The Delegate Fight: Obama Clinches! (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 05:13:32 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2008 Elections
  The Delegate Fight: Obama Clinches! (search mode)
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: The Delegate Fight: Obama Clinches!  (Read 48563 times)
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
« on: February 09, 2008, 03:30:12 AM »

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.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
« Reply #1 on: February 10, 2008, 09:58:32 PM »



Interestingly, Obama's "leaked" memo once again (drastically) underestimated his perfomance.

Deliberately perhaps. I don't see him doing that bad in the three Tuesday states either.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
« Reply #2 on: February 10, 2008, 10:34:09 PM »

Ha, identically proportional to Minnesota!
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
« Reply #3 on: February 19, 2008, 11:28:47 PM »

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=719365#president_cd_dem
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
« Reply #4 on: February 20, 2008, 08:23:18 PM »

Both the Representatives from WI-03 and WI-08 have said that they would endorse and vote for as a superdelegate for whoever carried their district (with the WI-03 Rep also condemning the superdelegate system and calling for its elimination.) So there's two more superdelegate votes for Obama if not tallied yet.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
« Reply #5 on: February 22, 2008, 01:53:17 PM »

Russ Feingold endorses Obama.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
« Reply #6 on: February 29, 2008, 10:25:39 PM »

I'm assuming Erc's figures in Iowa are assuming Edwards' state delegates split 50-50 between Hillary and Obama. I just calculated that and got those figures. I'm predicting more 2-1 in Obama's favor, which would result in 27 delegates for Obama compared to Hillary's 18.

Here's a nasty figure for Hillary: Even if 70% of Edwards' state delegates go to her, so she still doesn't come out ahead in Iowa (Obama would have one more delegate.) She'd need around 77% to come out ahead in Iowa. And I think 50/50 is best case scenario for her frankly.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
« Reply #7 on: March 05, 2008, 05:17:02 PM »
« Edited: March 05, 2008, 05:21:35 PM by I Drink Your Milkshake! »

Let's envision the following scenario:

Clinton has a pretty good rest of the primary season...winning the states she should win in by narrow margins (incl. IN & NC, for arguments' sake--let's say she gets an Edwards endorsement), and winning PR by a substantial, if not blowout margins.

There are also revotes in FL & MI (or they're counted as normal, but with all the Uncommitted for Obama), giving Hillary substantial, if closer wins than in actuality. 


Obama still comes out of this up 31 delegates.  She'd then need to win 194 of the remaining 357 superdelegates (54.3%) to win the nomination. 

That's the best case scenario for Clinton.   She needs to win at least 194 of the remaining superdelegates to have a reasonable shot.

Greenpages gives this count excluding MI/FL, but counting the super delegates.


B Obama     1,457.5
H Clinton   1,404.5

+53 Obama.

Greenpages gives this count excluding MI/FL for elected delegates:

B Obama  1,264.5
H Clinton  1,165.5

+99 Obama.

Clinton has a +110 delegate gain with MI/FL and there are still 55 "uncommitted" delegates from MI and Edwards 26 to 39 delegates.

Obama needs to basically get a 204 lead in elected delegates to make the "I have more elected delegates than Hillary has."  He needs an additional 104 net gain.

The good news is, Clinton can't make the claim either.

If you want to not be seen as a hack you need to quit basing things off only the Green Papers ones:

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/02/ultimate-delegate-tracker.html

Green Papers gives a far more pro-Hillary count than anyone else (except NY Times, but that's only because they don't count caucuses until the delegates are official allocated.) Why? Look at Illinois for starters.

It's probably just oversight or laziness on their part, but it's pretty obvious that Green Papers is not the most accurate counter, regardless of if you want it to be.

You're also posting this in a thread about counting the delegates. If you consider the Green Papers numbers to be more accurate than Erc's, you better have a good explanation as to why.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
« Reply #8 on: March 05, 2008, 05:42:02 PM »

Interesting, Greenpapers is showing lower overall totals.  So far, they don't seem to be ideologically based

And the others are?

and the others are still showing a well below the 200 delegate gap to really assure an Obama victory.   Now, as far as I can tell, those FL/MI delegates become key.

Fine. Then point out the other ones, instead of selectively quoting the one source that provides the numbers you like best (and is completely off from the count in this thread too.)

Can you explain why Green Papers is obviously more accurate than CNN/CBS/AP and Erc's count?

BTW speaking of hacks BRTD, we're you the one that said Clinton would have a net loss of delegates yesterday?  Even the best estimates show a net gain, even though she was massively outspent.

What's hackish about that? I made an inaccurate prediction, which was much less inaccurate than your Virginia prediction and your talk about how Wisconsin was tightening. What is hackish is ignoring every other count and deliberately referencing only the one that suits you best, which is exactly what you're doing.

This thing is going to June, at least, and possibly to the convention, probably without Obama being able to to unambiguously claim that he has more elected delegates.  Get ready for a floor fight.  Smiley

Because the Democratic superdelegates are going to consider Hillary's 80 delegate lead in Michigan to be legitimate. Right. Your "elected delegate" argument might have some validity when applied to Florida, but it obviously doesn't for Michigan.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
« Reply #9 on: March 05, 2008, 06:02:58 PM »

Also if you give all the uncommitted to Obama he has a lead in all delegates including Florida and Michigan.

No giving all the uncommitted to Obama isn't perfectly fair, however it certainly is more fair and closer to the opinion of the state than giving no delegates to him. And the only reason he has no projected delegates from Michigan is he withdrew to show respect for the DNC rules. Is the DNC going to punish him for that?
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
« Reply #10 on: March 11, 2008, 11:57:21 PM »

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.

Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
« Reply #11 on: March 16, 2008, 10:36:26 PM »

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?
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
« Reply #12 on: March 18, 2008, 01:31:17 PM »

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.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
« Reply #13 on: March 18, 2008, 01:59:36 PM »

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?
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
« Reply #14 on: March 19, 2008, 12:30:39 AM »

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.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
« Reply #15 on: March 19, 2008, 12:46:57 PM »

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.)
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
« Reply #16 on: March 22, 2008, 02:51:49 PM »

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.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
« Reply #17 on: March 23, 2008, 01:53:38 AM »

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. Smiley
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
« Reply #18 on: March 24, 2008, 02:02:51 PM »
« Edited: March 24, 2008, 02:25:48 PM by Now We Rise And Are Everywhere »

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. Tongue

Actually my initial projections are incorrect because they were based off the raw delegate numbers for Indiana and not the actual numbers that'll be used because of the delegate bonus deal. With the bonus, only one district exists with an odd number of delegates, 6. Hillary will win that one. 3, 4 and 5 are all 4 delegates, the rest are 6. So the issue becomes if Obama can hold Hillary below 58.333% in all of the rural districts and break that number in the Indianapolis one.

North Carolina: Seems like a racially polarized, close state. I'm gonna make it a wash right now, till I have more info.

Unlikely to be a wash with the polling numbers. Also the delegate allocations benefit Obama, simply because he's stronger in most of the districts with odd numbers of delegates.


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.

I did one earlier debunking J. J. Here's it in a nutshell:

CD 1 - Obama wins 4-3. It contains some blue collar areas but they only make up 20% of the vote. The bulk of the district is part of Portland and affluent Portland suburbia.
CD 2 - Obama wins 3-2. This district is a lot like Idaho and the west, it's a primary unlike those, but the largest city where most of the Democrats live (Bend) favors Obama. Hillary can only win here if the Hispanics actually vote (and they hardly ever do.)
CD 3 - The main Portland district. Obama wins 6-3. 7-2 might even be doable.
CD 4 - Obama wins 4-3. Hillary can't win a district that contains Eugene.
CD 5 - Hillary's best chance for a win probably, but it's also 6 delegates. She can't win it by enough to get more than 3-3 (especially since it contains Corvallis).

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.

In South Dakota, a closed primary might actually benefit Obama, when you consider the type of people who are actually Democrats and the people who voted for both Bush and Daschle.

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.

It's not closed. It'd be impossible to be closed actually considering the Democratic party doesn't even officially exist in Puerto Rico.

Remember, 20% of Puerto Ricans are black or mullatto.

For the record I came pretty close in Mississippi. The only mistake I made was calling all the districts for Obama, Hillary narrowly took one.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
« Reply #19 on: March 24, 2008, 06:33:25 PM »


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

Here's basically what I was thinking:

CD 9: 2-1 Hillary
CDs 5, 10, 16, 17, 19: All split except 10, 3-1 Hillary
CDs 3, 4, 11, 12, 15, 18: All 3-2 Hillary
CD 6: 3-3 split
CDs 1, 7, 8, 13, 14: All 4-3 Obama except 14 (4-3 Hillary)
CD 2: 7-2 Obama (few Hispanics or Reagan Democrats, Obama wins Center City whites easily.)
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
« Reply #20 on: March 25, 2008, 02:30:48 AM »

Well looking at them:

5 - Very unlikely, it's got Penn State.
16 - Well maybe but as Rob has pointed out Lancaster County Democrats, while fairly rare, do appear to be more liberal than the state average. Also the part of Chester should favor Obama.
17 - Possible, but this is also probably the blackest rural district outside the south.
19 - I suppose this depends on if there are enough Democrats in the affluent parts of the York area.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
« Reply #21 on: March 29, 2008, 01:42:04 AM »

Feingold has already endorsed Obama.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
« Reply #22 on: April 09, 2008, 05:36:25 PM »

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.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
« Reply #23 on: April 12, 2008, 02:06:49 AM »
« Edited: April 12, 2008, 02:15:45 AM by HO HO HO CHI MINH THE NLF IS GONNA WIN! »

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"

Quote
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:

Quote
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.)
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
« Reply #24 on: April 13, 2008, 10:09:35 PM »
« Edited: May 05, 2008, 09:12:43 PM by holding you we make two spoons beneath an April moon »

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. Smiley
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%.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.078 seconds with 13 queries.