The Delegate Math Behind A Hillary Clinton Victory
By jormins
@jormins (1223)
United States
April 26, 2008 1:02am CST
I know the media is pushing that this race is very, very alive. While Senator Clinton has some momentum, the last numbers I've seen show her down even after Pennsylvania by 156 pledged delegates. Her "huge" victories in Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania netted her only a grand total of 12 delegates.
Mathematically, its virtually impossible for her to catch up. And yes the Supers can veto the popular vote and voted delegates but if that were to happen you would see the lowest turnout for young voters and black voters for the Democratic Party for many, many years to come. Rush Limbaugh would have a heart attack in his sleep he'd be so happy.
Here is the only scenario left for Clinton:
Win 70% to 30% over Obama in Indiana, Guam, West Virginia, Oregon, Kentucky, Montana, South Dakota, & Puerto Rico.
Also win in North Carolina, where Obama is polling a 15% lead on her currently, 65% to 35%.
Those truly huge victories would give her a 2 pledged delegate lead and the momentum to convince the Supers that she's their nominee. However considering Clinton only received 70% of the vote in her home state of Arkansas, and in New York (the other home state) only had 59% of the vote, these numbers are virtually impossible.
Playing the devil's advocate even if the Dem's somehow climb out of the Michigan/Florida mess which is also virtually impossible. Then Senator Clinton must win every remaining state by a 20% margin (60/40) and win Puerto Rico by 30% (65/35) to edge out Obama by one pledged delegate.
Senator Clinton is not exactly on Obama's heels my friends. As some suggest, perhaps she's running for 2012 because mathematically she needs a miracle.
1 person likes this
3 responses
@goergineo (1498)
• Jordan
26 Apr 08
well, I agree she needs a miracle. but sen. Hillary alway surprise us. she is strong and hard worker. I think she will never stop what ever the circumstances and math are.
1 person likes this
@irisheyes (4370)
• United States
26 Apr 08
Basically, to be insured of a victory, Obama has to get it on the first ballot and last I heard he didn't have and wasn't expected to have the necessary votes to pull that off. He'll have more that Hillary but not the required majority to do it on the first ballot. If it goes to a second ballot, many of the delegates will be released from the candidates to whom they are pledged. For instance, I believe Pennsylvania delegates only have to vote the way the electorate dictated for the first ballot and after that they are as free as superdelegates to do whatever they want including nominating and voting for a third candidate.
I'm not sure how other states or even most states do it but I recall reading somewhere that early on, FDR went to the convention with a larger number of delegates and votes than Obama is expected start with in Denever and STILL had to battle through four ballots and a floor fight to get the nomination.
I really want to check out how these things work but I don't have the time to do the reasearch right now. I have noticed however that some of the election experts are starting to suggest the possiblity of Al Gore as a dark horse candidate. One of them actually said it last Sunday on national TV. The only way that could happen would be if it went past the first ballot and the delegates started getting released.
Problem is we've all sort of got this idea that we nominate the candidate and it's not fair if our candidate has the most popular votes and the most electoral votes and doesn't get the nomination. The reality is that the convention delegates and superdelegates nominate the candidate and they are not as bound by what happens in the primaries as we like to think they are.
@irisheyes (4370)
• United States
27 Apr 08
Let me correct myself here and get the egg off my face with my own hands.
My info was not correct. All but three of the Pennsylvania Democratic delegates are pledged and cannot vote for whomever they want after the first ballot unless the candidate releass them. Barak does not have the majority yet though and that would for the first time in over forty years push the convention into a second ballot. I think it would be a good thing but obviously Howard Dean does not. He's benn demanding for over a month that the superdelegates should declare. They dont have too and I hope they won't. I would rather see a battle on the convention floor than another of those damn every four year coronations.
I would really like to know how other states work it but it's hard to research. I honestly do not know if the superdelegates are controlling the whole thing or if there is a possibility of other delegates being free to change their vote. About all of learned so far is that Pennsylvania Democrats are locked in but Pennsylvania Republicans are not.
I'm sorry about my misinformation. Maybe I'm clutching at straws. Although I'm warming to Barack and will vote for him if he gets the nomination, I'm with Hillary to the end and I don't want her to give up until every last breath of hope is gone. I'm certain the Obama people feel the same.
@jormins (1223)
• United States
28 Apr 08
The Dem's really have a kind of crazy nominating system. Like Texas and that Prima-Caucus system.
It will be up to the Supers if they go to a second ballot, but if the Dem's don't have a nominee by June I think they have already lost the General. It sounds like the pledged delegate leader will be the one the undecided Supers will go to en mass to avoid a messy convention. It should be very interesting to see how it all plays out.
@Kowgirl (3490)
• United States
27 Apr 08
No matter who gets into office we are in one heck of a mess and it will take years to get us out of this mess as well as someone who has the guts to stand up and stop the owners of the Federal Reserve Banks and the environmentalists who are keeping us from using our own oil supplies. Yes Americans we have enough oil to last for hundreds of years but thanks to "Bill" Clinton we can't use it so it sits in barrels and we have to suffer for it. As far as I can see there isn't anyone in the running that deserves to set foot in the White House. We now have whistle blowers who have revealed the truth about Obama and it isn't pretty.
Then again do you think Hillary can jump in there and abolish what he husband signed when he was president or would she even try, I think not. Less than 48% of the people in America will take time to even vote. They can't afford to miss work when their families are down to their last piece of bread and all are hungry. For some that days pay will only pay for a tank of gas. We haven't had anyone that deserved the title they are fighting for since J.F. Kennedy.
@jormins (1223)
• United States
28 Apr 08
Normally I agree with you but this year I think we have some great choices compared to normal election years. Yes people might not like Obama's former Pastor but that shouldn't affect what they think he'll do in office. I do think if Clinton gets in there we'll see her not do a lot of what she says she'll do. On something like NAFTA which she has only been against since she started running for President, I could see her getting very little done there. She just needed to make it sound good to woo the blue collar votes out of Ohio and other states in that region where NAFTA has hurt them bad.
I would not be surprised to see a record number of voters this November as the Democrats have already recorded record numbers in their primaries and an amazing amount of donations (many small donors, I believe Obama is over 2 million donors now). If I were unable to vote on that Tuesday I'd get an absentee ballot as this year's election is pretty crucial economically and with what we are going to do next in the Middle East. I like McCain but if he is another 4 years of Bush, I'm scared to see what might happen to our economy.
