MyDD :: Updated Delegate Counts

Updated Delegate Counts

by msn1, Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:53:40 AM EST

Based on a wide variety of sources, right now it's at Clinton 670, Obama 650, but still with 210 to be allocated from California, 47 from Illinois, and smaller amounts elsewhere. And don't assume that the California numbers will split heavily towards Clinton - it's the Congressional District delegates, and we just don't know the breakdown yet.

Overall, with previous pledged delegates, and superdelegates, added in, we're at Clinton 919, Obama 823, with 2,025 needed to win. (FL and MI not included).

Late last night NBC News predicted Obama 841, Clinton-837, (+/- 10 delegates). Didn't see a new estimate this morning.

Tags: delegates (all tags)

Permalink :: 167 Comments :: Post a Comment

Please help me understand (none / 0)

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 :)

by HKingsley on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:56:47 AM EST

Re: Please help me understand (2.00 / 2)

At-large are proportional to state-wide vote, subject to 15% threshold. (Not applicable here). District delegates are proportional also. So in an even district with, say 4 votes, I think I read you need more than 62.5% in the district to get 3 of 4, otherwise it splits 2-2. But in an district with an odd number of delegates, win the district by one vote, you get the extra delegate. Both campaigns were focusing on districts with odd numbers of delegates across the nation.

Most districts only have 3-6 delegates, not 10, so the delegate % can differ greatly from the vote percentage. And

Matt - DemConWatch

by msn1 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:04:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Excellent! (none / 0)

Thanks a ton!

And what about those damned PLEO's? How are they apportioned?

by HKingsley on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:10:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Excellent! (none / 0)

The statewide pledged PLEOs are apportioned according to the statewide vote, and those delegates are uncluded in everybody's counts.

Matt - DemConWatch

by msn1 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:21:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

we have reasonable people here (none / 0)

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.

by yellowdem1129 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:00:50 AM EST

Re: we have reasonable people here (none / 0)

The candidates have to play by the rules of the system under which they are trying to get elected, no? I have to say hats off to the Obama people for racking up enormous wins in all those caucus states.

Besides, the national total vote yesterday split something like 49 to 46% clinton. so it's not like the delegate difference is going to be off by that by a whole lot.

by snaktime on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:24:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: we have reasonable people here (none / 0)

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

Michigan was last month. And the only other big state that allows crossover voting, Georgia, has a high black population, which is why it and Illinois were Obama's firewall states last night.

If you look at the CNN and Rasmussen and other head-to-head matchups, you'd see that Clinton is the weaker candidate against McCain in the general. (The strongest Dem in the general would have been Edwards, but he got smothered by the press early on.) If Hillary wins the nomination, we have to pray that McCain is caught sodomizing goats sometime soon because otherwise he wins by double digits in November.

by Phoenix Woman on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:40:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Head to heads at this point don't matter (none / 0)

Especially at the national level. State by state may have a sliver of meaning, but just a sliver.

by dpANDREWS on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:00:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: we have reasonable people here (none / 0)

Oh, nonsense! The difference in match-up polls is minimal, and this is FEBRUARY.

Give Hillary or Obama a chance to campaign against the Republican ticket and put the crystal ball away.

by Thaddeus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:26:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: we have reasonable people here (1.00 / 1)

Who cares about the rasmussen/9,, polls--they showed clinton behind in california.

Hillary has won all the bug primary states (primaries are more representative than caucases) except for Obama's home state of illinois.If hillary wins Ohio, Penn and/or Tex, she deserves the nomination--the superdelegates would have to swing to her. The DNC will have to allow the florida primary to count--millions of people voted and neither candidate brokw rules about campaigning there.finally, let's cvut through the chase--OBAMA CAN ONLY CARRY STATES WITH LARGE BLACK POPULATIONS AND VOTERS UNDER 25. YOU CANNOT WIN A NOMINATION OR ELECTION WITH THESE DEMOGRAPHICS.

THE ONLY REAL WIN FOR OBAMA WAS IN CONNECTICUT--BUT EVEN THERE HE CARRIED LOTS OF COLLEGE TOWNS AND THE BLACK INNER CITIES.

by Canaanite on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:15:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Too late (none / 0)

Look - HRC got what she wanted. A front-loaded schedule.

The bell has rung and the game has started -- you don't get to change the rules anymore.

The time to whine about it was 12 months ago. It's not the inequity of the system that bothers you -- it's the setup of the system is now working against Clinton.

by zonk on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:45:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Too late (none / 0)

Well, going by the rules is fine, but then don't complain if the superdelegates go against you. I prefer to base my arguments in the popular vote, which has a legitimacy more fundamental than the rules.

by souvarine on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:56:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Like I say downthread (none / 0)

I am at peace with the system for all it's many flaws -- doing its business.

I'm feeling pretty good that the system is going to give me an Obama to vote for this fall.

by zonk on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:01:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Like I say downthread (none / 0)

Saw that after I posted, I give you credit for consistency. I hope Clinton stays ahead in the popular vote, which is what makes me think the system will give me Clinton to vote for.

by souvarine on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:04:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Too late (none / 0)

The superdelegates can do what they want. But they aren't stupid and they are unpledged. They want a unified party and will move as a herd to the leader among pledged delegates at the end.

by elrod on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:20:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Too late (none / 0)

The superdelegates can do what they want. But they aren't stupid and they are unpledged. They want a unified party and will move as a herd to the leader in the popular vote at the end.

by souvarine on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:33:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Too late (none / 0)

You have no basis for believing that...but good luck with your theory

Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America

by JDF on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:01:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Too late (2.00 / 1)

Less snarky version, the race is very close, it is not clear there will be a clear popular vote or pledged delegate leader. If Clinton is marginally behind the superdelegates will have to base their decision on whether or not to ignore the swing states of Florida and Michigan.

by souvarine on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:37:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Too late (none / 0)

If Florida isn't included we will lose the general.

We may not seat there delegates but if we don't have the same number of delegates voting EXACTLY the same way the people voted there will be a MASSIVE problem.

Likewise Mass.

Voters win elections not whiney party officials and if you tell Florida to fuck off in any fashion they will. Even 5000 switching or not voting is liable to lose the election.

I believe in Hillary

by sonofdonkeykong on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:48:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Too late (none / 0)

There is no reason to believe that the seating of the delegates will matter in regards to the general election. Either candidate is going to have to do a lot of campaigning in Florida regardless of if the delegates are seated and good democrats are not going to sit on their hands with so much at stake.

Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America

by JDF on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:02:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Too late (none / 0)

If we say "screw you" to all the Florida Democrats, don't you think a few percent of them might be annoyed enough to sit out the election, esp. since the nominee will be the person they didn't vote for?

by OrangeFur on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:47:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Too late (none / 0)

That will only matter to them if they REALLY don't like the nominee and there is no reason to believe that there is that much anger towards Obama. The DNC will be viewed as the bad guys on this one and it will ultimately lead to reform of the primary process (which is a VERY good thing.)

Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America

by JDF on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:52:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What give in Il? (none / 0)

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

by ineedalife on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:06:01 AM EST

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (2.00 / 3)

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.

by ChrisR on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:18:59 AM EST

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

I applaud you for the fairness of your comment. There aren't many people (myself included) who are willing to point out how the system benefits their own candidate. We all just criticize aspects of the system that benefit the other candidate.

by markjay on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:25:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

I agree that it's a stupid system, but it's not unfair that the Obama campaign outplayed the Clinton campaign. The rules are there for everyone to see.

It would be unfair if the system gave one candidate an advantage over the other just by circumstance. Well guess what, the system is unfair in that sense, but mainly in Clinton's favor, because a huge national primary this early was to her advantage and especially because a lot of the early states have not been most favorable to obama.

i'm not whining, this is the system we're given. i am not one of those dems who worries about a tight primary that goes on for a while. but arguments about how the system should be changed midstream are what worry me. that could get really ugly. the michigan and florida situation is a disaster and our party will come out looking awful if that becomes the focal point of the campaign. either we change the rules midstream in a way that seems like manipulation by the clintons, or we disenfranchise and say fuck you to two huge swing states. i can deal with superdelegates but that situation is a mess.

by snaktime on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:29:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

I didn't say it was unfair Obama beat Clinton. I think the system needs to be changed for the next election cycle.

Hey, the rules were set up in 1972.

Another thing I'd like to change: please, for the love of God, no superdelegates. Hey, the Republicans are the party of smoke-filled rooms and they don't have them.

by ChrisR on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:52:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

I would rather elected Dems be the brokers in a tight race than the also rans.

I don't want Kucinich's 1 delegate to be deciding anything.

I believe in Hillary

by sonofdonkeykong on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:53:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

heh... Kucinich's one delegate is himself. As an elected Dem.

unapologetic Obama supporter

by dantes on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:24:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

The republicans have super delegates, just less of them.

Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America

by JDF on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:06:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

If you strip florida and Mi from Hillary I will be voting GOP.

Like it or not people act

If you want to lose the general election because you believe in non democracy thats your problem.

I believe in Hillary

by sonofdonkeykong on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:51:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

If you would vote GOP for that reason I truly hope they are not seated... go vote for a republican. Hell, go be a republican.

With so much at stake this is your big issue? Pathetic.

Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America

by JDF on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:05:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

Since Florida and Michigan were stripped of their delegates so long ago, shouldn't you have been voting in the Republican primaries all this time?

unapologetic Obama supporter

by dantes on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:22:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So start a movement (none / 0)

to change it outside the season.

I don't disagree about you wrote... I'd be fine with no more caucuses. I like allocations - but maybe with some tweaking.

It's pointless to bicker about this in the middle of the game.

We're in the middle of a race - and we now have a real race... under the rules agreed upon by everybody.

Look - I still thin Gore won in 2000... but it's 2008. Bush has served 7 years. If we want to change the system - we need to quit using mid-election time for complaining about it.

If something's unfair - there will be ample opportunity to change it after the primaries are over.

It's just as correct to say that we shouldn't have "superdelegates" -- why should Bill Clinton -- or -- Ted Kennedy -- get a bigger vote than me?

by zonk on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:50:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So start a movement (none / 0)

Yes to all you wrote.

1) The system is unfair and it should be changed in 2009.

2) NO MORE SUPERDELEGATES. Its absurd. The Republicans don't need them -- why should the Dems?

by ChrisR on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:53:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So start a movement (none / 0)

Then go to straight vote.

That alaska gets 16 delegates for 700 votes is craziness.

Basically Super Delegates tend to have a better political sense.

For example, knowing that Hillary will actually be a stronger general candidate than Obama despite what MSNBC and ZOGBY want you to believe.

I believe in Hillary

by sonofdonkeykong on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:55:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So start a movement (none / 0)

LOL.....I was with you until the "Basically Super Delegates tend to have a better political sense" statement.

Delegates makes sense because it forces the candidates to campaign in the scarce places as well as the populations centers. Everyone knows this. That's why a straight popular vote is nutty. Suburban America would get left behind.

Superdelgates, on the other hand, make no sense other than to give the Democratic Party a way to ultimately choose their candidate, regardless of who people have voted for. They are accountable to no one, especially if they commit to a candidate that their constituents didn't vote for.

People on mydd are worried about not counting the FL/MI delegates. That's understandable, since most of you are Hillary fans.

That's nothing compared to what will happen if Barack loses because all of the superdelegates went to Hillary!

A PROUD Hopium user!

by xodus1914 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:13:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So start a movement (none / 0)

I noticed that Maxine Water's district went for Obama by 58%. Yet, as a superdelegate she committed to Clinton.
Go figure.
How many more other instances are out there like this?

Are we watching a theft in the making?

A PROUD Hopium user!

by xodus1914 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:16:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

Frankly, the whole system needs a major overhaul.

First, we need to mix up the order of states as to not favor any candidate. Shaun and I were talking about having it so the four closest states in the last election got to vote first in the next one.

Which would inevitably mean that Iowa would have voted among the first this time, but that'd be rule.

I agree with everything you've said, and I'm just as confused about the whole delegate process. Let's fix it after the election.

by ejintx on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:53:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

Aren't we still waiting on California delegate allocation?

by Thaddeus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:27:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

Yeah, but the projection shows that while HRC won in double digits, that doesn't lead to a blow out on delegate apportionment.

by ChrisR on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:52:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Beating McCain (2.00 / 2)

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.

Obviously you're not a golfer.

by alydar on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:29:44 AM EST

Re: Beating McCain (none / 0)

Interesting thing is that many of the states Obama won are states we don't usually carry.

His 200 vote margin in Alaska will move us 200 votes closer to winning it =)

So even though he will lose a primary in alaska it will be by 200 votes less than hillary would lose it =)

Go team =)

Seriously though

This election will depend (short of a major rezco scandal) on who polls better in the close purple states.

Thats reality.

The change Obama will bring is losing elections that we should have won

I believe in Hillary

by sonofdonkeykong on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:58:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

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

"Apparently they have an 11-month calendar over there that's missing the month of February," Obama strategist David Axelrod

by Jr1886 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:32:43 AM EST

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

Yup. Yet the media is spinning this as a Big Hillary Win. The cynical part of me thinks it's because they've been following the CNN and Rasmussen head-to-heads and know that she loses big to McCain.

by Phoenix Woman on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:41:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

Sounds paranoid to me. I think there was a sesne that Obama's momentum was huge and Hillary's wins in the big states, especially California, was a bit of a surprise. As I read Obama supporters comments after the Shriver, Oprah, Michelle, etc, appearance in Cali, I think they thought Obama would WIN California. Hillary winning by 10% is kind of a big deal.

by Thaddeus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:30:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

If hillary polls stronger in close purple states that will actually decide the election look for superdelegates to support her.

Its math.

We lost 2000 in FLORIDA

We lost 2004 in OHIO

If she can Win in Florida and Ohio she is the stronger candidate.

National polls on who loves who don't matter unless Obama can win a purple state that Hillary can't.

So far it looks like Hillary can win Florida voters that Obama can't.

I know its logic and Obama supporters would rather focus on the win in Alaska by 300 votes that gave him 2-1 ratio over Hillary but which is a hopelessly red state and means nothing this cycle for us.

For GODS SAKE there are people talking about counting those 400 Alaska voters as more important to us than the Florida voters who voted for Hillary or the Michagan voters etc.

Obama supporters are smoking weed...and blowing smoke.

I believe in Hillary

by sonofdonkeykong on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:04:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Let us know on Friday if that count is accurate (none / 0)

From what I am hearing the math is so complicated that final delegates numbers may not be exact until tomorrow or Friday.

by dpANDREWS on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:10:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let us know on Friday if that count is accurat (none / 0)

I'll update the post tonight. I still haven't seen better numbers from California.

Matt - DemConWatch

by msn1 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:22:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I do not think that Superdelegates (none / 0)

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.

by puma on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:37:15 AM EST

It's tit for tat (2.00 / 1)

Clinton backers are bitching about "winning the big states and the proportional delegate awards aren't fair".

Obama backers are bitching about superdelegates.

At this stage -- I'm perfectly content to let the process play out. Let the winner win.

I have every confidence I will be voting Obama/???? atop the Democratic ticket come November.

by zonk on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:52:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's tit for tat (none / 0)

As I have confidence that Obama is a losing ticket.

Seriously it will come down to Ohio, Florida and a very very small number of other states that are toss ups.

Hillary is more popular in that country for exactly the reason she is less popular with the youth and the liberal elite, she is pragmatic and tends to be slightly more moderate than Obama.

Reality is painful when you deny it until too late...

I believe in Hillary

by sonofdonkeykong on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:07:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I do not think that Superdelegates (none / 0)

Than don't count them in your totals. It's easy enough to do the subtraction!

Matt - DemConWatch

by msn1 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:23:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

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"

"If you want to end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud"...Arlo Guthrie

by nogo war on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:39:22 AM EST

FL, MI, and the 3/11 - 4/22 primary gap (2.00 / 1)

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.

by RT on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:49:52 AM EST

Re: FL, MI, and the 3/11 - 4/22 primary gap (none / 0)

While I highly doubt that either state would re-vote, I didn't realize the gap was that big. Talk about a vacuum... The press coverage during that time will be unbearable, as bored reporters will basically start making things up to stir the pot (I mean, moreso than they already do)

Obviously you're not a golfer.

by alydar on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:56:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: FL, MI, and the 3/11 - 4/22 primary gap (none / 0)

caucuses are rigged for sure:
no ballots, no privacy, a lot of unwelcome talk and
pressure from loud idiots. let's do real primary
than for all this shitty anti-democratic caucuses,
where obamaniaks getting their "delegates".
Let's revote whole thing in one national primary?
And let's not let "independents" to vote there?
Because you getting vote in red states from
pro-GOP voters who will vote McCain in November.
They playing cat-and-mouse and you are mouse.

by WeNeed3rdParty on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:34:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: FL, MI, and the 3/11 - 4/22 primary gap (none / 0)

That contradicts the experience I had in CO.

Only registered Dems can participate in caucus--and your name had to be on the list provided by the county clerk
There were no speeches, no wheeling and dealing. First was a straw poll where it was determined that Undecided was not a viable choice. Then the actual vote was done by a show of hands. The total was matched against the total voters list for that precinct.
I helped tally up the votes and calculate the delegate count. All rules were followed.

Can't vouch for the whole state just the 8 precincts we had voting at our location.

That One is the Right One for 2008.

by GFORD on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:21:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: FL, MI, and the 3/11 - 4/22 primary gap (2.00 / 1)

In my caucus in Kansas, it was registration at the door, and about 1/3 of the Obama supporters stood up to identify themselves as Republican voters who had switched their registrations at the door (all men, as far as I could tell). Some additional independents also stood up for Obama.

Our caucus was a complete disaster from start to finish, though, we had 1200 people standing in line for more than 2 hours to get their names checked against the rolls and to get registered if they were R or I. Then, trudging up multiple flights of stairs to get to a balcony area in our caucus site. Then, almost another 2 hours to get organized and get votes counted. The standing in line was the brutal part - elderly people were checking out in droves, they just could not stand on their feet for 2 hours waiting to vote. Parents with kids were checking out, it was 10 pm before we got back to our car in the parking lot, pretty late for families in KS. Overall, the caucus process was extremely unpleasant, disorganized, and heavily favored young, childless voters (i.e., Obama's demographic).

by milton333 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:49:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: FL, MI, and the 3/11 - 4/22 primary gap (none / 0)

Ha-ha. What would be more fair is a primary, where even working folks on second shift and people generally too busy to hang at a caucus would also be able to vote.

But if you want students to decide the outcome, then a caucus is a great idea!

by Thaddeus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:32:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

obama claims delegate lead. big night for OBama!
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/020 8/8358.html

by mecarr on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:57:00 AM EST

Who can define the race going forward? (none / 0)

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.

by dpANDREWS on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:59:51 AM EST

Re: Who can define the race going forward? (none / 0)

He lost the general vote.

Saying I represent fewer people isn't a strong statement.

Saying 400 people voted for me in Alaska and only 200 voted for Hillary so I am up 9 delegates isn't a strong argument.

Obama is turning into weak sauce

I believe in Hillary

by sonofdonkeykong on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:10:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

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.

by JB510 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:03:29 AM EST

The Kennedy defeat was huge (none / 0)

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.

by dpANDREWS on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:03:47 AM EST

Clinton won the states she was suppose to win (none / 0)

Did Clinton win any states that she wasn't suppose to win?

I remember specifically here at Mydd that Clinton was suppose to sweep the majority of the states and that didn't happen.

Instead Obama won the most states.

by puma on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:15:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton won the states she was suppose to win (none / 0)

You seem to be changing your argument. Didn't you say that states don't matter, it's all about the delegates?

"It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for subtlety". Salvor Hardin

by Denny Crane on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:33:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton won the states she was suppose to win (none / 0)

California by 10 points where you been?

Or you gonna change the expectations AFTER the election?

Clinton was the clear underdog going into super tuesday and she kicked butt.

I believe in Hillary

by sonofdonkeykong on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:12:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton as underdog?? (none / 0)

Beyond ridiculous.

by Garret on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:29:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Riiiight (none / 0)

First you are going to vote for a Republican if Hillary isn't the nominee and now you are actually going to say that Obama was supposed to win 12-14 states? I think your hyperboles are getting the best of you.

Tony Romo for Secretary of Awesome

by kasjogren on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:46:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Riiiight (none / 0)

I didn't say anything about Obama and 12-14 states.

The voices in your head are at it again.

I believe in Hillary

by sonofdonkeykong on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:33:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This isn't pee wee soccor (none / 0)

Winning matters.

by dpANDREWS on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:19:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This isn't pee wee soccor (none / 0)

Amen

I believe in Hillary

by sonofdonkeykong on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:11:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

by JB510 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:21:55 AM EST

It's a tie (2.00 / 1)

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

by tysonpublic on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:23:12 AM EST

Re: It's a tie (none / 0)

Obama then has the lead with IA, NH, NV, SC - although it is a bit unfair to put in Caucus sites.

Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.

by CardBoard on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:03:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's a tie (none / 0)

if it is votes cast, Hillary takes it because of MI & FL.

it is gonna be a problem. Obama needs to get out his needles and sew this up or he will be facing a rock and hard place (needing a state that is pissed you blocked their delegates).

by hctb on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:24:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

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?

by mecarr on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:28:50 AM EST

EXACTLY! (none / 0)

All great points!!!

by puma on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:31:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

Clinton can be seen as winning because she took all the big states which we need to win in November. Obama brought in the little states that probably won't go Democratic in the general. The Democratic base (blue-collar/working-class) voted for Clinton on experience and providing solutions to problems. Obama got the votes of people wanting change and more bipartisanship in the process. McCain is already tailoring his message to tout his "working together" message; McCain/Feingold, McCain/Kennedy, McCain/Lieberman (which is driving the Republican base nuts).
I don't see it as a given that Obama can succesfully get all the Democratic votes come November. There will be plenty of Democrats that will value the experience factor with McCain especially if the Obama/McCain change message gets too similar.

by wasabi on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:13:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

This is some seriously lame Clinton spin. Is this an electability argument of some kind? What, we're worried that Obama's loss to Clinton in New York and Massachusetts and California means he can't win those states in November?

The electability ramification of yesterday is obvious and doesn't favor Clinton. When it comes to bringing in independents and generating enthusiasm in red or purple states, Obama is the better candidate.

by snaktime on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:42:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

Exactly. Why this argument is still alive remains a mystery. LBJ's corpose would beat McCain in those states in November.

by rfahey22 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:42:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

Because Dems won't win Georgia, Alabama, Idaho, etc. and either Dem will win Minnesota?

by Thaddeus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:33:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

Hillary is supposed to win.

She is ahead in delegates. She is ahead in popular vote.

Sure she hasn't exceeded the expectations but how is that a loss?

I believe in Hillary

by sonofdonkeykong on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:15:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It looks like Alabama went for Clinton... (none / 0)

...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.

by andrewalker08 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:57:49 AM EST

Re: It looks like Alabama went for Clinton... (none / 0)

except that alabama has like 60 delegates and some haven't been counted yet

by snaktime on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:44:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

WRONG (none / 0)

Obama wins the most delegates and the most states.

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

by aiko on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:58:52 AM EST

CA District Delegates (none / 0)

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.

by rcipw on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:59:32 AM EST

Re: CA District Delegates (none / 0)

California Districts District Clinton Obama Total D Rough C Rough O Clinton D Obama D 1 45.7% 46.1% 5 2.285 2.305 2 3 2 46.9% 40.9% 4 1.876 1.636 2 2 3 48.2% 44.4% 4 1.928 1.776 2 2 4 46.5% 43.1% 5 2.325 2.155 3 2 5 44.9% 50.1% 5 2.245 2.505 2 3 6 41.7% 50.9% 6 2.502 3.054 3 3 7 49.7% 44.8% 5 2.485 2.24 3 2 8 43.5% 53.4% 6 2.61 3.204 3 3 9 34.2% 61.5% 6 2.052 3.69 2 4 10 49.3% 44.3% 5 2.465 2.215 3 2 11 54.6% 38.9% 4 2.184 1.556 2 2 12 52.6% 42.3% 6 3.156 2.538 3 3 13 57.9% 37.0% 5 2.895 1.85 4 1 14 44.7% 49.9% 6 2.682 2.994 3 3 15 56.1% 37.6% 5 2.805 1.88 3 2 16 59.8% 34.8% 4 2.392 1.392 2 2 17 48.8% 45.4% 5 2.44 2.27 3 2 18 60.5% 32.6% 4 2.42 1.304 3 1 19 55.0% 35.2% 4 2.2 1.408 2 2 20 64.5% 28.8% 3 1.935 0.864 2 1 21 59.4% 31.5% 4 2.376 1.26 3 1 22 50.9% 38.3% 4 2.036 1.532 2 2 23 46.3% 47.3% 5 2.315 2.365 2 3 24 51.5% 41.3% 5 2.575 2.065 3 2 25 53.9% 39.7% 4 2.156 1.588 2 2 26 54.7% 39.2% 4 2.188 1.568 2 2 27 59.6% 36.2% 5 2.98 1.81 3 2 28 60.0% 36.8% 5 3 1.84 3 2 29 52.2% 44.3% 5 2.61 2.215 3 2 30 49.9% 46.7% 6 2.994 2.802 3 3 31 64.1% 33.5% 4 2.564 1.34 3 1 32 71.4% 24.4% 4 2.856 0.976 3 1 33 36.8% 61.4% 5 1.84 3.07 2 3 34 73.3% 23.3% 4 2.932 0.932 2 2 35 39.1% 58.6% 5 1.955 2.93 2 3 36 52.2% 43.4% 5 2.61 2.17 3 2 37 43.8% 53.8% 5 2.19 2.69 2 3 38 72.5% 24.0% 4 2.9 0.96 3 1 39 66.9% 29.3% 4 2.676 1.172 3 1 40 57.4% 35.3% 4 2.296 1.412 2 2 41 58.6% 31.5% 4 2.344 1.26 3 1 42 56.3% 37.3% 4 2.252 1.492 2 2 43 63.2% 31.2% 4 2.528 1.248 3 1 44 54.5% 37.9% 4 2.18 1.516 2 2 45 60.7% 30.5% 4 2.428 1.22 3 1 46 53.0% 40.1% 4 2.12 1.604 2 2 47 67.9% 26.8% 3 2.037 0.804 2 1 48 50.9% 43.3% 4 2.036 1.732 2 2 49 54.4% 36.9% 4 2.176 1.476 2 2 50 47.9% 46.0% 5 2.395 2.3 3 2 51 59.7% 35.7% 4 2.388 1.428 2 2 52 50.1% 41.8% 4 2.004 1.672 2 2 53 47.8% 47.4% 5 2.39 2.37 3 2 134 107

by rcipw on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:00:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CA District Delegates (none / 0)

Well, that didn't really work. If someone can tell me how to post a table from excel, I'd be happy to share.

I took the secretary of state vote percent for each congressional district. Then I looked at the number of delegates at stake. In odd districts, I used whoever had a larger remainder to award the winner.

One big boost for Clinton is the number of "4" districts where she won 3 delegates because of the remainder.

Then for the statewide proportional delegates, I took the vote total.

If Clinton really nets 40 from CA, it will help her a lot I think.

by rcipw on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:03:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CA District Delegates (2.00 / 1)

Here, try this (not perfect):

California Districts

District    Clinton    Obama    Total D    Rough C    Rough O    Clinton D    Obama D
1    45.7%    46.1%    5    2.285    2.305    2    3
2    46.9%    40.9%    4    1.876    1.636    2    2
3    48.2%    44.4%    4    1.928    1.776    2    2
4    46.5%    43.1%    5    2.325    2.155    3    2
5    44.9%    50.1%    5    2.245    2.505    2    3
6    41.7%    50.9%    6    2.502    3.054    3    3
7    49.7%    44.8%    5    2.485    2.24    3    2
8    43.5%    53.4%    6    2.61    3.204    3    3
9    34.2%    61.5%    6    2.052    3.69    2    4
10    49.3%    44.3%    5    2.465    2.215    3    2
11    54.6%    38.9%    4    2.184    1.556    2    2
12    52.6%    42.3%    6    3.156    2.538    3    3
13    57.9%    37.0%    5    2.895    1.85    4    1
14    44.7%    49.9%    6    2.682    2.994    3    3
15    56.1%    37.6%    5    2.805    1.88    3    2
16    59.8%    34.8%    4    2.392    1.392    2    2
17    48.8%    45.4%    5    2.44    2.27    3    2
18    60.5%    32.6%    4    2.42    1.304    3    1
19    55.0%    35.2%    4    2.2    1.408    2    2
20    64.5%    28.8%    3    1.935    0.864    2    1
21    59.4%    31.5%    4    2.376    1.26    3    1
22    50.9%    38.3%    4    2.036    1.532    2    2
23    46.3%    47.3%    5    2.315    2.365    2    3
24    51.5%    41.3%    5    2.575    2.065    3    2
25    53.9%    39.7%    4    2.156    1.588    2    2
26    54.7%    39.2%    4    2.188    1.568    2    2
27    59.6%    36.2%    5    2.98    1.81    3    2
28    60.0%    36.8%    5    3    1.84    3    2
29    52.2%    44.3%    5    2.61    2.215    3    2
30    49.9%    46.7%    6    2.994    2.802    3    3
31    64.1%    33.5%    4    2.564    1.34    3    1
32    71.4%    24.4%    4    2.856    0.976    3    1
33    36.8%    61.4%    5    1.84    3.07    2    3
34    73.3%    23.3%    4    2.932    0.932    2    2
35    39.1%    58.6%    5    1.955    2.93    2    3
36    52.2%    43.4%    5    2.61    2.17    3    2
37    43.8%    53.8%    5    2.19    2.69    2    3
38    72.5%    24.0%    4    2.9    0.96    3    1
39    66.9%    29.3%    4    2.676    1.172    3    1
40    57.4%    35.3%    4    2.296    1.412    2    2
41    58.6%    31.5%    4    2.344    1.26    3    1
42    56.3%    37.3%    4    2.252    1.492    2    2
43    63.2%    31.2%    4    2.528    1.248    3    1
44    54.5%    37.9%    4    2.18    1.516    2    2
45    60.7%    30.5%    4    2.428    1.22    3    1
46    53.0%    40.1%    4    2.12    1.604    2    2
47    67.9%    26.8%    3    2.037    0.804    2    1
48    50.9%    43.3%    4    2.036    1.732    2    2
49    54.4%    36.9%    4    2.176    1.476    2    2
50    47.9%    46.0%    5    2.395    2.3    3    2
51    59.7%    35.7%    4    2.388    1.428    2    2
52    50.1%    41.8%    4    2.004    1.672    2    2
53    47.8%    47.4%    5    2.39    2.37    3    2
                        134    107

by rcipw on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:08:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CA District Delegates (none / 0)

sounds right. Won't that mean Clinton wins the most delegates from yesterday?

by Thaddeus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:38:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CA District Delegates (none / 0)

A total of 103 delegates from Illinois, Colorado and Georgia are still out, all Obama wins, so it will probably cancel out the additional Clinton CA delegates.

Matt - DemConWatch

by msn1 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:45:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Superdelegates (none / 0)

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.

by TL on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:01:49 AM EST

Re: Superdelegates (none / 0)

Why not focus on the popular vote? It is clear that the pledged delegate system itself leads to a lot of distortion of the will of the rank-and-file.

by FuzzyDunlop2 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:10:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Superdelegates (none / 0)

You can't focus on the popular votes as it is not the rules of the game. Much like you can't declare a win for the football team with the most yards after four quarters, even if the game is tied.

A lot has been said in this thread about primary reform and I invite everyone to look into the American Plan outlined on FairVote:
http://www.fairvote.org/?page=965 This is reform that can and should happen before the mess starts again in four years.

by rabbitsrans on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:26:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Superdelegates (none / 0)

If you want to stick to the rules of the game then you have to factor in superdelegates. If the primary ends up very close then the question is how to persuade them.

by souvarine on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:35:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Superdelegates (none / 0)

Superdelegates do matter (they are something like 18% of the seated delegates) but unlike the non-superdelegates (I wonder if they feel bad?) they should not be counted till the convention, as they will change depending on who gets the nomination (as to keep party unity). The possible scenarios are:
Clinton wins nomination by April.
Obama wins nomination by April.
Clinton and Obama are too close to call going into convention.
In only one of those scenarios will superdelegates sway the result, and its also the least likely to happen.

by rabbitsrans on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:47:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

If Obama wins a (none / 0)

plurality of pledged delegates (hell... I'll even say he probably need a plurality with FL+MI added in) -- I GUARANTEE you the superdelegates will push Obama over the top.

Do you think these folks have a death wish? If Obama heads into the convention with a clear lead in pledged delegtes -- and then superdelegates give teh nod to Obama, Denver 2008 will make Chicago 1968 look like a nice, serene picnic.

by zonk on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:33:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Obama wins a (none / 0)

Plurality, clear lead, which?

Do you think there are no personal convictions involved?

Can you imagine Congress members who have declared for Clinton switching to Obama without any repercussions? I can't.

by Thaddeus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:40:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Obama wins a (none / 0)

Repurcussions from whom? I don't think that any would come from their constituents, and I don't think either candidate could singlehandedly punish people who switched.

by rfahey22 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:49:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Two things (none / 0)

#1 - If I'm not mistaken -- there are more superdelegates UNDECIDED -- then leaning one way or another. Now... if the power of Presishouldn't Bill hasn't already pulled them, what do you think the chances that they suddenly decide to break for her?

#2 - If you think Obama can win the pledged delegate race but lose the nomination on Super D's alone, we're done talking... you've passed the point of reason.

by zonk on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:52:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Two things (none / 0)

The idea that Obama can be ahead by as little as 1 pledged delegate, and there will be blood in the streets if all the superdelegates don't switch and give him the nomination, is a scary variation on the expectations-setting theme.

If it comes down to a coin toss, someone is going to be happy and someone is going to be unhappy, but suggesting there will be a controversy that dwarfs 1968 just makes you look unserious in my opinion.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:22:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You missed a big chunk (none / 0)

of what I'm saying.

Obama doesn't NEED switchers. There are more "undecided" Super Ds than there are Obama+Clinton leaners combined.

Josh at TPM asks the pertinent question

So that's what I'm looking at. Who has super delegate endorsements to roll out this morning? Who do elected Democrats want to run with?

Do you think any blue state Dems are worried about runnign with Obama on the ticket? What about red state Dems with Clinton?

by zonk on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:26:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You missed a big chunk (none / 0)

I'm sorry, the whole "blah blah scenario will tear the party apart" rhetoric is such a turnoff for me. There's a little bit of 2000-style hardball being played with the rhetoric and it's you guys who are sounding like the Bushies.

I don't believe red state Dems are monolithic in their mortal fear of Hillary at the top of the ticket. Some of them surely realize that bringing thousands of additional women out to vote wouldn't be a bad thing. The question is, if anyone sees this factor as a huge deal, why would they wait till the convention to make up their mind?

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:50:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wanna count (none / 0)

the red/purple endorsements?

In fact... name me ONE prominent Clinton backer in a tough seat/race.

Are there any? Ed Rendell maybe?

by zonk on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:53:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wanna count (none / 0)

It's like you didn't even read my comment.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:12:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wanna count (none / 0)

note that John Dingell and Dale Kildee endorsed Hillary today.

I think the Obama folks are just a bit jumpy today. I think they expected more from yesterday.

by Thaddeus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:17:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

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

by Djneedle83 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:30:48 AM EST

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

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

by Djneedle83 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:32:48 AM EST

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

Thanks. I wasn't sure of the exact number. (And I didn't do any district calculations myself anyway - it wouldn't affect the numbers I posted).

Matt - DemConWatch

by msn1 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:27:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

That LA Times article is wrong, unless CA doesn't use remainders (which is how district delegates are done as far as I know)...

See my math below.

by rcipw on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:56:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

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?

by NC State Dem on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:35:32 AM EST

Just guessing (none / 0)

but I'm think he need 100 to make PA not matter.

I think it gets murkier if it's 50-75.

by zonk on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:34:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

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.

by Djneedle83 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:47:21 AM EST

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

That is correct. As far as I know, the LA Times article is wrong

With 4 delegates at stake, Candiate A gets 62.5% and Candidate B gets 33%, meaning Candiate A has won 2.48 delegates and Candidate B has won 1.32.

Candidate A automatically wins 2 delegates and B wins 1. There is one left over to be determined by remainders (as far as I know). There is a remainder of .48 for A and .32 for B -- A gets the last delegate and the district splits 3 to 1 for A.

by rcipw on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:55:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

District results in CA show quite a few where Hillary has a pretty good margin--it's worth checking out but I guess we'll know soon enough.

by Thaddeus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:19:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

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!"

by Poochie on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:48:52 AM EST

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

Obama was against the war before he was for it. He was against playing chicken with the troops until he was for it.

Focusing on the war vote is a losing issue. It hurts Obama every bit as much as it hurts Hillary.

No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!

by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:51:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

In the general, McCain will not be able to criticize Obama for financially supporting the troops in combat after Obama's intially being against the war.

Such an argument would undermine McCain's own position on supporting the war now.

by Poochie on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:01:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

Oh, yes he will. Besides Obama voted against "funding the troops" too. It will be used to show that he's a lily livered flip flopper.

No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!

by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:04:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

Then that sucks for us Democrats that we both have flipfloppers as candidates again.

McCain at least was consistent. It's still at repeat of 2004

Kerry, Clinton, Obama - flipfloppers
Bush, McCain - consistent leadership

by Poochie on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:07:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

She was not for the war. I was in the streets protesting before the war. I wish she didn't vote as she did. But she was not for the war.

And she has explained this maybe 400 times.

by Thaddeus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:42:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

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.

by Poochie on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:57:39 AM EST

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

Sorry but it's not. Obama called failing to vote for war funding "playing chicken with the troops" and then proceeded to vote against funding later on. He changed his mind about the war once he got to washington. When did Obama decide to start playing chicken with the troops? Obama was against playing chicken with the troops before he was against it?

No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!

by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:02:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

Your Obama critique aside, it's still true that Clinton was for the war before she was against it. Correct?

by Poochie on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:09:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

Well, considering the fact that she has voted for all the war funding it's a harder charge to make against her than Obama. Remember Kerry voting against that war funding bill is what hurt him? Yeah, the GOP will try to make any critique of the war sound that way but she doesn't have the same flip flopper voting record on the war that Obama has.

No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!

by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:13:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

Are you sure about Hillary's consistent war funding?

According to CNN, it says that both Hillary and Obama voted against war funding.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/25/v ote.effect/index.html

by Poochie on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:20:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

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.

by DoubleDs on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:04:26 PM EST

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

Um TN? AR? vs. UT LOL. That's a good game he's spinning. I guess he wants us to lose the general. He's a McCain man after all.

No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!

by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:05:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

Don't forget Oklahoma and Arizona!

by rossinatl on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:09:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

Her home state and McCains... That's two impressive red state wins!

by zonk on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:36:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

Sure, if you ignore TN and OK, I guess you can look at it like that! Discounting Arkansas seems pretty silly to me since she has an excellent chance to turn it blue in the GE, but some of you guys seem addicted to spin.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:24:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

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!"

by rossinatl on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:08:17 PM EST

Exactly (none / 0)

The party's base.

Hillary wins states that we run the corpse of Adlai Stevenson in and still win.

Yippee.

That's excitement.

by zonk on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:37:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Exactly (none / 0)

So lets get excited about the states where rockstar Obama can run and still lose?

Hillary keeps the blue states and wins the purple and the red states don't matter in a general.

Obama isn't going to win red states.

I believe in Hillary

by sonofdonkeykong on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:21:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Exactly (none / 0)

CO is a red state? MO?

by zonk on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:27:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

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

by Zeitgeist9000 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:14:19 PM EST

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

LA goes to Obama. 50% of the voting Democratic primary electorate was African-American in 2004. They are all supporting him. He takes that state. Saturday to Tuesday just will not be Clinton's best days in this nomination. I could even see her losing all those states. She could make it in WA and VA. We will have to wait and see.

Restore America's Strength.

by RJEvans on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:29:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

That was before Katrina.

by Zeitgeist9000 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:23:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

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

by bayareasg on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:21:39 PM EST

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

No way Clinton wins WA. Isn't WA a caucus state? Besides, the demographic makeup of WA favors Obama.

by mecarr on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:44:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

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

Restore America's Strength.

by RJEvans on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:30:14 PM EST

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

CA District Delegate count 130 Clinton 111

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

by Djneedle83 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:31:06 PM EST

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

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

by Piuma on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:33:32 PM EST

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

Don't you have that wrong?
According to KOAT she has 117 vote lead.
http://www.koat.com/index.html

by devoted1 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:05:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

"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?

by global yokel on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:43:46 PM EST

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

I think the party will have a hard time excluding those states.

And Howard Dean has hinted that the FL and MI delegates will be seated.

by randym77 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:13:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

Remember, the magic number is 2,025.

"If you want to end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud"...Arlo Guthrie

by nogo war on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:08:10 PM EST

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

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.

by americanincanada on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:11:42 PM EST

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

Yeah, the rules committee, which has lots of Clinton people, backed him up on the no delegates punishment even though it was against Clinton's interest. But his bluff failed, the states did not relent. The Clinton people didn't throw Dean under the bus, so now he owes them.

by souvarine on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:55:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

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.

by maxstar on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:14:24 PM EST

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

oh noooos

If we count everyone's vote Obama will lose

We want's our Precious Obama....

Don't count those bad peoples votes...

We want the precious....

I believe in Hillary

by sonofdonkeykong on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:24:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

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.

by mecarr on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:27:48 PM EST

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

I think Florida will and should be counted. At least it was a more or less level playing field.

It's Michigan that's going to be difficult. All the names weren't on the ballot. While there was a "vote uncommitted" movement, that doesn't make up for the huge disadvantage of not having your name on the ballot.

by randym77 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:34:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

Why not just have Michigan and Florida vote again? The whole idea of moving up their primary was so that their vote would mean more than it would otherwise. Their vote would certainly mean alot if we were to reschedule them in March sometime then there. This way, they still get the pride of having their votes make a difference, plus the candidates can have a chance to campaign.

by mecarr on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:38:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

You want to come up with the several million dollars necessary to engage the machinery all over again (new ballots, hiring workers, blah blah blah)? Forget about it. Of all possible solutions, this one is the least likely.

by ColoradoGuy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:41:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

I think the Democratic party would have to pay for it for that to happen. I don't see it happening.

Though maybe this close race and the long dry spell in April might make some states reconsider their attempts to vote ever earlier in the year.

by randym77 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:49:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

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

by werd2406 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:39:50 PM EST

Superdelegates (none / 0)

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?

by rcipw on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:42:54 PM EST

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

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

by werd2406 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:44:12 PM EST

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

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.

What would LBJ do?

by Socks The Cat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:54:18 PM EST

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

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

by ademinmaryland on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:17:59 PM EST

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

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.

by mecarr on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:24:59 PM EST

Re: Updated Delegate Counts (none / 0)

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.

by Thaddeus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:05:57 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.