« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Check my math
See my first comment below. I'm tired of having the flakey editing system in blog posts mess up the spacing, etc., so I'm following someone else's example and doing it this way as an experiment.
Advertisement
Comments (13)
Great. Getting reliable formatting is a lot easier with the comment interface, but now the "held for approval by the blog owner" bullshit keeps me from posting the rest of it here because the article has a bunch of links.
Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.
May 18, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, that "links" issue always burns me too!
It's really a bad bug because you'd think that you would be encouraged to back up your statements with sources!
Besides, they never do post those comments. I assume they end up in a black software hole.
May 18, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe it will post without the http prefixes on links?
(As an experiment I'm posting this in the comments because it's the best way I've found to have semi-reliable control over the formatting.)
Obama needs 14.5 delegates to have a majority of pledged delegates, and 115 to clinch the nomination (numbers from www.barackobama.com).
Oregon and Kentucky have 103 pledged delegates between them. Let's pessimistically say that Obama only gets 35% of those (Oregon looks like it might be very close, and Kentucky is a blowout for Hillary) or 36 delegates. At that point he'll have easily taken the majority of pledged delegates, and he'll need 81 more to win.
Some superdels have promised to support the pledged delegate winner (demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/03/superdelegates-pledging-to-back.html). He should have at least a net gain of 8 from that, so he's 73 away from the nomination.
Then there are 86 pledged delegates available in the remaining primaries. Let's say Obama again only gets 35% of those, or 30 delegates. That puts him 43 away from the nomination. That's 43 out of 227 uncommitted superdels (demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/03/ultimate-delegate-summary.html), or less than 20%.
But it's not even as close as that makes it sound, because of the way "add-ons" (Unpledged Add-On Delegates, UADs) are selected (flyonthewall explains here: tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/convention-math-remember-the-u.php and another explanation is here: demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/03/add-on-superdelegate-selection-schedule.html).
Over 70 of the remaining unpledged superdelegates are actually UADs, and because of the way they are selected Obama has an edge and should end up with more than half of them. That alone is nearly enough to put him over the top, and then there are still over 150 other superdelegates out of which he would only need a handful.
Check my math!
May 18, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find that if I want to copy text into this blog it is best to paste it first into MS Notepad, then copy it from there and then paste it into the blog. By doing this I strip it of all previous formatting.
This eliminates all the problems of carrying over code that seems to cause the unsightly line breaks
May 18, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only thing your math neglects is whether the Clinton camp can move the goal posts with MI and FL. They are hoping to do that, of course, because then it would be a stalemate (e.g. no one can pull in the majority -- unless Hillary's supers switch).
May 18, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
They can move the goal posts, but they'd also have to distribute those delegates. Obama would still be able to meet the criteria, but it'd just take a little while longer. If he's given Edwards' delegates as well as the uncommitteds, it actually wouldn't be that big of a change (and I think he'd actually still even have the majority of the pledged delegates).
May 18, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a useful summary of some FL/MI options:
http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/05/fl-mi-by-numbers.html
If Hillary could get the FL and MI delegates seated as-is, with none for Obama from MI, then Obama is only ahead by 78. If the pledged delegates for Edwards in FL go to Obama, he's ahead by 98 and needs 202 to win. Let's say the remaining pledged delegates go 60/40 in Hillary's favor. That leaves 176. He'd have the pledged delegate majority, so he gets the "Pelosi club" superdels (at least 8, but probably more). That leaves 168.
Let's say he gets only half of the uncommitted delegates from MI (55 of them). That leaves 140. Then he needs a little less than half of the remaining superdels.
For comparison, since Pennsylvania he's been pulling in better than 80% of the superdel endorsements. And I think a lot of my assumptions above are overly pessimistic. But in this scenario Hillary has a shot at winning, whereas without MI and FL she doesn't. And under any of the various compromises that have been proposed, she doesn't.
Dean won't let it happen that way, however, for the same reasons that Terry McAulliffe expressed so well in 2004. (I won't risk having this post rejected by adding another link, but you can find the story by googling for "McAullife" and "hypocrite"). If the rules aren't enforced in 2008, then none of the late primary states will have any reason to follow the rules in 2012.
May 18, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. I think it's less an issue about Obama winning or not (he'd probably win either way, although you're right that seating MI/FL without giving Obama the uncommitteds gives her a fighting chance), and more of an issue of setting a dangerous precedent.
I think the only tenable compromise is to seat half of them.
May 18, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
If he's given Edwards' delegates as well as the uncommitteds, it actually wouldn't be that big of a change (and I think he'd actually still even have the majority of the pledged delegates).
I thought Barry was tossing a shutout from reading the Obama posts. Is he really going to need the votes of those corrupt insider super dels to steal the nomination? That's disgusting. Every Clinton supporter should walk, just like the Obama supporters threatened to do.
"If he's given..." Do you know what that sounds like?
May 19, 2008 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
i think the dem party is lucky obama has run away with this thing. If it would have been closer, how MI/FL is seated would be the difference. As it is, her only chance is to fully seat michigan as a winner take all state. I think the odds are better that he has an accident before the convention. (i hope he wears a seatbelt, and a kevlar vest.)
May 18, 2008 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
minor point: there are only 41 add-ons that haven't yet been selected or endorsed.
May 18, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the correction! I must have been looking at old data.
May 18, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
What if Obama hadn't joined in? Hillary would be the nominee and we would all be worried as hell that she would lose because of her supreme negatives. It is time to move on.
Hillary has always seen herself as the nominee (and she was wrong about that), but she was never a strong contender in the general because of her massive negatives.
May 18, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment