If Obama is only up 50 or so delegates why must Clinton carry OH, TX and PA with 60% or more?

[catagory5]

I mean, I have no doubt she is gonna win all 3. Texas may be the closest of the 3. OH and PA will break the 60% mark. But so what is she wins TX in a 55-45 fashion. She will be back on top of the delegate count. Also keep in mind just about all of the states left are primaries. That is better news for Hillary. Looking at the math, and assuming obama gets a good portion of WIS, I still see it adding up that after the PA slaughter she would be up by 25-50 herself. Dont forget The other 2 states that day that vote. She is polling very well in RI. Not alot of delegates but it is positive in favor. This thing is going to the convention no matter what happens either way. She will get the lions share of supers and dont forget FL. Not MI, but yes FL. They will be seated. They were all on the ballot and none of them campaigned. Well, beside that ad obama ran for a couple of weeks. FL will count. Everyone is starting to talk about it more and more. Oh and that talk of a 'new' caucus. Why would and how could they have a caucus when it was a primary state to begin with? At the very least it would have to be a primary ( even if it cost Millions). I dont think it will come to that. Courts will be involved with 3rd party affiliates and FL gets seated.

What was my pont.....Oh yeah, it is purely spin that obama is too far ahead. Nothing a Little OH, TX, and PA wont cure!


come on march!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[anamandujano]

24. Awesome argument, backed up with fine detailed examples. You

should be a lawyer, No, a philosopher.

[Exultant Democracy]

2. He isn't up 50 the pledge delegate count is around 1133 to 995 n/t

[catagory5]

4. either way

1211 to 1253. I have it at 42.....

Add in FL and I have her up by 30 or so.

[Exultant Democracy]

14. How about not add FL cause they won't count and not add the superdelegates because as today proved

they are apt to switch, count those votes when they are cast.

Once you get ride of the fake numbers and account for the number of Texas delegates are going to be decided by caucus then it is pretty clear that Clinton is going to have to win big to make up her huge deficit.

[DemGa]

5. Do you have a source for that?.....nt

[CalGator]

8. this one has him up 134 after the Potomac Primaries

Per the AP:

"A count of pledged delegates by The Associated Press showed Obama with a 134-delegate lead: 1,112 to 978."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004181586_dems14.html

[Exultant Democracy]

12. Here you go.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html

[Araxen]

6. Another?

I don't major in math, I major in miracles person?

[jackson_dem]

7. She doesn't. It's "false hope" from the same folks who said Hillary was done before New Hampshire

[Joe the Revelator]

9. Got any math to support that?

Because I've seen quite a bit that shoots what you're saying down.

[jackson_dem]

13. Math: let the people speak in Ohio, Texas, Vermont, and Rhode Island on March 4

Then we can sit down and do the math. There are still plenty of delegates left. The math right now is speculative. It will take real meaning after March 4.

[Political Heretic]

21. He doesn't,, but I have some basic numbers for dummies:

Delegate count estimate not including declared superdelegates (CNN):

Obama: 1096
Clinton: 977

So, when the argument is made that Clinton needs to win these states and win by a large margin, it is based on the assumption of people who believe that ultimately superdelegates won't go against the will of the people - to put that in a less biased for my guy way, that they won't go against whichever candidate has a pledged delegate lead.

IF that turns out to be true, then in order for Clinton to TAKE the pledged delegate lead, she needs to win the states mentioned, AND in order to do it she has to win them HUGE, by 60+% in each.

That's the argument.... feel free to reject it, but please don't shoot the messenger (me) for explaining it to you just because I have an Obama icon.

Now if you don't except that reasoning about the super delegates, then the total count to date is (CNN):

Obama: 1253
Clinton: 1211

And its really anyone's guess how the superdelegates will divide up and NO it is then NOT essential that Clinton win the mentioned states huge.

Hope that seemed like a basically fair explanation.
Cheers!

[JackORoses]

11. in NH, Hillary didn't have to win with 60%

did she?

[I Vote In Pittsburgh]

15. Some simple math...

CNN has Obama up by 119 pledged delegates (which is in fact less than the other news sources). Ohio has 141 pledged delegates, Texas has 193 pledged delegates, and Pennsylvania has 158 pledged delegates. This sums to 492 delegates.

If x is the percent of remaining delegates that Hillary gets, then:
119 + 492*(1-x) = 492x
119 + 492 - 492x = 492x
611 = 984x
x = 611/984 = 62%

That means she needs to win 62%-38% in Ohio, Texas, AND Pennsylvania to gain a pledged delegate lead.

[NMMatt]

23. If she doesn't catch him in pledged delegates

Or at least make it close and then fights all the way until Denver, it won't matter since McCain will likely win.

[Pirate Smile]

10. He is up over 130 in the pledged delegates. That is where she really can't catch him.

If she tries to win using the superdelegates to overcome his lead in the pledged delegates - there will be a civil war in the Democratic Party.

Pledged Delegates = delegates picked by the states in their valid caucuses or primaries, ie the voters.

[MadBadger]

16. She couldnt even win NY with 60 percent of the vote, what makes you think she will in OH and PA?

[NMMatt]

17. Because not all delegate counts are equal...

Obama leads the PLEDGED (awarded by voting) delegate count by well over 100. Probably in the neighborhood of 130. To catch him in this tally she would probably need 60% in her strongest States. The main reason being that Obama has won many States with over 60% whereas Clinton has won two by landslides. Obama leads in total delegates (including super delegate straw polls - which are fluid and likely to change) by the 50 you cite.

The assumption is that if a candidate has a clear margin in pledged delegates and popular votes at the end of this, he is the presumptive nominee to more than half of the super delegates. Clinton may keep her strongest supporters, but the idea is that at least half would not want to over turn what is perceived to be the will of the people.

If Clinton makes the delegate lead close or wins the popular vote, but not the delegate count, then we would have a perceived tie and the super delegates are likely to keep siding with her by more than 50%. Of course none of this is counting a resolution of Florida and Michigan.

This is my 60% likely scenario: Obama leads in delegates and popular vote at the end of voting. Something in the neighborhood of where we are today, i.e. 100+ delegates and 200k to 500k lead in popular vote. This is a big enough margin to make the FL and MI delegates a moot point as well concerning pledged delegates. Please note, despite the Clinton spin, OH, TX and PA are NOT the only states left to weigh in and in fact represent only about half the remaining delegates to be decided. Many of those other states, though small, look good for Obama. What happens then in my scenario is that the Dean, Gore, Pelosi, Reed and other party "leaders" press the superdelegates to decide their commitment at that point, rather than wait until Denver. Obama gets a clear majority due to the pressure of supporting the voting winner... at least 60% of pledged delegates. At this point Clinton is pressed to concede, but offered the VP in a deal. She declines the VP, but does concede and the FL and MI delegates are awarded.

[CalGator]

18. considering Obama is extected to win in WI and HI

he should be up more than 134 come March 4.

[ShadowLiberal]

19. The proportional awarding of delegates makes it very hard to catch up

The proportional awarding of delegates makes it very hard to catch up, you don't just have to pull off a win in a state, you need to win it by a big enough margin to gain a large lead in pledged delegates. Also it's possible that like in Nevada, you can win the popular vote but get less delegates. The reason why is a lot of the delegates are assigned based on how districts vote, and how heavily they voted democratic in the last 2 presidential elections determines how many delegates they get.

In Texas this works against Hillary for building a significant lead, unless she can pull off a huge win. The Latino dominated areas haven't had much of a democratic turnout the last few presidential elections, which gives them less delegates. On the other hand places where Obama's African American base live have voted heavily democratic in the past elections, so they have a lot more delegates up for grabs.

No Clinton isn't doomed to lose the delegate count to Obama in Texas, but it will be difficult for Clinton to make up much of the gap in Texas unless she gets a large margin of victory. In order to make enough of a delegate comeback to matter much I believe Clinton has to stop Obama from reaching the 40% mark, as if both candidates reach that mark the delegate splits tend to be fairly even.

Hillary has to start pulling off wipe outs like Obama has in places, with him getting over 60% of the vote.

[Political Heretic]

20. Because he's over 100 up in pledged delegates.

Delegate count estimate not including declared superdelegates (CNN):

Obama: 1096
Clinton: 977

So, when the argument is made that Clinton needs to win these states and win by a large margin, it is based on the assumption of people who believe that ultimately superdelegates won't go against the will of the people - to put that in a less biased for my guy way, that they won't go against whichever candidate has a pledged delegate lead.

IF that turns out to be true, then in order for Clinton to TAKE the pledged delegate lead, she needs to win the states mentioned, AND in order to do it she has to win them HUGE, by 60+% in each.

That's the argument.... feel free to reject it, but please don't shoot the messenger (me) for explaining it to you just because I have an Obama icon.

Now if you don't except that reasoning about the super delegates, then the total count to date is (CNN):

Obama: 1253
Clinton: 1211

And its really anyone's guess how the superdelegates will divide up and NO it is then NOT essential that Clinton win the mentioned states huge.

Hope that seemed like a basically fair explanation.
Cheers!

[LadyVT]

22. Obama 1253 Clinton 1211 according to CNN

[CreekDog]

25. First, superdelegates can change their mind so she doesn't "got" them

thus she is really behind by 120+ delegates that she can count on.

second, that being the case, she needs to win TX OH and PA by about 70%, not 60%. If she wins all states upcoming, she needs about 60% to get necessary delegates to catch up. remember that getting 70% in Texas will probably result in 60% of the delegates. A 10 point Hillary win may basically split with Obama and give her negligible gain in delegates there.

This isn't spin or I would be worrying about her winning Texas, which I'm not. She is ahead 10 points in Texas, which won't net her many delegates, which may be why she's suddenly in Wisconsin trying to stave off a big loss of delegates there (which would have to be made up for on top of already required big wins she needs in TX OH and PA, big wins that the polls are not showing now. 10 points in TX, 14 in OH and 16 in PA is not enough for Hillary to catch up and even so, Obama has 3 weeks to campaign to narrow her margins still further.

She's not looking for wins, she's looking for near miraculous performance, beyond anything she's pulled off so far. New Hampshire style victories still leave her behind.