With ten primaries remaining, Senator Barack Obama has a lead in both delegates and the popular vote, but Senator Hillary Clinton has vowed to remain in the presidential nomination race. The Clinton campaign is nearly 9 million dollars in debt with the Obama campaign holding nearly 32 million in the bank. There are currently 800 superdelegates who are not yet pledged to either candidate including 75 at-large superdelegates.
According to cnn.com, Obama's delegate count is 1,625 with Clinton's total being 1,486. With the candidates gaining candidates in proportion to the percentage of primary votes they garner, neither candidate can accumulate the 2,024 delegates to lock up the nomination. Clinton could top Obama in the popular vote with a big win in Pennsylvania and other remaining state primaries.
Party concerns about how the continuing campaigns are tearing apart the Democrat party and ruining Democrat prospects for winning the White House do not seem to have fazed either candidate.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Marc Cooper: It's 3 a.m. and Hillary's Dreaming
From the Huffington Post:
Posted March 5, 2008 | 01:38 AM (EST)
To be a winner you have to win. And Tuesday night Hillary Clinton unreservedly won three out of four states. Barack Obama, however, has won twice as many primary and caucus states overall, leads substantially in the popular vote and continues to hold a mathematically insurmountable lead in elected delegates.
For two or three days, the Clinton campaign will spin itself -and the media--silly, breathlessly celebrating her overwhelming victories in Rhode Island and Ohio and her squeaker in Texas.
After the confetti is swept and the champagne bottles are tossed a more sober reality will take hold. Not just that her net gain of delegates this week will be, at most, in the single digits. But worse. There is no plausible scenario in which Clinton can win the nomination. At least not democratically.
Seven more weeks of campaign slog through Wyoming, Mississippi and into Pennsylvania. And then maybe tack on six more weeks, if you can believe it, into Indiana , West Virginia, and a handful of other states and into Puerto Rico on the 7th of June, quite literally into D-Day. Whatever the outcome, even if Clinton wins all 16 remaining contests -and some of them by veritable landslides, she will still be dozens of elected delegates behind Barack Obama.
She will not be the winner because she will have not won the majority of elected Democratic delegates. Clinton will be exactly where she was the night before Ohio and Texas: in second place and with no way to become the nominee unless enough unelected Superdelegates defy the popular will of the electorate and throw her the nomination (or unless you somehow believe that she can every coming primary with a 20 point margin).
Indeed, as Jonathan Alter has pointed out, Clinton can't win an elected majority even if she triumphs in what are now likely to be re-scheduled primaries in the cranky states of Michigan and Florida. Again, we'd be back to the Superdelegates and, therefore, back to a dicey game of chicken by the Democratic Party elite. How many Superdelegates are willing to politically die, or willing to spark an intra-party party civil war, just to save Clinton's bacon?
"The 1968 Chicago convention would look like a picnic compared to what Denver would become," a long-time political biographer said on election eve, predicting a youth uprising at the site of this summer's Democratic Convention if the election is thrown to Clinton. "This isn't 40 years ago," he said. "Now, everyone's got a car. And everyone who believed in the change that Clinton scoffs at would wind up surrounding that convention."
Maybe. Maybe not. Who am I to predict that the Democrats are too smart to self-destruct in what should be, by all other measures, a watershed year? The more steely-eyed amongst us, then, would do well to psychologically prepare for the nomination going, somehow or another, to Hillary Clinton. Which means, in turn, that Democrats ought to simultaneously prepare to be beaten by John McCain.
Clinton regained her footing this past week primarily by running a classic, Republican-style campaign of negative, fear-based ads. She blanketed the airwaves with a detestable spot that, stripped to its core message, warned that if Obama were selected, your children could be murdered in their beds in the middle of the night. Somewhere up above (or more likely from down below), departed GOP mudmeister Lee Atwater is cracking a grin.
The spot worked so well - with exit polls showing that voters who made a last-minute decision went in droves for Clinton-- that she couldn't resist reprising the line during her Tuesday night victory speech delivered to a cheering throng in Columbus. "When that phone rings at 3 a.m. in the White House," she said. "There's no time for speeches or on on-the-job training."
Perfect. Clinton's done McCain the favor of cutting his best general election campaign spot for him. All he has to do is cut her answering the phone out of the last 5 seconds of the ad and splice his own mug in there instead. If Clinton succeeds in making what's politely called the "national security issue" the center of the campaign by arguing she's a safer choice than Obama, then why wouldn't McCain argue that he's even better than she? McCain's already begun that effort. If Hillary's nominated, he'll most likely succeed.
Posted March 5, 2008 | 01:38 AM (EST)
To be a winner you have to win. And Tuesday night Hillary Clinton unreservedly won three out of four states. Barack Obama, however, has won twice as many primary and caucus states overall, leads substantially in the popular vote and continues to hold a mathematically insurmountable lead in elected delegates.
For two or three days, the Clinton campaign will spin itself -and the media--silly, breathlessly celebrating her overwhelming victories in Rhode Island and Ohio and her squeaker in Texas.
After the confetti is swept and the champagne bottles are tossed a more sober reality will take hold. Not just that her net gain of delegates this week will be, at most, in the single digits. But worse. There is no plausible scenario in which Clinton can win the nomination. At least not democratically.
Seven more weeks of campaign slog through Wyoming, Mississippi and into Pennsylvania. And then maybe tack on six more weeks, if you can believe it, into Indiana , West Virginia, and a handful of other states and into Puerto Rico on the 7th of June, quite literally into D-Day. Whatever the outcome, even if Clinton wins all 16 remaining contests -and some of them by veritable landslides, she will still be dozens of elected delegates behind Barack Obama.
She will not be the winner because she will have not won the majority of elected Democratic delegates. Clinton will be exactly where she was the night before Ohio and Texas: in second place and with no way to become the nominee unless enough unelected Superdelegates defy the popular will of the electorate and throw her the nomination (or unless you somehow believe that she can every coming primary with a 20 point margin).
Indeed, as Jonathan Alter has pointed out, Clinton can't win an elected majority even if she triumphs in what are now likely to be re-scheduled primaries in the cranky states of Michigan and Florida. Again, we'd be back to the Superdelegates and, therefore, back to a dicey game of chicken by the Democratic Party elite. How many Superdelegates are willing to politically die, or willing to spark an intra-party party civil war, just to save Clinton's bacon?
"The 1968 Chicago convention would look like a picnic compared to what Denver would become," a long-time political biographer said on election eve, predicting a youth uprising at the site of this summer's Democratic Convention if the election is thrown to Clinton. "This isn't 40 years ago," he said. "Now, everyone's got a car. And everyone who believed in the change that Clinton scoffs at would wind up surrounding that convention."
Maybe. Maybe not. Who am I to predict that the Democrats are too smart to self-destruct in what should be, by all other measures, a watershed year? The more steely-eyed amongst us, then, would do well to psychologically prepare for the nomination going, somehow or another, to Hillary Clinton. Which means, in turn, that Democrats ought to simultaneously prepare to be beaten by John McCain.
Clinton regained her footing this past week primarily by running a classic, Republican-style campaign of negative, fear-based ads. She blanketed the airwaves with a detestable spot that, stripped to its core message, warned that if Obama were selected, your children could be murdered in their beds in the middle of the night. Somewhere up above (or more likely from down below), departed GOP mudmeister Lee Atwater is cracking a grin.
The spot worked so well - with exit polls showing that voters who made a last-minute decision went in droves for Clinton-- that she couldn't resist reprising the line during her Tuesday night victory speech delivered to a cheering throng in Columbus. "When that phone rings at 3 a.m. in the White House," she said. "There's no time for speeches or on on-the-job training."
Perfect. Clinton's done McCain the favor of cutting his best general election campaign spot for him. All he has to do is cut her answering the phone out of the last 5 seconds of the ad and splice his own mug in there instead. If Clinton succeeds in making what's politely called the "national security issue" the center of the campaign by arguing she's a safer choice than Obama, then why wouldn't McCain argue that he's even better than she? McCain's already begun that effort. If Hillary's nominated, he'll most likely succeed.
The New Math
With only 12 primaries left for the Democrat Party, the new math goes like this: Clinton needs 97% of the remaining delegates to clinch the presidential nomination and Obama needs 77%. According to cnn.com, Obama has 1,520 pledged delegates to Clinton's 1,424. 2,025 are needed to win the nomimation, so what does this mean?
It means that it is highly unlikely that either candidate can win by the primary route alone. Superdelegates will determine the presidential candidate when the dems meet in Denver, and the question is whether the supers will follow the popular will reflected in both delegate count and vote totals. By both measures Obama leads, but will the Clinton machine try to broker Hillary into the top slot? Of course. The Clintons are already trying to pry loose delegates that Obama won through primaries and caucuses, so of course they will try to broker some deal to overturn the popular vote so that Hillary can become president. Subverting the will of the people to gain the presidency? Is there any doubt that the Clintons would do this? Jesse Jackson and others have raised the possibility of another messy convention like Chicago in 1968.
On the morning television circuit, Obama said that his lead is "close to insurmountable." Clinton was asked whether she would be a part of the ticket with Obama. Her answer was that it hasn't been determined who would be in the top spot in that ticket. She also said that Ohio had voted overwhelmingly that she should be at the top of the ticket. She didn't mention that more states have spoken than Ohio, and that Obama is the choice of most of those states. Of course she didn't mention that.
Clinton still leads in the Superdelegate count by 39, but last week one superdelegate, Congressman John Lewis of Georgia, defected from Hillary's camp and more will likely follow if Obama continues to win a majority of contests and delegates.
It means that it is highly unlikely that either candidate can win by the primary route alone. Superdelegates will determine the presidential candidate when the dems meet in Denver, and the question is whether the supers will follow the popular will reflected in both delegate count and vote totals. By both measures Obama leads, but will the Clinton machine try to broker Hillary into the top slot? Of course. The Clintons are already trying to pry loose delegates that Obama won through primaries and caucuses, so of course they will try to broker some deal to overturn the popular vote so that Hillary can become president. Subverting the will of the people to gain the presidency? Is there any doubt that the Clintons would do this? Jesse Jackson and others have raised the possibility of another messy convention like Chicago in 1968.
On the morning television circuit, Obama said that his lead is "close to insurmountable." Clinton was asked whether she would be a part of the ticket with Obama. Her answer was that it hasn't been determined who would be in the top spot in that ticket. She also said that Ohio had voted overwhelmingly that she should be at the top of the ticket. She didn't mention that more states have spoken than Ohio, and that Obama is the choice of most of those states. Of course she didn't mention that.
Clinton still leads in the Superdelegate count by 39, but last week one superdelegate, Congressman John Lewis of Georgia, defected from Hillary's camp and more will likely follow if Obama continues to win a majority of contests and delegates.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
What Clinton Needs to Win
According to Republican strategist Karl Rove, Hillary Clinton needs to secure at least 53% of all the primaries and caucuses left in order to win the necessary number of delegates for the Democrat nomination. In early returns in Texas, Obama leads Clinton, 50% to 48%, with 14% of the voting reported. One third of the votes in Texas come out of party caucuses, so it will take a while for all to be settled in the Lone Star State. Former Texas congressman Martin Frost reports that Obama led Clinton in the early voting by 75,000. Clinton is expected to close the gap tonight and the question is whether or not she can overcome the deficit from early voting. Even if she wins the popular vote it is possible for Obama to gain more delegates because of the caucuses.
McCain Wraps Up Nomination
With wins in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont, McCain has secured the delegate count needed to win the nomination of the Republican Party. The next decision for McCain is his choice for Vice President. With six months to go before the Republican Party Convention, he's got plenty of time to think about who will be the best person to join him on the ticket.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Inside Delegate Math: The Numbers
by ;Marc Ambinder at theatlantic.com
29 Feb 2008 04:15 pm
Using delegate projection software created by Matt Vogel, I ran a scenario yesterday showing how tough it will be for Hillary Clinton to catch up to Barack Obama's earned delegate lead.
Some of you have asked for my specific state-by-state projections.
So let's go state-by-state, again assuming that the full sanctions levied by the DNC are kept in place.
Ohio: Clinton wins by 4% and earns a net of 5 delegates
Rhode Island: Clinton wins by 10% and earns a net of 3 delegates
Texas: Obama wins by a net of 8% and earns a net of 15 delegates including those taken from the caucus portion of the contests
Vermont: Obama wins handily and nets 3 delegates.
We can fiddle with the numbers a bit, but winning by an extra percent in Texas is worth more than winning by an extra percent in Ohio. If Clinton wins by 8 percentage points in Ohio, she picks up a net of about 11 delegates compared to Obama's 15 in Texas. Let's be nice to Clinton and assume that she manages to eek out a win in Texas, giving her 3 extra delegates. For the day, she'd net only 8 delegates under this scenario -- with Texas and Vermont having cancelled each other out.
Moving on to Wyoming, let's assume, generously, that Obama only wins by 55%. He picks up 2 delegates. Then comes Mississippi. Let's assume the split is 60/40, Obama -- he picks up 7 delegates, and so -- since March 4 -- he's back up 1.
Flash forward to Pennsylvania, and let's assume that Hillary Clinton manages to win 60% of the vote in the state. She'll earn 32 extra delegates -- her biggest net gain so far.
I'll give the next two states and a territory to Obama -- by six points only each -- Guam (+0 net), Indiana (+4 net) and North Carolina (+7 net). Hillary Clinton has a shot to win West Virginia, which votes on March 13, so let's assume she wins by 10 points, earning a net of two extra delegates. Momentum carries over into Kentucky, which she wins by 10 points and earns five extra delegates. She's not going to win Oregon, probably -- Obama picks up six delegates there.
The June 3 primaries of Montana and South Dakota are probably Obama's: let's assume he wins them by 10 points, earning a total of 3 net delegates.
The last contest is the Puerto Rico caucuses, which takes place on June 7. Let's give Hillary Clinton an 80 to 20 victory there, giving her a net of 33 earned delegates.
So -- under these most rosy of scenarios -- since March 4, she'll have earned 520 delegates to Barack Obama's 461, having reduced his earned delegate total by about 80 -- or -- by about 60 percent -- but he'll still have a lead of approximately 100 delegates in total... and be that much closer to 2025.
29 Feb 2008 04:15 pm
Using delegate projection software created by Matt Vogel, I ran a scenario yesterday showing how tough it will be for Hillary Clinton to catch up to Barack Obama's earned delegate lead.
Some of you have asked for my specific state-by-state projections.
So let's go state-by-state, again assuming that the full sanctions levied by the DNC are kept in place.
Ohio: Clinton wins by 4% and earns a net of 5 delegates
Rhode Island: Clinton wins by 10% and earns a net of 3 delegates
Texas: Obama wins by a net of 8% and earns a net of 15 delegates including those taken from the caucus portion of the contests
Vermont: Obama wins handily and nets 3 delegates.
We can fiddle with the numbers a bit, but winning by an extra percent in Texas is worth more than winning by an extra percent in Ohio. If Clinton wins by 8 percentage points in Ohio, she picks up a net of about 11 delegates compared to Obama's 15 in Texas. Let's be nice to Clinton and assume that she manages to eek out a win in Texas, giving her 3 extra delegates. For the day, she'd net only 8 delegates under this scenario -- with Texas and Vermont having cancelled each other out.
Moving on to Wyoming, let's assume, generously, that Obama only wins by 55%. He picks up 2 delegates. Then comes Mississippi. Let's assume the split is 60/40, Obama -- he picks up 7 delegates, and so -- since March 4 -- he's back up 1.
Flash forward to Pennsylvania, and let's assume that Hillary Clinton manages to win 60% of the vote in the state. She'll earn 32 extra delegates -- her biggest net gain so far.
I'll give the next two states and a territory to Obama -- by six points only each -- Guam (+0 net), Indiana (+4 net) and North Carolina (+7 net). Hillary Clinton has a shot to win West Virginia, which votes on March 13, so let's assume she wins by 10 points, earning a net of two extra delegates. Momentum carries over into Kentucky, which she wins by 10 points and earns five extra delegates. She's not going to win Oregon, probably -- Obama picks up six delegates there.
The June 3 primaries of Montana and South Dakota are probably Obama's: let's assume he wins them by 10 points, earning a total of 3 net delegates.
The last contest is the Puerto Rico caucuses, which takes place on June 7. Let's give Hillary Clinton an 80 to 20 victory there, giving her a net of 33 earned delegates.
So -- under these most rosy of scenarios -- since March 4, she'll have earned 520 delegates to Barack Obama's 461, having reduced his earned delegate total by about 80 -- or -- by about 60 percent -- but he'll still have a lead of approximately 100 delegates in total... and be that much closer to 2025.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)