Go ahead, let's seat Florida and Michigan

[democrattotheend]

I just played with Slate's delegate calculator, and I used very conservative margins for Obama for the remaining contests, assuming that he gets trounced in West Virginia and Kentucky, loses Indiana by 12 points, barely wins Oregon and North Carolina, loses Puerto Rico 3-1, loses Montana by 10 points, and wins South Dakota by 12 (small margin for a caucus state). Please note that while the delegates have yet to be allocated for PA, Slate is estimating a gain of 16 for Clinton, though they acknowledge her final gain will likely be smaller.

I then added Michigan and Florida, giving Michigan to Clinton 70-30 (based on a http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/24/141833/008/791/502626">post on Kos about how the delegates have been allocated thus far), gave her Florida and divided the Edwards/Kucinich votes evenly (because I wasn't sure how else to make it work with the calculator, but I think it still works).

Guess what? Even in this worst-case scenario for Obama, if Michigan and Florida were counted, he would STILL have more delegates. See below:



So unless I am missing something, if we can agree that pledged delegates should be the metric, as it has always been under DNC rules, then Obama can go ahead right now and say that he agrees with Senator Clinton that we should seat Michigan and Florida, and end all the controversy over those states.

[Mezzo]

1. He doesn't need "more". He needs 2025. He can't get there.

[democrattotheend]

2. Michigan and Florida were her best arguments for legitimacy

I think that if Michigan and Florida could erase his pledged delegate lead, she'd have a legitimate case for the superdelegates bucking the pledged delegate count. But since I just proved that that is next to impossible, she can't use Michigan and Florida to cast doubt on his legitimacy.

[woolldog]

4. he will get there and a lot more easily than Clinton can

because he needs fewer superdelegates. Obama only needs them to break evenly between him and clinton. It's over.

[UALRBSofL]

7. Also, your forgetting the popular vote is a good reason for Clinton to be the nominee

She would have the popular vote. This is a good argument to the SD's.

[democrattotheend]

10. Not if you give Obama 0 votes from Michigan

The SD's will not go for using a popular vote count where Obama gets zero votes from Michigan to justify overturning the pledged delegates. If you count the uncommitteds for Obama she might not have a popular vote lead...depends on turnout in the later contests.

[woolldog]

14. Popular vote is not the metric by which the nominee is chosen.

The metric is delegates. Everyone knew that at the beginning of this campaign. And you don't change the rules at the end of the game to get the result you want.

The popular vote is also meaningless in a race that has both caucuses and primaries. By focusing on the popular vote you're ignoring the caucus states entirely, as they don't figure into the popular vote.

[UALRBSofL]

15. You are wrong on that account

SD's can pick whom they want. Popular vote does carry weight when SD's determine a nominee.

[woolldog]

17. Sure they can pick whomever they want.

But popular vote is not a "good reason" to chose one over the other as you claimed. It's a delegate race and always has been.

[Leopolds Ghost]

18. Don't you understand math concepts? OP is saying SUPERS agree that pledged delegates be the metric

For REMAINING UNDECIDED SUPERS to RATIFY the decision
made by existing pledged and unpledged delegates, which
Obama leads by every count.

(oh yeah, and Obama is only 42 undecided superdelegates away
from being the presumptive nominee. Additional pledged delegate
losses will not change that!)

[DJ13]

3. NO (Im really getting tired of posting this to supposed Obama supporters today)

Never (NEVER) agree to something Clinton wants.

Theres a reason Clinton is pushing for this, and it might be something you've missed, but it doesnt matter, the answer should remain no if for no other reason than to stand up for the DNC's rights to run our primary system without interference from political factions within our party.

No counting either state.

[woolldog]

5. I agree with that.

[democrattotheend]

8. The point is, Clinton will have a hard time using Michigan and Florida to cloud Obama's legitimacy

She can't catch up in the pledged delegate count even if you count Michigan and Florida. Obama could say let's seat them as is right now and take that Clinton talking point off the table.

[kevinbgoode]

6. There is no controversy. Hillary agreed with the rules

and is now trying to get special treatment. We should be demanding that those who didn't vote in the primaries because they KNEW they wouldn't count be allocated delegates since the states disenfranchised them.

[liberaldem4ever]

9. No because it is not fair, not today, and not ever.

Everybody agreed to the rules, and they should go by what they agreed to. Period. If anybody changes the rules now, they are cheaters. You can't change the rules just because you don't like the outcome they give you after the fact.

[Shae]

11. Hey! No math, okay?

They don't like math.

[Austinitis]

12. Sure. We can also count their votes in the popular vote.

Then Hillary wins.

[democrattotheend]

13. You can't count Michigan in the popular vote

I don't see any fair way to do that.

[Zachstar]

16. And cause 2012 to be a nightmare? HELL NO!!!

[SoCalDem]

19. She says he gets ZERO for Michigan, since HE took his name off the ballot

nice, huh ?

[democrattotheend]

20. That's ridiculous

It sounds like she picked up some of the uncommitted delegates, so she could get as much as 70% of the delegates. But even if they seat them 70-30 (which is extremely unlikely; 55-45 would be fair since she got 55%), Obama would STILL have more delegates.