The Delegate Fight: Obama Clinches!

[Gustaf]

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.

[Gustaf]

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?

[Gustaf]

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

[Gustaf]

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.

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.

[Gustaf]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Gustaf]

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.

[Gustaf]

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.

[Gustaf]

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.

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.

[Gustaf]

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

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

Here's the CD breakdown:

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

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. 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. 

[Gustaf]

Isn't Landrieu for Clinton?

[Gustaf]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

[Gustaf]

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?

[Gustaf]

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?

[Gustaf]

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. 

[Gustaf]

Nutter isn't a superdelegate.

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

[Gustaf]

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.

[Gustaf]

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?

[Gustaf]

Great job!

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