Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers

[J. J.]

I think to lock down the super delegates, Obama needs two things:

1.  To win the elected delegates by a 67-110 net delegate margin (MI/FL), or.

2.  Win after the MI/FL delegates are reselected.

If he doesn't, I believe Hillary wins.

[J. J.]

If Muskie was such a sh**tty candidate, why did Nixon go to such lengths to eliminate him?

Because Nixon could.

[J. J.]

One thing to keep in mind, the Democrats want to win in November.

If Obama, due to a series of negative reports, beliefs, and actual events, is seen as a sure loser to McCain, who knows what the Democrats will decide, even if Obama does have a lead in committed delegates.

The Democrats want the White House back, and they are not about to let a little thing like committed delegates get in the way.

If Obama is damaged goods, the Democrats will no longer want him.

I think it will have to be shown that he's damaged goods.  If so, I can see this scenario:

1.  Obama drops below a net lead of 110 elected delegates.

2.  The convention seats the 110 MI/FL delegates (which is within the rules).  It is done with the consent of the super delegates.

3.  The Clinton forces proclaim that Hillary has a majority of the elected delegates.

[J. J.]

No dice.

And why not, because your candidate won't win it?

According to the Green Pages, Obama is up by 156 elected delegates.  Do you think his lead will shrink by 46 delegates?

 (I do, and I've seen this as a problem for a few months.)

[J. J.]

Michigan won't be seated as is. So you can get that idea out of your head. Most likely will be split 50/50. Florida is a  50/50 chance of only seating half the delegates with the Jan. 29th result or seated with full delegates.

I don't know why some people think everyone will be hunky-dory with seating MI/FL delegates to overrule the REAL elected delegates. I think it's just a fantasy of many.

Not if Hillary has the majority at the convention, including the super delegates, and would get a majority of the elected delegates with MI/FL they will most likely be seated.  And it's all within the rules.

[J. J.]

Would the DNC do that?

Assuming Hillary has enough votes overall, with the super delegates, so that she can say that she has a majority of the elected delegates.

[J. J.]

Once the uncommitted in Michigan are seated, Hillary will not have a 110 delegate lead in those states together.

They are not Obama's either, technically.  They one:

1.  Could be seated as unpledged.

2.  Only those pledged could be seated.  (The convention can do that).

Keeping in mind 55 unpledged delegates are out there, let's look at the situation:

FL give Hillary a net of +42.

Even if every MI unpledged delegate voted for Obama, Hillary won 80, so she has a net gain of a minimum of +25, for a total of +69.

Some of those 55 may have been truly uncommitted and some "really" Edwards.  Some might be pursuaded for Clinton, especially if she already has the majority.  Let's that only 20%, 11 delegates fall into these categories and the rest are die hard Obama supporters.  Hillary now has 91 (80+11=91) delegates and Obama has 44 (55-11=44).  Hillary now has a net gain of +47 from MI.  MI/FL net gain is now +89 Clinton, even using a relatively minor split, 80% in favor of Obama.

Obama has not been nearly as supportive getting these delegates seating; they won't be there but for Clinton's efforts.  The split might be greater.  Let's say it's a 20 to 35 split in favor of Obama.  Obama gets +35 and Hillary gets +100 (80+20=100).  Hillary's net is now +65 from MI.  Her MI/FL net is now +107.

What if (and we don't know) the split in the unpledged is about even, 28 for Obama, 27 Clinton.  Obama has 28 delegates out of MI; Hillary has 107 delegates.  Hillary's net gain +79 (107-28=79).  Her MI/FL net is now +121.  Obama is in the position of trying to keep all of these unpledged delegates out; the will not endear him to any of them.  It's around 110, but because of the situation, it could actually turn out to be worse. 

Technically, Obama need +178 to prevent this outright.  I think he can make a good political argument at +110.  He can't make it at all at anything less than +79.

If you've been wondering why I've been screaming about this for more than a month, that is the reason.  Obama will have to be in the position of having to anything to win, even if he has to deprive two states of their elected representatives.  He can't walk into the convention and do that, in full view of the TV cameras, and expect to look like anything except a vote grubbing politician, who's willing to anything to win the nomination. 

That is also why I have exceptionally critical of Howard Dean.  Dean should not be sitting back, but should actively working to prevent this.

I'm to the point where I doubt that Obama will even meet the +79 elected delegate threshold by the convention.  He might, but it looks like it's closing.

[J. J.]

Erc's explanation of Michigan shows that's quite unlikely Hillary will take more than a handful of the uncommitted once they are seated. He's projecting at least 30 of the district ones for Obama, the at large ones come from the state committee so who knows, but Hillary needs a much better organization, which she doesn't have as her failure in caucuses shows.

Whatever the case, anyone with an IQ over 70 can clearly see that the Michigan delegates don't accurately represent the opinions of the Michigan electorate which is why one could validly argue for their exclusion. J. J. seems to think the DNC will always think like him.

It really doesn't make a difference, because they are the elected delegates, and that is the standard Obama is trying to use. 

Even a "handful," puts it above 100; a 70/30 split, in favor of Obama, puts it above 110.  It's basically going to be up the super delegates to "save" him, and they might have to do so by staging a floor fight (and I really don't want to see it).

Actually, I think only hacks, morons, and Howard Dean don't see the potential problem here.  Obama needs that cushion, and I have serious doubts that he'll have it by the convention.

And the there are the Edwards delegates (18-31, depending MI/FL).  If they go to Clinton, that cushion could need to be much larger.

[J. J.]

If I were advising Obama, this would be what say:

JJ:  How many of those 55 unpledged MI will vote for you, if seated and don't object?

BHO:  At least 40.

JJ.  You'll call for them to be seated after NC (net of -105),  Seat Florida (net of  -42). what's your PA loss look like?

BHO: Net -25.

JJ.  Ok, concentrate on Phila, but begin to hit strongly in NC and IN.  And get me the, WV, KY and OR polls; we might advertise in Pittsburg to help out in WV.  How close are you to Edwards; he can help there and he has some delegates?  Can you get him to endorse you and ask his delegate to vote for you?

BHO:  That's a tall order but I think so.

JJ.  PA is gone, you numbers might even drop.  Greatly cut the ads in Phila,  I'll see about Pittsburgh after I see about WV.  Barack, you are going to make your first stand in NC and IN; if WV looks good, we might try for a hat trick.  Next clear stops a KY and OR; OR is the firewall.

The bulk of your resources are going into NC and IN, whatever's left, goes into KY and OR.  You might be broke after that, but it won't matter.

[J. J.]

It really doesn't make a difference, because they are the elected delegates, and that is the standard Obama is trying to use.

It does because he's using only delegates that actually count on the floor and were elected in legitimate elections.

The delegates are seated by the convention, though initially by the credentials committee.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You don't understand that the seating of the delegates is left to the Democratic National Convention, ultimately.  If Hillary has a majority, even with the super delegates, THE Convention can seat them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The thing is that Pelosi is irrelevant if Clinton has more delegates; that majority gets to seat them.  I seriously doubt Pelosi is going to object to depriving several states of their delegations, when she is in the minority.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've said Dean has acted badly; he is in a position where he could arrange a solution.  He should have more greatly tried to

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can imaging Hillery saying "Let every vote count."  I vaguely recall that from some previous Democrat.  I can also here her saying "Obama is trying to deprive the right to vote of elected delegates of two (large) states."  And please understand that the super delegates wouldn't be "annointing" her, only letting those elected delegates from MI/FL serve as the elected representatives of their Democratic constituencies.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I believe I did at the time.  Oh, yes, I just posted the 11 point drop in Obama.  It was Zogby unfortunately.

[J. J.]

NC's a net of -105?

typo somewhere or what did I miss?

In the dialog, that was the net loss refers to MI and should be -55

[J. J.]

NC's a net of -105?

typo somewhere or what did I miss?

In the dialog, that was the net loss refers to MI and should be -55

I apologize, i'm not quite following...Clinton's going to gain delegates on Obama in North Carolina?

That would be the hypothetical loss of delegates Obama would have seating MI under this scenario.  I think MI/FL can be seated, and Obama can pull it out.

Obama actually has a reasonable argument in saying, "I should be the nominee, because I have the most elected delegates."  The argument he's making is, "I should be the nominee, because I have the most elected delegates, ah, if you don't count all the elected delegates."

If Obama comes out 15-50 delegates ahead, without MI/FL, his argument would be a joke.

[J. J.]

The scenario mentioned is a Catch-22 because it requires Hillary win a majority to get the Florida and Michigan delegates seated in the first place. Thus it's pointless.

I believe I did at the time.

Please show me where.

You can check the polls yourself.

[J. J.]

J. J., with all respect, it's virtually impossible to justify saying that Wisconsin was "tightening."

You might as well just admit you were wrong so that BRTD will shut up for a while and we can all go on with our lives.

You mean:

02-16   ARG   C +6   
02-14   Research 2000   O +5   
02-13   Rasmussen   O +4   
02-12   Public Policy Polling   O +11

I'm sorry, but a +6 Clinton is a tighter race that +11 Obama.

[J. J.]

J. J., with all respect, it's virtually impossible to justify saying that Wisconsin was "tightening."

You might as well just admit you were wrong so that BRTD will shut up for a while and we can all go on with our lives.

You mean:

02-16   ARG   C +6   
02-14   Research 2000   O +5   
02-13   Rasmussen   O +4   
02-12   Public Policy Polling   O +11

I'm sorry, but a +6 Clinton is a tighter race that +11 Obama.

You neglected to include the following:

02-18   ARG   O +10
02-17   Public Policy Polling   O +13

When I was posting the tightening, those four polls were the ones out.  PPP looked like an outrider at the time (2/12).  We did also have the ARG numbers all over the place.

[J. J.]

When I was posting the tightening, those four polls were the ones out.  PPP looked like an outrider at the time (2/12).  We did also have the ARG numbers all over the place.

No, you posted about the tightening on the evening of Feb 18th.  At that time, the PPP poll from 02-17 (which was consistent with their result from 02-12) had already been added to the forum database.  Even if we exclude ARG and give you the benefit of the doubt and exclude the 02-12 PPP poll as an outlier, we're left with a sum total of three polls for 2008; all of which had Obama holding steady with a 4 point and then 5 point lead.

On what evidence, therefore, were you basing the assertion that the race was tightening?

I was looking at the PPP as being possibly a bad poll.  We had Rasmussen and Research 2000 both showing it closer than the first PPP (I think by more that the MOE).  I wasn't looking too much at the ARG as showing Clinton was leading, but showing a tightening race.  It turned out that the PPP was right on the money. 

You had the PPP (2/12) showing an eleven point lead for Obama, then you had three polls that averaged a 1 point lead; the last one showed a greater difference.  Then I said, "It's narrowing."  Yes, at that point, it sure was, assuming the polls were right; they weren't. 

[J. J.]

Except PPP even openly admitted in their poll writeups that they were getting radically different numbers than the other pollsters, due to a different model they were using (which was actually far more accurate). So comparing PPP to the other pollsters is pointless. So you have one set of polls all showing Obama with numbers within the MoE, PPP showing another set of numbers all within the MoE and ARG being all around the place and wrong as usual. No trend whatsoever.

Over those four days, it looked like a trend.

[J. J.]

Except PPP even openly admitted in their poll writeups that they were getting radically different numbers than the other pollsters, due to a different model they were using (which was actually far more accurate). So comparing PPP to the other pollsters is pointless. So you have one set of polls all showing Obama with numbers within the MoE, PPP showing another set of numbers all within the MoE and ARG being all around the place and wrong as usual. No trend whatsoever.

Over those four days, it looked like a trend.

Trend or outlier? Anyone with common sense says outlier. Especially considering if it's not one than Obama mysteriously made a huge gain from the day before only to lose it. Not too mention as I said above the firm even admitted was so and explained why.

And your comments were made after the second PPP poll came out.

If you were thinking PPP was simply a bad poll as you stated and aren't including ARG either, then all the other polls have the race roughly the same. You can not create a trend by comparing the first PPP poll to the rest, and ignore the second. As I said before, you have two sets of numbers excluding ARG, none showing any statistically significant trend (the slight trend within the MoE in fact was in Obama's favor.)

Have you noticed by the way that not a single person is defending you on this while some people who normally don't get along with me are taking my side?

Zach, I'm looking at all the polls.  We had the first PPP, then we had three that were notably lower, and with the first ARG poll, showing a solid decline in Obama's support.  It was a drop of 10-11 points when I made the comment.  Then we have the second PPP poll.  Now, were both of the PPP's using bad methodology?  It turns out no, but I couldn't tell that at the time.

There was, going by those polls a rather substantial tightening of the race.

I'm sorry if you cannot understand Obama +11, Obama +4, Obama +5, and Obama -6, really looks like a tightening of the race.

[J. J.]

J. J.,

So, in other words, it's irrelevant who does polls, and:

=THEORETICAL=
Pollster A, 1/1: D+6
Pollster B, 1/1: R+3
Pollster A, 1/8: D+9
Pollster B, 1/8: R+1
=END THEORETICAL==

Is a trend toward the GOP?  Especially if pollster B is crap?  That's a silly interpretation.

And you still are ignoring the fact that you said you were disregarding Zogby and ARG polls in the analysis, which makes for the following pattern (margin, followed by pollster in parentheses):

C+15 (A)
C+13 (A)
C+16 (A)
C+22 (A)
C+7 (A)
O+4 (A)
O+11 (B)
O+4 (C)
O+5 (D)
O+13 (B)

So, we have Obama's highest showing from pollster A, new polls from pollster B showing a slight Obama trend, and polls C and D showing a closer race - but while pollster B shows an Obama-ward progression.  In other words:

1. Pollster A showed a strong, gradual trend toward Obama.  Their last poll showed Obama at his highest level ever.

2. Pollster B found Obama +11.  Afterwards, two pollsters found Obama +4 and Obama +5.  Then Pollster B, clearly finding more pro-Obama results as a whole, found Obama +13.

The only way we can find a pro-Clinton trend is by ignoring the second result from pollster B, and then comparing their first results to results from other firms.  That doesn't make a lick of sense!

First of all, let's go back:

02-12   Public Policy Polling   O +11

I don't recall PPP, but let's assume that it's a good poll.

02-13   Rasmussen   O +4 

Good company, did well in 2004

02-14   Research 2000   O +5

Not particularly good, but close to prior results.

02-16   ARG   C +6   

Bad polling in general.  I'm not saying, "Clinton's winning, because ARG is showing she's up six."

I'm also looking at ARG and saying, "It probably isn't 10-12 points off. Obama is probably around +3 to +6."  If the first PPP is correct, and these other polls are correct, Obama has dropped from +11 to +6, perhaps to +3.

Then we get the second PPP; it is Obama +13.  Is this bad methodology, an outrider, or it it right and the bots, ARG, Research 2000 all off?  It turned out to be the third option, which surprised me.  Or, in other words, the opposite of what happened in NH happened in WI.

[J. J.]

Once again, the Obama -6 is an ARG, which should be disregarded, something you even claimed.

It should not have been considered to be accurate, and possibly an outrider; please note tht I didn't say, "Look at ARG; Hillart's winning."  It's trend could have been accurate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think if the PPP poll would have happened mid cycle, I wouldn't have used the word "tightening." 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How could you tell if either was an out rider?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Likewise, just looking at two polls, I couldn't tell if it was methodology.  I don't recall looking a PPP before WI.  I was looking, excluding PPP, at a 5-6 point race, with that first ARG poll popping up.  Not a great poll, but it look like is showing a trend.  Remember I said "tightening" not "losing."  It turned out that PPP was right on the money.

[J. J.]

Alcon, here is my initial comment, which Flem responded to:

I'm not crazy about ARG or Zogby, but some of the other polls have been showing a tightening of the race.

  All the polls have show'd a basic 5-7 pt Obama lead. No tightening of what you speak.

In that time, we had the bots with 4, a second with 5, and that ARG poll that I wasn't crazy about, showing a -6.  To me, that was a sign of tightening.  Didn't call it a sign of an impending Clinton victory, though I thought it was possible.

That PPP was out there, but quality was unknown.

BTW:  We were discussing the first ARG poll on that thread when I made that comment. 

[J. J.]

It's a garbage poll by your own admission. Garbage polls shouldn't be looked at all, you can't say "well the poll is crap so it's probably not right but it might show some trend...", if the poll is crap, it's crap, the end.

Except I didn't call it "garbage."  I said I was not "crazy" about it.  did it carry some weight, yes; did I give it a lot of weight and say, "This means Hillary will win?"  No.

[

Once again, why does it matter when the PPP poll came out? The results would've been the same.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you would would have asked me which poll I trusted least at the time, it was PPP.  The reason was the difference between it and the other polls.  I actually had more faith in ARG than I did PPP at the time (and yes turned out to be wrong).

I saw one poll, that might or might not be correct that showed +11 for Obama, I saw a number of other polls, taken later, showing Obama much closer.

Now, that is the reason I said "tightening" and that is what I said at the time.

[J. J.]

Lots of the remaining ones WANT to remain neutral for fairly obvious reasons. If forced to choose most would probably just go how their state voted or follow Nancy Pelosi and vote for whoever has the most pledged delegates, which is going to be Obama (Sorry J. J., you aren't a superdelegate so your opinion here doesn't mean sh!t.) And that's not even counting the 70+ add-ons who are actually somewhat elected and Obama holds the edge in.

The following primaries after Pennsylvania are pretty split too. Hillary has Indiana, those hick states and Puerto Rico, Obama has North Carolina, Oregon, South Dakota and Montana.

BRTD, opinions like mine effect what the super delegates think.  Right now, Obama has a 154 edge in elected delegates.  I fully expect that after PA, that number will be reduced.  Two weeks later, there is NC and IN.  I would have expected NC to go Obama before the Wright affair.  Now, I don't know.  A week after that, WV.

By May 14, Obama could possibly have that total reduced by 50-65 delegates.  It is possible that the "edge" will be below even the conservative estimates of FL/MI by mid June.  That may be some of the reason the super delegates won't budge.

I've been saying this would be a problem for a while; I think you are seeing the accuracy of that statement.

[J. J.]

Lots of the remaining ones WANT to remain neutral for fairly obvious reasons. If forced to choose most would probably just go how their state voted or follow Nancy Pelosi and vote for whoever has the most pledged delegates, which is going to be Obama (Sorry J. J., you aren't a superdelegate so your opinion here doesn't mean sh!t.) And that's not even counting the 70+ add-ons who are actually somewhat elected and Obama holds the edge in.

The following primaries after Pennsylvania are pretty split too. Hillary has Indiana, those hick states and Puerto Rico, Obama has North Carolina, Oregon, South Dakota and Montana.

BRTD, opinions like mine effect what the super delegates think.  Right now, Obama has a 154 edge in elected delegates.  I fully expect that after PA, that number will be reduced.  Two weeks later, there is NC and IN.  I would have expected NC to go Obama before the Wright affair.  Now, I don't know.  A week after that, WV.

By May 14, Obama could possibly have that total reduced by 50-65 delegates.  It is possible that the "edge" will be below even the conservative estimates of FL/MI by mid June.  That may be some of the reason the super delegates won't budge.

I've been saying this would be a problem for a while; I think you are seeing the accuracy of that statement.

Your numbers require not only a Hillary victory in NC, but a blowout. It won't happen.

A fortnight ago, I would have agreed.  Now, I'm not too sure.  Also, no, not a blowout.  Both NC and IN are up, and I could see Hillary! (yes, I'm doing that just to annoy you) netting 25 from both.  65 is possible by May 14, but a 50-60 vote range is more likely.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd frankly expect Hillary to net 25-40 from MI, if there was a revote.  I'm not expecting Obama to break 65 elected delegates by the convention, without FL/MI.  Now, if he ends up with a 200 elected delegate lead, that would be different.

[J. J.]

Please give delegate figures that make that possible. Also note Hillary hasn't led in a NC poll since January (with Edwards still in.)

A bare victory in both could give her the net 25 from both states.  You are talking about more than 220 delegates.  Like I said, a fortnight ago, I had NC reasonably safely for Obama; now I don't.

I'd frankly expect Hillary to net 25-40 from MI, if there was a revote.

LOL! Hillary got 25 more projected delegates than Uncomitted. She's going to do better against Obama than she did against Uncomitted as the only serious candidate on the ballot (with about 30% of people who said they would've voted for Obama had he been on the ballot voting for her according to the CNN exit poll)? Oh and with the race basically starting out tied according to Rasmussen.
[/quote]

She probably will do better.  A lot of those uncommitted were supporting the candidates still in including Edwards.  Some of those uncommitted have gravitated to Clinton.  Why else do you think Obama hasn't been supportive of a re-vote.