2008 Re: Wyoming & Mississippi & Credulity
posted by on March 10 at 12:35 PM
Warning: Messy math ahead.
I think the pundits skipped lightly over Wyoming and Mississippi mainly because those states were/are unlikely to change the status quo: ie, Obama leading Clinton by well over 100 pledged delegates. Pennsylvania is her next best chance to catch up. Not that she will.
What I find curious is why people aren’t marveling over how accurate the Obama camp’s early February projections have been. That document probably wasn’t leaked in order to manage expectations, people said then—why, it has him winning every February post-Super Tuesday contest save Maine. (He ended up winning those caucuses too.) But if people had taken those projections seriously, they wouldn’t have been surprised that he lost Ohio resoundingly and Texas by a hair. The projections didn’t seem to take the Texas two-step caucus advantage into account, but the primary vote margin was spot on: O 47, C 51.
A Daily Kos diarist has broken down the Obama campaign’s projected and actual delegate counts for the contests up to Wyoming:
Louisiana Projected: 31 / Actual: 34 / Difference: +3
Nebraska Projected: 15 / Actual: 16 / Difference: +1
Virgin Islands Projected: 2 / Actual: 3 / Difference: +1
Washington Projected: 49 / Actual: 52 / Difference: +3
Maine Projected: 10 / Actual: 15 / Difference: +5
Dems Abroad Projected: 5 / Actual: 6 / Difference: +1
D.C Projected: 9 / Actual: 12 / Difference: +3
Maryland Projected: 37 / Actual: 42 / Difference: +5
Virginia Projected: 43 / Actual: 54 / Difference: +11
Hawaii Projected: 11 / Actual: 14 / Difference: +3
Wisconsin Projected: 40 / Actual: 42 / Difference: +2
Ohio Projected: 68 / Actual: 66 / Difference: -2
Rhode Island Projected: 8 / Actual: 8 / Difference: 0
Texas Projected: 92 / Actual: 98 / Difference: +6
Vermont Projected: 9 / Actual: 9 / Difference: 0
Wyoming was projected at 7 delegates, and the actual count is 7. Pretty creepy.
So what’s Obama going to lose in the coming weeks?
According to the memo, we can look forward to Clinton wins in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Puerto Rico—a conservative but reasonable assessment. Accordingly, from tomorrow through June 7, we can expect Obama to win approximately 303 additional pledged delegates. Clinton should win approximately 296. Which changes absolutely nothing.
It’s about the superdelegates, stupid. The media ought to be very, very careful about which Clinton narratives they repeat (big states! Obama has to prove himself in Pennsylvania! pledged delegates can actually change their votes!) and which Obama narratives they mimic (more pledged delegates! more states! popular vote!).
Let’s say the projections hold—and Michigan and Florida are not seated. Obama will have 1,379+303 pledged delegates at the convention, for a total of 1,682. Clinton will have 1,526. You need 2,025 to get the nomination, so Obama will need 343 superdelegates, and Clinton will need 499. (Currently they have 210 and 245, respectively, so Obama needs 133 more and Clinton needs 254 more.) There are 795 superdelegates total, so let’s see… Obama needs 39% of the remaining superdelegates and Clinton needs 75% of the remaining superdelegates to clinch the nomination.
No wonder Clinton’s fighting so scrappy for Florida and Michigan.
I've got news for you, Little Miss Math Professor Annie Wagner. Delegates schmelegates.
I don't care if Obama ends up with more pledged delegates and more votes, Hillary deserves to win. She's earned it. You go, girl!
The Clintons are America's First Family, the closest thing we have to royalty in this land, and this is the way you treat them, Annie? You ingrate.
Sure, the only way Hillary can win at this point is by getting incredibly dirty and divisive, to essentially make the supers do with this nomination what the Supreme Court did with Florida in 2000. And I say, more power to her. It's about time we had a Democrat who's battle-tested, who we know and trust will play even dirtier than the Republicans, who will be even more destructive, who will out-Swiftboat the Swiftboaters, who will lie, cheat, and steal and do whatever it takes to win.
If there's anything we can learn from recent American political history, it's that (A) Republicans don't play fair, and (B) Republicans are winners. I'm glad to know at least one proud Democrat has taken that lesson to heart.
When Michigan & Florida are included, the delegate threshold to be the nominee will rise back to the original number.
Arguably, the Bush family is our firster first family. Multigenerational, multi-state, three terms and all. Should we also show them respect and gratitude out of loyalty?
@1. that's pretty gross.
I spose you think she should probably invade a couple countries to celebrate her victory too eh?
Also
Bill Clinton sucked.
And our last liberal president, if you haven't been keeping count, was Richard Nixon. Damn actually... I mean if one of the two is the next RN you make it sound a lot like that person would be HRC.
@3 & 4: Cressona is an Obama fan who loves the satire. Calm, calm.
How many delegates do Florida and Michigan have to offer (if they do get seated)?
However, most of the Pennsylvania voters I know are for Obama, so don't count that one in the Clinton camp yet ...
Ah, Will knows everybody in PA too. Figures.
Clinton's going to win big there, but it's not going to matter. That spreadsheet looks pretty much like the one I've been keeping, though my projections aren't as accurate. But it bears repeating that even if they seat FL and MI as-is, with no do-over, Clinton loses.
The superdelegates are not a mystery; they're holding back because they're going to go for the pledged winner, which is going to be Obama. I actually have a bigger superdelegate spread for Clinton, 261 to 214, but she's been shedding them as Obama has been rising. And almost half of them are undeclared.
MI has 156 delegates, and FL has 185.
Oh, Fnarf, I know you don't get around much, but try to keep up.
Unlike you, I lived there, my parents went to college there, and I still have relatives there. Heck, my mom taught Kindergarten and 2nd grade there ... so lots of people remember us.
Clinton is just going to have to accept that she's playing chess and Obama's playing poker.
Thanks, Tony @9.
So let's see...Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan, and Clinton managed 55% of the vote (pathetic, btw). So 55% of 156, barring some weird delgate-apportioning criteria, would be around 86 delegates for Clinton. Florida was 50%-33%, Clinton to Obama. So of those 185, around 98 go to Clinton and 61 go to Obama. So the totals are:
Michigan:
Clinton: 86 delegates
Obama: 0
Florida:
Clinton: 98 delegates
Obama: 61 delegates
Net gain for Clinton: 98+86-61= 123 delegates
Obama is currently up in the pledged delegate count by roughly 1348 to 1210.5 (according to NYT), or 137.5 delegates. If he maintains that lead, Clinton still falls over 14 delegates short in the pledged delegate count total even IF the DNC lose their minds, subvert democracy, and seat Florida and Michigan at the conventioin. Right?
She's pathetic.
I still do not know why everyone keeps treating this like it is the general election? Really, it is about the delegates in the end not which "big states" or "little states" anyone wins.
At the end of this we all need to accept there will be no resultion until the convention in August. In the next several months McCain can control when the media covers him and not cover him. McCain gets to rally the base of the GOP back by getting endorsements from every piece of right wing shit that exists in the country and get money lined up for the general election.
Meanwhile, Clinton and Obama continue to bleed the democratic party of treasure and motivation to actually win the White House in November.
This is why I said months and months ago: Do you REALLY think having this two year (yes, two year) election cycle is a good idea?
There's nothing quite so "democratic" as insisting on seating delegates from a state where your opponents aren't even on the ballot (Michigan), or where those opponents promised not to campaign to follow the rules that had been agreed to by all (Florida). Not even Putin attempted something as naked as that.
If this is how the Clinton campaign treats the campaign rules, isn't it important to wonder how a Clinton Administration will treat the rule of law in the post-Cheney-evisceration of checks and balances on Executive Power?
@12 - because McCain has such little chance, quite frankly. I mean, the guy is so old he makes Tina Brown look young ...
Can you imagine the revolt if the Superdelegates were to defy the will of the people (popular vote) and give it to Hillary?
Obama isn't a crackpot, we don't need super delegates to 'save' us from the picking him.
I wonder how the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is coming along...
Edwards needs to pledge his delegates to someone, that's an added +61 to whichever candidate gives him the AG spot.
According to the WSJ he only has 26, guess that's not going to help either side all that much. Maybe his endorsement would carry more weight.
Matthew @19, not sure why you addressed your comments to me. I agree with them btw. I was just responding to #6.
Oops, correction on 18: Should be "Matthew @ 11"
@15 - yes, we can imagine all the primary and write-in campaigns for Obama supporters in congressional districts where the superdelegate went for Clinton even when Obama won the delegation.
And you KNOW that will happen.
It's looking like there will be a re-do for Michigan AND Florida, which will cancel each other out, resulting in no net change in the delegate count, which means Obama stays in the lead and should be awarded the nomination by the supers.
I had been marveling at those predictions myself over the last couple of weeks. I think the trick is that the Obama campaign ended up securing the services of Ken Strasma and his firm, Strategic Telemetry. He is apparently the best in the business and had been pursued by all of the major candidates before signing on to the Obama campaign.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/11/26/071126fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=3
http://strategictelemetry.com/strasma_bio.htm
Matthew @11: Clinton didn't win Michigan 86-0. Someone called "Uncommitted" won 40% of the vote. If they seat Michigan as-is, they'll be seating those ~51 delegates too, and they will be voting for Obama -- which cuts her advantage even further. You're also overstating her Florida edge a little, too -- 50% of 185 is 93, not 98. Her net gain from the two states, disregarding superdelegates, is 50.
Your conclusion ("not enough") is actually stronger than you make it out to be.
If the situation were reversed and Clinton was ahead in delegates, I think she'd be calling for Obama to drop out of the race. She seems to believe that she's going to do something to change the momentum and miraculously win the nomination.
It's a fantasy.
She needs to show us her integrity and do the right thing for the Democrats. Unfortunately, she doesn't have the honor to do the right thing and she is going to tear this party apart in her bid for power.
I used to like Hillary. I don't anymore.
BTW, if you agree to the rules at the beginning of the campaign season, but then try to change them half way through to benefit yourself - that is the definition of dishonorable.
What's illuminating about this is how smart and honest Obama and his campaign team are. They know what to expect, and they do it in a logical way. Sure, they want to put a spin on things, but it doesn't turn ugly.
Not so with Clinton. She will destroy the party and country in an attempt to win at any cost. I'm surprised that Slog hasn't discussed the comments of Clinton supporter Geraldine Ferraro:
"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."
As several have noted, but not really said, there is a possible situation in which Edwards could be the decider- it's possible for Obama to get fewer than 39% of remaining superdelegates AND Clinto to get fewer than 75%. That little bit in between is John Edwards.
The other factor no one has mentioned is splitting Michigan and Florida. What happens if only Florida or only Michigan has a revote?
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).