Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Here is why it will not go to the convention.
Obama Delegates: 1415
Obama Superdelegates: 221
Obama Needs: 351.5
Hillary Delegates: 1254
Hillary Superdelegates: 245
Hillary Needs: 524.5
Delegates yet to be awarded: 689
April 22: Pennsylvania 188I don't think this is feasible, but let's say Hillary captures 400 of those delegates. She will need 124 of the remaining Superdelegates to lock the nomination.
May 3: Guam 9
May 6: Indiana & NC 218
May 13: West Virginia 39
May 20: Kentucky & Oregon 125
June 1: Puerto Rico 63
June 3: Montana & South Dakota 47
Staying with the scenario above, Obama would add 289 to his count. He would need 62.5 of the remaining Superdelegates to lock the nomination.
How many Superdelegates are left? 327
However you slice it, the Superdelegates will determine the winner before the convention.
If given the chance that is...my prediction is that Hillary concedes by May 21st.
Advertisement
Comments (25)
If she's still in by mid-May, she definitely won't drop out until after June 3rd. At that point, you'd really just be thumbing your nose Puerto Rico, Montana, and South Dakota (and possibly Kentucky and Oregon). I predict she'll either drop out between April 23rd and April 25th, or she'll stay in until June 3rd (possibly a little later). I don't think she'll stay in until the convention.
April 7, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're being optimistic. The only way that happens is if Obama actually wins PA, even by one point. And frankly, I don't think that's likely, no matter what the polls say.
First of all, let's look at the pattern: Obama does well in polling at this point, and HIllary closes the gap closer to the election. She has huge institutional support in PA, which gives her a 3, 4 point lead even if everything goes well.
And then there's the nefarious pattern: Hillary has something to dump on him the weekend before the primary. Now, in all fairness, I think it will have less of an effect this time, because her credibility has been seriously trashed the last month and it has staying power.
That being said, I think it will wipe out his modest gains and she'll still win. Anything under an 8% loss, and her money will dry up. But if that 3, 4% cushion gets her to double digits, even 10 or 11%, this nightmare continues.
He then needs a substantial win in NC (I'm expecting an Edwards endorsement. Excuse me -- a breast cancer initiative, a poverty czar? Who do you think this is for?) It will chill Obama's numbers a little.
Indiana is a huge unknown. Open primary, Limbaugh mischief, etc.
However, if Obama holds her to anything under an 8% loss in PA, the supers start the stampede.
Of course I hope I'm totally wrong. And he wins PA and we get on with the fight against McCain.
But I really don't think so.
April 8, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bilbo... As in Bilbao?
April 7, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does anyone know why Puerto Rico (with no electoral votes) gets more delegates to the convention than Montana & South Dakota (with six electoral votes between them)? Granted, Puerto Rico has twice as many citizens as Montana and South Dakota combined, but that still does not explain why it gets 63 to their 47.
April 7, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I also heard something about getting delegate bonuses based upon delaying contest dates beyond February 5th.
Another question though: I am admittedly ignorant here, but is the reason that Puerto Rico doesn't have EC votes because they are a territory? And if that is the case, why do they get to vote in the primaries? Is it because the parties get to decide at the primary level?
April 7, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd guess more Democrats in PR than the other two states....
April 7, 2008 11:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I had to guess Greg,
I would say that is because they vote Democratic much more so than Dakota and MT do.
Delegates are aproportioned based on the number of democratic votes in the districts in the previous 3 elections.
April 8, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't it because they agreed to wait to last? I thought I saw somewhere that they got bonus delegates for that.
April 7, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting overall point.
May I ask for clarification concerning your numbers.
Assuming here the 1415 number represents Senator Obama's pledged delegates and the 221 are his declared supers. I get 1415 + 221 = 1636. This is 388 from the magic number of 2024. Not 351.5
Error is propagated in subsequent calculations. Senator Obama would in fact require 99 supers under these conditions, no?
April 7, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apologies, but Greg made me double-check my numbers with another source and I found some errors. I was included superdelegates in the remaining primary counts:
April 22: Pennsylvania 188 (158 delegates)
May 3: Guam 9 (4 delegates)
May 6: Indiana & NC 218 (187 delegates)
May 13: West Virginia 39 (28 delegates)
May 20: Kentucky & Oregon 125 (103 delegates)
June 1: Puerto Rico 63 (55 delegates)
June 3: Montana & South Dakota 47 (31 delegates)
So, there are 564 delegates (225 less) to be awarded. The 327 Superdelegates is still correct.
Sorry I can't edit the original post and you can't remove your recommend. But, I think the end result still stands. There are enough superdelegates that by the end of the primaries they will be able to give one of the candidates the nomination by their reaching the magic number of 2023.5.
Greg, it does seem like a lot of votes for Puerto Rico compared to Montana and South Dakota.
Bilbo as in the Shire.
Ben, if he winds up winning Pennsyvlania I could see it coming that soon. I'm think the May 20th primaries will be the tipping point for supers, but probably you're right...there that close might as well finish it out.
April 7, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once this is over, the DNC has to do something it doesn't know how to do:
Make a sensible plan for future elections.
How about a lottery, using the kind of states they want to go first, and going from there?
How about having a workable way to deal with states that defy the rules? Spell out the consequences, and have a plan in place to deal with the mess.
How about a sensible way to award goodies to party muckety-mucks other than calling them SuperDelegates, increasing their numbers, and having no standards for them.
Example: Chelsey Clinton and her First Father -- they obviously have a bias and should stand aside. Bill Clinton has already used his previous office for his wife; he should not also be able to influence in this way, and neither should their daughter.
Example: Joe Lieberman only lost his Superdelegate status after he endorsed John McCain. Shouldn't the fact that he left the Democratic Party and ran as an Independent have excluded him?
Yes, I will definitely accept the offer to be the next DNC Chairman! Thank you, Thank you very much!
April 7, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Easiest correction is to have winner take all primaries. Would and will solve any future problems.
April 7, 2008 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
winner takes all is anti-democratic. it makes way too many people's votes meaningless. it should be eliminated from the ge. and certainly should not be adopted for the primaries.
no, the problem with the dem primary is that the supers are weighted way too heavily. give dpl, reps, sen, gov 1/2 vote each. give dnc 1/4 each. get rid of add-ons.
for the ge:
keep the electoral collage for weighting, but turn them into fractions. Say a state with 10 electoral votes splits its vote 54-46, then split the electoral votes 5.4-4.6
then every vote counts.
April 8, 2008 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
How does that help Hillary? Don't you know that only electoral schemes that favor Hillary count? Have you not being paying attention? Stop coming up these "fair" and "democratic" ways of doing things: they are not fair to Hillary.
April 8, 2008 3:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
The only issue is that there's no way to do .4 of a representative/delegate - whatever they're called.
April 8, 2008 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I prefer the proportional voting. I wish we'd do it in the GE for electoral votes -- it would be a much more honest representative of the actual popular vote.
Winner take all is undemocratic, in my view.
April 8, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Then why bother the with electoral college at all? Proportional allotments reflect the popular vote of a particular state, so why not just go by the popular vote of the country? Candidates could actually care about every state rather than mainly the ones with big populations?
Is it because there wouldn't be anyone to go to the convention with a funny hat? Surely we could still send a number of people from each state, and they could still yell and scream, and it could still be lots of fun, especially if Zell Miller goes to the repub convention again!
April 8, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait, how does it follow that if we go by the popular vote of the nation, politicians will start caring about every state? It doesn't if you think about it. If anything, it makes it more likely that the politicians would focus on big states since that's where the majority of the country is - the definition of having larger populations.
April 8, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that Obama will hit the magic number by early June. I think the supers will continue to pile on gradually, so as to not make a sudden feather ruffling and there are enough of them on the Obama side to make sure the magic number is reached by the time all states have weighed in. I think this may even be somewhat of a plan and that is what Harry Reid said that "something is in the works" and that we will have a nominee by early June. Just my two cents.
April 8, 2008 3:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Has this not been the most small-d democratic party nomination process in living memory? Doesn't that rock? So far, I'm pretty damn proud of my big-D party and the likely candidate our small-d process has selected.
April 8, 2008 7:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
CVille Dem wrote:
Lieberman was not stripped of his Super delegate status because he endorsed McCain. He lost the delegate status when he left the Democratic Party.
April 8, 2008 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
We hold on to Odious Joe because without his marginal Democratic status, we don't have the majority in the Senate.
And he knows it. So he heads committees that do nothing and there's nothing we can do about it.
April 8, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, Joe -- You really should try to find out the truth before you "correct" something someone else has said. From Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/07/lieberman-stripped-of-sup_n_85494.html
"Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), who endorsed Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) for president, will be disqualified as a superdelegate at the Democratic convention "under what is informally known as the Zell Miller rule."
My whole point was that HE DIDN'T lose his superdelegate status when he stopped being a Democrat, which he didn't. (Of course, he hasn't really been a Democrat for years!)
April 8, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I mean, JohnDoe!
Oh, for an edit button!
April 8, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Its time to set up the Mic for the Fat Lady to Sing because she is starting to warm UP!!!Clinton will be leaving soon and I will be saying SHA NA NA SAY HEY HEY GOODBYE!!!And Good Riddnance to the IRON *****!!!!
April 10, 2008 1:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment