Omigod! Here come the superdelegates! The Washington Post's Paul Kane has done the math and reached the conclusion that the Democratic presidential race will be decided by superdelegates--those 800 or so party officials and officeholders who are automatically awarded delegate status and who can vote any which way they please at the convention. Kane explains:
There are 3,253 pledged delegates, those doled out based on actual voting in primaries and caucuses. And you need 2,025 to win the nomination. To date, about 52 percent of those 3,253 delegates have been pledged in the voting process -- with Clinton and Obama roughly splitting them at 832 and 821 delegates a piece, according to the AP.
That means there are now only about 1,600 delegates left up for grabs in the remaining states and territories voting.
So, do the math. If they both have 820 plus pledged delegates so far, they'll need to win roughly 1,200 -- 75 percent -- of the remaining 1,600 delegates to win the nomination through actual voting.
In other words: Ain't gonna happen...And then the super delegates decide this thing.
Does this mean the contest will be settled in some smoke-free backroom by machine hacks who don't give a fig about the Democratic vox populi?
Not necessarily. Kane's arithmetic is spot-on. But with superdelegates comprising about 20 percent of the entire voting bloc, they essentially have to play a part in any close race. The question is how will they break. At the end of the primary season, one candidate will have more non-superdelegates than the other. If that contender also ends up with a majority of superdelegates, all will be well. The people's choice wins. It won't matter that he or she needed superdelegates to reach the magic number.
But if the second-place finisher picks up enough of a majority of the superdelegates to leap over the leader, then there will be quite a fuss. In that case, non-elected delegates will be deciding the race against the will of the majority (however slight it might be) of Democratic voters.
At this stage, there's no telling what all those superdelegates will do. Fewer than half have committed--and, as of a few days ago, the campaigns were saying that Clinton had about a 70-delegate edge among this band. But these superdelegates can change their minds up until the vote is called at the convention.
As for the non-declared SDs, will they want to see the party elite anoint the second-place candidate and create a massive firestorm that will divide the party? And remember the Democratic establishment is not the same thing as the Clinton establishment. Not all of these influential Democrats are Clintonites. Not all believe that Clinton would be the best candidate for the party in November. She has the lead in superdelegates at the moment, but Obama can be competitive in this contest.
So place a hold on conspiracy theorizing or super-delegate hysteria for the time being. After all the primary votes are counted, the spotlight will shine brightly on these people. If they want to pull a backroom stunt, they will have to do so in public view.
There are 3,253 pledged delegates, those doled out based on actual voting in primaries and caucuses. And you need 2,025 to win the nomination. To date, about 52 percent of those 3,253 delegates have been pledged in the voting process -- with Clinton and Obama roughly splitting them at 832 and 821 delegates a piece, according to the AP. ...
So, do the math. If they both have 820 plus pledged delegates so far, they'll need to win roughly 1,200 -- 75 percent -- of the remaining 1,600 delegates to win the nomination through actual voting.
832 TO 821??? This misinformed writer is confusing the results of Super Tuesday with the overall results.
Obama claims delegate lead By: Mike Allen February 6, 2008 11:09 AM EST
In a surprise twist after a chaotic Super Tuesday, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) passed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) in network tallies of the number of delegates the candidates racked up last night.
The Obama camp now projects topping Clinton by 13 delegates, 847 to 834.
NBC News, which is projecting delegates based on the Democratic Party's complex formula, figures Obama will wind up with 840 to 849 delegates, versus 829 to 838 for Clinton.
Hmm.. well the source for this piece in Mother jones was :
I went back and I see the Mother Jones piece shows the current date at the top of the page, but that is not the date of publication. At the bottom, the MJ piece notes it is:
Posted by David Corn on 02/08/08 at 9:25 AM
So, the whole thing is over two months old, but Mother Jones has a confusing way of displaying the material.
I saw that.. however the date of both pieces are only 1 day apart. That's where my confusion comes it... You think it's funny business, or just a simple mistake?
How could they get the numbers so wrong? Someone is wrong and someone is right, (or less wrong)..
We should find a source that resolves this delegate count issue. Whichever one is wrong, needs to be corrected and who ever is right, might be well served offereing 3 sources for his data.
Fire off a couple emails and then see if they can resoncile and issue a correction.
The Mother Jones article is two months old. It reflects thinking on 2/8/2008 that Obama held a slim lead of 832 - 821. Not all the final results of the then most recent primaries/caucuses were accurately known then and the breakdown up to that point (Feb 8th) now indicates 919-881, a lead of 38 in pledged delegates to Obama.
However, Obama then went on to win the next 12 primaries in a row and increased his pledged-delegate lead by an additional 126 delegates, to 164.
The two subsequent Clinton wins in OH and RI gained a net of 14 delegates, but Obama wins in TX, WY, and MS gained a net of 14 delegates, resulting in no change, and a return to an Obama lead of 164 pledged delegates.
Since the Mother Jones article was published, Obama has won the majority of pledged delegates in states 15-2.
Up to 2/8, the states went 16-10 Obama, with two states where delegates were evenly split. The subsequent 15-2 demolition (31-12 overall) cannot easily be ignored by the superdelegates. Subsequent events have seriously undermined the point of the article from February. When the contests are over, Clinton will definitely trail in the number of contests won, and most probably trail in pledged delegates and popular vote.
From the 2/8 subject article of this thread:
At this stage, there's no telling what all those superdelegates will do. Fewer than half have committed--and, as of a few days ago, the campaigns were saying that Clinton had about a 70-delegate edge among this band.
With the increased Obama lead, and the dwindling number of contests remaining, the mathematical considerations from February no longer hold true.
What was then a lead of 70 among superdelegates has now shrunk to 26 as Obama has picked up superdelegates and some have defected from Clinton.
Of the 795 superdelegates, 478 are now announced, leaving only 317 up for grabs (barring defections). Clinton must do some catching up in the primary/caucus contests or she would need to win 71+% of the remaining superdelegates 227-90.
Upcoming contests, with delegates available (566 total), and current polling data from Political Dashboard at Yahoo.
While unlikely, giving Clinton 60% of these delegates (roughly a 20% win in every state) would only net a gain of 113. Then she would need to win among the remaining 317 superdelegates by 172-145.
Clinton is not mathematically eliminated, but the practical challenges are very formidable.
04/22 - PA (158) - Clinton +7% 05/03 - GUAM (4) - 05/06 - NC (115) - Obama +15% 05/06 - IN (72) 05/13 - WV (28) 05/20 - OR (52) 05/20 - KY (51) 06/01 - PR (55) 06/03 - MT (16) 06/03 - SD (15)
Up to 2/8, the states went 16-10 Obama, with two states where delegates were evenly split. The subsequent 15-2 demolition (31-12 overall) cannot easily be ignored by the superdelegates. Subsequent events have seriously undermined the point of the article from February. When the contests are over, Clinton will definitely trail in the number of contests won, and most probably trail in pledged delegates and popular vote.
From the 2/8 subject article of this thread:
At this stage, there's no telling what all those superdelegates will do. Fewer than half have committed--and, as of a few days ago, the campaigns were saying that Clinton had about a 70-delegate edge among this band. With the increased Obama lead, and the dwindling number of contests remaining, the mathematical considerations from February no longer hold true.
OUTSTANDING.. And that is true...
So how could it be that both sources having written the peices one day apart are so differrent??? That's the mystery for me. Stranger still, MJ posted their op-ed, sourcing a piece two months old, why?
That said, I agree, the reality of those number shifted greatly after the following contests... No arguement.
But how could one source be sooooooo different than the other one day apart?
Why purposefully mislead? Why weren't other sources used to confirm accuracy?
Maybe I'm being too suspicious, but there are a minimum of 3 things in play with this.
GREAT JOB, I love analysis, and thank you very much for posting that.