The Delegate Fight: Obama Clinches!

[Erc]

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).

[Erc]

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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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?

[Erc]

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."

[© tweed]

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.

[Erc]

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.

[Erc]

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.

[Erc]

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

[Erc]

A long post on Michigan's process for selected the Uncommitted Slate.

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 spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

[Erc]

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).

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

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

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

[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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.)

[Erc]

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.

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

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."

[Erc]

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).

[The Hack Hater]

So if Hillary does well in May, it may end up coming down to the superdelegates.

[Erc]

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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

[Erc]

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 as to the possibility (or lack thereof) of Clinton regaining the pledged delegate lead.  (mainly saving this for my own reference).

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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).

Not that it matters as far as delegates are concerned but my Senate district convention that I'm a delegate to is also then.

[Erc]

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).

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

[Erc]

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.

[Erc]

"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)