A little bit of math

[Matteon]

On March 4, 2008, Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont have their turn to vote. Combined they have 370 pledged delegates. Obama currently leads the pledged delegate count 1,187 to 1028.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html

Other sources, such as CNN, have slightly different totals, but even if those totals are used instead the point remains the same. Using the above cited numbers, Hillary Clinton needs to win 265 of the 370 pledged delegates in order to pull ahead of Obama by 1 delegate. If she gets 265 pledged delegates total on March 4 (71.62%) then she will have 1,293. Obama would have, with his 105 delegates (28.37% assuming no undecided), 1,292 pledged delegates.

For me, that really puts into perspective how far ahead Obama really is.

However, also consider this.

If Hillary Clinton wins 55% of the delegates from march 4 (204 when rounded off), Obama will end up with the remaining 166 (assuming no undecided). That would leave Obama with 1,353 pledged delegates and Hillary Clinton with 1,232.

That's right folks. Hillary can win on March 4 by a 10 point margin, 55% to 45%, and she would still be trailing Obama by over 100 pledged delegates.

After March 4, there are still 624 delegates left to be pledged from various states (according to the same site linked above). Even if Hillary Clinton pulls off a 55% to 45% win on March 4, that would still require her to win 373 of the remaining 624 pledged delegates (60%) to have a 1 delegate lead after the last vote is cast. She would then be ahead of Obama 1,605 to 1,604.

so, if she wins on March 4 by a 55% to 45% margin and then wins 60% of the delegates the rest of the way, she can win by 1. Wow.

***The above numbers do not include delegates from Florida and Michigan. Those delegates can't be counted unless you use that new math.

[Skip Intro]

1. Winning is reaching the required number of delegates to actually win. 1605? 1604? Neither hits it.

[Matteon]

2. I think you missed the point.

But, that is factually true what you said, so good work. I think.

[Skip Intro]

3. What was the point?

[Matteon]

4. You're going to have to work that out on your own.

I typed it out as plainly and clearly as I could.

[Skip Intro]

5. You mentioned winning. Was the point that each may enter the convention without the required

number of delegates to actually win? Because that is what you described.

Just asking...

[ingac70]

6. The superdelegates come in here. Just like 1984...

Neither Mondale nor Hart had a majority of pledged delegates. Mondale, however, had a plurality and the supers gave him the nom.

[Matteon]

10. I really believe that

the SD's will give the nod to Obama if he has a solid pledged delegate lead. The OP illustrates what Hillary would need to do to avoid that and tries to put it into perspective.

[no name no slogan]

18. Mondale had a majority of the pledged delegates

He beat Hart by 1,000 votes, and there were ±700 superdelegates at the convention.

Mondale had the race sewn up by Super Tuesday. Hart had claimed that if he did well enough on Super Tuesday that he would pick up a number of uncommitted superdelegates. THAT is probably why everybody thinks Hart had a chance at the convention.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29_presidential_primaries%2C_1984#The_Primaries

from the link:

Mondale gradually pulled away from Hart in the delegate count, but the race was not decided until June, on "Super Tuesday III".<3> Decided that day were delegates from five states: South Dakota, New Mexico, West Virginia, and the big prizes of California and New Jersey.<4> The proportional nature of delegate selection meant that Mondale was likely to obtain enough delegates on that day to secure the stated support of an overall majority of delegates, and hence the nomination, no matter who actually "won" the states contested. However, Hart maintained that unpledged superdelegates that had previously claimed support for Mondale would shift to his side if he swept the Super Tuesday III primary.<5> Once again, Hart committed a faux pas, insulting New Jersey shortly before the primary day. Campaigning in California, he remarked that while the "bad news" was that he and his wife Lee had to campaign separately, "he good news for her is that she campaigns in California while I campaign in New Jersey." Compounding the problem, when his wife interjected that she "got to hold a koala bear," Hart replied that "I won't tell you what I got to hold: samples from a toxic-waste dump."<5> Hart went on to win California but lose New Jersey, where he had held the poll lead, by 15 points.

By the time the Democratic Convention started in San Francisco Mondale had more than enough delegates to win the Democratic nomination. However, after Mondale's loss to Reagan, Hart would quickly emerge as the frontrunner for the Democratic Party's 1988 presidential nomination. He would maintain that status until a sex scandal derailed his candidacy in 1987.

[Matteon]

8. No.

I mentioned winning because that is the word the is most often used to describe when one candidate finishes with more votes and delegates in a primary election, caucus, or on a single day containing several of them. I don't mention winning in referance to the nomination anywhere. The point of the post, which I thought was made pretty clear, was to illustrate the scope of Obama's current pledged delegate lead by putting it into perspective.

[Skip Intro]

14. Well I'm sorry, but you're using a definition of winning that is not accurate.

Winning, in this context, is about who gets the required number of delegates to win the nomination. Finishing, as you put it, is defined about the same way here.

[Matteon]

19. Winning in this context

is about who won a particular election, such as Wisconsin or Hawaii. For example, Obama won "or finished ahead" in Wisconsin. Obama won the Potomac primaries because he swept those particular contests. Your emphasis on the winner of the nomination is misplaced. Everyone on this board knows that it requires 2025 delegates. That is not included because it is not part of the point of the OP. There was no need to point out that widely-known and irrelevant fact.

I think it's great that you want to shine some focus on the literal truth that Hillary can still technically win the nomination. More power to you. However, the fact that 2025 delegates is what the nomination requires, and the fact that Hillary might have some chance to get there, are both beside the point as far as the OP of this thread goes.

[nomorewhopper]

23. the point is that it is almost mathematically impossible for her to surpass obama at this point

it's not a terribly difficult concept to grasp

[mudesi]

15. The POINT was that it is extremely unlikely that Clinton can pull this off

That's all the OP was saying.

[quantass]

11. I agree...i think s/he DID miss the point

Matteon, you were pretty clear in what you said...great work!

[texas_indy]

7. You'll need to take Texas out since Obama is winning that one in popular and delegate votes. (nt)

[Matteon]

9. I like his chances...

His continued winning is shifting voters to his ranks I think.

[quantass]

12. GREAT JOB Matteon!

Your #'s are astonishing! It appears the task at hand for her is very tough....and when u factor in her past winnings were not very wide in terms of margin it becomes clear that it is unlikely she is going to win.

Great job Matteon...

[Matteon]

21. Thank you

n/t

[Johnny__Motown]

13. It is easier than that, she needs 58% of remaining delegates, anything less than 58% is a loss

Because it increases the percentage she needs to win overall.

If she wins 55% on March 4th then she will need more like 60% of the delegates that remain after March 4th.

[grantcart]

16. What you don't understand is how delegates are divided up

Its not divided up by results in a state - in fact in Texas there isn't even a bonus for winning the state as there is in some states

If you win a 2 delegate congressional district you would have to get 70% to get both delegates 51 or 69% are still going to mean a split

IN a 3 delegate district you if somebody gets 51 or 70% you would still split 2-1

In a 4 delegate district at 65% you get a 3-1 split

and so on and that's why they say you really have to get 65% in a congressional district to make up big numbers

and I don't know the exact percentages but you get the point. That is why once it gets to two person race and one person is ahead it is almost impossible for anyone to catch up.

In the meantime the superdelegates are going against Hillary


And this means she has to do even better than before


And finally in Texas (which is 1/3 caucus, 1/2 primary) the congressional districts get bonuses for how many democratic votes in the last election. Those districts that have high African American turn out for example are going to get a much higher percentage of delegates than a Hispanic district because they supported the democratic nominee while the Hispanic districts were more for Bush.

For these reasons many people say that the numbers mean that Hillary cannot win and do not understand why people want to push the campaign beyond the point of no return.

Clinton supporters on the other hand look at the numbers and see that it seems like a small difference and anything can happen.

I hate to bear bad news for you but I think that the above explanation will help you atleast understand why Obama supporters now feel that it is a foregone conclusion.

Good luck to Hillary supporters. Anything can happen. I hope that we can be reconciled on the same team in a few weeks.

[Matteon]

20. Keep in mind that...

...my numbers in the OP are all based on percentage of the delegates, not percentage of the votes. So, when I was talking about Hillary winning 55% to 45% I supplemented that with the corresponding delegate totals that equate to 55% and 45% of the delegates, respectively.

I apologise if that was not clear. I am aware, as you point out, that 55% of the vote doesn't mean 55% of the delegates. That's why I just skipped discussion of vote percentage and focused on % of delegates.

[grantcart]

22. but for her to get 55% of the delegates she will have to get 65% of the

popular vote - or more - and she has yet to get more than 40%

[LadyVT]

17. Of course she can win -- % of votes doesn't translate to % of delegates.

[Egnever]

24. Nicely done

I was looking at RCP earlier today doing the math for myself, but you lay them out well here for people to easily understand. Some it seems never will though.

[Egnever]

25. Morning kick for thew people that still have their head in the sand.

[H2O Man]

26. Right.

The math shows that the contest is over. I think that many of the top people in the Clinton campaign know that, including Senator Clinton.

There are some DUers who still think she will pull it out. They are like the people who argue about the "if only" aspects of baseball games that ended decades ago.