« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
The 'New Math' computing the rumored Rules Committee compromise
Chuck Todd's First Read's post that the proposed compromise that the Dem's will seat full delegations with half votes under the following plan (FL-delegates pledged by vote) and (MI-delegation split 50/50) including 1/2 votes for superdelegates brings the new magic number up to 2118.
Computing the entire spread sheet it brings the new delegate landscape to the following: Obama 2057 (pledged, superdelegates and Edwards) and Clinton 1873 (pledged and superdelegates). This puts Obama 61 short of the nomination with him expected to gather between 38-42 pledged delegates over the next three primaries. He is also favored to pick up the lone ME Add-On delegate bringing his closure total down to between 22-18 delegates.
Further projections have him gathering between 16-20 Add-On superdelegates through the remaining state conventions or committee meetings. Even at the maximum spread this puts Obama between 6 and 2 superdelegate endorsements short of the nomination.
Hmmm...there is that Pelosi Pledged Club out there measuring 6 where once the winner of the pledged delegate state contests are over the Pelosi Pledged Club (numbering 6) are on record will endorse that winner. This is still the inevitable math.
What will be interesting is whether 22 plus superdelegates come out on June 3rd and make the Add-On process fait accompli and allow the process to fold in behind the winner.
The thing I want to say is the new math is no different than the old math, the winner is the one who has 50% plus 1 delegates.
Comments (1)
Nice. God I love Chuck Todd. I feel like a total math geek when I see him even though I hate the subject.
I wish every time that a Clintonite claimed on the MSM that she won the popular vote someone would call them out by bringing up that caucus states don't always release (and in fact some haven't and can't) their actual person vote so there is no point in saying Clinton won the popular vote. The fact is we can't really know whether she did or not. Maybe if this was brought up every time they argued it, there would be a little less icky feeling about having a nominee that "didn't win" the popular vote.
May 30, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment