I'm going to guess that Clinton needs 15% delegate wins in TX, OH and PA

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

I'm going to guess that Clinton needs 15% delegate wins in TX, OH and PA to tie (or 10% wins...see update), assuming she can stabilize her general national profile in the next couple of weeks.

Of course, that needed margin can be somewhat lower if my generous estimations for Senator Obama are not met in a few stray states.

Just hitting the ole' scratchpad (I showed my work) filling in how states might reasonably go, and asssuming no total campaign collapse, which of course trumps any estimation.

This is not a Prediction of what WILL happen. It's a combined scenario made up of reasonable estimates, to see what Clinton would require to have a pledged delegate edge. It would be equally easy to predict that Obama wins 70% in every state, if one prefers, but that would have no probabtive value. We ALL know what happens if Obama wins every state without using a calculator! These are merely my estimates given a set of reasonable possibilities to see what is possible. Since the Obama campaign had an old estimate of a close race with Obama at 1806, I may be missing some delegates here, but the question asked, having to do with proportions of delegates, pertains.

I have made fairly strong assumptions for Obama everywhere outside the big three. And I am using the Obama campaign estimates of the current situation. If Clinton lost some Obama places 55-45 instead of 65-35, then she would need smaller wins in the big states.

Late Update: MSNBC's pledged delegte estimate after tonight is a 50 point swing from the Obama campaign's esimate, so if MSNBC is right Hillary could win with 55%-45% delegate splits in the big three, not 58-43. (Chuck Todds numbers after tonight are 120 delegate gap, rather than 167)
___________________

Starting Point (Obama Campaign numbers including their estimates of tonight)
988 Clinton, 1155 Obama

Tuesday, February 19
Hawaii Caucus 29 delegates
Wisconsin Primary 92 delegates

C 53 - O 68

Tuesday, March 4
Ohio Primary 161 delegates
Rhode Island Primary 32 delegates
Texas Primary 228 delegates
Vermont Primary 23 delegates

240 - 204


Saturday, March 8
Wyoming Caucus 18 delegates
6 - 12

Tuesday, March 11
Mississippi Primary 40 delegates

12 - 28

Tuesday, April 22
Pennsylvania Primary 188 delegates
104 - 84

Saturday, May 3
Guam Other 9 delegates

4 - 5

Tuesday, May 6
Indiana Primary 84 delegates
North Carolina Primary 134 delegates

109 - 109

Tuesday, May 13
West Virginia Primary 39 delegates

22 - 17

Tuesday, May 20
Kentucky Primary 60 delegates
Oregon Primary 65 delegates

59 - 66

Tuesday, June 3
Montana Primary 24 delegates
South Dakota Primary 23 delegates

17 - 30

Saturday, June 7
Puerto Rico Caucus 63 delegates

63-0

Total from remaining states with TX OH and PA at 55%-45% (delegate allotment):
C 689 - O 611

Total with TX OH and PA at 55%-45% (delegate allotment)
1671 Clinton - 1766 Obama

Total with TX OH and PA at 58%-43% (delegate allotment)
1734 Clinton -1733 Obama

[joshcryer]

1. This is why she can't win.

[Drunken Irishman]

2. Looks pretty unlikely she's going to win this thing.

[thevoiceofreason]

3. Don't count on that in Texas.

[BringBigDogBack]

28. Agree.

[AX10]

4. K & R!

No one gets to 2025 without SD's.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

7. Yes, that's beyond doubt, and has been known the whole time.

Everyone froths at the mouth about how Super Delegates cannot be allowed to decide anything without comprehending that it has been Impossible for weeks for Obama to win without Super Delegates.

Of course Super Delegates decide the thing... that's built into the apportionment math.

And I expect Obama to get more Supers anyway. People are comically paranoid.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

14. .

[TexasObserver]

5. They have to keep running to get back the money she loaned the campaign

I'm not sure I believe they've raised the money they've claimed the past week. They're running on fumes, and their three state strategy is the kind of last stand politics that typify a campaign that is going down.

I think she'll lose Texas and it will be over.

[XemaSab]

18. I suddenly just flashed to an image:

[Hawkeye-X]

6. Minimum is 7% delegate wins

and it's bloody unlikely it's gonna happen.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

9. Unlikely? Sure. But not to the point of absurdity.

Many Democratic primary seasons end with a buyer's remorse phase or reversal of trend... it's what we, as a party, like to do.

I wouldn't bet on it at 50-50, but I'm considering looking into a highly speculative bet in the markets if she gets to 5:1.

[joshcryer]

8. Why did you give Puerto Rico to Hillary?

She cannot win caucuses.

[musicblind]

11. She won the Caucus in Nevada

with all the decks against her.


Anything is possible ...

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

12. If the campaign is at all competative she will win PR

And win all 63 delegates.

It has to do with PR politics... it's a very odd situation. The weirdest contest of them all.

(If she survives March 4th there will be many news stories about how weird PR is.)

[joshcryer]

16. I think you're being a bit optimistic to be honest, the horse race should end by March 5th.

There's no way Obama won't cut the gap in the polls between now and then.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

21. You may be right, but there's no reason to assume it in "no way" terms

Contested two-person Democratic primaries tend to reverse trend late, not continue as momentum moves. This is a standrd feature of our primaries. It's just been a while since people have seen a truly contested Dem primary, and pepole forget how primaries play out.

I am not saying that what you propose--a one way momentum move--cannot happen, only that there's no historical reason to *expect* it to happen.

[Torgo Johnson]

23. DEBUNKED: Puerto Rico is NOT Winner-Take-All

"Both Brooks and Barone are wrong. Puerto Ricans will vote according to much the same proportional representation rules that govern Democratic party primaries and caucuses in the 50 states. The notion of Puerto Rico being a "winner-take-all" jurisdiction stems from previous presidential primary contests, which were pretty much over by the time the Puerto Ricans got to vote. John Kerry swept Puerto Rico in 2004 just as Al Gore triumphed in 2000 because they were the only candidates left in the race, and the party bosses could manipulate the caucus process.

This time will be very different, according to several Puerto Rican Democratic leaders I contacted earlier today by phone. At present, Puerto Rico is scheduled to hold a caucus--not a primary--on June 7. If the race is still competitive, participation is likely to be very high, and there is no way that one candidate will sweep all the delegates.

"Both the candidates have supporters on the island," said Eliseo Roques, vice-chair of the Democratic National Committee's Hispanic Caucus, and a prominent Puerto Rican politician who is neutral in the race. "You will see a closely contested race."

Both Brooks and Barone backed off the "winner takes all" talk when I caught up with them today. Barone said he had based his analysis on past elections, when Puerto Ricans traditionally plumped for one candidate. Brooks said he got his information from Barone."

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/will_puerto_rico_decide_everyt.html

Here is acutal delegate allocation for Puerto Rico.

The Puerto Rico Senatorial District Caucuses convene. The caucuses choose Puerto Rico's 55 Pledged delegates to the Democratic National Convention. A mandatory 15 percent threshold is required in order for a presidential contender to be allocated National Convention delegates at either the senatorial district or islandwide level.

36 district delegates are proportionally allocated by senatorial district (Puerto Rico has no congressional districts).

* District 1 San Juan: 4
* District 2 Bayamón: 5
* District 3 Arecibo: 4
* District 4 Mayagüez: 4
* District 5 Ponce: 4
* District 6 Guayama: 4
* District 7 Humacao: 4
* District 8 Carolina: 4

In addition, 12 at-large and 7 Pledged PLEOs are proportionally allocated by the islandwide vote.

* 12 at-large National Convention delegates
* 7 Pledged PLEOs

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/PR-D.phtml#0607

Translation, in order for Clinton to take all of the delegates, Obama would not only have to fail to reach 15% islandwide, but also fail to reach 15% in each of the 8 Senatorial districts. In short, it ain't gonna happen.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

25. Thanks. I was relying on best available sources at the time

So subtract about 40 delegates of swing... about on par with the 50 delegate differential between the campaign and media sources.

So my numbers revert to where they started out.

[jackson_dem]

10. This is tough but definitely doable

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

13. If every pledged delegate voted with his district, she can probably afford to be behind 20 or so

There is a slight advantage to winning big blue states because if one follows Obama's reasoning of following the voters, when he wins a red congressional district there's no congressional Super Delegate to go with it because the congressman there is a Republican... Democratic congressman tend to be from blue states.

So the "must lead by 1 pledged delegate thing" is a campaign talking point, not a rational apportionment scheme.

But if Obama looks like a winner the Supers will go with Obama. Duh! This is so uncomplicated, yet some people enjoy being paranoid.

[bigbrother05]

15. Congress not the only Supers, not even half

you're implying that districts in red states wouldn't have that many Supers. By that logic, Fla was a wasted exercise for Clinton, not voted or super delegates. Think there is a basic analogy to the electoral college, only w/o the winner-take-all math.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

19. I prefer to be corrected on things I actually say.

I am well aware of the number of super delegates, and what proportion are congress-persons.

That has nothing to do with what I was saying, of course...

Democratic Senators and Representatives tend to be more from blue states than red.

That has nothing to do with how many super delegates there are that are not congressmen.

[joshcryer]

17. They'd probably take popular vote into account, too.

That's why a very close race doesn't determine the nominee, and in fact could lead to a brokered convention.

[XemaSab]

20. One of the things you're missing is that in California

she won the conservative areas.

Nancy Pelosi et al. should vote for Obama if he won their district, right?

Well you might see most of California's representatives going for Obama....

Eh, I counted and it's not this simple. There would be 8 representatives who would DEFINITELY be in Obama areas and 19 republicans out of 53 congresscritters. Some of the southern California districts are tiny and fussy and you'd have to go precinct by precinct to determine loyalties.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

22. That's a good point. And Obama might well win all the Dem districts in TX

(Due to Tom Delay's gerymandering policy of concentrating minority populations in a small number of districts.)

But then, if we went with "states", as Barack suggested, it would be another matter re: NY and CA and NJ and Mass.

Any scheme for apportioning super delegates will favor different players, and they're all just talk anyway. If there's an obvious nominee everyone will know it, including supers. And they will go with the strong hand.

(I honestly don't know why some people assume Clinton would have an overwhelming advantage with supers. It's just paranoid. Supers will back the hot hand when the time comes, whoever it is.)

[joshcryer]

24. They are just striving for one more day of being able to trash talk a good person.

They act as if she's satan incarnate I swear.

[Dogmudgeon]

26. That sounds about right

But a lot of people are counting Hillary out. They should not. It demands that Obama's lucky streak hold up. It just might, but it might not. A few mis-steps and bad responses to questions, and Hillary gets big wins again.

This is NOT over yet by a longshot. Even a significant loss on March 7 (is that the right date?) would not eliminate her chances -- or Obama's, for that matter.

By the way -- thanks for doing all that math!

--p!

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

27. Just guesses, but it's an interesting exercise. Everyone should try it.

[OzarkDem]

29. She will do fine

There are many candidates who learned the hard way not to count the Clintons out. They are savvy and tenacious.