Other contests
1.America Samoa, 3 Delegates, 1 Obama, 2 Clinton
2.Americans Abroad, 7 Delegates, 4.5 Obama, 2.5 Clinton (I'd hate to be the delegate who is chopped in half!)
3.Guam, 4 Delegates, Primary May 3
4.Puerto Rico, 55 Delegates, Primary June 7
5.Virgin Islands, 3 Delegates, 3 Obama

Totals 2,687
Obama 1419.5
Clinton 1249.5
Edwards 18

Still available (including Florida and Michigan): 904

Distribution of delegates still available
1.Florida 210 Delegates
2.Indiana 72 Delegates, Primary May 6
3.Kentucky, 51 Delegates, Primary May 20
4.Michigan 128 Delegates
5.Montana, 16 Delegates, Primary June 3
6.North Carolina, 115 Delegates, Primary May 6
7.Oregon, 52 Delegates, Primary May 20
8.Pennsylvania, 158 Delegates, Primary April 22
9.South Dakota, 15 Delegates, Primary June 3
10.West Virginia, 28 Delegates, Primary May 13
11.Guam, 4 Delegates, Primary May 3
12.Puerto Rico, 55 Delegates, Primary June 7
Total 904

Less Florida and Michigan: 338
Total: 566

Pledged and distributed 2,687
Still Available 904
Total 3,591

[ 15 March 2008: Message edited by: Adam T ]

quote:

---

The Democratic Party rules do not use the term "superdelegate". The formal designation (in Rule 9.A) is "unpledged party leader and elected official delegates"[1] ("PLEO"). In addition to these unpledged PLEO delegates, the state parties choose other unpledged delegates (Rule 9.B) and pledged PLEO delegates (Rule 9.C).[1] This article discusses only the unpledged PLEO delegates.

---

Anybody want to bet that Hillary will win by a small margin of PLEO's, while still losing the nomination of the "Democratic" party?

I don't know why people bother really.

[ 13 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

The Democratic superdelegates are the same. They are mostly elected officials (senators, congressfolk and governors), along with members of the Democratic National Committee and a handful of party grandees like Jimmy Carter.

At an NDP leadership convention, however (even under the old delegated system), the "superdelegates" cast secret ballots like everyone else, so there was no way to tell their net effect.

Whereas in the US system, the delegate votes are cast by a state-by-state roll call. Since the pledged delegates are largely a known quantity (apart from a small number of delegates elected for John Edwards or officially as uncommitted), it is easy to figure out how the superdelegates voted.

For example, if the State of Massconfusion gave ten delegates each to Obama and Clinton, but cast their rollcall as ten for Obama and 12 for Clinton, it would be apparent that two superdelegates supported Clinton.

Now, it is notionally possible that one candidate could win a majority of 713 among the pledged delegates and still lose if all 714 superdelegates voted for the other candidate. But that is unlikely.

Theoretically, the superdelegates are free agents. Practically, they are not idiots. They are well aware that the appearance of the superdelegates "overturning" the pledged delegates would be damaging to the party.

How damaging, though, varies.

If, at the end of the process, Obama had 1651 pledged delegates and Clinton 1649, the damage would be minimal. Particularly so if, for example, Clinton had actually won more primary votes.

But for Hillary to even get that close among pledged delegates, she needs to win about 60% of the remaining delegates.

Problem for Hillary is that several of the outstanding primaries / caucusses are in states that are more likely to favour Obama - ie, states like those where Obama has done very well, beating Clinton with 60-70 percent of the vote.

- Indiana - 72
- Kentucky - 51
- Montana - 16
- Oregon - 52
- South Dakota - 15
- Guam - 4

That's 210 of the remaining 566 pledged delegates. Even assuming Obama and Clinton break even in these states (not likely), she still needs to beat him by a margin of about 160 among the remaining 356 delegates - or by a margin of 218 to 138 in North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Puerto Rico. And North Carolina is probably more of a swing state than a natural Clinton state.

My best projections suggest that, even with the perfect storm, Clinton arrives at the convention at least 100 pledged delegates behind Obama.

Among the superdelegates who have indicated a preference, Clinton has a net lead of between 20 and 40. So even with her current advantage in declared superdelegates, she's still down by an absolute minimum of 60 votes before the remaining 250ish superdelegates make a decision.

So, to win she would need about 62 percent of the outstanding superdelegates in order to win (155-95).

Now, put yourselves in the shoes of the 250ish outstanding superdelegates.

A perception that the superdelegates overturn a clear decision of Democratic primary voters and caucus goers inevitably damages the ticket.

Given that the Obama campaign seems to have a higher proportion of "idealistic first time" voters, this is likely to mean even more turnout depression than a straight out and honest Obama loss would have.

Depressing the Democratic turnout not only undermines the chances of winning the White House, it also damages the prospects for down-ticket races.

Damage to down ticket races could easily mean losing the Senate.

Damage to down ticket races could easily mean losing the House.

Damage to down ticket races damages gubernatorial races, state senate and state assembly races, mayorality races, city council races, district attorney races, dog catcher races.

Just how stupid would a superdelegate need to be to throw all that on the table?

If Clinton were close (unlikely), if Clinton had a majority of primary voters (unlikely), if there were some sort of Obama slept with a dead goat scandal at the last minute (surely we'd have heard rumblings by now), then maybe.

Otherwise, I simply cannot imagine a circumstance where the outstanding superdelegates break in favour of Clinton at all, let along by the kind of margin required.

Florida and Michigan, of course, are the wild cards. Both states are more like the Clinton states to date than the Obama states to date. Clinton winning 60 percent of 338 delegates gives her a net gain of about 68 delegates.

But I'm not convinced that she can carry 60 percent or better of those delegates. She's likely to win a majority of them, but I don't think either Florida or Michigan are likely to be as lopsided in her favour as was Ohio.

Furthermore, remember that the previous "behind by 100) projection assumes Clinton breaking even in those Obama leaning six contests for 210 delegates. In fact, I think 55-60 percent margins for Obama are much more likely in these states.

The New York Times has a lot of detailed information about the current delegate counts etc at:

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/votes/index.html

[ 14 March 2008: Message edited by: Malcolm French, APR ]

But we all know that ain't gonna happen?

__________________________

Hillary Clinton is not a republican. No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know.

[ 15 March 2008: Message edited by: mary123 ]

[ 15 March 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

If Clinton truly loved America and loved the democratic party and for the good of the democratic party, she should give it up and announce it's all over for her.

---

quote:

---

At this point we know that 1) Obama will end the contest with the most pledged delegates, 2) Obama will likely end the contest with the popular vote tally, 3) Obama will end the contest with the most money and greatest fundraising potential, 4) Obama will end the contest with the most states, 5) Obama will end the contest with the best poll numbers against McCain, and 6) Obama will end the contest with the most primary state victories and caucus state victories.

So what's left for Team Clinton? She has to convince a majority of the super delegates to cast their vote for her, so how does she get those supers to ignore all of the above Obama advantages in order to cast their ballot for the candidate who is losing?

Apparently, it's a two-pronged strategy.

---

Clinton's "discredit Obama and the process" strategy

[ 15 March 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

Getting back to the theme of this thread.

Obama expands delegate lead over Clinton.

[ 15 March 2008: Message edited by: mary123 ]

quote:

---

Mr. Obama has won more states, a greater share of the popular vote and more pledged delegates than Mrs. Clinton.

A New York Times survey of superdelegates last week found that Mr. Obama had been winning over more of them recently than Mrs. Clinton had, though Mrs. Clinton retained an overall lead among those who have made a choice. Over the past month, according to the survey, Mr. Obama, of Illinois, picked up 54 superdelegates; Mrs. Clinton, of New York, picked up 31.

“If we get to the end and Senator Obama has won more states, has more delegates and more popular vote,” said Representative Jason Altmire, Democrat of Pennsylvania, who is undecided, “I would need some sort of rationale for why at that point any superdelegate would go the other way, seeing that the people have spoken.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Guess who the Republicans want the Democratic nominee to be?

---

If the battle continues between Obama and HRC all the way to the Denver convention at the end of August (a mere sixty days or so before the general election), it will be difficult for the "survivor" to mend fences with his or her defeated foe (and her or his supporters). I think that scenario is what Republicans really want...regardless of who the Democratic victor is.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
Also, I think a lot of HRC supporters, if she doesn't get the nomination, will actually vote for McCain over Obama.

---

To underscore that: A just-released poll of Obama and HRC supporters in Pennsylvania indicates that 1 in 5 Obama supporters will vote for McCain if HRC gets the nomination and 1 in 5 HRC supporters will vote for McCain if Obama gets the nomination (see top of page twelve on linked poll report). That would be enough to throw the election to McCain.

[ 21 March 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
... - but mark my words - one of them will be nominated and give a great speech at the Democratic convention and once people go through months of intense McCain vs whoever the Democratic nominee is - I predict that the vast, vast majority of Democrats will support that nominee - people will quickly forget who they backed in the primaries.

---

There may be “months” to repair fences, but barely literally (two) so.

If this battle continues through to an acrimonious convention in Denver in late August (which seems more and more likely to happen), the bitterness between the Obama and HRC camps is only going to grow in intensity and it’s going to be impossible for the nominee to turn the nominee’s opponent’s supporters around on a dime to supporting the nominee.

Instead, most time and money is going to have to be spent repairing fences within “the base”...and with only sixty days to work with, and every day counting, it’s going to be extremely difficult to do that while, simultaneously, trying to get to the vital independent voters. McCain can concentrate all of his time and money on wooing, and growing his support among, the independents.

If McCain wins this thing, it will be a colossal failure of the Democratic Party.

[ 21 March 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]

McCain was the only Republican who stood a chance of winning in November. But it was still a slim chance.

Who knew he'd have the Clinton machine helping him?

[ 21 March 2008: Message edited by: Malcolm French, APR ]

quote:

---

One big fact has largely been lost in the recent coverage of the Democratic presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of winning.

Her own campaign acknowledges there is no way that she will finish ahead in pledged delegates. That means the only way she wins is if Democratic superdelegates are ready to risk a backlash of historic proportions from the party’s most reliable constituency.

Unless Clinton is able to at least win the primary popular vote — which also would take nothing less than an electoral miracle — and use that achievement to pressure superdelegates, she has only one scenario for victory. An African-American opponent and his backers would be told that, even though he won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone else.

People who think that scenario is even remotely likely are living on another planet.

As it happens, many people inside Clinton’s campaign live right here on Earth. One important Clinton adviser estimated to Politico privately that she has no more than a 10 percent chance of winning her race against Barack Obama, an appraisal that was echoed by other operatives.

In other words: The notion of the Democratic contest being a dramatic cliffhanger is a game of make-believe.

The real question is why so many people are playing. The answer has more to do with media psychology than with practical politics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Malcolm French, APR:
the pledged delegates are largely a known quantity (apart from a small number of delegates elected for John Edwards or officially as uncommitted) . . .

---

Besides, he has influence. At one point he had support from about 35 superdelegates.