The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.
Chris Matthews: Media Created Delusion Hillary Can Win watch!
huffingtonpost.com — Chris Matthew started off the Pennsylvania primary coverage with a bang tonight. Shortly after 6, seated by co-anchor Keith Olbermann, Matthews called the primary, and thus his coverage tonight, basically moot. "This contest is essentially over," he proclaims to Keith. "Barack Obama is going to win the most elected delegates."
BishkekBuddy- 1889 diggs
- digg it
- trevorjez, on 04/23/2008, -16/+176i can only hope more people will realize that hillary cannot win. you can't argue with the math...unless of course you change the rules of the math.
- Itazura, on 04/23/2008, -23/+12Apparently you forgot how Bush won the first election. God don't need no math.
- kingmanic, on 04/23/2008, -1/+13God? did you misspell "the corrupt"?
- nospinhere, on 04/24/2008, -1/+1The Obama Post strikes again!
- Drahkar, on 04/23/2008, -2/+13There is a major difference there. The numbers were vary close in the Bush Election. These numbers aren't. Obama is winning by a large margin.
- didiman, on 04/24/2008, -2/+1Matthews and the Obama-Network (aka MSNBC/NBC) are pathetic, but I guess throwing everything they have behind Obama is there only chance to get anyone to actually watch.
- green67, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1@" did a man"..I read your comment and was wondering why you didn't mention the"Clinton News Network"...just because you don't like using a toilet doesn't mean it's cool to ***** in someones yard!!...Grow up and remember social studies from high school.
- kingmanic, on 04/23/2008, -1/+13God? did you misspell "the corrupt"?
- smacksaw, on 04/23/2008, -3/+32You can cheat on your math test, though. You can blackmail, plead with, threaten, coerce etc your teacher.
Do you see any parallels with Hillary there?- sanman, on 04/24/2008, -18/+2Sounds like somebody's still smarting from their drubbing in Pennsylvania.
More of those "bitter little people" not falling in line with His divine coming?- CocoaPuffs23, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1255-45 is not a drubbing. Shut up and go home.
- green67, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Agreed with CocoaPuffs23....sounds to me that somebody is still not aware of the actual results.
- CocoaPuffs23, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1255-45 is not a drubbing. Shut up and go home.
- eatbeast, on 04/24/2008, -0/+3how do i teach these keeeeeeedz?
- sanman, on 04/24/2008, -18/+2Sounds like somebody's still smarting from their drubbing in Pennsylvania.
- dsmx, on 04/23/2008, -3/+8You can't change the rules of math but you can change the rules of elections if you lobby enough.
- ghostfish, on 04/23/2008, -32/+10Obama wants to follow the will of the people with the superdelegates (vote with popular) yet he wants to exclude Michigan and Florida's votes from counting. He can't have it both ways.
- MortalynFlux, on 04/23/2008, -3/+50 He actually said he'd be willing to work something out, so long as it is fair.
As far as the original primary, he was instructed by the DNC to drop out of Michigan, so he did, and did not campaign there. And now Hillary wants to count it. That's like if you're told by the NBA that a basketball game in a basketball tournament is cancelled, and another team claims victory because they disobeyed orders and showed up.- MortalynFlux, on 04/23/2008, -1/+12Correction: I meant to say "Democratic Party" instead of "DNC"
- LordOfTheSponge, on 04/23/2008, -1/+25Michigan and Florida's votes were thrown out long before by the DNC. Both Hillary and Obama agreed to the rules at that time.
- cranium, on 04/23/2008, -2/+25Hillary is trying to have it both ways on exactly those two issues. Obama is the one playing by the rules.
- fool13, on 04/24/2008, -2/+1I'm not going to defend Hillary here, she wanted to have the delegates counted for her when Obama's name wasn't even on the damn ticket but Obama didn't exactly say lets have a fair vote and let the delegates count. He refused several methods of a recount which doesn't exactly equate to playing by the rules.
- green67, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2Actually, yes he did.He was willing to split the votes/delegates 50/50. You don't get any more fair than that when you are speaking/writing about people who break the rules and then cry foul.
- fool13, on 04/24/2008, -2/+1I'm not going to defend Hillary here, she wanted to have the delegates counted for her when Obama's name wasn't even on the damn ticket but Obama didn't exactly say lets have a fair vote and let the delegates count. He refused several methods of a recount which doesn't exactly equate to playing by the rules.
- TwistedSheep, on 04/23/2008, -1/+21The only two solutions for dealing with that situation is to either split the deligates 50/50, or to have the DNC fund another primary. A primary where both candidates will be on the ballot, and will have time to campaign.
And if they split the deligates 50/50... isn't that the same thing as not counting them at all?
I believe Michigan even outright turned down the offer to hold another election, being content that they will at least have paper ballots in the general election.
The only reason why Hillary wants the deligates to be seated is because in one state, she got more votes than 'undecided'. (also note, if you wrote in a candidate, the vote was thrown out). And in the other state, she was the only top tier candidate on the ballot, in a state where she stated she would remove her name from the ballot in accordance with the DNCs request.
So please, stop blaming Obama for those two states, there's more to the issue than that- jabberwolf, on 04/23/2008, -9/+150/50 is NOT counting them all.
Counting PEOPLE's votes and not YOURs is counting them.
- jabberwolf, on 04/23/2008, -9/+150/50 is NOT counting them all.
- kipmartin, on 04/23/2008, -0/+4i think you meant Hillary cant have it both ways.
- ThugThrasher, on 04/24/2008, -0/+6Once more, as a Florida voter, I feel the need to point this out. Our votes would have been counted had the people that WE elected to govern OUR state had obeyed the rules they agreed to. They were told on multiple occasions what the punishment for moving the primary so far up was. They said "Well, we're going to move it anyway, to make us more important" The democratic party replied by once again warning what the penalty was (basically making us LESS important). Our "leaders" did it anyway.
No one other than the people in Florida and those we have elected (even the ones I didn't vote for, we as a state DID) are to blame at ALL for our votes not counting. And let's not forget that a LOT of us didn't vote because our vote wouldn't have mattered and WE KNEW IT BEFOREHAND.
I'm assuming the situation in Michigan was similar. - fool13, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1He refused to have a second vote and refused a mail in vote which was very cost effective. The only other two options are to discount the delegates or to split them 50/50 which would obviously help Obama out. I'm not sure how you can say he wants a fair solution when he refused the only two reasonable ones.
- MortalynFlux, on 04/23/2008, -3/+50 He actually said he'd be willing to work something out, so long as it is fair.
- bond1963, on 04/23/2008, -20/+6Apply the smae math to Obama. He can't get enoujgh electorial voites to win either without superdelegate votes. By your reasoning they both should drop out.
- mlrigsby, on 04/23/2008, -2/+12What?! That's not the logic that's operating here at all. Matthew's is (correctly) pointing out that there is virtually no way Clinton can overcome Obama's pledged delegate lead, super or otherwise.
- jbenson2, on 04/23/2008, -18/+4The look on Matthew's face was like he just drank some sour milk. I guess the tingle up his leg wore off when he realized that Clinton was going to win big in Pennsylvania.
- Paradoxymoron, on 04/24/2008, -1/+1And by "win big" I think you mean "barely win, by a margin not nearly large enough to put an appreciable dent in Obama's well-deserved lead.".
- Culled, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1She got 10% more votes than Obama did, maybe that isn't "winning big" but it's certainly not "barely winning" either. Now you're right that she didn't win enough to put a appreciable dent in Obama's lead but really it would have been almost impossible for her to have done that. I don't really care that much which one of them wins but please can we at least be honest about this.
- Paradoxymoron, on 04/24/2008, -1/+1And by "win big" I think you mean "barely win, by a margin not nearly large enough to put an appreciable dent in Obama's well-deserved lead.".
- Andrwmorph, on 04/23/2008, -1/+4Shh! She might hear you!
- maliath, on 04/23/2008, -3/+7I think Democrats made a huge mistake by putting Obama OR Hillary as the front runners. With Bush's approval rating at an all-time low, how is it that McCain is still polling over 50% if he represents the same political ideologies as Bush? Edwards or Clarke had a much better shot at beating McCain and winning this election. This is the same garbage that caused the Democrats to lose the 2004 election. In my opinion, the damage has already been done, we just might end up with another Republican president no matter who wins the Democratic primary.
- sonstone, on 04/23/2008, -2/+10He is still polling at over 50% because people don't know anything about him. That will change once the general election campaign starts.
- NSMike, on 04/23/2008, -0/+6Not if this contest keeps going until the convention. Then we'll have less than four months of Republican Vs. Democrat election politics to get the real sense, because you know if Hillary keeps fighting this, the media isn't going to let up on the Obama Vs. Hillary contest.
- allisonaxe, on 04/24/2008, -1/+1maybe thats actually part of the dem's tactics: McCain's campaign will be unprepared to attack a dem opponent because he won't have only one opponent until near the very end?
- LunaticFringe, on 04/24/2008, -2/+3Hillary will claw and bite and drag Obama under with her even if she destroys her entire family's finances in the process. She's worked up to this for the majority of her adult life. I wouldn't be surprised if her marriage to Bill was a part of it, though everything following and leading up to it certainly was. She's a brilliant strategist, it's just too bad I have a real feeling she's a cold, calculating bitch who would undermine the entire democratic process of this nation if she couldn't get what she wanted.
- manova, on 04/24/2008, -2/+2How can you say people don't know McCain? It was between him and Bush last time...he has been one of the most visible senators. People know McCain much better than Obama, and I would even say close to what they know of Clinton.
- sonstone, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2That was 8 years ago and people are much more involved now than they were then given the economic situation we are currently in and the fact that thousands of americans and tens of thousands of iraqi's have been killed in battle over the past few years because of our war.
- NSMike, on 04/23/2008, -0/+6Not if this contest keeps going until the convention. Then we'll have less than four months of Republican Vs. Democrat election politics to get the real sense, because you know if Hillary keeps fighting this, the media isn't going to let up on the Obama Vs. Hillary contest.
- elipabst, on 04/23/2008, -1/+8Because you have 2 Democrats taking shots at each other on a daily basis, while he idly sits by saving his money for the Fall.
- maliath, on 04/24/2008, -3/+2I think the argument that general election campaigning is being wasted on the obama/clinton fiasco may be weak. I don't think months of extra time is going to change people's minds when it comes to either candidate. If Clinton wins, tons of people are going to abstain or vote Nader. If Obama wins, tons of people are going to vote McCain. It really is that simple. This election is going to be unnecessarily close because of poor leadership in the Democratic party, and the irresponsible behavior of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Both candidates should have known that they were not the best candidates to face McCain in an election where another Republican administration would be detrimental to the US.
- scottc, on 04/24/2008, -1/+4First of all, no one expected McCain to be the candidate. Second, this is the perfect opportunity for either Clinton or Obama to win. The widespread disgust with the Republican party right now will give them votes to counter the ones they will lose from those who will never vote for a woman or a black man. Third, Obama is the ideal candidate for this particular election because he has an almost impeccable record of integrity, a relatively short history of votes which could prevent single-issue voters from supporting him, and he's running a reform campaign. No candidate could have succeeded as a reformer 8 years ago because people were generally satisfied with the condition of our country.
- maliath, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2I hope you're right.
- scottc, on 04/24/2008, -1/+4First of all, no one expected McCain to be the candidate. Second, this is the perfect opportunity for either Clinton or Obama to win. The widespread disgust with the Republican party right now will give them votes to counter the ones they will lose from those who will never vote for a woman or a black man. Third, Obama is the ideal candidate for this particular election because he has an almost impeccable record of integrity, a relatively short history of votes which could prevent single-issue voters from supporting him, and he's running a reform campaign. No candidate could have succeeded as a reformer 8 years ago because people were generally satisfied with the condition of our country.
- JakobVirgil, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1How did Obama act irresponsibly
By running while Black?
-Jake
- sonstone, on 04/23/2008, -2/+10He is still polling at over 50% because people don't know anything about him. That will change once the general election campaign starts.
- superkendall, on 04/23/2008, -6/+5You idiot, there is no "math" in politics. Have you not learned that by now? Politics is the anti-math, where nothing is certain until it happens - and not even then!
I don't like Hillary either, but face the real facts and don't just hide behind math because it presents an outcome you would prefer. - CourtesyFlush, on 04/23/2008, -4/+4Math hasn't managed to slow the "Impeach NOW!" threads from appearing on digg.
"We have the support of less than 1% of Congress!"
At least Hillary fans have higher odds.
This is not an endorsement of any particular candidate. Merely an observation in math and a bit of perspective on using it as an argument.- kipmartin, on 04/23/2008, -1/+5i didnt understand anything you said. put the cough medicine away and let your head clear up before you post again.
- headzoo, on 04/23/2008, -1/+9Hillary is changing the rules of the math. She's going around saying she has the most popular votes... if you count Michigan and Florida. Counting those two states Hillary has 15.1m votes, and Obama has 15m. If you don't count them Hillary has 13.9m, and Obama has 14.4.
Of course Hillary's name was the only name on the Michigan ballots, and of course neither of those states count, but that's not going to stop her from making a case with super delegates that she should get their votes.- CourtesyFlush, on 04/23/2008, -1/+6Obviously, math is only important in certain instances.
- kipmartin, on 04/23/2008, -1/+1deep.
- manova, on 04/24/2008, -1/+1I'm still pissed about MI and FL. I will not vote democrat if they do not fix this. FL was a fair vote, everyone was on the ballot and nobody advertised. I don't give a damn what state person pissed off what national person, just fix it and let my vote count. My vote should count!
- Dartos, on 04/24/2008, -0/+0Florida should count. They all followed the same rules and they were all on the ballot.
MI.... don't think it should count. Obama wasn't even on the ballot. i'm not an Obama fan, but if you're going to count them (unofficially), it has to at least be fair. I think Clinton can make the claim that she is within 200,000 of the popular vote. If she can't net more and have more than Obama (including FL, but not MI) she has no moral claim. If she does....well, here we go again.
- CourtesyFlush, on 04/23/2008, -1/+6Obviously, math is only important in certain instances.
- jabberwolf, on 04/23/2008, -17/+2MATH works if you add Florida!
But of course Obamatards dont want true democracy- kipmartin, on 04/23/2008, -1/+5youd hate a true democracy. germany was one when it voted Hitler into office.
Hillary helped frame the rules about Michigan and Flodida. she thought it would be to her advantage. she was wrong, and now Hillary and all her fanboys are whining.
no 'do overs' in politics!
- kipmartin, on 04/23/2008, -1/+5youd hate a true democracy. germany was one when it voted Hitler into office.
- Spoomeister, on 04/23/2008, -1/+7She didn't major in math, she majored in miracles.
- deanlowe, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2You're thinking of Mike Huckabee.
- DBNKR, on 04/24/2008, -0/+4The american election system is totally retarded. Im sorry to say, but why the ***** have you created such a god damn complicated system? Super-delegates?? WTF is up with that? Why not just make everybody vote for the one they want. One head, one voice. Same goes for the president-election. One american, one voice, easy as that.
- fangorious, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2The party itself decides how to nominate a candidate for any given office it has ballot access to. Blame those in control of the party, not the hapless voters trying to keep up. In parliamentary systems you don't even vote for the prime minister, you vote for a party and the party can change who gets the job. So it's no more a direct election than what we have in the US with the electoral college.
- Apis67, on 04/24/2008, -2/+1Based upon the approved rules, it is over and Hillary knows it's over! I think she is trying to shovel as much "dirt" as she can on Obama before she joins Joe Lieberman.
- bobjrn2, on 04/24/2008, -2/+0All florida residents received notices of another primary in August, and if this is true, this could mean bad things for Obama.
Do you smell what Barack is cookin'? - diggingaround, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1Check out these idiots from BBC.... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7363109.stm
- stilesja, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2In truth, Hillary's primary argument is that the John Edwards votes are going to her rather than them being split 50/50 between her and Obama. Making this argument says "Look, all those decisive Obama victories early on were because Edwards was splitting my vote. Now that Edwards is out Obama can't win a primary decisively and that should tell the super delegates that the people want Hillary".
I've never heard it actually said that way, but to me this can be the only thing she is thinking, otherwise why stay in the race? - mbraynard, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1Superdelegates are part of the math. Those are the party rules decided by people who were elected by people who were elected by Democrat Voters.
It seems that Chrissy Matthews wants to ignore the actual math that shows his preferred candidate can still loose. Obama is just one major gaffe away from sending the SDs, and the nomination, over to Hillary.
There are also 30 (?) or so Edwards Delegates floating around out there. - Midtown67, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1I don't like the thought of someone who hasn't done anything in office running for president. Obama is a great speaker, but he just isn't ready to lead an entire nation. He is like a guy going into a job and after two years claim that you can run a billion/trillion dollar company??? WHAT???!!!!! COMPLETELY different running an entire nation.
- Itazura, on 04/23/2008, -23/+12Apparently you forgot how Bush won the first election. God don't need no math.
- whiteyak41, on 04/23/2008, -15/+102The real question is however, can Mike Gravel still win?
- senorcool, on 04/23/2008, -1/+33I hear that if Mike Gravel wins all of the remaining primaries, he can convince the supperdelegates to vote for him and give him the nomination even if he doesn't have enough delegates.
- ComeOutSwingin, on 04/23/2008, -9/+1I thought it was: But will she blend?
- Hangly, on 04/23/2008, -1/+5Tell the supperdelegates to hurry up with my turkey pot pie.
- Lionhart, on 04/23/2008, -2/+23Mike Gravel actually left the Democratic party. He's a Libertarian now.
- SuperMoses, on 04/23/2008, -0/+10So he can technically still win
- grungegbunny, on 04/23/2008, -1/+6Gravel 16'
- keithburgun, on 04/23/2008, -0/+13He's sixteen feet tall?!?! holy *****. VOTING FOR HIM
Actually I really am voting for him. Because he kicks ass- LatencyRemix, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2He was referring to the length of his shlong.
- keithburgun, on 04/23/2008, -0/+13He's sixteen feet tall?!?! holy *****. VOTING FOR HIM
- lgreengrrl, on 04/23/2008, -0/+7Wait! You mean there might be hope for Dennis K as well?
- keithburgun, on 04/23/2008, -3/+2no dennis dropped out like a d-bag
- had3l, on 04/23/2008, -0/+4He is still running in the Libertarian primaries.
- jgtg32a, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1Yeah I heard that can someone explain to me how that works?
- insinuate, on 04/23/2008, -6/+3Paul Gravel '16
- UtopiaInTheSky, on 04/24/2008, -3/+1Yes, but, can he play Crysis?
- Aliminator, on 04/24/2008, -1/+1He won my heart... and my rocks.
- senorcool, on 04/23/2008, -1/+33I hear that if Mike Gravel wins all of the remaining primaries, he can convince the supperdelegates to vote for him and give him the nomination even if he doesn't have enough delegates.
- Azulita360, on 04/23/2008, -9/+94The really sad thing is that I cannot convince the Hillary supporters to do the math...she had to win by 20 points to stay competitive...she's definitely running for 2012.
- RoroCo, on 04/23/2008, -7/+5Not if Obama wins this year. It is very rare that a party does not let the incumbent run for re-election. She is kicking and scratching to the end because she knows that her next chance will most likely be 2016.
- ssn697, on 04/23/2008, -1/+68That is the point. She is trying to make Obama lose, so she can run in 2012.
- jameyt, on 04/23/2008, -3/+6If it can be inferred that she had anything to do with Obama losing (and if he does, they will) she will not be helping any slim chance of 2012.
- curtisag, on 04/24/2008, -0/+3That may be true, but clearly she has no chance of winning if Obama wins. Given that, it's better for her to hang on to the slim chance of beating McCain in 2012.
- jameyt, on 04/23/2008, -3/+6If it can be inferred that she had anything to do with Obama losing (and if he does, they will) she will not be helping any slim chance of 2012.
- ssn697, on 04/23/2008, -1/+68That is the point. She is trying to make Obama lose, so she can run in 2012.
- bond1963, on 04/23/2008, -15/+1Maybe I'm just in this for the argument but I can't convince people to do the math for Obama. He can't win either without super delegate support. Should he drop out because of that? If we did our system like the repugs then Billary would be ahead right now in electoral votes. In the future I hope we can drop the "super" delegates and put everything in the voters hands - and keep the proportional voting.
- StarlessKnight, on 04/23/2008, -0/+6Obama: 1487 + 232 = 1719
Clinton: 1331 + 255 = 1586
With or without the Supers, he's ahead. With (need 2458) or without (need 1952) the Supers, neither would have enough to be the uncontested candidate. So, if the Supers aren't involved, which they shouldn't be, then Obama, as the one with the majority vote, should be the candidate, right?
We're at delegate 3323 of 4048 now (including Supers). She has 725 delegates left in order to close her 100 delegate gap. She needs 64% of the remaining delegates to do that (for a deadlock). Do you think she can do that or better?- bond1963, on 04/23/2008, -5/+0No, I don't think she can pull ahead without supers. And I'm not contesting that Obama is in the lead. All I'm saying to the "do the math" people is that Obama has math problems too. Supers can vote however they want. I expect they will vote Obama in but I think it will be a lot closer than the "do the math" crowd thinks. How is the "uniter" going to reconcile this and all those people that voted for Billary?? The answer to the super problem won't happen this election. The HAVE to vote. And if it was an easy choice for them they would have voted by now. So neither candidate is out of the race. The answer is to get rid of the supers and go straight proportional with every state.
I guess I just get irritated when people say there is no way she can get the vote without the supers.... and not say the same thing for Obama. - ThugThrasher, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2The informed people are really just saying that she can't be AHEAD in the vote when they go to the DNC. we think most of the supers know that they would lose a LOT of support for the democratic party if they went against the will of the voters in this, so if there is a clear winner, enough will vote for them that it becomes not an issue. And the math says that she won't be ahead by the convention.
- bond1963, on 04/23/2008, -5/+0No, I don't think she can pull ahead without supers. And I'm not contesting that Obama is in the lead. All I'm saying to the "do the math" people is that Obama has math problems too. Supers can vote however they want. I expect they will vote Obama in but I think it will be a lot closer than the "do the math" crowd thinks. How is the "uniter" going to reconcile this and all those people that voted for Billary?? The answer to the super problem won't happen this election. The HAVE to vote. And if it was an easy choice for them they would have voted by now. So neither candidate is out of the race. The answer is to get rid of the supers and go straight proportional with every state.
- StarlessKnight, on 04/23/2008, -0/+6Obama: 1487 + 232 = 1719
- jbenson2, on 04/23/2008, -21/+2Running for 2012 - absolutely not. She is going for 2008 and with the O-man's help it could happen. If Barack speaks off the cuff without the aid of a teleprompter we could easily see another fiasco like San Francisco or the debate. And then it would really be up to the Superdelegates.
The superdelegates can’t do anything now to end the race, because they weren’t created to end a tie. They exist to overrule the popular vote when disaster looms, and to that end, they can change their minds at any time before or even during the convention. Even if every superdelegate were to stand up now and declare themselves for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton has four months to change their minds, according to the DNC rules.- MoofTheStoof, on 04/23/2008, -2/+8I block right-wing nutjobs all the time because I know no matter how many facts I present them with they'll never willingly accept reality. Please open your eyes so you don't become the first democrat on my block list. Your arguments are specious, yet you keep repeating them as if that will somehow alter the facts that - barring unforeseen and unlikely catastrophe - Obama has the nomination. MI and FL removed THEMSELVES from the race by their actions and both Hillary and Obama agreed they wouldn't count. Hillary had to win PA by 20 points to claim a victory, there. Obama whittled her down to 10. IN is still a tossup and might actually break for Obama, but even if it doesn't, Hillary has to win a total landslide or he still has a commanding lead. NC is his just like PA was Hillary's. Frankly, I doubt she'll be able to whittle him down in NC like he did her in PA, though, because he really is gaining momentum while she's hurting her own numbers by running her campaign like a rove-disciple. These are the facts. Accept them and stop bleating about the "O-man" raining on your parade, please. It's likely her campaign debt is the main reason she's in this race because I know she's not stupid enough to think she has a realistic chance of becoming the nominee.
- jbenson2, on 04/24/2008, -3/+2Hillary had to win PA by 20 points to claim a victory? Wrong, wrong, wrong. All she had to do was get a simple majority to claim a win. And as long as she did not lose in Pennsylvania she was determined to go all the way to Denver. Also, stop calling me a democrat. I can accept most insults, but yours tops the list.
- fool13, on 04/24/2008, -1/+2So is that what you do when you have a conversation with a conservative off the computer? You just 'block' them and refuse to engage in a civilized debate? Classy.
- TrevorPace, on 04/23/2008, -1/+9I'm sorry but Barack speaks perfectly without the teleprompter. Both the debate and the "bitter" comment were twisted so badly by the republicans and the Clinton campaign...so to even bring those two points up shows your sheer ignorance.
- WilliamDavis, on 04/24/2008, -1/+2Barack is also fluent in sign language. Let's see Hillary do that.
- jbenson2, on 04/24/2008, -2/+2That is what is so wonderful about the downfall of the O-man. No one had to twist his words. He twisted his own words perfectly. And millions of people understood what he was saying, to the dismay of his supporters.
- smotpoker, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1What he was trying to say was that too often important issues are neglected because of GOP fearmongering/distraction tactics and disillusionment with the government. People don't expect the government to come through with new legislation (or don't understand it) so they vote out of spite or to defend what isn't even really threatened
No, you don't have to twist his words, only his meaning/intent (which is not apparent in a 1min sound byte but is fairly obvious when taken in context)
- smotpoker, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1What he was trying to say was that too often important issues are neglected because of GOP fearmongering/distraction tactics and disillusionment with the government. People don't expect the government to come through with new legislation (or don't understand it) so they vote out of spite or to defend what isn't even really threatened
- ThugThrasher, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1I dugg you up. But not because of your claim that Obama would cause himself to lose if he spoke without a teleprompter.
Your second paragraph is a PERFECT description of what the superdelegates are for and I HATE that some people just don't understand that.
- MoofTheStoof, on 04/23/2008, -2/+8I block right-wing nutjobs all the time because I know no matter how many facts I present them with they'll never willingly accept reality. Please open your eyes so you don't become the first democrat on my block list. Your arguments are specious, yet you keep repeating them as if that will somehow alter the facts that - barring unforeseen and unlikely catastrophe - Obama has the nomination. MI and FL removed THEMSELVES from the race by their actions and both Hillary and Obama agreed they wouldn't count. Hillary had to win PA by 20 points to claim a victory, there. Obama whittled her down to 10. IN is still a tossup and might actually break for Obama, but even if it doesn't, Hillary has to win a total landslide or he still has a commanding lead. NC is his just like PA was Hillary's. Frankly, I doubt she'll be able to whittle him down in NC like he did her in PA, though, because he really is gaining momentum while she's hurting her own numbers by running her campaign like a rove-disciple. These are the facts. Accept them and stop bleating about the "O-man" raining on your parade, please. It's likely her campaign debt is the main reason she's in this race because I know she's not stupid enough to think she has a realistic chance of becoming the nominee.
- OneAndOnlySnob, on 04/23/2008, -0/+520? She now needs 69% on average to catch up, which means she must win every upcoming state by almost a 40 point margin. It was a 30 point margin, much more than 20, before her so-called win in Pennsylvania.
- dualboy24, on 04/23/2008, -1/+6Well you have to understand that the longer Hillary stretches this entire race out the more she is guaranteed to be on the ticket for Vice President. The party is so divided right now that her supporters might not vote at all just to spite Obama, this would really kill a chance at a the Dems picking up the Presidency.
People have never been so involved during the party nomination period in the past, its going to leave alot of people polarized and in the end hurt the party unless both Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton are side by side on that ticket. (Which sucks because Hillary is evil.)- MacEnvy, on 04/24/2008, -1/+3I agree - I think she's trying to recoup some costs and split the party so badly that Obama is forced to give her the VP nod else he'll lose the general. And I think it's going to work, sadly. That said, they'll make one hell of a ticket against McCain/Anyone.
I only wish Obama could have had more freedom to pick someone like Chuck Hagel for the VP spot. Now THAT would unite the country. - theonedigg, on 04/24/2008, -3/+4This makes no sense. Any Democrat is better than McCain because of the sinking economy, oil prices and the war. Obama doesn't need hillary to win against McCain. That makes no sense.
- MacEnvy, on 04/24/2008, -2/+3Listen, I've run campaigns before (as both manager and consultant) and unless your candidate is an unyielding ideologue you have to pick the path of least resistance if you want to succeed. While she's probably not even in Obama's top 5, she's putting herself in a position to be the only viable choice if he wants to secure a win in November. I don't like it any more than you do, but pragmatism rules the day.
The race against McCain isn't nearly as cut and dry and you seem to believe. - bernlin2000, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1It's going to be interesting to see how McCain positions himself. I would like to think this will be an easy fight, but that's probably not true. I think if we get lazy, we could lose everything. Young voters are notoriously fickle...we've got to keep people enthusiastic for another 6 months: that's hard.
- MacEnvy, on 04/24/2008, -2/+3Listen, I've run campaigns before (as both manager and consultant) and unless your candidate is an unyielding ideologue you have to pick the path of least resistance if you want to succeed. While she's probably not even in Obama's top 5, she's putting herself in a position to be the only viable choice if he wants to secure a win in November. I don't like it any more than you do, but pragmatism rules the day.
- bernlin2000, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1Ha! I would be horrified if Obama picks her as veep at this point, after everything she's done to smear him. I'm sure they're on good terms on a personal level, but politically they're very different. I guess we can't rule it out...after all Gore picked Lieberman, and they were very different ideologically. Do you think she would accept a veep position? It would be a bitter pill to swallow after it seemed like such a sure fire thing only a few months ago that she had this thing in the bag.
- MacEnvy, on 04/24/2008, -1/+3I agree - I think she's trying to recoup some costs and split the party so badly that Obama is forced to give her the VP nod else he'll lose the general. And I think it's going to work, sadly. That said, they'll make one hell of a ticket against McCain/Anyone.
- SuperMoses, on 04/23/2008, -0/+1Why do you need to convince the Hilary supporters? If she can't win then what does it matter? I'm failing to the logic in this. If she can't win, why does it matter that her supporters still vote for her.
- smotpoker, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1Because they and their delusional enthusiasm/votes can still have an impact on the super-delegates.
Not only this, but they need to accept reality ASAP and so that they can get over it in time for the presidential race so they aren't embittered enough to do something as stupid as vote for McCain out of spite (which is likely in part what the GOP is shooting for).
- smotpoker, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1Because they and their delusional enthusiasm/votes can still have an impact on the super-delegates.
- jabberwolf, on 04/24/2008, -8/+2Do the math yourself . SHe can close the gap easily and Superdelates will have to vote.
So the math YOURSELF not repeat like a retarded parrot!
Especially Clinton will win if they count Florida where they were BOTH on the ballot!
Even if Obama wins, he will lose the final election... everyone will be pissed at him for doing so, and his career will be OVER.
So he should seriously consider dropping out!- zeiben, on 04/24/2008, -0/+5I realize that Clinton appeals to the "children left behind", but this math is not really that complicated. Here it is one more time:
Obama: 1487
Clinton: 1331
Remaining: 408
To win in PLEDGED delegates, clinton needs: 283
283 is 69% of 408. (just take my word for it, or pull out a calculator)
Winning 69% to 31% is a 38 point spread, which is exactly 4 TIMES the 9.5 spread she had in Pennsylvania where she was heavily favored (again, you can do this on a calculator if you need to).
So, if by "easily" you mean "in an LSD-induced fantasy", then you're right. Otherwise, seriously, do the math.
- zeiben, on 04/24/2008, -0/+5I realize that Clinton appeals to the "children left behind", but this math is not really that complicated. Here it is one more time:
- bernlin2000, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1When Obama wins this year (not if), Hillary will never run for president again, almost guaranteed. Because Obama will run again in 2012, and by then we'll have had 4 years to discover how much good he has done for the country. Than it won't be able flag pins and Rev. Wright. It'll be about the issues, and Clinton will have nothing on Obama. I don't know if she's willing to wait until 2016...I don't know if she'd have the stamina any more. And by then the political landscape will probably have changed so much that she'll be irrelevant.
- RoroCo, on 04/23/2008, -7/+5Not if Obama wins this year. It is very rare that a party does not let the incumbent run for re-election. She is kicking and scratching to the end because she knows that her next chance will most likely be 2016.
- light65733, on 04/23/2008, -8/+77Bravo for Mr. Mathews honesty. Support for Hillary is directly related how dependent the voter is on the mainstream media. The more the voter relies on the fair-and-balanced media the greater the fear of Obama. Older voters are less internet savvy and so they tend to vote for Hillary.
- jbenson2, on 04/23/2008, -10/+4And Matthew is fair? With the "tingle going up his leg" every time he hears the O-man speak.
- MOJIRA, on 05/17/2008, -0/+6He is very obviously probama, but in his defense... ***** Hillary.
- jbenson2, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1Matthews has no defense. The rumor on the street is that he is going to be bumped off the network after the general election.
- nutniqs, on 04/23/2008, -1/+14The "Older" citizens are going to be voting for McCain because they are not concerned with the next generation. They are satisfied with their xenophobia and false sense of patriotism enough to elect another warmongering psycho to get those sons of bitches in the middle east.
- WilliamDavis, on 04/24/2008, -5/+1And ain't no black man or woman gonna stop it! Seriously, they won't. If you want more war, we've got 3 perfect candidates for that. Yea!
- jgtg32a, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2Why the ***** would they vote then? Or why wouldn't they vote for a democrat every time, because who gives them more stuff, Democrats or Republicans.
- inose, on 04/23/2008, -5/+1So wait. Mainstream media, with all the editors and fact checkers is bad? But on this thing you call the Internet, everything is fair and truthful? Seriously, I use as many sources as I can, from the left and right, to form my opinion. It's a tight race and new information comes in every day. That's the point of the super delegate. They can override a lemming trend, make a last minute, well educated decision, and nominate someone who can win in November. Maybe that's Obama. I haven't decided yet.
- gsxrjason, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1So let's say you do decide to go Obama, and the super delegates give it to Clinton. That wouldn't bother you?
- inose, on 04/30/2008, -0/+0Yes it would bother me. The whole delegate process is outdated. Bush didn't win the popular vote either and that bothered me a lot.
- curtisag, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1How the ***** can you be undecided still? You should just do everyone a favor and just not vote, because your indecisiveness is part of the problem with our election system.
- gsxrjason, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1So let's say you do decide to go Obama, and the super delegates give it to Clinton. That wouldn't bother you?
- poxonyou, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2Matthews is part of the problem. This is the first, and maybe only time, he has said the truth about the situation. The rest of the time he has been playing the exact same game.
- jbenson2, on 04/23/2008, -10/+4And Matthew is fair? With the "tingle going up his leg" every time he hears the O-man speak.
- prhfs5, on 04/23/2008, -9/+29There is nothing new or amazing that Chris Matthews is saying, it's just the plain ol' simple truth. Hillary Clinton needs to step aside and let the healing and the unity begin! Unfortunately, her time came and went.
- pintomp3, on 04/23/2008, -1/+10hearing the truth in our corporate media is nothing short of amazing.
- jbenson2, on 04/23/2008, -6/+1Her time won't be until the convention in Denver. Until then, Democrats keeping spending your money like crazy and fighting like cats and dogs. It is great theater and will be super ammunition for the Republicans.
- mehan, on 04/23/2008, -3/+3"healing and unity"?
listen to yorself..- MacEnvy, on 04/24/2008, -1/+2Do you have a particular objection, or are you just offended by certain words being used in conversation?
- kreneskyp, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1those statements are just as bad in my opinion. I think the idea that hillary is causing problems for obama are just as bad. She is now convinced that by staying in she has some leverage to force obama to taking her as VP.
- diggeradoo, on 04/23/2008, -11/+109Definitely a delusion.
Behind in delegates, and can't catch up.
Behind in states won, and can't catch up.
Behind in poplar vote, probably won't catch up. (Besides, this isn't how the Dems pick their nominee.)
Before PA, had to win all remaining contests by at least 62%. A win of 55% means that it's even more difficult, if not impossible, to make up anything in the remaining 9 contests.
Done. Over.- ssn697, on 04/23/2008, -0/+18You have been missing the Clinton spin machine. She is saying if she wins the popular vote, she should be the nominee. She said it again today. That is her version of reality. That is also why she wants Michigan and Florida counted, despite Obama not campaigning in Florida, and not being on the ballot in Michigan.
- cranium, on 04/23/2008, -0/+18She's talking that way out of one side of her mouth. Out of the other she's saying the superdelegates should override the popular vote *and* pledged delegate count because she's "more electable". What a two-faced crook.
- superkendall, on 04/23/2008, -6/+1But isn't that exactly what Democrats said should be the case with Bush and the presidential election? Why should Democrats as a whole suddenly decide that in fact that is a bad idea?
- kipmartin, on 04/23/2008, -0/+3no, thats not what democrats said. we are talking about a candidate who looked at the rules and went one way and now later wants a 'do over'.
thats not even remoptely the same thing. by the way, i think your mom is calling you for dinner.
- kipmartin, on 04/23/2008, -0/+3no, thats not what democrats said. we are talking about a candidate who looked at the rules and went one way and now later wants a 'do over'.
- MOJIRA, on 05/17/2008, -0/+10I live in Florida and I pray to the flying spaghetti monster that they don't count or recount Florida. This is such a retarded old people state.
- nirav72, on 04/23/2008, -0/+6As Stewie Griffin once said.."Florida - God's waiting room."
- scottc, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2She's saying that now, but after NC votes she''ll have to come up with another angle to work because then it will be nearly impossible for her to win the popular vote, even if we give her the FL and MI votes.
- DephexTwin, on 04/24/2008, -0/+5Why doesn't the media ever bring up the fact that the popular vote thing doesn't even work, because we are trying to add up a number of incompatible voting formulas in different states?? Some states have caucuses, which are different from the way that more standard voting works, and Texas has both a caucus and a straight up vote. There is no totally objective way to make all of these numbers reconcile with each other because they are incompatible systems! It's like trying to argue whether it's better for a movie to get 4 stars or two thumbs up!
- jbenson2, on 04/23/2008, -5/+2You seem to forget the 800 pound gorilla - the super delegates. They are the ones who will make the decision.
- MOJIRA, on 05/17/2008, -2/+10Not if they want to get re-elected ever.
- nirav72, on 04/23/2008, -0/+6Well if you haven't been following the news..one by one Obama has been piling up the number of supers on his side.
- jbenson2, on 04/24/2008, -5/+2Wrong. The superdelegates exist to overrule the popular vote when disaster looms, and to that end, they can change their minds at any time before or even during the convention. Even if every superdelegate were to stand up now and declare themselves for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton has four months to change their minds, according to the DNC rules. The O-man has not won a race since February. He is on an obvious downhill slide. The superdelegates see it and are going to have to make a tough decision. Vote for Obama and watch him lose in the general election. Or vote for Clinton and watch the streets erupt in riots. Way to go Democrats. You made your bed, now you have to sleep in it.
- youjettisonme, on 04/23/2008, -1/+10THE MATH – Wednesday, April 23 – After Pennsylvania
THE MATH – Wednesday, April 23 – After Pennsylvania
8:00 a.m. Eastern Time (US)
Delegates needed to win nomination – 2,023.5 (considering status quo)
Pledged Delegates in – 2,845.0 of 3,253.0 – 87.5%
********************************************
THE MAGIC NUMBER
Here's what we have after considering the information in the Polls section below:
Senator Obama's Magic Number – 85 of 294 remaining superdelegates needed, or 28.9%
Senator Clinton's Magic Number – 229 of 294 remaining superdelegates needed, or 77.9%
The Huckabee Index – 65 (or 22.1% of remaining superdelegates needed)
The "Huckabee Index" is the number of any combination of superdelegates and convention/caucus delegates that the Obama campaign needs (or the Clinton campaign loses) to make it mathematically impossible for the Clinton campaign to win the nomination, based on current delegate count and polls for upcoming contests. (Disclaimer: This is meant to poke fun at Mike Huckabee, not Hillary Clinton)
Spreadsheet (Feel free to download)
PROJECTED END-RESULTS OF PRIMARIES BASED ON POLLS:
Projected Pledged Delegates:
Barack Obama – 1,702.5 (76 above HALF)
Hillary Clinton – 1,524.5 (102 below HALF)
Projected "Popular" Vote (unweighted) without Florida and Michigan:
Barack Obama – 16,765,128 (+680,255)
Hillary Clinton – 16,084,871
Projected "Popular" Vote (unweighted) with Florida added*:
Barack Obama – 17,341,341 (+385,483)
Hillary Clinton – 16,955,858
Projected "Popular" Vote (unweighted) with Florida and Michigan added*:
Barack Obama – 17,341,341 (+57,174)
Hillary Clinton – 17,284,167
*Uncommitted – 238,168 (Michigan only, Obama wasn't on the ballot)
********************************************
TOTAL DELEGATES
Estimated Total Delegates as of April 23:
Barack Obama – 1,728.5 (295.5 short)
Hillary Clinton – 1,598.5 (425.5 short)
Remaining Total Delegates – 702.0
(Sources: NBC, Wikipedia 4/23/08)
SUPERDELEGATES
Superdelegates (highest reported for each candidate):
Barack Obama – 238 (Source: NBC 4/23/08)
Hillary Clinton – 262 (Source: NBC 4/23/08)
Remaining Superdelegates – 294
PLEDGED DELEGATES
Estimated Pledged Delegates as of April 23:
Barack Obama – 1,490.5 (136.0 short of HALF)
Hillary Clinton – 1,336.5 (290.0 short of HALF)
Remaining Pledged Delegates – 408.0
(Source: Wikipedia 4/23/08)
OVERALL CONTESTS WON: Barack Obama – 30; Hillary Clinton – 16
PRIMARIES WON: Barack Obama – 16; Hillary Clinton – 13
CAUCUSES WON: Barack Obama – 14; Hillary Clinton – 3
BLUE AND RED STATES WON:
Barack Obama – 11 Blue, 16 Red
Hillary Clinton – 7 Blue, 8 Red
********************************************
POPULAR VOTE (for informational purposes only)
Total weighted* popular vote as of April 23:
Barack Obama – 16,853,719 (+1,567,828)
Hilary Clinton – 15,285,891
*Weighted popular vote adds primary votes and 5.5:1 skew of caucus votes
Status Quo unweighted as of April 23:
Barack Obama – 14,730,429 (+633,897)
Hillary Clinton – 14,096,532
(Source: Wikipedia 4/23/08)
Primaries only (Status Quo) as of April 23:
Barack Obama – 14,259,259 (+427,029)
Hillary Clinton – 13,832,230
Caucuses only weighted* popular vote as of April 23:
Barack Obama – 2,594,460 (+1,140,799)
Hilary Clinton – 1,453,661
*Weighted popular vote adds primary votes and 5.5:1 skew of caucus votes
Caucuses only (Status Quo) unweighted total caucus votes as of April 23:
Barack Obama – 471,170 (+206,868 caucus votes)
Hillary Clinton – 264,302
(IA,NV,AK,AS,CO,ID,KS,MN,NM,ND,NE,VI,WA*,ME,HI,TX*,WY,Guam)
With Florida only added, weighted as of April 23:
Barack Obama – 17,429,933 (+1,273,056)
Hillary Clinton – 16,156,877
With Florida only added, unweighted as of April 23:
Barack Obama – 15,306,643 (+339,125)
Hillary Clinton – 14,967,518
With Michigan only added, weighted as of April 23*:
Barack Obama – 16,853,719 (+1,239,519)
Hillary Clinton – 15,614,200
*Uncommitted – 238,168 (Michigan only, Obama wasn't on the ballot)
With Michigan only added, unweighted as of April 23*:
Barack Obama – 14,730,429 (+305,588)
Hillary Clinton – 14,424,841
*Uncommitted – 238,168 (Michigan only, Obama wasn't on the ballot)
With Florida AND Michigan added, weighted as of April 23*:
Barack Obama – 17,429,933 (+944,747)
Hillary Clinton – 16,485,186
*Uncommitted – 238,168 (Michigan only, Obama wasn't on the ballot)
With Florida AND Michigan added, unweighted as of April 23*:
Barack Obama – 15,306,643 (+10,816)
Hillary Clinton – 15,295,827
*Uncommitted – 238,168 (Michigan only, Obama wasn't on the ballot)
********************************************
SUPERDELEGATES NEEDED IF REMAINING PLEDGED DELEGATES ARE 50/50 SPLIT
All scenarios (2 through 9) showing Florida or Michigan being seated as is or holding new elections have been removed.
Hillary Clinton needs #/% of remaining superdelegates if remaining pledged is 50/50:
1. Status Quo – Clinton needs 222 of 294, or 75.3% of remaining SDs
10. FL Half-count, MI not seated – Clinton needs 218 of 295, or 73.7% of remaining SDs
11. FL not seated, MI Compromise – Clinton needs 210 of 306, or 68.5% of remaining SDs
12. FL Half-count, MI Compromise – Clinton needs 206 of 307, or 66.9% of remaining SDs
Barack Obama needs #/% of remaining superdelegates if remaining pledged is 50/50:
1. Status Quo – Obama needs 92 of 294, or 31.1% of remaining SDs
10. FL Half-count, MI not seated – Obama needs 109 of 295, or 36.8% of remaining SDs
11. FL not seated, MI Compromise – Obama needs 96 of 306, or 31.2% of remaining SDs
12. FL Half-count, MI Compromise – Obama needs 113 of 307, or 36.6% of remaining SDs
The "Florida Half-count" would net 52.5 pledged delegates for Senator Clinton and 33.5 pledged delegates for Senator Obama. The "Michigan Compromise" would net 83.0 pledged delegates for Senator Clinton and 73.0 pledged delegates for Senator Obama.
********************************************
SUPERDELEGATES NEEDED IF REMAINING PLEDGED DELEGATES ARE 55/45 CLINTON
All scenarios (2 through 9) showing Florida or Michigan being seated as is or holding new elections have been removed.
Hillary Clinton needs #/% of remaining superdelegates if remaining pledged is 55/45:
1. Status Quo – Clinton needs 201 of 294, or 68.2% of remaining SDs
10. FL Half-count, MI not seated – Clinton needs 197 of 295, or 66.6% of remaining SDs
11. FL not seated, MI Compromise – Clinton needs 189 of 306, or 61.6% of remaining SDs
12. FL Half-count, MI Compromise – Clinton needs 185 of 307, or 60.1% of remaining SDs
Barack Obama needs #/% of remaining superdelegates if remaining pledged is 55/45:
1. Status Quo – Obama needs 113 of 294, or 38.3% of remaining SDs
10. FL Half-count, MI not seated – Obama needs 130 of 295, or 43.9% of remaining SDs
11. FL not seated, MI Compromise – Obama needs 117 of 306, or 38.1% of remaining SDs
12. FL Half-count, MI Compromise – Obama needs 134 of 307, or 43.5% of remaining SDs
The "Florida Half-count" would net 52.5 pledged delegates for Senator Clinton and 33.5 pledged delegates for Senator Obama. The "Michigan Compromise" would net 83.0 pledged delegates for Senator Clinton and 73.0 pledged delegates for Senator Obama.
*********************************************
FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN SCENARIOS REGARDING PLEDGED DELEGATES
These are the possible scenarios concerning Florida and Michigan, and what it would require for Senator Clinton to catch up to Senator Obama in pledged delegates. These scenarios are for pledged delegates only. Superdelegate counts are not included. (Note: All scenarios (2 through 9) showing Florida or Michigan being seated as is or holding new elections have been removed.)
The "Florida Half-count" would net 52.5 pledged delegates for Senator Clinton and 33.5 pledged delegates for Senator Obama. The "Michigan Compromise" would net 83.0 pledged delegates for Senator Clinton and 73.0 pledged delegates for Senator Obama.
Scenario 1 – Status Quo (without Florida and Michigan)
Senator Obama needs 31.1% of all pledged delegates in remaining contests to stay ahead
Senator Clinton needs 68.9% of all pledged delegates in remaining contests to catch up
Scenario 10 – Florida Half-count, Michigan not seated
Senator Obama needs 33.5% of all pledged delegates in remaining contests to stay ahead
Senator Clinton needs 66.5% of all pledged delegates in remaining contests to catch up
Scenario 11 – Florida not seated, Michigan Compromise
Senator Obama needs 32.4% of all pledged delegates in remaining contests to stay ahead
Senator Clinton needs 67.6% of all pledged delegates in remaining contests to catch up
Scenario 12 – Florida Half-count, Michigan Compromise
Senator Obama needs 34.7% of all pledged delegates in remaining contests to stay ahead
Senator Clinton needs 65.3% of all pledged delegates in remaining contests to catch up
********************************************
Sources:
Superdelegates (highest reported for each)
Pledged Delegates
Popular Vote
Projections and Charts (spreadsheet)
State Populations 2007
Latest Polls:
North Carolina
Indiana
West Virginia
Oregon
Kentucky
Puerto Rico
South Dakota
More Links:
Brokered Convention
Official Delegate Selection Rules for the 2008 Democratic National Convention
Link to the spreadsheet (feel free to download and create your own scenarios):
Spreadsheet
The main conclusion drawn from THE MATH is this: Senator Clinton will need 80% of the remaining superdelegates to agree with each other and endorse her, on top of winning the remaining primaries. It is highly unlikely that 80% of the superdelegates will agree with each other. More probable would be a 50/50 or 60/40 split, or at the most a 2 to 1 split. The superdelegates who have already endorsed are currently at a 55/45 split. Senator Obama will only need roughly 20% of the remaining superdelegates to reach nomination.
- SargedeathXmode, on 04/24/2008, -0/+3The only thing she isn't behind on are large states, but it's unlikely states like CA will go Republican if she's not running... >.>
- ssn697, on 04/23/2008, -0/+18You have been missing the Clinton spin machine. She is saying if she wins the popular vote, she should be the nominee. She said it again today. That is her version of reality. That is also why she wants Michigan and Florida counted, despite Obama not campaigning in Florida, and not being on the ballot in Michigan.
- wild, on 04/23/2008, -9/+50She has to "steal" it by using the super delegates.
And 4 in 5 of her supporters think she can still win out the math? Really?- banmaster, on 04/23/2008, -11/+4But its okay for Obama to 'use' super delagates?
Just sayin'- cranium, on 04/23/2008, -0/+7Obama can get less than half of them and still win. Big difference.
- Scottievm, on 04/23/2008, -0/+9Obama is _not_ using superdelegates to win, that's the point. He has an irreversible lead in the pledged delegate count.
- StarlessKnight, on 04/23/2008, -0/+7He'd be idealistic, and a bit foolish, to not court the superdelegates since it's obvious Clinton's strategy hinges on the superdelegates backing her.
- jbenson2, on 04/23/2008, -4/+6There is a very legitimate reason Clinton's supporters think she can win. Using the super delegates is not stealing. That is the way the Democrats wrote the rules. The superdelegates can’t do anything now to end the race, because they weren’t created to end a tie. They exist to overrule the popular vote when disaster looms, and to that end, they can change their minds at any time before or even during the convention. Even if every superdelegate were to stand up now and declare themselves for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton has four months to change their minds, according to the DNC rules.
- uptown, on 04/23/2008, -1/+6Her victory would require superdelegates to overturn the elected delegate and popular vote decision.
His would not.- bond1963, on 04/23/2008, -0/+1Logically that's true. But it's not a rule they have to follow. And it's not a rule that many that already pledged has followed except for the ones that switched. There are many that pledged early and have not changed regardless of the popular vote in their area. And there are many who have not pledged yet even though the votes are over in their region. Why is that? If we follow the Obamanites logic then it should be a no brainer for them. Think about that for a second.
The purpose of the supers is not to rubber stamp the popular vote. it's purpose was to correct the popular vote if they thought the popular vote was wrong. I wouldn't assume anything at this point.
With that said... I am leaning towards Obama. I didn't vote for either in the primary.
- bond1963, on 04/23/2008, -0/+1Logically that's true. But it's not a rule they have to follow. And it's not a rule that many that already pledged has followed except for the ones that switched. There are many that pledged early and have not changed regardless of the popular vote in their area. And there are many who have not pledged yet even though the votes are over in their region. Why is that? If we follow the Obamanites logic then it should be a no brainer for them. Think about that for a second.
- davidrools, on 04/23/2008, -0/+4maybe they misunderstood Obama's message of "hope" and thought it applied to Clinton's campaign.
- fokov, on 04/23/2008, -1/+2Their math skills are why we have this housing "crisis"
- stilesja, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1Hillary's shot at winning relies on convincing super delegates that most of edwards voters are going to her and that with edwards out obama could not have won so decisively, if at all in the early states.
In this sense Edwards is the King maker because he could choose to put his vote behind either candidate and influence the outcome to his pleasing. That said, and Obama/Edwards ticket would nullify such and argument by the Clinton campaign. - bernlin2000, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1Unfortunately, not all voters are activists...so they don't really care to check the math. I don't think knowing the math would have moved too many of them to Obama anyway: they probably voted with their gut, which is located far away from the brain.
- banmaster, on 04/23/2008, -11/+4But its okay for Obama to 'use' super delagates?
- MindyB, on 04/23/2008, -6/+38That's right, now who is going to go and tell Hillary this? Doesn't she realize that the longer she prolongs this the less time Obama will have to campaign against McCain?? Every day that she stays in the race and attacks Obama is a gift for the McCain campaign!
Hillary supporters, wake up! You are hurting your own party!- bloodomen13, on 04/23/2008, -0/+36Hillary is banking on Obama losing the general election so that she can be on the ticket in 2012.
She honestly believes it is her destiny to be president... that is hers and no one will stop her. Much like the Clintons aren't a part of the Democratic Party. They believe they ARE the party. It belongs to them.
She simply wants to continue waging a negative campaign against Obama and make sure the party is divided when the general election comes. She'll try to get the Supers to support her by showing the negativity she used against Obama and the fact that her supporters are less likely to vote for Obama versus McCain. If the Supers don't side with her and actually go with the will of the people she'll just ride it out until 2012. It's part of her long-term plan.
She is NOT in this for the benefit of the US. She is in it for her own personal goals. She's power-hungry and will not stop at anything.- superkendall, on 04/23/2008, -11/+2You misunderstand - she is counting on winning THIS primary and THIS election, and it's still quite possible for her to do so if she maintains momentum.
- StarlessKnight, on 04/23/2008, -0/+3She needs to gain momentum. Winning by less than 10% won't cut it in the remaining states (or territories *mutter*).
- Ender008, on 04/23/2008, -0/+6*facepalm*
- bond1963, on 04/23/2008, -4/+0Sure it will because it puts "doubts" about Obama in the supers minds. I'm hoping that Obama gets the knockout soon but I'm being realistic about what's going on now.
- appetite, on 04/23/2008, -0/+4Before she maintains momentum, she has to stop LOSING momentum. She was 20 points up in Penn 2 weeks ago, and she won by 9 points.
If she doesn't get the nomination, she probably wants McCain to win so she can run in 2012. She doesn't realize that if that happens, no one will vote for her because all the democratic voters will kill themselves rather than sit through another primary with her in it.
- superkendall, on 04/23/2008, -11/+2You misunderstand - she is counting on winning THIS primary and THIS election, and it's still quite possible for her to do so if she maintains momentum.
- Takfam, on 04/23/2008, -1/+6In nerd lingo, Star Trek II. Hillary is Khan, Barack is Kirk. Hillary would rather detonate the Genesis Device and blow the herself and the rest of entire party to oblivion rather than let Barack win.
- curtisag, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1Dugg up for successfully linking Star Trek II and politics.
- deskimo, on 04/24/2008, -1/+1The Clintons don't make mistakes(unless you count the major ones: letting Mark Penn run their campaign, and Billy Boy getting a BJ under his desk and then lying about it). If they appear to be destroying the party intentionally, it's because they are destroying it intentionally.
- SargedeathXmode, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1I guess most people agree that the states at the end of the primaries/caucuses should never get a say. Sucks to live there. On the other hand, it's interesting to watch how a candidate would fare if the entire nomination process worked itself out. Then again, ANYBODY BUT MCCAIN for president T.T...
- bloodomen13, on 04/23/2008, -0/+36Hillary is banking on Obama losing the general election so that she can be on the ticket in 2012.
- 7Mystery, on 04/23/2008, -7/+54It’s true. She complains about the media, but its actually the media who indeed kept her in this race. That made that idiots that vote for her believe she actually has a chance without overturning the people’s choice.
- minox, on 04/23/2008, -3/+3I'm not saying that she shouldn't drop out, though I really don't mind her staying in because I wouldn't vote for her or Obama anyway. But you talk about Obama being the "people's choice" and her supporters as being "idiots." It just seems rather ridiculous to discount their opinion. Sure, it is unusual that she hasn't dropped out by now, especially considering the math. But it is also a little more than surprising that the "idiots" have been turning out to say that they prefer her to him, even after her imaginary sniper incident, which was reported in "her" media. I can only conclude that you don't want anyone else's vote to count as much as yours, because lately they have been disagreeing with you.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2Wow, nice work putting words in someone else's mouth. And what would YOU prefer to call someone who votes for a person who has been caught in several lies just during the primary process, mocks her opponent and engages in Rovian negative campaign tactics even though they are in the same party, regularly receives wide spread support from neo-conservative media who know that helping her get nominated or at least dragging out the democratic primary for as long as possible is the only chance in hell they have in November (which is something they in turn are helping), and has essentially no chance to of legitimately winning the primary without the help of super-delegates deciding against the majority of voters? No, Hillary supporters are the supporters of the status quo. They are people begging for more of the same. They are scared of change, which Obama represents. Yet, it is that very status quo that has done us such great damage over the past ten, twenty, and even thirty years. Some might call someone so blind an idiot.
- bernlin2000, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1So you're not voting for a Democrat, you prefer to continue Bush's way of doing things for another 4 years, at least? Why should I ever respond, then, to what you said after that statement? Because that's simply ***** that you would rather see McCain in office than Hillary or Obama.
- minox, on 04/23/2008, -3/+3I'm not saying that she shouldn't drop out, though I really don't mind her staying in because I wouldn't vote for her or Obama anyway. But you talk about Obama being the "people's choice" and her supporters as being "idiots." It just seems rather ridiculous to discount their opinion. Sure, it is unusual that she hasn't dropped out by now, especially considering the math. But it is also a little more than surprising that the "idiots" have been turning out to say that they prefer her to him, even after her imaginary sniper incident, which was reported in "her" media. I can only conclude that you don't want anyone else's vote to count as much as yours, because lately they have been disagreeing with you.
- fritson, on 04/23/2008, -27/+29Hey Hillary supporters,
We are very sorry that you are disappointed of course, we know the feeling.
But...... please see the biggest possible picture, which is :
we must defeat the Fascist that are in power now and are running this country and also the world! Most of the Repubs and Dems have been totally bribed and corrupted by MONEY!
The only slim chance of reversing this totally corrupt government is to give a chance to Obama.....because he is a once in a life time phenomenon, as was JFK.
McCain and Hillary are both part of a totally corrupted and lawless system of Take the MONEY and Run for the Presidency!!
Heeeeeeey Hillary supporters: I used to be for Hillary before Hillary sold out to the MONEY Game!
Now......I support Obama.....because he has a chance to alter the course of history for all of us!
Please switch to Obama...... so he can defeat McCain who is the front man for the WARS FOREVER are GOOD FOR THE SUPER RICH.
McCain wants to start New Wars and he wants "to stay in Iraq for a 1,000 years" McCain wants to grab more money, so far he has grabbed $40 million, aaaaand........ his wife has grabbed 10 times that amount!
Perpetual Wars are the greatest Games for the Super-Rich to RULE THE WORLD!- bjs3171, on 04/23/2008, -2/+5that was "100 years".
- RepubOperative, on 04/23/2008, -3/+2and he also stated that they will only be there if there is no war, but only peace as in the installations that we have in Germany, South Korea and Japan. But if you are a koolade drinking jagoff then by all means hold on to your lying Obama coon statement.
- publiclurker, on 04/23/2008, -1/+21. We are there.
2. There is a war.
3. Grow up.
- publiclurker, on 04/23/2008, -1/+21. We are there.
- RepubOperative, on 04/23/2008, -3/+2and he also stated that they will only be there if there is no war, but only peace as in the installations that we have in Germany, South Korea and Japan. But if you are a koolade drinking jagoff then by all means hold on to your lying Obama coon statement.
- jbenson2, on 04/23/2008, -11/+7You think the O-man has any chance with videos like this, just waiting to be launched during the general election.
Watch the video
http://tinyurl.com/3evpng
When are distractions not distractions but, in fact, issues of character and judgment?
Obama's "Distractions": Reverends, Radicals, and Rezko
"Distractions" or failures of judgment?"- YourDoom123, on 04/23/2008, -0/+4wait... none of that is new, and all of it is totally irrelevant. its no better than a series of oh he knew him, he went to church with him, that means their ideas are his ideas.
- jbenson2, on 04/24/2008, -3/+2You might think it is irrelevant, but there are millions of Republicans that will disagree in the general election. We don't want to see a Presidency with
Wiliam Ayers (terrorist bomb-maker) as his Secretary of Defense,
Jeremiah Wright (racist pastor) giving the morning prayer every day in Congress,
Michelle Obama (America hater) heading up the Department of Education, and
Antoin “Tony” Rezko (slum-lord neighbor) as the head of the Federal Reserve.- InnerRayg, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2Pretty sure that's not how you choose your cabinet. But w/ever.
- superkendall, on 04/23/2008, -11/+4What's funny is, you are totally wrong about:
Omaba (not quite as different as you make out)
MCCain (not as much like Bush as you make out)
Hillary (not as out of the race as you make out). - allengeer, on 04/24/2008, -1/+4please learn what fascism is. you're doing it wrong.
- pbd1637, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1You're insane. You have no coherent thoughts, just feelings. And by the way, if Kennedy did today what he did as president in the sixties, he'd be a Republican. Lowered taxes, fought against communist dictators and was tough on organized crime.
- bjs3171, on 04/23/2008, -2/+5that was "100 years".
- p0s3r, on 04/23/2008, -41/+6Hillary's ahead in popular vote counting Florida.
Hillary has one every major state.
Obama can't win without Super Delegates.
Why do the Obamabots (which includes Matthews) not want the people to select their nominee? Why do they want the supers to step in and disenfranchise the next 9 states?- gothicform, on 04/23/2008, -1/+33Isn't Texas a major state? What about Illinois? Or don't they count because... well Hillary didn't win them?
- ComeOutSwingin, on 04/23/2008, -0/+16..But...But... Caucuses don't count and he's from Illinois!! /sarcasm
- ComeOutSwingin, on 04/23/2008, -1/+26Obama is ahead counting Florida, behind when counting Michigan where he wasn't on the ballot.
Major states like California, Pennsylvania, and New York? Most likely those states will vote democratic. Only argument is Ohio/Florida.
Hillary can't win w/o super delegates either.
Every day this goes on its less and less chance EITHER Clinton or Obama can beat McCain.- JointVenture, on 04/23/2008, -9/+1No you're wrong, best get back to counting.
- StarlessKnight, on 04/23/2008, -0/+4http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/presi ... She's ahead by +.4% what p0s3r and JointVenture FAIL to realize, however, is that only Clinton got any votes in Michigan (ignoring the fact neither FL or MI results actually matter unless the election is rerun in those states)... which means she's only winning because Obama (and only Obama) is missing an entire state. Everyone, give them a golf clap.
By the way, guys: Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA, FL* 15,327,432 48.4% 15,011,629 47.4% -- Obama's winning.
Without FL/MI: Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 14,751,218 49.3% 14,140,643 47.2% -- Obama's winning.
- diggeradoo, on 04/23/2008, -1/+22"Hillary's ahead in popular vote counting Florida" ... are you insane? Or are you applying Hillary Math? She won FL by 300,000 votes. At last count she's still 500,000 votes down, and that's counting caucus votes as 1-for-1, which they aren't. By last check on my number system 500,000 - 300,000 = 200,000 votes behind Obama.
- lhughey, on 04/23/2008, -2/+7How in the HELL can you count Florida? Of course, the most well known candidate is going to win there if none of them can campaign there. Remember, a month before Texas when Clinton was up in the polls by 20 points? She ended up winning the popular vote there by only 3-4 points. Hillary was also up bigtime in Penn before Barack set foot in the state. He was able to half her lead. He would be able to close the gap in Florida as well, given the chance to campaign there. It was agreed that Florida would not count. If it does count, at least give the man a chance to campaign there. Without the ability to do campaign in the state, its simply a popularity contest.
- JointVenture, on 04/23/2008, -9/+2Because our FLAG has 50 stars on it unless your flag is from 1957 stfu.
- cranium, on 04/23/2008, -0/+4 - Obama can't win without Super Delegates.
God damn, these Clintonistas are stupid. What a nonsensical argument. He can't win without pledged delegates either, so what?
Sure, Obama is behind in superdelegates, and if he only gets 1/3 of the ones still left, he still wins. The nomination can only legitimately be his at this point. - SaperKain, on 04/23/2008, -0/+2poser just quit it. John McCain is too old to be president. If your party would elect somebody younger… say Fred T. then maybe we would have a contest.
- WilliamDavis, on 04/24/2008, -3/+1Yep. Then we'd have a contest between 3 neocons instead of 3 neocons. It matters, I tell ya.
- youjettisonme, on 04/23/2008, -5/+9Dear You,
THE MATH – Wednesday, April 23 – After Pennsylvania
THE MATH – Wednesday, April 23 – After Pennsylvania
8:00 a.m. Eastern Time (US)
Delegates needed to win nomination – 2,023.5 (considering status quo)
Pledged Delegates in – 2,845.0 of 3,253.0 – 87.5%
********************************************
THE MAGIC NUMBER
Here's what we have after considering the information in the Polls section below:
Senator Obama's Magic Number – 85 of 294 remaining superdelegates needed, or 28.9%
Senator Clinton's Magic Number – 229 of 294 remaining superdelegates needed, or 77.9%
The Huckabee Index – 65 (or 22.1% of remaining superdelegates needed)
The "Huckabee Index" is the number of any combination of superdelegates and convention/caucus delegates that the Obama campaign needs (or the Clinton campaign loses) to make it mathematically impossible for the Clinton campaign to win the nomination, based on current delegate count and polls for upcoming contests. (Disclaimer: This is meant to poke fun at Mike Huckabee, not Hillary Clinton)
Spreadsheet (Feel free to download)
PROJECTED END-RESULTS OF PRIMARIES BASED ON POLLS:
Projected Pledged Delegates:
Barack Obama – 1,702.5 (76 above HALF)
Hillary Clinton – 1,524.5 (102 below HALF)
Projected "Popular" Vote (unweighted) without Florida and Michigan:
Barack Obama – 16,765,128 (+680,255)
Hillary Clinton – 16,084,871
Projected "Popular" Vote (unweighted) with Florida added*:
Barack Obama – 17,341,341 (+385,483)
Hillary Clinton – 16,955,858
Projected "Popular" Vote (unweighted) with Florida and Michigan added*:
Barack Obama – 17,341,341 (+57,174)
Hillary Clinton – 17,284,167
*Uncommitted – 238,168 (Michigan only, Obama wasn't on the ballot)
********************************************
TOTAL DELEGATES
Estimated Total Delegates as of April 23:
Barack Obama – 1,728.5 (295.5 short)
Hillary Clinton – 1,598.5 (425.5 short)
Remaining Total Delegates – 702.0
(Sources: NBC, Wikipedia 4/23/08)
SUPERDELEGATES
Superdelegates (highest reported for each candidate):
Barack Obama – 238 (Source: NBC 4/23/08)
Hillary Clinton – 262 (Source: NBC 4/23/08)
Remaining Superdelegates – 294
PLEDGED DELEGATES
Estimated Pledged Delegates as of April 23:
Barack Obama – 1,490.5 (136.0 short of HALF)
Hillary Clinton – 1,336.5 (290.0 short of HALF)
Remaining Pledged Delegates – 408.0
(Source: Wikipedia 4/23/08)
OVERALL CONTESTS WON: Barack Obama – 30; Hillary Clinton – 16
PRIMARIES WON: Barack Obama – 16; Hillary Clinton – 13
CAUCUSES WON: Barack Obama – 14; Hillary Clinton – 3
BLUE AND RED STATES WON:
Barack Obama – 11 Blue, 16 Red
Hillary Clinton – 7 Blue, 8 Red
********************************************
POPULAR VOTE (for informational purposes only)
Total weighted* popular vote as of April 23:
Barack Obama – 16,853,719 (+1,567,828)
Hilary Clinton – 15,285,891
*Weighted popular vote adds primary votes and 5.5:1 skew of caucus votes
Status Quo unweighted as of April 23:
Barack Obama – 14,730,429 (+633,897)
Hillary Clinton – 14,096,532
(Source: Wikipedia 4/23/08)
Primaries only (Status Quo) as of April 23:
Barack Obama – 14,259,259 (+427,029)
Hillary Clinton – 13,832,230
Caucuses only weighted* popular vote as of April 23:
Barack Obama – 2,594,460 (+1,140,799)
Hilary Clinton – 1,453,661
*Weighted popular vote adds primary votes and 5.5:1 skew of caucus votes
Caucuses only (Status Quo) unweighted total caucus votes as of April 23:
Barack Obama – 471,170 (+206,868 caucus votes)
Hillary Clinton – 264,302
(IA,NV,AK,AS,CO,ID,KS,MN,NM,ND,NE,VI,WA*,ME,HI,TX*,WY,Guam)
With Florida only added, weighted as of April 23:
Barack Obama – 17,429,933 (+1,273,056)
Hillary Clinton – 16,156,877
With Florida only added, unweighted as of April 23:
Barack Obama – 15,306,643 (+339,125)
Hillary Clinton – 14,967,518
With Michigan only added, weighted as of April 23*:
Barack Obama – 16,853,719 (+1,239,519)
Hillary Clinton – 15,614,200
*Uncommitted – 238,168 (Michigan only, Obama wasn't on the ballot)
With Michigan only added, unweighted as of April 23*:
Barack Obama – 14,730,429 (+305,588)
Hillary Clinton – 14,424,841
*Uncommitted – 238,168 (Michigan only, Obama wasn't on the ballot)
With Florida AND Michigan added, weighted as of April 23*:
Barack Obama – 17,429,933 (+944,747)
Hillary Clinton – 16,485,186
*Uncommitted – 238,168 (Michigan only, Obama wasn't on the ballot)
With Florida AND Michigan added, unweighted as of April 23*:
Barack Obama – 15,306,643 (+10,816)
Hillary Clinton – 15,295,827
*Uncommitted – 238,168 (Michigan only, Obama wasn't on the ballot)
********************************************
SUPERDELEGATES NEEDED IF REMAINING PLEDGED DELEGATES ARE 50/50 SPLIT
All scenarios (2 through 9) showing Florida or Michigan being seated as is or holding new elections have been removed.
Hillary Clinton needs #/% of remaining superdelegates if remaining pledged is 50/50:
1. Status Quo – Clinton needs 222 of 294, or 75.3% of remaining SDs
10. FL Half-count, MI not seated – Clinton needs 218 of 295, or 73.7% of remaining SDs
11. FL not seated, MI Compromise – Clinton needs 210 of 306, or 68.5% of remaining SDs
12. FL Half-count, MI Compromise – Clinton needs 206 of 307, or 66.9% of remaining SDs
Barack Obama needs #/% of remaining superdelegates if remaining pledged is 50/50:
1. Status Quo – Obama needs 92 of 294, or 31.1% of remaining SDs
10. FL Half-count, MI not seated – Obama needs 109 of 295, or 36.8% of remaining SDs
11. FL not seated, MI Compromise – Obama needs 96 of 306, or 31.2% of remaining SDs
12. FL Half-count, MI Compromise – Obama needs 113 of 307, or 36.6% of remaining SDs
The "Florida Half-count" would net 52.5 pledged delegates for Senator Clinton and 33.5 pledged delegates for Senator Obama. The "Michigan Compromise" would net 83.0 pledged delegates for Senator Clinton and 73.0 pledged delegates for Senator Obama.
********************************************
SUPERDELEGATES NEEDED IF REMAINING PLEDGED DELEGATES ARE 55/45 CLINTON
All scenarios (2 through 9) showing Florida or Michigan being seated as is or holding new elections have been removed.
Hillary Clinton needs #/% of remaining superdelegates if remaining pledged is 55/45:
1. Status Quo – Clinton needs 201 of 294, or 68.2% of remaining SDs
10. FL Half-count, MI not seated – Clinton needs 197 of 295, or 66.6% of remaining SDs
11. FL not seated, MI Compromise – Clinton needs 189 of 306, or 61.6% of remaining SDs
12. FL Half-count, MI Compromise – Clinton needs 185 of 307, or 60.1% of remaining SDs
Barack Obama needs #/% of remaining superdelegates if remaining pledged is 55/45:
1. Status Quo – Obama needs 113 of 294, or 38.3% of remaining SDs
10. FL Half-count, MI not seated – Obama needs 130 of 295, or 43.9% of remaining SDs
11. FL not seated, MI Compromise – Obama needs 117 of 306, or 38.1% of remaining SDs
12. FL Half-count, MI Compromise – Obama needs 134 of 307, or 43.5% of remaining SDs
The "Florida Half-count" would net 52.5 pledged delegates for Senator Clinton and 33.5 pledged delegates for Senator Obama. The "Michigan Compromise" would net 83.0 pledged delegates for Senator Clinton and 73.0 pledged delegates for Senator Obama.
*********************************************
FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN SCENARIOS REGARDING PLEDGED DELEGATES
These are the possible scenarios concerning Florida and Michigan, and what it would require for Senator Clinton to catch up to Senator Obama in pledged delegates. These scenarios are for pledged delegates only. Superdelegate counts are not included. (Note: All scenarios (2 through 9) showing Florida or Michigan being seated as is or holding new elections have been removed.)
The "Florida Half-count" would net 52.5 pledged delegates for Senator Clinton and 33.5 pledged delegates for Senator Obama. The "Michigan Compromise" would net 83.0 pledged delegates for Senator Clinton and 73.0 pledged delegates for Senator Obama.
Scenario 1 – Status Quo (without Florida and Michigan)
Senator Obama needs 31.1% of all pledged delegates in remaining contests to stay ahead
Senator Clinton needs 68.9% of all pledged delegates in remaining contests to catch up
Scenario 10 – Florida Half-count, Michigan not seated
Senator Obama needs 33.5% of all pledged delegates in remaining contests to stay ahead
Senator Clinton needs 66.5% of all pledged delegates in remaining contests to catch up
Scenario 11 – Florida not seated, Michigan Compromise
Senator Obama needs 32.4% of all pledged delegates in remaining contests to stay ahead
Senator Clinton needs 67.6% of all pledged delegates in remaining contests to catch up
Scenario 12 – Florida Half-count, Michigan Compromise
Senator Obama needs 34.7% of all pledged delegates in remaining contests to stay ahead
Senator Clinton needs 65.3% of all pledged delegates in remaining contests to catch up
********************************************
Sources:
Superdelegates (highest reported for each)
Pledged Delegates
Popular Vote
Projections and Charts (spreadsheet)
State Populations 2007
Latest Polls:
North Carolina
Indiana
West Virginia
Oregon
Kentucky
Puerto Rico
South Dakota
More Links:
Brokered Convention
Official Delegate Selection Rules for the 2008 Democratic National Convention
Link to the spreadsheet (feel free to download and create your own scenarios):
Spreadsheet
The main conclusion drawn from THE MATH is this: Senator Clinton will need 80% of the remaining superdelegates to agree with each other and endorse her, on top of winning the remaining primaries. It is highly unlikely that 80% of the superdelegates will agree with each other. More probable would be a 50/50 or 60/40 split, or at the most a 2 to 1 split. The superdelegates who have already endorsed are currently at a 55/45 split. Senator Obama will only need roughly 20% of the remaining superdelegates to reach nomination.
- Aliminator, on 04/24/2008, -1/+1That's a lot of stuff that nobody is going to read. I did read, however, the conclusion.
- youjettisonme, on 04/23/2008, -0/+1This post has apparently been downmodded by a Hillary supporter because you can't spin math. Stupid math!
- gothicform, on 04/23/2008, -1/+33Isn't Texas a major state? What about Illinois? Or don't they count because... well Hillary didn't win them?
- dtzitz, on 04/23/2008, -13/+3I am voting for the Hillary/Huckabee ticket
- neognostic, on 04/23/2008, -0/+7If you take your meds, we won't put the straight jacket back on.
- Pfkninenines, on 04/23/2008, -1/+1Go ahead and vote for Hillary/Huckabee. I'll vote for someone else, just so your vote won't count. HA!
- BadseedJR, on 04/23/2008, -0/+4I'm on the Paul/Kucinich ticket then.
- smacksaw, on 04/23/2008, -14/+2I guess Matthews doesn't care about ratings. Good for him. Maybe it's like the anti-cool sort of thing, where being a rebel makes you cool. Maybe people will watch him just to hear him say how she doesn't have a chance and watch him mock everyone. Actually, that's pretty much his show in a nutshell. Ok, so he does care about ratings and he's just being himself.
- jbenson2, on 04/23/2008, -7/+1He only cares about the tingle going up his leg.
- bfcnet, on 04/23/2008, -23/+8I find it really funny that the news media is so ga-ga for Barack Obama and yet no one complains about their "liberal bias". Obama will not win the general election. No one knows what he stands for, only the bad company he's kept.
- soot, on 04/23/2008, -5/+29Go to Hillary's website, the homepage redirects you straight to the donation form.
Tacky *****.- Pfkninenines, on 04/23/2008, -4/+3Donation amounts are 5, 25, 50, 100, 250, 500, 1000, 2300, 4600. Wow. Jumps up a bit fast, wouldn't you say?
Wonder how many people click 4600, reoccurring. - jbenson2, on 04/23/2008, -7/+2It is working. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton raised a stunning $3.5 million last night within hours of winning Pennsylvania, and her campaign says today's total may reach $10 million, giving her run a needed boost
- jabberwolf, on 04/23/2008, -5/+2Maybe they should just ask the Lobbyists to donate through their wives as OBAMA GETS HIS DONATIONS!
- InnerRayg, on 04/24/2008, -0/+3Then they're breaking the rules of his donation form and if they are caught they will probably have their donations returned. It says quite clearly you can not send money given to you by any kind of lobbyist on the page.
- kreneskyp, on 04/24/2008, -1/+1to be fair obama has done similar things (im an obama supporter/donor)
- Pfkninenines, on 04/23/2008, -4/+3Donation amounts are 5, 25, 50, 100, 250, 500, 1000, 2300, 4600. Wow. Jumps up a bit fast, wouldn't you say?
- Stopher, on 04/23/2008, -17/+10Media also created the delusion that Chris Matthews isn't a moron.
- WilliamDavis, on 04/24/2008, -3/+1Oh, wow... the Obama love is so strong in here, you can't even point and laugh at Chris Matthews anymore. Holy crap!
- sassip, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2It wasn't funny, that's why no one laughed.
- WilliamDavis, on 04/24/2008, -3/+1Oh, wow... the Obama love is so strong in here, you can't even point and laugh at Chris Matthews anymore. Holy crap!
- YodaJones, on 04/23/2008, -13/+16Hillary's friends at Diebold to the rescue...
- JointVenture, on 04/23/2008, -8/+2OMFG, it has begun.
- RedRoomGames, on 04/23/2008, -2/+8JointVenture is having his period, live on Digg.
- superkendall, on 04/23/2008, -8/+5I predicted in a thread a day ago that Obama supporters would blame Pennsylvania on Diebold. Here you are, right on cue!
- RedRoomGames, on 04/23/2008, -2/+3yeah...right, YodaJones speaks for everybody, he's got +1 diggs, look out.
- JointVenture, on 04/24/2008, -6/+2I said the same thing super said.
I also expect to start hearing it this fall.
- JointVenture, on 04/24/2008, -6/+2I said the same thing super said.
- RedRoomGames, on 04/23/2008, -2/+3yeah...right, YodaJones speaks for everybody, he's got +1 diggs, look out.
- Hangly, on 04/23/2008, -2/+2And the robot vote is in!
- JointVenture, on 04/23/2008, -8/+2OMFG, it has begun.
- Hetman, on 04/23/2008, -0/+3Key term in this whole thing is elected delegates. And regardless if you like it or not their are such things as super delegates and they are going to determine who runs for the democratic presidency. It is a flawed system and should be changed, bu. But it does not change the fact that this is how the system works as of Right now.
- banmaster, on 04/23/2008, -0/+2Can someone explain to me the whole Super Delate thing. Seems like a perfect way to rig any sort of fair vote.
- JointVenture, on 04/23/2008, -4/+2See 1972 election.
- Hetman, on 04/23/2008, -1/+3The democrats were not winning enough election. Because the elected delegates were always to liberal. So most americans were voting Republicans. The Democrats decided that they needed to stop this. So they started using super delegates as a way to weed out some of the presedential hopefulls that they knew could not win a general election example 1972 as mentione above.
- jbenson2, on 04/23/2008, -3/+3The superdelegate system was set up by the democrats. The superdelegates can’t do anything right now to end the race, because they weren’t created to end a tie. They exist to overrule the popular vote when disaster looms, and to that end, they can change their minds at any time before or even during the convention. Even if every superdelegate were to stand up now and declare themselves for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton has four months to change their minds, according to the DNC rules.
- banmaster, on 04/23/2008, -0/+2Can someone explain to me the whole Super Delate thing. Seems like a perfect way to rig any sort of fair vote.
- Homerr, on 04/23/2008, -5/+29Every dollar I donate toward Obama's campaign feels like a Hillary Tax. And it's worth every cent to get her out of the race.
- jbenson2, on 04/23/2008, -6/+3You are going to need deep pockets. Just keep donating - she won't get out until the convention at the end of August.
- nirav72, on 04/23/2008, -0/+4Fine by us..Let her keep piling on the debt. She is 10 million in the hole. The 23 million she has in the bank can't be touched until after the nomination or general election. If she eventually implodes, she'll have to pay that 10 million debt back somehow. Regardless..she's not becoming president. She doesn't stand a chance against the republicans who have been waiting for a day to take on Hillary. Thats all that matters. This democrat will be very happy when Hillary's presidential ambitions come crashing down. McCain is going to be a one term president. So I can handle that.
- publiclurker, on 04/23/2008, -1/+0Considering the amount of damage Bush causes in one term, you may want to reconsider that thought.
- jbenson2, on 04/24/2008, -1/+1So you have ruled out both Clinton and Obama as winning the general election. And you have predicted McCain will be a one-term President. Possible, especially if McCain brings in Romney as VP to become President in 2012.
- nirav72, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1Still better than Hillary. Anyone but Hillary.
- nirav72, on 04/23/2008, -0/+4Fine by us..Let her keep piling on the debt. She is 10 million in the hole. The 23 million she has in the bank can't be touched until after the nomination or general election. If she eventually implodes, she'll have to pay that 10 million debt back somehow. Regardless..she's not becoming president. She doesn't stand a chance against the republicans who have been waiting for a day to take on Hillary. Thats all that matters. This democrat will be very happy when Hillary's presidential ambitions come crashing down. McCain is going to be a one term president. So I can handle that.
- jbenson2, on 04/23/2008, -6/+3You are going to need deep pockets. Just keep donating - she won't get out until the convention at the end of August.
- rahamm, on 04/23/2008, -18/+5She is winning in the popular vote right now, but who cares not listening to that only got us Bush right guys right?
- pilot3033, on 04/23/2008, -0/+7she's got the 'popular vote' if you count MI and FL, which you can't because their contests don't count. Obama wasn't even on the ballot in MI. At the time, the voters in FL probably voted for the default Clinton name, while in MI, she was the only 'big name' on the ballot.
- rahamm, on 04/23/2008, -6/+1He defiantly was in the ballot in Florida, and you think Guam a territory that isn't a state should count more then MI? Come on democrats we need these states to win we can not just not count them.
- StarlessKnight, on 04/23/2008, -2/+1http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/presi ...
No, she's not. It's 50% to 40% in Obama's favor nationally.- StarlessKnight, on 04/23/2008, -0/+5My apologies, that was the wrong link: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/presi ...
Obama's ahead by 2.1% (without FL or MI), 1% (without MI), or -.4% (with both FL and MI). Note: MI only counts toward Clinton, skewing the results in her favor.
- StarlessKnight, on 04/23/2008, -0/+5My apologies, that was the wrong link: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/presi ...
- rahamm, on 04/23/2008, -1/+2You do not need a poll WHEN THERE IS REAL NUMBERS OF PEOPLE WHO VOTED!!!! See we have a democracy of those who participate not of a who real clear politics samples.
- Anth, on 04/23/2008, -0/+4Are you high?
Obama only is losing to HRC in the popular vote IF - you take away all the states that didn't report votes (rather precinct caucuses) and disenfranchise the voters of Iowa, Nevada, Colorado, North Dakota, Washington state and Maine, and you add in the votes in MI where he wasn't even on the ballot!
In other words, its *****, and Obama is winning delegates and the popular vote.
How else would you like to skew your worldview to fit your beliefs? Would you like to change the rules of a football game half way through because your team is losing? You want to make it so that its not the points that matter, but rather the number of yards your team accumulates? Or perhaps at the seventh inning stretch you can change baseball so that its the number of hits and not the number of runs?
P.S. RCP is garbage.- rahamm, on 04/23/2008, -6/+1Nope she is winning even if you count the caucuses. Although you do have to count all the votes.
- snotrokit, on 04/23/2008, -0/+2and those who have participated, have voted in favor of Obama.
- rahamm, on 04/23/2008, -3/+1Yep no one said that there have been some who have voted for Obama of those who have participated but Clinton at this moment has more votes than anyone else. Maybe that will change have NC but right now she is winning in the popular vote.
- pilot3033, on 04/23/2008, -0/+7she's got the 'popular vote' if you count MI and FL, which you can't because their contests don't count. Obama wasn't even on the ballot in MI. At the time, the voters in FL probably voted for the default Clinton name, while in MI, she was the only 'big name' on the ballot.
- lhughey, on 04/23/2008, -16/+4wanted to delete my last post - please digg this down
- jbenson2, on 04/23/2008, -17/+8The look on Matthew's face was like he just drank some sour milk. I guess the tingle up his leg wore off when he realized that Clinton was going to win big in Pennsylvania.
- JointVenture, on 04/23/2008, -7/+3Dugg for remembering Chris Matthews said "Obama..it tingles".
I think its funny that a guy so in the tank for Obama would blame the media for being bias. - nirav72, on 04/23/2008, -2/+4you posted the exact same comment up above somewhere. Got anything different to say?
- allengeer, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2uh... she didn't win big. A big win is her getting 60%+. She didnt do that. She won, but not big.
- jbenson2, on 04/24/2008, -1/+110% is big in a statewide election, especially a large state like Pennsylvania. 60% is only for High School elections. It just doesn't happen in the real world.
- JointVenture, on 04/23/2008, -7/+3Dugg for remembering Chris Matthews said "Obama..it tingles".
- wheresjim, on 04/23/2008, -1/+11The media is no longer an objective observer, they have become business units of powerful multinational corporations. In the case of this democratic primary, it is in the corporate media's best interest to keep this race going to generate ratings and as an added bonus, guess where all of your primary donations are going? Wait for it...TV and radio ads!
- minox, on 04/23/2008, -3/+1Yeah, it's the corporations, mahhhn. Get a life.
- jabberwolf, on 04/23/2008, -2/+1Um its the ***** MEDIA that was claiming Obama would be within 4-5 point.
It was the Gallop poll that said that as well!
But OMFG do you know who got it dead on?? FOX!!! HAHAHA So yes, the media is spinning this, but the people arent buying it!
Go Hillary GO!
- bjs3171, on 04/23/2008, -6/+4that's nice. so if Obama loses the general election to a Republican, after the 8 years we've had with a republican, we can blame, once a-*****-gain, the god damn media. exactly what good do they do, ever?
- kbennett73, on 04/23/2008, -0/+6NO, we can't blame the media. The media, however biased it may be, isn't holding guns to the heads of millions of people in this country and forcing them to vote for any particular candidate. While it's true the media may give more favorable coverage to one candidate versus another, the media doesn't decide who YOU vote for. If people took responsibility for their own actions, did their own research, and based their vote on which candidate's platform was most aligned with their views, instead of basing their vote on who the media puts on the latest Pedestal Of The Week, the system wouldn't be as frakked up as it is. Lazy Americans who choose to let the media make their decisions for them are the only ones to blame. I'm an American who chooses to make my own intelligent and well-researched decisions instead. Which are you? When you blame "the media" you only exacerbate the problem by demonstrating how not taking responsibility for your own actions is an acceptable way to live.
- bernlin2000, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1There's plenty of blame to go around: it's both the media's fault and the American people's fault. The media has not properly done their job as watchdogs and the American people have not bothered to discover the facts. So we view our country in a partially-realistic light, but so many facts have been skewed and distorted.
- kbennett73, on 04/23/2008, -0/+6NO, we can't blame the media. The media, however biased it may be, isn't holding guns to the heads of millions of people in this country and forcing them to vote for any particular candidate. While it's true the media may give more favorable coverage to one candidate versus another, the media doesn't decide who YOU vote for. If people took responsibility for their own actions, did their own research, and based their vote on which candidate's platform was most aligned with their views, instead of basing their vote on who the media puts on the latest Pedestal Of The Week, the system wouldn't be as frakked up as it is. Lazy Americans who choose to let the media make their decisions for them are the only ones to blame. I'm an American who chooses to make my own intelligent and well-researched decisions instead. Which are you? When you blame "the media" you only exacerbate the problem by demonstrating how not taking responsibility for your own actions is an acceptable way to live.
- LukasSmith, on 04/23/2008, -8/+5Ok thats kind of stupid. The only one with the delusion of winning is Hillary herself. This whole media conspiracy bull wasn't necessary. But seriously knowing Hillary she is Stubborn and Delusional. Doubtful she can actually win. But I really see no harm in her continueing.
- snotrokit, on 04/23/2008, -0/+3aside from the collateral damage to the democratic party, and the shots that she is taking at Obama, and the money that Obama has to spend to keep her at bay instead of focusing all of that time and energy to defeating the republicans.
no harm? - eddy23170, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1lukas..have you ever had positive diggs? I wonder why this is the case. Maybe because you should hang out in red state more often......please? i am begging it is spelled "continuing" your consistent spelling errors point to your level of educational attainment....
- snotrokit, on 04/23/2008, -0/+3aside from the collateral damage to the democratic party, and the shots that she is taking at Obama, and the money that Obama has to spend to keep her at bay instead of focusing all of that time and energy to defeating the republicans.
- Omnilink, on 04/23/2008, -0/+14The media always create the illusion that a specific candidate will win. The networks were under the impression that everyone in the country was in love with Obama just a few weeks ago.