Obama wins Florida, Michigan

[anigbrowl]

I've mentioned this in a few places elsewhere, but I think it deserves its own thread. I'm going to show why the controversy about whether to seat delegates from these states probably won't matter in the end.

Also, there are questions about the statistical reliability of the Florida vote - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4585183 ...but that's a matter for the DNC, I have no strong opinion about it.

Here's the point:

Florida - 210 delegates
50% Clinton = 105 delegates
33% Obama = 70 Delegates

Michigan - 168 delegates
55% Clinton = 86 delegates
40% Undecided = 64 delegates

Now, obviously I'm using raw %ages of the popular vote here rather than county-by-county analysis. But I doubt that that would make a really big difference.

Also, I'm going to assume that Michigan undecideds would vote Obama: folks in Michigan already had their option to vote for Clinton if they wanted to do so, and there's no other candidate in the race for them to choose (I seriously doubt Edwards is going to compete for those delegate votes).

So:

Clinton 105 + 86 = 191.
Obama 70 + 64 = 134.

191 - 134 = 57 - the net gain for Clinton if all the delegates are seated at the convention.

Obama's lead in pledged delegates is 103 at the moment. Clinton's superdelegate advantage cancels some of that out. But if Obama builds up an absolute lead of more than 57 (ie including all superdelegates etc. etc.), then he still has a majority even if the votes from Florida and Michigan are seated as-is, with no futzing of the numbers.

So all Obama has to do is build up a total lead of 60+ delegates. Then the controversy about the two states goes away, voters in Florida and Michigan get their votes counted, Clinton's campaign has nothing to complain about (and the Republicans can't accuse Obama of being a damaged candidate), and Obama is still the front runner.

If the Obama campaign is smart (and that includes you, fellow Obama supporters), then in the meantime they don't take a strong position on the matter: just say they'll leave it up to the DNC to decide what to do, and work hard to build and maintain that 60 delegate lead. Because once they have that, the issue goes away, and then Clinton is in the situation of begging superdelegates to give her the nomination even though she's still in second place after having the party rules waived to accommodate her.

B-)

[anigbrowl]

1. Kick it, folks!

Delegate seating is becoming a divisive issue, which I feel the Clinton campaign is already using to scarify voters with, and which the GOP is mking fun of. It doesn't have to be!

:dem:

[IndieLeft]

2. I can live with that.

[Blue State Bandit]

3. I'll kick this again tomarrow.

[Scurrilous]

4. K & R

:kick:

[mahina]

5. Thank you!

Very happy to be the 5th rec for this very informative bit of heavy lifting. Mahalo!

[ingac70]

6. K&R.

[donheld]

7. I sure hope this all works out

Something has too.

[Window]

8. K/R

Peace:thumbsup:

[sfam]

9. Personally, I prefer they stick to the rules...

If Obama supporters go with this logic, they are in essence saying that their disagreement with this was only due to their candidate's chances of winning going down. This is not my disagreement, even though I wouldn't like that. My disagreement is that these two states broke the rules, and because of it, we didn't get real contests there. Clearly the DNC also needs to take blame for their ham-handed thermonuclear response to their rules violation, but this is beside the point now.

In other words, the voters are already disenfranchised. Hillary has FAR better name recognition, so in absence of campaigning, of course she wins. Michigan didn't even get this choice. So bottom line, there was no real contest in these states. They really should have them again, regardless if Obama can win even given the current margins. They deserve an actual primary.

[mmonk]

10. It's not about who wins those states.

It's about doing it properly. That's why I prefer a do over. We have all fought hard for every vote counting and no one being alienated.

[AlertLurker]

11. Back to reality, please. Obama DID NOT get 64 delegates in MI.

The only FAIR thing to do is for the Party to throw BOTH states under the campaign bus and soldier on.

I have a bitter feeling that these states' votes will be contested, however, to the detriment of whomever goes against the 'Pukes in the GE.

[berni_mccoy]

13. True, but if they are going to seat the delegates, then the fair thing to do at that point

Would be to give the non-Hillary delegates to Obama. I agree, they should not be seated though.

[BenDavid]

12. Obama takes VA, MD and DC (26 electoral votes)

and they call it "a terrific sweep."

When Hillary took CA, NJ and NY, (101 electoral votes) they called it a victory for Obama, too.

Would somebody please tell me why the American whore press is now considered virtuous and believeable by the Obamaniax?

[elixir]

14. Change your heading, he didn't win. In your analysis (which I don't agree w/) FL & MI don't matter

[Vinca]

15. No matter how you parse it, Florida and Michigan cannot be

considered in the mix. I feel for the voters there - it is unfair - but it would be more unfair to ignore the stupid scheme the leadership cooked up and award delegates based on a lopsided vote. I said from the moment I heard of that dumb idea it would cause problems and sure enough, it's a mess. The really odd thing is that if the leadership in those states had left the original dates in place, they would have been enormously important in this election.

[AlertLurker]

16. Hear, hear.

By "really odd," however, do you mean you are considering that it may have been LIHOP/MIHOP?

I wonder if anyone else has been asking the right questions and putting this theory to the test? It would be extremely interesting to find out exactly who raised the motions to move the dates in both states, who voted to do it and their current candidate affiliation, in such a case.

[Vinca]

17. It was the state party leadership which I believe trends Clinton.

That said, it really had nothing to do with candidates, just wanting more relevance in the primaries. Understandable, but they really screwed themselves.

[PassingFair]

18. Our term-limited Governor wanted a job with Hillary.....

Our old-timer Senator has wanted to
dethrone Iowa and New Hampshire for
DECADES, it's like his white whale,
and he took advantage of Florida's
OUTRAGEOUSLY cavalier "We don't CARE
if our delegate don't get seated,
WE'RE pushing up our primary" stance
and piggybacked on their chutzpah.

Party rank and file protested, but
to no avail, as everything was handled
in the legislature, with FULL Republican
support, as they also had an interest
in trying to FRONT LOAD their primaries,
plus they were aware of the more stringent
democratic party rules and knew it would
look bad for us.

I think the delegates WILL eventually get
seated, I will be surprised if they don't.
It will be up to a committee made up of
...superdelegates (I think) whether or not
to seat them. That vote will occur right
before the convention.

If they ARE seated, I hope the superdelegates
from Florida and Michigan get REALLY CRAPPY
hotel rooms in Colorado.

I hope they're staying in a Motel 6 (Or Motel 4 or 5)
near the airport.