The Delegate Fight: Obama Clinches!

[Alcon]

I disagree with the use of the Washington primary to claim that the various biases of counting the primary votes of caucuses cancel themselves out. You have a perfectly fine model with Texas where both the primary and the caucuses counted. Use that.

Some people get to double-vote?

What's with the obtuse response? I'm saying that Texas is irreplaceable when it comes to any analysis of the difference in results between primary and caucuses.

I didn't mean to be obtuse.  I was asking an honest question.

I'm objecting to the idea that it's "perfectly fine" because it artificially inflates the vote total in given states.  That's not to say any system is perfectly fine, but there is nothing "perfect" about that.

[Angel of Death]

I'm not advocating double counting anything.

[Alcon]

I'm not advocating double counting anything.

Counting both the primary and caucus would essentially be doing that, especially in Texas, no?

Or, more specifically, giving one voter twice the representation as in another state.

[Angel of Death]

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.

[Erc]

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.

[Alcon]

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.

Oh, yikes.

Zoom, right over my head.

Sorry.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

[Angel of Death]

Unfortunately, I can't find any solid figures for the caucus turnout in Texas.

I see a figure of a million reported at several places. So, in order not to penalize states that hold caucuses instead of primaries, taking the popular vote of the primaries that mattered and then adding in all caucuses except that of Texas with Obama's and Clinton's extrapolated caucus-goer vote multiplied by about 2.4 and 3.3 respectively would be close to my idea of a fair count.

[Erc]

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.

I couldn't agree more.  If this was meant to be a popular vote contest, there would be a popular vote kept in all states.

But the Clinton campaign will try to spin it if they come back and win it, the Obama campaign might have already spun it, the media will try to spin it, and I believe at least one superdelegate has said he'll base his vote on it (with the differing definitions giving him some wiggle room, of course).

[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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Well let's look at the "Pelosi Club":

Nancy Pelosi - Outrighted dismissed the idea of the "popular vote" in an interview, saying "This is a delegate race."
Christine Pelosi - No quote, but I have a tough time seeing her going against her mother on this.
Roy Romer - unknown
Tom Daschle - Promised to support the winner of delegates in a debate with Rendell representing the Obama camp on MSNBC. When asked about the popular vote though he also dismissed it, saying the delegates are the ones that vote and decide.
Maria Cantwell - Said "most delegates and most states won", but it's pretty clear Obama will be the leader in both. Also seems to reject the "popular vote"

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Betty Richie - DNC member married to the chairman of the Texas Democratic Party. Here's an interview segment with them:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Zoe Lofgren - Probably the trickiest one, since her quote is saying that she'd support who is ahead in "delegates and the popular vote". No sign as to which takes precedence if they differ. Of course, Lofgren is also personally an Obama supporter, so it's not much of a question who she would vote for.

So no one appears to consider the "popular vote" of more importance (and for the record none of them appear to consider Florida and Michigan as counting either, regardless of what J. J. thinks.)

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'm going to project all the remaining add-on delegates:

AL - 1. Chosen, Obama supporter.
AK - 1. Safe Obama (chosen at overwhelmingly pro-Obama convention.)
AR - 1. Chosen, Hillary supporter.
AZ - 1. Chose, undecided.
CA - 5. Tossup. Likely to split actually.
CO - 1. Safe Obama (chosen at overwhelmingly pro-Obama convention.)
CT - 1. Chosen, Obama supporter.
DC - 2. Chosen, both backing Obama.
DE - 1. Chosen, Obama supporter.
GA - 2. Toss up. Might split.
HI - 1. Lean Obama. Chosen by the State Party Committee, but it's tough to see them bucking Obama, especially in light of the state results.
IA - 1. Safe Obama. He has a majority at the convention now.
ID - 1. Safe Obama. Seriously now.
IL - 3. Chosen, all for Obama.
IN - 1. Tossup. Chosen at another convention.
KS - 1. Safe Obama. Obvious.
KY - 1. Tossup. Chosen by state party chair, and who knows, he might give it to Obama despite the state results.
LA - 1. Chosen, uncommitted.
MA - 2. Tossup. The establishment in this state seems to be more pro-Obama than the voters (oddly.) Split is possible.
MD - 2. Chosen, one for Obama, one for Hillary.
ME - 1. Safe Obama. Another one elected at a convention he has in the bag.
MN - 2. Safe Obama.
MO - 1. Chosen, one Obama supporter, one undecided.
MS - 1. Safe Obama. Mississippi holds caucuses too even though presidential preference is not an issue at them and they don't affect the delegate numbers. But even if one isn't required to state a presidential preference that's not necessary in Mississippi, you can tell by skin color and the convention is obviously going to be pro-Obama.
MT - 1. Tossup. Obama seems to own the state party though.
NC - 2. Tossup. There's a convention but I don't know how the delegates are chosen.
ND - 1. Chosen, Obama supporter.
NE - 1. Safe Obama.
NH - 1. Chosen, Hillary supporter.
NJ - 2. Chosen, both for Hillary.
NM - 1. Chosen, uncommitted.
NV - 1. Lean Hillary. County conventions are finally done, and Hillary has a majority of state convention delegates even though Obama will pick up more national convention delegates from those. But it's a narrow lead, and who knows, possible defections plus no shows...
NY - 4. Chosen, Hillary supporters.
OH - 2. Tossup.
OK - 1. Chosen, former Edwards supporter now backing Obama.
OR - 1. Tossup, but how is that convention chosen? That might change things...;
PA - 3. Lean Hillary, but who knows, maybe they'll throw a token Obama supporter in.
PR - 1. Tossup.
RI - 1. Tossup.
SC - 1. Chosen, Obama supporter.
SD - 1. Lean Obama. Close to safe. Obama owns the state party here lock, stock and barrel. Anyone else got the impression Tom Daschle has some sort of personal vendetta against the Clintons?
TN - 2. Chosen, one uncommitted, one "leaning" Hillary.
TX - 3. Lean Obama. Chosen at pro-Obama state convention, the lean is only there if Hillary can pull some major hijinks at the convention, unlikely but who knows...
UT - 1. Tossup. Another state I know little about in this area.
VA - 2. Safe Obama. Virginia has caucuses too but the delegate allocation is directly tied to the primary results, so you'll end up with a state convention electing the superdelegates dominated by Obama supporters.
VT - 1. Lean Obama. Close to safe.
WA - 2. Lean Obama. The only reason this is lean is because they're chosen by the state chair and confirmed by the convention, and the state chair is still undecided, but seeing him try to force two Hillary delegates down the convention's throat is very unlikely (especially since if he was that die-hard of a Hillary supporter he wouldn't be undeclared.)
WI - 2. Lean Obama. Chosen by the state party committee, but this is a state where the establishment strongly backs Obama.
WV - 1. Tossup. Another state where the establishment supports Obama more than the voters.
WY - 1. Safe Obama. Another convention chosen one.

That equals:

12 Safe or declared Hillary
6 Lean Hillary
21 Tossup or undecided
10 Lean Obama
27 Safe or declared Obama

So Hillary's best case scenario seems to be around 40, which is 53% of the total, pretty bleak considering she needs around 71% of remaining superdelegates and over 60% of all superdelegates...in addition a 50/50 split of the tossup/undecideds gives her less than 37%.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It appears with some research that the NH add-on is elected by a committee of convention delegates who are elected by the local Democratic parties at local meetings. So basically activists in a caucus type setting. It's easy to see who that benefits. For that reason I'm moving NH to Lean Obama.

[J. J.]

So no one appears to consider the "popular vote" of more importance (and for the record none of them appear to consider Florida and Michigan as counting either, regardless of what J. J. thinks.)

We'll see in the next four weeks. 

[Erc]

The Democrats Abroad Global Convention was on April 12 (last Saturday), in Vancouver.  Does anyone know what happened?  I haven't been able to find any results reported.

[Alcon]

I left a message with them earlier today to find out.

[Tender Branson]

According to Democrats Abroad France, Obama has won 13 out of 22 delegates, Clinton 7 and 2 are still uncommitted (?).

[Erc]

According to Democrats Abroad France, Obama has won 13 out of 22 delegates, Clinton 7 and 2 are still uncommitted (?).

That matches up with what I have (the numbers include superdelegates), but is that a post-April 12 count?

[Erc]

Just out of curiosity...does anyone know how close Edwards got to picking up a delegate in Oklahoma?  Clinton & Obama didn't hit 85% combined in CDs 2 and 3...

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

He got 13.11% in CD 2

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Just for a little update on the whole Idaho situation:

The Idaho Democratic Party has posted a list of all delegates (along with addresses and telephone numbers, think you might be a little too open guys?) and candidate supported here: http://www.idaho-democrats.org/ht/a/GetDocumentAction/i/1165191
It appears Hillary actually did narrowly reach viability despite failing in Ada County, largely due to rounding (for example in a small county with 3 delegates where she gets a little under 20% she gets a delegate, thus 33.33% of the total) and overrepresentation of the rural counties. However it's very close. Out of 380 delegates, she has 58, thus only 2 away from losing viability. If 2 switch/don't show up, she will fail viability.

The convention is in June and by then there might be an overwhelming sentiment the race is over and it's time for Hillary to concede, thus influencing switchers, also if the state convention is in Boise that's a hell of a drive for the delegates from the outer rural areas, many might not bother showing, it's possible you might have a small county with about 20 Hillary supporters, no one really wanting to be a delegate but one being picked just because they need someone, and then that person doesn't bother. I wouldn't even rule out the possibility of the Obama campaign implanting a few "Trojan horses". So for now, Hillary has viability, but it's far from guaranteed.

That applies only to her one at large delegate too. The two allocated by district are directly tied to the votes cast in each district. So she has at least two delegates no matter what, and that third is up in the air.

Upon looking it up, the convention is in Boise. That's as far as a 7 hour drive from places in northern Idaho.

[Erc]

Just for a little update on the whole Idaho situation:

The Idaho Democratic Party has posted a list of all delegates (along with addresses and telephone numbers, think you might be a little too open guys?) and candidate supported here: http://www.idaho-democrats.org/ht/a/GetDocumentAction/i/1165191
It appears Hillary actually did narrowly reach viability despite failing in Ada County, largely due to rounding (for example in a small county with 3 delegates where she gets a little under 20% she gets a delegate, thus 33.33% of the total) and overrepresentation of the rural counties. However it's very close. Out of 380 delegates, she has 58, thus only 2 away from losing viability. If 2 switch/don't show up, she will fail viability.

The convention is in June and by then there might be an overwhelming sentiment the race is over and it's time for Hillary to concede, thus influencing switchers, also if the state convention is in Boise that's a hell of a drive for the delegates from the outer rural areas, many might not bother showing, it's possible you might have a small county with about 20 Hillary supporters, no one really wanting to be a delegate but one being picked just because they need someone, and then that person doesn't bother. I wouldn't even rule out the possibility of the Obama campaign implanting a few "Trojan horses". So for now, Hillary has viability, but it's far from guaranteed.

That applies only to her one at large delegate too. The two allocated by district are directly tied to the votes cast in each district. So she has at least two delegates no matter what, and that third is up in the air.

Upon looking it up, the convention is in Boise. That's as far as a 7 hour drive from places in northern Idaho.

Interesting...I'll give it another look and compare it to my old figures to see what's up.

[Erc]

Saturday is Convention Day...so what's happening this Saturday?

Arizona is holding its State Convention.  They'll be choosing the At-Large delegates to the Convention, though the result is already set in stone at 11-8 Clinton.  The only thing they have control over is the selection of 1 'Add-On' delegate (presumably for Clinton).

New Mexico is holding its CD Conventions today---though, again, the results were set by the Feb. 5 primary (3-3 in CDs 1 & 3, and 3-2 Clinton in CD 2).

Washington is holding its County Conventions this Saturday.  Those areas that did not already have Legislative District Conventions on April 5th will be choosing delegates to the CD conventions [May 17] State Convention [June 15].  Any counties that are split between several LDs will break up into LD caucuses, where every caucus (for those LDs that did not hold their own conventions) choose delegates to CD & State Conventions.

In all counties except: Spokane, King, Pierce, Thurston, and Snohomish, everybody will be voting today.

In Spokane County:
Only those living in LDs 7 and 9 will vote.

In Thurston County:
All but those living in LD 2 will vote.

In Pierce County:
Only those living in LD 26 will vote.

In King County:
Only those living in LD 39 will vote.

In Snohomish County:
Only those living in LDs 39 and 10 will vote.

Michigan will be holding its Congressional District Conventions today, as if the state had not been sanctioned.  Supporters of Clinton and 'Uncommitted' will each hold their own caucuses within each convention, in order to choose the delegates (using at least some vaguely proportional method).  Clinton has the right of review of her delegates, Uncommitted (not being a person) does not.

The delegates up for grabs today are the 36 Uncommitted delegates.  Barring a complete Clinton takeover of these conventions, Obama is guaranteed at least 30 of these (due to the manner in which they are selected, see earlier in this thread), the other 6 being in the Detroit metro area.

[Erc]

Last Saturday (April 12), Clark County, NV finally held its County Convention (postponed from February 23 because the first attempt collapsed into anarchy).

Obama gained somewhat from his results in January, swinging the result from 1366 - 1097 Clinton to 1330 - 1133 Clinton (a 36 State Delegate swing).  This swing was not enough, however, to overcome Clinton's margin in the state at large, where she still leads 1718 - 1645.  Due to Obama's wins in Washoe and the rural counties, Obama will still win Nevada's delegates to Denver 13 - 12, but it does not appear (barring a significant swing to Obama amongst Clinton delegates in the next month) that he will be able to capture the third Pledged PLEO delegate from Clinton.

Nevada will be holding its State Convention on May 17 and 18, where it will be choosing all 25 pledged delegates and one unpledged 'Add-On.'


Also last Saturday was the Democrats Abroad convention.  As I've heard nothing about the results, I am now going to assume that the 4.5 - 2.5 breakdown in pledged delegates is an accurate count.

[Erc]

Michigan Congressional District Convention Results:  (to be updated as more info comes in)

Unofficial Projected Tally:
Obama 25
Uncommitted 11

Link to original discussion on Michigan's CD Conventions

(All delegates being discussed are the 'Uncommitted' ones)

The contests of note are for:
CD 9 Female
CD 12 Female
CD 13 Female
CD 14 Female
CD 14 Male
CD 15 Female

All delegate listings without citations come from the Michiganders for Obama website.  Delegates listed with an [M] below were endorsed by Michiganders for Obama or Students 4 Obama, and can be firmly relied on to be Obama supporters.

CD 1 Delegates:
Abby Dart (Obama) [MFO]
Miles Baker (Obama) [Students 4 Obama]

CD 2 Delegates:  (Forum Post, better source when available.)
Joe Zainea (Obama)
Rillastine Wilkins (Obama)

CD 3 Delegates: (Media Source)
Armand Robinson (Obama)
Alice Corey (Obama) [MFO]

CD 4 Delegates:
Mary Bacon (Obama) [MFO]
Bob Ciaffone (Obama) [MFO]

CD 5 Delegates:
Floyd Clack (Obama) [MFO]
Geraldean Hall (Obama) [MFO]

CD 6 Delegates:
Marletta Seats (Obama) [MFO]
Mark Miller (Obama) [MFO]

CD 7 Delegates:
Leonard Smigielski (Obama)
Fran Sibly (Obama)

CD 8 Delegates: (Media Source)
Griffin Rivers (Obama)
Irene Cahill (Obama) [Teamsters]

CD 9 Delegates: (Party Website, Media Source)
Catherine Martin (Uncommitted) [UAW]
Doris Toney (Obama) [MFO]
Aldo Vagnozzi (Obama)

Martin, a UAW member, was remaining officially Uncommitted "because the UAW has not endorsed a candidate yet."  She beat out an MFO-endorsed candidate, perhaps by one vote.
Vagnozzi, a State Legislator, had long ago endorsed Obama.

CD 10 Delegates:
Rosie Fessler (Obama) [MFO]
Unknown Male (presumably Obama?)

CD 11 Delegates: (Forum Post, better source when available.)
Mike Siegrist (Obama) [MFO]
Marian Novak (Obama) [Teamsters]

CD 12 Delegates:  (Forum Post, better source when available.)
Rory Gamble (Uncommitted)
Jennifer Miller (Uncommitted)
Nancy Quarles (Uncommitted)

This 'Unity Slate,' endorsed by the UAW, SEIU, and other unions, won with apparently little opposition at the convention itself.  None of them have officially endorsed candidates---Quarles appears to have at one point been an Edwards supporter (to the tune of $2000), though she may have donated to Obama before then.

Reports indicate that all 3 have endorsed Obama.

CD 13 Delegates:
3 Union Delegates?

CD 14 Delegates:
4 Union Delegates?

CD 15 Delegates: (see discussion below)
Christina Montague (Obama) [MFO]
Lynne Schwartz (Obama) [MFO]
Derrick Jackson (Obama) [MFO]


Elsewhere in the state: (Media Source)

"In the two districts that cover Detroit [Kilpatrick's and Conyers' districts, CD-13 and CD-14], as well as in Rep. Sander Levin's district [CD-12], which covers part of Oakland and Macomb counties, Obama supporters lost to union-banked slates of candidates on Saturday."

"Elsewhere, Obama supporters fared well on Saturday....they captured both uncommitted slots at the 7th District Convention in Lansing, and...the group also succeeded at meetings in Flint [CD-5] and Western Michigan districts."

"The group's top two leaders, Montague and Washtenaw County Deputy Clerk Derrick Jackson, captured slots at the 15th District Convention in Romulus, along with another Obama supporter, Ann Arbor psychologist Lynne Schwartz....Montague won the first of two female uncommitted slots to be determined, but the second took three ballots to resolve. The Obama-backers' votes were split between Lynne Schwartz, an Ann Arbor psychologist, and Rachel Friedlander, a University of Michigan student. That kept Monroe County Democratic Party Chairwoman Denise Brooks in the running, until after the second round of voting and under more than a little pressure, Friedlander dropped out, giving Schwartz the necessary votes to win."


Not all of the Union supporters are necessarily covert Clinton supporters.  In the 15th CD...

"But as in other Southeast Michigan districts, there also was a group, apparently made up mostly of union members and centered on a group from Monroe County that argued uncommitted delegates should remain uncommitted....Jackson, Washtenaw County's chief of elections [and an Obama supporter], defeated Kevin Moore, a local Teamsters Union official, for the single male uncommitted slot from the district. Moore's union has endorsed Obama, and Moore said he would have cast his ballot for Obama at the convention if he'd won."


So, apparently I was wrong...Obama was not guaranteed 30 of these delegates, as Union-backed candidates were able to win an outright majority in the Detroit districts, apparently (?) winning all the delegates in CDs 12, 13, and 14, plus 1 in CD 9 [while losing in CD 15].  Obama did not have similar losses across the rest of the state, however.

Although the systems used to select delegates are 'proportional,' in a close race, in which neither side wants to give up a chance at winning all the delegates, it can devolve to a slate vs. slate race, in which one side or the other gets all the delegates.  If the Obama supporters had realized they weren't going to win all the delegates outright, they could have combined behind one candidate and at least 4 of the 10 delegates in CDs 12-14, but instead they lost them all.