« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
The Delegate Math - We know it looks good for Obama, but how good?
So I was wondering: well, we all know that the math is against Hillary. We know it's pretty much impossible for her to overtake Obama. But what is the actual math involved? Where does it actually lead? So I did a little calculations, and here's what I found...
According to my calculations, Obama needs 17% of total remaining delegates to clinch the nomination. Clinton needs 86%.
According to DemConWatch, Obama currently has 1,976 delegates total. Clinton has 1,779 delegates total.
Obama needs 49 delegates to clinch the nomination.
Clinton needs 246 delegates to clinch the nomination.
Edwards still has 7 delegates pledged to him.
There are 287 delegates total left.
246/287 = 85.7%
49/287 = 17.0%
Assuming that the 7 delegates pledged to Edwards go to Obama (which is quite reasonable to assume, seeing as 12 of Edwards' 19 have already done so), Obama only needs 42 delegates to win.
42/287 = 14.6%
Then comes Puerto Rico. Let's assume Hillary get's a knockout 20-point victory. She would garner around 33 delegates to Obama's 22.
Delegates Total: 232
Obama needs: 22 delegates to win. 22/232 = 9.4%
Hillary needs: 213 delegates to win. 213/232 = 91.8%
Then Montana and South Dakota. Obama is expected to win. But let's be conservative and assume that Obama only wins both states by 4 points. They would both garner 8 delegates from Montana and 7 for Hillary and 8 for Obama for South Dakota.
Delegates Total: 201
Obama needs: 6 delegates to win. 6/201 = 2%
Hillary needs: 198 delegates to win. 198/201 = 98.5%
Now, let's assume that Michigan and Florida are seated in full. The Michigan proposal to allocate 69 delegates to Clinton and 59 to Obama passes, and the Florida delegates are seated as-is. The new magic number will be as Hillary stated, at 2,210.
After the primaries are over, Obama has 2,019. Clinton has 1,827.
Obama needs 191 delegates to win.
Clinton needs 383 delegates to win.
Obama already has 5 SD endorsements from Florida and 5 from Michigan
Clinton already has 8 SD endorsements from Florida and 7 from Michigan.
There are 26 total SDs from Florida and 29 from Michigan.
There are then 185 pledged delegates to allocate for Florida and 138 to allocate for Michigan.
That leaves a total of 231 uncommitted SDs.
Factoring in 59 delegates for Obama and 69 for Clinton from Michigan, and then approximating the FL delegates,
Clinton = 99
Obama = 63
Edwards = 23
We can assume that Edwards' would go to Obama.
Clinton = 99 + 69 = 168
Obama = 86 + 59 = 145
Obama: 191 - 145 = 46 delegates needed to win.
46/231 = 19.9%
Clinton: 383 - 168 = 215 delegates needed to win.
215/231 = 93%
So, after all that long, tiring research and math, we can see what, of course, we all know. Obama has a very very good chance of clinching the nomination, even with MI and FL included. Clinton's situation doesn't change much by including the two states, unless you seat MI as she wants it to be, which won't happen. It basically brings us back to where we are NOW. And with FL, I understand that it's an approximation for the delegates awarded, but even awarding more delegates to Hillary and less to Obama doesn't change a whole lot of things in the end.
I hope this has been informative for all of you
Comments (43)
Your post started with, "we all know that the math is against Hillary." You then proceeded to carefully explain how the math is against Hillary. Then you ended with, "I hope this has been informative for all of you." I think you were right to begin with. People already knew. What would have been informative is it you had explored the various ways to calculate Hillary's lead in the popular vote. Most Obama supporters are unaware.
May 26, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, we're aware alright. We're aware that she's only ahead if you don't count Michigan's Uncommitted vote for him. You'd also have to discount the results from caucus states whose numbers aren't counted. But the popular vote argument is totally bogus. If this race had been about the popular vote, don't you think his team would have had a completely different strategy that made sure he ran up his numbers in states that were overwhelmingly for him? This race has been about delegates since the beginning and deciding to change the rules mid-game is unjust.
May 26, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not really. Count MI's 100% for Clinton, give each their percentage of the Florida disqualified vote and don't count caucus states...
May 26, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like that's fair. Ha!
May 26, 2008 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just like most Clinton supporters aren't aware that her ass has already been kicked to the curb of Democratic politics.
May 26, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
What would have been informative is it you had explored the various ways to calculate Hillary's lead in the popular vote. Most Obama supporters are unaware.
Most Obama supporters are unaware of any way of calculating the popular vote that gives Hillary more than a fraction of a point advantage, and even then to even get close to half a percent requires omitting four caucus states.
Maybe you could provide one? No? Anyone else? No?
And most Obama supporters are unaware of any argument that might possibly be persuasive to superdelegates based on Hillary having a fraction of a percent lead in a popular vote calculation that omits four caucus states, doesn't in any way try to take into account the huge differences in turnout between caucus and primary states, and doesn't in any way try to account for Obama supporters who turned out to vote in MI even though Obama's name wasn't on the ballot.
Maybe you could provide one? No? Anyone else? No?
Oh well. Good luck with your hit-and-run snark.
May 26, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is precisely why FL and MI should NOT be seated. These numbers give Billary some illusion that she is the preferred candidate based on popular vote totals including these two rogue states. Oh, don't forget to totally discount the undemocratic caucus states.
I think that in the resolution by the RBC, if they decide to seat MI and FL, full strength or not, the language should reiterate that only delegates (pledged and super) are the only legitimate measure of the DNC.
May 26, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that in the resolution by the RBC, if they decide to seat MI and FL, full strength or not, the language should reiterate that only delegates (pledged and super) are the only legitimate measure of the DNC.
I couldn't have said it better myself. They should definitely have a statement included that makes it clear that the popular vote totals (especially from MI) are not to be counted when considering to whom the Delegates pledge their support.
May 26, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Otto,
I'm not even going to explain how pointless and irrelevant it is to even consider the popular vote and why or how Hillary could win with the popular vote. The entire metric for deciding a winner in the primary is a fallacy invented by Hillary Clinton out of desperation. If you'd like to give me an historic example of how exactly the popular vote should be used in deciding the winner of the primary based on our current primary system, I would love to hear it. But I doubt you can give one. The race has always been about delegates. Period.
May 26, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
And what section of total national popular vote using the Clinton "Obama had not votes in MI and I get part of the uncommitted" figure into delegate selection? This is so boring. Delegates. Delegates. Delegates.
May 26, 2008 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only delegates matter in a nomination. This isn't American idol, as the Clinton supporters love to say.
May 27, 2008 1:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Irony:
Calling out a post for being uninformative, specifically for lacking certain information, while conspicuously failing to provide that exact information.
Eat bones, troll.
May 27, 2008 2:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here you go: A blog about Hillary's popular vote myth making.
May 27, 2008 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
You forgot the href part. Opps.
May 27, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
And the popular vote totals in Iowa, Maine Nevada and Washington are...?
Do you really think that Obama would have 0 votes in Michigan if his name was on the ballot.
Any popular vote argument disenfranchises voters in all these states. If Clinton feels so strongly about the popular vote, she can spend the next four years working to change party rules so that the caucus states change their format to primaries and we can determine the true popular vote. Until then, the rules are clear: It's all about the delegates.
May 27, 2008 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Otto, give it up. You're just making yourself look foolish. The horse is dead. You can't ride it.
May 27, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
The only way that she's ahead in the popular vote is if you completely ignore the caucuses. Would that we could ignore you as well as you ignore the caucuses.
May 27, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not that we are unaware of the various permutations of popular vote for Hillary or for Obama. The Primary,rightly or wrongly. is not a popular vote contest. Nor is the GE. Had it been a popular vote contest might not have Obama run a different style campaign?
As much as Hillary supporters would like to now make this a popular vote contest it's just not. And the popular vote will not sway the delegates.
May 26, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe it won't sway the superdelegates.
But given the fact that his entire lead comes from the caucus states, maybe they would be wise to take a look.
May 26, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
His entire lead, really? Oregon was a caucus state? Wisconsin? Maryland? Virginia? Illinois? Connecticut? North Carolina? South Carolina? Caucus states? You think that. Georgia? Alabama? Mississippi? Louisiana? Caucus states, you say?
Looks to me like he got plenty of big wins from primaries.
Again, you're not doing much to combat the perception that racists are idiots.
May 26, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo I can't believe you even wrote that. You should know better.
In fact from Caucus states he has won he has received 95 delegates. Iowa, ME, WA which is only .05 of his pledged delegate total.
May 26, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
But given the fact that his entire lead comes from the caucus states, maybe they would be wise to take a look.
His entire lead in delegates, or what?
And even if there's some way of calculating whatever it is that makes that claim arguably true, what's the argument that superdelegates are supposed to find so compelling that they'd be willing to override the pledged delegate majority?
As for "maybe they would be wise to take a look" ... at this point the uncommitted superdelegates are hearing the best arguments the Hillary team can come up with, and many of them are hearing those arguments directly from Bill and Hillary. There's no argument they haven't taken a look at. When a former president asks a superdelegate to take a look at an argument, it's a pretty good bet that they'll do so.
But obviously they aren't finding the arguments persuasive because by a huge margin they're going to Obama instead. What do you make of that?
May 26, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
That has got to be one of the most ill-informed comments I've ever read.
May 27, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I, Hillary Clinton, your future president, would like to inform you that you have not read enough ill-informed comments to make such a judgment so early in the nomination process.
This contest is far from over, and we must listen to the ill-informed comments from all 50 states, particularly Michigan and Florida, but not from "caucus" states where there is really no good information to inform us of the depth of ill-informed comments.
Much Love,
Hillary - the candidate still alive this early in the nomination process.
May 27, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is really much easier... There are only 3 ways that Clinton can win.
1. She gets 100% (or something close) in Michigan.
2. The remaining superdelegates break for her in some amazing and unlikely way.
3. Obama is disqualified.
Clinton has made it clear that she is staying in the race on the hopes of #3.
May 26, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, all THREE of those have to happen in order for her to even have a chance.
May 27, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Otto F -- Why don't you put your money (or at least time and energy) where your mouth is and explain to us "the various ways to calculate Hillary's lead in the popular vote"?
In response to another post you called me an "angry compulsive" - and I suppose you are right. I can get a bit compulsive, and I certainly am angry about what Hillary Clinton has done (and is doing) to our party, to our chances in November, AND to the dignity and true equality of women!
But I do listen, and pay attention to facts no matter who presents them, and if you were to come up with the actual numbers and different scenarios, I at least would pay attention and see if there was any merit to your arguments.
If, however, you just want to sit on the sides, and call names, and take pot shots but without any factual ammunition, then I suspect I and others will just skip over your posts.
May 26, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nitpicking housekeeper here, Nathan: check your subtraction of the numbers I bracketed with *'s.
---Assuming that the 7 delegates pledged to Edwards go to Obama (which is quite reasonable to assume, seeing as 12 of Edwards' 19 have already done so), Obama only needs **42** delegates to win.
42/287 = 14.6%
Then comes Puerto Rico. Let's assume Hillary get's a knockout 20-point victory. She would garner around 33 delegates to Obama's **22**.
Delegates Total: 232
Obama needs: **22** delegates to win. 22/232 = 9.4%
Hillary needs: 213 delegates to win. 213/232 = 91.8%---
Um, that first **42** minus **22** should = 20, right?
Though I got sorta nitpickery, let me say this was a great post, and I really appreciate your contribution in presenting the math.
May 26, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a mistake in there, honestly. I wrote it last night. Well, this morning, at around 2am. I was hoping there wouldn't be such mistakes to nitpick over, but figured there'd be one or two. Thanks for pointing it out!
May 26, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Maths:
Based on current poll data it would appear that Obama will get 42 of the remaining 86 delegates and Clinton will get 44.
Depending on whether the critical number is 2025 or 2026, he ends up in need of 7 or 8. If, as DonnaG supposes, he gets 7 Edwards' delegates, he is either there or one short... Surely he will get one more SD.
The critical number will change with the rules committee, but not by an amazing amount.
We cannot count on the 7 Edwards' delegates.
Clinton is not going to take 80% of the remaining SD.
It is still over.
May 26, 2008 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's pretty much it in a nutshell. Although
I did do my calculations assuming Edwards' delegates would go to Obama. We can't count on it, no, but it's not an outlandish assumption to make considering 12 of his original 19 delegates have already gone to Obama.
May 26, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for doing this. Being math challenged, to nth degree, it's a big help.
It's probably safe too assume that flocks of Super Dels are waiting in the wings for June 4th, when the primary season is officially over. Should be interesting.
May 26, 2008 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're quite welcome. I pretty much thought, "We all know the math is on Obama's side. But what does it actually equal out to? What is his actual advantage?"
Glad I could help!
May 26, 2008 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Y'all sure do knowed how to factor up a batch of serious sums. All them thar percentin' and multiplicatin' and divvyin' is just mystifyin' to me. But dang! Y'all makes it look easy...
May 26, 2008 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
The popular vote cannot be accepted by the DNC as the true metric because the popular vote does not have the same weight or meaning across all the states. It is like adding grapes, bananas, and plums, and calling the result apricots. And even if you did that, Obama would still win.
May 26, 2008 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Acutally, they do have a way to add up all the grapes, bananas, and plums, and call the result apricots. The result are called delegates, and you are correct, Obama is leading there.
May 27, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is quite simple: starting a popular vote argument in a long-established delegate-based contest is known as 'changing the rules.' The reason the popular vote is meaningless is because it was deemed to be the basis only upon which, by congressional district formulae (which vary from state to state) the delegates are chosen. Additional add-on delegates are awarded based upon the order in which the states vote, in a rather complex, but nonetheless written out and published manner that all who participate in the primaries, agree to.
Even if we were to toss that rule book away and determine that for psychological reasons of legitimacy, the popular vote were a meaningful signal of voter will, it could ONLY serve this purpose if popular votes were available for all areas that voted. They aren't. In addition, using popular vote amounts in decertified elections, in which it was predetermined that delegate selection would NOT be done, are illegitimate numbers. So in using popular votes, we are missing metrics in four states and cannot legitimately count Michigan and Florida. So a popular vote 'psychological factor' is not a findable number.
The GE popular vote total in 2000, on the other hand, IS a findable number because every state kept a popular vote count, except for Florida where the Supreme Court intervened to stop recounts. However, when the recounts were stopped, the national popular vote count went to Al Gore. Did Al Gore become president? All together now: no. Why? Because the General Election, much like our primaries, are based upon a delegate vote, not a popular vote.
Now write this 1000 times all you Clintonistas, you'll get it right by the next primaries.
May 26, 2008 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
it is very easy to sketch out the popular vote theories that show hillary winning
here's how it works:
any desperate sucker who mentions the popular vote is a person who can not accept that his preferred candidate failed to win the nomination by the previously agreed upon method of choosing a nominee by the vote of delegates to the Democratic National Convention
that covers any and all theories about hillary wining the popular vote
May 27, 2008 2:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Otto said:
Otto, anyone with the slightest bit of intellectual honesty and mathematical sense would realize that all these "popular vote" numbers floating about are complete bullshit. The Democratic Party only counts delegates for a reason -- so that the state organizations can choose the selection method which they deem best without having to be penalized for using one that entails less turnout.
I calculated what I assess to be a far more valid popular vote on my blog, which properly takes into account the idiosyncrasies of caucuses. Please take a look! (Though I suspect you won't be happy with the result.)
May 27, 2008 2:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton has taken Kentucky and Obama has done it in Oregon.
The Democratic race for nomination is still very much alive – and most likely to be decided by superdelegates – as CNN points out clearly
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/20/primary.wrap/index.html
If you’re tired of waiting around for those super delegates to make a decision already, go to LobbyDelegates.com and push them to support Clinton or Obama
If you haven't done so yet, please write a message to each of your state's superdelegates at http://www.lobbydelegates.com
Obama Supporters:
Sending a note to current Obama supporters lets them know it's appreciated, sending a note to current Clinton supporters can hopefully sway them to change their vote to Obama, and sending a note to the uncommitted folks will hopefully sway them to vote for Obama. It's that easy...
Clinton Supporters too …. !
It takes a moment, but what's a few minutes now worth to get Clinton in office?! Those are really worth !
Sending a note to current Clinton supporters lets them know it's appreciated, sending a note to current Obama supporters can hopefully sway them to change their vote to Clinton, and sending a note to the uncommitted folks will hopefully sway them to vote for Clinton. It's that easy...
May 27, 2008 5:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Otto is correct. Let's look at the popular vote:
Hillary leads if you count the popular vote in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, and otherwise only include voters who voted on Tuesday's and Thursday's while wearing blue slacks.
I mean, fair is fair.
May 27, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Bush administration would be accused of disenfranchising voters if state officials would hold the general election a week early in Florida and Michigan and it wouldn't count. Its only the law.
What makes people think that Michigan and Florida shouldn't hold a revote or face their votes not counting?
People think the DNC is a joke I guess. They will be if they give those states too much leeway.
The only reason people are complaining about it RIGHT NOW is because of Hillary & her supporters and voters. Now even Obama supporters want to throw her a bone (or a whole fatted-calf) because they are still afraid of her and her supporters.
I say 50/50, with only half as many delegates per state.
Let the voters in those states kick the people's asses out of office that caused this.
If you don't live in any of those two states, then YOUR state followed the rules and get to participate in the convention and YOUR leaders don't have to throw a temper tantrum.
May 27, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think we're all operating on the assumption that most Hillary voters are as up on this stuff as we are. We need to keep in mind that she has been basing her appeal to "Low-Information Voters" (C'mon, we know what that really means) and they are actually buying the whole "popular vote, sexism, shame-on-you-Barack-Obama thing. The challenge is going forward after next Tuesday, without allowing their resentment to fester into a showdown at the convention. Hillary Support has taken on a life of its own.
May 27, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment