Here's the math, after Texas and Ohio

[phrigndumass]

Just sharing information, not endorsing one candidate or the other ... Here's what it will take for Hillary Clinton to catch up with Barack Obama in pledged delegates. These figures don't include superdelegates.

After Texas and Ohio, there are 630 pledged delegates remaining. This figure includes some pledged delegates from Texas and Colorado that haven't been awarded yet.

SCENARIO 1: Florida and Michigan's delegates are NOT seated, no re-do's in FL or MI:
Not including Florida and Michigan, Obama has 152 more pledged delegates than Clinton. With 630 pledged delegates remaining, for Clinton to catch up to Obama, she will need to win at least 391 of the remaining 630 pledged delegates. That's a 62% to 38% win on average in every remaining contest.

SCENARIO 2: Florida and Michigan's delegates from January are seated, no re-do's in FL or MI:
If Florida and Michigan's totals from January are included, Obama's pledged delegate lead would drop from Plus 152 to Plus 94. There would still be 630 pledged delegates remaining. For Clinton to catch up to Obama in this scenario, Clinton will need to win at least 362 of the remaining 630 pledged delegates. That's a 57.5% to 42.5% average win in every remaining contest.

SCENARIO 3: Florida and Michigan both hold do-overs:
If Florida and Michigan both hold new elections to replace the January contests, there would be 943 pledged delegates remaining (including Florida and Michigan). Obama would currently be Plus 152 in this scenario. For Clinton to catch up to Obama, she will need to win at least 547 of the remaining 943 pledged delegates. That's a 58% to 42% average win in every remaining contest, including Florida and Michigan.

Pick your favorite scenario, enjoy the popcorn, and watch the results come in.

:popcorn:

- Phrig

[CreekDog]

1. This is all wrong, you are all over the map

Counting states that don't count and not counting states that do.

:evilgrin:

[phrigndumass]

4. Would that be like a known-unknown or an unknown-known?

:crazy: :hi:

[CreekDog]

9. Don't make me play that game

Tell me who won and I'll THEN I'll answer your question.

:evilgrin:

[phrigndumass]

26. The winner is unknown

but we know that we don't know.

However, some say we do know, it's just that others don't know.

You know?

No?

:popcorn:

[lapfog_1]

2. Ha!

Do overs versus no do over (and the delegates are seated as is)... about the same hill to climb for her.

That's funny.

[JackORoses]

3. Excellent summation. Show's over, tell Hillary to turn out the lights.

[Colobo]

5. I don't know what the hell she's waiting for.

[Jersey Ginny]

19. She's getting ready for 2012. She'd go so far as to be McCaine's VP IMO

Sadly (I want to like her, really) she has shown how she is all about herself and a relentless quest to get back to the white house. Randi Rhodes is right, she's now calculated that she's lost and could get in office in 4 years if McCain becomes president.

[CountAllVotes]

7. you are right

the show is over and she refuses to admit it and continues to throw out a bunch of trash with her departure which if she had any real class at all, she would step down like Mike Huckabee (who I have MORE RESPECT FOR THAN HC at this point I might add!!).

Now is the time to move on to the real task at hand! That enormous task is to rebuild and take America back!!!

POWER TO THE PEOPLE!! :patriot:

:kick:

[sabbat hunter]

6. scenario 2 will not happen

they broke the rules, ones that they agreed to abide by (in florida legislature the vote was unanimous despite their knowing they would get punished. they were warned several times)

only good scenario is 3

[movonne]

10. That leave two....I hope not to be watching another Lieberman, Lamont

steal...

[phrigndumass]

12. I don't see Scenario 2 happening either

... but the first scenario is still on the table unless new elections are called in FL and MI.

Given all the possibilities, Hillary Clinton will still need at least 57.5% of the remaining pledged delegates to catch up.

So that's her magic number at this point: 57.5%

:hi:

[Warren DeMontague]

15. How could any sane person suggest seating the MI delegates when HRC was the only name on the ballot?

I mean, I understand that her early campaign was predicated on the idea that the nomination was hers by some inevitability mandate, but c'mon.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

8. 57.5%

THE Number.


Matheliscious.

[lojasmo]

11. She wants to burn down Denver.

Frick!

[scheming daemons]

13. That assumes that she doesn't somehow convince ALL of the remaining SDs to move to her.....

Extremely unlikely, since we have seen SDs trickling to Obama every day... but not one the other way.

[phrigndumass]

18. The math doesn't include superdelegates ...

... just the pledged delegates from the state contests.

By "catching up" I meant erasing Obama's lead in pledged delegates only.

:hi:

[RoadRage]

14. Wait.. what happens in your scenario when he wins

Mississipi & Wyoming this week? Then what happens? :)

[phrigndumass]

27. I heard a rumor ...

All the superdelegates from Mississippi and Wyoming are moving to Florida and Michigan anyway, thus making them ineligible. But at the same time, there's a bunch of 'em moving out of Florida and Michigan. Their votes will count, unless they decide to move back, in which case their votes wouldn't count after counting at one time and after not counting the time before.

Why can't they all stay put? Don't they know it's an election year? Sheesh!

:popcorn:

[The Stranger]

16. Finished with Hillary. We need to move on with Obama as our nominee.

[grantcart]

17. Since you don't source your numbers sometimes its hard to compare

numbers.

1)Wikipedia shows that there are only 611 pledged delegates left.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29_presidential_primaries%2C_2008

2) The other reality is that Obama has almost wiped out Clinton's lead in superdelegates. Every day she has to get more pledged delegates to catch up.



3) But the biggest problem with the numbers that you show is that delegates are not distributed by states but by congressional districts, and in some cases a few state wide seats.


Why is this important. Because if a congressional district has only 2 delegates it doesn't matter what percent you have it is going to split 1-1. If it is a 4 delegate district you have to get 65% to get the 3-1 split.

For a 3 delegate district its always going to split 2-1 whether you get 51% or 70%.


So to pick up net delegates you really have to take the big districts (with 5,6,7 - these tend to be urban districts with high AA population) by 67% or more to start getting favorable splits - like 4-2.

This is why pundits will be saying things like she needs 65% or more to pick up delegates. Its not because, as you have so carefully and correctly point out, that she is down by that percentage, but you cannot pick up any real numbers if you do no get 65% in the right districts.

This is why even when Hillary wins elections like last Tuesday she gained only 8 delegates. This is why it is impossible for HRC to catch up with pledged delegates.


Sen Schumer, HRC supporter, agrees with this saying

http://www.observer.com/2008/schumer-avoiding-self-destructive-end-clinton-vs-obama

Schumer also suggested that the current system of awarding pledged delegates is flawed. "The delegate counts are so close, and you can win a state by quite a lot and you still don't win the delegates by quite a lot,” he said. "Maybe that's a flawed system. But that will be for the next election, not this one.

"I think if you win a district 55 to 45," he said. "The delegates shouldn't be three to three. Yes, I think proportional representation makes some sense but they sort of overdid it."


Thank you for your post

[phrigndumass]

21. Thanks for pointing that out ...

I was using the same wikipedia source you referred to.

From that same wikipedia source, there are two states which have held primaries but have uncounted pledged delegates, however. There are 10 pledged delegates remaining in Texas and 9 pledged delegates remaining in Colorado, at the time of the OP.

611 + 10 + 9 = 630

Also, figures in OP do not include superdelegates.

I should have been clearer about this.

[Nine]

20. You can say you're not endorsing one candidate over another...

...but when you omit the superdelegates you are being intellectually dishonest in order to create a false impression that favors Obama. Of course Obama wants to pretend the superdelegates don't count. But they do count. Sorry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegates

[phrigndumass]

22. I'm sure BOTH candidates want the superdelegates to count ...

That's the only way either one of them can win the nomination.

Does anyone else think either of the candidates wants to pretend the superdelegates don't count? Sounds bizarre to me.

Whatever you're smokin', I want some!

:smoke:

[Bill McBlueState]

23. You're missing the point

The OP's claim is that -- whatever the superdelegates do -- the course taken regarding FL and MI will not have a big impact on the result.

[phrigndumass]

24. Thank you!

That's it exactly.

:hi:

[Bill McBlueState]

25. This is really helpful

It's clear from this analysis that no solution to the Florida/Michigan problem will drastically affect the outcome. The key is that any two states -- even if they're heavily populated -- have a fairly minor impact on the total delegate count.

In light of this, one might suggest to Obama's campaign that they should drop their opposition to seating the current delegates.

It's going to come down to the superdelegates in any scenario.