Time To Start Counting Delegates Again

by: Chris Bowers

Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 13:00


After a long pause, delegate counts will start to increase again for both candidates. On Saturday, Obama will win 36 of the 55 uncommitted delegates from Michigan:

Thousands of Democrats will gather across the state Saturday to choose the 83 people and 15 alternates they want to represent them at the national convention in Denver in August.(...)

So Michigan is going ahead with its congressional district conventions at 10 a.m. Saturday, where 83 delegates will be selected based on the outcome of the primary, which Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York won with 55% of the vote. She will receive 47 of the delegates and 13 alternates while the people who voted "uncommitted" will get 36 of the delegates and two alternates. Another 45 delegates will be selected at the May 17 meeting of the Democratic Party's state central committee.(...)

Some Obama supporters have said they're worried Clinton supporters will try to poach some uncommitted delegates.

"But it's highly unlikely that's going to happen," Brewer said. "There's going to be some pretty intense questioning of these candidates."

So, in all likelihood, Obama will win 36 of the uncommitted delegates from Michigan on Saturday, and then win the remaining 19 at the Michigan state convention on May 17th. Michigan will then have a pledged delegate breakdown of Clinton 73-55 Obama. Everyone knows that Michigan will have a delegation seated at the convention, and the 73-55 looks like the only option right now. In the same vein, Florida's delegation will almost certainly be Clinton 105, Obama 67, and Edwards 13. For all the wrangling and arguments over Michigan and Florida, the deal will just end up being what I proposed from the beginning: seat Florida as is, and give Obama Michigan's 55 uncommitted delegates.

While this solution might not be perfectly democratic, neither is the nomination campaign. The important thing is that is reasonably fair, and that it will end the increasingly irritating argument over these two states. Obama probably would have pulled even with Clinton in a Michigan revote, but nine delegates strikes me as a reasonable penalty for pulling his name from the ballot. This is especially the case given that Edwards would have won some of those uncommitted delegates if he was still in the campaign.

With the outcome of Michigan and Florida coming into focus, it is time to start counting delegates with Michigan and Florida included. Here is my first stab:

Democratic Nomination Delegate Count
Type Obama Clinton Edwards Remaining 50% + 1
Pledged 1,416 1,253 18 566 1,627
MI + FL 122 178 13 0 NA
Super 233 267 0 279 --
Add-on 8 3 0 70 NA
Total 1,771 1,698 31 915 2,208

From this point, Obama needs 437 delegates to win the nomination, or 47.8% of the remaining delegates, while Clinton needs 510 delegates, or 55.7%. Given that an Obama lead of 73 delegates sounds significantly less imposing than the previous leads we have seen, does Clinton have a chance to catch up? According to current polling, here are projections for the remaining pledged delegates:

Democratic Nomination Primary Schedule
State Date O % C % P. Del Obama Del Clinton Del
Pennsylvania Apr 22 42.0% 47.4% 158 75 83
Guam May 03 -- -- 4 2 2
Indiana May 06 45.0% 40.0% 72 38 34
North Carolina May 06 53.5% 36.0% 115 67 48
West Virginia May 13 27.0% 55.0% 28 9 19
Kentucky May 20 26.0% 62.0% 51 16 35
Oregon May 20 52.0% 42.0% 52 29 23
Puerto Rico Jun 01 37.0% 50.0% 55 24 31
Montana Jun 03 -- -- 16 8 8
South Dakota Jun 03 46.0% 34.0% 15 8 7
Total June 10 -- -- 566 276 290

This leads to the following projection:

Democratic nomination campaign delegate projection
Type Obama Clinton Edwards Remaining 50% + 1
Total 1 1,771 1,698 31 915 2,208
Projected 276 290 0 -566 --
Pelosi Club 6 -1 0 -5 --
Vacant 3 0 0 -3 --
Add-on 37 33 0 -70 --
Total 2 2,093 2,020 31 271 2,208

From this point, Obama would need 115 of the remaining 271, or 42.5%, of the non-add-on, non-Pelosi Club superdelegates in order to secure the nomination. Clinton would need 188 of those same 271 superdelegates, or 69.4%, in order to win. The thirty-one Edwards delegates might also come into play here, making an Edwards endorsement key. If Edwards were to endorse Obama, it would effectively end the campaign. If Edwards were to endorse Clinton, it would breathe new life into her chances, and give her a legitimate, though still unlikely, shot at winning the nomination.

The final delegate selection events take place on June 21st, when seven add-on delegates are chosen at six state conventions around the country. It is a reasonable bet that the nomination campaign will continue until that point. Superdelegates have been given a deadline of July 1st by many party leaders, and it is difficult to imagine they would continue to wait much longer after June 21st anyway. Also, Edwards should be pushed to make an endorsement if the campaign remains undecided by that point.

As far as the popular vote goes, I don't think it will come too much into play. If Michigan and Florida are included in the totals, and if most or all of the Michigan uncommitted are allocated to Obama, and if popular estimations from caucus states without popular votes are included, and if one takes into account the likely 200K to 300K Clinton will gain in the popular vote between now and June 3rd, the difference between the candidates will be very small, and also quite debatable. In the end, this is 4,415 separate, small campaigns to elect delegates, and those delegates will decide the nomination. It looks like Obama has enough, but barring a surprise victory in Pennsylvania, I don't expect him to seal it up until June. Clinton dropping out after a big Obama sweep on May 6th is possible, but with West Virginia on May 13th, and Kentucky on May 20th, I won't hold my breath.

Update: Post edited to reflect new polls that now show Obama ahead in Indiana.  

Chris Bowers :: Time To Start Counting Delegates Again

Tags: , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
WTF (4.00 / 5)
"Obama probably would have pulled even with Clinton in a Michigan revote, but nine delegates strikes me as a reasonable penalty for pulling his name from the ballot"

Usually you make sense Chris, but this is ridiculous. Why should there be any kind of penalty for not participating in an unsanctioned contest?


Let's Be Honest Here (0.00 / 0)
Michigan and Florida simply will not count until we have a nominee.  There is no point in counting them, since their delegates do not matter.  Anything else just makes it seem reasonable to prolong this thing, when in truth it is over.

That's right, count Michigan and Florida, but not now (4.00 / 1)
I agree Michigan and Florida will ultimately get seated, but it doesn't follow that their numbers should be included when assessing the percentage of delegates each still need to win, and the likelihood of that happening.

For if things tightened up, then the chance that Michigan and Florida will count goes down dramatically; they will have their delegations seated, as is, ONLY if Obama has already got everything sealed up.


[ Parent ]
question (4.00 / 1)
Does Edwards have the ability to "give" either candidate his 31 delegates? If Edwards tell them to vote Obama or Clinton at the convention, is it a reasonable bet that they will vote as a bloc, or will they need to be individually persuaded a la superdelegates?

Edward's delegates (0.00 / 0)
Since I'm active in Iowa politics I can comment on 6 of the Edward's delegates - the 6 from Iowa.   Those 6 are only an estimate based on the conclusions of our county conventions.   The state convention is coming up (June 25th) and I expect that there will be no Edwards delegates after the state convention.  

Also - since I think I known Iowa quite well I expect most, if not all, of the 6 to go to Obama.  

FYI - The original Iowa allocation was based on the caucuses.   At the county conventions, Obama picked up 10 more and Clinton lost 1.    


[ Parent ]
Still not "time" yet. (0.00 / 0)
There's never going to be a time when counting delegates from illegitimate contests is particularly valid.

...and the closeness of the popular vote even then is a mirage of the artificial exclusion/underweighting of the caucus states. Which sums up this post to say that, even if one skews the math of the primary grossly in Clinton's direction, she still doesn't break even.


Absolutely not acceptable (0.00 / 0)
Could you do a post explaining your rationale for thinking this will the final result?

The Politics of Bruno S.


Poll conducted by SUSA in Indiana (0.00 / 0)
50-O 45-C

Wasn't she way up in the last SUSA poll?

http://wane.images.worldnow.co...

John McCain won't insure children


"Reasonably Penalty?" (0.00 / 0)
So, what about a "reasonable penalty" for MI and FL for breaking the rules?

This could be the way it shakes down, and I suppose that would be ok, but it still seems odd to me to be giving legitimacy to contests that everyone knew to be illegitimate.

Also, new poll (conducted by SurveyUSA although released for a local IN network, I believe, has Obama up 5 there, consistent with the LA Times poll recently).  


Clinton has never had the lead (4.00 / 1)
the margin of victory is one vote. and Hillary has never had the one. so unless the pledge delegate count is tied and the popular vote is tied Hillary has lost. of all people who should know this is Democrats, who lost 2000 by one vote.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

another thing (0.00 / 0)
Saying that we should now count the Florida and Michigan delegations because "everyone knows" they will be seated is not a very sound argument.

Personally, I find it hard to see how they would be seated in the manner described above if those numbers would change the nominee. Of course, you're free to count them as such if you wish, but I think a more valuable count is a count that is a clear indicator of who is winning the race right now. Since Michigan and Florida will not determine that, and as long as they remain under penalization by the DNC, they should be left off the count IMO.


Buh-whaaaa?! (0.00 / 0)
Suddenly we're just going ahead and counting Florida and Michigan? How did this happen? I understand, as you've argued all along, that Clinton's window of opportunity involved hanging in there on the basis of the most charitable possible count for her, which involved including Florida and Michigan. But you've suddenly made the executive decision that Florida and Michigan are just gonna go ahead and count, as part of the baseline calculation. No one else in the mainstream media is even doing this.

On the other hand, this also makes crystal clear that Clinton is really going to have no argument after Pennsylvania. I mean, what's she gonna say - she can still win Puerto Rico, so this campaign has to keep going for two more months?


No way Obama should accept it. (0.00 / 0)
Michigan held an illegitimate election. Obama's supporters stayed home, knowing his name wasn't on the ballot. Any kind of delegate split based on the results of that election are fraudulent.

Split them down the middle. That's the only fair solution.


say what? (0.00 / 0)
It seems way premature for you to be declaring Florida and Michigan will be seated based on the January votes at 100% of their delegate totals. The last I heard cutting the delegate totals in half or splitting them 50/50 was being discussed. Now if the superdelegates put Obama over the top before the convention and Clinton concedes, then there will be no reason for Obama to drag out the process via the credentials committee and the two delegations could be seated as you suggest. But while they potentially affect the ultimate outcome, I see no reason for concluding Obama is going to concede the results of these fake contests and hand Clinton the nomination without a floor fight. In short, until there's some more official resolution you should continue not to include them.

Strange post (0.00 / 0)
Just giving Florida current count to Clinton, and the same to Michigan.

At the same time, the numbers you cite for future states, seem fairly pro-Obama.

Penn is likely to be +10-14 Clinton - as you've had the SUSA poll at 14, and I trust that poll more than any other.

I also don't believe that Indiana will go for obama by five.  In fact, Obama could lose Indiana by 5.

So you've got to do a 10 point swing of delegates, and then we are at a 50 Delegate difference between the two candidates.

So why would Obama do this, when, ostensibly, those contests didn't count.

Now, granted - there are upsides.

a. It would recognize FL and MI.
b. It would take away that fog, that Clinton is counting on, regarding those two states.
c. If this resolves superdelegates in Obama's favor, then it also brings the contest to a close, much earlier. Thus we can start with the Fall campaign, and rev up against McCain.

But - seems risky to give away now, as is.


If you assert that the Susa poll (0.00 / 0)
results are more accurate than others and you trust their results more than others, why would you then be selectivein their results?  Is it that you only want to accept polls that support your desired candidate?  It is ok if that is the case, but it really doesn't make sense to me to suggest the results are right in PA and wrong in IN.

By the way, you might want to compare susa results with ppp results.


[ Parent ]
Let's look at the bigger picture (0.00 / 0)
Clinton's negatives are growing by the day.   Obama looks like the much stronger candidate to beat McCain.  The uncommitted SDs have to see this.  

They have been waiting until PA is "in the bag" before announcing their endorsements.    They can hand the nomination to Obama after April 22nd and it Clinton's win is anything less than outstanding (winning by 15 or more) they will.  

That makes the whole discussion about Michigan and Florida irrelevant.    


Obama's negatives (0.00 / 0)
among many Clinton supporters are growing as well.  Speaking personally, I have never bought into the "transformational" hype.  I think that in reality-based terms he'll make a very weak president looking to cut deals with the Ben Nelsons of the world.  And as I've gotten to know him better, I find nothing to admire in his character.  If he's our nominee, November is going to be lesser-of-two-evils time at best.

[ Parent ]
There seems to be disagreement (0.00 / 0)
I cannot accept the premise that the Michigan and Florida delegations would be seated before there is a nominee.  To do so would simply undermine the notion of party governance.  Things are bad enough as it is.  The only plausible reason for seating them is fear of a backlash in the general election, and that is the purest speculation since we don't have precedents from which to judge.  Furthermore, the party leadership simply cannot permit this thing to go beyond mid-June, and to stop it at that point is not materially different from stopping it in early-May: Obama with a slight lead on all fronts.  Chris's analysis appears to take us to the convention, which I just don't think is going to happen.  

Which Informal Fallacy is it? (0.00 / 0)
The Appeal to "What Everyone Knows" brings up an interesting quandry.

Is it the fallacy of Appeal to Authority where

x_ (Authority) affirms p_
Therefore, _p_

Where "Everyone" is the "Authority"

or, rather, the Appeal to Popularity where

Being/Doing _p_ is popular
Therefore, _p_

Where "Everyone knows" = "it is popular or widely accepted that ..."

In this case "Everyone knows" is the Authority deployed as evidence so I'll go with the second.


Wrong Delegate Projection for WV (0.00 / 0)
Thanks for doing this, but I think you'rea little off on my home state of WV.

You have taken the statewide poll to divide WV projected delegates, but of WV's 28 Delegates there are 18 delegates awarded proportionally by congressional district. (W.Va. has 3 districts.)

The 10 remaining are statewide at-large delegates awarded proportionally by statewide vote.

Even if Clinton maintains here current lead in the WV polls (which I think is unlikely), the following would be the break-down of delegates:

Clinton 58% - Obama 42%*
District 1 - 3 Clinton - 3 Obama
District 2 - 3 Clinton - 3 Obama
District 3 - 3 Clinton - 3 Obama
Pledged At Large - 4 Clinton - 3 Obama
PLEOs - 2 Clinton - 1 Obama
Total       15 Clinton - 13 Obama

*The W.Va. delegate plan requires a victory of more than 58.3% of the vote in a single congressional district for a two delegate margin in a congressional district. A statewide vote total of 55% or more is needed to pick-up a two delegate at-large advantage.

It's extremely doubtful that Clinton will get 58.3% in any Congressional District and certainly not all 3 districts.

Accordingly, look for Clinton to pick up a net gain of no more than 2 delegates in WV - much less than the +10 that you projected.


In a good conversation everyone speaks. In a great conversation some even listen.


FL & MI (0.00 / 0)
Chris,
I have to agree with others. Why are we suddenly counting Florida nad Michigan as is? It seems very unlikely that FL's delegates will be seated according to that election, and same goes for MI. Injecting those past results into your analysis makes your analysis pretty misleading.

The salting of the political (0.00 / 0)
The salting of the political mine is becoming more obvious and plain to see. The cross over Republican Neo-Con's is pouring money into delegate arena at a fever pace. Please if you really believe Ted Kennedy thinks Obama is like his brother Jack, JFK, those Americans must have brains liken to a box of rocks.

Even Lieberman and a host of other Democrats are bought off to lean towards the Republican Party. To be sure those Obamacans are standing ready to bolt to the Republican Party. Here, Obama really is a puppy in politics thinking he has started a new movement, a collation of change. More like a calamity of Change.  

At least some of the electorate in California and Massachusetts have displayed the understanding of this power struggle and reject the Kennedy's ambition to characterize Obama as JFK.

Amazing here we have so called red starters who have never voted for a Democrat in forty years are going to be persuaded on the slogan rants to embrace Obama, change to believe in, a uncertain unknown black candidate with undetermined black ties to radical Islam parading around as a Christian that has an Arabic name, Barrack Hussein Obama, is beyond even the odds of sanity.

I have to honestly say, all show liberalism here that has the same feeling as what is going to happen if one is to traverse into this political cosmic special creation, where Americans might as cast their votes based on DNA connections. Since Obama openly admits he is a cousin to Cheney then offers only more of the Neo-Con policies. One wonders why Hillary does not slam Obama for that connection a far better debatable topic then Bosnia. Perhaps Hillary is better than that. We know Mainstream Media has pitched this but has avoided the conversations.

But now MSNBC opens the race game to new dimensions in a program today for race and bigotry in America. Brian Williams stuck a gun at his head and MSNBC. Watch and wonder why they haven't talked about the American indigenous Indian, or the Mexicans Latinos, Chinese, Asians, Europeans, etc. If one looks at history in a balanced way we can see the slant always seems that history has to labor on the wild mines of primitive Negro. Here the Negro had no understanding of freedom and education brought a country in chains. Likely,   would have been eliminated by their own society, but sold off for profit to traverse to the new world while relieving their own society of its belligerent core of government corruption.

Slavery has been with human kind since the beginning and all of a sudden maybe one can realize that is a hash way to teach each other.

       


Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search