I've posted previously about the superdelegate math. Respected TPM blogger Flyonthewall has also discussed the delegate math, including an explanation of those strange UADs.

I was fiddling on the Slate delegate counter (yes I know it's not perfect) and put in some educated guesses on the results and delegate counts for the remaining contests.  

I gave Hillary significant victories in PA (+8), KY (+8), WV (+12), and PR (+10).

I gave Obama significant victories in NC (+12), OR (+8), SD (+15), MT (+15).

I also counted IN and Guam as virtual ties. I did not include FL and MI. The result, according to Slate's delegate counter, would leave Obama with 1694 pledged delegates and Clinton with 1540.

Looking at the unbiased and well researched http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/, we find that the current numbers on superdelegates are:
Obama: 211
Clinton: 246

Also, let's go back to the UADs (also known as add on delegates) discussed in the Fly post linked above. These 76 UADs are usually lumped in as undecided superdelegates but that's not actually the case. If you read that post you'll see that these 76 UADs are very likely to benefit Obama (in short, because he has won so many more states). Fly's numbers predict that Obama will end up with an advantage in the range of 45 - 31. 

Adding those numbers to the current superdelegate numbers we get Obama 256, Clinton 277. We can then add those numbers to the pledged delegate count and the above projections of the results in the remaining states.
  
And if we do all that:
-Obama needs 75 superdelegates to clinch the nomination. [2025 - (256+1694) = 75]

-Clinton needs 208 superdelegates to clinch the nomination. [2025 - (277+1540) = 208]

Obviously, this is whole exercise is an estimate, but does give a clear picture of the odds facing each candidate with respect to the superdelegate numbers and the nomination.

If you enjoyed this post, please share with other readers by clicking on the 'recommend this' link.

At the end of Hillary Clinton's interview with the Philidelphia Daily News this week, Will Bunch (a senior writer at the Daily News and author of the blog Attytood) asked her the following:

I tried to ask her 1) What she would do if Obama still has more delegates and votes when the primaries end in June and 2) What argument could she make to the unpledged superdelegates to give her the nomination if Obama does end up the choice of primary voters and caucus goers.

To be honest, I didn't feel she answered either question and she also made an odd statement that I hadn't heard before, insisting that pledged delegates are free to vote for any candidate, just like the superdelegates.

Bunch then pressed her on what her campaign would say to delegates to get them to switch. Instead of really saying how she would convince them, she instead argued about the legality of the delegates swithcing their votes:

There are different ways to become a delegate, there are delegates from caucuses, there are delegates from primaries, and there are the appointed delegates, they’re all equal, they all have an equal vote – those are the rules of the Democratic Party. Now if you don’t like the rules, change them going forward but those are the rules.

Aha! So it is about the rules. And if you don't like the rules set up before an election, well too bad, then you have to fix the rules for the next election, right? So, Senator about your desire to seat the delegates that were stripped from FL and MI by unanimous vote of the DNC before the primary started...

But here's the even weirder thing. Hillary continues and brings up Michigan in the very same answer:

And they are there for a purpose, because if you go back and look 30 years ago, people were elected to Congress said, 'Wait a minute, this party is not running winning elections. We need to have a say, with all due respect,' so, they have a say.

You know, the goals are very conveniently being interpreted, you know – Michigan shouldn’t count because of the rules and and we shouldn’t count the superdelegates even though the rules…You know, I think that doesn’t make sense.

Perhaps Hillary's circular logic caught up with her as she gave the answer. She's defending the DNC rules for delegates and arguing that, while strange, yes delegates can switch their support at any time.  At the same time, she's saying that the rules are being enforced on MI and FL and that is unfortunate because respecting and honoring voters is paramount. 

 So which is it? (and no one is arguing that the superdelegates MUST by rules/law support the pledged delegate winner or popular vote winner. Rather people are arguiing that they simply should.) 

Clinton could argue that voters' voices and intent mean the most, no matter what the rules of the DNC are. If that's how one feels then you should believe that:
1. Delegates must accurately represent the votes of the people and not be able to switch alligiences for whatever reason.
2. Florida and Michigan should be counted no matter what the DNC rules and no matter the date of their primary.

Or are the rules of the DNC the law of the land in the election? If Clinton feels this way then she should believe that:
1. All delegates can legally switch their support at anytime. While undemocratic, those are the rules.
2. MI and FL cannot be counted because the DNC rules before the election clearly spelled out the punishment if states moved their elections up the approved calendar. 

Clinton does follow the same argument that I've read on many blog posts by Hillary supporters.  Basically they accuse the Obama campaign of saying that superdelegates MUST abide by the popular vote or obey the pledged delegate lead. Whereas in truth the campaign and most supporters say the supers SHOULD back the popular vote and pledged vote leader.   

If I can sum up Hillary's talking points: in the case of delegates and superdelegates the rules of the DNC should be strictly applied even if there is something kind of undemocratic about those rules. In the cases of FL and MI, the rules should be bent or broken because nothing is more important than making sure that voters' voices are not silenced.   

Makes perfect sense.


Click on 'recommend this' and share with other readers.

Dear Sinbad,

You can help Senator Obama become President Obama. The campaign needs your help right now and I want you to look for inspiration from an unlikely source, Geraldine Ferraro.

Remember when Ferraro just wanted the whole controversy to go away about her "lucky he's a black man" comment? And remember her most excellent plan to make it go away? It was brilliant! Go on every freaking news program for a week. 

Sinbad, it's time to pull a double-reverse-Ferraro.  We don't want this story to go away and we do want you talking about it. You need to get on the news every night for at least a week (cause I know you don't have anything else going on.)  Go on CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, Jon Stewart, Saturday Night Live, and yes FOX. No matter how much the media may want to move on from Hillary's "misremembered" story about Bosnia, you were right about what happened and you will not be disrespected.

You need to demand a formal written apology from Senator Clinton. Every show you go on, demand that Hillary apologize for belittling you and your accurate memory of the trip to Bosnia. She also must apologize for disparaging you as just a comedian. You are a peace-maker and a red-phone-answerer just as she is. You just happen to have a better memory.  

Sinbad, Obama needs you. America needs you. The truth needs you. Now, get out there and don't stop talking about that Bosnia trip until you get Hillary's signature at the bottom of an apology to you. 

Thank you Sinbad!