4.27.2008

Pledged delegate breakdown, April 27th edition

It had been quite a while since I last updated the pledged delegate breakdown on March 31st. After weeks of constant elections and states refining their allocation, the six-week lull struck and froze things on the delegate front for a while.

Three changes in our delegate count today. The first, obviously, comes form Pennsylvania's primary -- the only contest that took place in the entire month of April. Second, the numbers out of the Texas caucuses have been refined and Obama picked up a delegate since my last update, now leading 38-29 instead of 37-30.

Third, Iowa held its district conventions this week; you might remember that, at the county convention, Obama had picked up a stunning number number of delegates thanks to the desertion of Edwards delegates, transforming his 16-15 edge against Clinton the night of the caucuses to a 25-14 advantage. The district conventions, however, saw a small but surprising Edwards comeback, as the former candidate managed to get one more delegate elected out of the first district; it looks like Clinton delegates helped Edwards cross the viability threshold in order to cost Obama a delegate -- and they succeeded, a very rare instance of the Clinton campaign out-maneuvering Obama at caucuses. A detailed explanation of how these district conventions function is available here.

Iowa, delegate breakdown after the district conventions:

  • Obama: 24 delegates (Previous total based on the county convention vote: 25)
  • Clinton: 14 (Previous total: 14)
  • Edwards: 7 (Previous total: 6)
Pennsylvania primary: Clinton 54,55%-Obama 44.45%

  • Clinton: 83 delegates
  • Obama: 73
  • Outstanding: 2
This brings us to the following total:

  • Obama: 1488.5 delegates
  • Clinton: 1335.5
That's a differential of 153 pledged delegates -- only a small improvement for Hillary since March 31st, when she was trailing by 162 delegates. The Pennsylvania results in particular were a disappointment for the Clinton campaign who had surely been hoping to dent into Obama's margin in a more meaningful manner; the delegate allocation rules and the division between even and odd delegate districts ended up favoring Obama in this state.

It has become impossible for a while for Clinton to catch up Obama among pledged delegates, but that certainly does not mean that this count is not meaningful. Even if Obama suffers a meltdown of the sort Clinton has been waiting for, she still has to be close enough in the pledged delegate count to be in a position of clinching the nomination even if superdelegates move massively towards her -- right now, she needs too massive a proportion of uncommitted superdelegates to endorse her (though the Clinton campaign would respond that, were Obama to suffer a meltdown, a number of superdelegates who have endorsed him might migrate away from him).

To get herself meaningfully closer, Clinton needs to get huge margins in West Virginia and Kentucky, win big in Puerto Rico, score a convincing victory in Indiana and -- very importantly -- keep the race close in North Carolina, the upcoming state that will allocate the most delegates. Naturally, there is also the question of the Florida and Michigan delegates and whether they should be seated; compromises to seat half of the delegations, and at least Florida's, have long been in the works and the DNC is getting ready to hear such appeals.

Labels: ,

14 Comments:

  • Taniel - I completely agree with your last paragraph. Hence why May7th could be the day this is all over. If Obama wins big - say 12% or more (12% victory would erase the delegates and PV Clinton gained in PA) and Indiana is won by Obama even by 1% then the math becomes too much and he would have kept his 2:1 winning streak in states.

    I also find it interesting that Clinton may be hoping Puerto Rico will give her enough popular votes to get a lead in that measure. Bearing in mind Puerto Rico cannot vote in the GE how democratic is it to include it in the primaries.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 27 April, 2008 14:45  

  • once again, the bar is pushed lower and lower by the pundits for a Hillary comeback. Soon it will be,"If Hillary can just stay close in South Dakota...". Why can't the facts be accepted that Hillary NOW needs about 70% of the vote in EVERY remaining primary to catch up?That's not pro-Obama or anti-Hillary, just the facts ma'am.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 27 April, 2008 14:47  

  • One fact from the PA primary that has not really been reported was McCains poor showing. Over 220,000 registered Republicans took the trouble to go out and vote for someone other than McCain. He gained 73% in total - not good.

    Nice article in the NY Times about this.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/opinion/27rich.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

    Looks like McCain has an issue with his base much like some people say Obama or Clinton do (with significant minority as of now saying they would not vote for the other candidate).

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 27 April, 2008 14:48  

  • I agree Anon, the media have been easier on Clinton. If Obama had lost 12 primaries in a row in February including important Dem states like WI and MD and had lost by 20%+ then he would have been pressured to leave. She stayed in and she hasn`t closed the pledge delegate lead and she has lost ground with the super delegates - now something like 23 ahead when she used to have an 80-100 lead.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 27 April, 2008 14:50  

  • Mike the primary reason why there is so little turnout in the GOP PA primary is becasue McCain is the presumptive nominee, there is no point in voting for most people if you already know the outcome. The GOP will vote in force in PA in November.

    Tom, you are right that have the situation between Obama and Clinton were reversed Obama would be out of the race. However remember that Clinton is one of the most well known and well connected Democrats in the country while Obama is a new upstart. Clinton is able to stay in the race because she is very well known and she has been able to win certain state to keep her afloat. If the situation was reversed, Clinton's delegate lead plus her connections in Dem primary would have forced Obama to lead. Th emain thing Obama has now is his good fundraising and good victories, but he doesn't have the strong connections to be able to force Clinton out before the primary season is over.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 27 April, 2008 16:55  

  • jaxx - I agree Clinton has the stronger connections. Yet she was outfundraised (repeatedly), has run a weaker campaign (more staff turnover, strategy incorrect in thinking it would all be over by super Tuesday) and has almost lost her superdelegate lead (in part because old connections like Richardson have gone to Obama). So Obama must have done very well to have overcome such a well connected politican.

    I agree with your point about the turnout for the GOP primary but remember the Dems won PA by 200000 or so in 2000 and 20004 so having over 200000 GOP voters unhappy with McCain does not help the GOP. Also the GOP turnout was 25% as opposed to the Dem turnout of 50% - not exactly bad for the GOP baring in mind all the coverage has been on the Dems.
    I am sure there are many GOP voters who do not support McCain but did not make the effort to go out and vote. Hell even 50% of registered Dems didn`t bother to come out and we all know PA was important.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 27 April, 2008 17:07  

  • "To get herself meaningfully closer, Clinton needs to get huge margins in West Virginia and Kentucky, win big in Puerto Rico, score a convincing victory in Indiana and -- very importantly -- keep the race close in North Carolina, the upcoming state that will allocate the most delegates."

    Well written, and I think Clinton will score her second and third highest margins of the season in KY and WV (right under her AR margin). There is also word going around that the politicos in Puerto Rico want to award the entire block of PDs to the PV winner there. But that is just conjecture right now. However, I do not think that Clinton will be able to narrow the race in NC as Obama did in PA, for 2 important reasons: a.) time - Obama had 6 weeks for PA, Clinton only gets 2 here and b.) organization: she has 3 times less offices and teams on the ground in NC that he does.

    I left a comment this morning about those PDs on another thread on your blog and got flamed pretty bad about it. Interesting to see that you also put out a very good posting on the PDs.

    And though she won a very good win and will win massive landslides in KY and WV and probably PR, this is still not enough to get her anywhere against Obama in the PD count. I stand by my prediction that from the last 9 races, she will close the PD margin by all of 4 delegates.

    At the end of the day, not including and Supers that may declare between now and June 3, Obama will be about 63 delegates from locking the nomination.

    But since I am sure Clinton will fight to the bitter end, even if it means burning the democratic party down to the ground in the process, I guess we will all know soon enough how the numbers will look.

    I was once an avid Clinton fan, but the more I watch her campaign, the more doubts I have. If she gets the nomination, then I will (*sigh*) pull the lever for her, but not with much excitement...

    If Obama wins the nomination, and I think he will, then I will try to get 30 others to also pull the lever for him...

    By Blogger Statistikhengst, At 27 April, 2008 17:11  

  • Mark - I agree Clinton will not narrow Obama's lead in NC for the reason you give plus demographics. There are lots of liberal Dems, prosperous white and African Americans. The Triangle, Charlotte and Triad areas have all three of these groups in spades and they are key Obama groups.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 27 April, 2008 18:35  

  • He's scheduled for an arse-r***ing in West Virginia and Kentucky, possibly with 30+% margins.

    Very few times in history in which the "presumptive nominee" (as obama fans call him) loses by THAT much.

    Heck, even McCain won Mississippi at 79%, which is supposed to be entirely Huckabee country. The demographics of MS is definitely against McCain, but he still closes the deal.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 27 April, 2008 23:12  

  • Anon - Huckabee was out of the race when MS voted. Otherwise Huckabee would have won, much like he did with other deep south states.

    Clinton had a "arse-r***ing" (as you so gently pout it) in Maryland, Virginia and Illinois. Of course these are either Democratic states or swing states and all have at least 10 EV's so count. KT and WV are small, red states so not really the same thing.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 28 April, 2008 06:54  

  • "He's scheduled for an arse-r***ing in West Virginia and Kentucky, possibly with 30+% margins."

    Ah, once again an "anonymous" poster and Clinton fan with golden things to say.

    The wording is really crass, but the message is about right. I do think Clinton will win these two very, very racist states 65-35, which is a 30+ margin.

    And here is the list of races where Obama has had a 24+ margin (+24 means a massive 62 to 38 landslide):

    Virgin Islands, margin: +82.70
    Idaho, margin: +62.31
    Hawaii, margin: +52.13
    DC, margin: +51.54
    Alaska, margin: +49.15
    Kansas, margin: +48.22
    Washington state, margin: +36.41
    Nebraska, margin: +35.32
    Georgia, margin: +35.28
    Colorado, margin: +34.27
    Minnesota, margin: +34.16
    Democrats abroad, margin: +33.39
    Illinois, margin: +31.70
    South Carolina, margin: +28.92
    Virginia, margin: +28.18
    North Dakota, margin: +24.60
    Maryland, margin: +24.50
    Wyoming, margin: +24.06

    That's 18 states, or 1/3 of the union.

    And here is the list of races where Clinton has had a 24+ margin (+24 means a massive 62 to 38 landslide):

    Arkansas, margin: +43.80

    That's 1 state


    Here are the Obama narrow wins, under +9:

    Missouri, margin: +0.30
    Connecticut, margin: +4.04
    Iowa, margin: +8.11

    Here are the Clinton narrow wins, under +9:

    New Mexico, margin: +0.14
    New Hampshire, margin: +2.64
    Texas, margin: +3.52
    Nevada, margin: +5.49
    California, margin: +8.63

    Number of states Obama was won with double digits (anything above 10%): 26 states (more than 1/2 of the union)

    Number of states Clinton has won in double digits: 8 (less than 1/5 of the union).

    So, when "anonymous" talks in this classy way about "arse-r***ing", just remember that Clinton has already endured this humiliation 18 times.

    By Blogger Statistikhengst, At 28 April, 2008 07:32  

  • well said Mark. I live in a small WV town and you can't throw a rock without hitting a racist redneck. (as much as I'd like to)

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 28 April, 2008 18:18  

  • By Blogger oakleyses, At 15 November, 2015 22:37  

  • By Blogger oakleyses, At 15 November, 2015 22:39  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]



<< Home