Delegate Count After Tonight

Here's what I'd like to see for Virginia, Maryland and D.C: Delegate apportionment, broken down by pledged to Obama, pledged to Hillary, Uncommitted, Superdelegates.

Then I'd like to see a national total including tonight's results.

I think I just heard John King on CNN say Hillary and Obama are now essentially even, which suprised me. I would have thought Obama would be ahead after tonight, and Hillary would need TX, Ohio and PA to catch up.

Has anyone seen credible counts?

< Obama Wins Maryland | JFK, West Virginia, Obama And TX, OH And PA >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The count (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Grey on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:51:12 PM EST
    Via The Page:

    CBS: Obama 1,223, Clinton 1,161
    ABC: Obama 1,207, Clinton 1,191
    CNN: Obama 1,201, Clinton 1,185
    AP: Obama 1,186, Clinton 1,181
    MSNBC: Obama 1,017, Clinton 942

    Close, close, close.

    thanks, that's just what i was looking for (none / 0) (#19)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:57:55 PM EST
    and you're right, they are so close it's still an open race.

    It's a close race, and Obama must win big states (none / 0) (#88)
    by Prabhata on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:42:20 AM EST
    Obama wants to have the air of inevitability, like Clinton used to have, but the story of the latest poll in OH is not good news for Obama.  Clinton has a substantial lead 56 to 39 according to Feb 12 Survey USA poll
    http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportPopup.aspx?g=d557457d-00cb-4628-9549-16029e76b808&q=45 558

    Wisconsin is close.  According to a Taegan report an SV poll has Obama 45 Clinton 41.  That's closer than an older one I saw.

    I haven't seen a recent TX poll, but if Hillary! wins that one with a substantial margin, then she stops the momentum.  At this point many super-delegates must be waiting for those returns.

    I would think Puerto Rico will support Hillary.  Many Puerto Ricans are very connected with NY and NJ, two states Hillary carried with good margins.


    possible but (none / 0) (#90)
    by Hypatias Father on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:53:23 AM EST
    not probable.

    She has to win 2/3 big states remaining, and by large differences, e.g. >65%, in each.  That's the only way she can keep his lead in pledged-Ds slim heading into convention.

    If not, as this thread illustrates the math, then Obama walks away with the nomination.


    Wisconsin will probably go Obama (none / 0) (#97)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:45:19 AM EST
    Next Tuesday it is supposed to be about 19 degrees here and cloudy. But given that we are all ready up to our armpits in snow and that it is supposed to snow again next Monday that may considerably slow down the older vote that is most reliably for Clinton. I am one of those and it is very difficult to even get around in Kenosha right now let alone that we may well have another 4 - 7 inches of snow to contend with. I'll get out and vote no matter what. But I'm not sure others are that committed or even that able to do so. I am depressed and almost as tired of shoveling snow as I am of hearing the name Obama.

    Curbside voting!!! (none / 0) (#98)
    by LadyDiofCT on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:07:16 AM EST
    Her in CT there is a disability provision that requires poll workers to provide curbside voting for those that are unable to get into the polls.  You may want to check with your county/city registrar.  Voters can be met at the curb by 2 poll workers, one dem, and one repub and the voter checkin and ballot is completed at curbside.  This is reasonably new in CT, but states are providing more access to voting for those with disabilities than ever before.  If you are unable to walk into the polling place, (ice or snow or some other disability) this curbside is provided.  This is CT, but call your registrar and see what curbside or other options are available for voting.  There may even be late absentee if the weather predictions are dire!  Hillary needs all the support possible now.

    It's that many here can't get there (none / 0) (#105)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:00:09 AM EST
    even to the curb in bad weather, because they don't drive -- and waiting for busses in the cold is too much for elderly, disabled, etc.  This winter is so bad that dozens of Milwaukee buses, for example, got stuck in snows last week -- and the bus system has had to close down a couple of times.  Other times, a 20-minute ride turns into a 2-hour ride, so we're warned to stay home for public safety.  For many pedestrians, it's simply so difficult and dangerous to get around right now, with walks and roads iced under snows yet unshoveled, with shoveled piles of snow six feet high and blocking visibility at corners, etc.

    This urban Amisher who walks to work has had several bad falls this winter.  And I'm seeing more casts on broken arms and legs than ever!  And then, when the temp heads down to zero, too. . . .

    And it's just so wearying this winter -- if on election day, a workday, we also have to find two or three hours more in the day to shovel, shovel, shovel.  It also is cutting into our time to volunteer for campaigns, believe me.  I hear ya, Marge.  I have so HAD it.  I keep telling myself . . . . only six more weeks 'til we see daffodils!


    Thanks Cream! (none / 0) (#108)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:15:51 AM EST
    I guess maybe the weather is getting to me more than I thought. I will vote. If I have to crawl over snowbanks and crawl across a parking lot to do so. But many of the older women that are Hillary supporters are as you say needing to catch a bus. We have a car but I take a bus because I think it's the right thing to do. But I haven't been able to get anywhere near my bus stop for over a week. Many stand out in the street, if you can get to the street, and given that the streets are narrowed by snowbanks that's dangerous. I don't know where I will pile anymore snow because I can't throw it any higher. And my heating pad has become my new best friend. But Hillary will get my vote. I just know of at least a half a dozen women that doubt very much that they will be able to get to vote unless conditions improve dramatically.

    I always thought Obama would win Wisconsin, but now I am afraid he is going to win BIG. And while it will still go in the win column it will not be a representative vote. Oh well, now I went and depressed myself again.


    And I'm not hearing about absentee (none / 0) (#112)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:28:04 AM EST
    balloting to senior homes, or organizing drivers to get them to polls, or . . . well, Milwaukee's organizing meeting is tonight, and maybe we will know more.

    Did you see in the JS this morning the dirty trick pulled on the poor Waukesha County organizer for Clinton?  I know her, and she's got the hardest row to hoe in this state, with that bright red county.  But the red DA makes her move the meeting at the last minute based on "complaint calls" that turned out to be claiming what wasn't true.  How many volunteers couldn't find the meeting, gave up after finding out they had to get in their cars and drive another distance in the cold and snow, etc.?


    As I said upthread (none / 0) (#22)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:02:35 PM EST
    the only thing that matters is pledged delegates.

    Superdelegates are meaningless unless things completely fall apart for the Democrats.

    Obama is up anywhere between 100-135 pledged delegates.  That is a big gap.

    Hillary may need a desperate comeback in Wisconsin to keep March 4th realistic.


    Saying it don't make it true! (none / 0) (#110)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:12:41 AM EST
    Honestly no one can no for certain what SD's will do. But I, along with many, suspect that if the count is close and Senator Clinton wins almost all the major states it is very likely they will stick with her.

    None of those lists include FL & MI (none / 0) (#23)
    by katiebird on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:03:47 PM EST
    Can we really accept that those delegations not be seated?

    They will be seated (none / 0) (#26)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:11:40 PM EST
    But they won't matter.  They will be seated after the nominee has been decided.

    That is your conjecture (none / 0) (#29)
    by Grey on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:16:16 PM EST
    We don't know how the MI and FL matter will be decided yet.  Saying they will count after the fact is just what you are saying, but it's not a fact.

    Right, it is conjecture, but (none / 0) (#38)
    by Hypatias Father on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:29:15 PM EST
    not an uninformed one.  Even if they could be apportioned before convention--which isn't going to happen, because there is no agreed mechanism outside the convention itself for resolving their limbo status--if you take the maximum number of delegates that could possibly be awarded via FL + MI, you see that one of them will probably pull away with a larger margin in any case.  

    The One Way They Will Matter (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:32:19 PM EST
    Is that I'm sure Hillary will use them in her pitch to the Super Delegates.  They may not be in formal counts of pledged delegates, but the Supers know they are out there and that something will have to be done about them.

    Ah, thank you - that's really what I was wondering (none / 0) (#45)
    by katiebird on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:35:39 PM EST
    I just haven't been able to get my brain to focus on the meat of the issue.

    Her pitch to the Super Delegates, though -- they're not going to let us toss out those delegations.


    Maybe (none / 0) (#99)
    by Grey on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:41:15 AM EST
    But Michigan has already allocated 55 delegates to Clinton and she would get more than that from FL based on the spread of her victory there, so we're talking about more than 100 delegates here, and they will count at some point.  Given that, with 8 enormous wins, Obama is not even 100 delegates ahead of Clinton, I think MI and FL will matter a great deal.

    Correction (none / 0) (#101)
    by Grey on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:51:20 AM EST
    MI has allocated 73 delegates to Clinton and 55 to "uncommitted."

    No, I for one don't (none / 0) (#27)
    by Hypatias Father on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:11:46 PM EST
    think we should accept that they will not be seated.   I think it's far safer to assume that an accommodation will be reached to seat them w/ delegates intact.

    Then shouldn't we be reporting those delegates? (none / 0) (#28)
    by katiebird on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:15:36 PM EST
    Then shouldn't we be reporting those delegates?  They are pledged, right?  And it's common knowledge that they'll be seated.

    So, we should boost her totals and look at those numbers.

    I think.


    There are some (none / 0) (#31)
    by Hypatias Father on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:23:07 PM EST
    counts out there that are including some estimates of how those delegates would get apportioned to her, but while a growing consensus is indicating that they will be seated, less of a consensus is there to tell us how, i.e. will she get all of them, will she get half?

    Also, it is looking more and more like they wouldn't matter in the end.  That's why neither camp is making such a big fuss about them any more, and certainly why the NAACP felt free to come out with their latest statement to have them seated.  Chances are this thing is going to break one way or another before the convention, and one will consequently rack up the lion's share of the super-Ds.  Then they will be able to afford to look magnanimous by inviting Fl and MI back to the fold; and of course, they won't have mattered.

    The question now is...  which one will it be? Will he put it away by increasing the pledged-D count beyond what she can recover? Or does she give a one-two punch in TX and OH that leaves them all asking, hey where did our Obamomentum go?


    MyDD's Delegate Tracker (none / 0) (#43)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:34:16 PM EST
    Has both counts.  Those guys have said all along that one way or the other the delegates will get seated.

    I'd post their numbers, but they seem to be in flux right now.  Understandably.


    Oh the delegagtes will be intact (none / 0) (#33)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:24:52 PM EST
    They just won't matter.  

    The DNC will not seat them.  They can't.  So it will be up to the delegate committee at the convention. But by that time the matter will be resolved.

    I am not even sure if the DNC CAN seat them before the convention.


    None of the delegates (none / 0) (#46)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:37:25 PM EST
    are seated until the convention.  They all go through the credentials committee.  At that point, under the rules, the committee can decide to seat them or not seat them.  I think you might be able to overrule the committee by going to the convention as a whole, but the odd of you having the votes to ratify them in convention, but not controlling the committee are pretty small.  

    Their main benefit right now is that the SDs know they are out there and that they mostly fall in Clinton's favor.  It's a lobbying point for her.  Because it's going to come down to the SDs.


    OK (none / 0) (#56)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:52:06 PM EST
    So let's assume that Obama ends the primary process up 100 points.  What happens then?

    How many delegates get to be seated from Michigan and Florida?  Neither state has an actual count on delegates.  And how exactly do we determine which delegates show up?  It's all well and good to say that the delegates get to sit down but it really isn't that simple.

    But let's say that all of that gets settled.  Then when?  Let's say it creates a tie and then the superdelegates get to pick the winner?  If you are looking for a way to absolutely destroy the Democratic party that would be a good way.


    If it's a tie (none / 0) (#60)
    by Hypatias Father on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:58:36 PM EST
    then the super-Ds will go for Clinton.  She wins plain, simple, hard, but fair.  Why would that destroy the Dem pary? It would not be her fault that it was such a close race.  Likewise, if Obama is still up by a solid amt., the the super-Ds (yes, even the ones who have already "pledged" Clinton) are going to realign to him.  And that won't destroy the Dem party either.  Why would it?

    The key point being (none / 0) (#64)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:03:46 AM EST
    if the Florida and Michigan delegates are numbered in such a way to equal the fight and then the Super Delegates choose Hillary then a very large contingent of Obama supporters will believe the fix is in.

    Like I said how do you determine the number of delegates to seat?  How do you determine the proportions when in most other states the apportionment is byzantine at best?


    I think you and I are in agreement (none / 0) (#76)
    by Hypatias Father on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:14:00 AM EST
    on how this might play out in general terms.  

    Like I said how do you determine the number of delegates to seat?  How do you determine the proportions when in most other states the apportionment is byzantine at best?

    As someone who lives in one of those byzantine-styled states (TX), I can say that my sense is that the unknown proportion of delegates will be seated in accord with the dominant trend of the known proportion of delegates.  There is uncertainty ONLY if it truly is a deadlocked tie, otherwise the states and the convention stakeholders will want to play it safe.


    They do have actual delegate counts. (none / 0) (#65)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:04:12 AM EST
    The Michigan Democratic Party has already done its allocation, giving 73 delegates to Clinton and 55 to uncommitted.

    According to the site, greenpapers, estimates that the Florida delegates will be allocated:

    Clinton - 111
    Obama - 69
    Edwards - 13
    with another 17 available.


    So based on these numbers (none / 0) (#69)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:09:17 AM EST
    which may or may not be legitimate they would give Hillary a 50 point net bump.

    If Hillary doesn't turn things around it might not matter.


    Michigan does have a count (none / 0) (#100)
    by Grey on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:48:49 AM EST
    And it has allocated 55 of its delegates to Clinton. Florida has not yet given out a number.

    MI and FL will appeal to the Credentials Committee first; if they lose, or no compormise is reached, MI and FL will put it to the pledged delegates that have been seated and ask them to vote on it.  And I'll take a wild guess and say they will vote to seat and count MI and FL because they know Dems lose without MI and FL.  


    Correction (none / 0) (#104)
    by Grey on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:52:12 AM EST
    MI has allocated 73 delegates to Clinton and 55 to "uncommitted."

    Fly, I know we've been through this (none / 0) (#113)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:30:56 AM EST
    before in replies to you.  Please read them (if you don't know how to do that easily, just ask) and try to understand the processes of the party, the convention, the delegate-seating, etc.  Going back over the same thing again and again is beginning to be chatter.

    I understand completely (none / 0) (#116)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:49:49 AM EST
    What you seem to ignore is that most of the Superdelegates are not going to want to get in the middle of this mess.  Lots of political downside and very little political upside.

    I believe that many Clinton supporters are banking on the SDs to save the day and I believe this is unrealistic.  The elected SDs are going to push very heavily to get this resolved before the convention.  

    If the Clinton campaign is banking on the SDs to save their bacon they are going to be in for a rude awakening.  SDs are political realists that have very little loyalty to either candidate.   They aren't going to alienate 40-50% of their constituents by making a choice.

    The DNC also is desperate to avoid a convention cage match.  That would almost guarantee that Dean gets booted, along with a bunch of other DNC leaders.  

    At the very latest the nomination is decided in mid-May.  More realistically it will be decided either on 3/4 or 4/22.  

    In the unlikely event that this does make it to the convention they will vote based on whatever is perceived to be the leading measurement.  Maybe it will be to vote in favor of their states decision but most likely it will be delegate lead with an lesser chance of popular vote.


    That wasn't your point (none / 0) (#120)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:40:36 AM EST
    as you said you didn't know whether delegates could be seated before the convention.  Now you've heard the answer again, so hope you've got it and other points about the party convention process.

    FL and MI (none / 0) (#62)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:01:04 AM EST
    I thnk it would be safer to assume they'll be half seated and that MI's uncomitted will be given to Obama, them being seated without any penalty is just as unrealistic as them not being seated at all.

    I really don't like (none / 0) (#106)
    by tek on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:12:23 AM EST
    that there doesn't seem to be an official tally, each network has different numbers. How do we know for sure what the count it? Seems like a system open to a lot of manipulation.

    These are interesting (none / 0) (#24)
    by Hypatias Father on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:05:41 PM EST
    but I worry that they are less meaningful than a count that excludes super-Ds.  

    these numbers (none / 0) (#37)
    by along on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:28:55 PM EST
    are all before tonight's delegate allocation.

    yes, (none / 0) (#1)
    by along on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:35:47 PM EST
    Singer at MyDD has transcribed Chuck Todd's count:

    * NBC News now has Barack Obama up 1,078 to 969 in pledged delegates over Hillary Clinton. After tonight that number could be about 1,128 to 1,009.
    * Importantly, though, when you add in the superdelegates, Obama is still projected to lead 1,306 delegates to 1,270.

    There's speculation about next week's contests, and info about the popular vote too.

    I don't trust his count because (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:39:01 PM EST
    of this statement:

    At this point, Obama now has received more votes than Clinton -- even when the votes of Florida (where he didn't campaign) and Michigan (where he wasn't even on the ballot) are considered.

    Hillary didn't campaign in Florida either, so that seems biased to me.


    I see what you mean (none / 0) (#10)
    by along on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:44:41 PM EST
    but his numbers have been quite reliable throughout the past few months.

    Barack had tv ads in Florida (none / 0) (#107)
    by andrys on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:14:09 AM EST
    Because Obama bought national tv ads, they were also shown in Florida as a natural part of the package -- this took place in the last 2 weeks of the primary in Florida.  One could say this was a very smart move.

      Also, Obama and Edwards chose to remove their names from Michigan (probably for strategic reasons since they didn't remove them in Florida) but left their names on in Florida.

      I'm personally for granting Uncommitted to Obama in Michigan as a compromise for seating Michigan and Florida and counting their votes, especially Florida's 1.7 million voters whose fault it was not when party leaders decided to move the date up.  I don't think either candidate wants to lose positive Dem votes from those states (but I could be wrong  ;-) ).

      I'm also for fining Florida the $800,000 they could afford to spend for a new election that would cost $4 million according to some accounts.

      Private fundraisers were permitted in Florida, and both Obama and Clinton did that.  This tended to be called 'campaigning' in her case but it wasn't, any more than it was for Obama.


    I'll answer my own question (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:35:58 PM EST
    The AP has them 30 delegates apart, and yes, John King just again said they are essentially tied.

    The Associated Press count of delegates showed Obama with 1,210. Clinton had 1,188, falling behind for the first time since the campaign began. Neither was close to the 2,025 needed to win the nomination.

    I guess it all depends (none / 0) (#3)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:38:08 PM EST
    on who you listen to.

    MSNBC has Obama up over 100 in pledged and 30 in total delegates.

    CNN is showing Obama up 101 pledges and 21 total votes.

    Apparently Obama is also winning in total votes INCLUDING Michigan and Florida now.

    Delegates (none / 0) (#4)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:38:35 PM EST
    I'll  quote CNN...I like to  think them more  credible than  MSNBC  because  they  actually   call   SD  and confirm before  counting them. If  not  confirmed, they don't  count  them.

    Anway,   CNN:  

    Obama      1208   Pledged:  1052
                        SD       156

    Clinton    1185   Pledged:   1185
                         SD       234

    That's  at  10:35,    Texas  time.  :)

    so he's ahead 23 (none / 0) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:42:10 PM EST
    pledged delegates after tonight's wins? Are you saying:

    1208 pledged to 1185 pledged?

    Whats the 1052 to 1185 number?

    The superdelegates are 156 to 234?


    That's what I have on (none / 0) (#17)
    by Hypatias Father on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:57:42 PM EST
    my own little spreadsheet, not counting Super-Ds, he is up by just over 110.

    jerilynn (none / 0) (#83)
    by auntmo on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:35:39 AM EST
    no...sorry  it  was  confusing.  

    Obama  up  pledged delegates  101

    But  Clinton  up    Superdelegates  77

    So   the  difference  is  Obama  up   23-24 TOTAL  delegates  that  include  committed  SD's.  



    The problem I have had (none / 0) (#6)
    by Hypatias Father on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:40:32 PM EST
    in locating credible counts that include super-Ds is that they always come with the caveat to understand that they can, have, and will continue to change their minds.  More and more, I am convinced by those who say that the super-Ds will break for Hillary unless she loses by more than 100 or so of the pledged count; and yes, that is assuming that FL and MI will be seated.  OpenLeft has daily updates on the pledged-D count.  And, if you can stomach the visit, this pro-Obama site actually has a succinct presentation of the same logic, BUT they are wrong wrong wrong about 1 single delegate being all that is needed to put it away.  

    Try This Link (none / 0) (#32)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:24:23 PM EST
    for Super Delegates.  It's related to MyDD.

    Also, I heard Ted Devine on NPR say he thought the AP had the best numbers because they don't just use projections, they actually go out and do reporting to confirm things like Super Delegates.  I know, a media outfit that does some reporting.  Crazy talk.  NPR has the AP totals - here.


    Edwards' 26 delegates look significant (none / 0) (#71)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:10:49 AM EST
    when Obama and Clinton's margin of difference is 25 delegates, per AP, huh?

    BDB (none / 0) (#84)
    by auntmo on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:37:46 AM EST
    That's  why  I  always   count on  CNN.  

    They   include  the   SD's, but  only if  they have  actually  contacted  and  confirmed  that  they  are  committed---both  sides.  

    If  SD  is not  committed, they do not include.  

    (MSNBC  doesn't  even bother  to call  the  SD's.  They  just  leave  them out  completely.)


    The superdelegates don't matter (none / 0) (#7)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:41:58 PM EST
    At this point it seems very unlikely this is going to the convention.  Either Hillary sweeps the big remaining states or Obama will be the nominee.

    turnout in TX 12,000 (none / 0) (#9)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:44:06 PM EST
    for Hillary tonight, that's pretty big for her.

    Wow (none / 0) (#36)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:28:06 PM EST
    I think the only other place where she's pulled that many was out here in California.  One of the hints right before election days that her base was holding here (the curious don't usually sleep out overnight).

    She says she still has friends from her McGovern organizing days.  I hope they're good ones and still influential at organizing, especially the hispanic vote.


    She can close the gap (none / 0) (#12)
    by Hypatias Father on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:48:41 PM EST
    pretty darned quickly if she wins by decent enough margins in just two of the big three states (TX and OH most likely), say by 60-65 %.  And a closed delegate gap means that it will indeed go to convention, and the super-Ds will indeed make Hillary Rodham Clinton our nominee.  

    If Hillary (none / 0) (#15)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:52:59 PM EST
    wins TX and OH by 20+ margins then I think she will be the nominee.  

    Needless to say I think that is pretty unlikely.  Barring some unforeseen events I think best care for Hillary is a 10-15 point win which would complicate matters.  Then she would need another 10-15 point win in PA.


    It's all psychology... (none / 0) (#20)
    by Hypatias Father on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:00:10 PM EST
    If she can stay focused and not get fatalistic about Obama's momentum, then all she has to do is come up about 10 points in TX, and keep her current lead in OH.  I don't know why so many think this is so implausible.  

    I think we agree here (none / 0) (#25)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:09:33 PM EST
    She needs double digit wins in Oh and TX.  If she wins by only a couple of points in either state then she is in a lot of trouble, especially if she loses Wisconsin and Hawaii.  

    If she is down a 150+ delegates going into 3/4 she needs to get big wins in TX and OH she will need big wins to make up ground.  Otherwise the momentum will probably be too much.


    Texas has a strange caucus/voting system (none / 0) (#61)
    by hairspray on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:00:18 AM EST
    I just read over at dkos that there is voting and then there are caucuses, so that voting will occur twice. About 1/3 of the votes will be awarded in the caucus system which favors Obama. The other demographics were that both Houston and Dallas now have large black populations, making Hillary's demographics more shaky.

    Katrina voters -- (none / 0) (#75)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:13:30 AM EST
    and will their turnout be better in Texas than Louisiana's low turnout of 15%?

    Many have had to move often, though; what are the residency requirements in Texas?


    OH Hillary 56 Obama 39 Survey USA Feb 12 (none / 0) (#91)
    by Prabhata on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:59:11 AM EST
    That's the best poll there is.  All other polls had CA wrong.  Survey USA nailed it: 52 Hillary 42 Obama

    60% is not going to happen (none / 0) (#57)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:55:18 PM EST
    Hillary is not going to hit 60% in Texas or Ohio (possibly in PA), she hasn't hit 50% in any state other than AR (not even in NY) so unless Obama implodes I have a very hard time believing she'll hit 60% in states whihc should be toss-ups by election day.

    What? (5.00 / 0) (#92)
    by Shawn on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:02:48 AM EST
    Hillary is not going to hit 60% in Texas or Ohio (possibly in PA), she hasn't hit 50% in any state other than AR (not even in NY)

    Clinton 50
    Obama 42

    Clinton 52
    Obama 42

    Clinton 50
    Obama 33

    Clinton 56
    Obama 41

    Clinton 55
    Uncommitted 40

    Clinton 51
    Obama 45

    New Jersey
    Clinton 54
    Obama 44

    New York
    Clinton 57
    Obama 40

    Clinton 55
    Obama 31

    Clinton 54
    Obama 41


    What weas meant (none / 0) (#102)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:51:26 AM EST

    The post you refer to probably meant 60% and fat fingered the 50% number.

    If she doesn't (none / 0) (#66)
    by Hypatias Father on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:04:43 AM EST
    get decent-sized victories of about that amt. in both TX and OH, then I don't see how she mathematically would be able to keep Obama from walking into the convention with a sizable advantage in pledged-Ds, meaning he would garner by far the most super-Ds.  

    To stop this, she would have to pull a miracle...  maybe if she won close to 85% in Pennsylvania, but that is really vanishingly implausible.  Has any candidate hit 85% in a contested state yet?


    Um Romney in Utah maybe? (none / 0) (#72)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:11:08 AM EST
    Maybe Romney in UT, (I would say Obama in the VI but those don't really count), seriously though Obama didn't hit 855 in the ID caucus.

    They need 1,000 more delegates (none / 0) (#18)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:57:43 PM EST
    and I don't there even are that many left?  Can you cite a source that gets either one to 2,025 with the states left?

    No source needed. (none / 0) (#21)
    by Hypatias Father on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:01:26 PM EST
    Neither will get that count, but they won't need it to win in the end.  That is the amt. needed to put the contest in the can before the convention.  It's the blow-out number.  

    I don't see how that answers (none / 0) (#30)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:21:10 PM EST
    the question.  You say that's the number needed to settle this before the convention, and yes, that's what I said.  But I don't see how either can get to that number before the convention, and you say that's the number needed. . . .

    Super Delegates (none / 0) (#39)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:30:52 PM EST
    Neither will be anywhere close but there are almost 800 total super delegates and those folks will decide the nominee.   Enough of them will eventually move to one or the other to put them over the top, if one of them does not withdraw before the convention.

    My own prediction is that we have a nominee definitely by the end of June and probably in March or April.  


    Neither will get to that point (none / 0) (#41)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:32:29 PM EST
    There are only 1078 state delegates left.  So there is basically no way that either candidate will hit the magic number.  But if either candidate builds a 200-300 delegate lead the other will bow out.  

    And if after the primaries are settled and one candidate has a 100+ lead the other will bow out.

    Neither candidate will sacrifice the party for their own gains.


    They can't get the number. (none / 0) (#50)
    by Hypatias Father on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:43:39 PM EST
    So, then what happens is...  they have to add up their delegates and see who has more.  Resist the temptation to add super-Ds at this point, and I will try to explain why.  Let's say that Obama has X pledged delegates, but due to a comeback in OH and TX Clinton has X+75.  So off they go to convention, but the one with the most pledged delegates will have most control over the process of vetting the credentials of the super-Ds.  Not to mention, that the super-Ds themselves will more than likely break for the that candidate.  So, no matter what the super-Ds look like now, they will almost certainly realign.  If Obama comes in with only 10-20 delegates more than Hillary, it is quite possible that more will still break for Hillary and put her over the top.  That's why people guess that for Obama to put it away and command the super-Ds alignment for himself, he must get somewhere in the neighborhood of 75-150 more delegates than she.  That range is a conjecture, however, and it varies from blog to blog.

    Thanks -- and interesting statement on CNN (none / 0) (#77)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:16:25 AM EST
    supports this, too:  That even if every remaining state breaks 60-40 for Obama -- which would be a big stretch -- it still wouldn't garner enough delegates . . . but not quite clear whether that included the super-delegates.

    I agree to not count them yet, btw; they're iffy for either candidate and will remain so to the end.


    Cream (none / 0) (#85)
    by auntmo on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:41:39 AM EST
    Ok,   but   we  STILL  have  to  decide   what  to do  with  Florida  and Michigan.    

    And  that  could   make  the difference.


    Delegate court????* (none / 0) (#11)
    by dwightkschrute on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:45:52 PM EST
    Can we get Judge Wapner to preside over it?

    * Not being mean about the headline typo, just trying to have a little fun.

    thanks, I'll fix it (none / 0) (#13)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:48:55 PM EST

    So a Dem nominee can potentially lose (none / 0) (#34)
    by doyenne49 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:24:59 PM EST
    California, New York, Ohio, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Florida and become the nominee?

    If the Dems had winner-take-all primaries and caucuses, what would the numbers be now?

    And Michigan (nt) (none / 0) (#35)
    by katiebird on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:26:54 PM EST
    why not? (none / 0) (#42)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:33:48 PM EST
    why would that be worse than some candidate who won those states, but only those states, losing everywhere else?
    (hypothetical example - clearly not the case here)

    asdf (none / 0) (#44)
    by suzy later on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:34:48 PM EST
    Do you think Obama will lose California in the general?  New York?

    If he is the nominee, he would win both.


    This election is so crazy - who knows, but I highly doubt McCain would take NY or CA.


    Obama wins California and New York (none / 0) (#47)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:38:57 PM EST
    Dukakis was the last Dem to lose California.  It hasn't been a swing state since Pete Wilson ran his anti-immigrant campaign (and nice to see the Republicans learned nothing from that).

    What Obama could lose are Florida, Michigan and Ohio.  


    True, but he could easily win (none / 0) (#52)
    by doyenne49 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:46:29 PM EST
    Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, and that would be that.

    Not Florida (none / 0) (#109)
    by andrys on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:25:43 AM EST

    McCain puts California in play IMHO (none / 0) (#53)
    by RalphB on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:47:03 PM EST
    If it was winner take all (none / 0) (#48)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:39:04 PM EST
    Obama would be up 1099 to 1046.  

    Note: I derived this number by using the delegate counts at RCP.  I excluded New Mexico as being undecided which could add 25 delegates to either.

    Obviously that is pledged delegates.


    Other than MA, JFK lost them all. (none / 0) (#49)
    by jr on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:41:07 PM EST
    How'd that one work out for us? ;)

    (Yes, I'm fully aware the nomination is determined differently and the electoral map has drastically changed, so no history lectures necessary)


    Of course that is false (none / 0) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:48:45 PM EST
    JFK famously won the West Virginia primary, and there were not really many primaries then.

    But it is an interesting analogy because JFK was asked to prove he could win in what was perceived as a difficult venue.

    In essence, Obama is being asked, by me at least, to do the same. Win ONE of these 3, TX, OH or PA.


    You just look to pick fights these days, don't you (none / 0) (#78)
    by jr on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:20:37 AM EST
    Seeing as how WV wasn't on the list I was responding to, how is what I typed false?

    Christ almighty, it's like reading Susan Hu sometimes...


    JFK barely got elected (none / 0) (#55)
    by doyenne49 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:48:47 PM EST
    and he needed some chicanery in Chicago and Texas to pull it off. Not the best comparison for a candidate who claims his main strength is his ability to be competitive across the country and with Indys and Repugs.

    Fact is, this election is going to be, as so many have been lately, much closer than anyone imagines it will be at this moment. Clinton had strengths in Florida and Ohio that Obama hasn't proven he has. Dems will need one or both of those states. Believe me, Obama won't be racking up Idaho, Utah, and Georgia.


    Just curious (none / 0) (#58)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:55:19 PM EST
    But what strengths has Clinton proven in Ohio?

    You picked two very odd states to prove your point.


    March 4 will determine that (4.00 / 1) (#59)
    by doyenne49 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:57:19 PM EST
    And my presumption is based on: Latino and older voters n Florida, working-class whites in Ohio. There is no guarantee Obama can hold sufficient percentages among these groups in a match-up against McCain to give him a win in November.

    he did fine with both tonight n/t (none / 0) (#79)
    by jr on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:21:19 AM EST
    Huh? His big win in the Wisconsin primary (none / 0) (#80)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:21:58 AM EST
    put him on the path to the White House.

    I know you don't want history lessons, but you might look into historical facts.


    the comment above listed specific states (none / 0) (#94)
    by jr on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:37:35 AM EST
    JFK won more than one primary, obviously, but only one on the list I was responding to.

    If you're talking about the general, (none / 0) (#93)
    by Shawn on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:08:34 AM EST
    JFK did win New York and New Jersey.

    I'm talking the primaries (none / 0) (#95)
    by jr on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:38:20 AM EST
    and only in response to the specific list being proffered of "must-win" Dem states.  The only one on that list JFK won was his home state.

    One More Delegate Wrinkle (none / 0) (#51)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:44:58 PM EST
    Caucuses don't actually translate directly into delegates.  They translate into delegates to the state convention and the delegate allocation is decided there.  And like the Democratic Convention, everyone thinks they know the rules, but somehow there always seem to be wrinkles in those rules.

    For example. lets say Clinton loses the Washington State primary by only 5% on the 19th and it has twice as many participants as the state caucuses.  Now, technically, the Washington Democratic party isn't bound to use the primary results, but it has said it would take them as advisory.  Does Washington still split its delegates 2-1 for Obama.

    How about all those Edwards, uncommitted and other delegates to the state conventions.  What do they do?  Normally, they'd all throw in behind the presumptive nominee to run up his or her delegates count, but will there be a presumptive nominee?

    The entire thing is virtually impossible to pin down.  Caucuses not only suppress voter participation, they are also some of the least transparent means of selecting a candidate because there is no X=8.  It's X=Y=Z+2=8.

    Some are almost winner-take-all, I read (none / 0) (#81)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:23:02 AM EST
    back weeks ago, which seems like years ago now. . . .

    Caucus delegates (none / 0) (#86)
    by auntmo on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:45:59 AM EST
    And  technically, going by the  rules  Obama insists  on  enforcing,  caucus   delegates  are  not   "pledged"  until  the   state  convention  votes.    

    So....technically,  NONE of  his  caucus   votes   are   pledged  yet.


    Caucus delegates (none / 0) (#87)
    by auntmo on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:46:04 AM EST
    And  technically, going by the  rules  Obama insists  on  enforcing,  caucus   delegates  are  not   "pledged"  until  the   state  convention  votes.    

    So....technically,  NONE of  his  caucus   votes   are   pledged  yet.


    Julian Bond, head of NAACP, (none / 0) (#63)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:03:44 AM EST
    writes a letter urging MI and FL delegates be seated:


    The article includes statement DNC has stated it is amenable to a re-do in MI and FL, maybe caucuses.  Is this correct?

    Yes (none / 0) (#67)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:04:51 AM EST
    the DNC has offered to pay for caucuses in both states.

    very unlikely FLA Dem party will agree (none / 0) (#68)
    by doyenne49 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:07:16 AM EST
    to a caucus after nearly 2 million voted in Dem primary. It's too potentially disenfranchising. Bill Nelson has spoken against the idea.

    Heck, Obama campaign would (none / 0) (#73)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:11:20 AM EST
    probably agree to pay the cost of caucuses in both states.

    Yes (none / 0) (#70)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:09:44 AM EST
    But the states will not hold caucuses or redo the votes.  Michigan has already allocated its delegates.

    The caucus plan suggested for Florida was a joke.  First, forget that Florida doesn't normally do caucuses.  Second, forget that Florida is clearly a Clinton state and no way would her people agree to a caucus. Third, forget that nearly a million people already participated in the primary and a caucus would draw only a fraction of that, let's be generous and say 350,000.  Is that going to look legitimate if it comes up with a different result than when nearly 1 million people voted?

    But set all of that aside, what I read was that because of the cost, there would only by something like 150 caucus sites.  There were 2,000 in Iowa, a state with a small fraction of the population of Florida (to compare, Florida has something like 180 delegates and Iowa got less than 50).

    There will be no Florida caucus.  It's too expensive and completely unfeasible.  Same thing for Michigan.  Dean is reaching here, IMO.  Never going to happen.


    Fl and MI (none / 0) (#74)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:12:56 AM EST
    So do you think FL and MI will be seated at half-strength (the GOP penalty) and the the MI uncommitteds will be awarded to Obama (as a compromise)?

    maybe, but (none / 0) (#82)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:30:16 AM EST
    you should recognize that "caucus" is a very loose and general term. Effectivly, in this case, it bascially means that it wouldnt be a state-run election. But it certainly could take on the look of an election - voting open all day, secret ballots etc. - they would just call it a caucus.

    Almost impossible mater... (none / 0) (#96)
    by Bear2000 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:19:28 AM EST
    ...it's hard to see how Hillary can ever overtake Obama in pledged delegates.  She'll probably be down by 100 by the end.

    If she's down by that many pledged delegates, and down in the popular vote, do you really think she'll try to take the nomination with superdelegates?  Do you think superdelegates would even do that? Will the party that complained about 2000 (and rightly so) allow the popular and delegate vote to be overturned by superdelegates? Maybe - but it would be a disaster.  I therefore doubt it.

    The fact is that superdelegates are going to start moving - as, well, the rest of the Democratic electorate - towards  Obama. How could they not.

    Let's just all hope that Hillary or Obama, when the time comes and the writing on the wall is clear, exits gracefully and supports  the nominee. That time has not yet come, but chances are it will - for Hillary - on March 4.

    Not impossible at all (none / 0) (#111)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:19:54 AM EST
    If we go by your basic assumptions you are correct, the SDs will probably NOT go against popular vote and delegate count AND a candidate that shows they can win a primary state with a swing state broad base. But there are many assumptions.

    Honestly I believe it comes down to whether the MSM manages to finally make the "Momentum" story stick. It has not stuck so far. No matter how many times it has been declared that Obama has momentum he has won the states he was expected to win (with minor exceptions) and Clinton has won the states she was expected to win.

    And now the Senator Obama is the supposed front runner I wonder if the MSM will turn on him. And then there is the Rezko trial coming up shortly, before the next round of big states.

    Finally what will happen with a three week lull in the non stop coverage? Can anyone truly keep the wheel spinning for that long.

    We'll see soon enough.


    No Three Week Lull (none / 0) (#119)
    by Bear2000 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:00:30 AM EST
    There's another primary in a week - look for another Obama blowout.  The lull will be 15 days, and do you really think there will be a lull in the coverage?

    Something else to consider is that McCain's independents can also move toward Obama now that he's sewn it up (despite the Huck issue).

    Also, it's highly unlike Hillary would bring momentum from Ohio and Texas to Pennsylvania, especially if - as is now increasingly likely - she only ekes out victories in those states.  Why hasn't she brought any momentum from Super Tuesday to any states since then? And there's still Oregon, Indiana, North Carolina - do you think any of those are going to Hillary?


    The other question (none / 0) (#103)
    by Saul on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:52:05 AM EST
    is where would the delegate count be today if they had been no caucuses and only primaries.  I believe Hilary would be very much the leader.

    No caucuses? (none / 0) (#118)
    by Bear2000 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:53:41 AM EST
    This is an entirely irrelevant point.  There are caucuses, like it or not. A strong candidate should be able to do well in both caucuses and primaries.  And Obama does.

    Just saw the latest Hillary/Obama favorables.  Hillary 48/49 unfavorable. Obama 58/34 favorable. And people here are talking about taking a risk with Obama.

    Could it be that Obama is, in fact, the frontrunner and does have momentum, regardless of what the MSM (blame them!) say?  He is winning in the popular vote now WITH Florida and Michigan factored in.

    The reality is he does have momentum, a much more impressive donor base, more enthusiastic supporters, and he is winning, and winning well, with his constitutencies and now eating into Hillary's. Why is this so hard for you to believe?


    The WaPo (shock!) seems to agree with BTD today (none / 0) (#114)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:32:57 AM EST
    "Obama is on his way to winning a majority of states against Clinton, but can he afford to lose Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania and still claim the nomination? By the pledged delegate numbers, it's possible but risky, given the number of uncommitted superdelegates who would be reluctant to move en masse to him in the face of three big losses. For Clinton, the calculation is obvious: they are all must-wins. Until those states are heard from, this will remain a volatile race."


    It's a little crazy (none / 0) (#115)
    by VicAjax on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:39:09 AM EST
    that everyone here seems to be ignoring some simple facts:

    1) MI and FL -- after being repeatedly warned about the consequences -- broke the DNC rules.

    They were told what would happen if they moved their primaries before Feb. 5th, and it happened.

    1. All the candidates signed a pledge to remove their names from the ballots and not campaign in either state.  

    2. Hillary broke both of those pledges. She left her name on the ballots and actually campaigned, in person, in FL.  The argument that Obama ran ads in FL doesn't fly, because they were national ads.

    One thing that bothers me about Michigan (none / 0) (#117)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:52:58 AM EST
    is that their action appear to be a pure power play.  Their primary was scheduled for 2/9.  I fully blame Jennifer Granholm for the mess in Michigan.

    Accuracy Counts (none / 0) (#121)
    by xspowr on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:00:41 AM EST
    Lets be accurate, shall we?

    1. The MI/FL seating issue has been discussed today at length in another thread, so I won't belabor that again here.

    2.  None of the candidates pledged to take their names off the ballots in either MI or FL. BO and JRE chose to remove their names in MI for political advantage in IA and NH. Political choices only. No pledge issues at all.  Further, FL law prevented any of the candidates from removing their name from the ballot (and, not to be picky, but if your second point was correct that would mean BO also violated the pledge in FL).  None of the candidates "campaigned" in MI as that term was defined by the DNC early-state pledge; however, see below for BO in FL.

    3.  HRC did not break any pledge whatsoever. HRC did not campaign in person or in any other way in FL (feel free to supply links demonstrating that in-person campaigning you reference).  However, BO did run national ads that were not blacked out in FL (the usual procedure for selectively running such advertising) and BO was the only candidate to hold a press conference in FL prior to the vote. Both actions expressly constitute "campaigning" as defined in the DNC pledge.

    Those are the "simple" facts, as you like to call them.