Thanks (0.00 / 0)

Chris — Thanks for your continued work on this kind of tallying and analysis.

In the top table here, I could be wrong (and I don’t really think we should be counting them at all yet), but I think you have the superdelegates reversed.

---

by: NYSusan @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 15:41:17 PM CST

 

thank you (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for the kind words, and pointing out the error. I fixed it.  

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 16:00:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]  

Mistake (0.00 / 0)

First, yes, thanks for doing this.  I really appreciate it.

The numbers in the superdelegate column are reversed.  The totals are right.

---

by: charliet @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 15:44:35 PM CST

 

again, thanks and fixed (n/t) (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 16:00:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]  

Do The Math, Chris. (0.00 / 0)

Your calculator is faulty.    As of 3:45 cst March 05, 2008  the pledged delegates to Obama is…1338
Clinton…1206.

Super Delegates as of same time, date.
Clinton…240
Obama… 197.

The above does not count Florida and Michigan.

When you count Florida  and Michigan..the results are..
Clinton…255,  Obama…202

Get the calculator fixed.

---

by: ezgotxtman @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 16:00:32 PM CST

 

I don't think I'm wrong (0.00 / 0)

I just ran the numbers again, and I stand by my totals. Where do you disagree with them?

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 16:04:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]  

something is wrong in the Clinton column (0.00 / 0)

either 100 pledged delegates are missing on the first line or the third line (total) is too high by 100.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 16:08:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]  

oops (0.00 / 0)

and when I say “100”, it’s something like 100.


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 16:10:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]  

Fixed the typo. (4.00 / 1)

I think all of the errors are fixed now. I think.  

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 16:31:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]  

Chris, this looks wrong (0.00 / 0)

Where in the world did Obama get a 225 pledged delegate lead? It was about 162 going into 3/4, right?

You sure you got it all in order?

---

by: Matt H @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 16:14:22 PM CST

 

That was a typo (0.00 / 0)

There was a typo in Clinton’s totals. Fixed.  

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 16:26:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]  

Thanks for your hard work (0.00 / 0)

I know this gets said a lot but it deserves repeating. There are only a few sources in the Tubes that I trust for this type of well researched info and you’re at or near the top of the list (guys like Poblano and Al Giordano also do excellent work IMO). This stuff is like crack for political junkies like us.

So thanks again!!

---

by: Matt H @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 17:44:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]  

Update (0.00 / 0)

Here are the latest figure count.

Pledged Delegates-    Obama…1360,  Clinton…1220

Super Delegates-      Obama…202,   Clinton…240

w/o Michigan and Florida)Candidate Clinton Obama
Gov. 10 11
Sen. 12 15
Rep. 72 69
DPL 10 4
DNC 136 96
Add-Ons 0 2
Total 240 197
Last Updated: 3/4/2008

---

by: ezgotxtman @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 16:15:06 PM CST

 

Yes, but where do we disagree? (0.00 / 0)

You said I was wrong before, but you haven’t offered an explanation of where our pledged delegate numbers disagree. We can’t figure out the source of the difference in our totals without more specifics.  

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 16:33:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]  

good work as always (0.00 / 0)

I just wanted to take the time to thank Chris for all the hard work he has done with these delegate and race at a glance posts. These are the clearest explanations of where things stand and where they might go I’ve seen anywhere. Good job!

---

by: redwards95 @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 17:54:20 PM CST

 

Speculation on Edwards IA delegates (0.00 / 0)

I’d like to hear what people think will happen (March 15, if I’m not mistaking) with Edwards’ Iowa delegates. All things being equal, I would expect Obama to get a bigger chunk of them as evidence points to Obama having attracted a bigger percentage of Edwards supporters so far, with this being even more lopsided when it comes to the political activist types who are likely to be delegates.

However I wouldn’t discount Clinton’s ability to snatch delegates at the convention.

All this assuming Edwards himself doesn’t get involved.

---

by: bmozaffari @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 18:37:57 PM CST

 

Chris, footnote you need to add (0.00 / 0)

From your source on the popular vote:

(*Obama Not on Michigan Ballot; Iowa, Nevada, Washington & Maine Have Not Released Popular Vote Totals)

This makes a difference, specially given the margins in WA and ME. I also think giving zero popular votes or delegates to Obama for Michigan is not realistic and will never happen… I can’t imagine MI counting as is.

---

by: bmozaffari @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 18:41:23 PM CST

 

Examples that demographics don't explain everything (0.00 / 0)

Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire.

4 different results, not much in the demographics to explain.  Sure, MA and RI when the same way – but what’s the reasons why CT and VT went differently?

---

by: JC @ Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 00:43:42 AM CST

 

Not sure about RI, but here in MA… (0.00 / 0)

I think MA has a pretty strong old-school, patronage party machine which would strongly support the establishment candidate even if the Kennedy’s and Kerry’s of the state support someone else.  I think the lower-level party officials were mainly pro-Hillary and they are the ones who have the ability to control the ground game.

I also wonder if some of the big disparity has to do with the poor performance so far of Deval Patrick.  While he didn’t run on the same sort of platform as Obama, I think it isn’t hard to stereotype the two as being similar which might lead to some disillusionment with the ‘new man from the outside’, AA candidate.

---

by: Ricky @ Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:12:01 AM CST

[ Parent ]