As a fairly neutral voter, please explain this math to me...

[Grown2Hate]

I've been playing around with this Delegate Counter on CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/29/delegate.counter/index.html), which gives you the current delegate tallies to date, and allows you to assign delegates based on predictions in the final 10 primaries (it also allows you to assign the super delegates). It keeps a running tally so you can figure out how a candidate can get to 2024.

I adjusted Mississippi to reflect tonight's outcome. I gave Hillary Pennsylvania and Oregon by fairly large margins. I gave Hillary a 207 to 143 edge in the remaining Super D's. I split the rest of the states down the middle (even though Obama has been doing better in the red states, and should do well in Indiana). And I STILL have Obama with 2026 delegates.

So I have a couple of questions (and please keep in mind that, YES, I am supporting Obama, but I have NO problem with Hillary being the nominee... I will WHOLEHEARTEDLY vote for either and have posted several threads urging others to do the same, so I really have no dog in this hunt).

#1. How can Hillary win the nomination? Will it HAVE to come down to the Super D's, or is something screwy because Michigan and Florida aren't figured in (and I only ask that because, if I have him at 2026 without those 2 states being in the mix, is it still possible for Hillary to get MORE than that total)?

#2. Sort of a procedural question, actually... does the actual delegate vote take place at the convention? And can pledged delegates (not just the Super D's) change their vote at the convention? In other words, IF Obama has more than 2024 going into the convention without even figuring in FL and MI, why would he (or anyone) be against seating them as-is?

I'm trying to figure this whole thing out (this is really the first primary I've paid attention to where I had to have some idea of what was going on... my first Presidential election was in 04, and Kerry ran away with the nomination pretty much from the get-go).

I appreciate any feedback. Again though, PLEASE no bashing me as an Obamanite or Hillary hater or any other such silly thing. I'm asking honest questions because I don't think I have the full grasp of this whole delegate thing. I'm going to bed now, but I expect a FULL REPORT in the morning! ;) Thank you.

[Dark]

1. Hillary's only hope is to win enough of the popular vote in Penn., as well as Mich. and Fla.,

to convince the SuperD's that she's deserves the nomination. She can't catch up via delegates in the remaining races.

[meow mix]

2. Oregon will be next Obama landslide nt

[GarbagemanLB]

4. At the very LEAST it will be close. No chance of a landslide for Hillary. The Pac NW is Obama countr

y

[XemaSab]

20. I'm guessing 65% for Obama

:thumbsup:

[Cha]

29. I hope so! Portland and Eugene

should come through and I would think by then that the voter turn out will be really heavy in Oregon, too.

[XemaSab]

37. I'm not even talking about Portland and Eugene

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/demmap/index.html

If you click on the states you can see county-level data.

Obama did REALLY, REALLY well in rural eastern Washington, Idaho, and rural northern Nevada. His county wins were a little flaky in NorCal, but without the residual Edwards voters, he would likely have gotten all of "Jefferson."

He also got the entire Northern California coast (except Del Norte, where the only industry is a big and particularly nasty prison), as well as the entire Washington coast.

In summary, I think he's going to take the desert, the coast, and the big liberal cities, and leave Clinton maybe a few suburban areas and farming towns in the central state. :thumbsup:

[Cha]

39. GOregon GObama!

Thanks, Xema!

[XemaSab]

44. You're welcome!

:hi:

[babylonsister]

3. The hell with your questions, where did that name come from?

Ha!

Sen. Clinton I hope will think it over. Or not, and prolong this thing the way the Clintons want to fight it, on their terms, screw the party. :( Possible disaster, but who cares?

[Grown2Hate]

12. You mean my screenname?

It's from an old Marilyn Manson song (from back in 94 I believe, off of POAAF)... "this is your world in which we grow... and we will grow to hate you". So I chose that as a handle for AOL when I was like 16 and I've kept it ever since. Not sure why. haha

[Horse with no Name]

5. Up until now...the only one that was ever obsessed with "the math"

was Karl Rove.

Things that make you go hmmmm....

[Grown2Hate]

8. Well, I wasn't talking about "the math", or any such thing...

so I'm not sure what you even mean by that. I'm compared to Karl Rove for wanting to have a better understanding of how the process works? LoL I suppose that's par for the course in GDP. ;)

Anyhow, my question actually originally stems from the fact that I KEEP HEARING that neither candidate can reach the magic number if we don't count FL and MI, so I really wanted to know if that counter thing on CNN was just plain wrong or not. Thanks for the comparison instead though, I suppose. ;)

(edited so that I said "GDP" instead of "GD-tongue sticking out guy")

[HughMoran]

13. "I'm compared to Karl Rove for wanting to have a better understanding of how the process works?"

Yep, welcome to GD: P - a place where people are allowed to post as wildly emotional children who act like lemmings.

[TheDoorbellRang]

47. The FL and MI delegates aren't included in the current count at all

At this point, neither candidate can reach 2025 with just the pledged delegates, so the super D's will need to weigh in on one side or another to tip the balance.

Since pledged delegates are awarded according to voting results, the argument goes that the super D's should favor the one with the most PD's. There have been several math threads on here showing that Hillary must win the rest of the races by over 20% margins in order to surpass Obama in PD's. The new drumbeat -- since that is hardly feasible -- is that if she wins the popular vote then the super D's should choose her for that reason instead. Now we're working on the math to show how she'd have to perform in the rest of the races to win the popular vote, and depending on the scenario it's anywhere from 5-14 percent better than Obama in the remaining races -- and that was before tonight's blowout in MS. Better odds than the PD race, but still not too likely.

[scheming daemons]

11. Which method should decide the winner? You have to count SOMETHING?

In every measure, Obama is ahead.

Pledged delegates? yep

Total delegates? yep

Popular vote? Yep

Popular vote with FL included? yep

Popular vote with FL & MI included? yep

Delegates won from primary states? yep

Delegates won from primay & caucus states? yep

Number of states won? yep

Number of "blue" states won? yep (14 to 13)



By what measure SHOULD we be keeping score? Since you Clinton fans think there is some OTHER measure besides ...you know... actually WINNING... that we should be considering.

[crispini]

6. Check out

phrigndumass's journal for lots of posts of math.

And, AFAIK, yes, the vote takes place at the convention, and there is nothing to stop a pledged delegate from changing their vote, except for the hell they would catch. :D

Of course, Obama could and indeed probably would seat the delegates from FL and MI at the convention if he were already ahead solidly. Why not? That would be up to the credentials committee.

[BeyondGeography]

7. The Clintons are going to put us all through hell

and they'll still lose.

But, this way, we can be fucked up and divided and they can try again in 2012.

[HughMoran]

10. How does that answer the question?

Do Obama supporters have comprehension problems?

[BeyondGeography]

14. Our problem is we understand all too well

absent 65% sweeps the rest of the way, Hillary can only win if the superdelegates override the will of the voters and conspire to give her the nomination.

Simple enough for you, Moran?

[HughMoran]

16. Another Obama child acting petulant

:crazy:

[Grown2Hate]

19. Settle down, you two!

Don't make me pull this thread over and go back there! ;) Perhaps these will help. :toast:

[HughMoran]

22. Mmmmm, beer.

He started it - nah nah :P

:rofl:

[juajen]

28. I sincerely hope they will do so, since it will bepointed out

that none of the cross-over votes, or very little, will actually be in Obama's column in November, which makes Hillary's wins in the big states very important. Until done away with, we still have the electoral college to deal with, and the super delegates are onto the GOP's tricks. This is why we have super delegates to begin with, so that our elections cannot be manipulated.

[HughMoran]

9. I'll just add that if MI & FL are revoted, the number needed to win will also increase

Someone posted it yesterday - it was soemthing like 2203, but don't you dare quote me as I'm just throwing it out there as I thought it was slightly more than 2200 needed with MI & FL.

[neverforget]

15. Doesn't look like a revote will happen in Florida....

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/house_dems_in_florida_no_redo.php

Moments ago, Democrats representing Florida in Congress released this joint statement, effectively putting the kibosh on a mail-in re-do primary:

"We are committed to working with the DNC, the Florida State Democratic party, our Democratic leaders in Florida, and our two candidates to reach an expedited solution that ensures our 210 delegates are seated. Our House delegation is opposed to a mail-in campaign or any redo of any kind.”

updated for clarity

[Grown2Hate]

17. AH, that could be it!

It would make sense that they lowered the number to a simple majority WITHOUT including FL and MI for the sake of the program, although according to the actual rules I believe that would STILL leave either candidate shy of the REAL magic number (including FL and MI delegates). Perhaps that's what I was missing. Confirmations? Denials? Accusations of Rovism? ;)

[HughMoran]

21. Still a simple majority - just of a larger number (including supers)

You can look up the numbers from MI & FL and probably figure it out easy enough I think.

[Yossariant]

18. I can explain it easily. You're adding numbers that aren't there.

All of the superdelegates will not endorse before the convention and even those who have endorsed are not pledged to either candidate -- until they actually vote at the convention.

Long past time for the Obamatoons to stop with the tortured math arguments.

They are all ridiculous.

DA ROOLZ IS DA ROOLZ.

Except when the Obamatoons want to ignore them, of course. :evilgrin:

[Grown2Hate]

23. Well, mine wasn't so much a math ARGUMENT as it was

a math QUESTION. So it's clearly still POSSIBLE, it's just that Clinton will have to take a vast majority of the Super D's with her. I think I got that now.

[Yossariant]

34. Neither candidate can win without superdelegates.

Obama has pledged delegates from caucuses in red states that the Democrats have no chance of winning in the general election.

How much do you want to "question" the math? :evilgrin:

If you look at an electoral map, he cannot win the general election unless he can win Ohio --- and he can't win Ohio.

Ergo, he can't win the general.

If the superdelegates are dumb enough to nominate him, welcome to President McCain.

[XemaSab]

27. I don't think it's the Obama supporters who are making tortured math arguments

I dare you to play with the delegate counter and tell me how Hillary isn't going to walk into the convention with 100+ fewer delegates.

http://www.forbes.com/2008/02/27/obama-clinton-election-oped-cx_jb_0227delegates.html

[Yossariant]

33. The RULE is 2025 delegates -- not who has the most delegates.

I don't know why this RULE is so incompehensible to Obama fans.

It's the same kind of RULE that disallows FL and MI.

You seem able to grasp one RULE, but remain or pretend to remain entirely clueless about the other RULE.

Hard to fathom. :evilgrin:

[XemaSab]

41. I am perfectly aware of both rules

I am also perfectly aware that if Obama and Hillary split EVERY remaining state 50/50, Obama will need 40% of the superdelegates and Hillary will need 78%.

Even if you only give Obama 40% in every state from here on out, he needs 56% of the superdelegates, but she also still needs 60% of the SD's.

And one thing I PROMISE you: Obama's got some BIG wins in his future. They may be big wins in little states, but they will be BIG. :D

So how is Hillary going to convince 60% or more of the superdelegates that she's the right candidate?

[Yossariant]

43. See #34 which you musta responded to without reading.

[XemaSab]

46. I read post 34?

News to me.

[anigbrowl]

45. In other words, Hillary can win if enough delegates switch to her...

...despite a complete lack of any evidence that they're likely to do so. You're just hoping to damage Obama enough that they'll break for Hillary because Obama is fatally wounded. That's the Clinton strategy!

[Emit]

24. According to this talking head on MSNBC, Chuck Todd

To be able to catch up with Obama in the pledged delegate count, she would have to win 64% of all remaining delegates -- that means winning big in every remaining state. If she loses in any, that threshold goes up, likely into the 70% area.

If all super delegates and delegates he's got now stay with Obama, he needs only 46% of the remaining super delegates and delegates to win.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23582550#23582550

As to your #2 , I am not certain. It is reasonable to assume that the delegates will have been narrowed down through various state processes (county and state conventions) where delegates will change from their original position (Edwards' delegates had to go somewhere, for example), and, at the clip above, Todd said in CA, late votes have netted Obama 4 additional delegates, and provisional ballots are still being counted in Ohio, which could net Obama a couple more delegates.

But, I would suspect that going into the National Convention, these delegates will have been shaken down to either Obama or Clinton. What happens at the convention, however, is a mystery to me.

[Grown2Hate]

25. Ok, I'm crashing out now.

Thank you for the informative responses (as well as the spirited ones, which always make for high entertainment). Good night and farewell.

[HughMoran]

30. Good night

...and it HUGH!11!1! entertainment :D

[quakerboy]

26. Why would you give Oregon to Hillary?

I don't live in Clinton country.

[Cha]

32. That's what I was wondering..

Oregon's got a lot of "latte sippers" who wouldn't be swayed by racist attacks from geraldine or hilary.

[XemaSab]

35. Of the 22 counties in 4 states bordering Oregon

2 went to Clinton: Modoc and Del Norte in California.

Del Norte: 40/48/9 O/C/E
Modoc: 40/45/12 O/C/E

Of the counties that Obama won these are the winning percents:

Siskiyou: 48/39/9

Washoe: 50/41/9
Humboldt: 51/34/13

Owyhee: 78/19
Canyon: 76/21
Payette: 73/26
Washington: 58/36
Adams: 74/26
Idaho: 72/26
Nez Perce: 71/24

Asotin: 60/36
Garfield: 100 :woohoo:
Columbia: 94/6
Walla Walla: 72/28
Benton: 60/38
Klickitat: 67/32
Skamania: 70/30
Clark: 66/34
Cowlitz: 59/40
Wahkiakum: 63/37
Pacific: 57/43

I'm guessing Oregon is more like Idaho and Washington than like California, and she's going to get CREAMED. :D

[quakerboy]

40. My oregon prediction

Skamania: 70/30
Clark: 66/34
Cowlitz: 59/40

Those are probably the best to compare for the big cities. Obama, as usual, should do well in Portland and surrounding. AS to the rest... Oregon is a lot like Washington, more even than Idaho or California. If it were today, I would say 52/46 for Obama, but as is, I think he will do better as time passes, especially when he comes here to actively campaign, as he seems to do better everywhere he goes. We are a lot like Washington, and our will be a primary not a caucus. But we have vote by mail, so I think he will do a little better than WA where people knew the primary was irrelevant.

[XemaSab]

42. Posted upthread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5033598&mesg_id=5034602

Yeah, he'll take the big cities, but I think he's got the hinterlands locked down too.

[Grown2Hate]

48. Well, I was just giving her leads in the blue states...

for the sake of argument. EVEN SO, she didn't reach the threshold. Perhaps she will with the Super D's? :shrug:

Either way I'm working my ASS OFF for the nominee (although it might be moot, since I live in Arizona :sighs: ). I just hope the eventual result SOMEHOW unites the party (be it through a universally popular VP pick, "Dream ticket", etc.). Or else we're screwed already.

[happymisery]

31. It's ok to be an Obama supporter

No need to hide it.

[On the Road]

36. When Reagan Narrowly Lost the Nomination to Ford in 1976

he ended up pulling every string possible to break off delegates and get them to defect. Claiming he already had the 1,040(?) delegates required at the time to try to change perceptions. Offering patronage or other inducements to undecided delegates of those willing to deal. Naming Schweiker as his VP choice to attract voters from Pennsylvania.

Hunter Thompson has darker stories about delegate defections in Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail: 1972. Entrapment, corruption, extortion. They were probably the result of Thompson's fevered imagination, but who knows what goes on? (And based on your original post, I cannot recommend that book strongly enough, especially right now during a hard-fought primary season.)

One of the stories Thomspon tells is about an effort by Humphrey to steal the nomination on the convention floor by contesting the California delegation. How that was possible, and how it was thwarted, shows how much parlimentary procedure is still involved in the nomination. (I've neen meaning meaning to start a thread on the incident, but found I don't have the memory or understanding to do it justice.)

As long as there are delegates not legally bound to their candidate, and as long as there is the possibility of perceptions changing, who knows what could happen? If Obama had a Spitzer-like scandal the week before the convention, all bets are off.

[BzaDem]

38. Hill gets huge increase in popular vote from PA, FL+MI revotes

and then convinces the super-delegates that she is more electable.

And it won't be that hard to convince them of that. He will definately lose Florida, probably lose PA, and could lose OH. We absolutely need 2 of those 3 states to win the election. He is probably going to lose 2 of them, and could actually lose 3. Hillary will definately win PA, probably win OH, and probably will win FL.