Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
The math and how Hillary wins
I think Hillary Clinton has her opening to win the nomination, but things have to happen quickly.
Here's what she needs:
- Continued and sustained positive press
- Dozens and dozens of superdelegates endorsing her
- Win in Wyoming on Saturday, do surprisingly well in Mississippi on Tuesday
Why? She has a window here to look like the winner and American voters love themselves a winner - they also love comeback stories.
But...the narrative is likely to quickly change. Many prognosticators believe that Obama will win Wyoming's caucus, just as he has in similar states. And I don't think anyone believes that Mississippi will be anything but a blowout for Obama.
So...Obama is likely to grab the headlines back within a week and then we're going to see the superdelegates do the same math we've all been doing on the delegate count.
Then the question will be: will superdelegates flock to Obama or Clinton after it becomes clear that there is no way Clinton will be near Obama's pledged delegate count. (a few weeks ago the story I was hearing in the MSM was that there was a general feeling that Clinton needed to be within 20-30 delegates in order for superdelegates to feel ok about crossing over to the candidate with the fewer total delegates).
So it comes down to this for Hillary: The Superdelegates are Clinton's only mathematical hope for victory (even if she wins Penn, FL, and MI primaries with 10% victories). Will the remaining SDs flock to Hillary even if she's behind by over 100 pledged delegates?
I think we get back to the math. (damned numbers) - of the remaining 350 (roughly) superdelegates they'd have to go to Hillary something like this: 250:100.
I don't think this is realistic. But watch the unpledged superdelegates in the next two weeks - that will decide this nomination.




Comments (8)
WHY THE CLINTONS WON'T BE RELEASING THEIR TAX RETURNS?...
http://thememlingindex.com/hillary_clinton_net_worth-wealth.html
March 5, 2008 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting post. My take is that all victories in a Wyoming caucus and Mississippi primary are likely to do is confirm to the super delegates that Obama is a marginal candidate. When she blows him away in Pennsylvania, Kentucky and West Virginia the super dels will rally to her. He'll concede. Any subsequent wins by him would only confirm again his limited base. I think the most interesting question now is if, by contesting Texas, he lost his chance to be on her ticket.
March 5, 2008 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, she's definitely in the drivers seat...right where she wants him. Maybe this was all part of her plan. (seriously, congrats to her for staying alive and pulling out a close victory in the popular vote in Texas).
Remember the math. Even if she "blows him away in Pennsylvania, Kentucky and West Virginia" it won't make a huge dent in his 100 or more delegate lead.
And I would ask: why are her victories in those states any more impressive than what are likely to be big victories for him in Mississippi, Wyoming, North Carolina, Oregon, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Puerto Rico.
That's the thing about "votes" and "delegates" in this whole process. You can't argue seriously that a vote (or in this case delegate) from Ohio is any more valuable than a vote/delegate from Mississippi. If someone can rack up votes/delegates in many smaller states as opposed to a few big ones, what's the difference? It's about winning the most votes/delegates.
And in a primary you cannot say that candidate "x" did not win state "y" in the primary - so therefore candidate "x" will win not state "y" in the general election. It is illogical.
March 5, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Billy,
I almost would hope you're right. Then Obama can save his immense war chest, and take on President McCain in 2012.
Except by then, America's militarist hubris will likely drive our country to the same place it did for Rome in 476, Byzantium after 1204, Spain in 1588, and Germany in 1945.
March 5, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Weren't you the one who was spot-on yesterday on Tuesday's predictions? I now pay very close attention to what you say.
March 5, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I used the force. Trust your feelings...
No actually, I'd have to admit that what I predicted was actually a "best case scenario" for Hillary more than I though what would actually happen. I believed that Obama would win a close Texas race.
But I did write that post after seeing the late movement in polls towards Hillary and it was a way of showing that even a good outcome for her yesterday does not significantly change the delegate totals. In fact, the news is much worse for her as the delegate numbers come in. She might get a net of less than 10 new delegates...and Obama can erase that within a week after Wyoming and Mississippi.
March 5, 2008 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think today's BREAKING NEWS will help voters decide....it was the Clinton's that talked to the Canadian Govt, not Obama camp.
And coincidentally, Bill Clinton was in Canada on Saturday, March 1st.....hmmmmmm
March 6, 2008 4:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
You mean the breaking news that is not on any MSM outlet? They are on to PA and don't even remember anything about Canada. Totally worthless shills.
March 6, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment