Somebody tell me if this is right for Dems:

Pledged delegates consist of 1) district, 2) at-large, and 3) PLEO's. They're all obligated to support election winners.
A Are district delegates winner take all in a district? Or are even THOSE proportional?

B.Are at-large delegates proportional based on the STATE-wide percentage breakdown?

Example:

There are 10 delegates in district 1, and I win 80% of them to 20% for my opponent

There are 10 at-large delegates, and I win 80% of the statewide vote, while my opponent wins 20%

Is this the correct total (below)

Me: 8+8=16
Opponent: 2+2=4

This is giving me a friggin' headache :)

accepting this "delegate process"

discounting millions of voters in michigan and florida because of dnc rules.

If cali goes +10 for hillary, but because of "rules" there's no big bump, that is a horrible system.

People be fair:
California+New Jersey +arizona is more than

utah, n.d.,min.,kan.alaska,and so so many red states.

I think republicans who won't vote for obama in november are voting for him now.

They were over early last night. Why do we not know the delegate count? Is Richie Daley up to something?

This is a horrible system that needs to be fixed.

Hey, I'm an Obama supporter, but:

1)  The caucus system lead to results that cause a candidate to run up the score (example:  Minnesota is going to go 48-24 for Obama in delegates), where it is very tough to do so in a primary.

2)  The CD allocation system gives me a headache.  And, frankly, it is anti-democratic.

Hey, hats off to the Obama campaign.  I think they won more delegates last night despite not getting as many votes.  They simply out-thought Mark Penn and the Clinton campaign.  And it is a huge, unreported story:  they just completely beat the Hillary campaign last night in just outhinking them re:  picking up delegates.

Doesn't make it fair or something we want going forward.

One interesting thing to note from last night's results...  In all of the big blue states that Clinton won, Obama still beat McCain by popular vote.  From cnn.com as of 9am, Obama total listed first:

California:
1,631,864 to 925,693

Massachusetts:
506,384 to 447,437 (Romney & McCain combined)

New Jersey:
489,808 to 309,622

New York:
696,876 to 310,084

Obviously there are some caveats, such as that independents could only vote Dem in California, but still, these results assuage my fears that an Obama-McCain match-up would leave the Dems scrambling to cover their base.  Further, given how poorly McCain has done in some southern and midwest states, it appears that Obama might be able to pick off a few traditionally-Republican states, such as Georgia, where Obama got 696,622 votes compared to 628,497 for Huckabee and McCain combined.

Wow, Barack Obama wins more States and more delegates.http://www.politico.com/news/stories/020 8/8358.html

should be counted just yet in the total (or at the very least kept separate in a different total) because according to MSNBC, they can change at anytime.

There should be a total for delegates AND then a total for delegates + possible superdelegates since those may change anytime.

I love the smell of Irony in the morning...
Back in say  December, how woeful were the folks going after 2/5...Now you folks are the power.

"Goes to show you just never know
watch each card you play, play it slow"

The Democratic Party eventually has to figure out what to do about Florida and Michigan.  

Also, there's a big gap in the primary schedule between March 11 and April 22, where there's literally not a single primary or caucus on either side for six whole weeks.

If the DNC and the MI and FL state Democratic parties had a clue, they'd see an opportunity here.

If one state caucused on March 25, and the other on April 8, they'd both have two weeks of the candidates', the press', and the country's undivided attention.  Plus they'd get a huge chance to affect the outcome of the nomination process.

And it would be fair to the voters, fair to the candidates, and it would dispense with the possibility of the nomination being decided by pro-Hillary delegates from uncontested states.

This would be win-win every which way, unless Hillary was determined to hang onto the results of two essentially rigged primaries.

I am struck this morning by the fact that the media is a bit stunned and doesn't have a clear narrative laid out for the status of the campaign and where it is headed.

After Iowa it is on to New Hampshire.  After New Hampshire it is the gamingmanship between NV and SC.  Then it was the build up to Super Tuesday.

But Super Tuesday is over.  Now what is it?   What are the strategies, at least as the media sees it.  Who is the media favorite?  Is it still Obama?  Do they still focus their fire on Bill Clinton?  

One of the candidates could step in the next couple of days and define this race on their terms and gain an advantage.  The media at this moment is clueless how to proceed.

While the delegate proportioning system is certainly complicated, it's more democratic than the electoral college system and certainly more democratic than the Republicans WTA states.  It's a naive to ignore that the rounding off helps a candidate in one district just as much as it helps in another district.  Someone show me how a candidate could win the national popular vote and not get nomination.

More fundamentally the media needs to stop talking in terms of "winning" a state and start talking about winning X delegates.  I was getting so peeved last night at NPR announcing Obama has won Illinois, Idaho and Kansas while Clinton has won New York, Massachusetts, etc..  

Defense of the delegate system as more democratic than the republican system aside I think people would FEEL more like there vote "counted" if the reporting were done in vote counts instead of delegate counts and hence you might see even better turn out.

I think the spanking that Kerry and Kennedy got was big.  I think Kennedy jumping in the way he did may have intimided a few superdelegates.   I think many wanted to wait and see where the wind blew yesterday.

Clinton winning key Democratic states ... CA, NY, NJ, MA, is big.  This will move superdelegates in her direction.  They won't be leary of Teddy anymore, or worry about Obama winning California.

While the delegate proportioning system is certainly complicated, it's more democratic than the electoral college system and certainly more democratic than the Republicans WTA states.  It's a naive to ignore that the rounding off helps a candidate in one district just as much as it helps in another district.  Someone show me how a candidate could win the national popular vote and not get nomination.

More fundamentally the media needs to stop talking in terms of "winning" a state and start talking about winning X delegates.  I was getting so peeved last night at NPR announcing Obama has won Illinois, Idaho and Kansas while Clinton has won New York, Massachusetts, etc..  

Defense of the delegate system as more democratic than the republican system aside I think people would FEEL more like there vote "counted" if the reporting were done in vote counts instead of delegate counts and hence you might see even better turn out.

Something I haven't seen much of anywhere yet - adding primary + caucus voters - a tie in actual votes

Clinton: 7,186,853 (48.78%)
Obama: 7,142,354 (48.48%)
Edwards: (2.74%)

Numbers via The Field

This is why CA+MA+NJ+NY=all the other states. I'd say a delegate tie will turn out to be pretty fair, given the tie in the overall votes themselves

How can last night not be an Obama win? Hillary Clinton did not win one state that she was not suppose to win (i.e. georgia, alabama, minnesota). OBama did win states that were either toss-ups or that he was not suppose to win (i.e., missouri, connecticut, colorado). So basically, Clinton for the last few weeks was just "hanging on" to what she had, while Obama was making significant in-roads. Ultimately, he won more states, something that will be important in the general election. We know that a Dem is gonna win NY, so why not have OBama who shows strength in places where dems usually have not done well but have potential, like Colorado?

...In the all important delegate count.

Here's a link to CNN's election page which shows Hillary with 21 delegates and Obama with 20 delegates.

Obama wins the most delegates and the most states.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0 208/More_delegates_for_Obama.html

I just broke down all the California districts to see how the district by district apportionment would go.

For delegates determined by district, Clinton will win 134 and Obama 107.

For the at large delegates awarded proportionally, Clinton will win 67 and Obama 54.

Out of the 370 up for grabs based on the vote total, that means Clinton will win 201 and Obama 161.

I will respond to this post with my math, but I don't know how to format it into a solid spreadsheet.

Never thought I'd see the day when MyDD would be looking to superdelegates to decide who wins the Dem primary.

Isn't the whole point of this site that the voters ought to make these decisions, not the party bigshots?

Let's focus on the delegates who are won in elections and caucuses - that will put pressure on the superdelegates to come out the same way as the elections did or give a damn good reason.

I'm finding mistakes in the district math.

In a 4 delegate district you need 66% of the vote to gain an additional delegate.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me- caldems1feb01,1,6181097.story

In a 6 delegate district you need 60% of the vote to get 4 of the  6 districts.

In a 4 delegate district you need 66% of the vote go get 3 of the 4 delegates.

The

Assuming Obama has a pledged delegate lead of 20-30 - how big does that lead have to get by March 4 in order to (i) swing momentum among superdelegates, (ii) move OH and TX in Obama's direction, and (iii) keep PA from serving as Hillary's firewall?

Is a 50 pledged delegate lead enough?  75?  100?

This is the most accurate thing I could find since half the newspapers in America are misreporting how to calculate the math.

In districts with 4 delegates, someone with 62.5% of the vote would break it 3-1.  Not very likely except in the absolute most-favorable regions.
In districts with 6 delegates, someone with 58.3% of the vote would break it 4-2.  More likely in real strongholds.
In the few districts with 8 delegates, you'd need 56.3% of the vote. Certainly possible.

Hillary was for the war before she was against it ... wasn't that John Kerry's death knell in 2004?  I don't know why some Democrats want to go through that again.  

You can already picture the Republicans yelling "Flip-flop, flip-flop!"

McCain will focus on the Democratic nominee's war vote, so Democrats should be ready for it.  

Being against the war at first, then financing for the troops when they are in combat is a stronger position than voting for the war and then changing your mind after it becomes politically expedient.  

Hillary's position is identical to Kerry's war position.  It didn't turn out too well for Kerry even against Bush.

From Andrew Sullivan:

"But it allows the Obama camp to point out - correctly - that they won a majority of the contests yesterday, won in a wider variety of red and blue states, and won in the number of delegates counted. Obama is also winning in fundraising. That's a pretty impressive tailwind for this weekend and next Tuesday."

This is a hard line to argue against. Obama and/or The Clintons are going to do well in Blue States in the general election. But The Clintons do not have the capability to be competitive in so-called Red States. Why? I don't know, but this is the way it seems to be turning out.

I am just so happy about Hillary's victory as the partys BASE you know New York, California, New Jersey and Massachusetts are saying they want Clinton. Oh and don't forget Florida :)

Two victories made me giggle with joy though...

Massachusetts- So much for those Kennedys

California- "Maria Shriver, Oprah and Caroline are going to lead them to the promise land!"

I think Louisiana, Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania will go for Clinton.  Obama will win Washington, maybe Maine and the "Chesapeake" primaries....

I think Washington is like CA will go to HRC. I agree Louisiana, Ohio, TX and PA to HRC others go to Obama.

If these two stay in the contest through the convention, it looks like we may have a brokered convention. Lets see how it goes.

CA District Delegate count 130 Clinton 111

Washington is a cuacus and Clinton will not win ther folks.

With 98% of the New Mexico vote counted, Obama has a 71 vote lead.

"The Democratic party has to figure out what to do about Florida and Michigan"

Huh?  I thought that was clear.  Those votes don't count.  Is there something I'm not getting here?

Remember, the magic number is 2,025.

There sure is. You obviously didn't see Howard Dean walking it back all over the MSM yesterday. Talking about how those delegates can take their case before the rules committee, that he is not a part of, and get their delegate situation reevaluated. Not to mention he also said the party has no interest in the nomination going all the way to the convention, much less in a brokered convention. It won't leave our nominee with enough time to campaign against the real opponent.

How could people miss his interview?!? He was all over the p[lace yuesterday saying the same thing over and over.

We should count Florida. It is not about Obama vs. Clinton, just as in 2000 it wasn't about Gore vs. Bush. It is about allowing the people of the United States to live in a Democracy. Part of being in a Democracy and voting is having your votes count.

If I lived in Florida, and I voted, I would be mighty upset if the Democratic Party wanted to Disenfranchise me. It was the Republican legistlature that chose the primary date. Not individual people.

Look, why should we count Florida win nobody was allowed to even campaign there?! That's ridiculous. I say either not count Florida or have them vote again in the future when all candidates could have the opporutnity to campaign.

Hey, no one forced Obama to take his name off the MI ballot.

They will go with who won the popular vote in their state.

All this talk of a super delegate from Georgia going with Clinton because she has 2 more delegates, or a super delegate from New York going with Obama because he has 2 more delegates, is non sense.

It will have a popular tint, but it will still be state by state.

How does a super delegate from Tennessee explain that they are being democratic by supporting Obama?

And I believe the cost would prevent them from holding another election

How in the do people keep repeating this "Hillary was the underdog coming into Feb 5" garbage?  She was the frontrunner for 18 months just about, was expected to win in about 20 states a week before and now all of a sudden she was the underdog?  Get out of here.

Re California, is it 210 delegates or 241 left to be counted?  

It'll be interesting to see where we are in a couple weeks. It's very likely that Obama could win the next 10 contests.  

Clinton won almost all the CDs in California, so she's bound to pick up some.  If someone could post the five delegate districts it would be easier to determine.