When's the earliest that Clinton can catch up to Obama in pledged delegates?

[Mr. Morden]

When's the earliest that Clinton can *realistically* catch up to Obama in pledged delegates?  Because honestly, I'm starting to wonder if she even has a realistic shot at doing so.  (**This is assuming that you don't count FL/MI, and that there's no revote there.**)

According to Erc's numbers, Obama will probably come out of tonight with a 134 delegate lead.  Chuck Todd on MSNBC was estimating a slightly narrower lead, but still >120.  There are barely more than 1000 pledged delegates left.  Clinton needs at least a 56% -  44% split of the remaining pledged delegates, which is incredibly difficult given the PR rules, even though there are some very demographically favorable states for her coming up.  Basically, she'd have to win all the remaining states by an average margin similar to that of CA, MA, and NJ.

Can she really do that?  I'm awfully skeptical.  In fact, on MSNBC tonight, Howard Fineman said that some in the Clinton campaign are privately conceding that they're not going to win the pledged delegates unless FL and MI are reinstated.  They're just hoping to get within about 30 pledged delegates of Obama by the end.  Which means that they'd have to use FL/MI and superdelegates to win the nomination.

[Gabu]

The problem is also that there are still many states that Obama can certainly win.  Wisconsin and Hawaii in a week are obvious choices, but then in March there's Wyoming and Mississippi, both of which are obviously as close to safe Obama as you can get.  North Carolina ought to be close, but still obviously winnable by Obama.  Then there's Oregon, which is much like Washington.  Montana and South Dakota are also possibilities for Obama victories.

On the Clinton side, likely victories outside of March 4 include Pennsylvania, Guam (?), Indiana, West Virginia, and Kentucky.

So outside of March 4, that's 8 that Obama has a real shot at winning compared to only 5 that Clinton is likely to win.  I don't feel like doing the math, but the outlook can't be good for Clinton.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

2012

[J. J.]

I posted this a few days ago:

1.  Assuming that the DNC had the authority to set the rule (I have not checked), FL and MI delegates should not be seated under the current rules, procedurally.

2.  It is possible for the DNC to rescind or use the motion amend something previously adopted the rule and then ratify the delegate selection, procedurally.   (See Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 10th edition, 2000, pp. 119, p. 293 ff. It is the one the DNC uses and it is not online.) 

3.  The credentials committee can also attempt to resolve this, right before the convention (Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, pp. 595-6).

Option #2 has the effect of unleashing a whole bunch of Clinton delegates on the Convention, but it could be done within the rules, unless they actually put that in the bylaws (and I don't think they did).  However, politically, Clinton can say, "Hey, we're letting the voters decided this through there directly elected representatives." She can say this in the case where she has a majority of the delegates, but a minority of the pledged delegates, without FL and MI.

Option #1 has the effect of restraining a whole bunch of Clinton delegates from voting.  Obama can say, "We are playing by the rules as they were adopted."  The problem here is that the rules, as they were adopted, say that those super delegates get to vote on the nomination.  You can't complain about the super delegates without looking like a complete hypocrite, which you really don't want to do if you're running for President.

So basically, for Obama to win this issue, he has to either have enough delegates, including super delegates, to win even if FL and MI are in (#1) or Obama has to have elected delegates, including MI and FL, but excluding the super delegates.

Option #3 depends on the makeup of the credentials committee, and could lead to a floor fight. (Think a Convention similar to 1968.)

There is a fourth option, to hold a primary or caucus in FL and MI.  That is expensive and the state parties can't afford it; so unless the DNC steps in with a couple of checks, it won't happen and the time frame is rapidly running out.

Expect for #4, I don't see how this can do anything but hurt Obama, politically.  He'll either have to face a potential loss at the hands of the super delegates or permit the elected delegates, including MI and FL, to vote, or prepare for a floor fight (which could be reminiscent of 1968).

Nasty, but I see a built in advantage for Clinton.

[jimrtex]

On April 15, the Federal appeals court hears the case against the National Democratic Party based on the Florida sanctions.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I've no idea because I'm terrible at maths.

Then there's Oregon, which is much like Washington.

Yes, but it isn't a caucus (so the delagate lead won't be nearly so huge).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Both are primaries aren't they? Similar states have only been caucuses so far. Those two will be interesting.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But it isn't nearly as bad for her as many here have suddenly convinced themselves that it must be. This race is still nowhere near over.

[Gabu]

Then there's Oregon, which is much like Washington.

Yes, but it isn't a caucus (so the delagate lead won't be nearly so huge).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Both are primaries aren't they? Similar states have only been caucuses so far. Those two will be interesting.

They're all primaries, yes.  But at this point, all Obama needs to do is just keep winning.  Every state he wins is delegates that Clinton will need to make up elsewhere.

This race is still nowhere near over.

Of course; I'm not saying it's near over.  But what I do feel is that perhaps for the first time this primary season, the landscape is not so much a steep uphill battle for Obama.  Obama still has his work cut out for him, but Clinton herself is also going to have to earn victory, not just win it by default.  And that's interesting.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

But at this point, all Obama needs to do is just keep winning.

Yes. It's an election. That is generally what you need to do in elections.



Though actually I do agree up to a point; while I think that momentum (especially when the race is mature) is over-rated, pressure isn't (or isn't to the same extent).

[Kalimantan]

She has to win BIG - which she might do in Kentucky and West Virginia, but probably not on March 4th.

according to http://www.coldheartedtruth.com/DemDelegateCount.html he leads in pledged delegates by 129 at this stage, with 27 CO, 20 WA, 5 DC, 18 MD and 2 VA to be decided. Those should comfortably break his way, and he should extend in WI and HI. So she'll need to make up almost 150 delegates. Thats tough.

Look at it this way, Idaho he got a net gain of 12 delegates, New Jersey she got a net gain of 11, despite NJ having 89 more delegates overall than Idaho, and Clinton winning NJ by a comfortable 10 point margin. Minnesota gave him an astonishing net delegate gain of 24, Virginia at least 21. Together thats bigger than her California win, despite there being 370 delegates at stake in CA compared to 155 in MN and VA combined. And so on.

A 10 point win in TX and OH won't deliver her nearly enough delegates, a 15 point win will keep her competitive but she needs a 20 point blow-out to get back on track. And if she does that, it really will be the most amazing comeback.

[Gabu]

Yes. It's an election. That is generally what you need to do in elections.

Oh, shush, you know what I meant.

Though actually I do agree up to a point; while I think that momentum (especially when the race is mature) is over-rated, pressure isn't (or isn't to the same extent).

I'm not even really talking about momentum; I'm just talking about the numbers.  For the first time Obama now leads even with superdelegates factored in.  That means he's got himself in a fairly good position - all he must do now is tread water and not allow Clinton to overtake him by the end; he no longer has to win huge to make up a deficit of delegates between him and Clinton.

That's treating the superdelegates as static, too.  One New Jersey superdelegate has broken the ice by switching from Clinton to Obama, as well.  If Obama can chip away any more superdelegates from Clinton's camp or convince uncommited superdelegates to support him, that's not good news for her.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I'm not even really talking about momentum; I'm just talking about the numbers.  For the first time Obama now leads even with superdelegates factored in.  That means he's got himself in a fairly good position - all he must do now is tread water and not allow Clinton to overtake him by the end; he no longer has to win huge to make up a deficit of delegates between him and Clinton.

This is true, but you make it sound easier for him than it will be. You shouldn't allow yourself to forget that Obama was (from the point the race matured) always going to win the vast majority of the state's that he's won recently. The proverbial playingfield of clichéland has never been level and will soon start to tilt in the other direction.

But, and I'll say this again, pressure might be important. Might.

[Gabu]

This is true, but you make it sound easier for him than it will be. You shouldn't allow yourself to forget that Obama was (from the point the race matured) always going to win the vast majority of the state's that he's won recently. The proverbial playingfield of clichéland has never been level and will soon start to tilt in the other direction.

But, and I'll say this again, pressure might be important. Might.

I'm not saying it will be easy, just that it will be easier than it could have been.  Like I said, he still has his work cut out for him.

And yes, he was always going to win the vast majority of states that he's won recently, but I don't think many predicted the absolute landslide margins of many of them.  If Clinton had kept things competitive in these states, Obama would have a much rougher road ahead of him.  As things stand, exit polls have shown him making some quite substantial inroads into what previously were Clinton's rock-solid base of support, which Clinton absolutely has to reverse if she wants to find herself in a good position come convention time.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

And yes, he was always going to win the vast majority of states that he's won recently, but I don't think many predicted the absolute landslide margins of many of them.

Really the only landslides that matter are those in primary (rather than caucus) states. And actually...

Obama breaking 60% in VA would be very impressive... but i dont see it happening, he should win but that kinda margin is huge! 

Why? Have a look at the demographics of the state.

So what if most people are less deterministic about the influence of demographics on voting patterns than me. That's there problem

You must be logged in to read this quote.

With the race as it was/is she had no chance of doing so.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, no, no, no, no... exit polls can be very deceptive (and in more ways than one). There's no indication from last night's results of Obama making any inroads, let alone substantial inroads, into Clinton's base (I will prove this if you don't believe me). O/c there's also no sign of Clinton making inroads into Obama's base, but I think that that's obvious enough from the headline figures.

[Gabu]

No, no, no, no, no... exit polls can be very deceptive (and in more ways than one). There's no indication from last night's results of Obama making any inroads, let alone substantial inroads, into Clinton's base (I will prove this if you don't believe me). O/c there's also no sign of Clinton making inroads into Obama's base, but I think that that's obvious enough from the headline figures.

Eh, I'll take your word for it.

[minionofmidas]

2016.[/hackery]

[Filuwaúrdjan]

[/hackery]

NOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooo... not you too!!!!111

[Mr. Morden]

And yes, he was always going to win the vast majority of states that he's won recently, but I don't think many predicted the absolute landslide margins of many of them.

Really the only landslides that matter are those in primary (rather than caucus) states. And actually...

Why don't landslides in caucus states matter?  Don't caucus states use the same PR system that primary states use?

[Mr. Morden]

That's treating the superdelegates as static, too.  One New Jersey superdelegate has broken the ice by switching from Clinton to Obama, as well.  If Obama can chip away any more superdelegates from Clinton's camp or convince uncommited superdelegates to support him, that's not good news for her.

Honestly, I think it's too early to even be paying any attention to the superdelegates.  The superdelegates are just going to ratify the decision of the primaries in the end anyway.  If one candidate wins both the pledged delegates and the popular vote, there's no way the superdelegates are going to throw the nomination to the other candidate.  It would be way too controversial, and the superdelegates are basically cowardly politicians who want to avoid controversy.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Why don't landslides in caucus states matter?  Don't caucus states use the same PR system that primary states use?

Because the electorate in caucuses is unrepresentative and there is no secret ballot. Of course they matter in terms of delagates, but screw that.

[perdedor]

I can't see Obama's lead disappating this point in time. The majority of the remaining contests are in his favor, he has the fundraising advantage, and will have a very strong momentum behind him heading into March 4th where, providing he wins either Texas or Ohio, he could potentially put the election to rest mathematically. Clinton is in a lot of trouble.

[Mr. Morden]

Why don't landslides in caucus states matter?  Don't caucus states use the same PR system that primary states use?

Because the electorate in caucuses is unrepresentative and there is no secret ballot. Of course they matter in terms of delagates, but screw that.

To paraphrase:

Gabu: Obama now has a big lead in pledged delegates, so it's hard for Clinton to catch up.

Solidarity: But Obama was always going to win the states that he's won, so it's not so bad for her.

Gabu: Yes, but he's won them by huge landslides, so that makes it difficult for her.

Solidarity: Landslides only matter in primaries, not caucuses.

Morden: Why do they only matter in primaries?  Caucuses split their delegates the same way.

Solidarity: Because electorates in caucuses are unrepresentative.
------

Didn't this exchange start out being about delegates?  How did it transition into a discussion of the fairness of caucuses?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Why don't landslides in caucus states matter?  Don't caucus states use the same PR system that primary states use?

Because the electorate in caucuses is unrepresentative and there is no secret ballot. Of course they matter in terms of delagates, but screw that.

To paraphrase:

Gabu: Obama now has a big lead in pledged delegates, so it's hard for Clinton to catch up.

Solidarity: But Obama was always going to win the states that he's won, so it's not so bad for her.

Gabu: Yes, but he's won them by huge landslides, so that makes it difficult for her.

Solidarity: Landslides only matter in primaries, not caucuses.

Morden: Why do they only matter in primaries?  Caucuses split their delegates the same way.

Solidarity: Because electorates in caucuses are unrepresentative.
------

Didn't this exchange start out being about delegates?  How did it transition into a discussion of the fairness of caucuses?

And yes, he was always going to win the vast majority of states that he's won recently, but I don't think many predicted the absolute landslide margins of many of them.

More a case of disputing the value of "landslides" in caucuses.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Unless Hillary landslides in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania (possible, but looking less likely by the day), the only way for her to get the nomination is to get the Florida and Michigain delegates seated or to win by wooing more superdelegates to her side. Of course, the farther gone her campaign looks, the less likely either of these things are to happen. Howard Dean is too savvy a campaign strategist, plus most of the liberal wing of the party, along with most of the Red State Dems, seem to be supporting Obama.

Don't get me wrong: I still think the odds of the nomination are about 55-45 in Hillary's favor. However, it looks like she'll have to pull some nasty tricks to win it, which would effectively throw the general to McCain.

And after yesterday, the playing field is even for the first time since New Hampshire.