MyDD :: We've reached a delegate tipping point

We've reached a delegate tipping point

by thezzyzx, Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:14:13 PM EST

According to DemConWatch, even before adding today's SDs (4-0 in favor of Obama), Obama needs 164 delegates to win the contest. Why is that number important? It's also his lead in the race.

Obama is now closer to the finish line than Clinton is to Obama. Moreover, it's easier to come up with ways where Obama will receive chunks of delegates (Conservative totals for Obama give 8-10 from WV, 20 or so from KY, 30 or so from OR, 20 or so from PR, 10 each from MT and SD plus at least 20 more add ons, which is 128 of the needed right there) than it is to come up with metrics where Clinton achieves large net totals.

This is why, even prior to WV/KY/OR, people are pivoting to the general. Clinton should have a great day on Tuesday. I expect her supporters to enjoy it. However, after OR, Obama will have at least a 140 delegate lead with only 86 more pledged delegates up for grab. It has been a hard fought race, but we really are in the end game. Now it's time to get McCain!

Tags: primary, end game (all tags)

Permalink :: 27 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: We've reached a delegate tipping point (none / 0)

you get mcCain, good luck with that one

"Little Distractions Become Major Attractions" - How can you possibly win?

by ctmayor on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:17:59 PM EST

Re: We've reached a delegate tipping point (none / 0)

Why not? He's a weak-ass candidate, the best of a terrible lot on the Republican side.

by Lawyerish on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:18:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We've reached a delegate tipping point (none / 0)

I'm glad they nominated him, even though he's the worst to beat. Just in case there's an act of God or something, I think he does retain some principles beyond what he compromised to get here..

by Falsehood on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:14:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We've reached a delegate tipping point (2.00 / 1)

No problem. I know you Republican trolls are concerned; you ought to be. Get ready for an ass whuppin' in the fall.

Serious question- Is This Snark?

by ragekage on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:33:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We've reached a delegate tipping point (none / 0)

good point!

Thanks for pointing that out.

by Lawyerish on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:17:59 PM EST

not true, sorry (none / 0)

that's fuzzy math. 2209 is the number of delegates needed now that MI and FL will be counted. Super delegates don't vote until the convention and there are plenty left.
In addition, because it is so close the popular vote is what really matters as well as who can win the swing states we need.
Obama can not win OH and FL, he is doomed in November. The super delegates will take that in to consideration.

For Obama it now becomes: Faith, hope and CHANGE! And the greatest of these is Change!

by TeresaInPa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:24:36 PM EST

Re: not true, sorry (2.00 / 2)

Photobucket

I would say at this point we're starting to see a little desperation on the part of the woman who I support... NY Governor Paterson

by obamaovermccain on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:26:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: not true, sorry (2.00 / 6)

I guess I'll explain this again. Sigh. Teresa, for a partisan, you're exceptionally obstinate.

Obama's polling within two points of McCain in Ohio. Clinton is five points ahead of McCain. Only in Florida does McCain run away against Obama, but Clinton's within the MOE against McCain there. Saying Clinton will get Florida over McCain easily is wishful thinking.

However, Obama can win easily without OH or FL. He can take NM, CO, IA, WI, MI, PA, MN, CT, possibly NV, get two electoral votes out of NB, and has an excellent shot at getting VA. This will expand the Democratic map significantly, and has an excellent shot of giving us an Obamajority and mandate in the congress to get things done.

But as I've said many times, though, both candidates have paths to get to 270 and above that suit them personally. The bad part about Clinton's is that she has to win Ohio and Florida. If she loses one, she's done. Obama has more territory to gain, but they are easier places to fight McCain in, and can seriously help downticket races in the fall.

Again, I don't like this "Kerry map + some" attitude. We're going to, again, ignore state Democratic parties and voters whom we don't find convenient. Doesn't fly with me.

Serious question- Is This Snark?

by ragekage on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:34:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: not true, sorry (2.00 / 3)

Wow, you managed to cram so many false talking points into so few words!

With regards to the supers, can't you see they're going for Obama overwhelmingly? And Clinton has already had 10 jump ship.

Allow me to cut and paste something I wrote last night about the 'cumulative popular vote':

-----

The legitimacy that the Clinton campaign (and you as a willing accomplice) has given the notion of the 'popular vote' is a devious scam. I know I don't have to tell you that if either candidate had been shooting for the 'popular vote' at the outset of this nomination process, instead of trying to win delegates, they would have simply ignored IA, NV, AK, CO, ID, KS, MN, NM, ND, NE, WA, ME, and HI because these states held caucuses where the turnout is not nearly as high as primaries. Some have argued (and perhaps fairly) that caucuses aren't as democratic as primaries, but as part of the nomination process, that's what some states do. To come up with any 'popular vote' number that includes both caucuses and primaries in states that have wildly differing rules regarding the participation in these events is simply impossible. It's not just apples and oranges -- it's apples, oranges, bananas, kiwis, jackfruit, and mangosteens! You just can't add them all up and come up with a meaningful number without, at the least, dramatically discounting the votes of those who caucused in the caucus states. Talk about disenfranchisement!

Sadly, passing off the notion of the 'cumulative popular vote' as some sort of meaningful metric in this process is particularly egregious because it preys on the average American's sense of fairness. 'One person, one vote' sounds right to most people, and frankly most people aren't too well-versed in the abstruse and complicated machinations of the Democratic Party's nomination process -- in which the cumulative popular vote total is not only objectively meaningless, but meaningless to the actual process.

Moreover, the Clinton campaign (and you) only turned to using the incomprehensible popular vote metric after months of claiming to be in the lead in delegates -- when Barack Obama has held the pledged delegate lead for the entirety of the campaign since the Iowa caucuses -- and after months of talking about how this was a race about delegates.

I beg of you -- let's have some honesty here. To be sure, this popular vote business is a fairly complicated topic, but sadly, there seems to be a real unwillingness among Clinton supporters to fairly recognize that the cumulative popular vote is a deeply flawed metric that cannot, for example, possibly be compared to the nationwide popular vote in the general election.

John McCain the flip-flopper...

by chinapaulo on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:36:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: not true, sorry (2.00 / 1)

what an adorable response. If only saying all those things actually made them true . . .

by KevinT on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:41:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Inconsistent much? (2.00 / 3)

In one breath, you say that the popular vote is what really matters, but then right after that, you say that the superdelegates should pick Hillary because she's supposedly more electable, which implies that the supers have the right to vote for whomever they like for whatever reason they like.

Which is it? Do you think the popular vote should determine the nominee, or do you think that the supers should choose whomever they think is best?

It'd be helpful if you could pick one metric and stick with it from now on.

by Angry White Democrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:43:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Inconsistent much? (2.00 / 1)

"pick one metric and stick with it from now on."

Great point, but we won't count on it. You surely don't need me to tell you that whatever metric favors their candidate at any given moment is the one that matters. Logic be damned...

John McCain the flip-flopper...

by chinapaulo on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:53:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: not true, sorry (none / 0)

Comments like this bring to mind Hitler in his bunker moving little wooden markers representing armies that no longer existed.

Hillary: "Her dishonesty is actually honest." -- yellowdem1129

by Kobi on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:46:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: not true, sorry (2.00 / 1)

The number to win is 2025 until the rules are changed. Obama will reach that number before the rules are changed, therefore, he is likely to be considered the winner before the rules are changed - and rightly so!

You have no idea what will happen with FL and MI; yet you speak as if you do. That is foolish.

by Lawyerish on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:48:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: not true, sorry (2.00 / 1)

Obama can and will win OH, and even if he does not, he will win NM, CO, NV, IA and be competitive in MANY other states including VA, NC, ND, SD, AK, TX etc.

Also you can argue 2209 is the correct number, but in no way will Clinton get the delegates seated the way she wants. It will be some sort of compromise that will only make Obama get a FEW extra delegates to meet.

by Bobby Obama on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:49:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: not true, sorry (2.00 / 1)

Your tag line is shameful.

by letterc on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:04:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

About Michigan and Florida - from Hillary's websit (none / 0)

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/relea se/view/?id=3134

by Virginia Liberal on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:29:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We've reached a delegate tipping point (none / 0)

love it!

on towards McCain

I would say at this point we're starting to see a little desperation on the part of the woman who I support... NY Governor Paterson

by obamaovermccain on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:25:11 PM EST

Actually (none / 0)

according to his website, he needs 157. And they must have the best counters anywhere, I don't think they've ever been wrong, they even predicted the delegate totals after Super Tuesday accurately.

by grass on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:33:38 PM EST

Re: Actually (2.00 / 1)

A friend works on the campaign at a high level, and he says that their delegate counter is just one unassuming older guy with beard a who comes into the office every day wearing jeans. His delegate counts have been amazingly accurate -- no small feat considering the complicated state-by-state allocation rules.

It's amazing that Mark Penn, by contrast, supposedly didn't even know that the delegates were allocated proportionally in the Democratic Party. And to think, the HilIs44 crowd here would have us all donate to Hillary so average folks can line Mark Penn's millionaire pockets.

John McCain the flip-flopper...

by chinapaulo on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:12:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually (none / 0)

Aw, it's like a campaign run by nerds. Eggheads, if you will.

by grass on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:43:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We've reached a delegate tipping point (2.00 / 1)

I wonder if the media will catch on to this? Hmm. Either way, it's been a hell of a run. I have to say, again, Clinton would have gotten nowhere without her dedicated supporters, like the ones I've met around here. She may have mismanaged her campaign, but these guys pulled her out of that and are the only reason she stayed competitive, and I think it says a lot about their character and motivation. I'm honestly very impressed, and honored to be working with them in the fall.

Serious question- Is This Snark?

by ragekage on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:39:31 PM EST

Re: We've reached a delegate tipping point (2.00 / 1)

Well, the NY Times already reported on it, and I saw an AP article on this yesterday.

John McCain the flip-flopper...

by chinapaulo on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:13:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We've reached a delegate tipping point (2.00 / 1)

It's now 5-0 today in superdelegates for Obama.
http://thepage.time.com/2008/05/10/satur days-super-battle-2/

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

by politicsmatters on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:49:45 PM EST

+5/-1.... ? (none / 0)

Isn't that +5/-1

I thought Clinton picked up 1 and lost 2 today.

"The best way to show that a stick is crooked is not by arguing about it or spending time denouncing it, but to lay a straight stick alongside it" -DL Moody

by nextgen on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:12:16 PM EST

Re: We've reached a delegate tipping point (none / 0)

Does anyone really expect Clinton to keep running once Obama hits 2025 delegates? At the rate he is going, it's looking like he's going to hit it on May 20.

by Skaje on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:56:06 AM EST

After the MI/FL meeting on May 31st (none / 0)

the new number to reach will be 2209 and he will be further from that.

Yes, closer than her, but further from the number.

That is why his team is trying to get her to drop out before the meeting so he can claim victory.

She she not do this. She should stay in through the convention.

by nikkid on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:09:14 AM 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.