Margin of the Convention

by: Chris Bowers

Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 21:56


I just checked the final totals for Ward 27, Divisions 1 and 23 (the two precincts where I work). The final margins were 71%-29% in favor of Obama with 57% turnout among registered Democrats. That is pretty amazing, and also pretty much what I thought Obama needed to win. So, I'm not really sure what went wrong from Obama, at least from my vantage point. The exit polls now project Obama's Philadelphia victory at only 62%-38%, so it must have been some other parts of the city.

With Clinton's victory tonight looking pretty solid, it is time to start looking at a metric I will refer to as the "margin of a brokered convention." The metric works as follows:

  1. Take Obama delegates plus Michigan uncommitted delegates based on the results of the January 15th primary. This is Total #1.
  2. Take Clinton delegates, plus Edwards delegates, plus Florida and Michigan delegates based on the results of their respective primaries. This is Total #2.
  3. Minus Total #1 from Total #2, to reach Total #3. If Total #3 is greater than zero, Obama will win without a brokered convention. If the result is less than zero, then we are headed to a brokered convention.

Essentially, if the Total #3 is negative, this is the basic argument that Clinton will use to go all the way to the convention. It means that Obama can't reach 2,208 without a fight at the credentials committee. Right now, before we know the results of Pennsylvania, that figure is 1,774 minus 1,732, or plus 42. No doubt Total 2 (Clinton + Edwards + pro-Clinton Florida and Michigan delegates) will gain some ground tonight, probably a net of at least 16 delegates. So, we are pretty close to entering brokered convention territory, unless Obama can start netting more delegates. North Carolina is a good chance for Obama to win a bunch of delegates, and Indiana looms large as a major battleground on May 6th.

Once again, the most annoying result appears to be the actual result. This feels like a bad dream we can't wake up from, and a terrible run of bad luck that might cost us a tremendous chance to win a big trifecta in November.  
Chris Bowers :: Margin of the Convention

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Margin of the Convention | 77 comments
Damn it, Bowers! (0.00 / 0)
If you were at every Ward in the city, Obama would have won the state! How can you be so selfish to not be everywhere at once?!
Still waiting on Montgomery and Bucks (0.00 / 0)
I don't know as well as others, but it seems to me that these counties would be at least a couple of percentage points in Obama's favor, and they haven't reported one vote yet, so we could see a slight narrowing.  My initial hopes of something less than a 5 point Clinton win are very dim, but 6 seems eminently possible.
that's what I'm thinking (0.00 / 0)
If he can hold it at 8%, as it is now, that's not a most-annoying case scenario at all. That's just exactly what the polls predicted, and will leave things in good shape to end 2 weeks from now.
[ Parent ]
Typo? (0.00 / 0)
You wrote:
"3. Minus Total #1 from Total #2, to reach Total #3."

To me that sounds like it's saying
Total #2 - Total #1 = Total #3
when what you (obviously?) means was:
Total #1 - Total #2 = Total #3

Had me confused for a minute.

I was never very good at Algebra so (4.00 / 2)
Is it:

Total 1 - Total 2 = Total 3 or

A * B * C = C * B * A

Either way it is going to juice up the Democrats in North Carolina and Indiana.

While everyone moans about how bad it is to have such a tight primary think of the experience both candidates are getting.  You couldn't have a tougher political boot camp.  They both have made mistakes speaking and then had to get up the next day and figure out what to say next.  There have been moves and counter moves and grass roots organizing that have been out of this world.  Who ever wins this nomination is going to come out of the primary with some razor sharp street fighting skills.  McCain is going to be the flabby frat boy stepping into the ring with a honed and hungry champion.  I bet both candidates are salivating at the prospect of going after McCain.  This is going to go down as a classic political battle.  Even Puerto Rico is going to get in on the act.  More popcorn please.

[ Parent ]
Much simpler way to say it (0.00 / 0)
Simply ask, "is TOTAL 1 bigger than TOTAL 2?  If no, there will be a brokered convention."
[ Parent ]
Philly Suburbs (0.00 / 0)
Haven't reported yet [as usual].  What effect will they have on the final result?  I understand they were favoring Obama.
According to the most recent update (0.00 / 0)
of the CNN exit polls, Philadelphia suburbs are 16% of the vote, and Obama is at 57%.  
[ Parent ]
suburbs (0.00 / 0)
Suburbs are going for Clinton, unfortunately.  
[ Parent ]
I'm thinking/hoping (0.00 / 0)
that the numbers are fluid.  The updated exits were dead on for Philadelphia itself (62% for Obama), and I think the suburbs will catch up, her margins (where they exist, since Chester still hasn't reported anything) will decline slightly.  I really do not think she'll win this by 10.
[ Parent ]
Philadelphia is now 65-35 with more precincts outstanding (0.00 / 0)
I agree it stays between 8-10 which really isn't that bad.
[ Parent ]
Couple of things (0.00 / 0)
First, I think you meant subtract total #2 from total #1.  Also, if you count these MI and FL delegates as is (I think both unlikely and ridiculous, but OK), then Obama should have his FL delegates added in as well.  Hillary has more, but both should be included in their respective totals, right?

Plus, although I shudder to say it, this is where the supers come in.  That's the other source of delegate mining- not to mention Montana, South Dakota and Oregon (if it goes past May 6)- for Obama.

Nobody but the Clintons want a brokered convention, and I just can't see party leaders letting it get to that when there is a clear leader by every metric that was supposed to count from the beginning.

Florida Is Included (0.00 / 0)
Obama's Florida delegates are included in Chris's total, as part of Obama's total delegates before adding in the MI uncommitteds.
[ Parent ]
Ok... (0.00 / 0)
Because in his totals, he specifically mentions the FL+MI delegates for Hillary, but only the Michigan uncommitteds for Obama.  I didn't rehash the math though, so I'll take your word for it!
[ Parent ]
Here is what I wonder: (0.00 / 0)
So, we are pretty close to entering brokered convention territory, unless Obama can start netting more delegates. North Carolina is a good chance for Obama to win a bunch of delegates, and Indiana looms large as a major battleground on May 6th.

Two things I cannot help but wonder:

1. What happens to superdelegate movement starting tomorrow?

2. What happens to the Clinton campaign's financials starting tomorrow?

Her campaign (0.00 / 0)
Has raised $2.5 million tonight, they say from new donors.

Though they said that last month, and we come to discover most of it was from maxing out big donors.

[ Parent ]
Hmm, okay (0.00 / 0)
Though isn't that just barely enough to bring her cash on hand to the point where it's larger than her debts?
[ Parent ]
No (0.00 / 0)
I don't think we know for sure yet but she is still likely still in the hole and at best broke, but without debt.
[ Parent ]
'Burb Returns (4.00 / 1)
Montgomery and Delaware are narrowly for Clinton, Bucks is almost 2-1 for Clinton, Chester and Lancaster are Obama by 10-15%.

Check http://www.electionreturns.sta...

WHAT?! (0.00 / 0)
Why on earth would Hillary be assumed to get all Edwards delegates. I hate this person and I voted for Edwards and I'm pretty darn certain I'm not alone.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
She won't, but she'll argue that point (4.00 / 1)
Clinton will argue that if it's not Obama's delegate, she could theoretically get that delegate's vote at the convention. Heck, she'll say that she can even win over some of Obama's pledged delegates.  
[ Parent ]
She Probably Wouldn't (0.00 / 0)
But unless Edwards ends up endorsing someone, then they would have to be considered up for grabs and, therefore, could be used as part of Clinton's justification for continuing on to the convention.

Which means, as well, that should we end up in a scenario in which the Edwards delegates do matter, that suddenly lends a hell of a lot of power to Edwards, doesn't it?  I wonder if this is one of the reasons he hasn't endorsed?

Of course, it should also be noted that an endorsement by him does not mean his delegates HAVE to vote for who he endorsed.  If he did endorse, I wonder if his delegates would fall in line?

[ Parent ]
Elizabeth Edwards (0.00 / 0)
NPR just reported that Elizabeth Edwards is expected to be on the stage with Hillary this week at various North Carolina events.  So while John isn't ready to endorse, it seems that Elizabeth is.  Whether that will impact votes in NC, don't know, but it is being reported.  
[ Parent ]
I would hazard a guess very little impact (0.00 / 0)
Has Casey helped Obama in PA? Doubtful.
[ Parent ]
what (0.00 / 0)
I mean, just yesterday Hill was talking about nuking Iran in language that would make Dick Cheney grin. Who would endorse that?
[ Parent ]
"Under the worst case scenario" (0.00 / 0)
I think what Chris is doing there is trying to formulate number #2 as being the "worst case scenario" number. So he's not suggesting Clinton will get the delegates, just saying, under the worst case scenario it's possible she could.
[ Parent ]
brokered (0.00 / 0)
Because the real question is whether Obama can win the nomination without any help.  
[ Parent ]
Right, and that's why I think the numbers are optimistic (0.00 / 0)
You can't put the MI uncommitted in Obama's column.

From a brokered convention fight he gets: pledged + florida + declared supers.  If that doesn't get him 2208, Hillary will go all the way to Chicago.

[ Parent ]
Obama (0.00 / 0)
Gets all but 3 of the uncommitted MI delegates. We chose them this weekend, and though the UAW picked up a couple, almost all the uncommitted delegates are diehard Obama supporters.
[ Parent ]
Counting (0.00 / 0)
MI uncommitted delegates who have declared they're for Obama should count just as much as declared superdelegates. Of course Clinton can argue that she could persuade them, but she can do that with superdelegates as well. Hell, she can argue she'll persuade Obama pledged delegates to come over to her side.
[ Parent ]
Phew! (0.00 / 0)
Yeah, we better hurry up and get her to drop out before anything more tarnishes Obama's chances.  Maybe Howard Dean has something else up his sleeve, we can quit looking at these numbers.
The holy trinity: elders, indiana and fundraising (4.00 / 1)
The three ways this ends:

1.  The party elders (Reid, Dean, Pelosi, Kerry, Gore and Carter) step in and begin to offer protection and shelter to those supers who want this to end, but fear the wrath and vendettas of the Clinton machine.  This would by far be the most fascinating part of the entire primary season, but it will happen behind closed doors.  

2.  Obama wins Indiana- a state HRC should win, but Obama steals it and decisively beats expectations.  It also puts his pledged delegate lead to safely over 150.  

3.  HRC's money dries up, leading to a fog of bad press and smell of desperation she can't shake.  No one likes the poors.  

Once these three things converge, the supers endorse and end this.  

This is not a bad wet dream (4.00 / 5)
It is a nightmare.

It is a real fight for the soul of a  decayed party that needs new life, that the netroots and progressives are trying to breathe into it on a daily basis, the machine that still backs the Clintons is gasping and as we saw tonight with McCauliff et al they will do and say anything to keep the Democratic Party decaying.

Good lord... (2.67 / 3)
This is hardly the apocalypse realized.  Clinton won while being outspent 2 to 1 in PA.  She's won every single major state that Obama should have won at times when he should have won them. That's not Terry McAuliffe speaking. It's the electorate. There is a strong group of voters out there who want her in and they're not minions. This is just a tough 50-50 race. Democracy in motion...
[ Parent ]
No (4.00 / 2)
It's a hard fought 52-48 or 53-47 race, but, in a democracy, 47 or 48 loses.

Yes, it is relatively close -- but not close enough. "She's won every single major state that obama should have won at times when he should have won them." Well, that's true if your dataset is 0hio, Texas, and Pennsylvania. But if your dataset includes, you know, ALL the states, well, he's clearly won. If you think the significant states include all the states (including Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Colorado, and probably North Carolina and 0regon, not to mention Georgia, Missouri, etc., etc.), well, then the situation looks quite different.

[ Parent ]
Besides the fact (4.00 / 1)
In Terry McAuliffe's world, Hillary only wins in November if McCain is off the ballot--because he's counting MI as a "major state win."

Which ought to discredit anyone spouting this nonsense, really.

[ Parent ]
Annoying but other variables (4.00 / 1)
It would be better to do better, but the brokered convention may not be so likey:
Whatever his ambivalence there is no reason to believe that John Edwards will want this to go all the way to the convention.
In addition the level of pressure exerted on the trailing candidate (most likely HRC) will increase exponentially once the Montana votes are counted.  So long as there is still a contest somewhere HRC will spin any attempt to persuade her to drop out as a campaign to victimize her, but once the votes are all counted she will have nothing left to spin.  
Obama memo (4.00 / 1)
Depending on how the Philly burbs end up reporting, Obama's famous memo (the one with all the predictions) may nail it again (at 7%). It's been 8% for a while, so I don't know if the margin will close. If he performs well in Montgomery and some other SE counties, I think he closes the margin a little more, but who knows.

In any case, that memo deserves serious credit. It has killed SUSA and all the other pollsters.

Spreadsheet (0.00 / 0)
The Obama spreadsheet's projection for PA was that Clinton would win 52% to 47%, so it didn't nail it.
[ Parent ]
Thanks (0.00 / 0)
Yeah, for some reason I remembered 7%, but looks like I was wrong. In any event, it looks like the final margin will be 9%, so they weren't that close. Of course, they probably didn't anticipate the Wright controversy or bittergate.  
[ Parent ]
Maybe "Open Left" should have stayed OPEN for a little longer (0.00 / 0)
These were the hand picked two candidates from the MSM. They did not give Edwards, (Who I supported) much of a chance.

The Democratic primary process sucks, and Obama sure got a lot of Republicans to vote for him in "our" open primaries.

Both candidates have used too many Republican themes and memes.

We sure have a lot to fix, and I for one, do not know whether it is going to get fixed with either of these candidates.

So play your math games, but if we lose come November, I am going to be really pissed off at all the Obama supporters going along with the Republicans spewing so much hatred at the Clintons.

Pot meet kettle, kettle meet pot n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Obama's doing great tonight (4.00 / 4)
Good speech. I love how he's attacking McCain instead of Clinton. While Clinton is yelling that she'll bite his legs off, Obama has moved on to the general election.  
Edwards Delegates (0.00 / 0)
Not all of the Edwards delegates will go to Clinton.   6 of the Edwards delegates are from Iowa, where I live and where I know Democratic politics well.  

Those 6 Edwards delegates are estimated based on the results of the county conventions.   In June we will have a state convention.   It is unlikely that there will be any Edwards delegates from Iowa after the state convention.  

Based on my knowledge of Iowa I expect most, if not all, of the Edwards delegates to switch to Obama.  

[ Parent ]
NY Times Has Seen Enough (4.00 / 2)

Ouch.  The Clintons are not going to be real happy about waking up to this....

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04...

Priceless (4.00 / 1)
"The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it."

however the NYTimes is wrong about one thing: "Voters are getting tired of it;"

if that were the case Pennsylvania would have responded responsibly, but people are actually emotional and petty and vote without really thinking through what's in their best interest. my favorite is the hordes of Clinton supporters who say they'll vote for McCain if she does not win. I mean, if you are person for whom the choice is Hillary of McCain you really lack any sound judgement and probably deserve the exploitation you'll get voting for McCain. I mean, really, isn't it time the blue collar gun toting religious lower middle class finally get its shit together and get some education and take responsibility for its own suffering? After 30 years of voting against their own interests their behavior has pretty much reached pathological.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
We are most likely screwed (0.00 / 0)
I've said this elsewhere, but I'll say it here.

As Chris says, it's a nightmare.

Look, for whatever reason, in this contest, demographics have been destiny.  I see that continuing.

If I were Hillary - and I had as big a base as she does - only slightly smaller than Obama's - I would also be staying in this contest, until the end.

Now, the longer the competition, the more we get the contentless sniping we have seen the last weeks, both from each candidate, and the MSM.  

No other contest has been this close - not Hart/Mondale, not Kennedy/Carter.  Why should she step off?

So, we go to the convention floor - where one side or the other is alienated in a bruising floor battle.  Obama will most likely win - but at what cost?

Is it bad enough that McCain will be able to mop up, come November?

God, I hope not.

why step off? She can't win (4.00 / 1)
She can't win the popular vote.
She can't win the delegate count.
She can't win the most states.
She can't even win the most primaries!

Lying, cheating and defaming your way into the vacuum you've created by destroying your opponent is not "winning." It's an ego trip.

The nation's Democrats have decided--no thank you Hillary. This latest crushing defeat for her in PA should be the final nail (although knowing her, it will not be).  

Help us Optimize McCain! Use these widgets to make it crazy-easy...

[ Parent ]
This actually is an example of what I mean (0.00 / 0)
There has NEVER, in modern times, been a contest this close.

Mondale/Hart? No - went to the convention.

Carter/Kennedy? No - still went to the convention.

And by the way, Hillary is AHEAD in registered democrats voting.

Does this mean she deserves the nomination?  Of course not.

As you say, she won't have the most delegates, won't have won the most states, and by most versions of the popular vote count, Obama will be ahead. Although again, it will be VERY close.

Still - this late into the contest, her base - a LARGE base, is not going away.  3 to 1 in spending in Penn, it's still demographics as destiny.

Obama has to WIN THIS, not have Hillary give it to him.  That's the way it works.  And he can't WIN until he gets to the magic number.  

I'm saying - given the base she represents - in her shoes, I would NOT stop, until he GETS the magic number. So I see where she is coming from.

Respect the 48% of the vote that she represents, that's all.


[ Parent ]
Curious (0.00 / 0)
Your math on 3-1.

Is it based on Terry McAuliffe's statements? Because last I saw it was 2+-1.

[ Parent ]
I mean spending in the state of PA (0.00 / 0)
It's what I read somewhere - is it off?  Could be, I have no clue.

Still, I think the point holds - 6 weeks, criss-crossing by both candidates - didn't change the demographic destiny, or both candidates bases' commitment to their candidate.

[ Parent ]
Last I saw the numbers (0.00 / 0)
Yes. I'm just wondering if you have more recent numbers or are just spouting what Terry McAuliffe was spouting, rounding up.
[ Parent ]
Just spouting (0.00 / 0)
I assumed it was correct - saw it at Marc Ambinder's, didn't register it was McAuliffe spin.
[ Parent ]
It may not be (0.00 / 0)
But at one time they were rounding up from 2.5ish to 3-4.
[ Parent ]
6 weeks, crisscrossing the state (0.00 / 0)
But before this, Clinton was polling at 20+. It did change quite a bit.
[ Parent ]
I don't get the 3-1/2-1 thing. (0.00 / 0)
I mean, yeah he outspent her, and at the same time he closed some of the gap. What's so strange about that?

Second, the reason he was able to outspend her was because he continues to pull record amounts and she's broke. I'm not sure why her campaign keeps calling attention to this.

[ Parent ]
Hilary won by 10 points (2.00 / 2)
Obama can't buy the election.  Outspent by at least two to one, she held onto the traditional Democratic base, people at risk of turning to McCain.  Obama didn't even tread water.  This was a miserable night for Obama.  Sorry to break it to you.


[ Parent ]
Didn't even tread water? (4.00 / 2)
''Barack Obama was able to improve his standing among key voter groups since the Ohio primary. For example, among white voters, Obama narrowed the gap with Clinton by six points. Among voters over 60, he nearly cut the gap in half, from 41 points to 24 points.''

But yeah he lost. So what! He will still be the nominee. Get used to it.

[ Parent ]
From Al Giordano (4.00 / 2)
http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/

"Clinton's margin among all voters in Ohio (10.5 percent) diminished by the time she got to Pennsylvania.

The margin among registered Democrats (a 14 percent lead in Ohio) diminished by at least 39 percent in Pennsylvania.

Among white registered Democrats (70 percent of them in Ohio) - the demographic that the pastor-bashing and bitter-posturing was aimed at - Senator Clinton lost 24 percent (down to 53 percent in Pennsylvania).

Among African-American registered Democrats (14 percent of them in Ohio) she lost 42 percent of her previous support (down to 8 percent in Pennsylvania).

All the posturing and negativity didn't gain her a single yard.

In fact, Senator Clinton lost ground in every one of those key foundations of her former base vote."

[ Parent ]
No problem (0.00 / 0)
I'm sure it doesn't matter that women went for Clinton by a margin of 7%, and men went for Obama by a margin of 2%.  I'm sure all the women will still come out in the general for him.

I'm sure it's no problem that whites rejected Obama by a margin of 12%.  I'm sure motivated black voters can make up for that.

I'm sure it won't matter that all income groups, other than the under $15,000 crowd and the over $150,000 voters, went for Clinton.

It doesn't matter at all that moderates and conservatives - the people who McCain could most effectively appeal to - went overwhelmingly for Clinton.  

http://election.cbsnews.com/ca...

After all, it only took $40 million to move these numbers slightly toward Obama. Maybe if he spent another $200 million he could actually win these demographics, which comprise the vast majority of Americans.

You can talk about pledged delegate leads all day long - it won't change the fact that Obama's appeal is limited.  No one knows how this will play in the general, but if Obama can't appeal to these demographics in the Democratic primary, he will have at least as hard a time with these demographics in the general.  Obama will likely be the nominee, but these numbers are bad, bad news for him.  That's especially true if you buy this line that Clinton beat him by going negative (I don't - I just think Obama is a lousy candidate).  McCain will be ten times more negative in the general.  If Clinton is holding onto these demographics by "Republican" tactics, expect them to stampede to McCain when a some real Republican 527s take aim.

[ Parent ]
correction (0.00 / 0)
http://www.dailykos.com/storyo...

8.6, net of 11 delegates at best.

The only chance Clinton has is a brokered convention that results in overturning the pledged delegates and the popular vote. It's not likely to happen, and if it does imagine how destructive that would be to our chances in November.

Also, please clarify how the traditional democratic base is composed of people at risk of turning to McCain.

[ Parent ]
Scary, if true (0.00 / 0)
"[S]he held onto the traditional Democratic base, people at risk of turning to McCain."

If this is true then 'Democrat' has no meaning.  I always took 'Reagan Democrat' to mean mostly 'white, southern racists', so I am not sure what constitutes the 'traditional Democratic base' that would include a majority of likely McCain voters.  I don't think most of these people are racists, though many are, so the more likely scenario is either they aren't going to turn to McCain or they were never really Democrats in any working sense of the word.

Other than the Clinton warmongering, there are no major discernible differences between these two on policy.  The only thing McCain has in common with either of these two, besides being in the Senate, is that he and Hillary seem to share similar perspectives on foreign policy.  I just don't see 'pro-Iraq war/pro-Iran war' as a large demographic among Democrats.

[ Parent ]
"Reagan Democrats" (0.00 / 0)
Were white working class, mostly ethnic.  Not necessarily in the South. More like Pennsylvania.

I think what we conclude here is that PA voters want change, just not too much change.  So they voted for the (white) woman who wants to stay in Iraq but promises them health care and doesn't require any (more) sacrifices.

Depressing.  It seems like the Dems are going to lose one or more constituencies (young, white working class women, blacks) either way, to apathy if not McCain.  

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
But do the polls carry this out? (0.00 / 0)
I guess when I think of 'Reagan Democrats' I immediately parse out those who switched back and voted for Clinton and tie the term more fully to those permanent switches that happened in 1980 due to Reagan's Southern Strategy.  There should be no 'Reagan Democrats' in the first sense in this election anyway.  We aren't coming off a failed Democratic presidency that caused a lot of people to vote for change, any change.  In fact, this election should be quite the opposite since a vote for McCain will be a vote for the failed status quo.  

I would imagine the white working class are just as anti-war as the rest of the Democrats.  I think getting out of Iraq and not calling for war with Iran is more tangible to people than whether or not a health care proposal has mandates or not, neither proposal seems likely to help anyone's bottom line so long as profits must be taken and there is no monolithic entity to control prices.  I am trying to figure out what is driving Clinton's appeal in the rust belt and race is the only dynamic that seems to hold water.  

[ Parent ]
Neither candidate is putting it away (4.00 / 1)
This is clearly a very hard fought race and neither candidate has been able to put it away. Since both candidates will get to the convention without the requisite number of delegates to secure the nomination from just pledged delegates it will come down to the super-delegates.

So I don't see how either candidate is going to call it quits until the first ballot at the convention even if all the supers endorse prior to that. They will always have the argument that the delegates have not yet voted so they can always change their mind until the actual ballot at the convention.

I don't get why Chris believes this has anything to do with luck. This has everything to do with Democratic primary voters who are reasonably balanced between the two candidates. Barack continues to win the African-American, affluent whites and youth while Hillary continues to win the blue collar and Latino vote. And in state after state even as the primary is coming to a close these segments are not moving to the other candidate. Why is that?

Clearly Democratic primary voters don't believe this race is over and are still voting their choice. Many are not convinced yet that Barack is the winner and moving to the winning team and vice versa.

The bottom line is that the supers have an unenviable task of breaking the deadlock of the Democratic primary voters. Someone is not going to be happy. Will they go home with their marbles? Will they give McCain the winning margin? I don't think we'll really know until the general election campaign begins in earnest.

In the mean time this campaign will move towards winning the remaining super-delegates and holding their vote until that first ballot at the convention. It will be interesting how each candidates pitch and argument with the supers and party leadership will go. Its going to get nasty it seems. We already see Clinton surrogates like Lanny Davis calling for Dean's resignation. How will Obama play it? How will the MSM spin it? And how will the voters perceive it?

there is no deadlock (4.00 / 1)
Obama is going to have a clear majority of the pledged delegates. Yes, it is close, but it will be more than 50%.  

The odd fact that over 62% of pledged delegates would be necessary to overcome every superdelegate voting for the loser is not a reason to call it a deadlock.

Many Clinton superdelegates have signaled that they only support her as long as she has a chance.  They aren't going drag this out on the theory that the pledged delegates will break their pledges.


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

[ Parent ]
Nomination=delegate threshhold (0.00 / 0)
The nomination is not based on who wins the majority of the pledged delegates but who gets to the requisite delegate threshhold first.

Clearly neither candidate can get to that threshhold on the basis of pledged delegates. It will be dependent on super-delgates and the outcome of MI & FL. The super-delegates don't get to vote until the first ballot at the convention.

So the nomination is not won until the convention. No doubt Barack has a better shot at securing the nomination since he has to win over fewer super-delgates but at the end of the day if any candidate had the number of pledged delegates and voter base as Hillary has demonstrated they would not quit until the fat lady has sung.

[ Parent ]
Technically, this is a silly argument... (0.00 / 0)
Theoretically, NO candidate has ANY votes until the first ballot at the convention... so, why should anyone quit ever?  May as well go to the convention, right?

No, obviously not... this is why Dean is asking Super Delegates to make a decision before July 1st.  If they do that, one of the candidates will have the requisite number of delegates lined up before the convention, the Democratic Party and the media will report it as such, and we will have a nominee.  

[ Parent ]
Actually he did narrow the gap (0.00 / 0)
since Ohio among whites, women, older voters.  See comment upthread.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
by county (4.00 / 1)
Notice that Dauphin, Lancaster, and Centre counties went for Obama. My own Cumberland is 53 Clinton, 47 Obama, very close for a rural-suburban county (largest city--18,000) of 200,000.

Take that, Carville, who called us the Alabama of Pennsylvania!

Superdelegate Congressman Tim Holden has said only 40% of his district is Democratic, and he isn't about to alienate half of that 40% by declaring before the convention, but that Dauphin County landslide will have to influence him if he has to make a decision before the convention or at it.

Is the 3 delegate split real? (0.00 / 0)
Chris

Right now, with 94% of the vote tallied, DK is showing Hillary with just a 3 delegate lead.

Is that possible? If so, doesn't that mean her campaign has done worse than nothing to close the gap? Is that why Terry McA was talking popular vote, bc they basically tied the vote for delegates in PA?

I'm okay, you're okay, Democratic friends! (4.00 / 1)
Look, this is not going to the convention. After the last few weeks of kitchen sink-chucking, Obama improved on his performance from Ohio (where he lost Democrats 58-40) and increased his national lead. Clinton is going to end up with +12 delegates from PA - 12 out of about 170 she has to make up. And what does she have left? West Virginia, Kentucky, and Puerto fuckin Rico. That's it. No more "wait till Pennsylvania..." like we've had the last 6 weeks. Pennsylvania's done, and it took her further from the nomination. (Only a gain of like 30+ delegates would have been meaningful.)

Obama will very likely sweep IN and NC in two weeks, and that'll be it. Even if he doesn't, he will get to 2208. And then he will be ready to bring it against McCain.

So. Relax.

Not that bad, and not double-digits... (0.00 / 0)
I thought the CW was that Clinton had to win double-digits for it to really help her?  I realize that the current rounded margin looks like 55-45, but the actual numbers should a margin closer to 9% than 10% (and likely to get even closer to 9, perhaps even to 8 with the rest of the results).

I agree it's "annoying" because it's basically right at the cusp of what she really needed, but when all is said and done, she'll barely put a dent in the delegate game, and her under 10 point margin just won't look all that impressive.  This has happened before... both on Super Tuesday, when the traditional media somehow spun it as a win for Hillary on Primary night (despite her actually losing delegates, states won, and setting up an extremely difficult map for her in February), until it finally dawned on people a few days later that she was actually in deep shit.  With OH and TX, the same thing happened... initially looked like big wins for Hillary, and then people finally came to earth and realized, again, that Hillary was screwed. Meanwhile, Obama continued racking up Super Delegates and increasing his lead in the national polls.

So, this is not such a bad result.  If the traditional media for Clinton, they didn't actually get it.  I'm guessing that Clinton is actually secretly upset that they didn't do even better than they did as well.

Yikes... must be late.. (0.00 / 0)
I'm dropping words everywhere... "If the traditional media for Clinton" should read "If the traditional media demanded a double-digit win from Clinton".

Also, in the first paragraph, it should say "the actual numbers SHOW a margin closer to 9%" etc.

Oops. =)

[ Parent ]
Don't forget.. (0.00 / 0)
.. she had Governor Ed Rendell, the mayor of Philly, and some family ties to Pennsylvania, that probably added to her advantage.

 Charlie Rose had a pretty good discussion tonight though, with the consensus pretty much being that Obama has to find a way to better connect to lunch bucket swing voters in places like Pennsylvania going into the general election...  Also at issue is that both candidates have got to be bone tired.  Figure what- 300+ speeches and/or roundtables for Barack in 2008 alone so far- maybe even twice that.  

superdelegates (0.00 / 0)
Doesn't it really bother anyone else that the voting is pretty much irrelevant and the superdelegates are the ones that will decide this?  
Yes... (0.00 / 0)
Please make them go away in the next primary.  If they didn't exist this time, the primary would be over already.
[ Parent ]
Margin of the Convention | 77 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

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
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox