The Delegate Fight: Obama Clinches!

[Flying Dog]

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

[Tender Branson]

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.

[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.

[Mr. Morden]

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.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

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

[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.

[Flying Dog]

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.

Definition of wishful thinking.

[Mr. Morden]

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".

[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.

[socaldem]

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.

[Erc]

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

WA: 52 - 26 Obama
TN: 40 - 28 Clinton Source
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.

[Erc]

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.

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.

[Flying Dog]

58-40 65% in.

[Mr. Morden]

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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

[Alcon]

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

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

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.

[Alcon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

3/5, last Wednesday.  What happened?

[Sam Spade]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

3/5, last Wednesday.  What happened?

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

[Nym90]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

3/5, last Wednesday.  What happened?

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

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

[Sam Spade]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

3/5, last Wednesday.  What happened?

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

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. 

[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.

[Erc]

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.

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.

[Erc]

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.