Official Pennsylvania Democratic Primary Discussion Thread

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well, I'm almost certain that the exit poll is wrong, because it doesn't seem internally consistent. Whether it means Obama or Clinton does better I don't know though.

Good catch there

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Clinton is winning Greene County by 50 point!  PA-12.

Fayette County is even worse.  Al will be interested.

Yep

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Obama's lead in Dauphin is actually increasing.

A lot of idiots there near the capital.

Racist comment.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Wow... you guys are in victim mode hard core.

You know why Obama is ahead in Dauphin right? If you're saying it's because there's a lot of idiots and thus the two are connected...

Civil Servants? More of them there than blacks as it happens.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Wow... CNN is a little out of touch there.  Lawrence and Beaver County are "rural"?

lolz

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The results really are fascinating. And some of the spin in this thread was quite amusing.

[Silent Hunter]

This is the strangest primary season that I can remember, that's for sure.

+9? Not quite a +10, but good enough for Clinton to stay in. I suspect she'll go to the end of the primaries- and I wouldn't put going to the convention past her.

[Gustaf]

I just wanted to post and say that I have recently been rudely awakened. Check when I was last up and posting here. Then consider my time zone. Then pity me.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

There are some CD numbers here: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/18018274.html

But be warned! They seem to have stopped bothering to update the CD totals at some point and the delagate figures seem to be frequently wrong or just not there at all...

[True Democrat]

Delegate math with the real results broken down!

The current splits (Clinton minus Obama):

PA-1: -3
PA-2: -5
PA-3: +1
PA-4: +1
PA-5: 0 (Clinton victory)
PA-6: 0 (Clinton victory)
PA-7: -1 (closest result)
PA-8: +1
PA-9: +1
PA-10: +2
PA-11: +1
PA-12: +3
PA-13: +3
PA-14: -1
PA-15: +1
PA-16: 0 (Obama victory)
PA-17: 0 (Clinton victory)
PA-18: +1
PA-19: 0 (Clinton victory)

+5 in district delegates, +5 in at-large delegates

Some of these are not mostly in, although many (like PA-1, despite the surprising result) are, and nearly all are at 75% or more. The following could reasonably shift:

PA-3 and PA-11, although only under half reporting, are very unlikely to flip to -1 from +1.
PA-13 could flip to +1 from +3, depending on which votes are in.
PA-7 could flip to +1 from -1 based on the few remaining results; Obama's margin is quite small.
PA-6 is barely reporting at all, but 0 is highly likely.

So Clinton only came out with ten net delegates?

That's quite bad.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Could someone post a list of how many delegates (in total) there are for each district, please [qm]

[True Democrat]

    *  3 delegates from CD 9
    * 4 delegates from CDs 5, 10, 16, 17, 19
    * 5 delegates from CDs 3, 4, 11, 12, 15, 18
    * 6 delegates from CD 6
    * 7 delegates from CDs 1, 7, 8, 13, 14
    * 9 delegates from CD 2

From Dave.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

    *  3 delegates from CD 9
    * 4 delegates from CDs 5, 10, 16, 17, 19
    * 5 delegates from CDs 3, 4, 11, 12, 15, 18
    * 6 delegates from CD 6
    * 7 delegates from CDs 1, 7, 8, 13, 14
    * 9 delegates from CD 2

From Dave.

So delegates not yet worked out by the philly.com website (or others using the same thing or something) ...

1: 1
2: 0
3: 1
4: 1
5: 2
6: 6
7: 7
8: 1
9: 1
10: 2
11: 2
12: 2
13: 2
14: 0
15: 5
16: 1
17: 0
18: 1
19: 0

Apologies for errors

[J. J.]

The last count I've seen was 3 from PA-2, one from each, PA-1, PA-7 (which surprised me), and PA 13, for Obama.  Everything else is either a tie or a win.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/PA-D.phtml

I'm still wondering about PA-7, and PA-12.

[Sam Spade]

Those numbers look wrong to me on the face - PA8 is not that close, for example

[Verily]

Delegate math with the real results broken down!

The current splits (Clinton minus Obama):

PA-1: -3
PA-2: -5
PA-3: +1
PA-4: +1
PA-5: 0 (Clinton victory)
PA-6: 0 (Clinton victory)
PA-7: -1 (closest result)
PA-8: +1
PA-9: +1
PA-10: +2
PA-11: +1
PA-12: +3
PA-13: +3
PA-14: -1
PA-15: +1
PA-16: 0 (Obama victory)
PA-17: 0 (Clinton victory)
PA-18: +1
PA-19: 0 (Clinton victory)

+5 in district delegates, +5 in at-large delegates

Some of these are not mostly in, although many (like PA-1, despite the surprising result) are, and nearly all are at 75% or more. The following could reasonably shift:

PA-3 and PA-11, although only under half reporting, are very unlikely to flip to -1 from +1.
PA-13 could flip to +1 from +3, depending on which votes are in.
PA-7 could flip to +1 from -1 based on the few remaining results; Obama's margin is quite small.
PA-6 is barely reporting at all, but 0 is highly likely.

So Clinton only came out with ten net delegates?

That's quite bad.

She's getting mostly bad luck on the districts. She lost PA-7 by the narrowest of margins and came only just short of a 4-1 split in PA-8, for example (so far, anyway). As you can see, she also won most of the tied districts. Things could change, but it's somewhere between +8 (at worst) and +14 (at best) for her, with +10 looking the most likely.

[Smash255]

Some of the numbers seem a bit strange, if you look at PA-8 for example as Sam said isn't as close as it shows up on Green Papers.  Also some of the districts the numbers between philly.com & Greenpapers don't match up even when you take into consideration one having higher % reporting than the other.

[Eraserhead]

It sucks that we have to listen to the people on the media say "double didgit margin" again and again when it was really only 9 points.

[Verily]

New delegate numbers. Clinton has edged ahead in PA-7 with 6% left to count; her lead is less than 500 votes, though, and falling in more recent results, so it could go either way. This is the only district seriously contested.

With only 3% left, Clinton is over 1% short of managing the 5-2 split in PA-8; it won't happen.

PA-10, it's possible but unlikely that Clinton will fall below 62.5% in the remaining 30% to come in; she has 64.5% right now.

Clinton fell three points below the 5-2 split in PA-13 in late counts; she managed only 61.5%.

PA-1: -3
PA-2: -5
PA-3: +1
PA-4: +1
PA-5: 0
PA-6: 0
PA-7: +1 (very marginal)
PA-8: +1
PA-9: +1
PA-10: +2
PA-11: +1
PA-12: +3
PA-13: +1
PA-14: -1
PA-15: +1
PA-16: 0
PA-17: 0
PA-18: +1
PA-19: 0

The results are still +5 on district delegates, and, as established, +5 on statewide delegates. The odds are that the final result will be +8 or +10; we'll know which when PA-7 is fully reported.

Incidentally, if Clinton ends up falling short in PA-7, the 53-50 district delegates result predicted by RCP (I think it was RCP) will come true.

[Gustaf]

I have to say that the Democrats seem to have devised a very poor nomination process. It does not guarantee an early win or party unification, nor does it seem to ensure proportional representation. Not to mention the whole super delegate thing. But for the candidates I guess it tends to even out in the long run (never forget Alabama!), more or less.

[Verily]

I have to say that the Democrats seem to have devised a very poor nomination process. It does not guarantee an early win or party unification, nor does it seem to ensure proportional representation. Not to mention the whole super delegate thing. But for the candidates I guess it tends to even out in the long run (never forget Alabama!), more or less.

I agree; the problem are, of course, the district delegates. Proportionality is far too skewed with so few seats at stake in any individual area. I'm sure the idea was to maximize the influence of Congressmen in being able to influence the voters of their own districts and thus the delegate totals. First off, congressmen should clearly not have that sort of power, and they really don't exert any influence on their districts at all these days anyway, so the district delegates are defunct.

It might be interesting to see what the results would look like if all delegates were allocated statewide in all states. Clinton gains ground in a few places (Pennsylvania, Nevada), but Obama might gain more in the South (especially Alabama).

[Torie]

The Dem rules are designed to give minorities disproportionate influence.

[Verily]

The Dem rules are designed to give minorities disproportionate influence.

That may be part of the reasoning behind the CD allocation, too, I suppose, although it certainly failed in the Deep South.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It worked in southern states, but not Alabama. The reason it failed in Alabama though was the whites voting just as much in bloc as the blacks, and some unfortunate delegate allocation for Obama. He fell just short of winning 3 delegates in both of the 4 delegate districts and had his margin in the majority black district canceled out by that nasty abomination that is AL-4. This resulted in an even split among district delegates, with Obama's +2 among the statewide delegates making up his margin.

In all fairness though, if Obama were white and was somehow winning similar numbers of the black vote but also a decent chunk of the white vote as well, the rules would help with minorities. And it might've done so in Mississippi too.

[True Democrat]

Does anyone know which precincts are still out in Philly?

[Alcon]

Does anyone know which precincts are still out in Philly?

I've tried to get post-certification precinct results from them, but I was basically hissed and clawed at.