MSNBC: 104 pledged Delegate Lead for Obama

[kennetha]

According to MSNBC's Count, Obama's lead in pledged delegates over Clinton is now 104. (In addition, Obama has the support of 16 Edwards delegates). If the ARG polls are correct, Hillary should take the majority of pledge delegates up for grabs tomorrow and narrow that lead a bit. In addition, if she were to contest the rules committee decision on Michigan (which she seems inclined to do) and Florida (which she seems less inclined to do) she could reduce Obama's pledged delegate lead to something significantly less than 100.

I think a pledged delegate lead of less than 100 is essentially a tie. And at that point, Obama has no particular moral claim to the nomination. At the point the sole calculus will be which as a surer path to a general election victory.

The key to freezing the superdelegates tomorrow is for Clinton to wipe Obama out in South Dakota -- a state he was expected to win -- and to come either very close or squeak out a narrow win in Montana. It would be the reverse of the North Carolina and Indiana effect. That appeared to freeze Clinton's momentum. A blow out Clinton victory in SD together with a squeaker one way or the other in Montana will send a loud and clear message that the Obama wave crested a long time ago. It will show that North Carolina was a temporary, weak secondary wave, not the real thing.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Are you still here?

That's just silly. Hillary is done; sorry.

[jefferson_dem]

2. "I think a pledged delegate lead of less than 100 is essentially a tie."

:spray: LOL! :spray:

[TahitiNut]

10. Uh-huh. "Son of Double Digit" ... the sequel.

:rofl:

[BeyondGeography]

13. And the poster would feel just the same if the situation were reversed

:thumbsup: :smoke:

[kennetha]

24. Noise vs. Information

The quantity of information carried by the difference between their totals is less than the amount of noise introduced into the system by the crazy delegate selection process.

[jefferson_dem]

72. Noise = Obama Advantage

n/t

[BlooInBloo]

3. HAHAHA - losing = a tie! HAHAHAHA!!!!!

[jefferson_dem]

8. Losing is winning. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is Strength.

These Hillaryphiles are such a hoot.

[kennetha]

29. To understand my point

you just need to understand the difference between noise and information. Since you're all noise and no information, I doubt that you do.

[BlooInBloo]

49. I'm certain I understand Shannon information theory better than you....

as well as probability in general.

[kennetha]

50. THen you shouldn't make such stupid comments. They are beneath you!

[Labors of Hercules]

60. but they are not beneath you? Interesting point...

Although I generally refrain from implying that I think myself an idiot, unless I am waxing sardonic. :shrug:

[Hamlette]

4. it ain't gonna happen....and a question for you

if he had a pledged delegate lead of 188 would you say "a pledged delegate lead of less than 200 is essentially a tie"?

Or, if his lead was 48 would you say "a pledged delegate lead of less than 50 is essentially a tie"?

I'm so tired of the moving goal posts I could scream.

She

Lost.

Bummer for her supporters and maybe for us all but we must get on with it.

[kennetha]

31. Well, I do think the noise introduced into the system

by the diversity of ways that delegates are selected does make the delegate selection process very noisy. I think it takes a pretty big lead for the information to swamp the noise. Mostly that's what happens in these contests. But this one is, I think, historically noisy because Obama's lead comes mostly from the most noisy way of allocating delegates.

[Kaleko]

56. The noise introduced

by noisy people does make the thread selection on DU very noisy. This much is true.

[Hamlette]

68. so you would count the popular vote including MI and PR? Is that quiet enough?

It offends my sense of fairness.

As do your arguments to change the rules at the end of the game.

Only runs scored in the 7th and 9th inning should count and homers don't count either. Only RBI should count.

Oh, and if I'm still not winning? The umps can overrule the scoreboard and declare me the winner.

I am so sick of this kind of politics.

You might honestly believe she is the only one who can win in November but it is too late now.

What makes you think she won't blow the GE just like she did the primaries?

[gabeana]

5. weren't you the one who said Hillary

was going to blow out Obama in Indiana and upst him in NC?

[LakeSamish706]

6. There goes that fuzzy math thinngy again.. How the hell does a 100 delegate...

lead become a tie? Oh, and if she decides to protest the Rules committee, she will run into the same people in the next committee... Geez...

[neverforget]

7. Worst. Logic. Ever

[kennetha]

21. Do you understand the distinction between noise and information?

betcha don't!

[anigbrowl]

27. Yes, I have a shelf full of DSP books. You fit in the 'noise' category.

[shraby]

9. I can't believe you actually believe what your saying.

Doncha know?? Close only counts in horseshoes and it isn't even that close.

[anonymous171]

11. If it was 200 she would say it was a tie.

[Doityourself]

12. Come on...in ....where it's warm and cozy. No need to hang out there in the rain

[graywarrior]

14. Another post and run.

[Stop Cornyn]

15. We should have used Hillary logic to capture the presidency when Kerry "almost tied" Bush in the

Electoral College. Why didn't we capitalize in Hillary logic then? She's BRILLIANT!!!

[Genevieve]

16. . . . . .

:dunce:

What!

[Spider Jerusalem]

17. Anyone who thinks a pledged delegate lead of 100 is 'essentially a tie' is an idiot.

Obama has won an absolute majority of pledged delegates. Hillary is not going to be the nominee under any circumstance, barring a tragedy for Obama. It will not happen. You sound delusional.

[rocktivity]

18. Obama is 117 pledged delegates ahead

According to Demcomwatch, and 135 ahead according to Slate. And a lead of more than 4% (85 pledged deledgates) puts him safely outside the statistical margin of error.

:headbang:
rocknation

[kennetha]

19. Noise vs. Information

Regard the (pledged) delegate count as a measure of popular support. Of course, it's not a perfect measure. But a noisy measure because of the oddities of the ways in which delegates are chosen. Some delegates are chosen in caucuses -- which are highly unrepresentative. Other delegates are chosen in open primaries -- which are subject to things like operation chaos and strategic voting by the opposition generally. Still others are chosen in closed primary.

The diversity of ways of choosing delegates introduces a certain amount of noise into the measure.

If two candidates are separate by a relatively small number of delegates -- as Clinton and Obama are -- then the noise in the system will probably swamp the information in the system. That is, you will not be able to infer that the candidate with slightly more delegates has slightly more popular support -- since the magnitude of the noise is greater than the magnitude of the difference between the two candidates.

That's why I say that a delegate lead of less than a 100 out of over 4,000 delegates is essentially a tie.

One way to correct for the noise is to look at actual votes cast. When you do that you discover that, lo and behold, Clinton has greater popular support -- as measured by actual votes cast. Which just gives greater credence to the thought that Obama's lead is mostly due to noise.

That's why she shouldn't quit. That's why she should keep pressing the case against Obama and for herself.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

23. "Noise" would be another word for MY vote, because I live in a caucus state?

The only votes that count are votes for Hillary, right?

But all that bilge doesn't matter because Hillary is done. Over. She's pinin' for the fjords....

[kennetha]

26. Well the difference between Caucuses, Open/Closed primaries

all introduce noise into the system when delegate counts are considered as measures of popular support.

If Hillary wins a huge state by 200,000 and nets 10 delegates and loses a small caucus by 5,000 and nets a negative 15 delegates, I'd say that's a noisy measure of popular support.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

30. The nomination is based on the number of delegates. Period.

That's why this is all irrelevant bullshit. Hillary lost. I know it's disappointing, but there you are.

[kennetha]

32. It's not bullshit.

You may not want to consider the fact that the different ways of selecting delegates makes the number of delegates a candidate has a highly noisy measure of popular support. But it's a fact. Can you really deny that?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

35. Listen carefully.

The Democratic party chooses its nominee on the basis of the number of delegates who commit to that nominee. Not how those delegates were chosen; not how much "noise" a method of choosing delegates creates; not the total popular vote; not whether a state is large or small or red or blue; not whether the voters were "hard-working white Americans" or some other sort of Americans. The number of delegates. That's it. Those are the rules. Under those rules, which Clinton agreed to, she loses. The End.

[kennetha]

41. But you're missing the crucial further point.

The Superdelegates can take into account anything they want to take into account.

Hillary can point out to them that she actually has greater popular support, despite Obama's lead in "pledged" delegates. And she can and will explain to them (what they probably already realize) that pledged delegates are a very noisy measure of popular support and popular legitimacy.

I was talking about pledged delegates. And the reason is that there is an argument that Hillary can mount to the supers that they should not be overly swayed by the difference in pledge delegates when the noise in the system swamps the magnitude of that difference.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

46. Yet the SDs are moving to Obama.

So the bullshit argument about "noise" (i.e., my caucus vote shouldn't count) doesn't seem to be sticking.

Again: Hillary is done. You're just farting in a whirlwind.

[onenote]

58. You are the one missing a crucial point

Yes, the Superdelegates can take into account anything they want. The flaw in your "logic" is that you assume that they will take into account the arguments that you lay out, particularly the "popular support" argument.

But here's the point: the Superdelegates include politicians and political insiders. Do you think John Conyers, who is one of the more powerful members of Congress, is going to be persuaded by a "popular vote" calculation that basically pretends that he and the thousands of other Obama supporters in Michigan don't exist? And that popular support in Puerto Rico, which translates into nothing for the GE should matter that much? Do you think that other Superdelegates in the House are going to want to piss off Conyers? Or that they'd be any more convinced by these arguments.

The popular vote argument is a metric. Fine. So are the polls showing that today Obama has a significant popular lead over Clinton. Like you said, the Superdelegates can take into account anything and they are more likely to consider polls that show how Obama would take Clinton in California today than a popular vote calculation that is fundamentally flawed.

Sorry. But thanks for another entertaining, and as usual, goofy post.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

28. Hillary didn't complain about caucuses until she started losing them.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/hq/iowa/caucus/

"... Wonderful tradition of the caucuses... stand up and be counted..."

[kennetha]

33. Im not complaining about caucuses

I'm just pointing out how noisy the delegate selection system is and that if the candidates are close enough in delegates, then the magnitude of the noise is greater than the magnitude of the difference between them.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

34. "Some delegates are chosen in caucuses -- which are highly unrepresentative."

Sounds like complaining.

[kennetha]

37. it's just a fact

Consider the following evidence.

Clinton loses the Washington State Caucus by a considerable margin, but loses the subsequent Washington State primary by a very small margin (can't remember what). Same with, I think, Nebraska.

Also, she wins the Texas Primary by 3-4 points, but loses the follow-up caucuses (that a smaller pool of the very same voters participate in).

How can you not conclude that caucuses are a more noisy measure of popular support than primaries are?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

45. So you weren't complaining, but they're unrepresentative?

Didn't you just contradict yourself?

And nothing is preventing Hillary supporters from representing her at a caucus - they can't all be shift workers and senior citizens, two groups Hillary supporters always bring up as non-attendees.

But let me play devil's advocate here -- caucuses ARE unrepresentative, BUT they do still exist. They are not a new concept, and surely, Hillary of all people, by virtue of witnessing Bill's campaign, would know how to devise a caucus strategy.

[kennetha]

48. Well it's just a fact. They are there and they are unrepresentative and noisy.

If I were to design the system from scratch, I would outlaw them. But that's a different matter.

And it's true that Clinton's camp made a strategic blunder and Obama astutely exploited the low hanging fruit. That wasn't my point. My point was only that delegate counts are noisy as measures of popular support. and Clinton should be making a case that despite Obama's lead, he has no greater claim to popular legitimacy than she does. Indeed, he may have less of a claim.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

52. *Because* of his lead, he does have more legitimacy.

She doesn't have the same claim, and there's no way he has less of a claim than her.

And like I said, until she started losing them, Hillary didn't say jack about caucuses being unfair.

[TBF]

42. Was "noise" the theme of the conference call this week? I swear y'all are becoming so predictable.

[bigbrother05]

51. Noise is a measure of uncertainty, chaos

It's a useful term in polling (margin of error) and electronics (audio/video/signal details). In delegate counts, not so much.

Will grant you one thing, there is a lot of noise in the vote count argument. Anything that conveniently adds results from invalid sampling (MI/FL) and ignores results from legitimate sources (several caucuses) is definitely noise, signifying nothing.

[TheDoorbellRang]

66. And how much noise did "Operation Chaos" introduce into the popular vote?

Per DCW, there are 3409.5 total pledged delegates now. Obama has 51.1% (1741.5) of them and Clinton has 47.6% (1624.5). There are 1.3% pledged delegates left (12.5 from Edwards + 31 in MT and SD).

In the popular vote, giving the uncommitted to Obama in MI and using the estimates from the caucus states, he beats her by 1%. Excluding MI entirely he beats her by 4%. That's from RCP.

He has won.

[Gore1FL]

20. As of Tonight the Pittsaburg Pirates are 9 games out of first place

That is like a tie!

[TwilightGardener]

25. It's practically a tie if you consider all the hockey games that have been played all season--

see? Being 9 down is THISCLOSE!

[AllentownJake]

22. Post and Run

Typical

[Mooney]

36. If "Jane" has 2 apples, and "Johnny" has 3 apples...

... who has more apples?

[Gore1FL]

38. It depends.

Did Johnny's apples come from trees that don't count?

[stillcool]

62. those were pear trees..

although some times people do try and get apples from a pear tree.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

39. Depends on who's counting.

If Hillary is counting, and if Jane is supporting Hillary, her two apples are worth more than Johnny's three apples, so Jane really has more apples than Johnny.

[CreekDog]

40. how can i take you seriously?

you've never shown yourself to be objective in the past weeks you've been posting here.

that's the problem with the kind of posts you've been putting up lately, if you are trying to convince people, the constant crying wolf just means that if there is actually one, you've lost your credibility to make that call anymore.

sorry.

i mean, terry mcauliffe could say the exact same thing as you, but he's said so many ridiculous things that nobody takes him seriously anymore.

[zulchzulu]

43. BREAKING: Yankees hit 3 grand slams and shut out the Tigers to lose another game

In order to beat the Tigers, the Yankees have to win by at least 24 runs. It's a new rule I just made up. Go Tigers!


:sarcasm:

[Forkboy]

44. This is embarrassing.

[BlooInBloo]

53. It's funny tho!

[FlaGranny]

47. Self deleted.

[scheming daemons]

54. In other words..... insurmountable. Thanks for playing.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

55. Noise, shmoise.

This campaign is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet its maker! It's a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed it to the perch it'd be pushing up the daisies! Its metabolic processes are now 'istory! It's off the twig! It's kicked the bucket, it's shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible! THIS IS AN EX-CAMPAIGN!

[quakerboy]

57. So then

If the ARG polls are way off, and Obama Sweeps it nicely tomorrow, it would be implied the reverse is true, that it is not at all a tie and that Obama has all the moral claim to the Nomination that he could want. If that in fact happens, you will be ready to move on and support Obama, the democratic nominee. Correct?

[kennetha]

59. I won't support Obama

until either Clinton drops out or the roll call of the states is taken at the national convention and Obama receives enough votes to put him over the top. Then, and only then, will I grudgingly support him.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

61. So your "objective" argument about statistical electoral noise

is valid only with respect to Clinton but not Obama? How does that work?

[quakerboy]

63. Then your argument is irrelevant,

because you don't believe it either.


I respect your devotion to your candidate. I just fear that the Unintended effect of the real Hillary supporters may be to enable the "Harriet Christians".

[casus belli]

64. Hillary can't contest the rules committe decision...

we've been over this before. Your time would be better spent coming to terms with reality.

[hokies4ever]

65. Does Hillary love concession speeches as much as you do?

Pledged delegate lead of 100 'essentially a tie'. Good luck convincing the supers of that. Are you bracing for that superdelegate flood coming sometime between now and Friday? :rofl:

[wileedog]

67. So if she won 10 more Ohios or PAs, she would be tied. Thus all bets are off.

That would be known as 'idiocy'

[PretzelWarrior]

69. interesting. and a 5-2 baseball game is recorded as a tie as well

what an interesting world you live in. does your imaginary butler pour you tea and fluff your pillow too?

[Seabiscuit]

70. Good points. n/t

[Tonimontana]

71. I strongly believe Hillary will concede soon

Probably in a speech in New York.