home

Updated Delegate Math: What Each Needs

Chris Bowers at Open Left has been numbers-crunching:

Obama needs 471.5 of the 875 remaining delegates, or 53.9%, in order to reach the magic number.

Clinton needs even more, 489.5 of 875, or 56.0%. Both scenarios are extremely unlikely.

Those numbers are very close to each other. Put another way, Hillary is only 18 delegates behind Obama in the race for the next 875.

Chris then makes predictions. But they all start with his (probably educated)guess that the credentials committee will refuse to seat MI and FL because it will have more Obama supporters than Hillary supporters on it. But these committee members like superdelegates can change their support at any time, and not all of them have declared, so I'm not prepared to agree with that. That said, here's how Chris sees it playing out:

What is likely is that the Clinton campaign will push for Michigan and Florida to be seated as is, and use the Michigan and Florida delegations to argue that Obama has not yet clinched the nomination. After June 3rd, they will take that argument to the credentials committee, which gains authority over the matter on June 11th.

From that point, the credentials committee will probably deny the Clinton's campaign's argument to seat both delegations as is, since Obama will probably control the majority of seats on the committee. The next step will be for the Clinton faction on the committee to file a minority report on the delegations, which will then be referred to the full convention.

The full floor vote on the Michigan and Florida delegations will then be a good proxy to determine who will win the nomination on the first ballot. And that is what the convention fight of 2008 will probably look like.

Chris also got this e-mail from the DNC on why they didn't penalize NH for moving its primary date up:

New Hampshire wasn't punished for moving up because the Rules and Bylaws Committee voted to allow NH, IA, NV and SC to move their primary dates after Florida and Michigan moved their primaries forward. So that the was the reason there was no punishment. The RBC members felt that because they (the 4 states) had been granted early state status they should be allowed to move their primary based on FL and MI's decision.

Update: Thanks to a commenter below, I see that on Feb. 12, Chris argued for the seating of the Florida delegates in accord with the Jan. 29 votes.

And for the record, I can't make heads or tails out of his chart. I'm not vouching for it, just putting it out there.

< Abandoning The Clinton Uncertainty/Revote Theory | PPP PA Poll: Clinton By 26 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    He's my 2 cents. (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by MarkL on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:31:59 PM EST
    Superdelegates are the answer: not by choosing the nominee, but by declaring that FL and MI must be seated.

    This is worth a lot more than 2 cents. Seating (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Angel on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:48:20 PM EST
    FL and MI is the right thing to do.

    Parent
    It certainly is (none / 0) (#26)
    by JJE on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:26:42 PM EST
    If you're cool with shams and fraud.  Otherwise, it's not.

    Parent
    A redo is the only answer (none / 0) (#69)
    by commonscribe on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:09:42 AM EST

    nothing else comes close to being fair to either candidate.

    Parent
    Pretty lame rationale in that e-mail. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:34:19 PM EST


    Yeah, lame is right (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by litigatormom on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:37:04 PM EST
    We decided to let the 4 states we wanted to be first move up even earlier, so they were still earlier than MI and FLA, but we still decided to penalize the voters of MI and FLA, who were not responsible for the decision to move their primaries up.

    If I were a MI or FLA Democrat, I would be blaming the DNC, not the state parties, for disenfranchising me.

    Parent

    Bowers misses another DNC mistake (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:21:31 PM EST
    which was to make the convention so late -- almost September.  That is the factor that most makes reuniting after the convention difficult, with so little time until the general election.

    Both conventions are so late this year -- anyone recall why?

    Parent

    Maybe (none / 0) (#70)
    by cmugirl on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:01:39 AM EST
    Because the Olympics start on 8/8/08 and they didn't want to compete with that?

    Parent
    It's the most tortured logic ... (none / 0) (#4)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:41:07 PM EST
    but it's just a way to avoid discussing the fact that the FL primary did end up following the spirit if not the letter of the rules.

    It occurred after IA, NH, NV and SC.

    Parent

    There's another point that doesn't (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by MarkL on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:43:40 PM EST
    get mentioned enough: because of the punishment, FL and MI had no impact on the other primaries---in fact, they had LESS impact than normal.
    In that case, why retain the penalty for early voting? Most of the rationale is gone.

    Parent
    My reaction to that is: How dare anyone (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Joelarama on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:45:23 PM EST
    declare that Hillary has lost, Obama has won, and Hillary must drop her campaign now, lest she be smeared as a traitor who is threatening to start a civil war?

    More numbers games? (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by faux facsimile on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:46:23 PM EST
    Chris Bowers allocates 82 Michigan delegates to Clinton, 1 to Obama, and 55 to 'other'. I'll make the bold prediction that such a scenario is almost as likely as Al Gore winning the nomination.

    Both need more than 50% (none / 0) (#60)
    by claudius on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:23:14 AM EST
    I don't understand in the above analysis how both Obama and Clinton need more than 50% of the remaining delegates?  What if they both get 50?  No one is nominated?

    Something is not right with the math here.


    Parent

    Those figures are based on his 3rd total (none / 0) (#62)
    by JoeA on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:06:14 AM EST
    which assumes that delegates are allocated from both Florida, and Michigan based on the early votes.  Not gonna happen.

    Parent
    very lame rationale. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by cpinva on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:50:59 PM EST
    if "the rules are the rules" then those states should have been told no, regardless of FL & MI. so, as we can see, "the rules are the rules, sort of".

    which goes to show that they who make the rules can unmake them, they clearly aren't cast in bronze. at this point, they better pray that one of them (clinton/obama) runs the table in the remaining primaries, or the convention is not going to be a pretty sight.

    Chris Bowers (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Coldblue on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:55:32 PM EST
    on February 12

    Enough?

    If those numbers are right, BTD is wrong (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:42:10 PM EST
    56% is not impossible for Hillary. Difficult, but not impossible--especially given the way the delegates are likely to be awarded in Indiana.  

    Anything is possible (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:46:53 PM EST
    I'd ask how Indiana awards its delegates, but if I wanted to be confused I'd be working on my taxes.

    Parent
    Could you (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by TN Dem on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:53:37 PM EST
    Please fill me in on Indiana's delegate allocation procedures and why they may be beneficial to Hillary? I must have missed that info.
    Thanks!

    Parent
    See (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:57:02 PM EST
    here.

    At large and by district.

    Parent

    Got it! (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by TN Dem on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:34:55 PM EST
    Thanks again! The site was very informative.

    So it looks like the delegates are binding, which helps deminish the likelyhood of foul play between May and June when the state convention is held. 47 will come from district allocations which, at least in theory helps to cut down on the possibility of a delegate blow-out. Looks like only 16 will go proportionately to state popular vote, so even in the case of a significant lead by one candidate over another the delegate hit will not be huge based on that.

    Parent

    Is Bowers the HRC supporter? (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:46:06 PM EST
    Where did you get that idea? (none / 0) (#13)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:47:54 PM EST
    If I knew I wouldn't have asked. (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:49:17 PM EST
    I can't check from this computer.  And I may have been thinking of mydd anyway.  

    Parent
    Chris Is An Obama Supporter (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:00:14 PM EST
    even when he has to twist himself in knots to be one. IOW he sometimes struggles with things Obama does or positions he takes, but manages to talk himself back around using rather stange logic.

    Parent
    Those numbers assume MI and FL seated (none / 0) (#63)
    by JoeA on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:07:01 AM EST
    The numbers you cite (none / 0) (#7)
    by JJE on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:44:53 PM EST
    To get to an 18 delegate difference assume FLA and MI delegates are seated according to the Jan. 29 results.  There's no reason to assume that will happen.

    Then Obama will have (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:47:26 PM EST
    effectively stolen the nomination. So much for the moral high ground.


    Parent
    AHH 1 delegate in MI for Obama (none / 0) (#22)
    by mikecan1978 on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:00:24 PM EST
    Isn't fair......

    This analysis by Chris is crap it doesn't even include the uncommited in Michigan.   Ridiculas that this would be quoted.

    Parent

    numbers game (none / 0) (#67)
    by VicAjax on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:05:26 AM EST

    i don't have a problem with Clinton supporters speculating based on these numbers... as long as it is in context.

    such as:

    "These numbers are based on a hypothetical scenario in which Clinton is awarded 82 Michigan delegates and Obama is awarded only 1, with the remainder going to undecided."

    but of course, including context renders such speculation irrelevent to the purposes of this blog.

    Parent

    Yes yes (none / 0) (#23)
    by JJE on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:09:35 PM EST
    You think perpetrating a fraud on everyone who didn't vote is ok if it means those who did get to vote have their say.  This issue has been rehashed a million times.

    Parent
    Fraud??? what are you smoking? (none / 0) (#30)
    by MarkL on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:40:28 PM EST
    .. not that Jeralyn has any objection to that, of course...
    You keep saying the issue is settled, but you fail to acknowledge that there are even two sides to it!
    By the way, you said you would stop discussing this last night.

    Parent
    Nope, I said (1.00 / 1) (#31)
    by JJE on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:45:33 PM EST
    I'd stop arguing it with you.  Since you don't even try to address arguments on the merits, preferring whining and personal attacks.  And here I am breaking my pledge.  Sorry about that.  I'll recommit myself to not responding to shills.

    Parent
    Try providing evidence. that would help. (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by MarkL on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:47:28 PM EST
    You continue to claim that people in Florida were cheated. I do not buy that, since 1.7 million voted.
    Yes, I agree there are too sides to the issue, but why punish the people who voted?
    Conditions in other states were much more onerous than in FL. In fact, some Obama supporters on here reveled in that fact.


    Parent
    *two* sides. (none / 0) (#33)
    by MarkL on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:48:36 PM EST
    You want evidence? (none / 0) (#71)
    by thefncrow on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:03:42 AM EST
    How about this study by a Wharton professor(PDF)?

    The study compares Democratic turnout relative to Republican turnout in the 2004 Presidential election to Democratic turnout relative to Republican turnout in the 2008 primaries.  When you compare that data, only 3 states showed reduced Democratic turnout: Arizona(which is fairly close to the parity line), Michigan, and Florida.

    So, even though Democratic turnout in the illegitimate early contest in Florida may have been record-setting, it's also significantly out of line with the pattern that's been observed nationally.  An estimate made in the study comes up with the idea that, based on these national trends, turnout in Florida for the Democratic primary should have been 2.85 million voters, instead of 1.7 million, a difference of 1.15 million voters.  

    For Michigan, it finds that turnout should have been 1.305 million voters, instead of 590,000.  The Michigan number is remarkable, because, as the study concludes that Michigan should have had a turnout of 1.3 million and only got 590,000, there is a difference of 715,000 voters.  In other words, based on the study, more would-be Democratic voters stayed home than went to the polls.

    In total, that's an estimated total of 1.865 million people who would have voted in the Democratic primary, had Florida and Michigan held contests that counted.  Perhaps these states can somehow come together and find a plan to run a real and fair primary contest before June 10th, and if so, we might be able to discover just how close these numbers are to reality.  But, if the states cannot get their act together and do just that, any argument to seat delegates based on those illegitimate primary contests must also consider the near 2 million people who didn't vote not because they didn't want to, but because the contests were determined before the fact to be meaningless.

    If you'd like to argue about the data, that's fine, but I think the data shows either:

    1. Florida and Michigan's turnout was depressed due to the knowledge that their primaries would not count
    2. Florida and Michigan have grown significantly more Republican since 2004, despite Michigan having Granholm win re-election by a significant margin in 2006 and the election of a few Democratic members of the House in Florida in the same year

    I consider the latter of those to be less likely than the former.

    Parent

    What you utterly fail to do is establish (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by MarkL on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:50:11 PM EST
    a basis for valuing disenfranchisement over bending the rules. Of course, the rules allow the FL delegations to be seated. You do acknowledge that fact, right? Also, there was no agreement from the candidates about not seating the delegates.

    Parent
    From LA Times: (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:58:35 PM EST
    Susan MacManus, a political scientist at the University of South Florida in Tampa, largely agreed. She said the controversy already had dampened enthusiasm among Democrats, who turned out in record numbers in January.

    Florida Democrats, she said, "are very frustrated because this was a year that they really felt that the sun was shining on them. They would not only win Florida for their presidential candidate but pick up some [state] legislative seats and congressional seats. They were just on cloud nine and now, all of a sudden, it's like a storm cloud is over Florida."



    Parent
    Right, the value for the PARTY of (none / 0) (#36)
    by MarkL on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:00:52 PM EST
    seating the FL delegation is enormous; the cost of not doing so, frighteningly high. This is not to mention the abhorrence of disenfranchising voters---in FL of all places.
    Against this, you have the theoretical possibility that Obama could have done better had he campaigned.
    And how does this consideration even fit into the RULES? I do not know.

    Parent
    I'll address your three comments at once (none / 0) (#39)
    by JJE on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:25:57 PM EST
    Lest the dread "chattering" charge be thrown at me again.  I did provide evidence that turnout was depressed relative to other primary states.  My repeated citation of that evidence caused you to sling said chattering charge, so I dare not cite that evidence again, and, may I humbly suggest that it is rather audacious of you to ask that I provide yet again the very empirical evidence that prompted you to insult me only 24 hours ago.  And, anticipating your dismissive response that what I cited was an "opinion piece" I will point out that I cited the opinion piece for the empirical evidence contained therein, not for the conclusions drawn therefrom.  

    Your recitation of the "1.7 million" talking point is unpersuasive to anyone who gives serious consideration to the issue, because, of course, an absolute turnout number has absolutely no bearing on the proposition that some potential voters did not vote based on their reasonable reliance on representations that votes for the presidential candidate would not be used as a basis for the seating of delegates.

    I see you have finally made a responsive argument, which is that the disenfranchising of the 1.7 million outweighs "bending of the rules".  My response is that the "bending of the rules" actually amounts to "breaking of the rules" and one of the rules you would like to break is the rule that in a democratic election all stakeholders should know what the votes are for at the time of the election, and that should not be changed after the outcome is determined.

    Taking your argument from the realm of abstract principle to the precise matter at hand, a more precise summation of your argument is that disenfranchising the aforementioned non-voters is justified by the enfranchisement of the 1.7 million, and that argument is self-refuting.

    Now you've caused me to break my pledge twice.  Please don't ask me to do so again unless you are actually going to wrestle with the above on the merits.

    Parent

    Do you know ANYTHING about (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by MarkL on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:34:57 PM EST
    statistics? While I am no expert, I do know something about the subject, and I have taught a course in it. You CANNOT establish the premises of your argument without some solid statistical analysis. Provide some, or just admit what you have is little better than anecdotal evidence.

    Parent
    By the way (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by blogtopus on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:47:59 PM EST
    "Your recitation of the "1.7 million" talking point is unpersuasive to anyone who gives serious consideration to the issue, because, of course, an absolute turnout number has absolutely no bearing on the proposition that some potential voters did not vote based on their reasonable reliance on representations that votes for the presidential candidate would not be used as a basis for the seating of delegates."

    So basically you're saying not everyone turned out, right? I can agree with that. However, in order for that as an argument in not counting Florida to hold water, you have to prove that more Obama supporters stayed home than Hillary supporters. Otherwise you're just fighting statistical science (and, um, logic).

    You can say the science is bad, but the truth is every single poll ever taken in the history of polls is based on that aspect of statistics: That a smaller, random selection represents the whole of a population. So what do we use as our sample selection? How about the 1.7 million people who went to the polls? Is that a big enough sampling for you? Doesn't it make sense that the same proportion of people who like Hillary / Obama stayed home as went to vote? For every reason you can come up with that Obama voters stayed home, I can assure you there is an equally valid reason for Hillary voters to have stayed home, too.

    Seeing as how it is Obama who wants to overturn the Florida results, the burden of proof should rest with him to prove that more Obama voters stayed home than Hillary voters. Of course, he can't.

    Feel free to attack the science, but the history of its use is in every poll. And with a sampling of 1.7 million clear records to support it (private votes, not open questionnaires), it's going to be hard to ignore it.

    Parent

    Btw, I just looked up your 'evidence" (none / 0) (#37)
    by MarkL on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:16:14 PM EST
    If that one op-ed is all you have, you might as well give up the argument. That's preposterous cherry-picking.

    Parent
    That's three times! (none / 0) (#41)
    by JJE on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:28:14 PM EST
    The "op-ed" (actually a blog post) was cited because it succintly summarizes the evidence.  You haven't even tried to grapple with the evidence.  I actually don't need to use the blog post unless you are willing to commit yourself to the proposition that not a single voter stayed home based on the reasonable belief that the Jan. 29 primary was a beauty contest that would not count for delegates.

    Parent
    Do you read your own posts? (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by MarkL on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:33:17 PM EST
    You claimed fraud. A smattering of pseudostatistics does nothing to show THAT.
    Now, I never claimed that people didn't show up for one reason or another. The  best way to establish that would be by polling FL. Democrats.
    Did you ever consider that some Democrats were MORE  motivated to vote, because of the DNC ruling? I'm sure some were.
    Then, there's the question of showing that Obama suffered because of the depressed turnout which you haven't demonstrated.
    If you have a link to a reputable pollster in that regard, fine, but what you posted isn't even a pretense to statistical analysis.

    Parent
    Saying that your vote counts for A (none / 0) (#44)
    by JJE on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:36:28 PM EST
    the day that you vote, and then changing it, after the voting, so that it counts for B, is fraud.  Do you not understand that?

    If not, let's try an experiment.  A neutral party can pick a number between 1 and 10.  Then you and I will try to see who can guess it.  The winner gets $1.  Then, if I win, I will demand $1 million.  You will have no reason to complain if you actually believe what you're saying.

    Parent

    So why did people vote? (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by MarkL on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:40:43 PM EST
    You are arguing in the abstract, but in the real world, people went to the polls because they wanted their votes to count. This is abundantly clear both from polls and op-ed pieces in FL.
    If you want to stay in the abstract, I can respond that people knew there was a possibility the delegates would be seated, and that their votes would count. In fact, I know that is the case.
    Your claim that  people knew their votes would count for nothing is extremely insulting---not to me, but to the voters in FL.
    Their votes expressed their desire not to be cheated out of a voice in the nomination.

    Parent
    And again: ( since you are so repetitive, (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by MarkL on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:42:59 PM EST
    I see no harm in repeating myself as well)
    You choose to weight an abstract, unproven harm, against the obvious, enormous damage of disenfranchising the FL voters. Sorry, people who put winning in Nov. first will not support your values.

    Parent
    Yes, it's true (none / 0) (#53)
    by JJE on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:49:10 PM EST
    People who put pure power politics over basic principles of democracy will agree you with you rather than me.  It's pretty obvious to me that is where our difference lies.  Much trouble could have been spared if you'd simply said that at the outset rather than pretending you cared about fairness to Florida voters.

    As for the "unproven" nature of the disenfranchisement you support, it's the only reasonable inference from the data I've cited (and you've only been able to dismiss with handwaving as "an op-ed" and "pseudostatistics").  Until you provide an actual argument for why those statistics should not be believed I'll remain comfortable in my conclusions.

    Parent

    Now that's orwellian: (none / 0) (#55)
    by MarkL on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:52:48 PM EST
    the claim that wanting to count votes is "power politics", and that not counting them is "basic democracy".

    You apparently do not know the first thing about statistics, and so there's no point discussing your "evidence" any further. Without resorting to technical arguments, it's clear to a reasonable layman that if you can only find one set of numbers favorable to your argument, you are cherry-picking.
    I am done with YOU now. Anyone who says not counting votes is a basic principle of democracy is not worth  my time.

    Parent

    Some of the certainly did (none / 0) (#48)
    by JJE on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:43:37 PM EST
    vote for the reasons you suggest, but the evidence suggests that many did not.  Why are you so eager to insult them by saying they should have assumed that results they were told wouldn't count actually would?

    Parent
    You have ONE piece of evidence (none / 0) (#49)
    by MarkL on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:46:05 PM EST
    If your case were stronger, there would be more evidence to back it up.


    Parent
    At least we've gotten somewhere (none / 0) (#54)
    by JJE on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:51:57 PM EST
    And you're no longer trying to pretend the statistics are unsound or don't support the conclusion.  If you could do so, I might give your call for more evidence more credit.  But so far, I think I've carried my burden.

    I've repeatedly broken my pledge, but perhaps it was worth it.  It's getting late so this will have to be my last word on this topic for today.

    Parent

    You misunderstand. (none / 0) (#57)
    by MarkL on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:53:37 PM EST
    read my last commment. I am done with YOU on this subject.

    Parent
    Pseudostatistics? (none / 0) (#46)
    by JJE on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:41:43 PM EST
    What do you claim is wrong?  The aggregate vote numbers or the simple third-grade division used to arrive at the percentages?  Please try to provide some reason for your dismissal.  Otherwise I may have little choice but to conclude that you are simply arguing for the outcome you desire and care not a whit for logic or democracy.

    Parent
    Sample size of 3??? (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by MarkL on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:47:02 PM EST
    I rest my case.
    But also, don't forget that FL was a key state for the Republican primaries. It's not surprising that Republican turnout was higher there.

    Parent
    Sample size of 3 (none / 0) (#52)
    by blogtopus on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:48:58 PM EST
    Versus a sample size of 1.7 million that says otherwise.

    Parent
    That "point" has already been addressed (none / 0) (#56)
    by JJE on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:53:13 PM EST
    Scroll up.

    Parent
    It's larger than any sample size you have (none / 0) (#58)
    by JJE on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:54:36 PM EST
    If you'd like to argue that this year did not see record turnout in Dem primaries, have at it.  I've provided evidence, you haven't.  Ball's in your court.

    Now this is really good night.

    Parent

    Democratic turnout was not depressed (none / 0) (#61)
    by xspowr on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:08:26 AM EST
    (Posted this yesterday on another thread in response to JJE's "evidence" that Democratic turnout was suppressed. It was late and near the end of the thread, so I thought it might be worth reposting here).

    Took a look at your linked source. The author of that post uses "Republican primary voters as a percentage of Democratic primary voters" as the metric by which to measure whether Democratic turnout was depressed in Florida in the 2008 primary. The author uses 2008 Florida primary data and compares it to 2008 primary data for New Hampshire and South Carolina to reach his conclusion that Democratic turnout was depressed (allegedly due to voters being told their votes would not matter in Florida).  Specifically, he reports the following numbers: NH (82%), SC (84%), and FL (114%).
    However, this methodology is flawed. To begin with, the author fails to take into account vastly different population and demographic data in these three states, which may have affected voter turnout patterns.  Second, the author fails to account for other possible influences on turnout, such as statewide or local measures that may have affected turnout (such as the paper ballot question in Florida).  Third, the author ignores the most relevant metric, which is the historical pattern of Democratic turnout in Florida itself.

    Like the author, I also did a bit of "back of the matchbook" arithmetic to look at historical voter turnout patterns in Florida, using the same metric as the author ("Republican primary voters as a percentage of Democratic primary voters") as a determinant of depressed turnout. I looked at data from 1980 to 2008.  Data from 1984 is excluded, as Ronald Reagan was the only Republican nominee on the ballot, and Republican turnout was abnormally suppressed that year as a result.  Comparative data from 1996 and 2004 is unavailable (there was no Democratic primary in 1996, and no Republican primary in 2004).

    Accordingly, meaningful comparative data for Florida is available for 1980, 1988, 1992, 2000, and 2008. The results are as follows:

    1980 (56%)
    1988 (71%)
    1992 (82%)
    2000 (127%)
    2008 (112%)

    The pattern, as the data shows, is an increasing Republican turnout compared to Democrats from 1980 to 2000, when it peaked at 127% (i.e., in 2000 more Republicans voted than Democrats for the first time in this dataset).

    Notably, the data suggest that a higher Republican turnout in Florida is part of a longterm historical trend, and not an anomaly supporting the conclusion that Democratic turnout was depressed in 2008. More importantly, from 2000 to 2008, the relevant metric actually declined by 15%, which supports the conclusion that Democratic participation in the 2008 primary increased in comparison to the 2000 primary. Combined with the overall record turnout in the 2008 primary (approximately 1.7 million versus 754,000 in 2004 and 552,000 in 2000), the conclusion would have to be that Democratic turnout was not only not depressed in 2008, but that it actually took a substantial upward turn.

    Parent

    Is this backwards or is my reading (none / 0) (#18)
    by ding7777 on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:55:07 PM EST
    comprehension off?

    the credentials committee will refuse to seat MI and FL because it will have more Obama supporters than Hillary supporters on it.


    Maybe mine is off (none / 0) (#24)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:10:31 PM EST
    Here's what he wrote:

    What is likely is that the Clinton campaign will push for Michigan and Florida to be seated as is, and use the Michigan and Florida delegations to argue that Obama has not yet clinched the nomination. After June 3rd, they will take that argument to the credentials committee, which gains authority over the matter on Jnne 11th. From that point, the credentials committee will probably deny the Clinton's campaign's argument to seat both delegations as is, since Obama will probably control the majority of seats on the committee. The next step will be for the Clinton faction on the committee to file a minority report on the delegations, which will then be referred to the full convention. The full floor vote on the Michigan and Florida delegations will then be a good proxy to determine who will win the nomination on the first ballot.

    I assumed he meant Hillary's request to seat the delegates would be denied because he has more backers on the credentials committee.

    Parent

    my bad (none / 0) (#27)
    by ding7777 on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:29:56 PM EST
     I realized as soon as I hit the post button that the "it" refered to the credentials committee and not to the "seat[ing]" of MI/FL.

    Parent
    No, he has used the totals assuming (none / 0) (#64)
    by JoeA on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:11:28 AM EST
    Florida and Michigan are seated to count how many delegates are needed to "win" before the convention.  However representation on the committee and on the floor will be based on excluding MI and FL,  making it vanishingly unlikely that Hillary will have enough support to seat the MI and FL delegates without Obama's support.

    Parent
    well if you are not vouching for charts, (none / 0) (#25)
    by cy street on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:22:13 PM EST
    then add mine:

    obama 2026 delegates.

    Reality Check (none / 0) (#40)
    by thefncrow on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:27:38 PM EST
    I'm sorry, but this is a pretty lame analysis, because of the FL/MI issue.  

    The first number quoted, the Obama number, that's a pretty good number to keep your eye on.  If Obama hits that number, it's over, period.  Nothing Hillary can do can stop him.

    However, Hillary's number, needing just 489.5, includes the assumption that Florida and Michigan will be allowed to seat delegates based on their illegitimate early primaries without penalty.  That's nowhere near a given.  You'll have a very difficult time getting Michigan seated as is, and even though Florida might get some split based upon the illegitimate Jan 29 primary, getting 100% of that delegation is highly questionable.

    The total that should be used is the numbers under Total 1.  If you use that number, Obama needs 360/846 delegates, or 42.5%, and Clinton needs 504/846, or 59.5%.  

    Barring a failure for Clinton to get 504/846, we can then bump to No MI/FL 100%, where she needs 493/856, or 57.5% of the delegates, against Obama's 394/856 (46%).

    Where the math goes really lopsided, is when the sham Michigan elections are factored in, where Clinton nets a bunch of delegates and Obama has only a single superdelegate factored into the numbers.

    The only reason the delegate math seems so favorable in this situation is that the situation provided isn't the race as it stands now, but the race as it would stand if she's able to introduce delegations that have not held legitimate primary contests into the field without penalty.  That's not likely to happen.  

    If you run the numbers of where we stand today on this, you see the real discrepancy: Obama can win with just over 40% of the remaining delegates, while Hillary needs almost 60% of the remaining delegates.  That's the reality of where we stand.  There will be no seating of the FL/MI delegations based on the illegitimate early contests unless they're voted in by the Rules Committee or the whole Convention, and you'll only see those votes tip for Hillary if she's able to come up with the delegates that would put her over 2025 on the first ballot anyway.

    If Hillary can't get to the convention with more delegates than Obama, she's done.  In order to do that, she'll need 60% of all remaining delegates, pledged and super.  Anything less and she won't be able to introduce Florida, or introduce Michigan, let alone hold off Obama on the first ballot.  She will be finished without 60% of the remaining delegates, and it's unlikely that she can even get 60% of the remaining pledged delegates, she will need more than 60% of the superdelegates.

    "illegitimate" does not equate to (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:02:28 AM EST
    "unfair to Obama".
    Those primaries were held under equal conditions---even in MI, where Obama's people campaigned HARD for the uncommitted vote.
    Throwing out ALL the votes because it hurts Obama is "Bush v. Gore" reasoning.

    Parent
    The numbers (none / 0) (#65)
    by clapclappointpoint on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:02:39 AM EST
    assume the FL and MI delegates are seated as-is.  This would give Hillary a boost of +87 delegates for MI alone.  Given that she picked up about 10 net delegates from OH, this is the equivalent of giving Hillary about 9 Ohio victories.

    These calculations are based on the absolute worst case scenario and still trying to seat the FL and MI delegations as-is.  The original post doesn't clarify this and it might give some false hope to Clinton supporters.

    False hope (none / 0) (#68)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:27:35 AM EST
    You mean like the same one that Obama supporters have thinking he will win the nomination by reaching the required delegate count?

    I think very funny how hard Obama supporters are trying to convince others (and themselves) that he has won, that with or without FL/MI Clinton can't win, etc. All the while ignoring constantly that Obama can't win either.

    Don't assume delegate lead equals winning folks. And honestly its getting tiring reading the same lines over and over and over again.

    Parent

    Winning to Lose? (none / 0) (#66)
    by Doc Rock on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:35:42 AM EST
    If the Obama camp hopes to win by continuing to block all attempts to have a fair revote of FL/MI and also to block seating of the FL/MI delegations, I foresee a pyrrhic victory for Obama that may only set back his general election chances. A choice for a Solomon?

    This is another shocking post (none / 0) (#72)
    by Raheem on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:30:34 PM EST
    You are citing two states that are not seated, and give Hillary 55 delegates in Michigan even tho she was the only name on the ballot...

    this is not news... well, it is, if this was Fox News...