Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper
RECENT POSTS
- Who Really Wears the Pants in Russia?
- Malia Obama – Budding Fashionista?
- The Very Latest on the US-Russian Summit
- President Obama Seeks to Build Up Medvedev Over Putin
- President Obama's Proverbial Reset Button
- The Latest from the US-Russian Summit
- Kenya Dig It? President Obama Talks Africa, Chastises Politics in Late Father's Homeland
- US-Russian Arms Negotiators "Under the Gun," Might Temporarily Bypass Senate Ratification for Treaty
- Asked What He Doesn’t Like About Himself, President Obama Cites His Golf Game
- Today's Q's For O's White House
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Where Are the Democrats Going to Be in June?: A Purely Speculative Exercise
April 10, 2008 12:12 PM
This is all pure conjecture, so take it as that. But in trying to figure out where the Democrats might be in June, this is some speculative math.
Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, and Barack Obama, D-Illinois, need to win 2,025* delegates to secure the nomination.
Right now, in the ABC News count, Obama has 1,634 delegates (1,416 pledged and 218 superdelegates) and Clinton has 1,498 delegates (1,251 pledged and 247 superdelegates).
Here are the contests going forward, with the number of pledged delegates and superdelegates for each state:
Apr 22 Pennsylvania primary (158 pledged, 29 super)
May 3 Guam caucuses (4 pledged, 5 super)
May 6 Indiana primary (72 pledged, 13 super)
NC primary (115 pledged, 19 super)
May 13 WV primary (28 pledged, 11 super)
May 20 Kentucky primary (51 pledged, 9 super)
Oregon primary (52 pledged, 13 super)
June 1 Puerto Rico primary (55 pledged, 8 super)
June 3 Montana primary (16 pledged, 9 super)
South Dakota primary (15 pledged, 8 super)
**
Based on poll numbers and conversations with both campaigns as well as the big brains in the ABC News Political Unit (David Chalian, Teddy Davis, Karen Travers), I will assume for the sake of argument that Clinton wins five states and territories and Obama wins five states and territories in the 10 contests remaining.
The guesses: Clinton wins Pennsylvania, Indiana, West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico. And Obama wins Guam, North Carolina, Oregon, Montana and South Dakota.
In this purely speculative exercise, the total pledged delegate count of those Clinton states is 364 and the Obama states is 202.
But this is not a Republican-style winner-take-all system.
It's proportional, because they're Democrats.
Again, for the sake of argument, let's assume each candidate wins pretty handily (that will not be the case in real life), 55%-45%.
55% of Clinton states = 200 pledged delegates
55% of Obama states = 111 pledged delegates
45% of Clinton states = 164 pledged delegates
45% of Obama states = 91 pledged delegates
That would mean:
Clinton pledged delegates (55% of Clinton states + 45% of Obama states) = 291 pledged delegates
Obama pledged delegates (55% of Obama states + 45% of Clinton states) = 275 pledged delegates
A net gain for Clinton of 16 pledged delegates.
**
Again, this is just speculation -- doodling on the back of a napkin since I don't have the ability to see the future.
Obama currently leads Clinton by 165 pledged delegates. Clinton leads among superdelegates, 247 to 218, with 29 more.
Meaning Obama overall has 136 more delegates.
With my hypothetical scenario, in June, after the final contest, neither candidate would have 2,025* delegates.
Obama would have 1,909, Clinton would have 1,789.
Obama in June would still lead Clinton with 120 delegates.
Almost two more months, millions of dollars, hundreds of attacks and counter-attacks between the two campaigns later.
**
But that doesn't include superdelegates, right?
Here's the issue with that.
Since Feb. 5, the Obama campaign has gained 69 superdelegates. Conversely, the Clinton campaign has had a net loss of five (she gained six but lost 11).
That trend clearly doesn't bode well for Sen. Clinton.
This is why even though Clinton could have a very strong next few weeks, with folks like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and even some Clinton supporters saying they don't think superdelegates should "override" what the pledged delegates decide, Clinton's fiercest opponent is the math.
And it all means that come June we could be essentially exactly where we are today, short of some serious movement by superdelegates or Democratic voters one way or another.
- jpt
UPDATE: I am being asked why I'm not counting Michigan and Florida.
Um, it's not that I'm not counting them, friends, it's that the Democratic National Committee isn't.
And that's because, as we all know, those two states disobeyed party rules and held their contests earlier than the DNC wanted them to do. (Harold Ickes, a senior adviser to Sen. Clinton, was on the relevant DNC rules committee and voted to not recognize those states' delegates. And Clinton herself did not have anything to say about this issue until it became clear that the DNC decision might impact her presidential aspirations.)
But you can see why the Clinton campaign regards those two states and their 368 total delegates (Florida's 185 pledged and 26 super; Michigan's 128 pledged and 29 super) as so crucial.
And of course you can see why anyone who professes to believe in democracy and bringing people into the political process (ahem, Mr. Obama) would want those votes to count in some fashion.
So...scrawling on a napkin again...let's game this out. (Aided once again by the big brain of ABC News' Karen Travers, though the sheer speculation is mine.)
FLORIDA: Though the candidates did not campaign in Florida, Clinton won 50% of the vote, Obama 33%, and former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC, won 14%.
Since he did not reach the 15% threshold statewide Edwards is not eligible for at-large delegates, but since some delegates are allocated by congressional districts where he did reach 15%, Edwards does get some delegates.
So of the pledged delegates, Clinton gets 106, Obama gets 67, and Edwards gets 12. A net gain of 39 pledged delegates for her.
Of Florida's 26 superdelegates, we know of 7 for Clinton and 4 for Obama. So that's a net gain of 3 for her with supers, and a net gain of 42 delegates for Clinton total in Florida.
MICHIGAN: Michigan is much tougher to play out in this exercise, since Obama wasn't even on the ballot.
You could allocate Clinton's delegates to her and none to Obama, but that seems insane, or you could allocate Clinton's delegates to her and those who voted "uncommitted" to Obama, but that also seems rather questionable.
Or you could split the 128 superdelegates down the middle, as Obama's campaign has suggested, which might end up being Clinton's best option if she wants to get those Michigan superdelegates recognized, seven of whom support her, with one supporting him.
TOTALS: So you have Clinton's 1,789 delegates (in my completely hypothetical scenario) + 106 Florida pledged delegates + 7 Florida superdelegates + 64 Michigan pledged delegates + 7 Michigan superdelegates = 1,973 delegates.
And you have Obama's 1,909 delegates (in my completely hypothetical scenario) + 67 pledged delegates in Florida + 4 Florida superdelegates + 64 Michigan pledged delegates + 1 Michigan superdelegate = 2,045 delegates.
But hold the phone -- if Florida and Michigan count, the number of delegates needed to win the nomination jumps from 2,025* to 2,209.
So Obama in this scenario would lead Clinton by 72 delegates, but neither would have enough delegates to secure the nomination, and everything would be in the hands of the roughly 300 uncommitted superdelegates.
Obama would need 165 (about 55%) of them to get the nomination.
Clinton would need 237 (about 80%) of them.
* PLEASE NOTE: While I was doing all this math, the number of delegates required to secure the nomination changed from 2,024 to 2,025, with the swearing-in of new Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif. I changed all the relevant numbers above, but there was a previous version of this post in which 2,024 was cited as the magic number. The correct number is 2,025.
April 10, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (142)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
i love the arguments with such passion, it's like a soap opera with the audience rooting for their favorite and bashing the others. every politician, being human, has good and bad points. every poltician, being in this game of politics we have in america,
Posted by: potrero hill man | Apr 12, 2008 3:17:28 PM
So, the tanks of '68 returning?
Posted by: Anonymous | Apr 12, 2008 12:18:30 PM
Actually he did not count the number of delegates Hillary has. All of the other sites: CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC, all show that Hillary has 1,500+ delegates, so that makes his math totally wrong.
Posted by: anonymous | Apr 12, 2008 7:16:45 AM
JP said the following (and I cannot agree more):
If Clinton thinks it’s so bad to "disenfranchise" the voters of Florida and Michigan, why is she trying to get the pledged delegates to disenfranchise the voters they are pledged to represent?
Why even vote if someone is not going to faithfully represent your vote and the tens of thousands of other voters who assumed they would be represented by the pledged delegate?
Well said JP!!!!!
Posted by: James | Apr 11, 2008 2:30:49 PM
carmen z
thanks for your comments
every word you have written is so true
I could feel the heart in everyword.
with you comments-all of the hillary supporters and everyone else knows
who the true patriots are
and who really has the betterment of the country and the world at heart.
Posted by: jgaw | Apr 11, 2008 2:23:55 PM
If Clinton thinks it’s so bad to "disenfranchise" the voters of Florida and Michigan, why is she trying to get the pledged delegates to disenfranchise the voters they are pledged to represent?
Why even vote if someone is not going to faithfully represent your vote and the tens of thousands of other voters who assumed they would be represented by the pledged delegate?
Posted by: JP | Apr 11, 2008 1:01:00 PM
Haha, Rove. McCain doesn't stand a chance... I think Dems have learned their lessons. Once we figure out who our nominee is, we'll get our heads on straight. We're outraising Mccain by something like 6 to 1.
Posted by: Lester | Apr 11, 2008 12:12:21 PM
Hehehehehe... keep hating each other, Dems! It's just what us Republicans want! I can't believe we actually have a shot at winning- only the Democrats could ruin THIS chance they have!
Posted by: Karl Rove | Apr 11, 2008 12:09:51 PM
How could he predict his "MATH", if the Final results aren't tallied.
You all just wish this beautiful, talented, competent, graceful, difficult,woman and mother, was all that you claim.
To find out about the REAL Sentor Obama, your "SAVIOR"--after reading these, then tell us about the delusions you DON'T HAVE.
Posted by: sam | Apr 11, 2008 11:54:37 AM
Hopefuly the Socialist/Lib party will be no more!
Posted by: spock | Apr 11, 2008 10:59:22 AM
Elle, you wrote: "She endorsed John McCain OVER Barack Obama." I wouldn't characterize it that way. We all know that Sen. Clinton will practically say and do anything to become President of the United States. Well, she knows that if Sen Obama wins the nomination that there is a chance -- depending upon who is forecasting, somewhere between a 45%-55% -- of winning the general election. And should Sen. Obama win, then she would probably be too old to run in 2016. (She knows that she could not oppose a President Obama in 2012.) So either she is in the general election this year or her last shot of becoming president will be 2012. And if she does not win the nomination this year, then the only real chance for her in 2012 is if Sen. McCain wins the general election.
That just goes to show you how sincere -- Not! -- she is about her agenda. Everyone acknowledges that there is about a 5% difference in what she and Sen. Obama are advocating. Thus Sen. Clinton is putting her own interest ahead of the cause that she claims she has been fighting for over the past 35 years.
Posted by: James Danley | Apr 11, 2008 9:15:04 AM
The media keeps repeating all the supers who moved ot BO after Feb5. I am curious to know how many moved to support BO after Mar4 and still how many pledged for BO after Dean, Reid and Pelosi talked about 'the something' in place to resolve the competition. All of the Wright stories broke after Mar 4 and that to me is a difference like night and day!
Posted by: Voter | Apr 11, 2008 8:19:15 AM
It is actually much simpler than you present there Jake. In 1982, the DNC changed the rules for delegates allowing them to change their vote as if they deem fit. This allows multi-ballot conventions that would be needed when a race is close like this one. The superdelegates would prefer the delegates make the decision of course! End result? The voters provide snapshots in time and the delegates can use those snapshots as guidelines but they are not bound to them. Most will follow the guidelines as usual but only 120 of the 4418 would need to change to tip the election - less than 3% of the delegates. This is highly plausible and certainly justification for both candidates to stay in the race through the convention. Are you implying that the voters of the remaining contests do not matter? Certainly they matter as do FL and MI voters! Their delegates need guidelines too. All voices should be heard - even if Obama doesnt want to listen!
Posted by: DCVoter | Apr 11, 2008 7:34:10 AM
Elle,
you might want to remember that approximately 20% of the bho supporters said they would vote for McCain if hillary was the nominee...goes both ways my dear.
Posted by: pp | Apr 11, 2008 7:33:42 AM
Hillary has never been able to challenge bho on a level playing field because of the unbelievable bias of the media, and party elite.
Michelle obama was just in nc. when they were setting up for the talk, supporters were saying "we need more white people in here." they then proceeded to move peoples seats to get "white people in the front rows. what if hillary had said the same about "black people".....
bho got a free ride on the whole wright deal. He may have been able to talk himself out of being tied to the preacher, but what about the tenets of the church? it says, to paraphrase, that they are to give their money and acquired skills to the black community, to pledge their allegiance to the black community, to embrace the black value system. you know what would happen if that was hillary's church talking about the white community and value system...
there would be no end to the discussions about hillary and her leadership abilities if she had voted "present" as much as bho...
the press would jump all over hillary if she did not cover her heart for the pledge of allegiance or the star spangled banner...
If half hillary's contributers where ceo's, etc from large corporartions, and were "bundling" to increase donations, we would never hear the end of it, but bho...free ride.
And the list goes on.
And the lies continue.
And bho continues his campaign on a free pass.
Posted by: pp | Apr 11, 2008 7:30:16 AM
So, when one wonders why a Clinton supporter would think so little of their democratic ideals and principals (think Big Picture, like say, the Supreme freaking Court, for eg.), that they would rather cast a vote for the Republican -- the pro-life Republican who has pledged to put strict Constructionist judges on the Supreme Court -- than for the other Democratic Candidate, the answer is quite simple:
Why, of course, it's because Hillary Clinton endorsed John McCain. She endorsed John McCain OVER Barack Obama.
And she's told her supporters that over and over again in so many ways. She's given them PERMISSION to think and do the unthinkable: vote *against* a fellow democrat if the democrat YOU want, doesn't win the Democratic primary.
Remember? When she said she'd and her "distinguished friend" John McCain had crossed the threshold to become "commander-in-chief" but "you'd have to ask Barack Obama with respect to his candidacy"?
That's right. There she was standing up there in her press conference in DC on March 6/08 surrounded by flags and Generals, saying that Obama would have to speak for himself as to whether he's passed that threshold, all the while as she stood up there as the Official SPOKESPERSON -- for HERSELF -- and -- JOHN McCAIN.
As a woman and a feminist, she has become a massive disappointment to me. I'm for the best person. Not the best (enter qualifier here). I'm for the person who conquers the divide. Not for the person who divides and conquers.
Posted by: elle | Apr 11, 2008 7:22:08 AM
Jay Svenson:
YOu should look into the way Obama has "levelled" the his voting field in Illinois by eliminating his competitors.
Look it up in the Chicago Tribune; it IS scarey!
Posted by: QUESTIONER | Apr 11, 2008 1:52:33 AM
Linda,fl
Not to worry; you've been disenfranchised by your buddy.
No vote for you!
Ta Ta.....
Posted by: QUESTIONER | Apr 11, 2008 1:48:56 AM
Looks like somebody here is out of mind, meaning Hillary having some qualification. Where did You get it, angry Guy from Mi?
She never managed anything and anybody(could not manage even in her family), starting this campaign she demonstrated complete disability to manage: neither the team nor finances nor messages no ideas, except Tale-talking: all oriented for VERY low developed people, who can believe, that being the Wife of Mechanic woman can repair the car ( do You? Then do not go to mechanic, go to his wife, she will repair it "perfectly" and certainly cheaper).
If this is Your credo - You better sit quietly with those stupid thoughts and do not talk to public.
The problem still is - she is so dirty and nasty, that people physically can not stand that dems mess And that is SHE, who created it at no end (because of nasty nature and attitude).
But we will stand it.
You know, people do have wisdom.
And you, clinton's toys,would not change the way of History.
So sit quietly.
Her time is gone, both - in math and in common sense.
Posted by: Linda,Fl | Apr 11, 2008 1:40:45 AM
carmen zayas ;
That was a wonderful post.
Thank you.
GIVE 'EM HELL, HILLARY!!!!!
Posted by: QUESTIONER | Apr 11, 2008 1:39:27 AM
Post a comment

