Inside Delegate Math: The Numbers

60% in Pennsylvania seems awfully optimistic.

Posted by Jack | February 29, 2008 4:35 PM

That's an extremely rosy situation. There's just no way she wins PA by that much. He's gaining on her in the polls, and he hasn't even set foot here.

She must believe in miracles, 'cause the math is counting her out. (And by miracles, I mean backroom deals.)

Posted by Margie | February 29, 2008 4:35 PM

Interesting, and with the SD difference below 50, she would need at least 60% of the remaining SD's to stand a chance.

And of course, this is being extremely generous as PA is now showing only a 4% advantage for Clinton and you are really giving her the benefit of the doubt in TX and NC, MS, MT, WY, SD, VT and IN.

Posted by john | February 29, 2008 4:36 PM

Marc,
520-461 is just 59, not 80. That's just about 40% of his pledged delegate lead, not 60%.
-Jesse

Posted by Jesse | February 29, 2008 4:36 PM

She will likely lose Texas.

She isn't going to win Pennsylvania by 20% - maybe 5 to 10% if she is lucky.

There is no way she is going to win Puerto Rico by 60%.

There is a good chance Obama will score more than 60% in many of his victories.

Give it a rest. It is time for Team Clinton to go away.

Posted by Phil | February 29, 2008 4:39 PM

I think it is amusing that people think the pledged delegate count matters. Neither candidate can reach the magic winning number without getting the automatic delegates.

As Marc notes, Hillary is all but assured to net 33 delegates in Puerto Rico - a huge win that will fully swing the momentum in her favor before the convention. Basically all Hillary needs to do is survive the next 3 months. A few single digit wins in the most important states such as Ohio and Penn will help give her a reason to stay in the race, and then Puerto Rico will seal the deal.

Remember, this has nothing to do with pledged delegate numbers, or popular vote, or fundraising. It's all perception - not of you or me - perception in the eyes of the automatic delegates. Puerto Rico will tell all.

The automatic delegates know this.

Posted by Fred Agbot | February 29, 2008 4:43 PM

Also

- Obama could sweep Guam the way he did Hawaii and the US Virgin Islands
- Obama will likely win NC by more than a measly 7%. More likely 20 - 30% (I live here - there is definite support for Obama and the Research Triangle is highly educated. Plus, there are a fair number of black people here).

In short, your math is bogus.

Posted by Phil | February 29, 2008 4:46 PM

Overall, I think the problem with doing this sort of projection is that it ignores the importance of momentum. There are really two ways this could play out:

1. Personally, I think Obama will win Texas on Tuesday, at least split the delegates on March 4th, and with big wins in Wyoming and Mississippi maintain his February momentum. Which would mean that Clinton might not win ANY more states past 3/4, and he'll get the vast majority of remaining delegates (pledged and super).

2. Alternatively, if Clinton were to win Ohio and Texas by clear popular vote margins, even if her delegate gain were minimal due to the TX allocation system, she might pick up the sort of momentum which would allow her to not only approach 60% in PA, but also maybe win places like NC, IN and OR later on. In which case she could possibly make up most of her 150 delegate deficit, and force a compromise of some sort.

I just don't see the status quo - Obama leading by every measure AND Clinton insisting that the contest is still up in the air - to last much past Tuesday. Something's gotta give.

Posted by Jesse | February 29, 2008 4:47 PM

Right....so the super-delegates will massively swing to Clinton because she wins Puerto Rico? Why the hell does Puerto Rico matter so much, when nothing else has mattered to this point?

Posted by ?? | February 29, 2008 4:49 PM

Marc,

You say Obama will be closer to the victory.

Give me a break. This is the biggest fairy tale I have heard.

You do not want to roll the dice.

Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in 1984 and 1988. He was not close to the victory.

Give me a break. This is the biggest fairy tale I have heard.

Posted by eorse | February 29, 2008 4:49 PM

Marc,

You say Obama will be closer to the victory.

Give me a break. This is the biggest fairy tale I have heard.

You do not want to roll the dice.

Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in 1984 and 1988. He was not close to the victory.

Give me a break. This is the biggest fairy tale I have heard.

Posted by eorse | February 29, 2008 4:49 PM

Fred - Puerto Rico is not winner take all.

The Clinton supporters would love you to believe that, but it is a lie. Go and do some research.

Secondly, they are "superdelegates" not automatic delegates, no matter what the Clinton campaign attempts to rename them.

I think it is amusing that people like you think the pledged delegate count doesn't matter. Obama picked up another 4 superdelegates today. Someone must think it makes a difference.

Posted by Phil | February 29, 2008 4:50 PM

To put my previous comment a different, shorter way:

There's no way Clinton wins PA by 20%
AND
Obama sweeps the following 3 contests by 6% each.

One of these things is not like the others.

Posted by Jesse | February 29, 2008 4:51 PM

Jesse, good analysis. I think the one question mark is whether and how Hillary benefits from a merely "not terrible" 3/4 being spun as an amazing victory thanks to the absurdly low expectations she's been able to set.

Fred Agbot, terrible analysis. I honestly can't tell if you believe this shit or if you're just an impressively dedicated troll. Don't you have work or school or something else to be doing with your time?

Posted by Jeff Larson | February 29, 2008 4:54 PM

Phil,

The Clinton campaign has not renamed anything. Please do some research and realize they are automatic delegates. For example, the official DNC rules in Texas calls them automatic delegates:

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/02/23/i-superdelegate-in-defense-of-texas-superdelegates.aspx

As for Puerto Rico not being take-all, if you read my post more carefully - it technically is. To paraphrase a great quote "How Puerto Rico goes, So goes the Primary".

Automatic delegates know this.

Posted by Fred Agbot | February 29, 2008 5:05 PM

Jesse, good analysis. I think the one question mark is whether and how Hillary benefits from a merely "not terrible" 3/4 being spun as an amazing victory thanks to the absurdly low expectations she's been able to set.

Uh, what absurdly low expectations? Remember, the 3/4 states are her "firewalls"- HER campaign's words, much as they'd like to forget what they were talking about in the aftermath of Super Tuesday. I don't see her pulling out the double-digit wins in TX or OH she needs to really pad her delegate count, and it's fairly likely that thanks to the primacaucus in TX, Obama nets more delegates out of 3/4 than Hillary.

At this point, I think a split decision on TX/OH means she's done (and I'd say there's probably a 1 in 4 chance she loses BOTH of them)... and even winning both narrowly doesn't mean she goes on to PA, because at some point people are going to be able to do the math and point this out to her. I don't see this carrying on to June.

Posted by eponymous coward | February 29, 2008 5:07 PM

Fred Agbot is right to note that Hillary will likely win the three contests most crucial to Democrats in the general election: California, New York, and Puerto Rico.

The influence of the Puerto Rican machine on the National Democratic Party has been woefully underappreciated. In fact, you could make the case that Puerto Rico is a more "must win" territory than Illinois or Missouri.

Posted by wj | February 29, 2008 5:13 PM

Hello, Marc, commenters-

Another fine effort in analysis by Marc. My two cents-

It seems that his central point is that even in illustrating the rosiest of all scenarios, HRC would still be approx 100 pledged delegates behind going into Denver. It would then seem to follow that an essential part of her nomination strategy is to somehow obtain the seating of the disputed Michigan and Florida delegations, since w/o their support she could not possibly overtake Obama's lead.

HRC will attempt to do this, however, in spite of the fact that all campaigns, including hers, agreed in advance that those states' primaries were meaningless and that no delegates would be awarded based upon their outcomes.

The commenters above were referring to a Rasmussen Poll that showed HRC's lead in PA having diminished to 4%, despite the fact that her lead had once been much wider. I agree with them that it's hard to see how HRC is going to win PA by 20%.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/pennsylvania/pennsylvania_democratic_presidential_primary

Posted by ElectionNightHQ.com (McCain site) Publisher | February 29, 2008 5:15 PM

As for Puerto Rico not being take-all, if you read my post more carefully - it technically is. To paraphrase a great quote "How Puerto Rico goes, So goes the Primary".

Automatic delegates know this.

Remind me, how many votes does Puerto Rico have in the Electoral College?

Yeah, I thought so. So explain why the "automatic" delegates are going to care one way or the other?

Oh, yeah- the governor of Puerto Rico endorsed Obama. So one would assume that might have SOME impact on Hillary's chances of winning it.

Posted by eponymous coward | February 29, 2008 5:18 PM

Puerto Rico will seal the deal?! Ha! And I thought Penn's memo today was ridiculous. The extent of delusional logic exhibited by the Hillary campaign and her supporters never ceases to amaze me.

Posted by dcdude | February 29, 2008 5:22 PM

Uh, what absurdly low expectations? Remember, the 3/4 states are her "firewalls"- HER campaign's words, much as they'd like to forget what they were talking about in the aftermath of Super Tuesday. I don't see her pulling out the double-digit wins in TX or OH she needs to really pad her delegate count, and it's fairly likely that thanks to the primacaucus in TX, Obama nets more delegates out of 3/4 than Hillary.

I agree with you -- the math says to me that Hillary needs 20+ point wins in Texas and Ohio to even have a chance of thinking about winning this nomination. And if she doesn't achieve that, as far as I'm concerned, she's failed on Tuesday.

Maybe it's just being in the Internet echo chamber, but while the press seems to be treating today's memo with the disdain it deserves, I can't help but feel like the bar for Hillary's success has been ratcheted way, way down. There's a chance she may get herself a "Comeback Kid" narrative if she wins each state by a single vote; even if she wins by a healthy ten points, it wouldn't be enough to change the math but it would prolong the race and, I think, be damaging going forward.

We're at a point where Hillary needs an endgame, but there are several outcomes where she can win, even quite handily, but still ought to be conceding the race on 3/5. And under those scenarios, I don't think that's going to happen.

Posted by Jeff Larson | February 29, 2008 5:23 PM

Hillary will likely eke out wins in TX and OH that still doesn't do much for her pledged delegate count. That's when she amps up the Michigan and Florida machines (Senators Levin and Nelson) to get those delegates to count. In other words, unless Obama can knock her out on Tuesday with either (a) wins in both OH and TX or (b) a large win in TX with a loss in OH, the Democrats are going to war.

Posted by Paul Louis | February 29, 2008 5:48 PM

I cannot believe you guys haven't caught on to Fred yet. He deserves some kind of award. The Golden Dot for best comment hoax? Best impersonation of Wolfson?

The automatic delegates know this, of course. They cannot be fooled by such things as superficial wins!

Posted by KathyF | February 29, 2008 6:02 PM

If you want to play with delegate math (e.g. let's give Clinton 60-40 in TX, PA, and OH and ties everywhere else....does she catch up), slate.com has a very nifty tool: www.slate.com/features/delegatecounter/

Fred, you may be amused that some people still think the pledged delegate count matters; I guess we just like the whole election, voting, voice of the people aspect of elections. So now the Clinton camp is abandoning Insult 40 States for Insult All the States? (Clinton campaign to voters: You Just Don't Matter.)

Posted by Deborah | February 29, 2008 6:10 PM

I think momentum still matters, folks. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Even if it's a split on 3/4, the race depends ENTIRELY on the media spin. Did her firewall "fall short", or did she "reverse the momentum". Meanwhile, every day this primary process drags on increases the chance of Republican victory in November.

Posted by TH | February 29, 2008 6:29 PM

KathyF, I appreciate your comments and you're allusion to Wolfson! :-) However, let's get serious. The only hoax being perpetrated around here is the idea of sham caucuses being democratic, or that states outside of the likes of CA, NY and Maine really matter when it comes to picking a viable general election candidate.

And to Deborah: I too like the "whole election, voice of the people" aspect of election. It's why I am going to vote in my state when the primary season comes to a close here. My point was that we can enjoy the warm and fuzzy feelings of voting all we want, but in reality, pledged delegates won't mean a thing.

Automatic delegates know this.

Posted by Fred Agbot | February 29, 2008 6:32 PM

I too like the "whole election, voice of the people" aspect of election.

Oh, goody! You're so fucking magnanimous.

Posted by Former Hillary supporter | February 29, 2008 6:40 PM

I actually think that Senator Clinton is right where she needs to be as far as winning this nomination and I have grown increasingly confident over the last 48 hours that she is fighting and has a very capable strategy.

In all of this discussion about "delegate math" and misleading metrics, we lose the main point that it takes 2025 delegates to achieve victory. Clinton is assembling and has been building an amazing convention delegate operation that has a skilled team for fighting for this nomination. Let's also not lose sight of the fact that Senator Clinton has an overwhelming advantage among the all-important Automatic delegates.

All Senator Clinton needs to do right now is push back against the bandwagonesque media who are only looking at momentary trends. Long term trends favor Senator Clinton and what she needs to do right now is create cognitive dissonance in the minds of the voters who think that she is not winning.

The way I look at it is this thing is all tied up and we are going into extra innings, where Senator Clinton is working with some very friendly umps for her and Obama will not have home field advantage. Senator Clinton just needs to get it to the convention and it is there where her innate advantage will kick in.

Posted by toobie | February 29, 2008 6:42 PM

Given the way Hillary's campaign has been talking recently, I don't see her dropping out until the last primary is done. As long as there is a remote possibility that Obama could say something stupid that could cause a sharp drop in his national popularity, she's going to wait it out in the hope that she can swing the super delegates to her side and get Michigan and Florida delegates to count.

She knows that once she drops out of the race she is toast. Eclipsed. Tossed back into the dumpster of the senate with the rest of the also-rans. She's really got nothing to lose at this point.

Posted by Helter | February 29, 2008 6:45 PM

OMG...between The Fred and the return of toobie it's enough to make your head spin. C'mon guys...the joke was good, but please, for sanity's sake, give it up.

Posted by Karen | February 29, 2008 6:45 PM

The election as well as the fate of the US could hang upon the Puerto Rico primary. It's that important.

Posted by toobie | February 29, 2008 6:48 PM

again, I agree with toobie. and I am near certain it will be the hillary campaign saying "si se puede" on June 7.

Posted by Fred Agbot | February 29, 2008 6:57 PM

Thanks, Fred. Call me the toobster..*wink*

Posted by toobie | February 29, 2008 6:59 PM

This is the real toobie, as was post 6:42. The 6:48 post is an imposter who likes to use my name to yank my crank. Use your own name!

Posted by toobie | February 29, 2008 7:00 PM

toobsteak is more like it.

i likes me some toobsteak!

Posted by Maggie Williams | February 29, 2008 7:01 PM

Thanks Fred, but toobie (6:59) was also a fake.

Posted by toobie | February 29, 2008 7:04 PM

to yank my crank

Isn't it Fred who does that?

Posted by scott | February 29, 2008 7:09 PM

Isn't it Fred who does that?

no, that's the toobsteak boogie ;)

Posted by toobie | February 29, 2008 7:11 PM

Her lead in PA has already collapsed to middle single digits, 60/40 is impossible unless she gets some big big momentum going Tuesday. Rockefeller just came out for Obama in WV. Obama's already winning NC and IN by more than the margins you cite. And the Gov. of Puerto Rico endorsed Obama quite a long time ago, and his machine owns that island even more thoroughly than Villaraigosa's machine owned LA. Just sayin'.

Posted by John M. | February 29, 2008 7:35 PM

Hillary has no reason to drop out before 2025 is hit with pledged delegates. My understanding is that it would be totally unprecedented to do so when one is so close. Can anyone provide an example of someone dropping out of a nomination fight when the numbers are so high and tight?
Why do you expect her to suddenly get stupidly ahistoric?
FDR won it on a third covention ballot and he went on to landslide win, saved our country in depression and helped save the world in the war:
so obama freaks, why should Hillary fold her tents?
Lincoln won on the eleventh ballot? and he came out okay too.
Do you really think Obama would drop out if the math were reversed?
Hillary coming out of texas and ohio with any kind of wins or a split certainly makes Obama a lot less inevitable (isn't that the dirty word in this campaign anyway?).
And breaking obama's streak of cute little boutique wins with two Dinty Moore sized states would cancel out his recent streak.
And if she wins after getting wildly outspent in those states (almost 2-1) she is the dragon slayer.

Posted by Michael C. | February 29, 2008 8:05 PM

Hillary has no reason to drop out before 2025 is hit with pledged delegates. My understanding is that it would be totally unprecedented to do so when one is so close. Can anyone provide an example of someone dropping out of a nomination fight when the numbers are so high and tight?
Why do you expect her to suddenly get stupidly ahistoric?
FDR won it on a third covention ballot and he went on to landslide win, saved our country in depression and helped save the world in the war:
so obama freaks, why should Hillary fold her tents?
Lincoln won on the eleventh ballot? and he came out okay too.
Do you really think Obama would drop out if the math were reversed?
Hillary coming out of texas and ohio with any kind of wins or a split certainly makes Obama a lot less inevitable (isn't that the dirty word in this campaign anyway?).
And breaking obama's streak of cute little boutique wins with two Dinty Moore sized states would cancel out his recent streak.
And if she wins after getting wildly outspent in those states (almost 2-1) she is the dragon slayer.
Last point for now: California turned out to be an embarassing loss for Obama because the late polling trends were accepted as gospel AND now the same late trends could lead to another embarrassing night for obama

Posted by Michael C. | February 29, 2008 8:07 PM

draftfredagbot.com

Fred Agbot for new Atlantic blogger! Who's with me?!??

Posted by Andrew | February 29, 2008 8:12 PM

@Fred Agbot, toobie, and the other Hillary supporters:

Are you delusional? You're basically saying it doesn't matter how people vote, what matters is that Hillary can wrap this up at the convention as long as she's not too far down. "As goes Puerto Rico, there goes the convention"? Are you kidding me? Set aside the question of whether either can win the general if McCain gets 3 unopposed months to campaign (hint: They can't).

Look at what happens if we spend the next 6 months on infighting and go into the convention without a presumptive nominee. It will get settled by the superdelegates and whether Hillary can get delegates to flip in defiance of the voters that sent them there. That's not a "win scenario" for anyone but McCain. I wasn't born in '68, but I can read a history book and see the parallels, there won't *be* a Democratic party worth mentioning for the next few years if it comes to that. And unlike 68, the Democrats have no real buffer in the Senate or House, nothing to fall back on while they regroup. It won't be a "third Bush term", it will be *worse*.

God help us all if there's no clear winner from next Tuesday. But pretending that anything other than a big Hillary resurgance winning three out of four spells anything but Obama as the clear winner is dangerously out of touch with the reality of the calendar. Her "win scenario" of 6 more months of this crap is doom for the Democratic party, whether the strategy succeeds or fails. Nothing short of Hillary blowouts gives her and the party a realistic chance of winning in the general, and that's just not going to happen.

Posted by APoxOnBoth | February 29, 2008 8:20 PM

According to the AP count, as reported by the Washington Post, Obama is only 37 superdelegates apart from Clinton.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/delegates/d/

I expect to see that narrow pretty much every day and, absent an unexpected blow out on Tuesday, Obama will be ahead on superdelegates soon after.

Posted by Suze | February 29, 2008 8:34 PM

On the wild chance that Fred and Toobie are sincere: Since the Clinton campaign announced this "it doesn't matter how the states vote as long as we're only a few hundred down; we'll let the superdelegates decide" thing, how's that been working out for her? Superdelegates rolling in to give her support? No one coming out for Obama?

Or maybe the supers are working as they're supposed to--stopping a would-be nominee who is supported by a vocal segment of the party insiders, but unelectable to the nation as a whole. Or even the party as a whole.

The Clinton camp seems deeply dedicated to insulting any and all voters--small and large states, white and black, Dem stronghold or independent, there's some reason your vote shouldn't count. A lid needs to be clamped on them or they will deeply hurt the party, at all levels, in the November election. Not by attacking Obama; the Republicans will take care of that. By attacking the voters.

So Texas, clamp those goal posts down. The Clinton team set those posts up for a big win there, and they can't go scampering off with them to Rhode Island as the only state that matters. (Which it won't for long; they're a small state, so they preemptively don't count.)

Posted by Deborah | February 29, 2008 8:50 PM

Most of the polls have Obama leading in Texas by about three to five points. He'll net at least 11 delegates there.

What Marc isn't telling you is that the three most pro-Obama areas: Houston, Dallas, and Austin, are the three with the most delegates.

Even if Obama loses the Texas popular vote by five points he'll still walk away with a net of 4 delegates from the primary and most likely 6 or 7 from the caucus.

And there is NO WAY IN HELL Clinton can win Ohio by more than 5 points. It's not going to happen.

If anything, Ohio should roughly be a draw. Has anyone actually looked at the demographics in Ohio?? The Dem party is about 17% black and 78% white (5% other). If Obama pulls just 43% of the white vote and 85% of the black vote, he'll win Ohio.

Posted by Clint | March 1, 2008 12:28 AM

APoxOnBoth is absolutely 100% correct. If this thing goes down to a fight on the convention floor, then it will be '68 all over again. And the Dem's just barely recovered from that. So, GO HILLARY! Stay to the bitter end!

Posted by Dave | March 1, 2008 1:13 AM

Jeff might be trying to say is that Puerto Rico might be a cresting wave of momentum for Hillary, which culminates in the convention and her nomination. Just a guess....

Posted by Martin | March 1, 2008 1:33 AM

Fred: Back in this universe, Obama won Maine. I still think your impersonation is spot on. You have truly captured the essence of Wolfson in your dogged repartee. Have you tried doing either of the candidates themselves? I hear SNL was looking for an Obama lookalike.

Posted by KathyF | March 1, 2008 3:45 AM

YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT:-)

If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary's than they had ever been before or since.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)

Best regards

jacksmith...

Posted by jacksmith | March 1, 2008 5:46 AM

YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT:-)

If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary's than they had ever been before or since.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)

Best regards

jacksmith...

Posted by jacksmith | March 1, 2008 6:04 AM

you might be an idiot if you believe that will change anyone's mind.

Posted by whoa now | March 1, 2008 11:19 AM

Marc demonstrates what I believe myself: Hillary simply cant' win, because even under the rosiest scenariod ( a 60-40 win in Pennsylvania, a sweep in Puerto Rico,) Obama still wins the delegate race. I myself think that Hillary will do no more than 55-45 in Pennsylvania at best, and that it will probably be even closer. I also think that Obama will win PR.
My projection sees Obama finishing with a 100 plus delegate lead.
Once that happens, then the supers will put Obama over the top. I predict that he will get about 2/3 of the super vote.

Posted by stonetools | March 1, 2008 12:24 PM

This means that if Hillary does not drop out after Tuesday, she is planning on taking the fight to the convention floor and risk splitting and destroying the party for at least this year if not longer. Remember what happened in 1968 when Humphrey was nominated at the convention in Chicago after not having entered any of the primaries and lost narrowly to Nixon when many Democrats stayed home. I ought to know, I was there.

Posted by MIkeWalk | March 1, 2008 2:01 PM

KathyF -

I will concede that Obama did indeed win Maine. He ran a good clean campaign there and I think hillary should be honored to lose the fight up there with him, in one of the few states that matter.

However, in the states that have mattered since (see: Ohio) Obama should be ashamed of the negative mailings he has been sending out that completely mis characterize hillary's position on NAFTA. The whole Nafta thing came to be under Bill Clinton's administration where Hillary had no say or no power - so how could she have had anything to do with Nafta? It's shameful the way the Obama campaign picks and chooses which of Hillary's "failures" during her 35 years of experience they will highlight.

As for SNL, I would happily go on there as they seem to be the only serious media outlet that understands the abhorrent bias against hillary during this primary season.

I've noticed a lot of people who are trying to prove me wrong with math. To them I paraphrase Mike Huckabee - I didn't major in math, I majored in history, with a focus on United States politics and foreign policy. History has shown that since automatic delegates came into existence, in every election that has been close enough to matter, they have gone to the convention and anointed the nominee they believed could win the general election and be the best president. The history books will show that this election cycle it was Hillary Clinton.

The Automatic delegates know this.

Posted by Fred Agbot | March 1, 2008 2:54 PM

...even if she wins by a healthy ten points, it wouldn't be enough to change the math but it would prolong the race and, I think, be damaging going forward.

Jeff Larson: OF COURSE a Clinton win "by a healthy ten points" in Tuesday's contests changes the math. She'll narrow Obama's pledged delegate lead. And the ensuing media coverage - coupled with recent Obama missteps and tougher media scrutiny (NATFAgate, etc.) could shift momentum.

Now, I think Ambinder's analysis and scenario conjuring looks pretty compelling. And were it to transpire, such a course of events would indeed constitute changing the math. Going from a 170 pledged delegate deficit to a 100 pledged delegate is a change in the math. And it would leave the two candidates with a statistically pretty meaningless gap in pledged delegates. Obama fans, understandably, want to focus exclusively on the pledged delegate count. Unfortunately for them, but fortunately for the electoral chances of the Democratic party, the winning candidate needs a majority of all -- not just pledged -- delegates.

Hillary is still very much alive. Deal with it.

Posted by Obama Glass Jaw Alert | March 1, 2008 3:23 PM

LOL, OGJA. You had me going along until this line: And it would leave the two candidates with a statistically pretty meaningless gap in pledged delegates.

But the automatic delegates know it was a perfect troll otherwise ;)

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 1, 2008 3:30 PM

EKE out a win. Not "eek."

Sorry -- I can't bottle up the evil grammar Nazi in me.

Posted by HGBT | March 1, 2008 3:50 PM

...You had me going along until this line: And it would leave the two candidates with a statistically pretty meaningless gap in pledged delegates.

Jeff Larison: Under Ambinder's scenario, Obama would finish with 1,654 pledged delegates to Clinton's 1,558. That's a total of 3,212 pledged delegates between the two of them -- meaning Obama would have 51.5% of their mutual total against Clinton's 48.5. We can quibble over terminology, but a three point gap in a single category of delegates indeed strikes me as fairly insignificant, especially with Florida's and Michigan's delegate haul in limbo. Moreover, the momentum shift implied in such a forecast (ie., Clinton winning a majority of pledged delegates from here on out) would enable her to make a strong appeal to automatic delegates. Indeed, I strongly suspect that, were she able to get the pledged delegate lead below 100, Hillary would very likely have eked out a popular vote majority over Obama -- to say nothing of the massive advantage of votes by actual registered Democrats she'll have racked up. Why would automatic delegates -- AKA professional Democratic party politicians -- want to support a candidate this summer who's limping to the finish line?

The central problem for the Obama campaign is a corollary to the daunting math facing team Clinton, namely, if she continues to compete, there is no way Obama can secure a nominating majority without resorting to automatic delegates, and that makes his candidacy just as vulnerable to momentum swings as hers has proven to be.

They better hope this Rezko thing doesn't get ugly.

Hillary is still very much alive. Deal with it.

Posted by Obama Glass Jaw Alert | March 1, 2008 3:58 PM

Hillary is still very much alive. Deal with it.

Is this your version of "automatic delegates know this"?

I have to say, I like his better.

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 1, 2008 4:39 PM

On a side note, I'm puzzled why Clinton folks think that "automatic delegates" sounds less authoritarian than "super delegates." The idea that some people's votes are automaticly counted, while others are, presumably, subject to some conditionality, stikes as less democratic than certain individuals having a "super" (or proportionally larger) say.

Of course neither sounds particularly appropriate for a party that calls itself "the democratic party."

Posted by JK | March 1, 2008 5:00 PM

I think that Marc's analysis ably demonstrates why Sen. Clinton cannot realistically catch up in pledged delegates even if she wins Ohio and Texas. The best she can accomplish is to trail by about 80 pledged delegates. The Clintons know that the superdelegates are not going to overturn an 80 delegate lead. The democratic party just isn't going to do that.

Their best option is FL and MI. As I see it, the Clinton team should stop pressing for the January results of FL and MI to be counted. The primaries didn't count, no candidate campaigned there, and Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot in MI. Regardless of the arguments the Clinton team can make about these primaries, the Obama camp isn't going to let it happen if their nomination is at stake. The best play they can make is to press for a new primary and/or caucus. It will be difficult for Obama to oppose this (he already said he would do it) and it gives Clinton more time. If she can win these 2 states soundly and cut the delegate lead to 25 to 30 delegates then she has a shot at the convention.

Posted by Jason | March 2, 2008 1:44 PM

The superdelegates will continue to fall in line behind Obama after Tuesday. They will join the parade and help build a consensus. The superdelegates can deliver the nomination to Obama and there will be very few complaints. If the superdelegates deliver to Hillary, young people, black people, and people who make over $100,000 will be unhappy. There is no upside for an undecided superdelegate to move to Hillary. The good table in the Clinton library dining room simply isn't worth it.

Posted by Superdelegate Fan | March 2, 2008 2:00 PM

"If she can win these 2 states soundly and cut the delegate lead to 25 to 30 delegates then she has a shot at the convention."

Except that she can't win these 2 states soundly. And she knows it.

Posted by Craig Hickman | March 2, 2008 4:13 PM

Puerto Rico goes to Clinton by a 60 point margin?!? What shred of basis do you have for that kind of speculation?

Optimism is all well and good in playing "how-can-it-be-done" sceanrios, but a modicum of relation to the real world is needed.

Posted by ProgRook | March 2, 2008 4:13 PM

THE AWARDED DELEGATES ON THIS LIST MUST BE WRONG FOR NORTH CAROLINA...IT SHOWS OBAMA WINNING YET GIVES A HEFTY PORTION OF THE DELEGATES TO CLINTON.

WHICH IS ACCURATE A CLINTON WIN OR AN OBAMA WIN?

Posted by Marple | March 2, 2008 4:15 PM

In order for HRC to be viable she needs to win Ohio and Texas by a minimum of 10 percent. Anything less than that is a defeat and a nail in the coffin.

Even if she does that, it is still an uphill battle.

Without some unforeseen implosion in BHO's campaign, he will be the nominee.

There is no way the super delegates will back the candidate who has fewer pledged delegates, fewer votes, raises less money, and polls worse against McCain

Posted by Brian | March 2, 2008 4:22 PM

Fred Agbot et al.

If Hillary is behind in pledged delegates elected by the voters, and the party officials decide to make her the nominee anyways, she will get 0% of the independent vote in the general election.

Her loss in the general election under circumstances like that will be worse than the Dukakis loss in 1988.

Mark my words.

Erik (I)

Posted by Erik | March 2, 2008 4:33 PM

Folks, this math was not meant to be accurate, it was meant to be favorable to Hillary, to show that even under her best terms her only shot is a combination of spin, blackmail, and Florida.

Of course Obama's going to clean up by around 70+ in Vermont, Guam, Wyoming, South Dakota, and every other place that doesn't count. Puerto Rico 80/20 is absurdly generous.

Posted by Podger | March 2, 2008 5:05 PM

You might be an idiot if you think that if Hillary gets the nomination at the convention by virtue of superdelegate votes - notwithstanding Obama's win of pledged delegates - she will be able to win the general election.That might work if she was running against Huckabee, but McCain is sufficiently moderate that many alienated Obama voters and many, many independents will tip the election for McCain.

That is her real obstacle: not just getting the nomination, but getting it (given her current predicament) in a way that allows her to win the general election. Her only real options at this point are to 1) go very negative; 2) ask the superdelegates to ignore the popular vote; or 3) get the convention to seat the FL and MI delegations. Any one of those scenarios nails it for McCain, especially if he picks a moderate VP, like Lieberman. Don't forget that the GOP convention comes second this year, so McCain can react to Hillary's nomination without having to guess what will happen.

She claims she will stick it out regardless of what happens Tuesday, but then again Romney claimed on the evening of Super Tuesday that he would stick it out. By Thursday, reality had set in and he was gone. Based on the current polls, Hillary's days are numbered. That number now is about 5. By Friday, the writing will be on the wall and she will be forced to step aside.

Automatic delegates know this.

Posted by Jon | March 2, 2008 5:06 PM

You write:

"Ohio: Clinton wins by 4% and earns a net of 5 delegates"

Sorry to be a weenie, but . . .

She's not winning by four percent, she's winning by four percentage points; there is a difference. If you need a short form to express this, use "4 points," not "4%."

Posted by Chris | March 2, 2008 5:15 PM

These are some extremely generous estimates. As others have noted, her lead in Pennsylvania has already collapsed and Obama hasn't even started campaigning there.

As for Puerto Rico, the myth that this is somehow a Clinton stronghold continues to be asserted without basis. Puerto Ricans are nothing like mainland Hispanics. In fact, Obama has the support of Puerto Rico's governor, and Puerto Rico has historically been very friendly to candidates of African descent. Jesse Jackson won Puerto Rico handily in 1988, and let's not forget that Obama took the other Caribbean primary (the Virgin Islands) by 9-to-1.

Also here is WaPo article debunking the "winner takes all" myth: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/will_puerto_rico_decide_everyt.html

I understand Marc is being intentionally generous here, but even if this seemingly modest hypothetical is far removed from the dire situation that Clinton faces.

Posted by Klaus | March 2, 2008 5:34 PM

The analysis shows that it would take a major change in the dynamics of the race for HRC to pull this off -- something to push the pointer from the 60-point Obama wins of the last month to 60-point HRC wins from here on out.

Dyed-in-the-wool HRC supporters think this can happen. They're convinced that the Obama phenomenon is a college-student fad, a media-generated souffle, a fever that will quickly break. If that's your view, you might believe that a couple of Clinton victories will snap most of us Obama supporters out of our trance.

We'll see. I'm trying to think of any candidate in modern times who has come this far and then collapsed. Gary Hart is the closest, but his stumble was quite a bit earlier in the process. Ironically (for several reasons) the closest analogue I can think of is 1972, when Humphrey was in the position Clinton is now.

References to pre-1960s conventions are not really relevant because you had far fewer pledged delegates.

Posted by Colin | March 2, 2008 5:34 PM

THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!

Posted by idiotic | March 2, 2008 5:40 PM

Hillary Clinton supporters truly amaze me.

They have managed to spin the dynastic heir-apparant to the glories of the 90's into the underdog. They fail to recognize that she, outside of George W. Bush, just may in fact be the most despised national-level politician on both sides of the political spectrum. Conservatives hate her last name, and liberals hate her hard-headed approach to going after the nation's highest office in the same manner that has lead to Democrats getting their asses kicked at the nation level for 3 straight elections.

Her supporters fail to recognize that she's just as quick to go towards shady dealings inside her own party as the political party they rail against does in places like Florida and Ohio. She is trying to strong-arm the Democratic party: trying to circumvent Howard Dean and the DNC, trying to re-instate the Michigan and Florida delegates even after she agreed that they shouldn't count (essentially changing the rules in the middle of the game), and finally trying to appeal to super-delegates to go against the will of the Democratic primary voters.

Her supporters fail to recognize that she is a burden on her party, and stands to do nothing but divide it apart and dissolve the entire new base that Howard Dean and the internet has managed to assemble.

With the similarities in political leanings between Obama and Clinton, why are Clinton supporters such hard-asses? I mean, in the broad view of things: they have the same outlook, the same leanings, except Obama is more appealing to independents and definitely the more apt diplomat. The only retort I can think of that might make sense is that the supporters think they're voting for Bill Clinton. Oddly enough, that's the least deluded train of thought I can imagine them assuming.

The only way Clinton wins the Democratic primary at this point is through devious back-room dealings. Doing so would deter away the new generation of Democratic voters that the internet and Howard Dean/Barack Obama machine has reeled in. Clinton may feel that, if she does get the Democratic nomination, she can rely on this new generation to suck it up for the party and follow along, but I think that's a dangerous assumption. The internet/Dean/Obama voting bloc is concerned about (A) the war in Iraq and (B) dirty politicians playing the tired old swing-state strategy. It's my opinion that those types of voters are more likely to stay at home in November or vote for McCain than they are to support Hillary Clinton. Why? Because I am one of those voters.

The joke in all this is that Clinton supporters expect Obama supporters to suck it up for the party and go with the status-quo, when really, what's in the best interest of Democrats right now is for Clinton to suck it up and just write off those delusions of destiny. She says she enjoys being a Senator from New York. She better get used to it.

Of course we know that isn't the case. That New York Senate office was merely a stepping-stone to get her into place for 2008. Everyone knew it then and everyone knows it now. She stayed with her husband in order to keep her last name, she carpet-bagged her way into the Democratic nomination for that Senate office, she got elected into office on her name and party only, and she voted for the war in Iraq to "prove" that she, as a Democrat and as a woman, wasn't "afraid" of war.

It amazes me that Clinton supporters don't see all of this. Are they truly that blinded by their rubber-stamp partisanship, their anti-Republican vitriol?

Politics interest me for many reasons, and one of those reasons is that it is fascinating to see just how irrational people can act in large-enough groups. The Hillary supporters are a great example.

Posted by socctty | March 2, 2008 5:43 PM

If Clinton wins the nomination off of superdelegates I'll happily become an independent and vote for McCain. I was born into a true-blue Dem household, cast my first ballots for the coterie of also-rans during the Reagan/Bush years, became a Perotista in '92, and considered myself an indie for the next eight years. GW Bush made me a Democrat again.

A flipped result would be a travesty, though. And yes, I think the Dems are dumb enough to do this. If so, screw 'em.

Posted by Kevin | March 2, 2008 5:50 PM

On the other hand, maybe HRC is waiting for BHO's campaign to go to hell in a hand-basket during this Rezko trial. I suppose that's a viable strategy... to hope that his character goes up in flames.

Posted by socctty | March 2, 2008 5:59 PM

Rezko will be child's play compared to Hillary's role in the Mark Rich pardon.

Oh yeah something else, you think the GOP isn't just sitting on reams of opp research on all the various Clinton scandals? It doesn't matter if there's nothing there, the American people don't want to go through that again.

HRC is unelectable on the national stage.

A vote for Hillary is a vote for McCain.

Posted by Erik | March 2, 2008 6:05 PM

The Rezko trial isn't worth much. Obama did nothing unethical. Oppo teams have been hammering it for years and turned up nothing. If that's all the Clintons have to hope for, they might as well pray that Obama spontaneously combust.

Posted by Klaus | March 2, 2008 6:18 PM

Erik - I agree with your comment on the Mark Rich/Clinton scandals thing.

Your post particularly caught my eye, because I have a friend in Columbus, Ohio - named Erik, by the way - who is a McCain supporter and is supposedly actively recruiting his GOP friends to vote for HRC in the primary there, so as to extend the Democratic primary process as long as possible.

Posted by socctty | March 2, 2008 6:24 PM

It's completely hilarious to hear the Hillary supporters telling us STILL that there are really only two or three states (plus Puerto Rico) that matter, nevermind those "cute little" states that Obama keeps winning by the dozen. But there's something important they're ingoring, which is a major reason a lot of people who actually like BOTH Democrats (like me and most people I know) and could live with EITHER as the nominee (although this upsets all the die-harders on either side, the Clintonites in particular, who seem so damn upset that anyone has even DARED to suggest that perhaps the voters in all the states might have a say):

The Clinton folks keep talking about California. Big state, she won, and I suppose that negates 30 states that Obama won. Fine, let's pretend that we live on the moon where this is true. California is the only state that matters.

Now look at the polls for the GENERAL election in California. Every single one says the same thing: McCain would beat Clinton there, while Obama would beat McCain.

So what does that tell you? That Clinton was indeed the favorite of registered Dems in California, but that nobody else would vote for her in the general election. In other words, while the Clintonites keep saying "She won California, so forget every other state," it might make more sense to look at California as a cautionary tale: If Clinton is the nominee, suddenly big states that should be SAFE Democratic states (like California) might be up for grabs by McCain. Neither Clinton nor Obama is really going to win Alabama come November. But will Clinton on the ticket, I have doubts (logical doubts, based on poll after poll) that we could lose California and a host of other "blue" states that he'd hold onto.

This information alone, backed up by lots of stats, has been enough to sway lots of Dems I know -- again, ones who like both candidates, and don't have any

Inside Delegate Math: The Numbers

Comments (104)