Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Math: A harsh mistress
Lets take a look at the delegate counts and what it would take for each of the candidates to win:
Hillary Clinton: (PD) 1333 + (SD) 264 = Total Delegates: 1597
Barack Obama: (PD) 1489 + (SD) 243 = Total Delegates: 1732
Number of uncommitted supper delegates: 288
Number of uncommitted pledged delegates: 322
Total number of uncommitted delegates = 610 delegates
Total number of Delegates the democratic candidate needs: 2,024
Number of remaining delegates Hillary needs: 427 (70%)
Number of remaining delegates Obama needs: 292 (48%)
It's over.
(All numbers are from RealClearPolitics.)
Advertisement
Comments (16)
I haven't checked the math yet, but shouldn't those percentages add up to at least approximately 100%?
May 1, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, the problem appears to be in your unpledged delegates number. Per DCW, it should be 408, making the total 696, and your percentages 61% and 42% respectively. At least that's closer to 100% when added together. (The remaining difference might be the result of slightly different assumptions regarding the totals.)
May 1, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it adds up to more than 100 because these percentages are not complementary.
They are percentages of a total needed to reach 2024, not to beat the other.
May 1, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, but the difference is 1 or 2 out of 2,024. That's less than 1/10 of 1%.
May 1, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good catch. I'll have to change that for next time. I really wish we could edit here, it really diminishes my interest in posting.
May 1, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
THE MATH – Tuesday, April 29 – One Week Before North Carolina & Indiana
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5730460
May 1, 2008 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Facts are such inconvenient things.
May 1, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Late Update from Greg Sargent:
"The Obama camp says he's 283 overall delegates from winning the nomination."
May 1, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hate to keep beating this worn-out old drum, but I must. This bears repetition. I won't go into the specific numbers, because I think we've beaten that to death. Everyone is in GENERAL agreement as to what they are, allowing slight differences around the edges for different assumptions, etc.
I think we can all stipulate that Sen. Clinton is going to be behind Sen. Obama in PD's at the end of this. Exactly how much remains to be determined by the remaining contests, but I think it's fair to assume she won't catch-up. It's equally fair to assume that neither will reach 2024, falling perhaps in a range of 100-225((?) short.
Clinton's route to victory relys TOTALLY on her chances to gain an overwhelming number of SD votes. The way this COULD happen (I didn't say "would") is if she does dramatically well enough in the remaining 9 contests to convince SD's that her star is clearly on the rise, while her opponent's is clearly on the wane.
I fully understand that there are those who think this simply cannot happen for one reason or another, but that is essentially a matter of opinion. I am talking about where her STRUCTURAL chances lie, and I am saying that those get better as Sen. Clinton continues to win - eventually becoming pretty good at some point if the late wins accumulate.
If that scenario doesn't unfold for Sen. Clinton, it's over. A handful of even very close wins for Sen. Obama is sufficient to close this out - perhaps even just ONE good one. But until he actually achieves that, this is still an open question, in my opinion.
May 1, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know it's a typo, and it's a minor one at that, but the first time you mention SDs, you call them "supper delegates."
I really like that name much, much better. I'm going to call them that from now on. I really hope I get to meet one at the convention in Denver so I can ask, "How has being a supper delegate been different in this election than in past elections? Do you get served better food? I'll bet that some people have picked up some astronomical supper checks for you! But you don't look like you've gained much weight at all. Good for you!"
May 1, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to demconwatch, there are 693 remaining uncommitted delegates, of which Obama needs 290 more (42%) and Clinton needs 423 (61%). Because of the 19 Edwards delegates, these numbers still don't add up exactly to 100%, but they're more plausible than the figures quoted above.
May 1, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, the Edwards' delegates. That's what I was forgetting.
May 1, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Guys, the percentages are not complentary.
If there are two people in a delegate race to 61 delegates and:
Person A has 40 delegates
and
Person B has 30 delegates
but there are 60 delegates remaiming
then
Person A needs 21 delegates (34%)
and
Person B needs 31 delegates (51%)
May 1, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
The key is to realize that the "magic number" is half the total number of delegates. As long as the race is just between A and B (i.e., ignoring Edwards), the percentages needed will add up to very damn close to 100%.
In your example, if 61 were the "magic number", then there'd be 120 delegates total. So, if A had 40, and B had 30, then there'd be 50 delegates unaccounted for. A taking 20 (40%) and B taking 30 (60%) would get you a tie (note that 40+60=100). A taking 21 (~41%) would win it for A, and B taking 31 (~61%) would win it for B. Win you deal with even larger numbers of delegates (like we have here), the percentages for a win (rather than a tie) will come even closer to adding to 100%.
May 1, 2008 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd also point out that in the example you give, they could both win, since it's possible for A to get 40% and win, and B to get 60% and win. Something seems wrong with that…
(I.e., with a 3rd person, the amounts needed can add up to more than 100%, but they can never, ever add up to less than 100%, unless more than one person can win.)
May 1, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
As Stephen Colbert would say:
"Damn you, Math!"
May 1, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment