Some New Projections: Scenario Gertrude

Allocating (generously), 60 percent of the remaining superdelegates to Clinton and running the following projections through Forbes's delegate calculator, I've come up, quite unexpectedly, with a 1,976 to 1,976 delegate tie. I'll call this scenario "Gertrude."

If I change the superdelegate allocation to 60% to 40% in the favor of Obama, he wins the nomination by 26 delegates.

If the superdelegates split down the middle -- there are roundabout 352 of them, in Forbes's estimation -- Obama is 14 votes short.

So you see why the math still favors Obama.

Were Clinton to add, say, 30 extra delegates and hundreds of thousands of net popular votes from revoting in Michigan and Florida -- well -- even under a split superdelegate scenario, she would have a much better case to make that the nomination is essentially tied and that the superdelegates and even the pledged delegates are lobbyable.

Comments

The timing of the Clinton tax releases is very fishy.

Evidently they want to wait until just before or probably after the Pennsylvania primary.

These are tax returns going back to the end of Bill Clinton's presidency, not ones to be filed this year.

Are the media going to let them get along with this?

Posted by Suzie | March 5, 2008 3:02 PM

I'm going to completely ignore that part at the end about changing the rules of the primary during the middle of the game, and ask instead, what exactly previously prevent those superdelegates from backing Clinton? You know, in the era of inevitability? Doesn't it seem like if they were going to back her, they would have done so at one of the innumerable opportunities before now?

That said, I do find it hilarious that Edwards might yet wind up wielding clout at the convention. Obama/Edwards, anyone?

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 5, 2008 3:03 PM

Couple issues with the above scenario:

1) Has Clinton winning North Carolina - as a resident of this great state, it's not happening. The large African American vote coupled with the wealth of professionals in the Research Triangle area are Obama voters.

2) I'm also unsure about a 60/40 split in her favor with the Superdelegates - she was clearly the "machine" candidate, as illustrated by her immediate lead among Superdelegates. Those outstanding obviously have doubts about her. I would assume moving forward Obama will win at least a slight majority of outstanding Superdelegates.

Posted by RDH | March 5, 2008 3:05 PM

"If I change the superdelegate allocation to 60% to 40% in the favor of Obama, he wins the nomination by 26 delegates."

Here is one you forgot to try: Hillary 60% obama 40%

Oh right you didn't forget...

Posted by hadenough | March 5, 2008 3:08 PM

the clinton victory numbers in the chart above are generally unrealistic.

on another note - isnt puerto rico winner take and all and not proportional - giving the winner of the century old colony a major swing in delegates?

Posted by Lincoln | March 5, 2008 3:13 PM

Which is just a way of saying the same thing you and others have been saying for the last few weeks - there is no way for Clinton to catch up in pledged delegates, or even get close (with a Michigan and Florida revote being the wildcard). Your scenario requires her to win the supers by a total of 109 (including already announced supers) to offset a 109 delegate edge for Obama among pledged delegates. That is (a) unlikely to happen, and (b) without getting into the justice of it, guaranteed to lead to millions of Obama voters staying home for the general, resulting in a 45 state (at least) landslide for McCain.

A Michigan and Florida revote might change (a) (by making it closer, say 50 at best best for her, as opposed to over 100), but wouldn't change (b).

At this point, unless Clinton changes her tune, McCain probably wins either way, as Clinton takes down Obama with her. But at least with Obama, the Dems would have a chance of doing well with the House & Senate races. With Clinton at the top of the ballot, the Dems lose both the house and the senate. Probably by a lot.

Posted by LarryM | March 5, 2008 3:16 PM

Whoops, just noticed that (according to the Forbes calculator page) Marc's starting point doesn't include the Texas caucuses. So under Marc's Project Gertrude, Obama leads by seven delegates.

Guess that means it's time to massage the numbers, eh? A few more arbitrary points for Hillary here and there should do the trick.

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 5, 2008 3:22 PM

First, Puerto Rico isn't winner take all. That was something Barone pushed awhile ago. He was wrong.

Obama hasn't lost a state where the african-americna makeup is over 20%. Thus, Clinton winning North Carolina seems unlikely. Clinton needs about 58% of the remaining super delegates plus new contests in Michigan and Florida. And then would have to win the new contests decisively. It would take am almost perfect storm for Clinton to win at this point. But I imagine the Democratic party will give Sen. Clinton every opportunity to try and win.

Posted by Ben | March 5, 2008 3:28 PM

How can it be 1976 - 1976 when 2025 are needed to win? That should make it 2024 - 2024. Better go find some missing delegates.

Posted by Chris O. | March 5, 2008 3:28 PM

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph!

Gertrude

Sounds like a name for a Hurricane and that's what a tie would engender:ballot after ballot winds of possible deals and pressure on keeping each sides delegates "on the reservation" so to speak never mind the how that forces each side to "hunker down".

If I were a super delegate as of today I would stay uncommitted - just let the process play out and see how bad "feelings" get.

Gertrude is another name for maybe nominating Al Gore after about 4-6 ballots of "tied"

Posted by Susan H | March 5, 2008 3:29 PM

Does anyone remember the leaked memo from Obama and the projections for each state...who did he have winning ohio and texas? and by how much...I can't find the memo..and where is he/her now, after March 5th according to his math, ahead or behind his own count?

Posted by whoa Now | March 5, 2008 3:31 PM

Obama also does really well in states bordering Illinois.

I do not think Obama is going to lose Indiana.

Posted by chris | March 5, 2008 3:31 PM

Ok found it...
the leaked memo said
Ohio
53% Hillary with 73 delegates
47% Obama with 68 delegates

Texas
51 Hillary with 101 delegates
47 Obama with 92 delegates

well he is a little off, but it doesn't really matter much because he still won VT by more than he projected and he won Maine, which he was projection a loss. For the upcoming important states he is projection a loss in Penn

Penn
52% Clinton with 83 delegates
47% Obama with 75 delegates...

but I think the story is NC...
he is projecting a win in NC with
53% Obama with 61 dele.
45% Clinton with 54 dele...

If he can somehow increase his lead in NC to say 60% and pick off a few more delegates..it will be very hard for Clinton to make Penn, Wva, Kentucy mean much of anything.

Posted by whoa Now | March 5, 2008 3:43 PM

Combined, these statements don't make sense mathematically:

1) Allocating 60 percent of the remaining superdelegates to Clinton [yields] a 1,976 to 1,976 delegate tie.

2) If I change the superdelegate allocation to 60% to 40% in the favor of Obama, he wins the nomination by 26 delegates.

3) There are roundabout 352 [undecided superdelegates].

20% of 352 is 70 delegates. Switching from 60-40 Clinton to 60-40 Obama is taking 70 delegates for Clinton and giving them to Obama. If the first scenario is tied, Obama must be up by 140 delegates after the switch.

Posted by David | March 5, 2008 3:50 PM

I am beginning to reconsider my call for people in the media to try their hand at doing math.

Posted by DTM | March 5, 2008 3:58 PM

Does anyone have any idea how the puerto rican pardons of 2000 will play into the puerto rico primary?

Posted by pt | March 5, 2008 3:59 PM

1,976 + 70 = 2046, or about 21 more delegates than are needed for the nomination. The math works out.

Posted by Michael S | March 5, 2008 4:03 PM

What are you basing Clinton wins in North Carolina and Indiana on?

Posted by Dawn | March 5, 2008 4:12 PM

Check out this diary entry on Daily Kos. I don't have the political knowledge to back it up, but it argues that Obama's pledged delegate lead is even more insurmountable than just the pure percentages suggest. The key to this delegate math analysis is the size of the remaining delegate districts.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/4/162042/3056/80/468751

Posted by A Pan | March 5, 2008 4:14 PM

Michael S- good point, I now see how Marc is counting. That count, of course, assumes (see Chris O and Jeff Larson) that the Texas caucuses don't count toward the 2024 needed for the nomination, of course. If you assume that the Texas caucus is split half and half and that scenario Gertrude really is a tie, then Obama wins the nomination with 140 more delegates than Clinton.

Posted by David | March 5, 2008 4:21 PM

Chris, IN may border IL, but it's more like OH and PA. Like those two, it also has a sizeable Amish/Mennonite area. Just look at its political figures - even the Dems are anti-abortion.

Once you get outside Gary, it's deeply rural and very conservative. Downstate IL is far more akin to KY. The eastern section - especially around Ft. Wayne - the radio stations are lots of country, lots of Jesus, and one each of classic rock and classical. On Sundays, downtown Ft. Wayne is a veritable ghost town - the Hilton doesn't even serve meals after breakfast.

Posted by Judy | March 5, 2008 4:21 PM

Someone told me a long time ago that Indiana is the most racist state in the country, and I've never seen anything to change my mind, though various members of the Deep South have, at various times, come close to doing so.

So I don't think a Clinton win there is at all improbable, especially now that exit polls demonstrate that she's locked up the crucial "Racist Democrat" demographic.

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 5, 2008 4:28 PM

I believe there is a problem with the 2025 number. This number is a majority of the delegates including Florida and Michigan. If they aren't seated, it doesn't make sense that either candidate would need to get to 2025.

Posted by umbrelladoc | March 5, 2008 4:30 PM

The upshot of this is that Clinton has no chance of becoming the nominee of the Democratic party in 2008 so long as Obama lives until Denver.

Posted by Curtis | March 5, 2008 4:35 PM

I remain convinced that the reason Al Gore has kept quiet is that if these two keep going at it for the next several months, and especially if there is a brokered convention between two heavily damaged and bruised candidates (and no, Hillary has NOT been vetted yet, so there's damage to be done there), it does leave open the possibility for him to offer himself up as a party unifier and "adopt" one of the candidates, Caesar-like, as his vice president, perhaps even pledging to serve just one term.

Posted by CMC79 | March 5, 2008 4:37 PM

umbrelladoc, the 2024 or 2025 number excludes FL and MI.

Posted by pt | March 5, 2008 4:37 PM

Indiana isn't much like Western PA or SE Ohio (which are Appalachian areas).

It is, however, like the other parts of Ohio (Gary being a Great Lakes city like Cleveland/Toledo, and the rest of Indiana being like the Central and Western portions of Ohio).

I think that makes it a somewhat open question what would happen in Indiana. But without the Appalachian parts, it is generally more favorable for Obama than Ohio or Western PA, and indeed Obama appears to have done reasonably well around Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, and Cincinnati.

Posted by DTM | March 5, 2008 4:45 PM

Hillary: The New Huckabee
http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20080305/cm_huffpost/089965

Posted by Kathy Millet | March 5, 2008 4:54 PM

Beyond Senator Clinton’s invented claim last night that, “No person has ever won the White House without winning the Ohio primary, in either party… Somehow the people of Ohio end up picking the winners,” the entire spin that winning “big state” primaries therefore equates winning those states in the November election simply does not compute.

Anybody that thinks it does, remember that in 1988 Michael Dukakis beat Al Gore, Jesse Jackson and others for the Democratic nomination by winning Ohio, Texas, California, Pennsylvania, Florida, New Jersey and lots more…....The rest is history.

Posted by Sonny L. | March 5, 2008 5:00 PM

As has been mentioned, Puerto Rico is not winner take all.

The governor of Puerto Rico is listed as a superdelegate for Obama on the Politico Website.

I have no idea about overall feelings, but my girlfriend's parents (who live in San Juan), don't really like Hillary (or Bill) because of things like the pardoning of the terrorists. As far as I can tell, people who actually live in Puerto Rico (as opposed to Puerto Ricans in the continental U.S.) are generally much less favorable to that cause.

They told me that the PR Dem Party has been talking about having an open primary instead of the caucus.

Posted by Alexis | March 5, 2008 5:04 PM

Puerto Rico also went with Jesse Jackson in '88. Like the other Caribbean territories, they're historically more friendly to candidates of African descent than mainland Hispanics.

Posted by Victor | March 5, 2008 5:19 PM

Okay, I'm gonna bang on this theme again in this thread: why should Clinton get out? She's already run through the worst slide (losing 11 in a row) she'll have.

Using Gertrude, I agree roughly that she and Obama split the next 12 states, with Clinton probably ending up with more delegates and popular votes over the next 12 weeks. Neither one can win without the super delegates [SD's], and if Obama continues to have some bad times - eg. NAFTA, Rezko - the bloom will be well off the rose. And because of this new pile on of Obama, doesn't it make sense if you're an unpledged SD (or even a pledged SD) that you wait for a few weeks or 'til the convention to make a decision?

Looking at it with the Forbes delegate calculator, Clinton is 79 delegates behind, or 2.5% points behind in currently pledged delegates. A lot can happen in 12 weeks, but one thing that can't happen is either Clinton or Obama closing this out before Denver.

Would the best thing be for them to join a ticket together? After everything, could they join a ticket together?

Posted by wnfb | March 5, 2008 5:49 PM

Marc!
If I change the superdelegate allocation to 60% to 40% in the favor of Obama, he wins the nomination by 26 delegates.

He cannot win the nomination with pledged delegates. Neither can Hillary. He can run the table and still not win the nomination with pledged delegates! Why on earth this myth keeps getting perpetuated is astonishingly bizarre. It takes 2025 to get the nomination. Neither can win without superdelegates. Can you do a separate post about this simple fact?

Posted by garage mahal | March 5, 2008 5:49 PM

>>>
Would the best thing be for them to join a ticket together? After everything, could they join a ticket together?

That's pretty irrelevant, really. Sure, there's a pretty decent chance that at some point they'll join a ticket, but that's never going to have any mollifying impact on the race from now to the convention. At present, neither one is going to accept being the running mate; the top of the ticket is what they're fighting for, and Hillary has made it clear that she's not going to look at the facts, grit her teeth, and take the way out that's best for the party.

Posted by fumphis | March 5, 2008 6:37 PM

Garage,

You're missing the point. Reseating FL and MI requires the credentials committee. So long as Obama leads in pledged delegates, he controls the credentials committee.

Marc here is incorrect. She can't tie with margins like this. You need to take into account allocation rules, etc.

Posted by Rational Guy | March 5, 2008 6:39 PM

I believe there is a problem with the 2025 number. This number is a majority of the delegates including Florida and Michigan. If they aren't seated, it doesn't make sense that either candidate would need to get to 2025.

Which pretty much makes it obvious that the DNC was always planning on seating them.

And if they're only at 1976, then Obama doesn't get to 2025, so am I missing something?

Posted by Cal | March 6, 2008 3:25 AM

What happen to the Texas wo step voting, to my knowledge the second voting would be added, if that true then Obama won Texas

Posted by Close Watch | March 6, 2008 5:49 AM

What happen to the Texas wo step voting, to my knowledge the second voting would be added, if that true then Obama won Texas

Posted by Close Watch | March 6, 2008 5:50 AM

Second the previous motions on Clinton NC win. Not likely after big Obama victories in VA and SC. The 3 a.m. ad won't cut it for Clinton in a military state like NC. IN and KY numbers also dubious, and I'd bet on a bigger Obama win in OR.

Posted by allbetsareoff | March 6, 2008 10:26 AM

no longer operable -
today, BHO got 3 super-delegates and HRC 1... According to realclearpolitics, it is now 207 for BHO and 242 for HRC, thus 449 "cast".
Plus, because of residency requirements, one of HRC's NY supers was movede to FL, reducing the total to 794. 794 - 449 leaves 345 to be decided.
Look at the super-delegate movement after 2/5: it's about 20 to ZERO in favor if Sen. Obama!

Posted by Carthage | March 6, 2008 4:24 PM

"If the superdelegates split down the middle"
then the Dems will have twice the political
hacks to be "serviced" by the respective
campaigns. No wonder Hillary and Obama have to
keep pulling in money hand-over -fist.

Posted by interferon | March 7, 2008 1:53 AM