Nevada caucuses, after all, and Obama now looks inevitable.

Theoretically, state-level delegates are pledged. But, unlike with delegates to the national convention, delegates to the state conventions simply can't be vetted very much because there are so many of them (over 2,500 in Nevada). So a lot of those selected as Clinton state delegates were probably soft Clinton supporters who have since changed allegiances. After all, Obama trailed significantly in the national polls at the time of Nevada; he now leads substantially nationally. A lot of opinions have changed in his favor.

Also, apparently the add-on will be selected tomorrow. The convention stretches for the whole weekend.

Thanks for the explanation.

I really think this whole method is just insane. The whole thing is like a bunch of different levels of electoral college. It's 2008. I think we should either go by the popular vote or make the various levels of representation automatic after the actual initial voting.

The thing is that some caucus states don't have concrete evaluations on who turned out for who. Just delegate allocations.

I'm hoping this part will change, but if it doesn't or can't then I would say make it automatic based on the initial delegate allocations out of election night. Basically, I think we should take out of the process the possibility of the "faithless elector" so to speak, or the delegate who can't show up because it's a long drive and Obama is going to win anyway, etc.

Any word from Washington? I've been having trouble finding results, but I'll keep asking around.

I haven't found anything out of Washington or Colorado [state or CDs 3/4/5]...or, for that matter, official word out of Kansas as to their final delegate count.

My view is that we'd probably have heard something reported in the news had anything unexpected happened...but the lack of any news is unfortunate.

From the language I've seen thrown around regarding Washington, it seems nobody expected anything to happen...the 1st CD dems had been saying a month ago, for example: "The 1st Congressional district will elect exactly 6 delegates and those will be allocated 4 for Obama and 2 for Clinton.
     The Obama delegates will be in one room voting for their 2 men and 2 women, and the Clinton delegates will be in another room voting for their one man and one woman."

Yea, I doubt anything very unexpected happened either. However, Saturday was a gorgeous day (best weather we may have all year) and there may be some discouraged Hillary supporters who were inclined to stay home... probably not en masse though, they're pretty dedicated at this point. And the usual caucus oddities could occur.

I've e-mailed someone I know in the local party who should be able to give final numbers, if they don't let me down...

Alaska's last two uncommitted superdelegates came out for Obama today.  Makes AK supers 3-1 in favor of Obama.

Reference:  http://community.adn.com/adn/node/123614 (http://community.adn.com/adn/node/123614)

With the endorsement of the two AK DNC members, we've reached a few notable milestones in the % superdelegates numbers...

If everything goes horribly for Clinton in MI/FL (neither delegation seated), Clinton would need over 90% of remaining superdelegates.

If everything goes as expected for Clinton in MI/FL (Half-Nelson in FL, 10-delegate lead in MI), Clinton would need over 80% of remaining superdelegates.

If everything goes in Clinton's favor in MI/FL (delegation completely restored and At-Large delegation remains Uncommitted), Clinton would need over two-thirds of remaining superdelegates.

What does "pledged" superdelegate really mean?  Can a "pledged" superdelegate change their mind? How often is that happening? 

My understanding is that a "pledged" superdelegate means that the delegate has publicly committed to vote at the convention for a particular candidate.  But, if a "pledged" superdelegate determined there was sufficient cause (would vary by individual) and they were willing to live with the criticism, they could change their vote and vote differently than their "pledge." 

Are there "rules" on pledging and changing ones commitment?

I've never heard someone talk about a "pledged superdelgate." Anyway, all delegates can vote for whomever they want at the convention. A so called "pledged" or "elected" delegate is merely breaking his/her promise if voting for someone else. Superdelegates have more political leeway to change their minds if they choose since they are supposed to be making up their own minds (by whatever standard) in the first place.

Are you counting Michigan's uncommitted delegates as undeclared superdelegates?  Many of them have already endorsed and Clinton's own campaign admits that Obama will get at least a huge slice of them.

Is it practically possible to "coup" the convention? I don't really know much about DNC rules. Is the ballot secret, for instance? Is it just one vote and when it's done, it's done?

If one candidate gets over 50%, yes, it would be done.  The ballot is done by state ("and state is proud to give number delegates to male Senator and number delegates to female Senator"), but I'm sure the gossip would be intense and the faithless delegates would be quickly exposed.

Only 36 of the Uncommitted delegates have been chosen (the ones by CD).  The rest are currently slated to be chosen on the 14th of June.  Of those 36, 15 were vetted by Michiganders for Obama, an additional 10 have endorsed Obama, and 11 were on union-backed slates who were uncommitted as of April 19.  Some of those 11 may have since endorsed, but there's little information out there.  I do have most of their names (look earlier in this thread for details).

The remaining 19 At-Large have not yet been chosen, and are currently scheduled to be selected on June 14th.

In most of my counts involving MI/FL, I've counted the 30 Uncommitted who haven't endorsed for Obama, except in my Scenario IV, where I count them as Uncommitted superdelegates.

Two additional Edwards delegates in NH have endorsed Obama, leaving only 4 Edwards delegates who haven't endorsed: 2 in Iowa, and 1 each in NH & SC (plus 6 in FL).

Today is Saturday, so it's Convention day!

Alaska is holding its State Convention today, where all of Alaska's delegates (8, 3, and 2 At-Large, plus 1 'Add-On') will be chosen.  The pledged delegates are expected to break down 9 - 4 for Obama, though it's quite possible that Obama could gain a delegate here if he gains support (as in Nevada last Saturday).  The most likely pickup is the second Pledged PLEO delegate (Pledged PLEOs are expected to be 1 - 1, but Clinton is only holding onto her delegate by a knifedge).

Wyoming is holding its State Convention today.  They will choose Wyoming's 3 and 2 At-Large delegates (its 7 "District" delegates have already been selected).  They will also choose 1 'Add-On.'

Georgia will be having its State Central Committee meeting, where 2 unpledged 'Add-Ons' will be chosen.

Vermont will have its State Convention today, but all the results were pre-ordained by the March 4th results.  Vermont's 'Add-On' will not be chosen until June 7.

DemConWatch is reporting that Obama managed 77% at the Alaska convention, enough to sweep the pledged PLEOs 2-0. Not yet confirmed.

Confirmed by Green Papers.

Something of a milestone today:

It is now mathematically impossible for Clinton to win the nomination if nothing goes in her favor regarding the seating of MI/FL.

Assuming good results for Clinton in the remaining 3 states:
PR: 37 - 18 Clinton
SD: 8 - 7 Obama
MT: 9 - 7 Obama

The 32 pledged delegates Obama picks up in those states pushes him over the top, to 2025.5 delegates, given today's endorsement by Gail Rasmussen.

Even in a more reasonable scenario (halving of MI/FL delegation), she'd still need to win 88 - 90% of the remaining supers, and in her best case scenario, over 70% of remaining supers.

An update given new information from DCW...

The male in CD 10 is Ken Pechette, who is Uncommitted and not for Obama, as I had assumed.

In CD 12, Jennifer Miller is confirmed by DCW as having endorsed Obama.

In CD 13, the delegates are:
Tim Killeen
Cecilia Walker
John Henry Davis

In CD 14, we still don't know the names of three of the delegates, but one of them is Dan Geb, a Teamster for Obama.

Net result of this new information: Obama +1 (to 26) among the Michigan Uncommitted delegation.

It doesn't make sense that in your scenario II.V, the number of Michigan delegates aren't also chopped in half, like Florida.

Well, it wasn't clear at the time I came up with the scenario that it would be chopped in half.  New results given the new ruling are imminent.

As I mentioned in the other thread, take into account the resignation of Al Wynn. Minus one from Obama and one overall.

Although the media has reported that at least of 8 of the 13 Edwards delegates have endorsed Obama, there's been no official confirmation of this from the delegates themselves.

To be conservative, therefore, I'm switching 6 of the FL Edwards delegates back from Obama to Edwards.

After Puerto Rico, the situation stands thusly (including MT/SD superdelegates):

Obama 2080.5
Clinton 1914
Uncommitted 198
Yet to Vote 31
Edwards 9.5

The magic number after the MI/FL ruling is 2117...only 37 delegates away for Obama, now.

Obama will pick up at least 17 delegates in MT & SD, putting him only 20 delegates away, out of the over 200 remaining superdelegates / Edwards delegates.

South Dakota
Closed Primary
9 PM EDT Poll Closing
23 Delegates
--15 At-Large
--8 Unpledged

Polls close at 7 PM local everywhere in the state--i.e. 8 PM EDT in the eastern (CDT) half of the state, and 9 PM EDT in the western (MDT) half of the state.

At-Large Delegates:
--9 by "District"
--4 At-Large
--2 Pledged PLEO

Unpledged Delegates:
--4 DNC Members (3 Obama, 1 Uncommitted)
--1 Representative (Herseth-Sandlin, for Obama)
--1 Senator (Johnson, for Obama)
--1 Distinguished Party Leader (Daschle, for Obama)
--1 'Add-On' (selected by State Party Central Committee, June 21)


Montana
Open Primary
10 PM EDT Poll Closing
25 Delegates
--10 District
--6 At-Large
--9 Unpledged

District Delegates:
The 10 District delegates are chosen by the "old" CD boundaries from the 1980 census (when MT had two CDs), 5 delegates each.  One roughly corresponds to the eastern half of the state, the other to the western.

At-Large Delegates:
--4 At-Large
--2 Pledged PLEOs

Unpledged Delegates:
--5 DNC Members (3 Obama, 2 Uncommitted)
--2 Senators (both Uncommitted)
--1 Governor (Uncommitted)
--1 Add-On (selected at the State Convention, June 8)

There is an official proscription in MT party rules against endorsing a candidate before the election, hence the lack of endorsements now.  At least one DNC member officially listed as Uncommitted now withdrew her endorsement of Obama due to this rule.

Interesting; that might explain the Baucus window sign. It also will probably help Obama reach the magic number immediately after the election. (How did three DNC members get away with endorsing Obama already, then?)

Looking over the original story again, it may just be for party leaders in the state...the affected superdelegate was the vice chairwoman of the state party---while on the same day she retracted her endorsement, a national committeewoman from MT endorsed Obama.

Original Story (http://www.montanasnewsstation.com/global/story.asp?s=8130332)

So we can expect at least one (if not more) endorsements for Obama out of MT after Tuesday night.

So really, Obama likely already has all the delegates he needs (or more specifically will once SD and MT vote) and he'll release them all that night. And he might've already informed Hillary of this, hence her recent actions looking toward dropping out.

Maybe now we can put an end to J. J.'s "If this scenario with an approx. 0.52% of happening were to occur it would be a problem for Obama so he's in big trouble." posts.

In order to clinch tomorrow, Obama will need an additional 14 superdelegates.  That isn't an insignificant number for a one-day period, but it's not insurmountable either.

If he actually does have some in his back pocket, then it might be easier...but tomorrow evening might be an awkward time to do so.  (Remember, the polls don't close in Montana until 10 EDT, and pulling out his 10 Senators then is rubbing it in Clinton's face).

My bet is, there'll be around 7 endorsements tomorrow, a bit more than today, but not enough to clinch.  Hillary will make a speech that is all but a concession, and the major endorsements will come out on Wednesday, when he'll clinch.

Looking over what's being said, it does in fact look as if Obama will clinch tomorrow (or the Obama camp is lying for no good reason).

McCaskill's said she's talked to at least 10 uncommitteds who will be endorsing tomorrow.

14 (or whatever it happens to be for the media to count it as a clinch) is not a huge number, and, as long as it is the SD & MT pledged votes that puts him over the top, that's a pretty good way to go out.

Major differences that could exist between my count and the media's:

The "Pelosi Club"--the 6 delegates that said they would endorse the pledged delegate leader, but who haven't officially endorsed Obama yet.  Obama has already clinched a majority of pledged delegates, so they should by all rights be in Obama's camp, but they might not be considered so by the media.

Edwards delegates in Florida: MSNBC says 9 of these have switched to Obama, I only say 2 of them have switched.  There's also a concern that the Florida Edwards delegates may have to be rechosen as a result of Saturday's ruling, it's not clear yet.  As a result, DCW doesn't even count the 2 that have endorsed for Obama, due to the possibility of such an occurrence.

Edwards delegates in Iowa:  Edwards has enough support to get 3 pledged delegates At-Large in Iowa.  However, as he has dropped out of the race and is encouraging his supporters to throw their weight to Obama on June 14, I have given these 3 delegates to Obama (even if a large number still support Clinton or fail to show, Obama will still get at least two of these, anyway).

That Pledged Delegate in Maryland: I consider him to have switched (by adjusting the superdelegate counts up one for Obama and down one for Clinton, not by switching a pledged delegate).  The campaigns and the media sources may not.  The pledged delegate in DC appears to have switched back, so I won't count him.

I'm going to be conservative here and agree with the media and DCW that I probably shouldn't automatically give the Pelosi Club to Obama.  The rest, though, I'm convinced of and will not be changing.

The Pelosi club are probably going to be declaring for Obama tommorow.

I'm using DemConWatch for my superdelegate figures, as always.

They are now reporting that over 10 superdelegates are ready to endorse this evening or early tomorrow:

Jimmy Carter [GA] ("after the polls close this evening")
Jerry McNerney [CA] ("this evening")
Ralph Dawson [NY] (listed by Clyburn)
Ken Salazar [CO] ("today or tomorrow")
Bill Ritter [CO] ("today or tomorrow")
Brian Schweitzer ("today or tomorrow")
Jon Tester ("today or tomorrow")
Max Baucus ("today or tomorrow")
Margaret Campbell (discussed earlier in this thread)

plus the last SC Edwards delegate, Tim Moore, also mentioned by Clyburn.

These, plus the additional 5 Pelosi Club delegates, and the 17 delegates Obama will pick up from SD/MT tonight, ensure that Obama has now mathematically clinched the nomination.

Congratulations, Sen. Obama.

I'll continue to update the OP with endorsements today and give some further announcements at further "clinching milestones" for Obama.

The same website says 27 delegates left with 2,117 being the magic number.  Am I missing something, here.

Yea, what are the two you have that DWC doesn't?

MSNBC is down to 23.5 while CNN is still at 30.

There are a number of differences between DCW & my count, mainly in the pledged delegate count.

The largest part of the 2.5-delegate difference is likely due to our different treatments of Edwards' At-Large delegates in Iowa.  I've awarded them to Obama (as Edwards supporters in Iowa have made it clear they're voting for Obama) but, since they haven't technically been chosen yet, other sources may list them as still being for Edwards.  I find that to be a poor decision on their part--it's clear at this point that Edwards won't be making viability in Iowa, and even should a fair fraction of them caucus for Clinton, Obama is guaranteed at least 2 of those 3 delegates, and I currently project him to receive all 3.

The other two differences are minor:

In American Samoa, I have a 1.5 - 1.5 delegate split, while the Green Papers has a 2 - 1 split for Clinton.  By all rights, it should be 1.5 - 1.5, so I don't know why the Green Papers is getting their figure.

In D.C., I am not recognizing the pledged delegate switch by Jack Evans from Clinton to Obama, as he retracted his statement 2-3 days after making it.  The Green Papers links to his retraction, but apparently doesn't factor it into their count.


Net Differences:
Iowa Edwards At-Large:  Obama +3
American Samoa: Obama +.5
DC Pledged: Obama -1

Total: Obama +2.5

With the rollout of Edwards pledged delegate endorsements, Obama now only needs 14.5 delegates to clinch the nomination.

Given that he will not be blown away in both states tonight, Obama will certainly get 14.5 delegates in the remaining states.

As a result, Obama is now guaranteed the nomination.  The "% Superdelegates needed for Clinton to win" figure that I've been keeping track of for a while is now over 100%, both for the status quo and even if the 69 - 59 ruling in MI is successfully appealed.

Clinton can no longer win, barring a complete overturning of the MI/FL ruling from Saturday that fully seats both MI & FL.

For the purposes of being conservative (though I feel like an idiot doing so), I'm moving one of Edwards' At-Large delegates from Obama to Clinton.

Obama's now only 11.5 delegates away from clinching...if he's not careful and tells his supporters to slow down, he may clinch before the polls close.

With Clinton now beginning to flake off supers, it appears that 292.5 will be her high point in that count.

The 7 delegates Obama will pick up from South Dakota exactly gives him the number of delegates necessary to clinch the nomination.

Congratulations, Sen. Obama.

This was a wonderful thread. Good work, Erc. What should I give as your contact information to the hiring departments of the news networks?

:)

For the sake of the diehard Clinton enthusiasts / J.J....

Even if Michigan and Florida had been fully seated, with Michigan 74 - 55, Obama would now only be 2.5 delegates away from clinching the nomination, a gap that he'll make up within the hour.

(And you'd have to be insane to think that the credentials committee would let in an Uncommitted delegation from Michigan that isn't overwhelmingly for Obama).

Thanks so much for making this thread Erc. I know it must have been a lot of work, but it's been so helpful.

Erc, you are the man.

In the last ten minutes, Obama's pulled in about another 12 superdelegates, shutting out the last vain hopes of a Clinton recovery.

This has been a great process, folks.  (Certainly a wonderful distraction from physics, which I'm sure my advisor is grateful for ;) ).  When I started looking at the delegate selection process a couple weeks before Iowa, most people (myself included) figured it would be a waste of time.  For once, it wasn't. 

But thank goodness for the country that it did end tonight...that this campaign, already one of the closest and most divisive in history, finished on the last day of the season (fittingly enough, with a victory for each candidate)--and did not drag on into a pointless summer battle into the Convention.

Historians and political scientists are going to have a field day with this one in the years to come...but for us political junkies, it's time to move on to the next election, the one in November.  (How boring it's going to be, with only one election day!  Don't some of you pine for the days when Maine voted a month early?)  I may return to this thread once or twice before the end of the season (at the very least, for the Iowa and Texas conventions), but there will certainly be no more superdelegate updates.

Hey what kind of physics do you do? I'm in physics too. I stopped at my Master's though and went into industry.

Great job!

And too bad that this ended so quickly. I wanted a Denver battle. ;)

()

;)

Why must Sweden be so phallic? It's even more phallic than Florida. I liked the shape of the Swedish Empire better.

Add Finland to the map and its even worse!

Eesh; you're right. What about with the Baltic states?

()

()

?

Texas held its state convention this past weekend.  A minor amount of flaking from the Clinton to the Obama camp (plus Texas' local superdelegates and a few other factors) means that Obama did, indeed get 99 delegates here, unlike the 98 I was earlier predicting.

Not, of course, that the delegates really matter at this point, but it's interesting to note the amount of "rallying around Obama" that occurs at these conventions.

Upcoming State Conventions (not including Primary states, where the delegate selection for each candidate is pre-ordained):

June 12:  Idaho
June 14:  Iowa, Michigan
June 13-15: Washington
June 20:  Nebraska

Iowa has postponed its state convention due to the flooding in the state.