MotherJones Blog: Let's Do Some Delegate Math

«--Previous Post | Blog Index | Next Post--»

Let's Do Some Delegate Math

Newsweek's Jonathan Alter points out that the delegate math that was already difficult for Hillary Clinton got more difficult after Ohio and Texas, because she made up a very small portion of the delegate deficit and now has fewer states in which to make her comeback. Alter runs down a very Clinton-friendly hypothetical:

Let's assume that on Saturday in Wyoming, Clinton's March 4 momentum gives her an Ohio-style 10-point win, confounding every expectation. Next Tuesday in Mississippi, where African-Americans play a big role in the Democratic primary, she shocks the political world by again winning 55-45.

Then on April 22, the big one—Pennsylvania—and it's a Clinton blowout: 60-40, with Clinton picking up a whopping 32 delegates. She wins both of Guam's two delegates on May 3 and Indiana's proximity to Illinois does Obama no good on May 6. The Hoosiers go for Clinton 55-45 and the same day brings another huge upset in a heavily African-American state. Enough blacks desert Obama to give North Carolina to Hillary in another big win, 55-45, netting her seven more delegates.

May 13 in West Virginia is no kinder to Obama, and he loses by double digits, netting Clinton two delegates. Another 60-40 landslide on May 20 in Kentucky nets her 11 more. The same day brings Oregon, a classic Obama state. Ooops! He loses there 52-48. Clinton wins by 10 in Montana and South Dakota on June 3 and the scheduled primary season ends on June 7 in Puerto Rico with another big Viva Clinton! Clinton pulls off a 60-40 landslide, giving her another 11 delegates.

...this fanciful calculation gives Hillary the lead, right? Actually, it makes the score 1,625 to 1,584 for Obama. A margin of 39 pledged delegates may not seem like much, but remember, the chances of Obama losing state after state by 20-point margins are slim to none.

But here's why Clinton is staying in this thing. If she makes a run that is even in the same ballpark as the one Alter is describing, she can go to superdelegates and say, "The American people have rethought their choice. Clearly we've won the second half of this campaign." And she'd be right. Superdelegates would likely go to her en masse, pushing her over the magical 2025 number. Obama's slim pledged delegate lead be damned.

And if she wins do-overs in Michigan and Florida, that becomes an even easier argument to make.

Comments

The Billary's will do anything to get their hands on the White House again, even it it means destroying the Democratic Party, which they are doing right now. No one can control them right now, so what do you think they will do once the get the White House again?

Posted by: MSO on 03/06/08 at 10:47 AM Respond

But I think only a Clinton run as one-sided as Alter describes would make the super delegates want to risk overriding a pledged delegate lead.

I just can't see elected officials being that willing to risk the party base uproar unless the momentum is overwhelming.

Posted by: The Other Ed on 03/06/08 at 12:51 PM Respond

And she'd be right.

You've clearly been sucked in by Clinton's convoluted reasoning that some states, some votes, carry more weight than others, that the second half is more important than the second half. What gives?

And now the ultimate irony: because MI and FL defied their party's rules they get to be a part of that "more important" half.

Posted by: Philip Oliphant on 03/06/08 at 2:39 PM Respond

This hypothetical phenomenon that people keep referring to as "party unrest" might actually be a lot more substantial than that.

There is a possibility of real civil unrest (read "RIOTS") if the superdelegates circumvent the voters' tally.

Posted by: nic on 03/06/08 at 2:39 PM Respond

Well let's see, are Billary considering Monica Lewinsky as a superdelegate? No, Well what about the impeachment proceedings? Surely they must be considering one of these two most positive presidential experiences as such? Hmmm??? Because Billary sure does have a lot more experience in those areas than most any other candidate in any political arena.

Posted by: brightledge on 03/06/08 at 3:13 PM Respond

I know I'm responding to a comment on Newsweek, but their comments aren't working, so...

A newsweek commenter (who could get it to work) repeated the lie that Obama took his oath of office on a koran. When trying to debunk this, remind your audience that there was big controversy over Rep. Keith Ellison using a koran for his oath because HE WAS THE FIRST TO USE A KORAN! REMEMBER!? ONLY A YEAR AGO?! How can anyone be mixed up about this? Especially since the people worked up about Ellison are almost surely the same people passing around or believing the Obama story.

Posted by: Eric Ferguson on 03/06/08 at 3:15 PM Respond

Well Hillary keeps saying she has the same experience as her husband did during the White House years. Does this mean there were threesome's going on??????? HMmmmmmm??

Posted by: brightledge on 03/06/08 at 3:18 PM Respond

Re: the Koran sworn upon

The copy Rep Keith Ellison used in the photo op was none other than Thomas Jeffersons.

FWIW

Also nobody swears in on anything they are sworn in as a group then pictures are taken.

But the whole thing is a silly distraction.

I personally have no problem with a politicians religion not any and not Muslim - Islam is not the enemy.

Tim McVeigh was a so-called "Christian" - did we ever think all Christians were terrorists?

Posted by: capt - Hussein on 03/06/08 at 7:11 PM Respond

Good point, capt Hussein. I seem to always agree with you. In any event, fundamentalists are the real issue regardless of faith orientation. Can't spell fundamentalist without 'mental'.

Posted by: Paul Miller on 03/06/08 at 7:20 PM Respond

"I seem to always agree with you"

Likewise - we should start a club! (kidding)

Posted by: capt - Hussein on 03/07/08 at 5:53 AM Respond