Early this morning, I wrote that Clinton currently leads in the popular vote by 19,899 votes. This figure is based upon the bottom line in the current Real Clear Politics count, minus 64,504 uncommited votes in Michigan that, according to exit polls, came from people who indicated they would have supported either John Edwards or Bill Richardson, had those candidates been on the ballot.
However, I now realize that those totals were incorrect. This is because, in Michigan, 27,694 votes were not counted because they wrote in a candidate. When, in accordance with exit polls, 72.9167% of those votes are allocated to Obama, that puts another 20,194 votes in his column. According to the broadest possible definition of one-person, one-vote, this gives Obama an almost comically narrow lead of 357 votes heading into tomorrow's primaries.
Of course, since we are dealing with estimates on the Iowa, Maine, Nevada and Washington vote totals, and since we are also dealing with estimates on the Michigan uncommitted and discarded vote totals, there is a margin of error in these estimates. Specifically, there is about a 3% margin of error in either direction among the estimated votes, since we are dealing with exit polls and the vagaries of the delegate selection process in the four caucus states. A 3% margin of error on the estimated 750,000 votes from these states gives a margin of error range of 22,500 votes in either direction. So, in order for there to be no doubt as to who won the popular vote, it will be necessary for Obama to win tomorrow's primaries by 22,143 votes.
For the sake of rounding, let's say 25,000 is the ultimate, "no doubt" popular victory threshold. This means that Obama needs to win tomorrow's primaries by 24,643 votes in order to definitively declare that he is the popular vote winner. Tomorrow night, while live-blogging returns, I'll provide updates on whether or not Obama will reach that threshold. No matter what happens, there is no definitive way to prove that Clinton won the popular vote. Also, as I indicated last night, the difficulty in determining the popular vote winner speaks to a lack of democracy in the process that needs to be reformed in advance of 2012 and other upcoming nomination campaigns.
What sort of reforms do we need? I say we go with the California Plan, abolish caucuses, and increase the number of delegates to about 6,000. Altogether, these reforms would be the most democratic system possible that still maintains a staggered primary calendar and a delegate-based convention. I'll have more on reforming the process soon.
Clinton's enormous victory in West Virginia last night will invariably bring arguments over the "popular vote" in the Democratic nomination campaign back into the discussion. Even before West Virginia, which Clinton won by around 137,500 votes, the Clinton campaign was arguing that it was "in striking distance" of the popular vote lead. In fact, according to counts that do not (fixed) include participants in the delegate selection events in Iowa, Maine, Nevada and Washington, but do include the non-delegate selection events in Florida and Michigan, and also do not include the preferences of the "uncommitted" participants in Michigan, the Clinton campaign is indeed ahead. And so, right on cue, the Clinton campaign is now claiming they lead in the popular vote.
The problem with this popular vote total is that it is a moral argument about the will of the participants in the Democratic nomination campaign, not a legal argument over the definition of the winner of the nomination campaign. Legally, the Democratic nominee is determined by delegates, not by popular vote totals. For a moral argument about the popular vote--a.k.a. the will of the nomination campaign electorate--to carry weight, it needs to be as inclusive as possible in its vote totals. Instead, this vote total pretends that the over 550,000 caucus goers in Washington, Nevada, Maine and Iowa, not to mention the quarter of a million uncommitted voters in Michigan, didn't actually have candidate preferences in the nomination campaign just because those candidate preferences weren't recorded. Excluding those 800,000 participants in the nomination campaign from a popular vote toal, especially when exit polls and turnout numbers make close estimates on those preferences quite simple, renders that popular total pointless. Since popular vote totals are statements of moral value, mass exclusions of this sort drains any popular total of all its moral force.
The popular vote total in the nomination campaign is a moral argument about fairness, intra-party democracy, and legitimacy. It isn't even a moral argument that many people accept, given, among other issues, the variances in voter eligibility from state to state, the various "legitimacy" of the nomination events used in the totals, and the staggered primary calendar itself. Still, as an argument over moral legitimacy to the Democratic presidential nomination, it should not be used lightly and arbitrarily. Certainly, it should not exclude hundreds of thousands of people who tried to participate in the nomination campaign by means of the only event offered to them. When all of the people who attempted to participate in their state's only delegate selection event (or their state's only potential delegate selection event, as is the case in Florida and Michigan) are included, Barack Obama still leads by just under 260,000 votes even after Clinton's 137,500 vote victory in West Virginia. Barring some pretty shocking results in the remaining five contests, Obama will still hold that lead after all the voting is complete on June 3rd.
Of all the remaining arguments the Clinton campaign will probably make over the next three or four weeks, the popular vote argument will disgust me the most. They will claim the moral high ground by supposedly having the most support from participants in the nomination campaign, when in reality such a claim can only be made by ignoring the 800,000 participants in the nomination campaign whose candidate preferences were not recorded (but whose preferences can be closely estimated). Making a moral argument that involves shutting voters out of the process is very disturbing, and gives me bad memories of the Florida recount. Remember, if there was a review of all statewide ballots in Florida, Gore would have won according to any vote counting standard. Excluding voters from popular vote counts, and then claiming legitimacy based on fraudulent counts, does not have a positive track record in America.
The Obama campaign has started to keep a running count of superdelegates on its results page. While it does not provide a list of the superdelegate endorsements, the total is still a useful public service. Also, I can understand why they wouldn't want to list the individual superdelegates, given that any errors could cause real problems from them. At this point, I'm fine that they only provide totals.
Some might object that I am not accurately portraying the position of the Obama campaign on Michigan and Florida. While I list the Obama campaign arguing for a 184-184 split of the 368 delegates from those two states, the results page on the Obama campaign website lists each state as receiving zero delegates. However, this is a contradiction from the Obama campaign, not an error on my part. While the campaign lists each state with zero delegates, it has also stated that it wants to see Michigan and Florida both seated at the convention, but with a 50-50 split of delegates. So, the campaign is arguing for 184-184 in some places, and 0-0 in others. Since we all know that both states will be seated at the convention, I will stick with 184-184 for now.
Clinton has actually picked up a couple of delegates recently, one in Pennsylvania (now projected at 85-73 by Green Papers) and one half in American Samoa (now projected at Clinton 2-1 Obama by Green Papers), for a net of three delegates.
I have also separated out Michigan and Florida in these tables so that they make more sense. The 45 remaining delegates from Michigan will be chosen on May 17th at the state party convention, I believe. At that convention, according to her campaign's count, Clinton will pick up twenty-six more delegates and net at least seven. After that, the Rules and Bylaws Committee will hold a hearing on Michigan and Florida on May 31st. If nothing changes from that meeting, then the Credentials Committee takes over the matter.
Here are the future delegate projections, with the state projections based on current polls:
This brings us to the following, dueling projections:
Type
Obama
Clinton
Edwards
Remaining
50% + 1
Obama Total
2,140
2,002
19
211
2,208.5
Clinton Total
2,048.5
1,992.5
37
335
2,208.5
Clearly, under the Obama count, the nomination campaign is effectively over. Obama is still favored even under the Clinton count, since he would only need 46.9% of the remaining delegates to reach the magic number.
Clinton's path to the nomination involves a combination of two rather unlikely steps. First, force a the campaign all the way to the convention by preventing Obama from reaching the magic number under Clinton's most favorable count. This will require both forcing an extremely favorable deal on Michigan and Florida and significantly improving upon her current projected delegate totals in remaining states. Second, it will require her to destroy Obama as a viable general election candidate to such a degree that Obama superdelegates actually start shifting to Clinton. To date, not a single Obama superdelegate has switched to Clinton, so once again this seems extremely unlikely.
The nomination campaign is taking a while, but it certainly seems like Obama is headed to victory, probably sometime in mid-June.
Is it April 9th where you are? I think it might be April 10th where I am, but I'm not sure. Anyway, here are the latest polling averages are delegate projections:
The "vacant" column indicates three superdelegates-to-be who have endorsed Obama, but whom are not technically superdelegates yet (vacant Illinois DNC spot, vacant SEIU DNC spot, vacant MD-04 congressional spot). The Michigan and Florida columns add in the superdelegates who have declared, but leave the rest undecided (or, more accurately, "undetermined.") Since we know that Michigan and Florida will be seated, but we just don't know who those delegates will be, that seems like a reasonable way to include those delegations in the count for now.
It may seem strange to be posting a delegate count update from Israel, but people are even talking about it over here. This is a truly global primary.
In the remaining states, current polling averages and analogous states project a pledged delegate split of Clinton 299-267 Obama. Clinton only gains 32 delegates, and that projection continues to drop as Obama presses his resource advantage. (Note: polling averages in the link are slightly out of date. 299-267 reflects current averages due to Obama improvement in Pennsylvania).
Clinton currently leads among superdelegates by a count of 245-221. However, when one looks into more detail on those numbers, her superdelegate lead is actually erased, and the count is 268-268. So, she doesn't gain any ground among superdelegates. (Note: superdelegate details in the link are slightly out of date. 268-268 represents current totals, due to endorsements over the past week.)
Facing, at best, a deficit of 129 delegates, the only remaining path for Clinton to make up the deficit comes from undecided superdelegates (about 250-260 remain), Edwards delegates (either 18 or 31 remain), Florida and Michigan. However, the Obama campaign holds veto power over Florida and Michigan through the credentials committee, and so the only way for Clinton to make up enough ground in Florida and Michigan is for the Obama campaign to let her do so. Not bloody likely.
Thus, the Clinton campaign will need to make up at least 90 delegates entirely from the remaining superdelegates and Edwards delegates. This will require winning at least two-thirds of the remaining superdelegates, which seems extraordinarily unlikely given the long-term superdelegate endorsement trend.
So yes, the outcome of the campaign is not really in doubt. However, what is in doubt is when the nomination campaign will end in the mind of the electorate and the media. At what point does it become common wisdom that Obama is the presumptive Democratic nominee? To phrase it a slightly different way: even though the outcome is not in doubt, at what point can we reach closure for the nomination campaign? In the extended entry, I provide the key elements to reaching closure, and an approximate date for when it will all be achieved.
Here are the latest polling averages in the remaining states and territories, along with crude delegate projections based on those averages:
Democratic Nomination Primary Schedule
State
Date
O %
C %
P. Del
Obama Del
Clinton Del
Pennsylvania
Apr 22
41.8%
48.2%
158
74
84
Guam
May 03
--
--
4
2
2
Indiana
May 06
43.0%
52.0%
72
33
39
North Carolina
May 06
51.3%
36.0%
115
66
49
West Virginia
May 13
24.5%
49.0%
28
9
19
Kentucky
May 20
29.0%
58.0%
51
17
34
Oregon
May 20
--
--
52
27
25
Puerto Rico
Jun 01
--
--
55
23
32
Montana
Jun 03
--
--
16
8
8
South Dakota
Jun 03
--
--
15
8
7
Total
June 10
--
--
566
267
299
These numbers provide two key insights:
First, Obama clearly still has some work to do. While dropping a net of 32 pledged delegates to Clinton in the remaining states would hardly be crippling to his campaign, it also wouldn't be great. In terms of general election momentum, the last thing Obama needs is to stumble home to the nomination, with Clinton winning the majority of the remaining states and delegates. In terms of winning the nomination, Obama also doesn't want to give Clinton any light at all, especially considering how the narrative is starting to focus on her slim hopes to win the nomination. The Obama goal should be to at least split the remaining delegates, and pull out victories in Indiana, North Carolina, Oregon, Montana and South Dakota. Not only would that close off any possible remaining paths to the nomination for Clinton, it would also shield Obama from any negative momentum that might accrue by falling backward into the nomination.
Second, these numbers show just how inaccurate it is to measure progress in the campaign by looking at who won what states. Specifically, even though Clinton is projected to win both Pennsylvania and Indiana by decent margins right now, in the April 22nd to May 6th period she is only projected to gain one pledged delegate on Obama. This is because, in terms of delegates, how much someone wins a state by matters far more than just winning a state, and Obama is way ahead in North Carolina. In fact, winning congressional districts is actually way more important than winning states, given that 65% of pledged delegates are determined at the congressional district level, while only 35% are determined at the statewide level. Further, which congressional districts you win matter just as much as which states a candidate wins since, just like states, the number of delegates in each district varies significantly (the range is from a low of three delegates to a high of ten delegates). Yet further, it also matters how much you win congressional districts by, since different amounts of delegates are handed out for different levels of victory. In other words, the strategy for winning delegates in the Democratic nomination campaign has little or no bearing on the strategy to win the Electoral College, making electability arguments on who won what primary state a truly pointless apples and oranges exercise. We might as well argue which NBA player would do better in the NFL based on their basketball skills.
As far as ending the nomination campaign goes, Obama is 8% away from doing that in Pennsylvania, and 10% away from doing that in Indiana. Given the direction of the campaign and Obama's current resource advantage, both seem tantalizing within reach. However, even though I will be voting for him tonight at my local Democratic Party ward meeting, I will still remain utterly shocked if he is able to win my home state of Pennsylvania.
A consensus seems to be forming that Hillary Clinton has only a very slim chance to win the nomination. Recent articles in The New York Times and The Politico are examples of this. Further, the consensus is not only that Clinton has a very small chance, but that what chance she does have requires creating a civil war in the Democratic Party by using superdelegates to overturn the popular vote, deny the nomination to the candidate with the most grassroots support in the history of the party, and cancel out the first African-American nominee, even though African-Americans are the most loyal Democratic voting group of all. In other words, Clinton's only longshot hope is to win the nomination while creating an intra-Democratic civil war that could drive a wedge down the coalition for years.
While I agree with this perspective, I also think it would be bad for Clinton to drop out when she holds an average lead of 16% in the upcoming, major primary of Pennsylvania. Momentum in the general election is often determined by momentum in the primary campaign, and as such it is essential that Obama is not seen as "backing in" to the nomination. For example, in 1984, Mondale lost eight of the last nine primaries, including California, providing him with serious negative momentum for the general election. Also, in our own primary campaign, we have regularly seen the candidate with momentum in Democratic primaries perform better against McCain in the general election. Over the summer, when she was rising in Democratic polls, Clinton performed best against Republicans in general election matchups. During February, when Obama was on a huge roll, he performed about 5% better than Clinton against McCain. Now that no one seems to have clear momentum in the nomination campaign, the two candidates perform about the same against McCain. Clinton needs to exit only after an Obama victory, and when there are no remaining possibilities of future big wins for Clinton.
Between now and June 4th, there are four chances for Obama to earn the sort of victory that would knock Clinton out of the campaign, and provide him with the momentum he needs for the general election. In the extended entry, I provide a quick look at all four:
There is a growing sentiment that the "delegate math" favors Obama, and that he will wrap-up the nomination in June. While this is a sentiment with which I generally agree, upon closer analysis of the delegate math I think that Clinton has a better chance than many realize. In fact, a close look at the delegate math indicates that there is a good chance we will either head to the convention without a presumptive nominee, or head to the convention with a barely presumptive nominee. By "barely presumptive," I mean a candidate who is just slightly over 2,208, with that total possibly disputed by the opposing campaign. Overall, I would say there is a greater than 50% we will face one of those two scenarios.
This delegate projection puts the Michigan and Florida pledged delegates and add-on in the "remaining" column, since they are still to be decided. The Michigan and Florida superdelegates who have endorsed a candidate are included in the superdelegate totals, while those who have not are placed in the "remaining" column. I think this is the most accurate way to count the delegates right now, since it is safe to assume that Michigan and Florida will be seated, while it is also reasonable to categorize the two states as currently undetermined.
Now, let's take a look at current polling for the remaining primary states, and the delegate projections that polling creates:
Democratic Nomination Primary Schedule
State
Date
O %
C %
P. Del
Obama Del
Clinton Del
Pennsylvania
Apr 22
36.8%
51.8%
158
74
84
Guam
May 03
--
--
4
2
2
Indiana
May 06
40.0%
25.0%
72
41
31
North Carolina
May 06
47.7%
41.3%
115
61
54
West Virginia
May 13
22.0%
43.0%
28
11
17
Kentucky
May 20
--
--
51
21
30
Oregon
May 20
--
--
52
27
25
Puerto Rico
Jun 01
--
--
55
24
31
Montana
Jun 03
--
--
16
9
7
South Dakota
Jun 03
--
--
15
8
7
Florida
???
39.0%
55.0%
185
77
108
Michigan
???
41.0%
41.0%
128
64
64
Total
June 10
46.0%
44.5%
879
419
460
In the states without polls, I took some liberties in projecting the delegates based on the results of similar states. This projects to Clinton 460-419 Obama for the remaining states, along with a 10-7 split in favor of Clinton among the add-on delegates (I am projecting a tie in Michigan). Overall, this produces a total of Obama 2,084.5--2,005.5 Clinton, with 299 non-add on superdelegates and 26 Edwards delegates as the deciding factor. From that point, Obama would need 38.0% of the remaining delegates to win, while Clinton would need 62.0%.
Now, 62.0% of the remaining superdelegates and Edwards delegates sounds like a tall order. However, keep in mind that these are all pretty dedicated, self-identified Democrats, and that they also tend to be older than 30. Both of these are groups among whom Clinton holds an advantage among voters, which partially explains her edge in superdelegates to date. If she is able to slice off a few delegates in multi-tiered caucus states and / or outperform the delegate projections in remaining states, then she needs even less than 62.0% of the remaining delegates. For example, if she acquires twenty-four more delegates through such means, then she only needs 55.7% of the remaining delegates to win, which is almost identical to her current advantage among superdelegates. A string of wins starting in Pennsylvania could give her the momentum needed to outperform the delegate totals, and also provide her with an argument that superdelegates might buy. In other words, winning the nomination remains doable for Clinton.
Now, with all of this said, the math still clearly favors Obama. After all, he could also outperform these projections, build momentum of his own, and add to his delegate totals in multi-tiered caucus states. Further, since Super Tuesday, he has added 78 new superdelegates to his total, while Clinton has only added 20. Yet further, it will be difficult for Clinton to overtake Obama in the popular vote, where he currently leads by about 750,000 once caucus states are figured into the totals. That will be a difficult argument for any currently undecided superdelegate to ignore. However, an honest look at these numbers also indicates that it will be very difficult for Obama to reach 2,208 by June 10th, the day that the DNC mandates caucus and primary voting ends. While he will have a lead, there is a pretty good chance there will still be enough undecided superdelegates and Edwards delegates to prevent either candidate from reaching 2,208 by June 10th. Further, even if Obama does barely eek over 2,208 in June, it is unlikely that the Clinton campaign will concede defeat as long as they still believe they can flip enough superdelegates to win the nomination.
In other words, a close look at the delegate math indicates that there is a good chance we will either head to the convention without a presumptive nominee, or head to the convention with a barely presumptive nominee. At the very least, we are headed all the way through June. A question we might want to start asking is how many delegates Obama needs to have in order to get Clinton to concede before the convention in either June or July. Personally, I don't think that number is 2,208, since they will almost certainly believe they can flip a handful of superdelegates. The actual number might be something like 2,240 or even higher, which would make the delegate flipping task virtually impossible. Other than losing a state like Pennsylvania or Florida, such an enormous delegate total strikes me as just about the only way Clinton will concede before the convention. If you have noticed anything else in her campaign behavior up until this point that indicates otherwise, I think we are watching different nomination campaigns.
In this projection, I am assuming a revote in both Florida and Michigan. As such, I have included current superdelegate endorsements from those states in superdelegate totals, and placed both their pledged and add-on delegates in the "remaining" column.
In order to win the nomination, Clinton needs to win at least 93 more delegates than Obama before the convention. If she does so, her delegates plus Edwards delegates will force a brokered convention, even if every single superdelegate makes an endorsement beforehand. That requires 53.8% of the remaining delegates. While difficult, that is certainly not impossible, especially if she goes on a winning streak starting in Pennsylvania. In order to win 50% +1 before the convention, she needs 687.5 delegates, or 56.0% of those that remain. While that is starting to enter highly unlikely territory, it is also a reason why she is starting to organize in multi-tiered delegate contests.
Crist told reporters at a news conference that he would be open to another primary, but not if Florida has to foot the bill, estimated by the Florida Democratic Party to be $25 million. He said he discussed the option with Sen. Bill Nelson, the state's senior Democrat. "He said the only way to consider the possibility of that is to have the Democratic National Committee pay for it," Crist said.
This is absurd. A new primary in Florida would generate more than $25M in revenue for the state, and Crist both and Nelson know it. It just wouldn't generate more than $25M in tax revenue. The state of Florida would lose money, but overall it would be a net gain for the population.
Clearly, Crist is just trying to appear as though he is open to a new primary, but does not really mean it. Forcing the DNC to shell out $25M would cripple it for the general election against John McCain, who Crist endorsed. This is not an attempt to have a new vote--it is an attempt to hand the election to John McCain. Of course Howard Dean would refuse this "offer," and of course Crist knows Dean would refuse that "offer." As such, Crist can appear open to a revote, because he knows it will never happen.
What does need to happen is for Michigan to hold a new primary or caucus. My delegate counter shows just what an abomination of democracy it would be for the current Michigan delegation to determine the nomination:
Michigan Democrats are discussing holding a "firehouse" contest in May or June that would be an alternative to a traditional primary or caucus and run by the state party, said a Democratic Party official who has been part of the discussions. "Firehouse" contests usually have fewer polling places and shorter voting hours than traditional state-run primary elections.
The party official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the discussions are private, said there was general consensus that it could not be held at taxpayers' expense and would attempt to generate participation from about 1 million state Democrats.
I think seating Florida's delegation as is (105 Clinton, 67 Obama, 13 Edwards) and holding a new Michigan caucus (with 128 pledged delegates at stake) would be an acceptable compromise (more on my Florida position here). Clinton's advantages from the lack of campaigning in Florida would be cancelled out by Obama's advantage in caucuses. Hold the caucus on Saturday, June 7th, the same day as Puerto Rico, and just be done with the whole thing. This way, we can avoid the credentials committee, and probably have a nominee by June 8th, at the latest.
I know that two less-than-democratic contests don't make the overall nomination campaign an exercise in pure democracy, but consider the other options we face. There won't be a new vote in Florida, and all this new posturing for one is pretty much bullshit. Instead, from mid-June through late August, the nomination could be decided at the credentials committee, with none of the following outcomes against the rules:
There are a number of ways this could play out, and they are all "within the rules"
Status Quo. No delegates from Florida or Michigan.
The Credentials Committee seats one or both delegations as is. Totally within the rules. The Credentials Committee has the total power within the rules to seat or not seat any delegate as they choose, regardless of any previous DNC rules.
The Credentials Committee seats the delegates, but makes each delegate worth half a vote, essentially restoring the originally proposed 50% penalty. Totally within the rules.
The Credentials Committee seats the delegations, but makes sure they are split 50-50 between Obama and Clinton. Totally within the rules
Either state submits a new delegate selection plan to the DNC. It is approved, and new delegates are selected. Totally within the rules. (And Delaware supposedly did this in a previous election year).
Seating Florida's delegation and holding an early June, cost-effective, party-run Michigan caucus would be a lot better than having the national party twist in the wind for three months without a nominee while the obscure DNC credentials committee becomes the sole arbiter of democracy. This is hardly a perfect solution, but it would give us a nominee by mid-June (which isn't too bad), and also force the Clinton and Obama campaigns to organize everywhere (which is great). Not everyone, or even most people, will agree with this proposal, but it is the best, and most realistic, compromise solution I can think of.
Update: Ben Smith suggests it is possible to hold a new Florida primary for only $5 million. If that is the case, there should be sufficient money to pull it off if several groups all chip in.
A member of the DNC's Rules And Bylaws Committee--the committee that stripped Florida and Michigan of its delegates for moving their primaries before February 5th--told me that Michigan plans to get out of its uncounted delegate problem by announcing a new caucus in the next few days.
"They want to play. They know how to do caucuses," the DNC source said. "That was their plan all along, before they got cute with the primary."
So, it looks like if we can come up with $5 million for a Florida mail-in primary, the problem will be solved. Good.
Seems as though there might be new life for the Clinton campaign. She looks good in Ohio, and Texas is now razor-thin, but with slight Clinton momentum:
Democratic Nomination At A Glance
State
Date
Polls
Obama
Clinton
P. Delegates
P. Delegates
Jun 7
38
1,193.5
1,033.5
3,253 / 3,566
Ohio
Mar 04
10
42.9%
49.6%
141
Rhode Island
Mar 04
4
38.8%
49.0%
21
Texas C
Mar 04
0
--
--
67
Texas P
Mar 04
9
46.4%
46.6%
126
Vermont
Mar 04
3
56.7%
35.3%
15
Wyoming
Mar 08
0
--
--
12
Mississippi
Mar 11
0
--
--
33
Iowa
Mar 15
0
--
--
14
Pennsylvania
April 22
2
42.5%
47.5%
158
Guam
May 03
0
--
--
4
Indiana
May 06
1
40.0%
25.0%
72
North Carolina
May 06
2
41.5%
27.5%
115
West Virginia
May 13
1
22.0%
43.0%
28
* = The 14 Iowa delegates for Edwards might switch at the March 15 county caucuses.
This projects to the following delegate totals:
Delegate Projections, Based On Current Polling
State
Date
Obama
Clinton
P. Delegates
P. Delegates
Jun 7
1,193.5
1,033.5
2,258
Ohio
Mar 04
65
76
141
Rhode Island
Mar 04
9
12
21
Texas P
Mar 04
63
63
126
Texas C
Mar 04
38
29
67
Vermont
Mar 04
9
6
15
Wyoming
Mar 08
8
4
12
Mississippi
Mar 11
21
12
33
Iowa*
Mar 15
0
0
14
Pennsylvania
April 22
75
83
158
Guam
May 03
2
2
4
Indiana
May 06
41
31
72
North Carolina
May 06
65
50
115
West Virginia
May 13
10
18
28
Sub-Total
NA
403
389
806
Grand Total
NA
1,599.5
1,419.5
3,064
Delegates in states without polls were projected according to results in similar states. For Wyoming, the results of Colorado, Idaho, Nebraska and North Dakota were used as models. For the Texas Caucus, Nevada and Maine were used as models. For Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and Louisiana were used as models. For Guam, American Samoa was used as the model. For Iowa, Edwards has asked his delegates to stick with him, so I have projected no gains for either candidate.
Obama's pledged delegate advantage is unassailable. For Clinton, the goal is to use a win in the Texas primary in order to change the narrative and improve her standing in post-March 4th states. A win in Pennsylvania would boost her further. From that point, her hope would be to stem the bleeding among superdelegates (where her lead has dropped to 47 or 57, depending on whether you count Florida and Michigan), use public pressure and the credentials committee to seat Florida (where she holds a 38 delegate lead) and win an enormous delegate victory in Michigan (she currently leads 73-0 there. All told, she does not even have a clear path to victory in that scenario, as it would exactly tie she would still trail in the delegate count (180 pledged delegates minus 57 superdelegates minus 38 Florida delegates minus 73 Michigan equals Obama plus twelve) outside of the Edwards delegates (26 + 13 in Florida) and uncommitted delegates (55 in Michigan plus 19 undecided) unless the above projected delegate outcomes swing even more in her favor. Even in that favorable situation, she would still need 63 of the 113 uncommitted and Edwards delegates. So, a Clinton victory is highly improbable, although Obama has still not quite wrapped things up.
I still think we are headed to Pennsylvania. Clinton will win Ohio, and probably Rhode Island. She also should come close in Texas, and probably declare some sort of victory as a result. I'm getting antsy to take on McCain, but Obama's fundraising doesn't seem to be a problem, and setting up a massive Pennsylvania operation wouldn't hurt, either. Also, I wouldn't mind if my primary vote actually counted this time around.
Is that if Clinton wins the popular vote in Ohio and Texas, she's staying in the race. Even if she loses the delegate race in Texas. No doubt, this will make heads explode in Chicago.
A lot of pressure on Texas to decide if the campaign continues or not.
* = The 14 Iowa delegates for Edwards might switch at the March 15 county caucuses.
The polling that led me to conclude Clinton faces an insurmountable pledged delegate deficit has swung even further in favor of Obama. On March 4th, Obama has pulled slightly closer in Ohio (7.0% down from 7.3%), and slightly further ahead in Texas (1.6% up from 1.0%). Rhode Island is unchanged, while Clinton has pulled closer in Vermont (21.4% down from 25.0%). Obama has pulled nine points closer in Pennsylvania, and seven points further ahead in North Carolina. While West Virginia off-sets most of these gains for Obama, even favorable delegate projections for Clinton show losing eight net pledged delegates between now and May 13th.
Pro-Clinton Delegate Projections, Based On Current Polling
State
Date
Obama
Clinton
P. Delegates
Clinton Poll Margin
P. Delegates
Jun 7
1,193.5
1,033.5
3,253
--
Ohio
Mar 04
65
76
141
+7.0%
Rhode Island
Mar 04
8
13
21
+13.5%
Texas P
Mar 04
63
63
126
-1.0%
Texas C
Mar 04
38
29
67
--
Vermont
Mar 04
9
6
15
-21.4%
Wyoming
Mar 08
7
5
12
--
Mississippi
Mar 11
18
15
33
--
Iowa*
Mar 15
7
7
14
--
Pennsylvania
April 22
75
83
158
+5.0%
Guam
May 03
1
3
4
--
Indiana
May 06
41
31
72
-15.0%
North Carolina
May 06
65
50
115
-14.0%
West Virginia
May 13
9
19
28
+21.0%
Total
NA
407
399
778
--
A deficit of 168 pledged delegates after West Virginia is untenable. Obviously, Clinton needs to change the direction of the campaign, because current delegate math indicates virtually no way for her to win.
Here is some more context to my conclusion in today's nomination at a glance post that the Democratic nomination campaign is pretty much over. Using the poll averages from that post, here is the best possible delegate scenario for Clinton between now and May 6th:
State
Date
Obama
Clinton
P. Delegates
Clinton Poll Margin
P. Delegates
Jun 7
1,194.5
1,032.5
3,253
--
Ohio
Mar 04
64
77
141
+7.3%
Rhode Island
Mar 04
8
13
21
+13.5%
Texas P
Mar 04
63
63
126
-1.0%
Texas C
Mar 04
38
29
67
--
Vermont
Mar 04
9
6
15
-25.0%
Wyoming
Mar 08
7
5
12
--
Mississippi
Mar 11
18
15
33
--
Iowa*
Mar 15
7
7
14
--
Pennsylvania
April 22
68
90
158
+14.0%
Guam
May 03
1
3
4
--
Indiana
May 06
41
31
72
-15.0%
North Carolina
May 06
62
53
115
-8.7%
Total
NA
387
391
778
--
I derived all of these numbers by taking the current polling margin in each state, multiplying that margin by the number of pledged delegates in each state, and then rounding up favor of Clinton. In the case of caucus events, for which there are no polls, I used the numbers from Maine, Clinton's best February caucus states, as a proxy. In the case of Mississippi, I used the delegate results from Alabama, which Clinton only lost by 2 despite a 14% popular vote defeat, as a guide. (The three delegate victory for Obama in Mississippi comes from that state having a higher percentage of African-Americans in its primary electorate than Alabama.) In the case of Guam, I used American Samoa as a guide, and then heavily rounded up in favor of Clinton.
However, even in this favorable scenario, the delegate math still does not add up for Clinton. Obama still ends up with a pledged delegate lead of 158.5 after May 6th, at which point only 217 pledged delegates remain (plus another 23 still floating around from states that have already held nominating contests). Overall, it is extremely unlikely that Clinton will be able to reduce Obama's pledged delegate advantage to below 150 before the convention. If things go exceptionally well for her and surpass even these already rosy projections, then she will still have to make up at least 130 delegates from Florida, Michigan, superdelegates and Edwards delegates. That doesn't seem very likely in and of itself, but it is still her best case scenario based on current polling.
Given all of this, I have conclude that Obama has greater than a 95% chance of winning the nomination at this point. It now feels to me as though we are just killing time, or perhaps engaging in a one-week farewell tour, until the inevitable takes hold. Clinton might continue on to Pennsylvania, but at this point I can barely see how that will make any difference for her chances. The Obama campaign has simply proven too effective in too many ways. My proverbial hat goes off to them.
Here are the latest numbers, with all polls conducted entirely since February 16th:
Democratic Nomination At A Glance
State
Date
Polls
Obama
Clinton
P. Delegates
P. Delegates
Jun 7
38
1,194.5
1,032.5
3,253 / 3,566
Ohio
Mar 04
7
42.0%
49.3%
141
Rhode Island
Mar 04
2
39.0%
52.5%
21
Texas
Mar 04
8
47.4%
46.4%
193
Vermont
Mar 04
2
58.5%
33.5%
15
Wyoming
Mar 08
0
--
--
12
Mississippi
Mar 11
0
--
--
33
Iowa*
Mar 15
0
--
--
14
Pennsylvania
April 22
2
34.0%
48.0%
158
Guam
May 03
0
--
--
4
Indiana
May 06
1
40.0%
25.0%
72
North Carolina
May 06
3
45.7%
37.0%
115
* = The 14 Iowa delegates for Edwards might switch at the March 15 county caucuses.
Non-ARG Texas shows a tie at 47.0%, while non-ARG Ohio comes in at Clinton 49.5%--42.5% Obama. In other words, ARG is currently having little impact on the two largest March 4th states, and might be falling more in line with other polls.
Clinton's Texas situation is growing dire, and her lead in Ohio is also slipping. At this point, I would now be stunned if Obama failed further increase his pledged delegate lead between now and March 11th. Also, I am starting to think that I will be proven wrong about the Clinton campaign continuing on to April 22nd and Pennsylvania, since there is no possible way for Clinton to recover from a double loss in Ohio and Texas..
Obama chances to win the nomination seem to increase every day. It won't be long before he leads even when superdelegates, Florida and Michigan are included, even while receiving zero delegates from Michigan. Clinton's slim hopes now rest on perfect storm of Ohio, Pennsylvania, the credentials committee, and stopping the flow of superdelegates to Obama. But even in all of those areas, Obama continues to slowly gain ground. It does not appear as though it will be long before the nomination at a glance is put to rest, and questions over superdelegates, endorsement votes, and the credentials committee become moot. While this is the most closely contested nomination campaign the Democratic Party has seen for nearly a century, it also appears to be rapidly reaching a conclusion. What a ride it has been.
Here are the latest numbers, with all polls conducted entirely since the February 12th Potomac Primary:
Democratic Nomination At A Glance
State
Date
Polls
Obama
Clinton
P. Delegates
P. Delegates
Jun 7
38
1,194.5
1,032.5
3,253 / 3,566
Ohio
Mar 04
7
41.4%
49.6%
141
Rhode Island
Mar 04
2
39.0%
52.5%
21
Texas
Mar 04
8
45.8%
47.5%
193
Vermont
Mar 04
2
58.5%
33.5%
15
Wyoming
Mar 08
0
--
--
12
Mississippi
Mar 11
0
--
--
33
Iowa*
Mar 15
0
--
--
14
Pennsylvania
April 22
2
34.0%
48.0%
158
Guam
May 03
0
--
--
4
Indiana
May 06
0
--
--
72
North Carolina
May 06
3
45.7%
37.0%
115
* = The 14 Iowa delegates for Edwards might switch at the March 15 county caucuses.
The March 4th polling situation appears to be stabilizing. Obama is way ahead in Vermont, and will score an easy victory there. Clinton appears to have decent leads in Ohio and Rhode Island, the former of which is slowly shrinking while the latter remains stable. Texas is very close, but Obama will almost certainly win the delegate count there because 1/3 of the delegates are determined via caucus and because Clinton tends to be strongest in four-delegate districts that are very difficult to score a 3-1 edge. Toss in Wyoming and Mississippi in the week following March 4th, and it is hard to see how Clinton makes up any ground in pledged delegates between now and Pennsylvania.
I think commenters are correct when they write that the outcome of the popular vote in the Texas primary will play a big role in determining whether or not Clinton continues on to Pennsylvania. Bill Clinton indicated as much today when he said the following about the caucuses:
The doors open at 7 and they close at 7:15. It would be tragic if Hillary were to win this election in the daytime and somebody were to come in at night and take it away.
Clearly, the Clinton campaign is laying the groundwork to declare victory in Texas solely on the basis of the primary vote, not the caucus or delegate count. While I still think that Hillary Clinton will continue on to Pennsylvania as long as she wins Ohio, I grant it is possible she drops out if she loses the primary vote in Texas.
* = The 14 Iowa delegates for Edwards might switch at the March 15 county caucuses. ** I did not include the new online poll showing Obama up 14 in Texas, which I think is utterly bougs.
Would winning Ohio and Rhode Island be enough for Clinton to continue on to Pennsylvania? It isn't clear. Obama will clean up in Vermont, Wyoming and Mississippi, and also probably win the delegate count in Texas. Overall, this means it is unlikely that Clinton will make up any ground at all in the pledged delegate count between now and March 15th.
Still, I think that Clinton will continue forward to Pennsylvania as long as she wins Ohio. With superdelegates, Florida, and Michigan included, she still leads the overall delegate count by 31. (Actually, only 23 if you use my delegate count. Even then, that is only because she leads Michigan 80-1.) As long as she leads in some sort of delegate count, and can win Ohio on March 4th, I just don't see her dropping out after the extensive arguments her campaign has made on those subjects. Obama's path to the nomination right now seems to be either to win both Ohio and Texas, or to win Pennsylvania and take the lead according to all delegate counts.
June 10th: Nebraska (June 28th, I am now being told)
June 14th: Idaho and Iowa. At least 14 delegates for John Edwards will up for grabs in Iowa.
June 15th: Washington
In most cases, unless one candidate drops our, either no change or a shift of one delegate should be expected in the pledged delegate totals at these state conventions. What is really at stake in these conventions is who gets to become a pledged delegate for either Obama or Clinton, not the amount of pledged delegates each candidate will receive. Iowa is a notable exception, where the 14 Edwards delegates could be up for grabs for both campaigns. This actually makes June 14th, not June 7th, the final date when pledged delegates are selected. Somehow, Iowa has managed to be both first and last in the process.
Update: It occurs to me that the way delegates are selected in some primary states, and because even pledged delegates are not bound by DNC to rules to vote for the candidate they were elected to support, some changes could even take place in primary states. I'm going to ask both campaigns to see if they are prepared for this contingency.
Non-ARG Wisconsin stands at Obama 47.3%--41.3% Clinton across four polls, while non-ARG Texas stands at Clinton 51.5%--39.5% Obama. As the only polling outfit showing Clinton ahead in Wisconsin, and also the only polling outfit showing Obama ahead in Texas. ARG continues to be a consistent outlier.
Clinton has a little more than four days to close a 6% gap in Wisconsin, while Obama must win Wisconsin in order to close a 12% gap in Texas and a 16% gap in Ohio. Nothing much has changed since yesterday: Wisconsin is still a must win for Obama, while Texas and Ohio are must-wins for Clinton. Then again, Clinton might be able to survive March 4th if she wins three of the four states, and only narrowly loses one of the two large states. Of course, winning is hard to define, since it is possible that Clinton could win the Texas primary, but Obama could still gain more delegates via the caucus and regional allocation.
My bet is that Obama wins Wisconsin, but that Clinton hangs on to take Ohio, Rhode Island and at least the primary portion of Texas on March 4th. Obama will almost certainly still be ahead by more than 100 pledged delegates after March 11th, but that might still not be enough to knock Clinton out of the campaign before Pennsylvania.
Four years ago, John Kerry became the presumptive Democratic nominee on March 2nd. His Republican opponent was George Bush, who had already united the Republican Party, built the largest financial warchest in Presidential campaign history, was hovering at just over 50% in approval rating, and had been running against John Kerry for a entire month based on over two years of opposition research. Given all of those advantages, George Bush still only defeated John Kerry by 2.46% nationwide, and narrowly won the Electoral College in Ohio under dubious circumstances.
Considering the far more favorable climate to Democrats have in 2008, the growing conventional wisdom that the still undecided Democratic campaign will somehow hurt the eventual Democratic nominee strikes me as bogus. If we have a nominee on March 4th instead of March 2nd, that is a difference of only two days. Further, during the next few weeks, both of our candidates will be running advertisements and receiving huge press in key swing states like Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin. When it is all over, we will have a Democratic nominee with a lot more money than Kerry, a much higher name ID, a far less unified Republican Party, and a much more favorable political climate. Adding on an extra month actually strikes me as very good for Democrats, rather than something to worry about.
However, what happens if the nomination goes on after March 4th? As I explain in the extended entry, this could be something of a problem.
Are we getting ready to vote again already? Really? Man, this never ends. Super Tuesday counting is expected to end today, so I guess we will be receiving new delegate totals every day from now through Wednesday, inclusive.
There has been very little polling for the numerous contests to take place over the next five days, but here is what little post-Iowa information we have:
Washington caucuses, February 9th. Starts at 4 p.m. eastern: Obama 53%--40% Clinton. Survey USA, 2.2-2/3. 78 pledged delegates are up for grabs, and both candidates are on the air and campaigning on the ground in Washington. With a caucus and a double-digit lead in the polls, Obama is heavily favored here.
Louisiana primary, February 9th. Polls close at 9 p.m. eastern: No polls to report, ever. What polls there are wouldn't be of any use anyway, as we saw in the primary challenge against William Jefferson in late 2006. I can report that there are 56 pledged delegates at stake, and that Jesse Jackson won here in 1988. Both candidates are campaigning on the ground and over the airwaves. Obama is once again favored. Polls close at 9 p.m. eastern.
Nebraska caucuses, February 9th, ends at 9:30 p.m.: Once again, no polls to report, ever. We will probably see results trickling in from Nebraska all day tomorrow, since the caucuses start as early as 11:00 a.m. eastern in some places, and end as late as 9:30 p.m. in others. Obama has dominated caucuses in Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota and North Dakota. He also won a little caucus that was held in Iowa five weeks ago. This is big time Obama territory, and Clinton is not even visiting the state. I expect another 2-1 Obama victory in pledged caucus delegates from here.
Virgin Islands, convention, February 9th: Beats me how the three pledged delegates will break. Expect either 2-1 Obama or 2-1 Clinton. Then again, as telephasic points out in the comments, it will probably go 2-1 Obama, given that the island is 76% African-American.
Maine caucuses, February 10th, starts as early as 1 p.m. eastern: There hasn't poll a from here since April, when Clinton led 39%-22%. Of course, Clinton led everywhere back then, so who knows. No clear favorite, with 24 pledged delegates at stake. This is probably Clinton's best chance for a win this week.
Democrats Abroad, February 12th, already underway: The balloting for Democrats Abroad ends on February 12th, and we should know the results before any other polls close on Tuesday. Again, I wouldn't presume to guess how the seven pledged delegates at stake will divide up.
Maryland primary, February 12th: The only recent poll from Maryland, taken January 6th through January 9th, showed Obama well ahead, 39%-26%. 70 pledged delegates are at stake here, and Obama is favored.
D.C. primary, February 12th: No polls from D.C., but Obama did win the caucuses 519 to 271. I'll take that as a sign that Obama is heavily favored in this contest where 15 pledged delegates are at stake.
Virginia primary, February 12th: This is starting to sound like a broken record, but Obama is also heavily favored in Virginia. A newly released poll from Insider Advantage shows Obama ahead 52%-37%, and a Survey USA poll from January showed Obama ahead 59%--37%. Clinton is campaigning here, but this certainly looks like all Obama. 83 pledged delegates are at stake
Obviously, Obama looks really good over the next five days, where 360 pledged delegates are at stake, total. The goal for Clinton, I think, is to limit the damage by winning a state or two (possibly Maine or Virginia?), and keeping Obama's pledged delegate lead under 100, thus giving her the perception of an "overall" delegate lead. Currently, my latest pledged delegate count is Obama 896, Clinton 878, with 18 delegates still outstanding form Super Tuesday. In order to take a pledged delegate lead of 100 or more, Obama needs 230 of the 378 pledged delegates floating around between now and Tuesday. Unless he scores a 2-1 blowout in Washington, I doubt he will win quite that many. Still, when Obama's delegate total, even with super delegates included, becomes higher than Clinton's after February 19th, I wonder if news outlets will start to pay attention to the super delegate issue.
