Don't Forget About The UADs: The Orange Scenario

Here's what I'm calling scenario Orange:

The upshot is that among UADs whose affiliation is locked in (those selected by state conventions and delegations that have already been elected) Obama leads 23-7. Split the UADs from the other states that have already voted by assuming that the UADs will go to the winner of the popular vote, and they split 38-24 for Obama (although that's an unwarranted assumption).

So what we're looking at is a substantial block of 76 delegates who're almost certain to deliver a double-digit margin for Obama. And I haven't seen them pop up in anyone's calculations of the task ahead for Clinton. These folks aren't going to be susceptible to persuasion - they're being run as proxies for the candidates in hotly contested battles, and have been carefully vetted for loyalty.

If Obama's pledged delegate lead stands at 156 this morning (as per his website) and Clinton's superdelegate lead at 43 (as per DemConWatch) and the UAD margin at 16 (as per my math), then she's trailing by 132 - and there are only 280 undecided superdelegates. Freeze those margins where they are, and Clinton needs to carry them 209-71.

Comments

thank you for the facts...wow compelling case for spending hundreds of millions destroying each other while mccain rides horseback over europe like reagan...thank billary for once again replacing the american agenda with the clinton agenda...it worked so well from the bottom of the ticket all the way to the top from 1994-2006...true patriots....

Posted by jim miller | March 6, 2008 11:05 AM

Good catch. So the situation is even worse for Clinton than it appears.

Posted by John | March 6, 2008 11:12 AM

"Freeze those margins where they are, and Clinton needs to carry them 209-71."

Yes but the remaining contests are more favorable to Clinton and she should be able to gain 30-50 pledged delegates on Obama with the remaining contests. A Florida/MI revote would probably net her 25 or so pledged delegates. I don't think the superdelegate math will be there for Clinton but she can basically say to the superdelegates, the election is in your hands, Obama will be a disaster in the midwest and the south, and highlight her supporters as the "true Americans" and urge the supers to veto an Obama lead.

Posted by Robert | March 6, 2008 11:13 AM

highlight her supporters as the "true Americans"

Awesome. A coalition of barely legal Hispanics, ignorant indigents who believe the opposition is some sort of Manchurian Muslim candidate, racist rednecks, and old women. True Americans, indeed.

Posted by Cal | March 6, 2008 11:19 AM

"Yes but the remaining contests are more favorable to Clinton and she should be able to gain 30-50 pledged delegates on Obama with the remaining contests."

That is very questionable.

Posted by John | March 6, 2008 11:20 AM

"Yes but the remaining contests are more favorable to Clinton and she should be able to gain 30-50 pledged delegates on Obama with the remaining contests."

That is very questionable.

Posted by John | March 6, 2008 11:20 AM

As the other John says, the idea that Clinton will be able to gain 50 pledged delegates on Obama with the remaining contests is doubtful. A likely prognostication would have her gaining delegates from Pennsylvania, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Puerto Rico; Obama gaining delegates from Wyoming, Mississippi, North Carolina (almost as many delegates there as Pennsylvania, and Obama's likely to have a bigger win there than Clinton does in PA), Oregon, South Dakota, and Montana; and Indiana a toss-up. Even granting that to Clinton, that looks more like about maintaining the status quo than Clinton gaining 30-50 delegates.

With Michigan and Florida redoes, Clinton is in somewhat better shape, but still. The non-contested primary gave her 18 out of Florida - no way she does that well in a real contest. And I think Michigan would be a genuine toss-up in a real election - I certainly wouldn't expect Clinton to pick up more than a couple of delegates from there (it is, in several ways, more favorable to Obama than Ohio was)

Posted by John (11:12 AM) | March 6, 2008 11:26 AM

Obama will be a disaster in the midwest and the south

Neither Democrat is likely to do well in the south. Clinton might win Arkansas, but Obama might win Virginia, and Virginia's bigger. Neither of them is likely to win the other southern states.

As to the Midwest, I'm not sure what that's supposed to be based on. Obama has done well in the upper Midwest, and Illinois is his home state. So far, Ohio is the only midwestern state he's done poorly in, and even there, it's anybody's guess if she'd really be a better general election candidate.

Posted by John (11:12 AM) | March 6, 2008 11:30 AM

Math! It's like an electoral version of vampire stakes.

Posted by Deborah | March 6, 2008 11:40 AM

I'm just warning you guys the "true Americans" thing is going to be her strategy. She's been framing and will continue to frame herself as the working class candidate. And she will argue that Obama isn't electable in the midwest. She'll argue that Ohio and Florida are the battlegrounds in an election and that she'll do better there. Obama will argue that Virginia,Colorado and other western states are the battlegrounds.

Also, don't expect each race to be close. When I made my projection I had Obama winning ~60% in NC, and Clinton getting 60% in IN, and a little less in PA. KY and WV will be really ugly for Obama. Marc's Gertrude scenario post and even the leaked Obama memo seem to underestimate t the variance in results state by state.

Posted by Robery | March 6, 2008 11:46 AM

This is an interesting point.

Still can someone do a scenario analysis with African Americans not voting because HRC steals the nomination with her bag of tricks.

I'll bet that looks bad for the Dems.

Posted by Kim | March 6, 2008 11:46 AM

Robery,

You do realize that Clinton got 60% or more in only one state (Arkansas) and 55% or more in 4 other states (MA, NY, OK and RI). I think you underestimate the difficultly she has in running up hugh margins. Ohio was considered a blow-out and she only got 54% of the vote. I think a better estimate would be to assume no more than a 55-45 margin for either candidate in the upcoming primaries. And if you do that, they split the remaining delegates pretty close to 50-50. (Clinton may have a 5-10 delegate edge.)

Posted by kjblair | March 6, 2008 11:58 AM

What are UADs again?

Thanks in advance for your help!

Posted by Ben | March 6, 2008 12:33 PM

Ben,


The full explanation can be found by clicking the link in Marc's post. But the short version is that there are 76 Unpledged Add-On Delegates distributed among the 50 states and DC. Though technically 'unpledged' like the other superdelegates, they get to go to the convention not by virtue of some office they hold, but because they've been selected by some mechanism at the state level. As it turns out, we can predict with a fair degree of accuracy how most of these 76 UADs will vote in August, even though only two of them have actually been chosen.

Does that help?

Posted by FlyOnTheWall | March 6, 2008 12:38 PM

What kjblair said, only more so: sure, Clinton got 55% of the vote in Ohio, but she got less than that many pledged delegates. (75 out of 141 = 53.19%.) And, little though the media realizes it, Obama has won Texas by three to seven delegates.

So "wins" in her two invincible firewalls have netted her at most six pledged delegates--a stunning (heh) 50.9%-49.1% triumph. (Actually, she'll be lucky to keep it that wide; the Obama campaign says the results, once they're all counted, will reduce the margin to two net pledged delegates--50.3%-49.7%.) Why does anyone think she'll do substantially better in the remaining contests?

Posted by Rieux | March 6, 2008 12:48 PM

What kjblair said, only more so: sure, Clinton got 55% of the vote in Ohio, but she got less than that many pledged delegates. (75 out of 141 = 53.19%.) And, little though the media realizes it, Obama has won Texas by three to seven delegates.

So "wins" in her two invincible firewalls have netted her at most six pledged delegates--a stunning (heh) 50.9%-49.1% triumph. (Actually, she'll be lucky to keep it that wide; the Obama campaign says the results, once they're all counted, will reduce the margin to two net pledged delegates--50.3%-49.7%.) Why does anyone think she'll do substantially better in the remaining contests?

Posted by Rieux | March 6, 2008 12:49 PM

Rieux wrote, "Why does anyone think she'll do substantially better in the remaining contests?" The few states remaining are more favorable to her. Pennsylvania is a closed primary, and there are a lot of blue collar dems and older voters. in Pa. Clinton's big advantage remaining is WV, Kentucky, and Indiana which combined is about the size of Ohio in terms of population. Obama will be lucky to win 40% in any of these states (look up the results in southern Ohio, rural Tennessee, and western Virginia). Obama will have a tough time holding his own in the midwest in states that don't have large minority populations or large metropolitan populations.

I'm just warning you guys.

Posted by Robert | March 6, 2008 1:21 PM

Robert, so if I'm understanding you correctly you're saying that the redneck yahoos in Appalachian Pennsylvania, bluegrass Kentucky, and farmers paradise Indiana won't exactly be lining up for Obama. Having grown up in that part of the country, the mainstays of guns, trucks, and God (the kind who hates blacks, Jews, and gays), don't generally match up too well with rational thought. Unfortunately your point is correct. Good thing Obama has a big lead going in.

Posted by Jay | March 6, 2008 1:36 PM

Thanks to the Dems for creating this mess in the first place. What kind of lunacy has a primary, immediately followed by a caucus?

And how is it that the so-called party of the little guy is afraid of the secret ballot? As in, why have caucuses at all? It's just another way to enforce group think.

Talking to some of our liberal, Democratic-voting friends, they are disgusted; they don't trust Hillary; they don't know squat about Obama.

In our family, we've got some Obama supporters, but they tend to be college students or just-graduated from college. Smart. But truly ignorant of the world as it actually is.

We're trying intervention, but they're about to drink the Kool Aid anyway.

Me and the missus? We're voting for the Navy guy...

Posted by John Rich | March 6, 2008 1:40 PM

This is all moot, because unless Barry can prove that he can take a punch, that he can close, and that he can win this thing in November, he's going to have trouble hanging onto his own already-gained superdelegates, never mind getting others. The superdelegates will decide this race -- that's one of their functions (deciding close contests when nobody gains a nominating majority). This has been clear since the 5th of February. Ain't no way the party is going to give the nod to a guy who proves himself to be a weak sister -- especially when the strong sister is willing to tap offer her rival the running mate spot. He's got six weeks to prove he has what it takes to win. You might not like team Clinton, but they've proven countless times they know how to beat Republicans, including twice in national elections. Obama has never faced a tough fight from the GOP.

Posted by Monday | March 6, 2008 2:08 PM

Rieux wrote, "Why does anyone think she'll do substantially better in the remaining contests?" The few states remaining are more favorable to her. Pennsylvania is a closed primary, and there are a lot of blue collar dems and older voters. in Pa. Clinton's big advantage remaining is WV, Kentucky, and Indiana which combined is about the size of Ohio in terms of population. Obama will be lucky to win 40% in any of these states (look up the results in southern Ohio, rural Tennessee, and western Virginia). Obama will have a tough time holding his own in the midwest in states that don't have large minority populations or large metropolitan populations.

I'm just warning you guys.

Posted by Robert | March 6, 2008 2:30 PM

Rieux wrote, "Why does anyone think she'll do substantially better in the remaining contests?" The few states remaining are more favorable to her. Pennsylvania is a closed primary, and there are a lot of blue collar dems and older voters. in Pa. Clinton's big advantage remaining is WV, Kentucky, and Indiana which combined is about the size of Ohio in terms of population. Obama will be lucky to win 40% in any of these states (look up the results in southern Ohio, rural Tennessee, and western Virginia). Obama will have a tough time holding his own in the midwest in states that don't have large minority populations or large metropolitan populations.

I'm just warning you guys.

Posted by Robert | March 6, 2008 2:30 PM

This process is crazy. I used to think a winner-take-all system was unfair. But seeing how in-the-weeds insane it is to fight for each delegate, and how arbitrarily they are awarded, Democrats should probably return to winner-take-all. At least each state win would be clear-cut, and the total vote margins between the candidates would probably be more distinct. They should probably also eliminate superdelegates (nonviolently, if possible.)

At the end, who ever is ahead, wins. Case closed.

I'm not sure what this says about winning large versus small states, or whether the winner would reflect the most electable person. But I'm not sure whether the existing system -- which rewards huge 65-35 wins in small states as much or more than close races in large ones -- is much better.

As in Florida 2000, party officials never seemed to consider what would happen in a close race. I guess we're about to find out.

Posted by Sue | March 6, 2008 2:37 PM

Robert, I agree with you that Sen Obama would likely have a big problem with Ohio in the general election, but I wonder if anybody considered the liability that Sen Clinton would have in Illinois, specifically against Sen McCain.

I see a lot of statements referring Illinois as to be solidly in the Blue category. Upon first glance, and based on recent history, I understand why people outside of Illinois would believe that. However, that just isn't the way it works here in general.

The first thing you have to understand is that the Illinois republican and independent electorate really tends to vote for moderate seeming Republicans... The pro-security, lower taxes, smaller government types. What those voters really don't like, in general, are the Republicans that stress social conservative values above all.

This is important to understand, because, after years of being in power, the 'moderate' wing of the Republican party started to implode due to scandals duriong the Edgar administration in the early 1990's and it all came to a head shortly after the now convicted felon George Ryan was elected Governor here in 1998. These scandals tore through the entire State Party destroying almost anything they touched and it created a general lack of experienced moderate republicans in the State. The only semi-established Republicans left standing were the Social conservatives or a handful of old school moderate types that were forever tainted by Governor Ryan. Throw in the fact that the state voted against Bush twice (see the social conservative thing) and that the state republican party thought it was a good idea to put Alan Keyes on the ballot in 2006, and the State looks bluer than Blue recently.

However, underneath the surface, there is trouble brewing. The current Democratic Governor (Public Offical A in the Tony Rezko Trial) and both democratically controlled chambers of the Illinois legislature are facing increasing hostility from across the board. Approaching 9 months past the deadline top do so, they still haven't passed a complete budget for the year. In addition, many bills aren't getting paid, the State is getting further in debt, and the governor is getting creative with his use of his line item veto powers by essentially completely re-writing legislation before signing it (Think of it as a putting a signing statement into the law itself that the legislature never wrote nor intended).

What I am getting at is that there is a reason that the independents and moderate republicans having been trending democratic for the last several cycles. However, if given an opportunity to vote for McCain vs someone that is not one of our own, those people in downstate Illinois and in the collar counties around Chicago are going to vote in large numbers for Sen McCain. The only thing that could potentially overcome that is if there would be some historically high turnout in Chicago itself, especially amongst African-American voters and latinos.

I am not saying that Sen Clinton wouldn't win the African-American vote in Chicago by a large margin over Sen. McCain. What I am saying is that, at this point, I am not seeing the turnout being nearly as high for her here as it would be for Sen Obama. And I realize that Sen Clinton is carrying the latino vote by wide margins vs Sen Obama, but I am not so sure that she has the same huge edge with latino voters in a match-up with Sen McCain unless he does a complete 180 on his immigration stance before November.

It really doesn't help her that Sen Durbin's seat is so safe that it won't affect turnout in any way shape or form. In the end, it wouldn't shock me if Sen McCain would be able to pull out a 53-47 type victory against Sen Clinton in a direct match up in Illinois just based on turnout of downstate + suburbs versus Chicago.

Posted by Benniefly2 | March 6, 2008 3:17 PM

And what about the Edwards delegates? In Iowa he has more delegates than Clinton does. It's not a huge number, but at this point 14 delegates is still significant.

Posted by Gorham | March 6, 2008 4:13 PM