Have you seen Slate.com's delegate counter? Find your own delegate scenarios.

[Cant trust em]

http://www.slate.com/features/delegatecounter/

This is a pretty fun way to play with delegate math. Draw your own conclusions.

[Kittycat]

1. No matter how many times I play with it - Clinton Loses.

She's just not going to get 64% of the remaining contests just to catch him.

[Turn CO Blue]

2. So she has to have 62% of the votes in all the remaining

races to match Obama.

In other words, she has to defeat Obama by over 24% in every single race that is left...

[stop the bleeding]

4. and the win% only gets higher with each state that she does not meet

magical numbers:beer:

[Turn CO Blue]

5. You're exactly right. Each time she falls below in a race,

she'll have to do better and better. And she has to get most of the uncommitted supers. And she has to hope to have MI and FL seated as-is. And she has to hope that some of Obama's delegates will break faith and go for her (unlikely).

It's illogical that she is dragging this out. How does this show us that she has analytical abilities? (I work as a data analyst).

She's going on sheer defiance of the numbers now. Who can make her see reason?

I know that all politicians are blinded by AMBITION (even St. O'bama) but this is the most stubborn, fool-headed, scorched-earth path to destroy the Democratic Party possible.

Is it possible that she doesn't have one advisor who can do analytics? Who is advising her to stay in?

Who benefits? It's scary that they're seem willing to defy MATH, logic and good advice, party leadership advice, eventually good friends' advice to just "do the classy thing and drop out!"

I never really had much of a preference before once Edwards dropped out, but Clinton's ignorance of the numbers is starting to appall me. SHE'll be supposedly able to fix our economic issues with this level of ignorance of numbers and statistics?

===
tcb

[PseudoIntellect]

6. Yeah, and Hillary thinks little losses like WY are insignificant, when

they actually make her mathematical situation even harder. She's supposed to be winning at a rate of 8 of those 12 delegates to catch up; instead she wins 4-5 and falls even further behind.

When does she think she'll make the delegates? Not until the convention, apparently. Pledged delegates and voters don't count.

[Cant trust em]

9. PseudoIntellect. Winner of the Best Screenname award.

Gotta love it on a place like DU, home of the arrogant windbag.

LOL!

[CitizenLeft]

3. unless I'm mistaken, I don't see the TX caucus delegates there...

...do you? I thought they totalled something like 67...

[PseudoIntellect]

7. I gave HRC 60/40s and BHO 51/49s...

HRC 60/40 in PA, Guam, IN, WV, KY, and PR.

BHO 51/49 in MS, NC, OR, MN, SD.

Result: 1642-1567 Obama in PDs. 75 delegate lead.

Conclusion: For HRC to win, SDs MUST overturn the PDs. And there is no evidence that they will do that. They have consistently gone for Obama with a 4:1 ratio over the last several weeks.

Increase HRC's wins to enormous 66/34 margins, and she still trails by over 30 delegates.

[PseudoIntellect]

10. edit: meant Montana in above post, not Minnesota

[ProgressiveEconomist]

8. Good link. For the rest of the story, including links to the exact allocation formula in each state...

start at http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/ccad.phtml . IMO, thegreenpapers goes 100 miles farther than any other site, with links even to the legislative authority behind each state's procedures.