More on a Hillary Comback [Michael Barone does the delegate math]

[Torie]

The district is only a fifth black. Obviously this'll be higher in a Democratic primary, but not two thirds.

I see that you are correct. So make it 35% black or so. So I accept Obama 4-3.  He might get close to 5-2, but close is no cigar.

[Torie]

I doubt that 5-2 will be happening in KY-03, even though I don't know the proportional splits.

I expect Kentucky, numbers-wise, to be a lot like Oklahoma, except without the Edwards protest vote.  That doesn't mean the voting patterns will be the same, however.

You don't think the vote in CD-3 will be two thirds black?

Well, CD-03 is about 19% black.  Kentucky is a closed primary, so how much of the "affluent" Louisville suburbs are Republican.  And essentially, how much of the rest of the CD is registered Democrat, considering that statewide registration numbers are about 57% Democrat.

I didn't know it was a closed primary. I concede an extra delegate to Clinton. I was wrong, wrong, wrong! 

[Sam Spade]

Looking at the numbers, am I correct that it would take 62.5% in a 4-delegate CD to get to 3-1.  And that it takes 58.5% in a 5-delegate CD to get to 3-2.  How much does it take to get to 4-1 in a five-delegate CD.

Because, if so, KY-02 and KY-05 will be 3-1 Hillary, I suspect.

I'll guess 4-3 Obama in KY-03, frankly, though the White Dem vote will be key.

[© tweed]

How much does it take to get to 4-1 in a five-delegate CD.

70%

[Sam Spade]

How much does it take to get to 4-1 in a five-delegate CD.

70%

Quite possible, then.

[Torie]

A couple of points, and a question:

1 - I suspect Kentucky will be much uglier for Obama than a 15% loss - outside of the black areas, I can see a map that looks a lot like western Virginia or Tennessee.  Bill was particulary liked in this state.  Same goes with WV, though you didn't mention it.  I am still doing the math on Indiana, fwiw, but I remember the state is still back in the 1950s.

2 - Obama won't get 60% in NC, at least not if it's contested.  Not in the NC I remember.  Sure, it's got the same black population as Virginia, but the white population is quite different.

What is the breakdown on the PA CDs, or the OH CDs for that matter?

NC has its pockets of higher income whites in the Triangle (and a lot of them are Democrats), and a fair number of Yankee retirees along the coast. I don't think 60% is far off, and if it is 57% or something, you are talking about 5 delegates max. The CD's work for Hillary in NC. I have Obama 65 delegates in NC, Clinton 50.

[Mr. Morden]

Looking at the numbers, am I correct that it would take 62.5% in a 4-delegate CD to get to 3-1.  And that it takes 58.5% in a 5-delegate CD to get to 3-2.  How much does it take to get to 4-1 in a five-delegate CD.

I think you're correct that it takes 62.5% to get 3-1 in a 4-delegate CD.  In short, my understanding is that you throw away all the votes of anyone who doesn't make the 15% viability threshold, and then, of the remaining votes, you calculate the fractional number of delegates each candidate would win, and then round.  So, 2.5/4=62.5%.  If you break 62.5% of the 2-person vote (since we'll have just two candidates reaching viability), then that works out to more than 2.5 delegates, which rounds to 3.  For a 5 delegate CD, 2.5/5=50%, so you need 50% to get 3 out of 5 delegates, and 3.5/5=70%, and 3.5 rounds to 4, so you need 70% to get 4 out of 5 delegates.

If I'm explaining this wrong, then someone please correct me.

[Sam Spade]

Here are the Penn CD's. I didn't do Ohio, I just used Barone's numbers.

1   5   2  (how many Republicans are here?  The Black % is only 45%, there's a fairly strong Hispanic population and the ethnic whites historically have problems voting for blacks)
2   7   2  (sounds about right)
3   2   3  (70% is quite possible, b/c Obama will get massacred out here)
4   2   3  (see CD-03)
5   2   2  (all depends on Penn State turnout
6   4   2  (probably - but which voters out here are Democrats)
7   3   4  (see CD-06)
8   3   4  (see CD-06)
9   1   2  (agreed)
10   2   2  (probably 3-1, I can see Clinton reaching 62.5% easy here)
11   2   3  (see CD-03)
12   2   3  (see CD-03)
13   4   3  (what does Phil think? - I might be tempted to turn the numbers around)
14   3   4  (black pop. is 22% - is that enough to overcome the whites here, who are probably all registered Dems)
15   3   2  (isn't the Dem population here mainly industrial - I would want to rethink this one personally)
16   2   2  (probably)
17   2   2  (see CD-15)
18   2   3  (see CD-03)
19   2   2  (who are the Democrats out here?)
   23   32
      
   76   82

[Torie]

Ok, I have been educated and persuaded. 3 more delegates to Clinton in Kentucky, 31-20 versus 28-23.  You can see just how thick the water here is to swim through to make any progress in changing the totals much.

I did not realize the 62.5% rule. That might mean another 6 delegates or so to Hillary in Pennsylvania. She should get that outside of Pittsburg in Western Pennsylvania, and in the Holden and Kanjorski CD's, and in CD 10 perhaps. She won't get that in Eastern Pennsylvania. I will leave it to Sam Spade to revise and extend given that!  I'm tired.

In the Philly suburbs, a huge number of RINO's have switched to Dem registration, so upper middle class whites will rule. But the Jewish vote matters in a couple of the CD's, and could make a difference if they go to Hillary by a clear margin, and give her a couple of extra delegates.

[Sam Spade]

Ok, I have been educated and persuaded. 3 more delegates to Clinton in Kentucky, 31-20 versus 28-23.  You can see just how thick the water here is to swim through to make any progress in changing the totals much.

Not disagreeing, at all..    The numbers are tough, though not impossible at all.  I am curious about Ohio.

However, Hillary does have a few "aces in the hole", delegate-wise.  But they really only come into play, I suspect, if she wins Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania.  She'll probably even play them if they she to lose one of those states, but I question the effectiveness then.

[Person Man]

Who do you think will have the pledged delegate advantage after Pennsylvania?

[Josh/Devilman88]

A couple of points, and a question:

1 - I suspect Kentucky will be much uglier for Obama than a 15% loss - outside of the black areas, I can see a map that looks a lot like western Virginia or Tennessee.  Bill was particulary liked in this state.  Same goes with WV, though you didn't mention it.  I am still doing the math on Indiana, fwiw, but I remember the state is still back in the 1950s.

2 - Obama won't get 60% in NC, at least not if it's contested.  Not in the NC I remember.  Sure, it's got the same black population as Virginia, but the white population is quite different.

What is the breakdown on the PA CDs, or the OH CDs for that matter?

NC has its pockets of higher income whites in the Triangle (and a lot of them are Democrats), and a fair number of Yankee retirees along the coast. I don't think 60% is far off, and if it is 57% or something, you are talking about 5 delegates max. The CD's work for Hillary in NC. I have Obama 65 delegates in NC, Clinton 50.

I don't think Obama will win 60% in NC too. Clinton will play well in the West and the SE Coast of NC. Obama will do well in the NE Coast and in the Triangle. The Triad and Charlotte areas will be the battleground areas.

[Mr. Morden]

Who do you think will have the pledged delegate advantage after Pennsylvania?

Obama, almost certainly.  (This is assuming that we're not counting FL/MI.)  Clinton would need about 60% of the delegates in the primaries from now through PA if she wants the lead in pledged delegates by then, and that isn't going to happen.  While she might still have an outside shot at catching up in pledged delegates sans FL/MI, she's going to need some help from the May/June primaries to get there.

[Sam Spade]

I just did a perfunctory view of the Ohio CDs without really crunching numbers.  Ohio is probably the one place where the delegate math doesn't favor Obama (to put it mildly) - so Barone's numbers might be actually close to correct.  Obama will win the 8-delegate CD.  (Tubbs-Jones)

The 7-delegate CD is Traficant's old CD encompassing Youngstown.  Only 11% black and lots of blue collar whites.

The 6-delegates CDs are CD-09 (Toledo), CD-10 (Kucinich's seat with no blacks and ethnic whites - ugh), CD-13 (more of Cleveland, along with a good bit of Akron), CD-14 (NE Ohio - more favorable b/c it includes the upper-income Cleveland suburbs).

The 5-delegate CDs are CD-03 (Dayton), CD-06 (rural SE Ohio), CD-12 (Columbus - includes the black part - 22% black), CD-16 (Canton), CD-18 (the rural, formerly Bob Ney CD).

The 4-delegate CDs are everything else - most of Republican western Ohio (CD-02, CD-04, CD-05, CD-08), The Cincinnati CD-01, with a high black population, CD-07 (Springfield), and CD-15 (the Pryce Columbus CD)

[Person Man]

So Obama is looking strong in PA and TX. Will OH and WI be enough to offset his gains so far?

Where do you predict that Obama will be in terms of his advantage on Hillary?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I read the Baron article now, and it's based on two assumptions even he admits are unlikely.

1-Hillary gains a 14 delegate edge in Wisconsin. I don't even see how that's plausible.
2-Hillary wins twice as many delegates in Texas as Obama. Since Texas' apportionment GREATLY favors Obama, she'd have to win MORE than 2/3 of the vote in order to pull this off, possibly as high as 75% (I haven't done the math). This really just isn't going to happen.

Ohio's the only real troublesome state for Obama. Pennsylvania isn't the immense firewall she and Phil wish it would be as pointed out.

I don't think Hillary should get too excited about Indiana either, the state is almost the same as Missouri demographically except whites are more Republican, meaning blacks take up a higher percentage of the Democratic electorate. Obama probably can't win it, but Hillary's edge in delegates won't be higher than single digits.

[Democratic Hawk]

Obama has barely set foot in OH, TX and PA yet . He's been busy working just about every state, unlike Clinton, who's arrogance - it's the sense of entitlement I don't approve of - this campaign seems second to only that of Giuliani

As Gov. Jim Doyle of Wisconsin said on FoxNewsSunday, Obama has made caucus states, primary states

Dave

[Sam Spade]

I don't think Hillary should get too excited about Indiana either, the state is almost the same as Missouri demographically except whites are more Republican, meaning blacks take up a higher percentage of the Democratic electorate. Obama probably can't win it, but Hillary's edge in delegates won't be higher than single digits.

Uh...  I agree about the Texas stuff, but this makes no sense.

Indiana's whites are more Republican - that's news to me, bucko.  Truthfully, Indiana is a lot more like Ohio than Missouri.  There's always been a strong industrial/manufacturing base - Missouri has little of that.  True, the suburbs around Indianapolis are quite Republican - but the rest of the state - no.

Another important number:  Missouri - 11.2% black, Indiana 8.3% black.

[Person Man]

I don't think Hillary should get too excited about Indiana either, the state is almost the same as Missouri demographically except whites are more Republican, meaning blacks take up a higher percentage of the Democratic electorate. Obama probably can't win it, but Hillary's edge in delegates won't be higher than single digits.

Uh...  I agree about the Texas stuff, but this makes no sense.

Indiana's whites are more Republican - that's news to me, bucko.  Truthfully, Indiana is a lot more like Ohio than Missouri.  There's always been a strong industrial/manufacturing base - Missouri has little of that.  True, the suburbs around Indianapolis are quite Republican - but the rest of the state - no.
Another important number:  Missouri - 11.2% black, Indiana 8.3% black.

Then again, it balences out with more whites being goppers. Therefore, there will be fewer white as well, meaning blacks will probably represent at the same levels....and I don't know how there can be anything more GOPPER than rural Indiana.

[Sam Spade]

I don't think Hillary should get too excited about Indiana either, the state is almost the same as Missouri demographically except whites are more Republican, meaning blacks take up a higher percentage of the Democratic electorate. Obama probably can't win it, but Hillary's edge in delegates won't be higher than single digits.

Uh...  I agree about the Texas stuff, but this makes no sense.

Indiana's whites are more Republican - that's news to me, bucko.  Truthfully, Indiana is a lot more like Ohio than Missouri.  There's always been a strong industrial/manufacturing base - Missouri has little of that.  True, the suburbs around Indianapolis are quite Republican - but the rest of the state - no.
Another important number:  Missouri - 11.2% black, Indiana 8.3% black.

Then again, it balences out with more whites being goppers. Therefore, there will be fewer white as well, meaning blacks will probably represent at the same levels....and I don't know how there can be anything more GOPPER than rural Indiana.

Uh...  The St. Louis suburbs are not that greatly different from the Indianapolis suburbs in terms of voting habits - and actually in terms of overall votes, the Indianapolis suburbs are simply less overall votes.

If you think rural Indiana is GOP heartland, I'd advise you to start rethinking.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Well obviously Indiana is a far more Republican state than Missouri, just look at the 2004 numbers. So whites must be more Republican.

But here's something else to look at, the CD factors:

IN-1: Obvious Obama country. The blacks in Gary + the affluent Chicago suburbia. Oh yeah, it's CHICAGO suburbia too. The only problem is its 6 delegates, an even number, but Obama might manage to net 4.
IN-2: Blacks in South Bend, but not much else. Hillary wins 3-2.
IN-3: Awful for Obama, but only 4 delegates. Almost certainly a 2-2 split.
IN-4: Obama-friendly Indianapolis exurbs (though they have few Democrats), but it's only 4 delegates, so 2-2.
IN-5: Ditto
IN-6: You got the college town of Muncie but that probably isn't enough. 3-2 Hillary.
IN-7: Inner-city Indianapolis. Enough blacks for Obama to win, but enough whites to prevent a huge victory. But it's 5 delegates, so 3-2 Obama.
IN-8: Ugh. Bad. 3-2 Hillary.
IN-9: There's Bloomington but that's it. 3-2 Hillary.

That equals only net 2 delegates for Hillary, and if Obama can do well enough to get 4 in IN-1, he'll cancel that advantage out. And there's only 25 delegates at large, so even a 60-40 result in favor of Hillary gives her only 5 more delegates. So we're looking at +7 for Hillary best case. Not as good for her as it should be demographically.

[Ogre Mage]

A major problem I see for Obama in Pennsylvania is that it is a closed Democratic Primary -- no independents allowed.  That cuts off an important part of his coalition.  Hillary is stronger among self-identified Democrats.  Given that the demographics of the state favor her and Gov. Rendell will be running his machine for her she has to feel good about her chances.  Whatever happens with the state delegate count, a strong victory in a key state like Pennsylvania will definitely be noticed by the Super Delegates.

[Person Man]

I don't think Hillary should get too excited about Indiana either, the state is almost the same as Missouri demographically except whites are more Republican, meaning blacks take up a higher percentage of the Democratic electorate. Obama probably can't win it, but Hillary's edge in delegates won't be higher than single digits.

Uh...  I agree about the Texas stuff, but this makes no sense.

Indiana's whites are more Republican - that's news to me, bucko.  Truthfully, Indiana is a lot more like Ohio than Missouri.  There's always been a strong industrial/manufacturing base - Missouri has little of that.  True, the suburbs around Indianapolis are quite Republican - but the rest of the state - no.
Another important number:  Missouri - 11.2% black, Indiana 8.3% black.

Then again, it balences out with more whites being goppers. Therefore, there will be fewer white as well, meaning blacks will probably represent at the same levels....and I don't know how there can be anything more GOPPER than rural Indiana.

Uh...  The St. Louis suburbs are not that greatly different from the Indianapolis suburbs in terms of voting habits - and actually in terms of overall votes, the Indianapolis suburbs are simply less overall votes.

If you think rural Indiana is GOP heartland, I'd advise you to start rethinking.

LOL

Just look at the 2004 map!



Maybe around the Ohio River where Bush was kept under 60...but in many places he surged past 70!

[J. J.]

A major problem I see for Obama in Pennsylvania is that it is a closed Democratic Primary -- no independents allowed.  That cuts off an important part of his coalition.  Hillary is stronger among self-identified Democrats.  Given that the demographics of the state favor her and the Gov. Rendell will be running his machine for her she has to feel good about her chances.  Whatever happens with the state delegate count, a strong victory in a key state like Pennsylvania will definitely be noticed the Super Delegates.

I would basically see Obama taking three 3 CD at best, probably 2.  I could actually see Hillary winning some of hers in Central PA by greater than 60%.

A basic slight edge for Obama in WI, TX reasonably strong for Clinton, and a large victory in OH.  PA could be a Clinton blowout.  On April 23, 2008, I expect Clinton will have be leading in elected delegates (possibly even elected delegates excluding FL/MI).

[Colin]

I don't think Hillary should get too excited about Indiana either, the state is almost the same as Missouri demographically except whites are more Republican, meaning blacks take up a higher percentage of the Democratic electorate. Obama probably can't win it, but Hillary's edge in delegates won't be higher than single digits.

Uh...  I agree about the Texas stuff, but this makes no sense.

Indiana's whites are more Republican - that's news to me, bucko.  Truthfully, Indiana is a lot more like Ohio than Missouri.  There's always been a strong industrial/manufacturing base - Missouri has little of that.  True, the suburbs around Indianapolis are quite Republican - but the rest of the state - no.
Another important number:  Missouri - 11.2% black, Indiana 8.3% black.

Then again, it balences out with more whites being goppers. Therefore, there will be fewer white as well, meaning blacks will probably represent at the same levels....and I don't know how there can be anything more GOPPER than rural Indiana.

Uh...  The St. Louis suburbs are not that greatly different from the Indianapolis suburbs in terms of voting habits - and actually in terms of overall votes, the Indianapolis suburbs are simply less overall votes.

If you think rural Indiana is GOP heartland, I'd advise you to start rethinking.

LOL

Just look at the 2004 map!



Maybe around the Ohio River where Bush was kept under 60...but in many places he surged past 70!

Hey, idiot, just because people vote Republican doesn't mean that they're registered Republican. This occurs all over the place, some people haven't updated their voter registration since the 1950s. It's the same reason very Republican counties in northern Florida went for Edwards, old rascist Dixiecrats who now vote Republican going to the voting booth and finding out that they're registered Democrats.