If Sen. Clinton wins Pennsylvania by 70%, here's the numbers

[phrigndumass]

There are 158 pledged delegates in Pennsylvania. Winning 70% would require Senator Clinton to pick up 111 of those delegates to Senator Obama's 47.

If she does this, Senator Clinton would still need to win by an average margin of 60.6% in all the remaining contests.

If new elections are held in both Michigan and Florida, Senator Clinton would still need to win by an average margin of 56.4% in all the remaining contests including Florida and Michigan.

Only if Michigan and Florida are BOTH seated as is, from the January elections, AND Senator Clinton takes Pennsylvania with 70%, would she catch up to Senator Obama.

That's a tall order, considering everything.

More detailed info in my Journal or at: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4984865

[Snarkoleptic]

1. Here's a website that wraps it all up for those who'd like to run a 'what if".

http://www.slate.com/features/delegatecounter/

[phrigndumass]

19. Thanks!

There must be dozens of these sites. This is a very good one!

[phrigndumass]

23. OP should read WITH 70%

not "by" 70%. Thanks to joeybee12 for pointing that out. I wanted to post this reply higher in the chain so people will see it easier.

[Uben]

2. Instead of counting Clinton's delegates.....

....you should be counting Obama's. He needs 2025 to win. Anything short of that goes to a brokered convention. How many does he need to win, and how many are left?

[StevieM]

4. Actually he needs more then that. Florida and Michigan should not be disenfranchised

by this incredibly selfish man.

[GrantDem]

8. What selfish man in MI & FL broke the rules and moved their primaries?

:shrug:

[PseudoIntellect]

16. Obama didn't disenfranchise those states. The state officials did.

It's Hillary who wants to break the rules. Do you honestly believe that if Obama had won those uncontested elections, she would give a crap about them?

[wileedog]

34. I love the new theme today

that somehow FL and MI not voting is Obama's fault.

You guys get that in your daily "Monster Notes" this morning?

[thoughtcrime1984]

35. Obama disenfranchised MI/FLA???

That's rich! Talk to Crist, Granholm, Nelson, etc. etc. about who made this into a situation. Hillary is the very defintion of selfish. She'll blow up the party just to have a small chance of being the nom.

[Arkana]

39. Yes, because Obama is SINGULARLY

holding FL and MI back from re-voting!

:eyes:

[StevieM]

40. Actually, that's right. He is standing in the way (eom)

x

[snappyturtle]

6. I think the point is that Sen. Obama will be closer to the magic

number than Sen.Clinton. If he's ahead in popular vote and pledged delegates my bet is on Sen.Obama to win in a brokered convention! Hopefully, Sen.Clinton will muster enough grace to bow out. :woohoo:

Of course, I can't factor in to what extent Sen.Clinton will go to, to win.

[krawhitham]

9. somebody will have 2025 with the SD

PERIOD

[grantcart]

11. He needs 451.5 Clinton needs 554.5

[wileedog]

32. Strawman

Neither candidate can get 2025. Please find a new spin, this one has gotten beyond annoying.

[StevieM]

3. But you're lying when you act like the pledged delegates decide the race, remember?

Winning the pledged delegate count does not mean you have won the popular vote or the electoral college map. Those are the two factors that should decide this race. If one candidate fails to win either standard and becomes the nominee then he will have stolen the election. But I suspect that Barack is OK with that.

[Cha]

7. I suspect it is you and hilary

who are the liars. I know hilary is fucking liar so her supporters must be down with that.

[apocalypsehow]

14. Exactly right - your post is spot-on.

:thumbsup:

[StevieM]

36. Then if Obama steals the election I'm sure you will be happy to win without my vote

I promise you....you won't get it.

Steve

[thoughtcrime1984]

37. Stuff happens

If Hil wins by convoluted means- and that's her only hope now- many won't vote for her that are Obama supporters. I'd have to grit my teeth really hard to mark the ballot for her, myself.

[GrantDem]

13. There is no electoral college in the primary...

That would be in the general election.

[phrigndumass]

15. The general presumption is ...

... whichever candidate leads with pledged delegates after the state contests, a majority of the superdelegates (over 50%) will vote for that candidate at the convention.

Neither candidate can win with pledged candidates alone.

To win the nomination, one candidate will need at least 2,024.5 delegates. That's the only factor in the DNC rules that will decide this race. To suggest anything else would be "changing the rules", and in the Democratic National Committee's own press release a few days ago, on March 5:

"The Democratic Nominee will be determined in accordance with party rules, and out of respect for the presidential campaigns and the states that did not violate party rules, we are not going to change the rules in the middle of the game.”
Source: http://www.democrats.org/a/2008/03/dean_statement_45.php

These are the rules, and you are lying to yourself if you think the popular vote or electoral college map has any weight on the decision of this race.

[AGirl]

24. but "the general persumption" is not the party rules.

[phrigndumass]

25. You misread ...

The general presumption was about the majority of superdelegates following the majority of pledged delegates.

The party rules were that ONLY the majority of overall delegates will decide the nominee. This includes none of the following: Popular vote, electoral vote possibilities, big states vs. small states, hanging chads, or the size of the candidate's left nostril while mudslinging.

[AGirl]

28. But what's stopping the majority of superdelegates to use popular vote

electoral vote possibilities, big states vs. small states to decide who the nominee is? Since both candidates need the support of the superdelegates, its possible that they could still give a win to Hillary.

[PseudoIntellect]

17. Did you seriously just mention an electoral college map?

Because Barack vs Hillary = Barack vs McCain, right? Wrong. It's not like BHO's loss in CA means that he can't defeat McCain there. We in CA are experiencing the worst economic conditions in a while. I doubt we will go Republican in the fall.

[SKKY]

5. She needs to win ALL the remaining primaries by that margine...

...IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.

[XemaSab]

10. You've also got to look at the fact that she got

70% in Arkansas
58% in Rhode Island
57% in New York
56% in Massachusetts
55% in Oklahoma

Her other 9 victories were by under 55%, and 2 of those were by under 50%.

Getting massive percentages in the rest of the states is looking pretty unlikely.

[redstate_democrat]

12. These Hillbots

are funny to watch. They continuously try to change the rules from day to day. First it was "states that matter", "big states", then "super delegates", "popular vote", and then "MI and Fl", and since they've figured out that MI and Fl won't really change anything, it is now "electoral college map". Where is "electoral college map" located in the DNC rules and bylaws? :rofl: These people are TRULY sad and pathetic. The world laughs at you behind your back. I bet Obama is looking better and better each day to people as they become aware of the insanity of Hillary's campaign. What makes people REALLY think that Obama won't CARRY California and New York in November? Democrats win those states by 2 million votes in Presidential elections. GIVE ME A BREAK. They are automatic. We should bow at Hillary's feet because she accomplished the huge feat of carrying her OWN FRIGGIN state? Puhleese. Democrats also need Illinois, which Obama carried by a 70% margin. So if I use the same idiotic logic Hillary's people are using, does that mean we need Obama in order to carry the very important state of Illinois? No. ANY DEMOCRAT WILL CARRY THAT STATE.

IDIOTS.

[phrigndumass]

18. bump

:popcorn:

[joeybee12]

20. Don't you mean WITH 70%? BY 70% would be 85%-15%!!! n/t

[phrigndumass]

22. Oops, my bad

You're right, it should be "with" 70%, not "by" 70%.

But even then, I'm not sure it would make a whole lot of difference.

:popcorn:

[joeybee12]

26. In numbers, no, but in the media storyline, yes...

...remember politics is not an exact science!

[LisaL]

21. One wonders why Obama still campaigns.

After all, according to Obamaites, he got it in the bag.

[boppers]

29. Obama's campiagn ends in November.

He may have the primary in the bag, but every vote he can get for the GE is something he's working on now.

[hell-bent]

27. I think you fail

to consider what the SDs will do after they carefully look at the demographics from the big, industrialized,blue states that Clinton has won. That's what they were originally designed to do when there is no candidate that has reached the magic number.

[Milo_Bloom]

30. Luckily, super delegates are not sheep.

So far they have broken 53/47.

IN the scenario I ran, via slate, which is very Clinton friendly (16 point victory in PA, losing MS by 12, only losing by 4 in NC, losing by slim margins in Oregon and Montana and winning all the rest by 6 points or more (including a 10 point victory in Indiana)). Obama ends up with 1687 and Clinton with 1524.

Obama currently has 210 Super Delegates and Clinton 245 with 340 left to go (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html#upcomingstates)


THis gives Obama 1897 and Clinton 1769.

This would mean that Clinton would have to win 256 of the remaining 340 Super Delegates...75% of them... Obama needs just 37%.


Even if Clinton out preforms the predictions, (most likely she will under preform), but even if she out preforms, she will still need nearly 70% of the remaining super delegates. Just ain't gonna happen.

[karynnj]

31. If HRC wins PA by 70% !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When she is now polling 6% ahead? How many states has she won with 70% of the vote?

[Medusa]

33. When pigs fly

:rofl:

[THUNDER HANDS]

38. the only way she can win is if she wins every state from here on in 60-40

and wins Puerto Rico 86-14