Obama can now achieve the needed 2024 delegate total and the race can end!!!
This is not possible for Clinton, and may not be for her even at the end of the race.
For those that are not number-delegate-nerds, I'll go through it.
Pledged delegate score is now:
Obama = 1494
Clinton = 1334
(give or take a few...)
Given that Obama also has at least 230 super delegates that have promised to vote for him, this puts his total delegates at over 1724.
Assuming that the remaining 'unclaimed' super delegates want to end the race (hint hint), they can now put Obama over the top without changing the vote of any of the super delegates that have pledged to Clinton.
There are about 305 or so super delegates that have not come out and supported either Obama or Clinton. This is enough to put him over the top and end the contest.
Why don't they move?
Obviously they are not interested in saving the Democratic Party.
Obviously they are not interested in defeating John McCain in the fall.
This should be the focus of the internal debate within Democratic circles.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Saturday, March 8, 2008
More Magic Numbers for Obama
Just to continue the delegate battle debate, there are a few other magic numbers that we should consider as the race continues.
From a previous post, we repeat the first two, in order of difficulty:
1) 2024 pledged delegates - the number required to prevent superdelegates from overturning the win.
2) 1627 pledged delegates - the number required to prevent superdelegates from overturning the democratic results. This number will likely be achieved by the Obama campaign after Puerto Rico.
Now, there are a few more magic numbers that are important, assuming that we take the numbers of superdelegates from both campaigns as a starting point. This gives us Clinton with 242, and Obama with 210. Now, assuming that these delegates are solid, and this will become more true as the race progresses and gets more heated, we get two more numbers.
1.5) 1814 pledged delegates - the number required so that Obama only needs to hold his existing 210 superdelegates. This is likely not going to be achieved by the end of the race on June 3.
3) 1537 pledged delegates - the number required so that Obama only needs to get half of the remaining unassigned superdelegates. Obama will likely achieve this during the May primaries after Pennsylvania. These primaries, in order, are Guam then Indiana and North Carolina, then West Virginia then Kentucky and Oregon. If the campaign sets up the appropriate expectations in the press, it could be all over after North Carolina. North Carolina will likely put Obama over this number.
4) 1471 pledged delegates - the number required for Obama to go over the top without poaching Clintons existing 242 superdelegates. In other words, if Obama convinces all the rest of the superdelegates to vote for him and none of Clintons superdelegates move, he would have access to 553 superdelegates to put him over the top. It is possible that Obama could achieve this after Pennsylvania.
5) 1229 pledged delegates - the number required by either campaign to achieve 2024 by getting a unanimous decision by ALL the superdelegates. Both campaigns are already there. Both campaigns, ironically, went over the top on this number after the March 4th primaries. Since neither campaign can PREVENT the other campaign from achieving this number, there is no reason for either side to withdraw. In fact, it is a moot point because if one of the campaigns had enough to prevent the other side from getting this, they would be at 2025 anyway. The wonders of math.
Now, lets look at the timing of this thing.
Obama will likely achieve threshold 4) after Pennsylvania, but Clinton will not be able to say the same thing until after Kentucky and Oregon on May 20th. This give Obama almost a month to rub in the point that she can not win without my superdelegates, but I can win without hers. Clinton presently needs only 1439 for her threshold 4).
Now, after a few weeks of this, Obama will likely go over threshold 3) before Clinton crosses her threshold 4). This will be major bragging rights. Clinton will not be able to win without poaching his super delegates, but Obama can win with only HALF of the remaining superdelegates. This will be the period where Clinton will likely be forced to withdraw if there has not been a major change in the campaign landscape.
This crossover will likely be achieved for Obama after North Carolina.
So, this blogger so predicts, that the Clinton campaign will be forced to withdraw from the fight in the second week in May. This is assuming that Obama does not win Pennsylvania on April 22nd.
I guess the larger point of this blog is that the Democratic Party unwittingly created a complicated series of thresholds by adding in these crazy wild card superdelegates. Since we can not predict how they will behave at the convention, the only hard number that matters is 2024. The trouble is, that since the total number of pledged delegates is 3253 this is A LOT HARDER TO GET!!!
Basically, any candidate must get over 62% of all the pledged delegates in order to lock away the nomination before the convention. This can be compared to the Republican case where they only need to get 50%. This creates a smoother campaign, and a much easier process at the convention.
Wow.
Think of this in a historical context (and this is all from the wiki, by the way).
The first National Democratic convention was held in 1832. That is when they created the DISASTROUS 2/3 rule for the nomination process. Candidates had to get over 66% of the delegates, so it became really really hard to WIN the nomination, but really really easy to STOP someone from getting the nomination.
This rule was waved in the 1835 and 1840 conventions because it everyone realized that it was STUPID, and was brought back in 1844 by opponents of Van Buren, so that they could STOP HIM. So, the roots of this rule go way back in stopping the democratic will of Democratic party voters.
The crazy Democrats kept this stupid rule for the next hundred years. It was used, for example, to deadlock the 1924 convention and produce a compromise candidate that no one liked and lost huge to the Republicans that year. Starting to ring a bell?
They finally drop the 2/3 craziness in 1936 during the re-nomination of Roosevelt. Hmmm, seems to me that the Democrats won a lot of elections after that...
So, it seems, bad ideas die hard. The sneaky Democrats brought the rule back in another form after the chaos of the Seventees. Good job there. You really won a lot of general elections since then, losers. By creating these "superdelegates", that can not be pinned down until the convention, they force the prospective nominees to get over 62% of the elected delegates or essentially go to the convention hat in hand, begging for the good graces of the superdelegates to bestow legitimacy on the nominee.
What a crazy and self destructive system. In fact, it is a system that seems only good for the situation that we see before us now. The Democrats essentially have a winner, but the stupid convention rules create a system where his opponent will not drop out (because neither side can secure 62%), and he can not unite the party. This almost guarantees a weaker general election candidate, and a more likely loss in the general to the Republicans. Good one, guys.
DID A REPUBLICAN SPY WRITE YOUR CONVENTION RULES???
I'm even going to go one step further in making fun of the Democratic Party.
Lets consider the possibility that the Democrats made all their states winner take all. Would that solve their problem? No. Both sides would STILL not have 2024 EVEN THEN!!!
Obama would have only 1309, and Clinton would have a large lead at 1834. But the point is that even after winning all those big states, AND making them give ALL their delegates to Clinton with winner take all rules, she would still not be over the 2024 threshold. The Democrats have screwed themselves with these dumb superdelegates.
Big Time!
They almost guarantee a weak general election candidate if there is any contention in the primaries at all.
I reiterate a point from a previous post. If the Democrats can not unite behind Obama and win the general election, they should disband as a political party. At least Obama would have a chance of winning the nomination of the party that rises up to replace them.
From a previous post, we repeat the first two, in order of difficulty:
1) 2024 pledged delegates - the number required to prevent superdelegates from overturning the win.
2) 1627 pledged delegates - the number required to prevent superdelegates from overturning the democratic results. This number will likely be achieved by the Obama campaign after Puerto Rico.
Now, there are a few more magic numbers that are important, assuming that we take the numbers of superdelegates from both campaigns as a starting point. This gives us Clinton with 242, and Obama with 210. Now, assuming that these delegates are solid, and this will become more true as the race progresses and gets more heated, we get two more numbers.
1.5) 1814 pledged delegates - the number required so that Obama only needs to hold his existing 210 superdelegates. This is likely not going to be achieved by the end of the race on June 3.
3) 1537 pledged delegates - the number required so that Obama only needs to get half of the remaining unassigned superdelegates. Obama will likely achieve this during the May primaries after Pennsylvania. These primaries, in order, are Guam then Indiana and North Carolina, then West Virginia then Kentucky and Oregon. If the campaign sets up the appropriate expectations in the press, it could be all over after North Carolina. North Carolina will likely put Obama over this number.
4) 1471 pledged delegates - the number required for Obama to go over the top without poaching Clintons existing 242 superdelegates. In other words, if Obama convinces all the rest of the superdelegates to vote for him and none of Clintons superdelegates move, he would have access to 553 superdelegates to put him over the top. It is possible that Obama could achieve this after Pennsylvania.
5) 1229 pledged delegates - the number required by either campaign to achieve 2024 by getting a unanimous decision by ALL the superdelegates. Both campaigns are already there. Both campaigns, ironically, went over the top on this number after the March 4th primaries. Since neither campaign can PREVENT the other campaign from achieving this number, there is no reason for either side to withdraw. In fact, it is a moot point because if one of the campaigns had enough to prevent the other side from getting this, they would be at 2025 anyway. The wonders of math.
Now, lets look at the timing of this thing.
Obama will likely achieve threshold 4) after Pennsylvania, but Clinton will not be able to say the same thing until after Kentucky and Oregon on May 20th. This give Obama almost a month to rub in the point that she can not win without my superdelegates, but I can win without hers. Clinton presently needs only 1439 for her threshold 4).
Now, after a few weeks of this, Obama will likely go over threshold 3) before Clinton crosses her threshold 4). This will be major bragging rights. Clinton will not be able to win without poaching his super delegates, but Obama can win with only HALF of the remaining superdelegates. This will be the period where Clinton will likely be forced to withdraw if there has not been a major change in the campaign landscape.
This crossover will likely be achieved for Obama after North Carolina.
So, this blogger so predicts, that the Clinton campaign will be forced to withdraw from the fight in the second week in May. This is assuming that Obama does not win Pennsylvania on April 22nd.
I guess the larger point of this blog is that the Democratic Party unwittingly created a complicated series of thresholds by adding in these crazy wild card superdelegates. Since we can not predict how they will behave at the convention, the only hard number that matters is 2024. The trouble is, that since the total number of pledged delegates is 3253 this is A LOT HARDER TO GET!!!
Basically, any candidate must get over 62% of all the pledged delegates in order to lock away the nomination before the convention. This can be compared to the Republican case where they only need to get 50%. This creates a smoother campaign, and a much easier process at the convention.
Wow.
Think of this in a historical context (and this is all from the wiki, by the way).
The first National Democratic convention was held in 1832. That is when they created the DISASTROUS 2/3 rule for the nomination process. Candidates had to get over 66% of the delegates, so it became really really hard to WIN the nomination, but really really easy to STOP someone from getting the nomination.
This rule was waved in the 1835 and 1840 conventions because it everyone realized that it was STUPID, and was brought back in 1844 by opponents of Van Buren, so that they could STOP HIM. So, the roots of this rule go way back in stopping the democratic will of Democratic party voters.
The crazy Democrats kept this stupid rule for the next hundred years. It was used, for example, to deadlock the 1924 convention and produce a compromise candidate that no one liked and lost huge to the Republicans that year. Starting to ring a bell?
They finally drop the 2/3 craziness in 1936 during the re-nomination of Roosevelt. Hmmm, seems to me that the Democrats won a lot of elections after that...
So, it seems, bad ideas die hard. The sneaky Democrats brought the rule back in another form after the chaos of the Seventees. Good job there. You really won a lot of general elections since then, losers. By creating these "superdelegates", that can not be pinned down until the convention, they force the prospective nominees to get over 62% of the elected delegates or essentially go to the convention hat in hand, begging for the good graces of the superdelegates to bestow legitimacy on the nominee.
What a crazy and self destructive system. In fact, it is a system that seems only good for the situation that we see before us now. The Democrats essentially have a winner, but the stupid convention rules create a system where his opponent will not drop out (because neither side can secure 62%), and he can not unite the party. This almost guarantees a weaker general election candidate, and a more likely loss in the general to the Republicans. Good one, guys.
DID A REPUBLICAN SPY WRITE YOUR CONVENTION RULES???
I'm even going to go one step further in making fun of the Democratic Party.
Lets consider the possibility that the Democrats made all their states winner take all. Would that solve their problem? No. Both sides would STILL not have 2024 EVEN THEN!!!
Obama would have only 1309, and Clinton would have a large lead at 1834. But the point is that even after winning all those big states, AND making them give ALL their delegates to Clinton with winner take all rules, she would still not be over the 2024 threshold. The Democrats have screwed themselves with these dumb superdelegates.
Big Time!
They almost guarantee a weak general election candidate if there is any contention in the primaries at all.
I reiterate a point from a previous post. If the Democrats can not unite behind Obama and win the general election, they should disband as a political party. At least Obama would have a chance of winning the nomination of the party that rises up to replace them.
Real Obama Momentum
I created this chart to show how overwhelming the Obama momentum has been since Super Tuesday.
The percentage of the remaining delegates that the Clinton Campaign must win has gone inexorably up since Super Tuesday. Here is the chart...
Puerto Rico Will Put Obama Over The Top
This is how it would go... if the democrats, or the Obama camp were smarter about spin right now. They could play it like this...
The real magic number is of pledged delegates 1627, not 2024. Here is why...
As is commonly held belief, the required number of delegates required in order to gain the democratic nomination and avoid a protracted convention or pre-convention fight, is 2024. Since the number of pledged delegates is 3253, and the number of superdelegates is 794 the grand total voting members of the convention is 4047. By conventional theory, 2024 is over half the total number of delegates, thus guaranteeing that the superdelegates can not rob this side of the nomination. But this is only in the case of a scenario where the pledged delegates may be at odds with the tendencies of the superdelegates.
But lets not think that way. Lets think of it as a real democratic contest. A contest where only the pledged delegates matter and the superdelegates understand the risk of overturning the convention majority. In this case, the real number of pledged delegates necessary to ensure this majority would be over half of 3253, or 1627. In this case, the superdelegates would have to overturn the will of the majority of the pledged delegates in order to prevent this candidate from getting the nomination. Lets take it on faith that this would only be done in the case of extreme circumstances like a crazy surprise that makes the candidate's viability doubtful. In the case of Clinton, this could be her tax returns, in the case of Obama, it could be a number of things.
Since the Obama campaign has so far accumulated 1385 pledged delegates (by their count, 1321 according to CNN, 1366 according to MSNBC and Reuters) he needs a total of 242 (or slightly more) in order to achieve this majority.
This the magic number that the Obama camp should be talking about.
1627 is the real number for victory being assured (virtually) at the convention in August. This will likely be won by the Obama campaign after the Puerto Rico Primary on June 1st.
Thus, Obama will get an extra two months, from June to the convention to hit McCain and the republicans. This is far superior to the alternative which is a convention fight.
1627 for victory!!!
The real magic number is of pledged delegates 1627, not 2024. Here is why...
As is commonly held belief, the required number of delegates required in order to gain the democratic nomination and avoid a protracted convention or pre-convention fight, is 2024. Since the number of pledged delegates is 3253, and the number of superdelegates is 794 the grand total voting members of the convention is 4047. By conventional theory, 2024 is over half the total number of delegates, thus guaranteeing that the superdelegates can not rob this side of the nomination. But this is only in the case of a scenario where the pledged delegates may be at odds with the tendencies of the superdelegates.
But lets not think that way. Lets think of it as a real democratic contest. A contest where only the pledged delegates matter and the superdelegates understand the risk of overturning the convention majority. In this case, the real number of pledged delegates necessary to ensure this majority would be over half of 3253, or 1627. In this case, the superdelegates would have to overturn the will of the majority of the pledged delegates in order to prevent this candidate from getting the nomination. Lets take it on faith that this would only be done in the case of extreme circumstances like a crazy surprise that makes the candidate's viability doubtful. In the case of Clinton, this could be her tax returns, in the case of Obama, it could be a number of things.
Since the Obama campaign has so far accumulated 1385 pledged delegates (by their count, 1321 according to CNN, 1366 according to MSNBC and Reuters) he needs a total of 242 (or slightly more) in order to achieve this majority.
This the magic number that the Obama camp should be talking about.
1627 is the real number for victory being assured (virtually) at the convention in August. This will likely be won by the Obama campaign after the Puerto Rico Primary on June 1st.
Thus, Obama will get an extra two months, from June to the convention to hit McCain and the republicans. This is far superior to the alternative which is a convention fight.
1627 for victory!!!
Thursday, March 6, 2008
The Democratic Party Should Disband
For once in my life, I find myself agreeing with Tucker Carlson.
On his show today, he said something that I have been thinking for quite some time.
Here it is.
If the Democratic Party can't win the election this year, shouldn't they just pack it up and go home?
He's right.
With supposedly the worst president in history leaving office, and his now-admitted successor as the nominee of the Republican Party, the Democrats are finding new ways everyday to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.
With the now interminable leadership campaign sucking all the money and enthusiasm out of the most ardent supporters, by the time they actually choose a leader they are ensuring that they have battered them to the point of being useless.
Good job Democrats.
What is wrong with you?
You are blowing it again, and the country will not forgive you forever!
On his show today, he said something that I have been thinking for quite some time.
Here it is.
If the Democratic Party can't win the election this year, shouldn't they just pack it up and go home?
He's right.
With supposedly the worst president in history leaving office, and his now-admitted successor as the nominee of the Republican Party, the Democrats are finding new ways everyday to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.
With the now interminable leadership campaign sucking all the money and enthusiasm out of the most ardent supporters, by the time they actually choose a leader they are ensuring that they have battered them to the point of being useless.
Good job Democrats.
What is wrong with you?
You are blowing it again, and the country will not forgive you forever!
Friday, February 29, 2008
Math is too hard for MSNBC
Just to keep on this point.
MSNBC has still not gotten back to me on this, and I have no evidence that they intend to ever correct their error, or learn how to count.
The issue was not lost on the people from ABC. They, it seems can do math, even if their friends at MSNBC can not.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3445514&page=1
They noted right away that Obama would be 47 if he was inaugurated and would be the FIFTH youngest president not third FIFTH. OLDER THAN BILL CLINTON.
Got it, MSNBC? FIFTH youngest!!!
MSNBC has still not gotten back to me on this, and I have no evidence that they intend to ever correct their error, or learn how to count.
The issue was not lost on the people from ABC. They, it seems can do math, even if their friends at MSNBC can not.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3445514&page=1
They noted right away that Obama would be 47 if he was inaugurated and would be the FIFTH youngest president not third FIFTH. OLDER THAN BILL CLINTON.
Got it, MSNBC? FIFTH youngest!!!
MSNBC, SHAME ON YOU
It seems that the fine people at the MSNBC news desk are incapable of doing math.
Not, Chuck Todd, of course... his delegate math is impeccable.
I'm talking about something much simpler, and much easier to check.
This is the issue of Barack Obama's age.
On 11:26 AM PST (2:26 EST - notice the quick math there) on MSNBC on this day of February 29th, Contessa Brewer gave a nice little story about how age does not matter for the presidency.
75% of respondents said that John McCain was not too old to be president.
80% of respondents said that Barack Obama was not too young to be president.
Great. What a nice little story. I'm so warm and fuzzy now.
The trouble is that miss Brewer went on to say that Barack Obama would be the third youngest president in history. The third youngest after Teddy Roosevelt and JFK. What?
Really?
Really, MSNBC people?
Can you look things up? Can you do math?
Can you reliably calculate a persons age? Can you get your friend to help?
Can you remember ancient history as long ago as 1992 when Bill Clinton was elected as our nation's third youngest president at the age of 46!!!
Barack Obama will be 47 if he is elected president.
Hmmm.
OK, I'll stop rubbing it in, but this is a major issue because of the Bill Clinton "rolling the dice" comment.
BARACK OBAMA WILL BE OLDER THAN BILL CLINTON WHEN HE WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT.
OK, I'll say it again.
BARACK OBAMA WILL BE OLDER THAN BILL CLINTON WHEN HE WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT.
This is important only because of the attacks that Bill and Hillary have leveled against Barack regarding his age and supposed inexperience.
Barack Obama will be the Fifth youngest president. oh, and MSNBC, the list goes like this...
1. Theodore Roosevelt, 42 and 322 days
2. John F. Kennedy, 43 and 236 days
3. Bill Clinton, 46 and 154 days
4. Ulysses S. Grant, 46 and 236
5. Barack Obama - possibly, 47 and 169 days
6. Grover Cleveland...
The fact that Barack Obama will be older than Bill Clinton is significant, and should be corrected before the Texas and Ohio primaries.
Oh, and get your damn act together. Most people trust you and will repeat tidbits like this as if they are fact. Seriously. This is not OK.
Not, Chuck Todd, of course... his delegate math is impeccable.
I'm talking about something much simpler, and much easier to check.
This is the issue of Barack Obama's age.
On 11:26 AM PST (2:26 EST - notice the quick math there) on MSNBC on this day of February 29th, Contessa Brewer gave a nice little story about how age does not matter for the presidency.
75% of respondents said that John McCain was not too old to be president.
80% of respondents said that Barack Obama was not too young to be president.
Great. What a nice little story. I'm so warm and fuzzy now.
The trouble is that miss Brewer went on to say that Barack Obama would be the third youngest president in history. The third youngest after Teddy Roosevelt and JFK. What?
Really?
Really, MSNBC people?
Can you look things up? Can you do math?
Can you reliably calculate a persons age? Can you get your friend to help?
Can you remember ancient history as long ago as 1992 when Bill Clinton was elected as our nation's third youngest president at the age of 46!!!
Barack Obama will be 47 if he is elected president.
Hmmm.
OK, I'll stop rubbing it in, but this is a major issue because of the Bill Clinton "rolling the dice" comment.
BARACK OBAMA WILL BE OLDER THAN BILL CLINTON WHEN HE WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT.
OK, I'll say it again.
BARACK OBAMA WILL BE OLDER THAN BILL CLINTON WHEN HE WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT.
This is important only because of the attacks that Bill and Hillary have leveled against Barack regarding his age and supposed inexperience.
Barack Obama will be the Fifth youngest president. oh, and MSNBC, the list goes like this...
1. Theodore Roosevelt, 42 and 322 days
2. John F. Kennedy, 43 and 236 days
3. Bill Clinton, 46 and 154 days
4. Ulysses S. Grant, 46 and 236
5. Barack Obama - possibly, 47 and 169 days
6. Grover Cleveland...
The fact that Barack Obama will be older than Bill Clinton is significant, and should be corrected before the Texas and Ohio primaries.
Oh, and get your damn act together. Most people trust you and will repeat tidbits like this as if they are fact. Seriously. This is not OK.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)