Delegate Projection: Hillary delegate math is daunting...

[agcatter]

Ok, let's have some fun and play what if.  Let's project future delegate totals and assume Hillary gets on a huge run.  I mean, big mo goes south on Barack.  Right now the committed delegate totals (not counting super delegates) look like the following:  Obama 1139 - Hillary 1003.

Assumptions:

Hillary blows out Obama 60 - 40 in the big states of Tx, Ohio, and Pennsylvania

Hillary swoops up 65% of delegates in W. Virginia, Kentucky, and Puerto Rico

Hillary wins 55% of delegates in Indiana.

Wisconsin ends up 50-50

Obama wins narrowly in states he is favored in Hawaii, Vermont, Wyoming, Mississippi, Guam, Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota.

Obama - Hillary future state by state delegate totals:

Hawaii  12 -8, Wisconsin  37-37, Ohio 56-85, RI 9-12, Texas 78-115, Vermont 8-7, Wyo. 7-5, Mississippi 18-15, Pennsylvania 70-91, Guam 2-1, Indiana 30-36, NC 48-43, West Va 6-20, Kentucky 17-30, Oregon 26-22, Montana 8-7, SD 8-6, Puerto Rico 20-35

Final total: Dead Even -  Obama 1579   Hillary 1578

Obviously, super delegates decide things and I'd say Hillary would have the edge (I think) but the above totals give her the most optimistic state by state totals and she'd have to rely on super delegates as her only avenue to the nomination.  Looking at the above projected state totals, I think anyone would be hard pressed to find any state where Hillary's state total will be any higher than I've given her.  She has a rough road.  Doable but she'll have to work like hell and there is zero margin of error.

[Verily]

I have slight quibbles. I think she can do better than that in West Virginia, but not that well in Puerto Rico, and I don't think Obama is necessarily favored in Guam. Still, though, I agree with the overall premise. The absolute best case scenario for Clinton is more or less breaking even by the end.

[agcatter]

I think you may be right about West Va.  Very bad state for Obama.

[Verily]

Also, this doesn't include Democrats Abroad, which was reportedly heavily for Obama but which hasn't released numbers yet. That's another 4 or so net delegates for Obama.

[elcorazon]

I have slight quibbles. I think she can do better than that in West Virginia, but not that well in Puerto Rico, and I don't think Obama is necessarily favored in Guam. Still, though, I agree with the overall premise. The absolute best case scenario for Clinton is more or less breaking even by the end.

you've got WV 20-6 for Hillary.  No way she does any better than that.

does your initial number assign ALL the delegates from the contests that have already occurred?

[agcatter]

Yes, it does include complete totals and that includes Colorado where delegates haven't been apportioned in many tabulations.

[agcatter]

BTW, I suppose Hillary could do better than 20 pt wins in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, but I assigned 20 pt spreads which is pretty darned one sided.

[elcorazon]

so there's around 100 or so edwards or other or uncommitted pledged delegates?

your number is about 900 short of the total number and there are 796 superdelegates, right?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Looking at the above projected state totals, I think anyone would be hard pressed to find any state where Hillary's state total will be any higher than I've given her.

Possible in quite a few actually. Whether it's realistic I've no idea. But all speculation is unrealistic to a degree.

[agcatter]

Yes, you are right.  With super delegates at 796 there are indeed some other delegates floating around for Edwards and uncommited.  Not many but some.

[Mr. Morden]

Even Clinton's own campaign people have gone on background saying that catching up in pledged delegates (w/o FL or MI) is pretty much hopeless.  Their best bets are:

1) Win the "popular vote".  If they can do well enough in OH/TX/PA, they might be able to catch up in the popular vote, even while trailing somewhat in pledged delegates.  That's because many of Obama's victories have been in caucuses, where turnout is much lighter than primaries.  Then if they win the popular vote, they can convince the superdelegates that Clinton is the "legitimate winner".

2) Get delegates from FL and/or MI.  Either by having a revote and winning that, or getting the current delegate slate seated.  Or even if they're not seated, convince enough superdelegates that they *should* be counted, and that Clinton is therefore the legitimate winner of the primaries.  Obviously, like #1, this only works if she does well enough in the remaining primaries to cut substantially into Obama's current pledged delegate lead.

[agcatter]

Good point on the popular vote.  With 60 - 40 wins in the three states Hillary probably would take the lead in the poverall popular vote.  That may be decisive with super delegates.  Hadn't thought of that.  In fact, that's probably her strategy.

Seating Michigan and Florida would be her last result.  That would be ugly and very devisive.

[The Mikado]

Ok, let's have some fun and play what if.  Let's project future delegate totals and assume Hillary gets on a huge run.  I mean, big mo goes south on Barack.  Right now the committed delegate totals (not counting super delegates) look like the following:  Obama 1139 - Hillary 1003.

Assumptions:

Hillary blows out Obama 60 - 40 in the big states of Tx, Ohio, and Pennsylvania

Hillary swoops up 65% of delegates in W. Virginia, Kentucky, and Puerto Rico

Hillary wins 55% of delegates in Indiana.

Wisconsin ends up 50-50

Obama wins narrowly in states he is favored in Hawaii, Vermont, Wyoming, Mississippi, Guam, Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota.

Obama - Hillary future state by state delegate totals:

Hawaii  12 -8, Wisconsin  37-37, Ohio 56-85, RI 9-12, Texas 78-115, Vermont 8-7, Wyo. 7-5, Mississippi 18-15, Pennsylvania 70-91, Guam 2-1, Indiana 30-36, NC 48-43, West Va 6-20, Kentucky 17-30, Oregon 26-22, Montana 8-7, SD 8-6, Puerto Rico 20-35

Final total: Dead Even -  Obama 1579   Hillary 1578

Obviously, super delegates decide things and I'd say Hillary would have the edge (I think) but the above totals give her the most optimistic state by state totals and she'd have to rely on super delegates as her only avenue to the nomination.  Looking at the above projected state totals, I think anyone would be hard pressed to find any state where Hillary's state total will be any higher than I've given her.  She has a rough road.  Doable but she'll have to work like hell and there is zero margin of error.

Honestly, I think Barack will take IN.

[agcatter]

I actually think he'll do better in Hawaii and Puerto Rica but it's worse case scenario.

[JohnCA246]

It's really looking as though Ohio and PA are refusing to break for Obama.  Obama may end up doing reasonably well with Texas delegates just because of where and howdelegates are assigned, but I see this race as being far from over.  The race is moving into Hillary country.  Obama of course, has been able to to narrow deficits in many states that hes campaigned in, but I think Ohio is going to be very difficult to crack. 

As far as the delegate count goes, Clinton I think has a very good chance of narrowing it enough so that SD have to make their own decisions.

[Eraserhead]

It's really looking as though Ohio and PA are refusing to break for Obama.  Obama may end up doing reasonably well with Texas delegates just because of where and howdelegates are assigned, but I see this race as being far from over.  The race is moving into Hillary country.  Obama of course, has been able to to narrow deficits in many states that hes campaigned in, but I think Ohio is going to be very difficult to crack. 

As far as the delegate count goes, Clinton I think has a very good chance of narrowing it enough so that SD have to make their own decisions.

If Obama goes to the convention with any kind of lead among pledged delegates, the supers will break towards him. Count on it.

[agcatter]

I agree with that.  Obama needs to win Wisconsin even if it is just one or two points.  Get 43% in Texas and Ohio and he's guaranteed a delegate lead by the end of the primary process.

What would be disastrous would be if he loses Wisconsin and then loses Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, say 62 - 37 or within that range.  If that happens the race is in Hillary's favor.  I didn't think that was even possible until I saw the polling the last two days out of Ohio and Pennsylvania.  Now I see it possible but still not probable.  What makes me optimistic is that Obama hasn't campaigned in those states yet.  It seems the more voters see him the better he does.  I suspect he'll close the gap some.

[Mr. Morden]

If Obama goes to the convention with any kind of lead among pledged delegates, the supers will break towards him. Count on it.

What if Clinton wins the nationwide "popular vote" (as best such a thing can be determined, since some caucus states don't record exact turnout numbers)?  Might the supers then back her?

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

If Obama goes to the convention with any kind of lead among pledged delegates, the supers will break towards him. Count on it.

What if Clinton wins the nationwide "popular vote" (as best such a thing can be determined, since some caucus states don't record exact turnout numbers)?  Might the supers then back her?

As Tweed as pointed out, if Clinton finds some way to take the nomination at this point, there'll be hell to pay in the general. She's already running behind Obama against McCain, the establishment would be very stupid to hand her the nomination in such an under-handed way.

[Verily]

If Obama goes to the convention with any kind of lead among pledged delegates, the supers will break towards him. Count on it.

What if Clinton wins the nationwide "popular vote" (as best such a thing can be determined, since some caucus states don't record exact turnout numbers)?  Might the supers then back her?

I doubt it; I think they are aware that nominating Clinton would be suicide in November if things are that close. The Democrats would end up with a result like 1984. It would hurt Obama if things were that close, too, but he'd still have some chance at winning the general election. Clinton would have none.

[Mr. Morden]

As Tweed as pointed out, if Clinton finds some way to take the nomination at this point, there'll be hell to pay in the general. She's already running behind Obama against McCain, the establishment would be very stupid to hand her the nomination in such an under-handed way.

True, but if Clinton wins the popular vote, and Obama wins the nomination anyway based on pledged delegate lead + supers, there would also be a big firestorm, and people would complain about how undemocratic it is that the person who got the most votes didn't win.  Basically, any scenario in which things end up super close could easily lead to a giant PR disaster for the party, as the losing candidate's supporters would complain that the nomination was stolen from them.

[agcatter]

In the end, I think the Democratic establishment will opt for the future star rather than the Clinton past.  They may have good memories of the Clinton years but the Obama phenomenon so far illustrates that the longing for the days of Clinton may be overstated.

Besides, look at the polls.  Hell, Rasmussen today showed McCain beating Clinton by 4 while Obama beats McCain 48 - 41.  The party insiders would have to be total dumbasses to ignore those kinds of numbers.  Winning the White House trumps a 50-50 shot at a Clinton restoration.  My Republican friends are scared to death of Obama and praying for a Clinton nomination.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

As Tweed as pointed out, if Clinton finds some way to take the nomination at this point, there'll be hell to pay in the general. She's already running behind Obama against McCain, the establishment would be very stupid to hand her the nomination in such an under-handed way.

True, but if Clinton wins the popular vote, and Obama wins the nomination anyway based on pledged delegate lead + supers, there would also be a big firestorm, and people would complain about how undemocratic it is that the person who got the most votes didn't win.  Basically, any scenario in which things end up super close could easily lead to a giant PR disaster for the party, as the losing candidate's supporters would complain that the nomination was stolen from them.

Well it might be a bad scenario either way, but Obama is the less risky and safer choice. Also keep in mind much of a Obama's support wouldn't show up in the general even if Hillary won the election in a more fair way (all those new young voters who are turning out in record numbers.)

[Verily]

As Tweed as pointed out, if Clinton finds some way to take the nomination at this point, there'll be hell to pay in the general. She's already running behind Obama against McCain, the establishment would be very stupid to hand her the nomination in such an under-handed way.

True, but if Clinton wins the popular vote, and Obama wins the nomination anyway based on pledged delegate lead + supers, there would also be a big firestorm, and people would complain about how undemocratic it is that the person who got the most votes didn't win.  Basically, any scenario in which things end up super close could easily lead to a giant PR disaster for the party, as the losing candidate's supporters would complain that the nomination was stolen from them.

BRTD has somewhat articulated the problem for Clinton. She has generally wholly alienated Obama supporters, calling them cultists, calling the states that voted for Obama irrelevant, offering thinly veiled racial attacks, etc. She's created the gulf. Obama has not, and while it would be a serious PR problem either way, I think Obama would stand a much better chance of fixing the problem than Clinton. And I think the superdelegates, or at least enough of them, know it.

As I've argued before, Obama's supporters are much more devoted than Clinton's, by and large. Clinton has her feminists and WalterMitty, but Obama has a massive following of people angry about corruption and stagnation (as well as blacks, whom Clinton has also largely alienated). Obama would only have to win over a few really angry people, but Clinton would have at least a third of the Democratic Party (as not all Obama supporters are very enthusiastic, just many more than Clinton's).

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

The fact is, most Hillary supporters I've talked to like Obama too, they just don't support him for various reasons (they really want a female president, they're concerned about experience, etc.) Obviously you'll have your people like those hacks on hillaryis44.org but they're far from the majority. The same can't be said for Obama supporters.

According to the Maryland exit polls, 69% of voters are satisfied if Hillary wins the nomination, while 79% are satisfied with Obama. 10 point gap.