Delegate Math: Uphill Climb for Clinton

DISCLAIMER: Obama is 30 points behind!  Vote!  Donate!  Phone bank!  GOTV! yada yada yada...

I voted for Obama, but I have been stunned at the Clinton campaign's sudden turn for the worse after Super Tuesday.  Giuliani was hardly an endorsement for the Giuliani Strategy, and yet the Clinton campaign is relying on basically the same tactic.  It seems to me like if Clinton loses by about 20 points 10 times in a row, it's hard to imagine Texas and Ohio bucking the trend.  However, what if the Giuliani Strategy actually worked for Clinton?  Could she get the nomination?  I crunched the numbers to find out.

My main assumption is that the winner of the pledged delegate count excluding Michigan and Florida will be the nominee.  As I understand it, having a delegate lead means control of the convention credentialing committee which would have to take specific action to seat the delegates from the FL and MI beauty contest primaries.  So if Obama had more delegates going in, he could keep FL and MI from being counted as necessary.  If Clinton had more delegates, FL and MI would be added to her total, but that would be a moot point.  From the reports we've seen, Super Delegates would be averse to throwing the nomination to the loser of the pledged delegate race, since it's not worth inciting civil war in the party to get one of the candidates instead of the other.

As of tonight, I think the pledged delegate total is approximately:

Clinton 995, Obama 1129

Clinton's campaign is focusing on Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania - I'll throw in Indiana as culturally similar to Ohio.  For the remaining post-3/4 states, I'll assign relatively charitable results for Clinton assuming she gains some momentum with the following delegate totals:

State Clinton Obama
Dems Abroad 3 4  Anecdotally Obama win might be bigger
WI 33 41 Obama win by 10 w/o much Clinton competition
HI 8 12 Clinton somehow manages 40% in a caucus
RI 12 9  Looks basically like Massachusetts
VT 6 9  Assuming Clinton not competing hard
WY 4 8  Rocky Mountain caucus - big for Obama
MS 12 21 Nothing will keep MS from being heavily for Obama
NC 63 52 Contrary to current polls, OH/TX/PA momentum helps Clinton
WV 18 10 Clinton won TN by 13 - figure a win by 30 here
OR 29 23 Clinton momentum gives her a 10 point win
KY 31 20 Clinton won TN by 13 - figure a win by 20 here
SD 6 9  Prairie caucus - Obama by 20 is conservative
MT 6 10 Prairie/Mountain caucus - Obama by 20 is conservative
PR 36 19 Clinton cleans up with 30 point win

So where does that leave us without the 4 state Clinton firewall?
Clinton 1262, Obama 1376.  Obama would need 249 delegates for a plurality; Clinton would need 363.  

THE BOTTOM LINE: For Clinton's Texas/Ohio/Pennsylvania Giuliani Strategy to work, she would need to win those states (and Indiana) by a combined 60%-40%.  As long as Obama and his supporters keep doing their thing, it's looking very good that he will be the nominee.

•  Tips for a math geek -nt-

  by CA Pol Junkie on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:04:19 PM PDT

  •  they just did some electronic chart thing

    on CNN. if Obama sweeps the rest of the states 60/40, he 'wins', but not solid (or something to that effect). has to do with the way the delegates brake out on the wins. basically, he needs to break over the 20 point mark on her, if i got what they were saying

    ok, that surprised me to say the least, but is there any freakin' chance Hillary is just wonky enough to understand this math?!

    by nycstray on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:12:20 PM PDT

    •  I'm getting that old time Convention feeling

      It's starting to look like it might really go to the convention.  Neither candidate may be truly put away the other.  I know that the Obama folks are all hyped up tonight and the number chrunching sure looks like neither will be able to defeat the other before the convention.  Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, get ready, you may decide if there's a nominee or real convention.

      by Rolfyboy6 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:18:36 PM PDT

      •  did you see the cnn thing?

        i mean if he swept all the remaining states by 20 and it's still not a solid? i was like WTF?!

        she could actually grassroots on Obama before all is said and done! lol!~

        gotta say, now that my primary is over (and before it was close to my primary), it's fun to sit back and take the observer role. this is as good as a yankee/sox series that's going on for a bit  :)

        by nycstray on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:25:42 PM PDT

        •  Now you're getting to be a real

          Yellow Dog.  In no time at all you will have adopted six Senate races to watch.  Morning coffee: "Hmm, how's Al Franken doing against that yakking shithead Norm Coleman?"

          by Rolfyboy6 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:00:02 PM PDT

          •  lol! i'll always be a . . .

            spotted dog!

            

            by nycstray on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:04:53 PM PDT

    •  Their math assumes

      that Hillary will basically sweep the superdelegates, which just isn't going to happen. If you factor them out, he just needs to break even from here on. If the superdelegates break proportionately to the pledged, his only objective is to not lose.

      by johnsonwax on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:19:36 PM PDT

      •  Somebody please verify this, but...

        I heard one of the talking heads on MSNBC (I think it was Chuck Todd) say that the Obama camp is claiming that it has already pulled ahead of Clinton in superdelegates, although they are not naming names.

        by Dumbo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:57:32 PM PDT

        •  I think...

          Chuck said delegates, not supers.  But I'm not 100% sure.

          by Vinz Clortho on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:59:33 AM PDT

    •  CNN was making the larger point that neither will

      win the race exclusively on the strength of the state by state races.  It will come down to the super delegates and it is unlikely that the SD will override the will of the people, if such a will is demonstrable.

      by ecostar on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:07:07 PM PDT

    •  Forgot the BS you just heard on CNN

      If Obama is ahead in pledged delegates by a meaningful margin (100 would certainly qualify but even less may be enough), all the superdelegates would back him. But they won't even have to, HRC will drop out.

      CNN has no clue what they're talking about. The fact that superdelegates are needed for either candidate to win does not change anything. The criteria is really to win a solid majority of pledged delegates and that's all it takes. The whole stalemate talk only shows how ignorant CNN is (or their stake in keeping the horse-race going).

      by bmozaffari on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:16:23 PM PDT

  •  Good analysis

    One thing, though - South Dakota is a primary, not a caucus. I'm excited to vote here this year. And I will say confidently that with the backing of both Tom Daschle and Tim Johnson, plus the anti-NY effect, that Obama will win by at least 25 here.

    by scimitar on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:31:31 PM PDT

    •  Thanks for the correction - same for MT too.

      by CA Pol Junkie on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:41:55 PM PDT

  •  I like it that you shaded the numbers to Clinton

    your scenario is a worst case one, I think.  

    Good to see that stumbling room, but I don't think he will stumble.

    by nailbender on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:46:29 PM PDT

•  Interesting projections...

  But in all honesty, it's useless to make projections about which states Clinton has a prayer in until after OH and TX. And by then, we may not even need to have this discussion. :)

  (For the record, aside from OH, TX, and PA, the only other states I feel she has a realistic chance in are IN, KY, RI, WV, and PR.)

  by PsiFighter37 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:08:52 PM PDT

  •  Clinton states

    My projections for states outside the firewall are all favorable to Clinto relative to the current conventional wisdom, assuming that big wins in OH and TX would bring a fundamental change in the race.

    by CA Pol Junkie on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:11:05 PM PDT

  •  One thing

    isn't PR usually winner-take all?  That'd be 13 extra delegates for her... not exactly earth-shattering, I know, but still.

    by Ryan Anderson on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:11:56 PM PDT

    •  Don't know...

      I thought all the races on the Democratic side were proportional.

      by PsiFighter37 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:16:30 PM PDT

      •  that couldn't be . . .

        that would make sense in a weird sort of way  ;)

        we have to have at least one WTA, or it wouldn't be right. . .  

        by nycstray on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:18:52 PM PDT

        •  They are all proportional

          Party rule.

          by Rolfyboy6 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:23:53 PM PDT

    •  I think you're right

      I think it's technically supposed to be proportionate, but thanks to quirks in Puerto Rican politics it ends up being winner-take-all.  Wouldn't that cause a stink if it decided the nominee!

      by CA Pol Junkie on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:17:53 PM PDT

      •  Here's a link

        Google is my friend:

        Democratic delegates are given on a proportional basis. However, Puerto Rican politics is extremely competitive and the major figure who aligns himself with the Democratic Party makes sure that his group gets all the delegates.

        by CA Pol Junkie on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:19:23 PM PDT

        •  I'm skeptical.

          Isn't the nomination usually wrapped up by the time PR votes? A lot of states look "winner-take-all" when you get to late in the calendar.

          by Desroko on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:24:13 PM PDT

          •  This year, who knows?

            This is a whole new ballgame.  The set of rules that's been coming into the Party have all come into their new focus this year.

            by Rolfyboy6 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:25:59 PM PDT

            •  That's what I'm saying.

              I think people are confusing the normal late-stage domination for what's going to happen this year.

              by Desroko on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:31:03 PM PDT

•  Lots of assumptions but I love number crunchers.

  by NNadir on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:09:28 PM PDT

•  Consider also the dwindling # uncommitted SD

  The number of uncommitted superdelegates is down to near 400.  Yes, they can change their minds.

  But I think some of our fears that they will hijack the election may be overblown.

  The same kind of escalating win fraction math can be applied to superdelegates.

  For example, we would need to see a 20% margin diff%erential in remaind SDS to give us a net 80.

  If we started with a base assumption that the SD might split naturally at the same ratio of 50% of voters so far, what rationale might we expect a greater than 20% advantage to HRC?

  Perhaps, if delegate expected favors or retaliation from a new administration.  But those fears or hopes become far less one sided or overwhelming given the closeness of the race.  

  Half a year ago, when it looked like a landside such pressures may have been real.

  But could we not also posit that those who might naturally favor HRC already declared?  If so, we migh imagine that a higher percentage of the remaining uncommitted delegates might favor BO?

  We shall soon know. Fun to think about.

  Keep up the good work.  :-)

  by HoundDog on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:09:48 PM PDT

  •  What I mean is that the SD are not one monolithic

    block.  Some of these Senators especially, are notorious for having a mind of their own. So, one point I didn't make well, is that it's getting harder for me to imagine them being carolled into going against the majority of voter sentiment or an elected delegate lead as a result of "backroom" pressures.

    If they make up their own minds, does it not become harder to imagine such large margin differentials.

    by HoundDog on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:13:57 PM PDT

•  I would not be so quick to dismiss FL and MI

  even if Clinton is slightly down in pledged delegates.  It would not be too hard to convince a few Obama delegates that, even though they support Obama, FL and MI voters should not be disenfranchised.  Also keep in mind that Superdelegates could join Hillary for the FL/MI vote even if they don't ultimately vote for her.

  by DreamsOfABlueNation on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:10:28 PM PDT

  •  That is not how the credentialing fight

    will play out. The super delegates do not decide whether L and MI get seated and counted.

    Mitch Gore

    Wanna win in '08...?

    Put your money where your mouth is.

    by Lestatdelc on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:14:01 PM PDT

    •  what are you basing that assumption on

      I would think the supers would get a vote on all matters brought to the floor just like any other delegate.

      by DreamsOfABlueNation on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:35:07 PM PDT

      •  The seating of MI and FL

        will be decided by the credentialing committee, not by the super delegates on the floor.

        Mitch Gore

        Wanna win in '08...?

        Put your money where your mouth is.

        by Lestatdelc on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:03:49 PM PDT

        •  isn't the composition of that committee decided

          by majority vote of the delegates, including supers?

          by DreamsOfABlueNation on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:03:14 PM PDT

•  If it is still a race by the time Oregon...

  ...comes into play in May, no way does it break for Clinton.

  Mitch Gore

  Wanna win in '08...?

  Put your money where your mouth is.

  by Lestatdelc on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:12:48 PM PDT

  •  I don't think it will either

    I would be surprised with a Clinton win in Oregon, but I assumed it anyway to see what kind of absolute minimum victory in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania she needs.

    by CA Pol Junkie on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:25:36 PM PDT

    •  If Clinton holds on

      getting a good proportional share of states she loses along with the firewall states, then she stays alive for the Convention at least.  The very late primaries are going to have attention like they never had before.

      by Rolfyboy6 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:29:27 PM PDT

      •  I doubt it

        This thing will be wrapped up by April 22nd (PA) at the latest.  Unless Clinton can pull off huge blowout wins in TX and OH (like 70-30%), then it will be very difficult for her to catch up in pledged delegates.

        When that becomes more apparent, the pressure on Clinton to drop out will become great.  I could see her dropping out after March 4th if she only wins in a squeaker.

        by existenz on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:26:31 AM PDT

  •  I don't think so either,

    at least not if I have anything to say about it.

    by MikePhoenix on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:36:44 PM PDT

•  Almost exactly half of superdelegates are now

  uncommitted, for about 396 delegates.

  A more useful calculation may be to figure out, with slightly less pro-Clinton assumptions, how much of the remaining superdelegate pool she needs.

  It is reasonable to guess that the currently uncommitted with be less pro-Clinton than those currently committed, if Obama wins the pledged delegate by a margin greater than the currently endorsing superdelegates.

  Thus, for Obama to be comfortable going into the convention, he needs something like another 100 delegate lead from the post-Potamic primaries.

  by ohwilleke on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:13:18 PM PDT

•  No one, and I mean no one

  ever lost money betting on the Clintons.
  I'm just sayin', it ain't over 'til it's over.
  And it ain't over.

  by jazzmaniac on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:14:54 PM PDT

  •  what Bill was really saying in SC

    was that they knew this was likely, a look at the shifting dynamics probably told those 2 wonks that the only chance after that was the big key states.

    by tony the American Mutt on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:27:50 PM PDT

  •  tagline

    John McCain: He's pale, testy, and ready for bed.

    by eleming on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:54:47 PM PDT

•  King on CNN has a great illustration tonight...

  ...of how it's extremely likely that neither candidate will have a majority of candidates after the last scheduled primary is held; and it will almost definitely be up to the Supers to decide the outcome of this long-running circus.

  It is a very compelling presentation, and it's going to rerun in an hour or two on CNN, since they repeat the Anderson Cooper and Larry King segments later in the early morning.

  In fact, just about the only thing that might change this practically inevitable outcome is a rerunning of the Michigan and Florida primaries.

  by bobswern on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:17:13 PM PDT

  •  Supers

    I think everyone agrees that it will very likely take Super Delegates to put the nominee over the top.  I'm assuming, based on rumblings we've heard lately, that the Supers won't use their power to nominate the candidate with fewer pledged delegates.  Thus, the Supers are basically a non-issue and it comes down to pledged delegates.

    by CA Pol Junkie on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:23:50 PM PDT

    •  That's my read too

      Add that the supers are by no means united on anything and all have their own state networks and congressional networks pulling them to and fro, and the paranoia about the dread super delegates somehow imposing "their will" upon the convention fades a lot.

      by Rolfyboy6 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:38:03 PM PDT

    •  IMHO it's idealistic/naive to think Supers...

      ...will only vote their conscience. As a matter of fact, the more I think about it, the more absurd it seems. These Supers are the most politically powerful people within the entire Democratic party.

      They got to where they were by cutting deals. Period.

      All of a sudden, someone's going to wave a magic wand, and everyone's going to find a conscience?

      Yeah, right!

      Nevah happen....not a freakin' snowball's chance in hell. The only thing missing in Denver will be Monty Hall MC'ing the event.

      This concept that folks aren't going to assert/exert whatever power they have for personal, political gain is just the epitome of altruistic dreams.

      It's just a fact; so don't get upset with me for telling it like it is.

      by bobswern on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:41:12 PM PDT

    •  I disagree.

      Supers will vote for who they want if the race is close, but won't buck fate if the race isn't close.

      Also, while supers are divided, they aren't divided in the same proportions as the party at large.

      by ohwilleke on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:12:22 PM PDT

      •  what is close?

        If Obama is up by 30 pledged delegates, and won, say, thirty states to Clinton's 20, it would still be terrible for the super-delegates to then give this thing to Hillary.

        Unless the pledged delegate count is under a 15 vote difference, I think the super-delegates should go with the winner.

        by existenz on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:29:25 AM PDT

  •  i'm glad someone else saw that.

    i was in WTF?! mode, so it's nice to confirm i did see what i thought i saw.

    that really kinda stunned me. i figured a few loses and an ok showing in TX, OH etc would be the end.

    by nycstray on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:30:59 PM PDT

    •  It's not that simple sadly

      The remaining states are a right mixed bag and proportional representation will keep numbers somewhat in reach of each other.

      by Rolfyboy6 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:40:52 PM PDT

•  BTW, CNN scenario assumes Obama runs the table!

  And, he still won't have enough delegates to win the nomination!

  by bobswern on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:18:59 PM PDT

  •  It also assumes

    that Hillary runs the table on the supers.

    IOW, if Obama ran the table on primaries/caucuses and still doesn't reach the mark, that means that he has lost every single superdelegate still uncommitted. That's just not going to happen.

    by johnsonwax on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:23:50 PM PDT

    •  did it? i missed that

      how would they have decided what a table run on supers was since they are free to vote?

      sorry, not questioning you, just keep getting my brain scrambled on how networks are calculating . .

      by nycstray on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:33:35 PM PDT

      •  They were asuming that

        40% of the remaining pledged delegates would go to Clinton, along with 100% of the superdelegates who have yet to indcate a preference.

        by Desroko on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:36:56 PM PDT

        •  well that's off!

          thanks! no way does Obama sweep and she gets all the un-indicated.

          sheesh. wanna play "Let's Make Horse Race"?!

          by nycstray on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:43:35 PM PDT

        •  Double assumptions

          so that the scenario is untrustworthy.  Neither assumption is  justified on what we've seen, so combining them doesn't add to the reliability.  More likely it's compounding error.

          by Rolfyboy6 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:43:57 PM PDT

          •  I agree with both of you.

            It was a silly exercise.

            by Desroko on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:45:15 PM PDT

            •  God, isn't this fun!

              Elections have been effing coronations for the last two decades.  I remember when I was a kid, races were real and conventions really had stuff happen.  This time we'll have more to talk about than the size of the TV screens behind the podium.  Credentials fights!  Platform fights!  Rebel State delegations!

              by Rolfyboy6 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:54:04 PM PDT

      •  Yes

        The target they have always worked from is the number of pledged + super delegates that will guarantee a plurality for the candidate.

        So, the target is 50% of delegates + 1. That's 2022 - that's what they need to reach to guarantee a victory at some point along the way. Now, this isn't totally accurate since those super can change their vote, but lets pretend that won't happen.

        Obama currently has 1244ish between pledged and supers. CNN is calculating how many pledged delegates he needs to win to get from 1244 to 2022. There are about 1134 unallocated pledged delegates, so he needs 70% of the remaining pledged delegates to reach 2022 which would allow Hillary to get 100% of the remaining supers and still not win.

        CNN is essentially calculating the point at which they can stop caring about the primary rather than helping us understand realistically what is needed to win.

        Let's look another way. Let's say they split the remaining supers (leaving Hillary with net lead on those - 441-348). That puts Obama at 1459. He then needs 563 of the remaining 1134, or 50% to win.

        Looking yet another way, let's say the supers dynamically arrange themselves so that they merely magnify the pledged outcome. Basically that means that Hillary and Obama equally split the supers 395 each. That gives Obama 1506. He then needs 516 of the last 1134 or 46% to win.

        I think I got all those numbers right...

        by johnsonwax on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:53:15 PM PDT

•  O/T CA-12

  Any news out of CA-12, other than Jackie Spier being the runaway fave in the Dem primary and in the general?

  Schwarzenegger set the special election for June 3, same day as the regular primary, according to the California papers.  AP has it wrong on Apr. 8.  Over 50% takes the seat; under goes to a runoff.

  by Simplify on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:20:19 PM PDT

  •  Haven't heard anything

    That's across the bay from me, so I haven't been following closely.  I hope Speier wins.

    by CA Pol Junkie on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:32:06 PM PDT

  •  No noise heard up here in CA-06

    It hasn't been in the papers yet. I assume that the organizing is starting, but the it's too soon for the public part.  Lantos' death just happened and Jackie has to touch base with a lot of people.  All assumptions I've seen have her as the big favorite.   She's been assumed to be the successor a long time.

    by Rolfyboy6 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:47:10 PM PDT

•  Puerto Rico

  is winner take all.  Doesn't change your basic picture much, but it makes Puerto Rico potentially important at the end.

  by UU VIEW on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:25:04 PM PDT

  •  It does change it some

    Clinton would need only 57% in Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Indiana given Puerto Rico allocating by winner-take-all.

    by CA Pol Junkie on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:34:01 PM PDT

  •  Where is this info from?

    Everything I've seen on PR, in addition to the party rules mandating proportional, say PR is proportional.

    Here's a link from Green Papers:
    http://www.thegreenpapers.com/...

    Basically, it says 36 delegates proportionally by senatorial (congressional district) and 19 by statewide vote.

    Is my info incorrect? If so, could you please provide links to the correct info. Thanks.

    by Searching for Pericles on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:03:09 AM PDT

  •  It isn't...

    People are making a very bad assumption based on the fact that PR has never, ever had a competitive primary. So they assume that because PR's delegates have all went to one candidate in the past, they will this year. That is not true. And I guarantee that the DNC won't allow it to be winner take all.

    Not that it matters. The DNC is going to have very little patience for this thing dragging much further down the road. If the choice is between uniting behind Obama or dragging this thing on for months, they will unite behind Obama.

    She has to win Texas and Ohio, and even then it becomes difficult to see how she wins the nomination.

    by ptmflbcs on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:54:47 AM PDT

    •  Thank you for clarifying.

      I've seen several references to Puerto Rico being winner-take-all, and had no reason to doubt them.  But not everything we read is true!

      by UU VIEW on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:10:44 PM PDT

•  FL and MI

  will be counted.  sorry, but it is reality folks.  They will be counted in some way, shape or form.

  by linc on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:26:11 PM PDT

  •  What do you base this on?

    by cmangin on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:34:04 PM PDT

    •  The fact that the party

      that big, bad establishment that you all go on about, is as much concerned about winning the general as anyone around here.  They will not allow FL and MI, two huge potential swing states, to be alienated by the democratic party in any way.  They are not stupid.

      by linc on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:45:08 PM PDT

      •  People keep saying this

        I lived in Pennsylvania. Our primary was always one of the last in the country, and never decided anything. It usually wasn't even worth going out to vote. Turnout was extremely low. Pennsylvania had virtually no voice in the Democratic party's convention.

        I never heard of anyone from Pennsylvania giving a damn. I'd be surprised if your average Michigan or Florida voter really cares all that much about this.

        I mean, I can't honestly believe more than a few people from Michigan actually think an election with only one name on the ballot was free and fair.

        by sxp151 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:55:14 PM PDT

        •  Obama chose not to have his name on the ballot

          that is a fact.  That says a lot to me and if I were a MI voter, it would say a whole lot more.  Obama is more concerned about the party than he is about my vote, hmm... sounds pretty establishment to me.

          by linc on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:00:35 PM PDT

          •  not exactly

            All of the candidates signed a pledge not to "participate" in any contest outside of the sanctioned time frame.

            Most of the candidates made good on that pledge by removing their name by the Michigan ballot -- Hillary Clinton choose not to keep her pledge, and kept her name on the ballot (keeping your name on the ballot when you had the option to remove it seems like "participation" to me_.

            So if she can't keep her signed pledge on this matter, why should voters in any state trust about anything else she says?

            by terjeanderson on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:24:52 PM PDT

  •  Yes and No

    They will be counted, but only after other maneuvering makes their votes a moot point.  Either: Clinton gets more pledged delegates and sets them; Clinton concedes and calls on her delegates to vote for Obama; or Super Delegates support Obama enough after he wins the pledged delegates that FL and MI can't tip it toward Clinton.  Under the rules, Obama would have the power to exclude FL and MI if it were necessary and he had a plurality of delegates, so a mechanism will be created so he doesn't have to.

    by CA Pol Junkie on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:37:24 PM PDT

•  Anyone note Clinton's Flub...

  it was at a speech televised live from El Paso on CNN.
  It went like this

  You Texans know of the phrase, All hat no cattle.  Well after seven years of George Bush we need a lot of cattle.

  The problem is the phrase is actually, "All hat no cowboy"  That makes sense aluding to the movie cowbows who were all image but no actual skill in handling hefers.

  But she said this line, must have rehearsed it, and no one on her staff said, "Wait a minute, you got it wrong."

  Is this a sign of a campaign in collapse?  

  by arodb on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:28:00 PM PDT

  •  Actually, she got it right ...

    see here

    by We Shall Overcome on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:31:59 PM PDT

  •  Wrong

    As a Texan, I can assure you, the phrase is actually "All hat no cattle"

    It means the person looks or acts the part (cowboy hat) but it's a phony imitation (no cattle = not really a cowboy).

    I'm an Obama fan, but she got the phrase right, even if she applied it awkwardly.

    by prefan on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:36:26 PM PDT

    •  I stand corrected.....

      good thing I'm not running for President!!!!

      by arodb on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:45:02 PM PDT

•  My one caveat is KY...

  The Dem populations in the cities (going east to west roughly: Covington, Lexington, Louisville, Bowling Green, Owensboro and Paducah) have medium to heavy African American populations and at least Paducah will have more of an Illinois influence than Tennesee.

  John Yarmuth, 3rd Congressional District Rep.(Louisville/Jeff. County), in for another fight against former Rep Anne Northup, and one of our PLEO/Superdelegates has endorsed Obama.

  by RiverCityMadman on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:39:27 PM PDT

  •  Kentucky always drives us crazy

    I've learned, never count on a certain result in KY.  With the possible exception of basketball results.

    by Rolfyboy6 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:50:01 PM PDT

•  Hillary will pull a huckabee

  I'll predict that even if she losses one of her firewall state , she will refuse to bow out of the state and demand MI/FL seat...

  This is her only opportunity to be president and i strongly believe the Clintons will not be pushed out of the door without a very nasty fight.

  by BlueStateLiberal on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:48:36 PM PDT

  •  $$$$

    I think she would actually bow out relatively graciously once the math was pretty ridiculous for her.  Lacking gracious instincts, the lack of people wishing to fund a quixotic quest would probably doom her campaign anyway.

    by CA Pol Junkie on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:04:02 PM PDT

•  I would argue that

  she just has to get close enough - she doesn't need to surprass Obama, but close enough that if MI and FL were counted as is, it would put her over Obama - She might not play that way (and I should note here I don't really have a horse in this race), but its worth noting

  by FerrisValyn on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:00:58 PM PDT

  •  She would need...

    60% victories in both Ohio and Texas, according to every analyst I've heard tonight.

    Tying will not get her the nomination anymore.

    by Vinz Clortho on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:22:58 AM PDT

•  Texas Polling

  On February 2, 2008:

  On the Democratic side, likely voters favored U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, with 48 percent, though U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, at 38 percent, had closed what had been a seemingly insurmountable lead.

  Bordie, who runs IVR Polls, sampled 1,573 past primary voters on Wednesday and Thursday . . . 534 were likely Democrats. The margin of error was . . . 4.3 percent for Democrats.

  On or about November 15, 2007:

  While Clinton begins to stall nationally, Hillary is the first candidate to break the 50% mark in Texas. I have been saying this entire cycle that her ceiling was around 45%, but her total domination of the field is surprising.
  Obama sits in a distant second at close to 17% and Edwards is statistically tied with Richardson with 11.4% and 9.5% respectively.

  More old polls here.

  The streak that Obama is likely to continue running up to the March 4 primary in Texas (add Wisconsin and Hawaii to the seven wins in the past week, and probably Dems Abroad as well) is likely to reduce the current ten percentage point gap in the most recent poll which preceded Super Tuesday.

  The size of the gap matters, because under the Democrat's proportional representation system it isn't enough to win states, you have to win the states that you do win big.  A close split of the delegates in Texas would make life very hard for Clinton, even if she wins both Texas and Ohio.

  by ohwilleke on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:06:13 PM PDT

  •  Statewide polls mean exactly nothing...

    The statewide (at-large) delegate totals are determined by a caucus, while the district delegates are allocated by 31 separate state senate district primaries.

    There is no Texas primary. I gotta think the complicated system favors Obama, but I really have no idea. Regardless, the polls mean exactly nothing for Texas.

    by ptmflbcs on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:58:43 AM PDT

    •  With proportional representation and no threshold

      issues and allocation of delegates to CDs based upon historical Democratic performance, state totals turn out to be a quite accurate estimate of CD based numbers.

      There are differences, but the CD based v. state based distinctions are smaller than the inherent uncertainty in the numbers due to sampling error.

      by ohwilleke on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:35:34 PM PDT

      •  There aren't CD based delegates in Texas

        31 state senate district primaries. Exactly zero delegates are awarded based on the statewide primary total.

        by ptmflbcs on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:37:55 PM PDT

        •  Still doesn't matter.

          Any system with proportional representation and delegate allocation roughly proportional to historical turnout is going to closely mirror an overall state number.

          A weighted average of district results which is what you get under this system should always closely mirror the proportion of the overall vote.

          If there is a winner take all system in the districts it matters a great deal, but IIRC the DNC doesn't allow winner take all approaches.

          by ohwilleke on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:04:27 PM PDT

•  The best insight on West Virginia

  probably comes from the results in CDs 6 and 9 in Virginia today, as they are adjacent to and demographically similar to West Virginia.  CD 6 was the second weakest Obama jurisdiction but still narrowly won by Obama.  CD 9 which is even more like West Virginia in Appalacia, went 2-1 for Clinton.

  The may also be relevant to the mountain parts of KY.

  by ohwilleke on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:09:41 PM PDT

•  I'd love to see Clinton

   win one more small state, then explain to us why that one matters, but the others didn't.

  by usmeagle69 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:12:26 PM PDT

  •  West Virginia, step right up.

    by Desroko on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:14:24 PM PDT