THE MATH – Wednesday, April 23 – After Pennsylvania

[phrigndumass]

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

Link to my journal … For past editions, click on the link to view my past journal entries:
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/phrigndumass




Please keep this thread bumped for easier access in GDP.



.

[phrigndumass]

1. Granting permission to use this information here on DU and on internet

I am granting permission for everyone to use any of this information, in whole or in part, in other threads here on DU, and anywhere on the internet.

- phrigndumass

[Major Hogwash]

4. Thanks - because I've been linking to your threads for awhile now

On other forums.

You and a few others like grantcart and Frenchie and a few others.

[phrigndumass]

6. Ha! Now you have legaliness.

As far as I know!

:hi:

[Radio_Lady]

132. I hope you have some truthiness... you "mathy person."

Thanks for working on this for I-don't-know-many-hours!

:hug:

Cordially,

Radio Lady in Oregon

[phrigndumass]

147. Thanks Ellen!

:hi:

[The Stranger]

27. I hope someone somehwere is paying you for your services, friend, because that is top notch work.

[phrigndumass]

40. No money no cry

:cry:

DU'in it strictly for the DU love! :loveya:

[Radio_Lady]

134. I hope that's better 'n' Muskrat Love...

:loveya:

[fortyfeetunder]

136. Thanks for the math!

:yourock:

[helderheid]

53. Thanks so much! Forwarding on!

[SoCalDem]

105. Has anyone ever sent this to the Obama people or any SDs or to keith?

:)

[phrigndumass]

107. Feel free to send it on ... Both campaigns have this info.

:hi:

[phrigndumass]

2. Save this sub-thread for OP updates

Don't reply to this reply. Thanks!

[phrigndumass]

45. * * * * * * * * * * * MY COMMENTARY ON THE MATH * * * * * * * * * * *

A week or two ago, it was common knowledge that Senator Clinton would need to win all remaining contests, including Pennsylvania, by at least 20% margins. This was before the goalposts were moved for the umpteenth time. But the common knowledge from a week or two ago is still spot on. Let me illustrate.

Before Pennsylvania, Senator Clinton needed about 75% of the remaining superdelegates in addition to the potential pledged delegates she would pick up from the rest of the primaries. She needed a Pennsylvania win by 20 percentage points to keep that figure at 75%.

Now that Pennsylvania has come in as only an 8.6 point win, much less than the 20 point win needed to keep things even, Senator Clinton will now need about 80% of the remaining superdelegates in addition to the potential pledged delegates she will pick up from the rest of the primaries.

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.

Also, right now is the closest Senator Clinton will ever be to Senator Obama in the "popular" vote. Expect her campaign to push that angle very hard before the next primaries two weeks from now. But as the primaries go on, the gap will grow between her "popular" vote total and Senator Obama's. Senator Obama will widen the gap overall from here on out.

Feel free to ask me anything mathy.

- Phrig :dunce:

(eta: stars)

[C_U_L8R]

3. The other math

Hillary's debt versus Obama's surplus.

Anyone got actuals?

[phrigndumass]

5. Grantcart is the best source for the money race

I'll let him answer if he sees this

:D

[jazzjunkysue]

137. She'll need mucho $$ to overcome these odds. And she ain't got it.

It's all about TV time, people. And you buy it $.5K at a clip. Besides, I've always said that we already know her. Her numbers have nowhere to go but down. Obama, on the other hand, has huge potential to reach new supporters, especially because he's so good on TV.

[Coexist]

7. I'm too tired to see straight - does this include the new SD from this a.m.?

[phrigndumass]

8. It does not ... didn't notice until I published (took two hours to publish!)

So that would change the Hucknumber to 64!

:woohoo:

[Coexist]

11. awesome!

[hogwyld]

9. Kick! And don't forget

To add the OK governor's superdelegate vote for Obama this morning!

[phrigndumass]

10. Thanks, I'll do that! Hucknumber is now 64

:D :woohoo:

[aaroh]

12. so if they seat MI and FL Obama would still be leading?

[phrigndumass]

14. Amazing and True!

Even in the so-called "popular" vote!

:headbang:

[Coexist]

26. yes

[NightWatcher]

13. get your reality out of here. today's about rampant (incorrect) specualtion and BS

it's over and the math doesnt lie.

I hope we do see an influx of superdelegates starting RIGHT NOW, so that the other sd's will get it that there is no chance for Hillary

[phrigndumass]

16. LOL ... the whole purpose of THE MATH is to offset the Spinnnn!

Fun fact: If five SDs endorsed Senator Obama each day for the next two weeks, it'd be over. It would be nice to see them start moving.

:toast:

[Radio_Lady]

135. UPDATE: Did any of them endorse anybody today Weds. 4/23?

I've been out of this for hours today.

Thanks for your input.

Cordially,

Radio Lady in Oregon

[phrigndumass]

148. Clinton had 1 SD, Obama had 2 SDs on Wednesday

Yet another notch on the Huckbelt.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

15. Kick

It's just plain impossible for her to win. I really wish the die hard HC supporters on this website realise this but they're still busy crowing about Pennsylvania.

[phrigndumass]

17. Let 'em crow. They'll be eating crow soon.

:hi:

[FunkyLeprechaun]

18. You're right, they'll be eating their hats soon

We should let them bask in their moment for now. Even as they ignore the maths threads.

[phrigndumass]

19. Unofficial kicking subthread =)

:kick: hee haw!

[phrigndumass]

94. east coast kickers

:kick:

[ReverendDeuce]

20. Obama's victory is inevitable at this point... HRC go home!

n/t

[Kukesa]

21. Thanks for your hard work. I'm printing this and

shoving it in my husband's face because he keeps saying "but she won the big states."

[phrigndumass]

22. LOL! Get the toothpicks to prop open his eyes

Thanks!

:hi:

[Laura PourMeADrink]

23. Hello Hubby ! Question for you

Maybe I am brain-dead from drinking martinis to drown my sorrows last night.

But...you are projecting, at the end, that O has 1702 when all the primaries
are over with, right. 2025-1702. That means he would need 323 to win the
nomination. There are only 294 left of superdelegates, right?

So doesn't that mean that either they have to count some or all of FL/MI
for him to win? OR - some poor schmuck Clinton SD has to switch??

[phrigndumass]

24. He would have 1702 pledged delegates and (now) 239 superdelegates

to total 1,941 total delegates. He would need 83 superdelegates to clinch, but 65 superdelegates to keep Senator Clinton from clinching.

The pledged delegate projection is for the Pelosi number. 1,702 would be about 80 more than half.

Did that help, Mrs. Phrigndumass?

:loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :hi:

[RichardRay]

25. Ahhh, look, the Phrigndumass's are holding hands. n/t

and a K and an R while I'm at it.

It's one thing for me to know that this is true. Given the kind of a person I am it's another, very nice, thing to have a spreadsheet with data in which to take comfort.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

28. He's not my real husband - he's just my DU imaginary husband - let

me ask you a question RR. I thought it was just because I watch so much of O's speeches -
but I had wondered long ago why he kept giving the same stump speech. Of course, he
seems to have dropped the "red state/blue state" line which I thought was the best - the
one that really hit your heart. Anyway, I wonder why he doesn't have someone
writing more speeches for him? I mention this because Buchanan and Mathews were
drumming that up last night and today - O saying the "same things" over and over.

I know it's probably hard to memorize many speeches - but it strikes me that Hillary
(although I can hardly stomach watching her) varies her rhetoric all the time.

Just wonderin.

[phrigndumass]

39. TheDoorbellRang asked her husband if she could marry me, but he said no.

When I read your math post, I instantly fell in love and filled out the form for a mail-order bride, secretly hoping you were a dude (lol).

[RichardRay]

103. As I don't have a television set...

the only time I watch his speeches is when one of them gets recommended highly enough for me to get the video off the web. I'd guess, and it's no more than a guess, that that gives me something like the same saturation level as most voters; when I talk to people I'm somtimes surprised at the number of people who aren't even sure who's still in the race! On that basis his speech is adequately varied, although it does seem to be getting a little shopworn.

I know that he writes most of his own stuff, then goes over it with staff to tighten it up. That probably keeps his output lower than I would like it to be, especially when the stump speech giving has a higher priority than the stump speech writing.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

29. duh...thanks

So, if somehow he was able to grab more than 83 there could be a point before Puerto Rico
where he could clinch.

[phrigndumass]

33. We're thinking Oregon or Kentucky to clinch

... if no more superdelegates go his way. It would take 136 more pledged delegates to reach the halfway mark, thus setting off the Pelosi gravy train.

But even before that, if 65 more superdelegates endorse, the polls for the remaining contests will carry him to nomination.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

48. Well let's hope Obama starts learning something about horse racing and Kentucky bourbon ! nt

[Laura PourMeADrink]

30. did you add in the Oklahoma Gov?

[phrigndumass]

34. OK Gov. wasn't added before publishing, but his endorsement brings the Hucknumber down to 64!

It took over two hours to compile and publish this, and as it always goes, something changes the minute I publish.

:crazy: at least it was a change in Senator Obama's favor!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

49. Thanks ! We all count on you SO much for your posts ! nt

[phrigndumass]

69. ...

:blush: :blush: :blush: :blush: :blush: :blush: :blush: :blush: :blush: :blush: :blush:

:loveya:

[dascientist]

31. K & R

thank you for these stats

[phrigndumass]

35. nada prob, thanks for reading, dascientist!

:hi:

[Buzz Clik]

32. Any questions?

[phrigndumass]

37. Due to inflation, Dr. Lucy's fees have increased to 10 cents per session.

To save on expenses, the light at the end of the tunnel is being replaced with high-efficiency fluorescent bulbs. We were in the midst of changing the bulbs this morning, when the Clinton campaign became confused and mistook the light at the beginning of the tunnel with the light at the end of the tunnel. Turns out the Clinton campaign is closer to the beginning of the tunnel, and they were trying to move the goalposts again, thus confusing many of her supporters.

The end. Written by my cat.

:P

[Buzz Clik]

47. This is my favorite posting series at DU. By far.

I loves me some DUzies and the Top Ten Conservative Idiots, but this is my number one.

My reaction to THE MATH is similar to my cat's affection for a beam of sunlight coming through the window. I slowly creep up on it, bathe in it's glow, roll around for a few minutes, and then pass out on my back and my feet in the air.

[phrigndumass]

51. Wow, what a nice compliment! I'll try to live up to your expectations.

Me and my cat, that is. I'm merely my cat's editor.

The Math is Spinnnn-proof, thus making a nice sunny spot on the carpet feel sooooo much better!

:patriot:

[Aloha Spirit]

65. I just bookmarked for that photo.

[grantcart]

36. Do you know what today's Pelosi number is?

lol

[phrigndumass]

38. LOL ... didn't it go down to 136???

You da man with the P.no. (hey, like pinot)

:7

[grantcart]

44. I do believe that Demconwatch is 137

[phrigndumass]

46. 137 is very doable! n/t

[grantcart]

54. it is Obamaoregondoable

[Aloha Spirit]

58. is this what yr referring to?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPLtotzqH0M

[phrigndumass]

59. LOL! Needs more cowbell, though.

Obamaoregondoable would fit perfectly in that version!

:hi:

[Aloha Spirit]

60. If only the White House had a house band...

[jazzjunkysue]

138. I thought you'd never ask.

[phrigndumass]

149. LOL!

[Swamp Rat]

41. k&r

[stillcool]

42. Things look so different by the numbers...

Thank You! :kick:

[slinkerwink]

43. kick

[phrigndumass]

88. YW stillcool47! You now have your shield against the spinnnn.

:hi:

[Gold Metal Flake]

50. K and TY!

[phrigndumass]

52. YW!

Happy to do it.

:hi:

[TheDoorbellRang]

55. Ha! My favorite math dude

The Hillary folks were trying to do math on another thread this AM, but we sent them to the remedial class.

Thanks for the update, phrigndumass! :hi:

[phrigndumass]

57. Did they have to take the short bus to the remedial class?

:rofl:

(psssst - you're my favorite math human. love, phrig's cat.) :loveya:

[Aloha Spirit]

56. bumped.

[NC_Nurse]

61. Don't forget - THE MATH - Money edition:

Clinton negative $9-10 million
Obama positive $42 million

Speaks for itself.


:-)

[phrigndumass]

64. One thing is clear: Barack ain't baroke!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_niy2ZM5Jo

o~ But it's gonna take money, a whole lotta spendin' money, it's gonna take plenty o' money, to do it right child o~

:D

[Scurrilous]

62. K & R

:thumbsup:

[Aloha Spirit]

63. I concur with this sentiment.

[nolabels]

66. Thanks for the info

My math skills are often rusty

[phrigndumass]

67. Happy to do it, thanks!

... and I have a brother named Rusty. He sucks at math, or so I've heard, as far as I know.

:hi:

[myrna minx]

68. K&R. Yay! n/t

[Kesaco]

70. Huckabee was never in a close race like this,

so forget the comparisons. A couple hundred thousand votes (out of 40 million votes cast) in the end will separate the two candidiates and the delegate total difference will be under 100.

[phrigndumass]

71. If it makes you feel better, Senator Clinton has a Huckabee Index against Senator Obama, too

It's in the 200's, nearly impossible to reach.

btw, I project the delegate total difference to be between 200 and 250, at least a 5-point spread. I showed my work. Feel free to back up your math here.

Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[Kaleko]

75. Harr! The prophet hath spoken.

But... but, but how can we forget what phrignmathgenius sez?

[madrchsod]

72. so it`s safe to assume that she has`t a chance in hell

unless obama implodes on live tv.....


can someone end this charade?

[phrigndumass]

73. It would require an Obama-eats-baby scenario on live TV

But he might still win if the eating of the baby isn't very messy. I would suggest lots of napkins and a rib-shack bib (or as we latte sippers would put it, a lobster bib). <--- look, more food snobbery!

:7

[mmonk]

74. Thanks. Always enjoy looking at the numbers.

:patriot:

[phrigndumass]

76. YW mmonk!

:hi:

[Dystopian]

77. thank you! k&r

:yourock:

peace~

[phrigndumass]

80. yw and thanks, dystopian!

:headbang:

[november3rd]

78. Thanks

Love the graphics

[phrigndumass]

81. YW 11/3 ... I had to google to learn how to post the graphics!

Don't know what I was afraid of, it's really easy. My cat could do it!

:hi:

[dogindia]

79. K&R

[wiggs]

82. Can I be lazy and not look for the previous calcs? Did Clinton's statistical prospects

improve or decline after PA primary, based on your math?

Regardless of your answer (but I think I can guess the answer) wouldn't it be a good thing for msm to be showing information as detailed as yours before making claims about victory?

[phrigndumass]

83. The Huckabee Index stayed about the same, BUT ...

... now Senator Clinton needs about 80% of the remaining superdelegates to endorse her in order to win the nomination. That's up from 75%. She needed a 20-point win. Her 8.6-point win didn't cut the mustard. Her situation is worse now.

We need to remember that the MSM doesn't always look very far past the "face" of the numbers. However, each candidate has people doing extensive math and the campaigns know exactly where they stand and where the opponent stands. The campaigns count on the MSM to not look too hard at the numbers, so they can dazzle them with spin.

What's revealing about the math data is this: Once you see where each candidate really stands, you begin to understand why they choose to do what they do in a race, such as go negative, or move the goalposts, or try to take the focus off of the issues.

That's why I'm addicted. :D

[wiggs]

85. It is addicting/compelling. Have to get the hell off and do some work now. nt

[phrigndumass]

87. Hope I have helped ease your mind about this! n/t

:hi:

[Kaleko]

84. Love these posts, phrignmathgenius. Thanks for the added reassurance.

K & R, naturally.

[phrigndumass]

86. Happy to do it (LOL)

Thou hast been armed, go forth and seek ye morans to flog with thine wisdom!

:dunce:

[Kaleko]

90. Verily, I am now armed and fortified

Check it out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_sabnx9B2A

This is how we get things done, people. In case you're wondering.

Oh yes, we can multitask.

[phrigndumass]

91. Trippy! With hypnotics like that, we don't need no stinkin' koolaid!

LOL ... we work in synch, like a boy band or something.

Did you hear about the three synchronized swimmers who fainted at the same time? I'm series, look!

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/24256683/

:hi:

[Kaleko]

99. What are the odds

of having three swimmers and two spectators conk out at the exact same time??

You do the math. The rest of us will go forth and multiply our arms until we've got this election in the can.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

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

[jettison]

92. Not a one?

This thread appears devoid of Hillary supporters. I think they'd much rather argue subjective points rather then objective ones. You can't spin math.

[phrigndumass]

93. Every now and then ...

They wimpered away smarting. Or so I've heard, as far as I know. BS is hard when the truth is staring them in the face!

:hi:

[Zhade]

142. Dude, they're so math-challenged they think an 8 point win is double digits.

NT!

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

95. Bookmarked And KICKed!

Nice work, again.

Thanks!

[phrigndumass]

100. Thanks NDD!

:hi:

[D23MIURG23]

96. K&R

[hfojvt]

97. question about "weighted" vote totals

which states are weighted? Because Kansas, for example, should not be.

[phrigndumass]

98. Not any particular state, but the caucus states as a whole were weighted.

There were 735,472 total caucus votes, which represent a 2.4% average turnout-by-population for all the caucus states combined. The average turnout-by-population for all the primary states combined is 13.2%.

13.2 is to 2.4 as 5.5 is to 1.

Does that help?

:hi:

On a side note, Kansas has an estimated 2007 population of 2,775,997. There were 36,723 votes in Kansas, or a turnout-by-population of 1.3%. (36,723 divided by 2,775,997)

[hfojvt]

113. that's not a vote total then

it's inflating of caucus votes. It's kind of unfair to assume that the rest of the population would have voted the same way that the people who chose to caucus did. You are basically just repeating the delegate totals, since delegates are assigned proportional to votes cast. Election results are decided by who actually gets out to vote on election day in each region, not by weighting.

On the other hand, typically the nomination is decided by delegates. If the rules change and suddenly "vote total" is the number that matters, then the states which chose caucuses over primaries are kinda being disenfranchised. So I can see an argument for weighting, but turnout-by-population does not seem like the right number either. Kerry only got 434,993 votes in Kansas in 2004, so our Democratic voter to population number is only 15.7% (probably much lower than Wisconsin or Iowa :cry:) so the turnout to our caucus was 8.4% of the Democratic vote.

[phrigndumass]

114. Very good information! I've been "waiting" (pun) for a conversation like this.

The only real solution is to not use a "popular" vote total at all in a primary election. I'm sure you will agree, as I do.

A few points:

- It's not fair to only count votes in states with primaries, since 25% of the states (caucus states) would not be represented in that total, or roughly 10% of the nation's population.

- Along the same line of what you wrote, it's impossible to equalize a vote in a primary to a vote in a caucus. There is no accurate way to do this. Weighting has it's benefits, but unless you can find one universal method to do this, then each individual state's method would pose the possibility of unfairness to other states. As you mentioned, weighting as a group doesn't quite work because the whole is the sum of it's parts.

- Showing the "popular" vote totals in my posts was intended to be for informational purposes only, but I need to rethink that since there is not a universal system for counting votes. The weighted totals were meant to show an illustration of how inaccurate a total vote count really is, given the many different methods of voting in a primary.

- I had been hoping that a mathy Clinton supporter would argue against a weighted total so I could base that as an argument against a "popular" vote total. The bait is still in the trap, as you do not seem to be an overt supporter of Senator Clinton. I might throw out the trap, though.

Thanks! I appreciate your train of thought and reasoning.

:hi:

[grantcart]

101. Its outstanding work

However I think that we have fallen into a trap.

By even responding to the questions of popular vote and showing the current totals we have given it a credibility it doesn't have.


We don't have a system of popular voting. We have a mixed system of primaries and caucuses and you cannot accurate account for the popular vote of the caucusstates. In Iowa Obama looked like he had 38% of the results on caucus night but in fact he is going to end up with 70% of the delegates.

Then there is some absurdity in including scenarios that even show Michigan and Florida.


There is no justification for either. If uncontested primaries were a fair show of popular opinion then we need not have had a

campaign at all. Even showing the numbers portrays that we buy the argurment. Its not a question of who has the popular vote the


popular vote is meaningless. As stated in my OP most of the places Hillary has run her popularity has declined severely after the fact.


Just food for thought

[phrigndumass]

102. I completely agree, the idea of a "popular" vote in a primary election is meaningless

My intention is to show that it isn't possible for Senator Clinton to win a "popular" vote (projections support this), and I use the wording, "For Informational Purposes Only." I'll think about it before my next update. Maybe I'll reduce the "popular" vote section to a comparison of the status quo, weighted vs. unweighted. Or maybe I'll leave it out altogether. A third option would be to use a quote from Howard Dean's memo regarding the necessity of both campaigns to agree on Florida and Michigan before anything from those two states can be officially counted toward the party's nomination, otherwise they won't be counted at all.

I'm going to post something very simple in a new thread. Let me know what you think of it.

:7

[grantcart]

106. The reason that I bring it up is that CNN are bringing it up and then talking about it from both

sides but my point is that we shouldn't even let them bring it up. It necessarily puts us on the defensive and then we have to talk about Michigan and Florida.

[phrigndumass]

110. You are a sensible person, and that does make sense.

But I have a feeling at this point if I leave it out, I'll be put on the defensive about leaving it out. I'll PM ya.

[eggplant]

133. There is a simple reason to keep it

If you remove *any* of your data, your justification will be suspect (despite your cogent and correct reasoning). It is better to take the high road and just keep it in, particularly since it doesn't in any way change what *all* of the numbers clearly say. Don't fall into the trap yourself! Cherry picking the numbers leads to losing the (point of the) argument.

Oh, and great work, btw. (How *do* you get the graphics into the posts, anyway?)

[phrigndumass]

150. Also a very sensible point of view

Damned if I do, and damned if I don't. I might scale it back a little, though.

I had to go to google-school to learn how to post my graphics! Long overdue. It basically boils down to taking a screenshot of the chart and using Image Composer to cut and save it. It automatically saves the cutout as a jpg image.

Thanks!

:hi:

[TBF]

104. K&R ... Not that HC will pay any attention to reality...

[Adelante]

108. Here is a new SD for Barack

Ben Smith has a note on it:

ALSO: A Nebraska superdelegate, Audra Ostergard, comes out for Obama.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0408/Remainders_But_what_does_it_mean.html

I'm out of OPs for the day.

[grantcart]

109. beat me to it I'm out too

[phrigndumass]

112. Drip drip drip ... Thanks WesDem!

:woohoo:

[Norrin Radd]

111. kr

[dbmk]

115. I will use pdas excellent thread here to thow some supporting data in

I made a graph over the correllation between needed SDs and spread in the rest of the contests . Or vice versa. Spread is applied uniformly across state and districts. Taking into account the district delegate sizes.

Let me know it if needs explaining.
Post PA:

Post IN/NC given the indicated spreads. 3 different scenarios:




Bigger versions can be had by right clicking and picking "show picture" (or equivalent) and then remove "_small" from the name.

The last one currently looks like a likely scenario. And a 10p spread in IN might even be generous (the +30 in Guam is to give Hillary a 3-1 win there to err in purpose to that side as I have little clue as to how that wil go.)

And that would mean that Obama would need only about 1/5 of the SDs currently available, as I see it, once those contests are over. If he can keep the rest at more or less 50-50.

And more importantly she would need 40%+ of the SDs even if she won the rest from there with a 100% spread. She HAS passed the point where it is even technically possible for her to do in pledged alone.

[phrigndumass]

116. I'm in awe of you, dbmk

You have shown a different way to arrive at the same result, and I think our work compliments each other's work nicely. My end-result supports yours, and vice versa, using different methods.

Either way we look at it, the probabilities are against Senator Clinton reaching a zero point. Right now, this very moment, is the closest Senator Clinton's numbers can expect to be to Senator Obama's numbers. It goes downhill for her campaign from here on out.

(I had to look at the larger versions because I'm as blind as a bat!)

Big thumbs up to you, my friend. :thumbsup:

[Coexist]

117. cool.

[Barrymores Ghost]

121. Kicking & rec'ing this subthread....

BRAVO.

[L0oniX]

118. Very nice information but Hillarat voters won't take the time to read this...

much less accept it for what it is. Ignorance is bliss I guess.:evilgrin:

[phrigndumass]

120. LOL ... That's why I condensed it into four easy-to-swallow bite size pieces!

Looky here ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5651817

Ain't I a stinker? Snarf!

:evilgrin:

[taught_me_patience]

119. Late afternoon west coast KICK

this is great stuff!

:kick:

[Barrymores Ghost]

122. K&R, and an invitation to compare notes here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5653036&mesg_id=5653036

I have bookmarked your thread, and am sending everyone that I know over to it.

[phrigndumass]

124. We're all in the same ballpark! Let's have a coney.

Good on ya, BG.

:thumbsup:

[Barrymores Ghost]

125. and some suds...

:toast:

[DerekJ]

123. phrigndumass, our DU resident GEEK :)

[phrigndumass]

128. I'm as proud of being a geek as you are of being a Canuck, eh!

But you win because you have better health benefits.

:hi:

[hfojvt]

130. plus I believe that I pre-date you by several years

and might lay claim to some geekiness:
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt

[phrigndumass]

151. Now that's a journal I want to read!

I just skimmed through it, but I definitely want to return to it. Thanks for turning me on to your geekdom, hfojvt.

:hi:

[chknltl]

126. Thank you for this

My dog and your cat would get along as well as me and math....well not exactly my dog LOVES cats, just not in a way cats would prefer. As to math, I thought I could be sneaky and be an Anthropology major on account of my terminal Math phobia. Sadly they introduced 'sadistics' (statistics) and my gpa plummeted. (I actually flunked that damned class twice before being tutored through it on the third try!) To this day I've little use for anything other than the math taught me back in grade school and I think I turned out OK. (God I hope my old sadistics Prof sees this!)

All that said, Thank You for this! I am unwilling to study all your bars and graphs and whatnots but I want you to know I take a great deal of satisfaction from your efforts. A thread like this which fuels my hopes for an Obama victory with nary a spec o' dissent from the Clinton Duers...well words escape the good I feel right now and I have YOU to blame for this!

My step-daughter is quite the looker, she often chooses poorly in her choices of boyfriends.... maybe we could work something out.

[phrigndumass]

127. "Sadistics" LOL!

Your step-daughter would need to battle both LauraPackYourBags and my own boyfriend!

Thanks for the vote of confidence, I'm happy I was able to ease your mind!

:D

[kwenu]

129. But Hillary said there would be no math!!!

[Vattel]

131. question

I went to the wikepedia cite you provided a link to and found this:

with FL
Barrack Obama 14,954,773 47.7%
Hillary Clinton 14,748,533 47.1%
Obama Spread +206,240 +0.6%

These figures are unweighted, but they don't match your figures (quoted below).

"With Florida only added, unweighted as of April 23:
Barack Obama – 15,306,643 (+339,125)
Hillary Clinton – 14,967,518"

I'm exhausted from a long day; so don't pick on me about my lack of math skills. I'm just wondering what accounts for the discrepancy.

[phrigndumass]

152. I used Wiki's Sunday total and added PA's results to it

I'm not entirely sure the wiki has been updated accurately for vote totals since Sunday.

Also, I'm not one to pick on someone for their level of math skills. Feel free to ask me anything!

:hi:

[Califooyah Operative]

139. Oh, Math! nt

[ekwhite]

140. K&R

Thanks for running the numbers.

[Zhade]

141. Sweet, she's not going to be able to catch up and Obama's on his way to the WH!

Kick!

[Lugnut]

143. K&R n/t

[NewHampshireDem]

144. Thank you for such terrific data and analysis.

One thing struck me as particularly noteworthy: not a single 'ignore' has responded to your post. They *hate* the facts ... especially the ones they can't spin--and they clearly don't understand the math! :)

[phrigndumass]

154. Thanks NHD!

Ignored is not a friend of the truth! :scared:

:hi:

[raystorm7]

145. Any way you can forward this to our News media and tell them to STFU?!!!!!

[phrigndumass]

153. LOL! Feel free

[rAVES]

146. Thankyou phrigndumass, this is amazing work.

[phrigndumass]

155. Thanks rAVES!

:hi:

[chknltl]

156. phrigndumbass Is it possible for you research something?

From what I understand, exit polling is used throughout the world's democracies to announce the returns PRIOR to those returns being counted. It is a standard accepted practice because it falls within a VERY small margin of error, somewhere around 3% or less. Here in America it is all but unusable because it seems to have an unacceptable margin of error, FAR HIGHER than 3%.

Statistics can be used to prove or disprove a hypothesis in this case. T believe that electronic votes are being manipulated. It seems to me this can be demonstrated via statistics through comparisons with the other democracies.

My hypothesis: Electronic voting machines are being manipulated to produce results FOR Senator Clinton which exceed the results anticipated by the exit polls. I suspect that someone familiar with statistics and with access to the data could make a pretty good case of election fraud going on in these primaries across America.

If there is something I can help with count me in. Be advised, I have a severe math phobia but plenty of time to aid in researching data.

[phrigndumass]

159. Bev Harris at Black Box Voting (org) is already researching this

She has info on Pennsylvania as well.

Link to her website: http://www.blackboxvoting.org/

Link to Pennsylvania info: http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/73676.html?1209069424

Bev has done such a thorough job of this. There's no need to reinvent the wheel!

:hi:

[chknltl]

160. Thanks for this link phrigindumbass... and

Not interested in my step-daughter huh? Drats, that leaves me with a large debt to you for all this great work you have been doing for us! You sure about that step-daughter? She has good teeth and comes with a cool bit of history: she is the last surviving direct descendant of the Texas hero Jim Bowie! (Oh and she is great at interior design... that is if you are into post-modern hippie on the cheap) :;):

[phrigndumass]

161. Jim Bowie? That changes everything!

Um, who's Jim Bowie again? I need to google it.

I could use an interior designer LOL ...

Thanks for the compliment! :blush:

:hi:

[chknltl]

162. Two words: 'Bowie knife'

He is best remembered for his distinctive knife and for heroically defending Texas with Davey Crockett at a place called the Alamo. As far as we know, after her real dad died, my stepdaughter is the sole remaining directly descended Bowie living.

[kennetha]

157. You can argue the math all you want

Politics is what's going to win or lose this nomination. If Hillary wins Indiana and NC, then Obama will be politically roasted and toasted to a crisp. No way he gets the nomination.

Go Hillary!

[phrigndumass]

158. Thank you for your permission.

Senator Clinton would need to win Indiana and North Carolina, as well as all the remaining states, by 2 to 1 and earn the endorsements of two-third of the remaining superdelegates. Good luck with that! :crazy: