THE LATEST MATH... (now includes Mich and Fla!)

[kay1864]

1. Based on the CQPolitics article http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20080529/pl_cq_politics/politics2884993_1 if Fla and Mich are seated (probably at half a vote per delegate), with the proposed Michigan "compromise" plan, we get:

Obama___Clinton
__80*____105____Fla
__59______69____Mich

(sorry for the underscores--only way I know to line up numbers in a DU post :P)

*Assumes Edwards' delegates are counted for Obama, due to Edwards' endorsement

2. Using CNN's delegate calculator http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/29/delegate.counter/index.html, with Puerto Rico 60% Clinton, and Montana and South Dakota each 56% Obama, we get:

Obama___Clinton
_2018____1826

3. Adding totals from above:
_2157____2000

4. BUT with Mich and Fla included, the delegate totals have now changed, so now it takes 2210 to win, not 2026. So superdelegates needed are now:
___53_____210


Feel free to check my math :hi:

[Waya]

1. Since the Delegates from Michigan and Florida will most likely not be ...

seated fully - more like half actually, it wouldn't take 2210 to win. I think Chucky T. had it more around 2137 or close to that.

[kay1864]

2. I thought that too at first...

but seating them fully, but at half a vote each, is the most likely scenario according to CQPolitics. In fact that's how I ran the math the first time (half the delegate count for Fla and Mich), and got the following:

Obama___Clinton
__40*____52.5___Fla
__29.5____34.5___Mich

2. CNN # still the same:
Obama___Clinton
_2018____1826

3. Adding totals from above:
_2087.5__1913

4. Using the number you gave, we get:

__49.5____224

But Yahoo News said the new delegate goal would be 2210. Maybe that's based on full seating, full votes? Dunno.

Thanks! :hi:

[Waya]

3. I understand what you're saying......

....but DNC lawyers have already chimed in saying that the DNC cannot seat more than half the Delegates out of Michigan and Florida.....

Yes, 2210 is based on full number of Delegates and full vote. That's why it will be a lower number needed - seating only half the Delegates but with a full vote does not equal seating the full Delegation but with only a half-vote, surprisingly enough.

[kay1864]

5. That was my assumption as well

One yields a goal of 2210 and the other 2137.

Problems I see with each:
1. Seating only half the Delegates but with a full vote: Half the Fla and Mich people don't go to the convention, and who decides who goes and who doesn't?

2. Seating the full Delegation but with only a half-vote: Means a goal of 2200, but how do you get that with 386 people having only half a vote?

Or maybe the goal is 2137 in either case, and the AP's number of 2210 is based on full-seating, full vote?

So if it's 2137 either way, how are the two scenarios not equal? (answered below by madfloridian)


Hopefully the CNN magic-map guy will clear it all up Saturday night :P

[Phx_Dem]

10. Yeah,

I heard Chuck say that as well although I'm not 100% sure what the final number would be, he said it DEFINITELY would not be 2210. Thank God for Chuck Todd and John King because math is not my friend. :dunce:


(Mrs Phx_Dem)

[RoadRage]

4. I was never very good at Math.. so please clarify.. this means OBAMA STILL WINS?!

Right? Correct? That seems to be what the Math is saying?

Ohh.. i get it.. the Super Delegates are like the "X" in Algebra.. they can be any number they want to be. But the "X" has to be a lot higher for Clinton (still) then for Obama. And they would still be over rulling the voters and regular delegats if they swung to Clinton. Which would spell disaster for the party as a whole.

Math or no Math.. i think Obama wins.

[madfloridian]

6. Hold on.

"Democratic National Committee lawyers wrote in a memo that the two states must forfeit at least half of their delegates as punishment for holding primaries earlier than DNC rules allowed. Clinton (N.Y.) prevailed in both contests, although the Democratic candidates had agreed not to campaign in Florida and Michigan, and Sen. Barack Obama removed his name from the Michigan ballot. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/28/AR2008052803093.html?hpid=topnews


From First Read MSNBC
*** The circus comes to town: Speaking of drama, Saturday's DNC rules committee hearing is promising to be a potential circus, as Clinton supporters appear to be preparing for fairly loud protests -- something the Obama campaign is reminding reporters that they could do but are choosing not to. The Clinton campaign is denying fanning the protest front, but they aren't discouraging the demonstrations either. And then there are the conspiracy theories popping up in the left blogosphere that Republicans will be secretly showing up Saturday in order to cause chaos and make the party look ridiculous on national TV. As for the actual meeting itself, there's one more angle you ought to be aware of: a 50% cut and a halving of the delegates is not the same thing. For instance, if Florida delegates are seated in their entirety, but only have their vote counted as a .5, then Clinton will net approximately 19 delegates out of the state. But if the delegation is cut in half, that's done in every congressional district as well as statewide, then suddenly Clinton's advantage is only a net of six. That's right, the complicated nature of the DNC delegate selection process will be a good reminder to math majors everywhere that a 50% cut is not the same as a halving of an individual number. Go figure..."

What a difference.

[kay1864]

7. There you go, bringing facts into it again...

:P

So my OP numbers are wrong, but is my post #2 wrong too?


Where's that magic-map guy...

[kay1864]

8. So if the delegation is in fact cut in half....

who decides who goes (from each district) and who doesn't?

[mohc]

9. Do you know where the district allocation formulas are for FL?

A 50% reduction in the number of delegates in FL will result in 12 PLEO, 20 At-large, and 61 district delegates. PLEO and At-large are easy enough to deal with, but I can not seem to find the district allocation charts for FL. Most states include this as an appendix to their Delegate Selection Plan, but the only source I could find (http://fladems.3cdn.net/1b1344af23e986906b_mum6ibj39.pdf">http://fladems.3cdn.net/1b1344af23e986906b_mum6ibj39.pdf) does not seem to include it. Without knowing the actual allocation factors I would not know which districts with odd numbers would be rounded down or up (a district with 5 delegates could go to either 2 or 3 depending on the actual allocation factors). Someone must have this in order to produce their estimation of a 6 delegate net for Clinton.