Mathematically It's Over For HRC

The math is simple.  Barack Obama had a 160 pledged delegate lead going into last night.  Today, that lead is going to be in the same ballpark.

What's changed?  We've now gone from the end of the 3rd quarter to midway through the 4th quarter.  Time is up.  The clock is about to run out.

Hillary Clinton would have to win every state remaining with about 72% of the vote in order to overcome the deficit she faces.  Thus far, she has only won two states with margins of 60%, New York and Arkansas.

Obama should easily win Wyoming and Mississippi in the next 6 days.  Thus, that 72% number will go up.

The superdelegate lead has also been cut to 45 with 50 supers ready to endorse Obama in the next couple of weeks.

There's nothing left.  You can even seat Florida in the non binding, low turnout vote and it won't matter.

This race is over.  Will Hillary put country before party and help Barack Obama become President so he can reverse 8 years of Bush or will Hillary sabotage Obama and increase the likelihood of a 3rd Bush term by enabling McBush?

We shall see.

Tags: arithmetic (all tags)



But, people have learned things about this issue

that they can't unlearn..

So I think HRC is ultimately going to get the nomination..

by architek 2008-03-05 05:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Mathematically It's Over For HRC

Your math sucks.  You see, the only number that matters is 2025, and neither candidate can get there.  Only people with baseless confidence that pledged delegates = nomination believe Obama has already won.  Others of us prefer to see who actually wins.

by dhonig 2008-03-05 05:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Mathematically It's Over For HRC

The pledged delegate winner becomes the nominee in the modern party. Unless you've got a compelling reason why the supers should overturn the popular will. I can't think of one. Theoretical power is not real power.

We've already had cases when the nominee needed some supers to put him over the top in contested cycles. Dukakis and Mondale are two examples. It's common and there's no suspense.

The only exception I can think of, absent a catastrophic breakdown, is if there's some clear indication that Clinton won the final popular vote tally. That's extremely unlikely, but let's assume. That would likely earn her superdelegate support for becoming the vice presidential nominee if she wants it.

Clinton is staying in the race hoping that a catastrophic breakdown befalls the Obama campaign. Her fate is not hers to control. And she got 6 more weeks to campaign until Pennsylvania. That's a major accomplishment, to get the 6 week extension. But it doesn't change the fundamentals.

by BBCWatcher 2008-03-05 05:33AM | 0 recs
What Modern Party Are You Talking About?

As someone who has read the Call for the 2008 Democratic National Convention over and over again, let me cite you some facts:

Article VIII, Section C, paragraph 7.b.

A majority vote of the Convention's delegates shall be required to nominate the presidential candidate

Appendix B of the aforementioned Call for the 2008 Democratic National Convention sets the total number of Convention delegate votes at 4,049.  A majority of 4,049 is 2,024.5 or just 2,025.

You position that "The pledged delegate winner becomes the nominee in the modern party" does not match the rules of the convention.  The rules are clear; it takes a majority of the Convention's delegates to nominate.  Neither candidate, Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama, have the requisite number of delegates (pledged or otherwise) to win the nomination; and as such, this race is not "mathematically over" for either candidate.

by Andre Walker 2008-03-05 05:53AM | 0 recs
Yes, Those Are the Rules

Now show me the rule that says that superdelegates must vote in overwhelming numbers against the pledge delegate outcome.

I am talking about what actually happens in the real world, and what actually happens is 100% consistent with the rules. So please tell me what even the semi-plausible scenario is for superdelegates en masse voting against the pledged delegate winner. I'm struggling to think of any such scenario that makes any sense, that is even slightly believable.

It didn't happen in 1984, nor in 1988, so what makes 2008 different?

by BBCWatcher 2008-03-05 06:07AM | 0 recs
There is no rule...

...That says that "superdelegates must vote in overwhelming numbers against the pledge delegate outcome," but there also is no rule that says superdelegates must vote in overwhelming numbers for the leader in pledged delegates.

Super delegates have the right, and are expected to, exercise independent judgment when they cast their vote at the Democratic National Convention.

by Andre Walker 2008-03-05 07:27AM | 0 recs
Re: There is no rule...

that may be their "right" but the argument to them is simple - vote for the pledged delegate winner.

They can choose not to but if the supers overturn the pledged (either way) those supers will lose their positions.

by bigdavefromqueens 2008-03-05 09:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Mathematically It's Over For HRC

 Compelling reasons.

1 winning states that matter
 2 Hillary won`t quit
 3 more real democrats voted for her.
 4 wins the demographics we need to win the GE
 5 oh yeah -- she smells better too

by gunner 2008-03-05 07:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Mathematically It's Over For HRC

"real Democrats"

Can you define that for me please?

by bigdavefromqueens 2008-03-05 09:45AM | 0 recs
Allow me

Democrats who will still be Democrats on November 5, 2008.

by Montague 2008-03-05 02:00PM | 0 recs

One football team is down 50 points, there are 3 minutes left on the clock, and the team just kicked a field goal. Maybe not even that.

"It's the delegate math, stupid." And when everyone sobers up in about 24 hours, it'll be more obvious.

To make it simple, the Obama campaign had a 50 state strategy. The Clinton campaign had a 50%-plus-1 strategy. Guess which strategy wins?

I'm quite shocked, actually. I never expected Senator Clinton's campaign to commit such a grave strategic blunder. This is just not what establishment frontrunners facing massively front-loaded primaries do. But it's exactly what happened.

by BBCWatcher 2008-03-05 05:22AM | 0 recs
I think she is going to have a struggle..

But Obama's invincibility illusion is now seen to be just that, an illusion. Many folks who were on the fence or leaning to Obama will now start looking at both candidates as viable and for example, will start listening to the SUBSTANCE rather than just the 'hope' in things they say. Thats where Hillary is strong, because she DOES KNOW THE ISSUES INSIDE AND OUT.

Obama is smart in a young person's way.. That may be enough for his current job, but he has years to go before he would be ready for the Presidency. MANY years.

by architek 2008-03-05 05:28AM | 0 recs
Well, Maybe

But the original poster is right: Clinton needs blowouts from here on out. A lot of people like Obama, and that won't change absent a "catastrophic breakdown." And such an event is equally likely to happen to Clinton, by the way.

This whole contest is unfolding just like that "leaked" Obama spreadsheet, albeit better than Obama's team expected. For example, for yesterday they expected to lose a net 16 delegates to Clinton. They'll do quite a bit better than that and make it probably a low single digit loss (best guess). And so it goes.

With Wyoming and Mississippi combined they expect to pick up a net of 9 delegates which looks quite conservative. Imagine that: the least populous state in the Union combined with a fairly modest state provide more delegate benefit to Obama than Clinton could muster winning 3 of the 4 Firewall Tuesday states. That's how the system works, and when you basically don't compete in certain states you lose a lot of delegates. The Democratic delegate selection system heavily rewards candidates with 50 state strategies. Those are usually the establishment frontrunner candidates, by the way, which is why I'm just so shocked the Clinton team missed this.

Obama tried to bury Clinton on Firewall Tuesday. Didn't happen, so we go another six weeks when Obama will try to do it again in Pennsylvania. I'm reminded of the Monty Python "It's just a flesh wound" scene. If he wins Pennsylvania then it's over, right? If he doesn't I guess we all review the mathematics yet again and discover that, gee, Obama has more of those pledged delegates, the ones selected by actual voters.

by BBCWatcher 2008-03-05 05:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Mathematically It's Over For HRC

HRC gained probably 8 delegates from tonight. So now she is down by 150 delegates instead of 158. HRC won't win the most pledged delegates nor win the popular vote. It ain't gonna happen. She should concede

by mecarr 2008-03-05 05:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Mathematically It's Over For HRC

According to realclearpolitics - she gained a net of 17 (If my math is right).

Obama can't win either.  This contest is going to be decided by the supers.  And on the 50 that the Obama camp was going to unleash - I think that number will shrink or the announcement won't happen.

by cmugirl90 2008-03-05 05:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Mathematically It's Over For HRC

They haven't finished counting, and one must assume the caucus results will diminsh that number substantially.

by brimur 2008-03-05 06:06AM | 0 recs
Lets assume your 17

so he's up 143 instead of 160.

And BTW the supers lead has dwindled to under 40 and most of the remaining holdouts will go to the pledged delegate leader.

So how does she make up 143 delegates in 10 states plus Guam and PR?

You could argue that if it was down to 50 or less she has a case.  So how is she even going to get that close?

by bigdavefromqueens 2008-03-05 09:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Mathematically It's Over For HRC

Big difference here is that in a football game, there's no "Magic number" required to win at the end of regulation. It's simply being up by one point or more at the end of the game.  Obama can't win the required number before the gameclock runs out either. So no one has a clear shot at it without superdelegates.

by Mayor McCheese 2008-03-05 05:40AM | 0 recs
first off

the "pledged" lead varies all over the place.

second. Mathematically Obama will NOT get the 2024/25 delegates needed.

I see a shotgun wedding in their future.

by kevin22262 2008-03-05 05:45AM | 0 recs
Re: first off

"I see a shotgun wedding in their future."

Ha Ha - I like that!

Clinton/Obama '08

by cmugirl90 2008-03-05 05:49AM | 0 recs
Re: first off

Don't agree that Obama will pick her but you get bonus points for the funniest line on the thread.  I got a hearty laugh.  Well done.

by bigdavefromqueens 2008-03-05 09:49AM | 0 recs
He may have no choice

The SDs may act like the father with the shotgun and the DNC like the pastor.

by kevin22262 2008-03-05 10:06AM | 0 recs
So long as Hillary is on the top

of the ticket, it would work for me.

by Montague 2008-03-05 02:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Mathematically It's Over For HRC

Anyone who thinks they have the right math on this one should go back to grammar school.

Any math, any scenario, will ultimately have to deal with Michigan and Florida.  This thing is just too close to call, and those two CRUCIAL states have to be reconsidered in the calculation.

by Sieglinde 2008-03-05 05:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Mathematically It's Over For HRC

No candidate will reach the magic number of delegates, but Obama will have more delegates and more popular vote. Whatever the case, in the next few months we democrats will destroy oursevles.

by mecarr 2008-03-05 05:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Mathematically It's Over For HRC

It's already a tie in popular votes, and Hillary will move into the lead in that category after Pennsylvania.  Of course if one considers DEMOCRATIC voters (and that's who I would keep in mind, if I were a super delegate to a DEMOCRATIC convention), she already has a sizeable lead, which will only increase.

Let's all agree: Super Delegates should support whoever has proven to have more support from Democrats in this race!  Of course by this calculation, Obama doesn't have a prayer and should thus drop out immediately for party unity.

by markjay 2008-03-05 06:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Mathematically It's Over For HRC

How would you go about COUNTING just Democrats? Man, you Hillary folk are awful creative with your arguments.

by brimur 2008-03-05 06:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Mathematically It's Over For HRC

Perhaps they have info on the illegal wiretapping.

I'm sure there were republicans who registered as Democrats just to vote against HIllary just as there were republicans who registered as Democrats to try and vote for HIllary b/c they view her as the only shot McBush has.

However, I have no idea what the numbers are.

by bigdavefromqueens 2008-03-05 09:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Mathematically It's Over For HRC

This Hillary talking point that "nobody will get 2025" without superdelegates in response to the glaring math is so lame. Is there ANY reason to believe that the superdelegates will usurp the will expressed by the voters? They will just fall in line. So that talking point is essentially a non sequitur.

by brimur 2008-03-05 05:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Mathematically It's Over For HRC

How is following the rules a talking point?

by Mayor McCheese 2008-03-05 05:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Mathematically It's Over For HRC

No one is debating the rules. The talking point just ignores practical reality of what the superdelegates will do. The pressure from all corners to ratify the primaries will be intense. And frankly we'd be stupid as a party to create the division that would result by overruling it. No doubt the rules allow the supers to do that, but it doesn't mean that they should or will.

by brimur 2008-03-05 06:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Mathematically It's Over For HRC

Superdelegates, by their very existence, are supposed to exercise INDEPENDENT judgment - not "follow the will of the voters".  And when HRC wins Pennsylvania, I think she has the stronger argument to make to the supers - she can win where Democrats need to win.  Obama has a harder argument that if he can't win any big states against another Democrat, he can win against a Republican (especially in the "swing" states).

by cmugirl90 2008-03-05 06:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Mathematically It's Over For HRC

So are you saying that Hillary will win in the general all the states she won in the primary? And that Obama won't win any of the states he lost? That makes no sense. Try some reality. It doesn't always taste good but no artificial flavoring.

by brimur 2008-03-05 06:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Mathematically It's Over For HRC

Well, I think she will win all (or at least most) of the states in the general that she won in the primaries, with maybe the exception of Arizona.  My gut tells me Texas will go red, but after yesterday's turnout, who knows. I also think she picks up MO, WI, MN, HI, MD, VA (maybe)

I think Obama has a harder case to sell.  He could win NY and maybe NM.

by cmugirl90 2008-03-05 06:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Mathematically It's Over For HRC

Ha, now you make no sense. Your argument was that by winning a primary state she was showing her electability in that state for the general but somehow the reverse is not true? Those states she lost in the primary don't undermine her general election electability? And I guess you're saying she's going to win Oklahoma, Tennessee.

The truth is that there is no relationship between primary electability and general electability.

But I get the feeling you guys get that. Ya'll just come up with whatever points support your argument. If she won a state it shows she can win it in November. If she lost a state it doesn't show whether she can win it in November.

by brimur 2008-03-05 04:13PM | 0 recs
OK, Yes, Fine

So again, let me repeat: would someone please present an even semi-plausible scenario for why the superdelegates would exercise independent judgment in such a way as overwhelming numbers of them would vote against the pledged delegate winner?

Again, nothing unusual here. It didn't happen in 1984, nor in 1988, so would somebody please tell me why 2008 is different? What's the argument?

Nobody is denying that superdelegates can vote however they want. So why would they vote the particular way you're suggesting? Does anybody believe they would? Why? What's the argument?

by BBCWatcher 2008-03-05 06:11AM | 0 recs
Re: OK, Yes, Fine

The superdelegates will chose who is the stronger candidate to win the WH, regardless of what the delegate count is.  If she wins PA, she has a) that thing called "momentum" and after yesterday, expect her fundraising to go up, b) polls are showing she's gained ground nationally, pulling even with Obama, and some even showing her ahead by a couple of points,  and that many Obama voters may have some "buyer's remorse", and c) she will be better equipped to win.

by cmugirl90 2008-03-05 06:46AM | 0 recs
People, Since When Does "2025" Matter?

Mondale needed superdelegates to push him over the top past Gary Hart in 1984. Dukakis needed superdelegates to clinch the nomination in 1988 over Jackson. It is absolutely routine for the nominee to need superdelegates. That fact has absolutely no bearing on the viability of Senator Clinton winning her party's nomination.

But both Mondale and Dukakis had more pledged delegates and (for what it's worth) more popular votes. In both cases -- and these are recent cases, folks, not some 1816 precedent -- the supers simply and overwhelmingly ratified the popular will.

Why wouldn't they again? Why shouldn't they? That's the question that has to be answered well if Clinton has a real shot at winning the nomination.

It's like impeachment, conviction, and removal from office. Yes, Congress has that theoretical power. Will they exercise it? What for? Why should they, why would they, exercise the nuclear option in this nomination battle?

I just don't see it. Has someone got even a semi-plausible explanation for how that scenario might play out?

And no, with the status quo, Florida and Michigan don't count I'm afraid. For one thing I don't think the pledged delegate gap will be all that close at the end. For another, the winner of the pledged delegates is going to control the convention rules. That's why everybody lately has been advocating the Delaware and D.C. precedent solution, which is that those states run party-sanctioned contests to replace the beauty contests they did have. It's the only option that makes any sense. Michigan, especially, is a complete disaster.

by BBCWatcher 2008-03-05 06:03AM | 0 recs
Well said

and I urged weeks ago for a real vote in Michigan and Florida.

If HRC had come out and said this after Super Tuesday, she wouldn't have done so poorly in the 11 states that immediately followed.

by bigdavefromqueens 2008-03-05 09:53AM | 0 recs ALWAYS matters

The points is Dukakis got the required number of delegates. And Jackson didn't drop out until it was clear that Dukakis had them.

by Mayor McCheese 2008-03-05 06:09AM | 0 recs
Re: ALWAYS matters

So I guess it's Hillary Clinton that is like Jackson rather than Obama as Bill tried to claim.

by brimur 2008-03-05 06:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Mathematically It's Over For HRC

In way, but much, much stronger. Jackson didn't win CA, NY, Ohio, Texas, for example. She's also got a lot more party support than Jackson ever did. If Jackson didn't drop out, after a worse showing, why should Clinton?

by Mayor McCheese 2008-03-05 06:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Mathematically It's Over For HRC

My feeling is that the superdelegates will break for Obama. Many Clinton supporters on here may be surprised come convention when some version of FL and MI gets seated but Obama get the nod from the superdelegates giving him the win.

The logic seems to go as follows:

(1) Thus far, more superdelegates have broken for clinton
(2)This means the vast majority of superdelegates think clinton is the better candidate
(3) if superdelegates are allowed to vote however they want, more will continue to vote for clinton and she'll win

I think #2 and wrong. And that means #3 won't turn out the way people think.

by poserM 2008-03-05 06:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Mathematically It's Over For HRC

You can even seat Florida in the non binding, low turnout vote and it won't matter.

umm are u serious?

voter turn out went up over 200% in FL.

And i seriously hope There is a revote in FL, she will mop the floor with Obama

by sepulvedaj3 2008-03-05 06:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Mathematically It's Over For HRC

Are you serious? There have only been 4 states where Republican turnout has been higher than Democratic turnout: Arizona (McCain's home state), Alabama, Florida, and Michigan.

by brimur 2008-03-05 06:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Mathematically It's Over For HRC

I"m with you where you state what you term a "revote."

And yes, based on the numbers I have, I think Hillary would win Florida over Obama in the Democratic primary.

I'm all for Michigan counting too with a real vote.

And look, you trail by about 150 pledged delegates.  It's in Hillary's best interests, if she wants to be fair, to try and win Florida and Michigan.

by bigdavefromqueens 2008-03-05 09:56AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads