CNN Interactive Delegate Counter

[True Democrat]

Kind of fun

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/29/delegate.counter/index.html

[exopolitician]

ooooooooo *plays with*

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Great link - that really helped out my blog post!

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Great link - that really helped out my blog post!

Those delegate numbers in Rhode Island are impossible with those percentages. Maybe also a bit too favorable to her in Ohio even with your numbers (which themselves I find unfeasible, but hey, it's your blog.)

Also not only are you not taking into account the disproportionment in Texas, you're adding the superdelegates in with the caucus, which is pointless because there's a completely different section for superdelegates. The Texas figures only include the primary and caucus.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Great link - that really helped out my blog post!

Those delegate numbers in Rhode Island are impossible with those percentages. Maybe also a bit too favorable to her in Ohio even with your numbers (which themselves I find unfeasible, but hey, it's your blog.)

Also not only are you not taking into account the disproportionment in Texas, you're adding the superdelegates in with the caucus, which is pointless because there's a completely different section for superdelegates. The Texas figures only include the primary and caucus.

I know - the way that they set up TX kinda made me angry.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I think you're missing the point.

You're including ALL delegates not elected by the primary in your Texas calculations assuming they split 50/50 and giving the number to Hillary. However the excess only includes the caucus, not the superdelegates (this isn't special to Texas either, but every state.) The superdelegates should not be included in the state totals.

[angus]

I get 2041 delegates for Obama and 1951 for Clinton.  That was just by pushing the tab over but not paying much attention.  Like, I think Clinton wins RI big.  Big push.  Obama wins Vermont big.  Big push.  Clintons wins Ohio handily.  Medium push.  They tie in Texas.  Click, but no push.  The only one I didn't have a guess about were the superdeletates.  I just left it at 182 to 182.  That's how it ended up 2041 to 1951. 

Some of them I just had to guess at.  For example, I haven't seen any Mississippi polls.  I just gave it a gnat's nod to the right on that one.  Obama 18 to Clinton 15 is how it landed.  Did anybody else make reasonable guesses and get a result? 

Also, with just a few tiny tweaks, I can make them tie, 1996 to 1996.  You know that'd be fun if it actually happened.  Good for TV news ratings.  And this forum would have lots to talk about.  I don't know how realistic that is, though.  The parties seem to get pissy when folks don't fall in line.  Republicans are especially bad about it (When's Huckabee going to drop out?) but Democrats can probably be just as bad.  But I created the tie by letting Clinton win all states except Vermont tomorrow, and if she does that, I can't imagine anyone telling her to drop out.

Brokered convention.  I still say that'd be wonderfully entertaining.  One can only hope.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I think you're missing the point.

You're including ALL delegates not elected by the primary in your Texas calculations assuming they split 50/50 and giving the number to Hillary. However the excess only includes the caucus, not the superdelegates (this isn't special to Texas either, but every state.) The superdelegates should not be included in the state totals.

The superdelegates have their own category - I assumed that they got split 50/50.  The point I was trying to make there was that Clinton HAD to at least do decently in TX and OH.

[Robespierre's Jaw]

YAY!

God I love being a political geek. Anybody else wouldn't have fun with a Delegate counter. They'd think it's kind of boring, not in my mind

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I think you're missing the point.

You're including ALL delegates not elected by the primary in your Texas calculations assuming they split 50/50 and giving the number to Hillary. However the excess only includes the caucus, not the superdelegates (this isn't special to Texas either, but every state.) The superdelegates should not be included in the state totals.

The superdelegates have their own category - I assumed that they got split 50/50.  The point I was trying to make there was that Clinton HAD to at least do decently in TX and OH.

*sigh*

You calculated Hillary's numbers in Texas assuming the non-primary delegates would all go 50/50. This includes the caucus AND the superdelegates. The superdelegates are in their own category, not the Texas category, so by including them in your Texas calculations, you completely skewed it. You should've used only the caucus numbers to be accurate. You basically counted Texas' superdelegates for Hillary twice.

[Ben.]

Prefer Slate's

LINK