The Delegate Fight: Obama Clinches!

[Verily]

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

[Verily]

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.

[Verily]

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

Yes (although actually he had after yesterday).

[Verily]

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.

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.

[Verily]

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.

[Verily]

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.

[Verily]

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.

[Verily]

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.

[Verily]

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)

[Verily]

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).

[Verily]

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.

[Verily]

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.

[Verily]

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?)