(no subject)
Apr. 24th, 2008 12:50 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Can I be pedantic and mathy about the primary for a minute? Someone on my friends list just wrote the following, which seems to be a common line of thought:
This is because, in relatively close state races like these, most of the delegates in a given state will actually be divided equally between the two candidates, having no effect on the total delegate margin. Since the most dramatic victories in this race so far have been won with a spread of about 30%, this means each candidate can expect to be awarded about 35% of the delegates in any state, at the least. What actually matters is the 30% in the middle that (being generous to Clinton) are more or less up for grabs.
So how many delegates are we really talking about? Well, taking into consideration the sometimes arcane and imperfect allocation processes, about 160.
Guam: 4 * .3 = 1
Indiana: 72 * .3 = 22
North Carolina: 115 * .3 = 35
West Virginia: 28 * .3 = 8
Kentucky: 51 * .3 = 15
North Carolina: 115 * .3 = 35
Oregon: 51 * .3 = 16
Puerto Rico: 55 * .3 = 17
Montana: 16 * .3 = 5
South Dakota: 15 * .3 = 5
TOTAL: 159
What this means, to put it simply, is that even if Clinton won every single remaining state by a margin of 30%, she would still just barely catch up to Obama in pledged delegates. And while it's technically possible that she could pull that off... Well, it's not going to happen.
I want to stress that this is not an anti-Clinton post. I'm not attacking Clinton or her campaign here. And I will say, because it's obligatory, that it's also possible (and significantly more likely) that Clinton could win by accumulating a critical mass of superdelegates.* But the idea that Clinton has any realistic chance of pulling ahead of Obama in pledged delegates should really be put to rest.
Edit: If I don't respond to comments promptly it's because my computer is in the shop, being given an optical drive that actually works (one hopes).
* This too is unlikely, since many superdelegates have said they would be loath to ordain the selection of a candidate if his or her opponent is the clear winner in pledged delegates (not to mention the popular vote and states won) and since superdelegates who have endorsed in the last month have come out overwhelmingly for Obama, who now has the support of only about 25 fewer superdelegates than Clinton.
[I]t is still entirely possible that she could win, and not just because the Superdelegates decide to overturn the "popular" vote. Right now, Obama has 1,487 pledged delegates and Clinton has 1,331. This is a difference of 156 delegates or 5% of those that have been assigned so far. There still 417 delegates from 7 states and 2 territories that have yet to be assigned.This is technically true, but I think it overstates the chance of a Clinton win. We hear statements like it and think, "Wow! 417 delegates is way more than the difference between Obama and Clinton! She could still win!" But it's important to keep in mind that primary delegates are awarded proportionally, not by a winner-take-all system—and this means that only a relatively small fraction of the remaining 417 delegates are actually in play.
This is because, in relatively close state races like these, most of the delegates in a given state will actually be divided equally between the two candidates, having no effect on the total delegate margin. Since the most dramatic victories in this race so far have been won with a spread of about 30%, this means each candidate can expect to be awarded about 35% of the delegates in any state, at the least. What actually matters is the 30% in the middle that (being generous to Clinton) are more or less up for grabs.
So how many delegates are we really talking about? Well, taking into consideration the sometimes arcane and imperfect allocation processes, about 160.
Guam: 4 * .3 = 1
Indiana: 72 * .3 = 22
North Carolina: 115 * .3 = 35
West Virginia: 28 * .3 = 8
Kentucky: 51 * .3 = 15
North Carolina: 115 * .3 = 35
Oregon: 51 * .3 = 16
Puerto Rico: 55 * .3 = 17
Montana: 16 * .3 = 5
South Dakota: 15 * .3 = 5
TOTAL: 159
What this means, to put it simply, is that even if Clinton won every single remaining state by a margin of 30%, she would still just barely catch up to Obama in pledged delegates. And while it's technically possible that she could pull that off... Well, it's not going to happen.
I want to stress that this is not an anti-Clinton post. I'm not attacking Clinton or her campaign here. And I will say, because it's obligatory, that it's also possible (and significantly more likely) that Clinton could win by accumulating a critical mass of superdelegates.* But the idea that Clinton has any realistic chance of pulling ahead of Obama in pledged delegates should really be put to rest.
Edit: If I don't respond to comments promptly it's because my computer is in the shop, being given an optical drive that actually works (one hopes).
* This too is unlikely, since many superdelegates have said they would be loath to ordain the selection of a candidate if his or her opponent is the clear winner in pledged delegates (not to mention the popular vote and states won) and since superdelegates who have endorsed in the last month have come out overwhelmingly for Obama, who now has the support of only about 25 fewer superdelegates than Clinton.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-24 03:09 pm (UTC)Is it fear? Shared by both candidates' supporters, thinking their candidates look weaker and less capable the longer this process continues?
I don't like all the features of the primary system which have brought us here (particularly the disenfranchisement of Florida), but I'm glad to see at least two candidates for whom I would be pleased to cast a vote, instead of none four years ago. The longer and more acrimonious it gets, the less worried I am about putting forth a candidate who simply isn't ready for prime time.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-24 06:20 pm (UTC)Hence all the talk of tearing the party apart.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-24 06:58 pm (UTC)But wherever it was that I found this data, they were comparing it with similar polls done in 2000, with an even higher percentage of McCain supporters claiming they wouldn't vote for Bush. Sure, it's a different situation, but it probably won't be that difficult to get the rabid supporters of whichever candidate ends up losing the nomination *cough*clinton*cough* to change their minds by November, especially since the differences between the two candidates are pretty negligible.
I wish I could find my source for this, but google is not being forthcoming...
no subject
Date: 2008-04-24 11:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-24 08:36 pm (UTC)If Democrats can't see how stark the choice between either of the possible candidates and McCain is, then maybe they deserve to lose yet another election they should win in a walk.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-24 08:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-24 10:25 pm (UTC)However, both want the office, neither will just let the other have it, and there will ultimately be one Democrat in the running after August at the latest. If those who came for the personality cult won't stay for the virtually identical policy ideas, what can I or any other Democrat do about it?
no subject
Date: 2008-04-24 11:12 pm (UTC)