« HIllary Clinton As An Efficiently Priced Security | Main | CTV Retracts.... »

How Many Delegates Does HRC Need To Win?

28 Feb 2008 04:07 pm

In order to win the nomination, how many earned delegates does Sen. Hillary Clinton have to win?

It's not an academic question. With a little spreadsheet math, we can figure it out.

We need to start with some assumptions.

First, let’s be generous and assume that all of the superdelegates Clinton currently claims will not switch to Obama.

Perhaps that’s an overly generous assumption given that two have done so over the past two days, but, again, we’re trying to illuminate a path to the nomination, not block one. Let’s assume that, all other things being equal, she’ll win half of the remaining uncommitted superdelegates – maybe 185 of 390. She’ll also win half of John Edward’s delegates.

Before we move to pledged delegates, we need to figure out whether Florida and Michigan delegations are credentials and what effect they’ll have on the nomination. At this point, it’s most likely that they will be segregated from the official nomination scenarios.

So – just for the moment – let us calculate the number of remaining 981 pledged delegates Hillary Clinton would need to earn in order to win the nomination without the help of Michigan and Florida.

Assuming that her currently total is 1275 – a nice amalgam of the various network and print delegate estimates, she needs at least 55.3% -- or about 542.

Let’s go to March 4. Let’s assume that Clinton wins Ohio by four points – 52 to 48, netting her roughly 5 extra delegates, and loses Texas 49 to 51, netting Obama three extra delegates, and loses Vermont, netting Obama three extra delegates, and winning Rhode Island by 6 points, netting herself an extra delegate. She ends that day with no additional delegates – she can blame Vermont.

Under the rosiest of scenarios, it’s hard to see her winning more than about 50 percent of the remaining earned delegates, even if she whips Obama in Pennsylvania and earns, say, 16 extra delegates, and drums him in Puerto Rico, where, even if she wins seventy percent of the delegates, she’s still, in essence, playing catch up.

If Clinton wins half of the remaining delegates – about 493 – and loses none – she still trails Obama by a net 50 or so earned delegates.

Now let’s run the scenario with Florida and Michigan’s delegates in play – the best iteration of that scenario, with both pledged and unpledged delegates seated and Clinton’s having earned fully 60% of or more of them. She’ll need at least 52.1% of remaining pledged delegates to surpass Obama.

Playing with the numbers a bit, here’s how she could – in theory – accomplish this.

If Florida and Michigan's delegations are seated fully to her advantage, and if she wins in Ohio by 65% and wins in Texas by 65%, and all other percentages hold, she can win the nomination.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/21533

Comments (108)

That seems like a pretty marginal scenario, given the current polling.

even if she whelps Obama in Pennsylvania and earns, say, 16 extra delegates

Is this an extraordinarily punny way of saying that Hillary is a bitch?

On a more substantive note, your analysis ignores the uneven distribution of delegates in Texas, where the state senatorial district covering young, liberal, relatively white Austin awards eight delegates, while the district covering the Rio Grande Valley awards only three. Plus there's the whole dual primary caucus thing, so potentially even a 65-35% blowout wouldn't be enough (though it would be a nice start).

Is your view that if Hillary fails to win Texas and Ohio by 30-point margins, she should bow out of the race?

If Hillary thought this was about the math, she would have withdrawn weeks ago.

At this point Hillary is looking to merely win OHIO and try to keep superdelegates from jumping ship, donors from drying up and Party Elders from endorsing Obama until Pennsylvania.

She wants to keep going until the last dog has died. It has NOTHING to do with math. A loss in both TX and OH would make the end quick, but a win in OH and we are in for a long haul.

And since her path to the nomination involves seating Fl and MI, she would win the nomination to win the presidency afterwards.
No way the media would not treat it as a steal. No way it wouldn't perceived that way in the African American community and no way those who are on the fence but have that sense the Clintons are ready to do anything to win power would not believe it was a power grab.
In other words, she would take the nomination at the expense of Democrats winning in November.

Superdelegates won't let that happen.

* not to win the presidency

Jeff:

I'd argue she should bow out after Texas and Ohio unless she wins decisively.

I thought it was pretty clear she had to blow out Texas and Ohio in order to stay in the nomination and win by 65%, and given she might lose Texas and win Iowa by a small margin of less then 10 points or even by 10 points she won't have earned enough delagates to carry the day. Ohio and Rhode Island won't do it for her, and the Texas Two Step is a hurdle that is HUGE given the resources she lacks now. This doesn't take into account the Union stuff. SEIU and Co. are pouring a lot of energy into Texas and Ohio to close the deal.

I don't count out the Clinton's because, well, New Hampshire has permanently scarred me,lol.

But given how NAFTA is hurting her in Ohio and how fast Obama's been closing the last couple of days AND the fact that she was frankly off the last debate that had such huge boffo numbers I think she has problems.

If anyone can close Texas and Ohio it's Clinton and I would not be surprised; but blow them out. No. And given the math, I suspect they're simply going to argue Obama can't close the deal and he should bow out himself and the Supers should come her way.

So she really only needs a win to justify herself into the convention and try to trip him up between now and June.

Obama needs Texas and Vermont to close her down. Then the story is that she has become a democratic Huckabee. That will get her to pull out.

Hello Tim K. I wouldn't try to pigeonhole you on an exact number, but what exactly would you take to mean a decisive victory? I'd call 55-45 "decisive," but it seems possible (and maybe likely? but I don't know) that even that margin in Texas won't close the delegate gap, or won't close it by more than a couple delegates. While decisive victories in Texas and Ohio will probably considerably change the narrative of the race (fairly or unfairly, considering HRC's double-digit leads up until the past week or so) I don't see how that helps her in the delegate race -- even with Florida and Michigan seated.

Yeah. 65% in Texas and Ohio just isn't going to happen. And frankly, it doesn't seem like the post-March 4th environment is particularly favorable to her: Obama should clean up in the Wyoming caucus a few days later, the Mississippi primary the following week, and likely go on to win North Carolina, Oregon, South Dakota, and Montana as the rest of the race plays out. And the only current poll I've seen of Indiana gives him a big lead there, too

Jeff:

Well I'll say right off I don't expect her to have a sufficiently decisive win on Tuesday in order to justify moving forward to Pennsylvania and beyond. This is more about symbolism than actually closing the delegate gap, so I think the popular vote is more important. A lot of this also has to do with exceeding expectations judged by recent polls and assessments of the race.

I'd say a 7% win in Texas and 10% win in Ohio.

Considering she's being outspent 4-1 in these states I think that would be a victory (although, again, I don't expect it to happen)

ok, have we forgotten that the democratic party has said they will not count delegates from Florida and Michigan? If they renig on that one...they can count on a country (more than half full) of pissed of voters, and can count their chances in November as slim.

Puerto Rico isn't proportional, so the percentage of victory there is irrellevant.

Marc:

Not to pick, but are you using the amount of delegates currently needed to win the nomination? 2025. That number is without counting Michigan and Florida into the equation. If you were to add Michigan and Florida, the new total needed to win the nomination is approximately 2200. Please confirm that you are not using the 2025 number in your spreadsheet.

The only way I see her continuing is if she wins both Texas and Ohio, regardless of the spread. If she just wins Ohio, she'll declare victory and try to carry on. But an Obama win in Texas will kick-start the process already underway to declare him the nominee. This isn't a media thing. The trickle of superdelegates going his way will become a rush and the party elders will come out for him. No matter what Hillary says, the ground beneath her feet will turn to quicksand. She might not bow out immediately, but the end will be near. I firmly believe she won't destroy the party over this. She'll be in a position to get some yummy concessions and after a couple weeks of licking her wounds, she'll come out strongly for Obama. Wishful thinking? Maybe, but the fact is she's actually run a pretty clean campaign.

Hello, Marc, commenters-

Impressive scenario construction by Marc. I think that the key paragraph in his post is in the conclusion:

"Playing with the numbers a bit, here’s how she could – in theory – accomplish this.

If Florida and Michigan's delegations are seated fully to her advantage, and if she wins in Ohio by 65% and wins in Texas by 65%, and all other percentages hold, she can win the nomination."

Let's leave aside the question of HRC attempting to retroactively seat delegates who were "won":

in primaries that all candidates, including HRC herself, agreed in advance not to count.

HRC is obviously not going to carry either Ohio or Texas with 65% of the vote. She might win statewide in both, but short of some extraordinary event, it won't happen - pollster.com has all the good stuff on that.

winning Ohio and Texas would be a win for her by any margin, but the rest of the calender only offers her Pennsylvania, Kentucky and West Virginia. He'll blow her out everywhere else so the whole entire exercise is moot.

Their strategy is based entirely on not taking Obama and his supporters seriously. (what Kos might call a insult 51% of the party strategy).

Your article represents the biased media that will lose the election for the democrats in 2008. Look at your math, if she wins Ohio by 4 percent she will gain more than just 5 delegates. Seriously, I challenge you to go to Forbes.com and use their delegate calculator. And you are only assuming that she wins half of all the delegates in the rest of the states. You can take Obama momentum and shove it up your ass because in the end Momentum plays no role in this race, as it changes monthly. The nomination will go to the DNC. They will seat Florida as a hope to get the Florida vote in the general. The Sydney Harold straw poll from yesterday's article gives Hillary a 2 to 1 delegate draw at the convention. Get your heads out of your ass and be real journalist. I dont care who you support, but dont try to use your manipulative tactics that come straight out of Karl Roves playbook.

"If Florida and Michigan's delegations are seated fully to her advantage, and if she wins in Ohio by 65% and wins in Texas by 65%, and all other percentages hold, she can win the nomination."

But there's the problem: even if she does win those two by 65% and all other percentages hold, that STILL doesn't get her close enough to actually control the Credentials Committee, so the FL and MI delegations WON'T be seated fully to her advantage.

And even if SHE DID control the Credentials Committee, there would be a strong likelihood of a consensus for maintaining some sort of penalty on those states, and seating REDUCED delegations. Perhaps reduced by half.

At that point, when she needs hard numbers, she might still fall short. Super delegates would realize that, and probably coalesce behind the pledged delegate leader, Obama.

Puerto Rico is proportional. Reports that it is winner-take-all were just examples of shoddy journalism by Michael Barone and David Brooks. See http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/will_puerto_rico_decide_everyt.html

Hillary for you and me. Bring back our Democracy!

Question: Isn't Puerto Rico winner-take-all? I'd read that recently.

Your article represents the biased media that will lose the election for the democrats in 2008. Look at your math, if she wins Ohio by 4 percent she will gain more than just 5 delegates. Seriously, I challenge you to go to Forbes.com and use their delegate calculator. And you are only assuming that she wins half of all the delegates in the rest of the states. You can take Obama momentum and shove it up your ass because in the end Momentum plays no role in this race, as it changes monthly. The nomination will go to the DNC. They will seat Florida as a hope to get the Florida vote in the general. The Sydney Harold straw poll from yesterday's article gives Hillary a 2 to 1 delegate draw at the convention. Get your heads out of your ass and be real journalist. I dont care who you support, but dont try to use your manipulative tactics that come straight out of Karl Roves playbook.

Hillary...is that you?

Not sure what you mean by a clean campaign. The jockeying she has done about Michigan and Florida is pretty low. You just don't play politics with the political process in my book.

That said, she has shown signs sporadically of having some self-respect... notably in her graciousness at the end of the Texas debate. One would hope that intermittant though that impulse might be, it would be sufficiently strong for her to head to the exits within a few days after Tuesday's primary. Indeed, I'd like to think that the only reason she is still limping along with this thing is because she committed to giving it one last go with these primaries.

If she turns out to NOT have a functioning sense of self-respect, I have to think that the party will intervene in the form of a pretty strong tide of endorsements for Obama. Barring Obama-sized wins in TX and OH, her path to the nomination would seem to require the ploy of seating the bogus delegations from FL and MI. The price of doing so is losing decisively in November. And surely the democrats are not that stupid.

The only reason we are having this conversation is because it's not logically impossible that she could have blow-out wins in TX and OH. But it remains a silly conversation insofar as nobody expects an outcome remotely that favorable to Clinton. Not sure how this is anything more than just going through the motions. HRC is busting through the 15 floor at Intrade as we speak.

This isn't a math game, it is a momentum game. If Hillary wins OH/TX, does well in the remaining primaries, and Obama stumbles and drops in national polling, Hillary will have the MOMENTUM she needs to make a move on the Super Delegates.

At this point, Hillary's apparent gameplan is to play for time -- try to stay alive in Texas and Ohio, and then stall, hoping for some kind of unforeseen, game-changing event. Thus you see her superdelegate outreach changing from "endorse me" to "please don't endorse anybody yet." And you see implausible articles being floated about how another few months of painful, drawn-out bickering would actually be *good* for the party and the nominee. The on-the-record smackdown of Mark Penn by Harold Ickes, however, tells me their internal polls are way down and getting worse, and people have begun to scramble for the lifeboats, so they don't get sucked under when the Titanic goes down. Tuesday (and Wednesday) should be fascinating.

Whatever happened to Bill and Chelsea's assessment that if Sen. Clinton doesn't win Texas she's finished? If she does indeed lose Texas and wins Ohio by a slight margin, I think you'll find increasing calls from many in the party for her to drop out and justifiably so given the math.

The_media_sucks: Look at your math, if she wins Ohio by 4 percent she will gain more than just 5 delegates. Seriously, I challenge you to go to Forbes.com and use their delegate calculator.

Funny, when I took your "challenge" and used the Forbes.com delegate calculator, a 52%-48% win for Clinton in Ohio got exactly a 5 delegate net gain, just like Marc said.

I think the one with the Rovian ethics issues is you, not Marc. Now go take your meds before someone gets hurt.

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

If she wins Texas and Ohio, this will be a whole new ballgame, and all bets are off. The media will proclaim her the Comeback Kid, and her numbers will go up in the future states.

But I don't think she'll win Texas and Ohio. The best she can hope for is a close match in Texas, and a 58% win in Ohio. (And that's with a huge dose of that hope she seems to disdain.) If that were to occur, it's anyone's guess how the narrative would play out. Would that be enough to proclaim her a comeback kid?

Long story short, a Clinton nomination (when pigs fly at this point) is the best thing Nader's ticket can hope for. He'd crack the double digits, to say the least. Disaffected Democrats would FLOCK to him if she got FL and MI seated, etc.

And the point of this exercise is...?

THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!!! FOR HILLARY!!!!

Dear The_media_sucks

I went to the Forbes Delegate calculator and tried a few numbers.

What I found out is that the calculator there completely fails to correspond to the intricate realities on the ground.

Take Texas, for example. Due to the fact that the delegates there are apportioned not just to overall popular vote--but rather are apportioned differently according to Texas senate districts--as well as having a caucus system on top of the primaries--many people have noted that even if Hilary wins Texas by 10 points--she would only have a net gain of 1-3 delegates. However, if you put that margin into the Forbes calculator, it tells you that she then wins with a 19 delegate margin.

thus.. the calculator tells you nothing that will hold up on the ground.

In Texas, my basic understanding is that Hilary would have to win the entire state 60-40 and in most of the districts "favorable" to her (or at least, formerly considered favorable to her since they have large hispanic populations) she would have to win by 70% to even get something like a 10 delegate win.

This is not going to happen according to any of the recent polls. Not even close.. and it appears that Obama may actually win the overall popular vote there. I don't know exactly how such a vote would turn out in terms of delegates.. but I would wager that it might be enough to cancel out even a substantial Ohio win..

will have to see tho..

Also rather hard to say how much of MI and FL she'd get. 60% seems a stretch, given she only got 55% and 50% of the vote, respectively.

If you take the rest and seat them with Obama - not entirely difficult to believe, especially given the inevitable backlash following Hillary playing this silly game in the first place - her pledged delegate totals won't be all that substantive.

Some MI and FL supers will welcome the chance to attend and fall into Hillary's camp, but I suspect not all will.

I suspect also that this would be offset by other supers showing up for Obama. This applies especially to DNC superdelegates. Their authority is directly being challenged by such an audacious attempt to rewrite the DNC's rules and overturn the DNC's decisions. Basic spite and ego might drive many to Obama's camp - if someone (Dean?) organizes them to balk en masse, Hillary's whole effort could backfire catastrophically.

In June Marc will be writing posts with titles like:

How HRC Could Have Won The Nomination

How Many Delegates Would HRC Have Won If (insert hypothetical)

Another challenge for Clinton is keeping her campaign staff intact in the face of mounting math. There are other Senate and Governor races that need experienced campaign staff and advisors.

For the next few weeks, it will really play to Obama's advantage to have Clinton harping on how she will win the nomination.

Obama's team is energized, "fighting", donors are contributing and gearing up to finally hear "ding, dong, the witch is dead" (sorry, I couldn't resist).

But the longer Obama needs to fight a two-front war, the more exhausted and ineffectual it becomes. Senator Dodd is already warning of this. Clinton will need to concede - unless her people are true idiots, they will have come to the same conclusion as you Marc.

i guess half of 390 is 195

You're just now figuring this out?

This is the math everyone's been talking about since the Potomac primaries.

That's why people have been saying it's over for the 2-3 weeks you've still been cheerleading around here.

I really believe that all Senator Clinton needs to do is keep things close -- this thing is all tied up people, don't believe all the media hype.

If Senator Clinton can keep it close then she can seat FL and MI and challenge the undemocratic caucas results. If she can get some of the pledged delegates from caucases thrown out then I think that many of the automatic delegates will rally towards her at the convention. Harold Ikes is a master at this kind of street fight and Clinton has a very smart and efficient team working on the delegate issue.

Hillary in 08!

Someone please tell me toobie is a parody.

Puerto Rico is proportional.

According to the Politico superdelegate count, the Governor, Anibal Acevedo Vila, has endorsed Obama, so even if it weren't proportional, there's no guarantee that Clinton would win it all.

Puerto Rico currently is scheduled for a caucus, but a college friend from Puerto Rico told me that the San Juan Star, the English daily there, has reported that many of the Democratic party leaders there are trying to change it to a primary.

I love all the "ifs." IF my aunt had a dick, she'd be my uncle.

"If she can get some of the pledged delegates from caucuses thrown out..." then we will see outraged Democrats and Independents either staying home come elction day or voting for McCain. Toobie, I don't know what you're smoking, but it's not nice to break it out unless there's enough to go around. Do you seriously think that Obama's voters would sit still for the kind of crap you advocate?

I'm a bit frustrated.

I posted a comment here one hour ago that went to moderation but has not shown up. Alas!

I'm not going to to try to recreate it. My point was simple. Obama's pledged delegate count is such, that, if Clinton were to withdraw from the race before TX and OH, Obama could win with the remaining pledged delegates alone, without the help of Super Delegates and seat MI and FL to boot.

1202 + 981 = 2183 which is > 2025

And, to answer George, even with MI + FL 2183 + Obama's delegates from MI + FL if seated as they stand is likely > 2200

I don't see anyone writing about this, but this seems to me to be the simplest and most elegant path to the nomination for either candidate. And, potentially, the most healthy and equitable solution for the Democratic party at this point.

If Clinton withdraws after Mar. 4th, the math is such that neither candidate can win without Super Delegates.

Bottom line, if Clinton intends to withdraw before the convention, now is the best time.

Winning TX, OH, VT, and PA means she will likely win the nomination -- she will get the FL and MI delegations seated (either by back-room deals or by lawsuits) and that will be enough. Those posters thinking that Clinton will drop out, even if she wins these states, are deluded and simply do not understand the Clintons' mentality. She (they) will never, ever give up if there is a chance.

The bigger question is what does Obama need to do to get a lock of 2025 pledged delegates.
Is there any history of any candidate with so close a margin as Hillary has dropping out?
If obama can't get to a certainty of 2025 why would anyone in any party drop out with such a huge percentage of delegates?
Would Obama's supporters be spoiling for a convention fight if the totals were reversed? Of course! Would they be trying everything to switch super delegates if they were that close but behind? Of course! Would they want Florida and Michigan to count if it would put them closer or over? Of course.
If Florida and Michigan's screwed up asterick of a count was going to help put any black candidate over would the talk of disenfranchisement be louder? of course. From me and everyone.
But again, which candidate has ever got as close as Hillary and not kept fighting to the convention? And why would she be first?
FDR had to fight through a third ballot at the convention that lead to his first win.
If she cares about her country and believes in her candidacy she should keep going.

Kid Oakland: As true as you may think it is that Hillary should just up and quit now to benefit you and Obama, it's be almost as gracious and courteous of Obama to step aside and yeild up his totals to Hillary's candidacy.
People who get this close don't quit. How many votes at the convention did it take for Lincoln to break through?
I'll bet no one stepped aside for him with more than a thousand delegates.

What I'm saying is that Marc's math is convoluted and improbable. It's a bank shot combo for Clinton to just get back in the zone of having a path to the nomination.

My math is simple.

Only one candidate has won the delegate count every day of this contest. Only one candidate can yet win on the remaining pledged delegates alone.

Just because you think that Clinton is certain to continue or that she has the right to continue, or both, does not mean that my argument is not valid. Does not mean that she should do so.

In fact, there is tremendous pressure coming to bear on the Clinton campaign to answer this question:

Why is she still competing? For the good of the Democratic Party and our chances in 2008?

Does she want to be the person to force this into a battle for super delegates, a MI/FL controversy, draw dollars from our downticket races and the DNC, and continue to join in an inevitable rhetorical double-whammy effort with John McCain to take down our nominee?

That is what she is choosing to do right now and it's what she has chosen to do since super Tuesday.

Just because people don't write about it doesn't mean it isn't happening, that that's not real.

That's much more real that the fantasy of Clinton winning 65% in TX and OH right now.

Obama won VA with 64%. Wisconsin with 58%. MN, CO, WA, ME, NE overwhelmingly.

These are states Clinton should be competitive in.

She wasn't. She isn't.

Who is going to tell her that if she will not be the nominee it's better to withdraw now and let us focus on kicking some GOP butt in all the races we face in 2008?

If Obama does not win the requisite 2025 then I think that many in the part will see his win as illegitimate. At this point I think that the Automatic delegates will elect to go with Senator Clinton as she is a proven fighter and better positioned in the general. The Automatic delegates will be looking at the fact that Senator Clinton is the only candidate who can win the big delegate rich States such as California, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Michigan. I also think that her record breaking fundraising this past month shows that the momentum is now with her.

Michael,

Lincoln and FDR are not analagous.

Per our modern primary system, we are having elections and caucuses by pre agreed rules.

Senator Obama is winning them.

The Super Delegates are part of the pre-agreed rules. As we have seen, they are moving towards Obama and have been for some time. The electeds first. In fact, Senator Clinton's lead in Super Delegates rest solely on DNC Super Delegates.

Toobie, the "legitimate" winner will be the one who wins by the pre-agreed rules, which involves, first and foremost, winning elections and caucuses. That is what Barack Obama has proven quite skilled at doing and he will continue to do so for as long as there are states to contest.

It is Clinton's right to continue for as long as she chooses. However, as much as we respect that, we don't have to suspend our judgment or our common sense. There is enormous pressure on Senator Clinton right now. There is no path for her to continue after March 4th without decisive wins in TX and OH.

If she can't win decisive she can only win divisive.

Every super delegate, in particular our electeds, know that cold.

toobie, thank you for visiting earth. Now, since you obviously have some catching up to do, let's try stating a few nice little facts.

1) If Obama is ahead on pledged delegates by a substantial margin, the superdelegates will move to him, and that will be a perfectly legitimate win.

2) Clinton is not a proven fighter. She's never faced a really tough race in her life. Her one big fight was an epic failure for herself and for everyone else. (See, 1993 healthcare).

3) Clinton has not won Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida or Michigan. She also lost in Illinois. So much for big states.

4) Recordbreaking fundraising? I think not. Obama will probably break 50 million this month, and has annihilated Clinton on this front. (See campaigns, competence in running).

Now, when you return to your own part of the galaxy, please do try and remember these simple facts. They will help you greatly in explaining current politics to your friends.

I have to agree with toobie.

Yes, Obama currently has the pledged delegate lead. However, a vast majority of these pledged delegates were won in states that simply do not matter. Did Obama win in CA or NY? What about Maine? No, he did not, and these are the type of states that matter.

The automatic delegates know this deep down. Yes, right now they are trickling towards Obama, but this is prior to Hillary winning Ohio next week. At this point they will realize she is the more viable general election candidate and assume their automatic duty to vote for the most viable candidate.

The genius plan of the campaign has been to shift some of the focus onto Texas as a "must win". This move has caused the Obama campaign to spend significant resources to win the state, allowing Hillary to pull off a very decisive 5 point win in Ohio. And again, to my first point: Obama may win Texas by a very paltry 4 points - but guess what?? Its a RED state! and they have part of the vote as a caucus - not legitimate! Automatic delegates know this.

Don't let the media fool you, they just want the advertising dollars so they're making this closer than it will be. MI and FL will be seated 100% for Hillary, and momentum and automatic delegates will carry her to the nomination easily.

Hillary 08!

Good analysis Fred,

I think that one of Senator Clinton's strongest arguments going into the convention is to challenge the caucus results on the grounds that caucuses are undemocratic. If Senator Clinton's team can neutralize those caucus States then I think that the nomination will be too far out of reach for Obama. I really don't think that pledged delegates matter so much at this point. What is really critical is Senator Clinton's reasoned appeal to the Automatic delegates and I think that she is right where she needs to be to make this strong case.

Umm, did I stumble into Balloon Juice by mistake? That looks like some damn fine spoofing at 8:33 and 8:42. Bravo!

Toobie, please tell me you're in on the joke.

Did Obama win in CA or NY? What about Maine? No, he did not, and these are the type of states that matter.

Dear God, where are these people coming from? What rocks are they coming out from under? This bullshit was laughable WEEKS ago!

The parody here is getting a bit too meta for me.

Fred Agbot and toobie are the best examples of the warped reasoning that the country is rejecting favor of Obama. "Caucuses are undemocratic," says Toobie -- therefore, the party should reject its own rules? "Obama currently has the pledged delegate lead. However, a vast majority of these pledged delegates were won in states that simply do not matter. Did Obama win in CA or NY? " Ever hear of one-man, one vote? Does anyone thing New York or California will go Republican in November? Hillary is trying to change the rules on Florida and Michigan (and imagine her outrage if the situation were reversed and Obama was making this attempt), an example of her ruthless power hunger that is causing voters to reject her, "Change" is not simply a slogan. We have had TWENTY YEARS of divisive, mean-spirited politicking. Time for that to stop.

OMG, the moron twins, toobie and The Fred, just made my night! I swear there are some damn funny jokesters around these parts. Those two are a comedic dynamic duo...right?

First of all, I don't appreciate the insinuation that I'm a moron. No this isn't a joke. It's a deadly serious game of politics and Hillary Clinton will emerge the People's Champion. All you Obamatons will surely rue the day when the Automatic delegates rise up and ordain Senator Clinton as the Savior of our Democracy. Laugh now, but come next Tuesday you'll weep.

I am flabbergasted by Toobie's lock-step absorption of HRC's campaign rhetoric, down to the Orwellian term, "Automatic Delegates." This shit actually works!

Or she could win Ohio and Texas by a slightly larger margin let's say 55% to 45% and that alone would net her a roughly a 31 delegate gain ...

Let's not get ahead in "the math" just yet.

There are many paths to victory for Hillary - but they all are predicate on wins in TX and OH - 55-45 margins or better are definitely a possibility.

Voters are going to realize that this is it and may change their minds at the last minute ...

I'm not losing faith - in fact, if she does win both states by at 10% margin she would be the clear front runner in my view.

Or she could win Ohio and Texas by a slightly larger margin let's say 55% to 45% and that alone would net her a roughly a 31 delegate gain ...

Let's not get ahead in "the math" just yet.

There are many paths to victory for Hillary - but they all are predicated on wins in TX and OH - 55-45 margins or better are definitely a possibility. There is no reason to believe the trends or the polling - this is a very "fluid" situation with a big opportunity for both sides this weekend.

Also, TC&OH voters are going to realize that this is it - they may change their minds at the last minute in one direction or another.

As a Hillary supporter, I'm not losing faith - in fact, if she does win both states by at ~10% margin she would be the clear front runner in my view ... having won every large state so far, and the likely winner in PA.

One more thing. After Hillary becomes the nominee I clearly see her sweeping into the Presidency by a commanding percentage over McCain in a historic landslide. I don't think 70% - 30% is out of the question. Once the people get to know the Hillary that I know, they won't be able to resist.

Hillary 08!!!

Hillary's supporters and Obama's supporters are giving them the wherewithal to keep going. 35 million in Feb for Hill and 50+ mill for obama is not some going away present.
To suggest that one should quit now when no one has a certain 2025 of pledged delegates is silly and stupid: there is no precedent for someone so close to quit.
It doesn't damage the party or our chances for two heavyweights to slug it out for a couple more months. just as it doesn't stink when the boxing match goes the full number of rounds or the NBA finals go into game seven and double overtime.
Hillary deserves to take it all to the convention even if she's a couple hundred pledged delegates behind because the superdelegates can't vote until they vote, right?
Are obama fans afraid the mania won't last until august?

Let's all agree with Fred and toobie that this whole primary season was a big waste of time and money.

The caucuses shouldn't be counted. What a waste of time they were. And it doesn't matter if we disenfranchise all those voters for at least another generation.

We should have had primaries only in the big swing states of OH, PA, FL and MI. It would have been so much more efficient. What were we thinking?

Oh, right, we think of ourselves as a national party. I forgot. But I guess Hillary did too.

toobie or not toobie...

That post at 9:16 was not my post. Someone is posting with my name in an attempt to mock me, I suppose.

Why someone would do that is beyond me.

CB Todd:
I certainly think all the states matter, including florida and michigan, including Clinton and obama's homestates, including the states that haven't yet voted.
I don't get your statement about voters being disenfranchised for another generation: who has been disenfranchised for a generation?
I am fearful that you are suggesting that the people who have voted in either format for Obama have been disenfranchised until now and that he being so great lets them be enfranchised and if Hillary somehow wins yet that somehow disenfranchises people who vote for Obama.
With that same thinking wouldn't Hillary's losing disenfranchise everyone (and me) who went and voted for her?
Remember that superdelegates are built into the plan for nomination. they are free agents and can go for anyone. That's the plan. If they break disproportionately for Obama or Hillary then that's what happens. That's the system both are in as democrats.
It seems perverse to say these days but it sounds like superdelegates were created to make the process more fair and legitimate.
All that said, I hate caucuses now the way I hate nixon: I don't think I'll ever think they are good.
Fine for states to save money and run them instead of primaries and they obviously count but one can still hate them.
And what ever happens this year could only disenfranchise for four years not at least another generation in as much as these elections now are scheduled every four years. I know you are just trying to bend our minds with your hyperbole but gosh we vote again in four years right? (I think edwards is already renting storefronts in Iowa now)

This idea that Obama did not win CA or NY, or that Clinton did not win IL does not take into account that they each have delegates from those states. It was not as if Obama won 100% of the 26 states and Clinton 100% of the other 11 so far. There are people in CA that supported Obama and yes, people in Alaska that supported Clinton. So, back off on this idea that Clinton deserves the nomination because she won CA and NY. They aren't 'her' states, and being from NY or CA doesn't make you an extra special delegate.

Clinton would be far behind if her results from those caucuses didn't count. So, before you go discounting caucuses, remember that Clinton signed on to the same rules as Obama did, even though they may not have understood them at the time.

Did Obama win in CA or NY? What about Maine? No, he did not, and these are the type of states that matter.

Oh, wait. Obama did win Maine. Sux to be stoopid.

Let us remember that the whole purpose of the primary season is to enfranchise voters in all 50 states in the selection of the nominee. By saying that only the candidate that wins the big swing states is the only candidate that matters will disenfranchise everyone who participated elsewhere.

And yes, such an act will suppress participation for a generation. The Party will not do it to itself. It is suicidal folly to think so. It will not happen.

To allow Hillary to pursue such a path would damage not only the Party's chances in November but shred the primary process.

What I find kind of funny about this article is that Chuck Todd at MSNBC figured this out a couple of weeks ago. Smart guy that Chuck.

Saying that the only states that matter are the ones Gore and Kerry won is to play a losing game.

Obama has energized Democrats across the country, even in places like UT, which have been written off by the Dems for decades. Would Obama win UT? No, of course not. But with Obama as the nominee would those energized Dems in UT raise money, hit the phones, and travel to (swing state) CO for the general? Yes.

You can't only focus on electoral math and expect to win. You need electoral math plus a smart ground game that gets your opponent to defend his supposed turf. I'd love to give the GOP a run for its money in GA, for example. Can Clinton win there? No way. Can Obama? Maybe. If Clinton is running would McCain have to campaign there? No. If Obama is running? Yes. That's the kind of game-changing effect Obama has.

It's also worth noting that if the FL and MI delegates are seated, that disenfranchises all the people who didn't show up to the polls because the primary was meaningless and why waste your time.

I know at least 1 person in each of those states who would have voted for Obama but didn't for exactly that reason.

Using the Forbes counter, I think it's possible Hillary can still win, unfortunately. We Obama supporters have to be ready for the fact that she may in fact win both Texas and Ohio by at least 5 percent--Ohio by 10. Ohio has screwed us over so many times in the general election, it can happen again.

And that Forbes counter really shows just how critical the superdelegates are. They call the shots in this election, and that is very frustrating considering how much on-the-ground effort we measley little primary voters have put into this.

obama wouldn't be in this terrible position if he hadn't have run such a dogshit campaign...
I know you guys won't want to hear this but sometimes I feel kinda sorry for him

If Hillary Clinton hadn't been a fascist gay-baiting cow, perhaps she wouldn't be in this position either.

C'mon folks. Don't you see? Toobie is Harold Ikes in drag. The rhetoric is directly from inside Hillary headquarters. Who else uses the term "Automatic delegates"? Capitalized, no less, as when referring to a deity.

Pledged delegates are irrelevant.

Hillary is currently ahead in the overall Dem vote (including caucuses), with a commanding lead in overall white and Hispanic Democrat voters--and is well within the margin of error on white male voters. (Stats here)

She could probably just say she's in the race until Obama convincingly demonstrates a command of the Democrat's base. As for Bill's comment, she could just say that he wasn't aware of the huge role that independents played in Wisconsin. Plus, he's just the wife. What does he know?

Pledged delegates are irrelevant.

No, they really, really aren't. The superdelegates aren't going to move en masse for someone who's going to wind up around 200 delegates behind by the time all the states are done voting, and who in the process won less than 16 states total. It's really that simple.

Clinton lawsuit could cloud Texas caucuses:
http://www.star-telegram.com/news/story/502662.html

"AUSTIN -- The Texas Democratic Party is warning that its March 4 caucuses could be delayed or disrupted after aides to White House hopeful Hillary Clinton raised the specter of an "imminent" lawsuit over its complicated delegate selection process, officials said Thursday night.

In a letter sent out late Thursday to both the Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama campaigns, Texas Democratic Party lawyer Chad Dunn warned that a lawsuit could ruin the Democrats' effort to re-energize voters just as they are turning out in record numbers."

desperate

What are the four important criteria for the superdelegates--the criteria that show a candidate's strength? Not sure (I'm not a superdelegate and they can all make their own decisions), but it seem to me that these are up there:

1) pledged delegates
2) popular vote
3) states won
4) money raised

If (and it's still a big if) Obama is leading in all these categories, can someone provide me with a good argument (excluding something like, "Obama has a major gaffe" or "Some major skeleton comes out of Obama's closet") why a superdelegate should support Clinton at the convention?

If a candidate was leading in all four categories and the superdelegates gave the nomination to someone else, they're be a lot of pissed off Democrats, and the Dems would certainly lose the general election. The superdelegates know this (even the Clinton supporters).

It isn't just that Obama has energized voters because if only he was energizing voters Hillary would not be so close in this race. Both these astonishing people energize voters BUT obama supporters want to believe their energized voters are more significant than Clinton's energized voters, and CB Todd wants to believe that Obama's enfranchised voters are more important than Hillary's enfranchised voters: both those arguments are ridiculas.
Equally ridiculas is that which some of us hillary supporters use, that some states matter and siome don't. It is true though that some states going for one candidate or another deserves an asterick next to it, that the result bears less analysis (home states, etc.)
Equally ridiculas is that obama supporters want to wish away the rules for Florida and Michigan: all along its been said the delegates might be seated by the convention, restored in whole or in part. Edwards and Obama were placating Iowa and NH when they took their names off ballot in Michigan and Hillary looked like she was taking a stupid chance and it may have affected her chances in Iowa YET it seems clear that no campaign will ever take its name off the ballot in a similar situation in the future. These were rookie mistakes by Obama and Edwards.
Wanting Hillary to drop out is also ridiculas: no precedent that I know of for anyone with so many delegates not to keep going. Obama certainly wouldn't back down or cave in or give up if he were down by 100 -200 delegates.
Even in the shadow of Obama's 50 million, 35 million is a crazy amount of money to raise in a month, especially for a candidate running second with difficult math: money in this case looks like a mandate by her base to keep going.
ALSO: how cheap and silly is it that any intelligle hillary supporter's post on this site is labeled as bought and paid for by her campaign: with Obama's superior resources it would make more sense to suggest that pro-obama posts are from campaign hirelings. The accusations lack class but be that way if you must.

Has anyone done any polling of the Edwards delegates to see which way they might be inclined to break? They could actually be the deciding factor if this thing ends up being razor edge close.

The Michigan delegates will never be seated 'to Hillary's advantage'. Never. Ever. There isn't a Federal Judge in the country that would allow such an outcome with Obama off the ballot per the request of the party.

Fair or not, the die was cast when MI and FLA didn't move back. The party made the rules and you can believe a Federal Judge in a declaratory judgment action will enforce those rules against the party, and if favor of the candidate who followed them.

Hillary will step aside before March 11 because the math doesn't work for her. The superdelegates will do their job and rally to the winner pushing Obama way over the top, whereupon Michigan and Florida will have their delegates seated to no one's advantage or detriment.

To suggest otherwise (about MI and FL) is naive.

"These were rookie mistakes by Obama and Edwards." No kidding. They thought Hillary was honorable. But her doing a victory dance in Florida gave that illusion away.

If being naive as to the honor of a fellow Democrat means they don't deserve to be the nominee, what does blowing 100 million dollars before Super Tuesday and having no plan to win in February make Hillary?

If being naive as to the honor of a fellow Democrat means they don't deserve to be the nominee, what does blowing 100 million dollars before Super Tuesday and having no plan to win in February make Hillary?

Ouch....that's going to leave a mark.

Well said, Master Todd.