Let's do some math

[Gore1FL]

For full disclosure, I am a former Edwards supporter. When he left the race, I have leaned towards Obama. However, I think it is important that the math speak for itself.
Mostly because I am tired of having to explain it on multiple threads.

This is NOT flame bait. Take it to another thread if that is your goal. This is a mathematical assessment.

Simply put, even in the of best scenarios for Clinton, the nomination is an uphill climb. Even four wins today, unless both TX and OH are huge blowouts, do not give Clinton the advantage she needs. A split of the bigger states puts her chances on par with Mike Huckabee’s. Those are just the mathematical facts. You can complain about it, but it is not going to change anything. Less than a Clinton blowout of Obama today is an Obama blowout of Clinton.

Here is the math:

First let’s start with the pledge delegate counts of:

Clinton: 1038
Obama: 1193
Difference: 155 in favor of Obama.

Currently Clinton has 241 Super Delegates, to Obama’s 199. That equals 54.7%. For the sake of argument, we’ll call it 55%. Let’s take that 55% and multiply it by the total Super Delegate number of 795. This comes out to 437.25. We’ll round this UP to 438.
Then lets subtract the 438 from 795 for the remainder of 357.

(It is not realistic to expect this many to really go to Hillary, but she gets them, for the sake of argument)

Delegate counts with Super Delegates distributed along current trend:

Clinton: 1038 + 438 = 1476
Obama: 1193 + 357 = 1550
Difference: 74 in favor of Obama

There are 18.5 delegates currently unassigned from previous contests. Assume Hillary gets them all (plus a half for easier math).

Clinton: 1476 + 19 = 1495
Obama: 1550
Difference: 55 in favor of Obama


For grins, we’ll take today’s four races and make some wild assumptions that favor Hillary. (rounding in favor of Clinton)

RI 100% Delegates to Clinton, 0% Delegates to Obama
VT 50% Delegates to Clinton, 50% Delegates to Obama
OH 55% Delegates to Clinton, 45% Delegates to Obama
TX 55% Delegates to Clinton, 45% Delegates to Obama

Clinton: 1495 + 21 + 8 + 78 + 106 = 1708
Obama: 1550 + 0 + 7 + 63 + 87 = 1707
Difference: 1 in favor of Clinton

Let’s assume some tidal wave of momentum strikes and she manages to eliminate the double digit Obama leads in WY and MS, and manages to split the 45 combined delegates 46% -54% (rounding in favor of Clinton)

Clinton: 1708 + 21 = 1729
Obama 1707 + 24 = 1731
Difference: 2 in favor of Obama

For the purpose of making the point we’ll skip PA for now and move on to the May contests of Guam, Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, Montana, South Dakota and Puerto Rico. The same huge momentum has magically reduced Obama’s huge lead to only 5% she wins 46% of these delegates as well. (rounded in her favor)

Clinton: 1729 + 188 = 1917
Obama 1731 + 220 = 1951
Difference: 34 in favor of Obama


In a shocking move, John Edwards gives all 26 of his delegates to Clinton.

Clinton: 1917 + 26 = 1943
Obama: 1951

Now lets look at PA….158 delegates. (Note somewhere in my generous rounding, Clinton managed at least 3 delegates out of this air—making for a higher total overall delegate count than exists)

To win 2025, Clinton needs 82 (2025-1943) or just under 52%
To win 2025, Obama needs 74 (2025-1951) or just under 47%

Now… let’s look at some realities:

Clinton will unlikely have a 10% advantage of super-delegates. According to MSNBC, about 50 of her current total are already considered likely switches to Obama.

Clinton will not win 100% of RI.

Clinton will likely not receive 50% of VT delegates.

Clinton will likely not get a 55% majority of TX delegates even in the unlikely event she wins buy huge margins because of the way TX distributes delegates.

Clinton will not likely get 55% of Ohio delegates.

Clinton will likely not close the gap in WY, MS, or delegate rich NC in the manner described.

Edwards delegates will likely not go in a block to Clinton.

Clinton is unlikely to have all 19 unnassigned delegates from previous contests

But finally, the most favorable current polling shows Clinton polling at less than 52% in PA.

The final reality comes down to this. She must win 80 (very conservative estimate) more delegates than Obama today to have a shot at winning the nomination. (And even that scenario is similar the “shot” that the Patriots had in the final drive of the Super Bowl).

[Common Sense Party]

1. "It was my understanding that there would be no math."

/ Chevy Chase as Gerald Ford

[Coexist]

5. ..

:rofl:

[Horse with no Name]

2. It's uh, very nice that you took YOUR time to do "the math"

but at the end of the day, it isn't YOUR call for her to bow out.
It sounds as if we are going to a brokered convention because "the math" ALSO says that obama doesn't have enough to WIN.
And winning is what it is all about, isn't it?

[Alexander]

7. Apparently the OP's math is better than yours.

Because he specifically left PA out, and even still in Clinton's best case scenario, Obama has 1951 delegates of the 2025 needed - without Pennsylvania.

[Gore1FL]

9. When did I ever say it was my call?

I looked over my post again and didn't see that once.

[Stuckinthebush]

15. I checked, too

Nope...you didn't say it was your call.

I'll check again...

:)

[Gore1FL]

10. As far as math saying Obama does not have enough:

There are 26 Edwards delegates out there, and 18.5 unassigned. Hillary has to close the gap between her to the combined total of those (0 to 44.5)for there to be a brokered convention.

[HooptieWagon]

Don't you know

that math makes the hillbot's heads explode? Shame on you!

P.S. Nice job....

[housewolf]

3. Great to have some reality about the race

Thanks for this. It's been nerve-wracking the way the polls have been all over the place the past couple of days. I good does of reality is helpful.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. Math has a well known pro-Obama bias.

Math doesn't count.

[Coexist]

6. as far as I know...

[Barack_America]

12. Math is one of the most sexist fields in science.

Numbers clearly hate women.

If we ever want to get a woman elected as POTUS, we'll have to get rid of them.

I'd love to contact Congress about this, but I can't think of a way to do this without using numbers.

-Call? Definitely not.
-Letter? Nope. The zip alone is off-limits.
-E-mail? This might work, but I'll really have to scrutinize the URL.

[ORDem]

27. I agree. Clearly words like "hypotenuse", "differential", "scalene", "codominant"

... all very sexist. I guess that's why HRC supporters tend to shy away from "hard" numbers. :)

:kick:

[Shine]

8. Waaay too much math for me, but I skimmed to your bottom line and got the point

:D
She's gotta win big if she's gonna win at all.

:hi:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. Here's My Scenario

She wins OH, TX, PN, KY, WV, RI, PN, and PR...


In June she's leading Obama in nat'l polls and polls as well against Grand Pa Pa McCain...She has a loyal Hispanic , working class , female, and older base who will be sorely, sorely disappointed if she doesn't get the nomination and many in those groups have shown no compunction about voting Republican in the past...Nobody knows what to do about Florida and Michigan...

It's anybody's ballgame then...

[Gore1FL]

14. I think mine was more favorable for her, actually.

but OK.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. If She Wins OH And TX She Will Go To The Convention Trailing But Not By Much

If she and her followers are not handled fairly it will be disastrous for the Dems...Ditto for Obama and his followers...

I don't see how the Dems can win in November if approximately half the party feels as if they were screwed...

[Gore1FL]

19. Yeah-- but win them BIG

anything less than blowouts in those two states makes her Huckallree RonPaulm Clinton.

[ORDem]

28. That's rich! Hillary is the one squawking about breaking the rules,

e.g. FL and MI, "automatic delegates", etc., etc.

I wouldn't be counting my SDs until they're hatched buster. There are going to be a lot of them jumping the good ship Hillary later this week before she goes down.

:dem:

[jefferson_dem]

13. Good analysis. Still waiting on someone to tell us how Hillary can feasibly get there from here.

Anyone up for the challenge?

Here's a delegate calculator. ---> http://www.slate.com/features/delegatecounter/

[TlalocW]

16. But what about this scenario?

Hillary has a piggy bank full of quarters, nickels and dimes in the following combinations: 33 coins in all, has a value of $3.30. There are three times as many nickels as quarters, and one-half as many dimes as nickels. How many coins of each kind does she have?

TlalocW

[Gore1FL]

18. 6 Quarters, 18 nickels, 9 dimes

edited because I evidently can't spell nickels right the first time...

[TlalocW]

23. Very good... Now...

Hillary leaves point A traveling at 85 mph...

TlalocW

[ORDem]

29. How about this one instead:

If a chicken and a half can lay an egg and a half in a day and a half, how long does it take a monkey to kick the seeds out of a dill pickle?

This is about the level of math HRC supporters are using.

:dem:

[Zachstar]

20. Thanks for this math post.

It even makes a ton of cuts for Clinton and it still proves the almost impossible amount of net delegates she needs to get today.


I think a factor needs to be thrown in here which is the party leadership not wanting this to continue. Lots of "Hints" have been given and I think we can start to guess that whoever leads the delegate count after todays votes gets the full support and the supers flocking.

[mudesi]

21. Mandatory Clinton supporter response:

THERE IS NO SPOON!

[Jersey Devil]

22. Jonathan Alter came to almost the same conclusion

Hillary's Math Problem

Forget tonight. She could win 16 straight and still lose.
By Jonathan Alter
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 11:23 AM ET Mar 4, 2008

Hillary Clinton may be poised for a big night tonight, with wins in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island. Clinton aides say this will be the beginning of her comeback against Barack Obama. There's only one problem with this analysis: they can't count.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/118240/output/print

[tritsofme]

24. Clinton doesn't need to overtake Obama in pledged delegates.

However she does need to take the lead in the popular vote (including Florida) and plead her case to SDs that she has the most compelling moral claim to the nomination.

[jefferson_dem]

30. Baloney. It's always been a race for delegates.

Hillary's own camp said that after IA. To change the rules now because Hillary is losing the delegate race, and for her or her supporters to divine some "moral claim" based on any other criterion should be seen for what it is. Bullshit.

[tritsofme]

31. Pledged delegates won't put either candidate over the top.

Superdelegates must.

If superdelegates were to to rally behind whoever wins a few more pledged delegates, then what is the point of having them to begin with?

They can look at other criteria as well, and if Hillary is able to pull off a lead in the popular vote count, she may have the most compelling moral claim to the nomination.

[jefferson_dem]

32. The point of the SDs is to look out for the best interests of the party

just in case something goes seriously screwy between allocating PDs and convention time. They are also there to amplify the margin of victory based on the PD count.

If you are suggesting the SDs consider selecting a candidate other than the one rank-in-file voters and caucusers preferred, you best expect a bloodbath (figuratively, of course). Are we or are we not the *democratic* Party?

[Gore1FL]

33. I gave her a higher p[ercentage than she already had in my calculations

Considering the trends, I considered that quite generous.

edited for typo correction

[elixir]

25. Thanks for wasting a perfectly good post on some contrived math problem that we don't get point for.

[Gore1FL]

34. Well, lets break that down...

1> 3 topic posts a day limit. I've posted (counting today) 1 topic post since 2004. I think I am safe on my quotas.

2> The "contived art" is giving Hillary every break and being generous with the future.

3> I don;t don't know what "don't get point for means", but if It means you didn't get the point, here it is.

Hillary has to close the delegate gap by 80 to have a remote realistic chance mathematically.

[erebusman]

26. interesting breakdown

I like how you broke this down; slanting it all towards Hillary makes it harder for hardcore supporters to say you are being unfair to her. I personally think its going to come down to a brokered convention; I just don't see her giving up.


Then again I remember John Edwards in 2004 the night of the election crying out on the news "We will not give up, we will fight for you and get a recount all the way to the courts" (Im paraphrasing that was a long time ago) and the next morning Kerry gave up ... so I felt sure John wouldn't give up for us this time now that he was running his own campaign .. and he did it anyways without telling us why. So what do I know?


peace

[Gore1FL]

35. The problem with a brokered convention happening s math too.

unassigned delegates and Edwards delegates account for 35.5 delgates. In all liklihood, the remaining suoper delegates still uncommitted at the time of the convention is likely to be less than 100. That gives means the point spread will have to be about 135 for a brokered convention to happen. Even taking an unlikely 50-50 in the combines upcoming contests makes that gap pretty hard to hit--unless Hillary closes the gap substantially today.

[Gore1FL]

36. My generous math is haunittng Clinton, it appears.

She is doing much worse than I gave her credit for in likely delegates.

Of course, we knew that going in I was being overly generous.