Sunday, May 25, 2008

Weekend Superdelegate Updates

WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com

So far it's Obama 6, Clinton 1 for superdelegates
and Obama +1, Clinton -1 for pledged delegates

Georgia has picked its add-on superdelegates:



Georgia party officials on Saturday selected two add-on delegates and awarded one to each candidate. State Party Secretary Stephen Leeds supports Obama. Verna Cleveland was Clinton's Georgia state director. - Columbus Ledger-Enquirer


From a Clinton Press Release:

"More than 17 million Americans have voted for Hillary Clinton in this primary election season and I am proud to continue to support Hillary with my delegate vote at the national convention in August in Denver," Cleveland said.


And in Wyoming:
Also Saturday, Democrats selected the state's sixth superdelegate, state Rep. W. Patrick Goggles of Ethete. Goggles was the only person nominated to be the "unpledged add-on" delegate by party chairman and Obama supporter John Millin. - AP



And Alaska finishes off Saturday with its add-on:
Former Gov. Tony Knowles said he would support Obama for president.

"He has a message of hope and change," Knowles said. "He has inspired incredible members of new people to believe in politics again." - Anchorage Daily News

And also in Alaska, a caucus state, Obama picked up a few more delegates to the state convention, putting him over the 75% threshold, and therefore splitting the state-wide PLEO pledged delegates 2-0 instead of 1-1. Green Papers has confirmed the change, and the sidebar tables have already been updated.

And finally...
Hawai'i Democrats selected three Obama supporters to fill its remaining superdelegate slots at their state convention Sunday, including the new chair and vice chair of the party.

Chairman Brian Schatz and vice chairwoman Kari Luna say they will support Obama at the national convention. State Democrats chose retired Judge James Burns, also an Obama supporter, as the final superdelegate. - Honolulu Advertiser
And that's a wrap for new superdelgates this weekend.

140 comments:

Todd said...

The sidebar count is wrong now. Before the addition of the Georgia delegate, Obama was listed as needing 56, now he is listed as needing 59, as opposed to the correct 55.

craig said...

Sen. Obama needs 55 delegates to secure the nomination. You may want to correct that in your tally (it is reported as 59).

Allyn said...

I'm new to this, but isn't the actual amount required 2026, and not 2025? I noticed delegate count for AP, CNN, Fox, MSnbc...., all use 2026. I think Obama now needs 56. Did anyone see Keith Olbermann's rant on Hillary yesterday, it was "spot on"?

Amot said...

Does anyone knows what happens in AK? How many delegates appeared at the convention? Don't forget - the caucus results are not bounding!

Colfer said...

Here is the Alaska schedule anyway
http://alaskademocrats.org/index.php?page=display&id=168

1:00 p.m.
Election of Delegates and Alternates to the Democratic National Convention:
District-Level Delegates (8) and Alternates (3)

4 p.m.
Unpledged Add-On Delegate (1)
PLEO Delegates (2)
At-Large Delegates (3) and Alternate (1)

4 hour time difference from the East Coast

kennick said...

I also caught that, I knew it was 56 needed when I left for the store, and noticed it went up to 59 when I returned. This is a testament to how popular your site is, and how well informed we are as a result. Keep up the good work !

TheShackPack said...

missed Olbermann's thang... synopsis anyone pleez??

Nathanael said...

I don't think you can necessarily count Cleveland as a Clinton voter just because she *was* Clinton's Georgia state director.... since Obama won the nomination, we've been seeing a lot of defections to Obama by people who worked hard for Clinton *before*. You should find a more definitive, recent statement from her or put her in the uncommitted column.

Independent voter said...

theshackpack,

You can watch it here fore yourself

TheShackPack said...

Thank you Independent Voter.

wow! that was something. Fantastic!

Matt said...

Allyn - The DNC says the correct number to win is 2025.5, and the DNC has rounded up the number to 2,026. and that's what the media us using. But the DNC is still counting Al Wynn, so they have 797 supers, 4,050 total delegates, 2,025.5 to win.

But when Al Wynn resigns next week, the numbers will be 4,049 delegates, 2,025.0 to win. That's the number we're using, since Al Wynn will not be a superdelegate at the convention.

When Wynn resigns the DNC will come down 1 delegate, and everybody we'll be in sync, and 2,025.0 will be the number when Obama reaches it in early June.

tmess2 said...

The media is assuming -- probably correctly -- that Representative Wynn's seat stays Democratic in the special election to be held on June 17th at which point the number will be back up to whatever the number is after next week's RBC meeting.

My hunch says that somewhere in Obama campaign headquarters (not to sure about the Clinton campaign headquarters since her folks haven't always understood the rules) there are several boards detailing all the different options for the RBC and how many unpledged delegates they need under each option and who they need to endorse on which day to stay on target for 10:15 p.m. EDT on June 3rd when Montana gets projected.

Allyn said...

Thanks for explaining then 2025/2026.

Amot said...

tmess2,
I see you are more crazy about numbers than I am! Do you have any source about the official NC results - they should be known Friday morning!

Alaska pledged will give a hint what to expect for the other delegates. But I wonder if anyone will publish info fast enough... Any live blogging from AK convention, or forum?

Matt said...

Tmess - the media's not assuming anything. They're just following the numbers from the DNC, which, and properly I might add, is still counting Wynn. When Wynn resigns, if the DNC puts out updated numbers, (which they're only been doing monthly) they will be at 2,025.0, and the media will follow along. The Special Election is not until June 17, and noone, the DNC, DCW, will ever count an election result before it happens.

Rambling Johnny said...

Maybe that why Obama super have trickle down lately. They could want th 2025 delegate to be an elected pledge.

Tom said...

What happened to the two new Edward's delegates that announced their switch to Obama yesterday morning? I have not seen them reflected in the totals or delegates remaining figures.

Amot said...

Just wanted to post a small portion of waht is happening in AK:

"From Sean Cockerham in Palmer --

California Congresswoman Lynne Woolsey just spoke to Alaska Democrats on behalf of Hillary Clinton, and it didn’t go well.

Woolsey was talking about how Clinton creamed Obama in West Virgina when the chants started

“Obama, Obama, Obama.”

It filled Raven Hall at the state Democratic convention in Palmer.

“I was invited to talk about Senator Hillary Clinton and that’s what I’m going to do,” Woolsey said

“States Hillary Clinton have won represent 300 electoral votes as compared 217 for Barack Obama,,” she said,

Boos greeted that statement.

“She leads in the popular vote if you include Michigan and Florida,” Woolsey said.

Laughter was the response to that one.

“This isn’t over,” Woolsey said. “Over the last three months Hillary won more votes, more earned delegates than Senator Obama.”

The chants of “Obama, Obama, Obama!” took over the hall again as she finished."

jfaberuiuc said...

Tom,

2 Edwards delegates were switched over yesterday to Obama, as best I can tell. There are still 7 left, not counting FL, 1 each from NH and SC, and two from IA. The remaining three would have been chosen by Iowa on June 14, but since they haven't voted yet, it's unclear what happens then.

rivan said...

Wyoming Democrats select delegation to national convention Eds: APNewsNow. UPDATES with Wyoming superdelegate selected, backing Obama. Will be led.

AP Photo pursuing By MATT JOYCE Associated Press Writer JACKSON, Wyo. (AP) Sen. Barack Obama has picked up another superdelegate as Wyoming Democrats have selected their delegation to the national convention and confirmed a majority of the state's delegates will back the Illinois senator.

Obama defeated Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton 61 percent to 38 percent in the Wyoming caucuses in March. As a result, Obama picked up seven pledged delegates to Clinton's five.

State Democrats confirmed that breakdown at their state convention Saturday in Jackson and selected the individual delegates.

Also Saturday, Democrats selected the state's sixth superdelegate, state Rep. W. Patrick Goggles of Ethete. Goggles was the only person nominated to be the "unpledged add-on" delegate by party chairman and Obama supporter John Millin.

Goggles told The Associated Press that he will support Obama at the party's national convention this summer in Denver.

(Copyright 2008 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.) APNP 05-24-08 1737CDT

jfaberuiuc said...

Unsurprisingly, one more for Obama from Wyoming's add-on:

http://www.montanasnewsstation.com/
Global/story.asp?S=8376091&nav=menu227_7

Also Saturday, Democrats selected the state's sixth superdelegate, state Rep. W. Patrick Goggles of Ethete. Goggles was the only person nominated to be the "unpledged add-on" delegate by party chairman and Obama supporter John Millin.

Goggles told The Associated Press that he will support Obama at the party's national convention this summer in Denver.

SarahLawrenceScott said...

rambling johnny--the Obama campaign has used superdelegates very effectively so far. I think they're aiming for one of two outcomes. One possibility is that they want to clinch on June 2, thus stepping on the PR result and any good news it has for Clinton. The other possibility is that they want to have the SD and MT primaries put them over the top. In my opinion, the second strategy is much better for them, as the next day's headlines would then affirm that voters in the last two primaries secured the nomination for Obama. Most of the media would be ecstatic at the "close victory," drowning out any complaints Clinton supporters might have about the process.

But that's a very tricky needle to thread. In order to achieve it, the Obama campaign needs to be about 5-17 delegates short going in to June 3. But short of what? They won't know what the magic number is until after the rules committee meets on May 31-June 1. And PR is June 1 as well.

So I'm not surprised we're only seeing a trickle right now. Watch closely what happens on June 1 and 2!

Matt said...

Goggles added for Obama.

Galois said...

Hawaii is scheduled to elect their three superdelegates (and other positions) at 5pm local time (11pm on the east coast).

Matt said...

Galois - My information, from the Hawaii Dem Party website as well as directly from the Party, says the Chair is elected today, but will not be announced until tomorrow, and the vice-chair and add-on are selected by the State Central Committee, which does not even meet until sometime after 12 noon tomorrow. If you have different information, please provide a source.

tmess2 said...

amot, last time I checked which was yesterday evening, North Carolina's Board of Election had not yet posted that the canvass was completed.

Galois said...

My mistake. You're absolutely correct about the order of things.

Brad said...

Anybody got work from Alaska yet?

mike said...

It's getting late, even in Alaska. We could hear about their selection tomorrow.

Matt said...

I hear it gets late early out there...

Francie said...

Obama by a landslide

MAY 24, 2008 - 6:13 PM

From Sean Cockerham in Palmer --

Alaska Democratic delegates overwhelmingly backed Barack Obama at their state convention today, giving him even a little more support over Hillary Clinton than at the February caucuses.

It’s the state convention that decides just how many Alaska delegates will back Obama at the party’s national convention, where the Democratic presidential nominee is decided.

The 355 state convention delegates – who were chosen at the February caucuses _ backed Obama by more than 77 percent here today.

By the time all the arcane party wrangling was done, Obama ended up with 14 of Alaska’s 18 delegates to the national Democratic convention in Denver (including both regular and superdelegates.)

Paul Bradford said...

Hawaii is in the midst of their three day convention. They're scheduled to vote for their add-on today at 5pm local time (11 pm EDT). The result should be made public by tomorrow at 8:30am (2:30pm EDT). Right after that, they will elect their state party chair (and, I assume, their vice chair).

By tomorrow afternoon Obama may have THREE new superdelegates from Hawaii.

Paul Bradford said...

francie,

GP has had AK's pledged delegate split at 4 for HRC and 9 for BHO (so has everyone else, for that matter). DCW has 1 automatic delegate (DNC Patti Higgins) for Clinton and 3 automatics (DNC's John Davies, Blake Johnson & Cindy Spanyers) for Obama. The add-on was also selected today.

For Obama to get a 14-4 advantage he would need to gain a delegate on the pledged side (making it 9-3) as well as the add-on.

That would be very good news.

c_b said...

Assuming Francie's news is correct, that's a shift of one pledged delegate to Obama, plus the add-on.
DCW's current numbers are 9-4 pledged and 3-1 supers.

tmess2 said...

If Obama got 14 of the 18 delegates that would imply picking up one more pledged delegates (the second PLEO) as well as the unpledged add-on.

Francie said...

I got the news from the Anchorage Daily News, politics blog. Guy is there on the ground, so I assume this is accurate info.

Matt said...

Knowles is the add-on for Alaska. He's endorsed Obama. We're looking at the pledged situation.

tmess2 said...

Green Papers is still showing based on the February 5th results and how that would break down into estimated delegates. If only 355 delegates attended that means 56 delegate slots were vacant at the convention. If Obama got 77% of the vote from the delegates who were there, that would give Obama the second pledged PLEO (the original GP estimate has it at 1 for Obama and 1 for Clinton). To increase the vote total from 75% to 77%, Obama would have had approximately 33 delegates who failed to make it to Palmer and Clinton would have had approximately 23 delegates who failed to make it to Palmer.

Paul Bradford said...

Matt,

You've got Obama at 312.5 supers. Even when I add Knowles I only get 311.5. What am I missing?

Matt said...

Green Papers and DCW have updated the Alaska pledged delegate numbers.

Paul, I believe 312.5 is correct for Obama. Did you get all 3 of his add-ons today?

erikwm said...

Why must Clinton supporters (I'm looking at you Paul Bradford) continue to insist on using "automatic delegates" rather than "superdelegates"? That bit of campaign strategy never made sense to begin with and didn't cause anyone (besides Clinton's own team) to change their vernacular. Don't you think it's time to give it up?

tmess2 said...

I personally use unpledged because that is the venacular that the other side uses for their superdelegates (and I hate having conversations with folks who say that the Republicans don't have superdelegates while the Democrats do). I also think it better reflects the distinction between the superdelegates and the other delegates.

Matt said...

Not to mention that "unpledged" is the official description used by the DNC.

Superdelegates is a media word, and yes, the GOP has superdelegates. Just look at the superdelegate article on Wikipedia. (They have a lot less, but they have them).

Paul Bradford said...

erikwm,

I urge you to put on your 'reading comprehension hat' and look at my post of 10:38pm (the one where I used the phrase 'automatic delegate'). Where in the world do you get the idea that I'm a Clinton supporter? Notice the line, "that would be very good news" after the discussion about Obama winning an add-on and a pledged delegate.

"that would be very good news" indicates that the writer is:
a) an Obama supporter
b) a Clinton supporter
c) a Republican
or
d) not enough information to know

By the way, I don't "insist" on any term. I use "superdelegates", "automatic delegates" and "unpledged delegates" interchangeably.

Paul Bradford said...

Matt,

I've got 312.5 now too. I had missed Goggles. Thanks. Three Hundred Twelve and a half unpledged delegates.

mike said...

Today's overall result is BO 4, HC 0. Looks like tomorrow is going to be another great day for BO- 3/0, and less than 50 to go!

Blame said...

Anybody keeping a count of the number of Pledged Delegates Clinton has lost because State Convention Delegates switched from Clniton to Obama, or failed to turn up + Pledged Delegates who somehow misremembered their pledges?

I get the feeling that its becoming a significant number.

Amot said...

Hawaii isn't safe 3 for Obama. Actually the add-on position is mostly in danger. There are two candidates for party chair: Annelle Amaral (Clinton supporter) and Brian Schatz (Obama supporter). If Amaral fails to win the chair position she will most probably run for vice-chair against Kari Luna (Obama supporter). However if Amaral wins any of the positions she has pledged to vote for Obama at the convention. Chair and vice chair are chosen by the convention delegates so no surprise is expected. But...

The add-on is chosen by the State Party Committee. One candidate is James Burms (Obama supporter), but there are rumors that ex-Gov. George Ariyoshi may run too. Ariyoshi is party elder, he has support in the Committee and he has chance to get the spot. His son was Clinton campaigner. Ariyoshi himself was member of Bill's administration, so he may be leaning Clinton. Add-on will be chosen in the afternoon, probably the name will be known about 2PM local time (8PM EDT).

Matt said...

Amot - vice-chair is chosen by state party committee, not the convention delegates. Don't think that makes a difference in your analysis, though.

Blame - Wikipedia is tracking all the delegates at each stage. You could probably figure out the gains in 10 minutes.

Amot said...

Blame,
I immediately can think of Nevada (1 pledged), Iowa (1 pledged plus some Edwards'), and now Alaska (1 pledged). I can mention Colorado and Washington as places she kept her results. Kansas and Wyoming could shift one too, but Obama needed a very large shift there which he didnt't get.

To follow:
Idaho (+1 statewide pledged)
Nebraska (+1 statewide pledged)
Texas (+1(2) statewide pledged)
Iowa (+1(2,3) statewide pledged)

Amot said...

Matt,
it only makes one diference - we will know only one name(PC) in the afternoon, the other two names (VC and add-on) will come in the evening. And since they are talking about unity I believe State Central Committee can chose Amaral for VC as a guest of good will!

frstan said...

@Mike
Actually it's BO +4, HRC -1 since she lost a pledged delegate. :D

Amot said...

frstan,
she lost pledged, but she won add-on - total 0

Rambling Johnny said...

Is Carter considered neutral because he almost endorsed BO in this article. He even call on Clinton to quit!

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL2562414520080525

Bull Schmitt said...

As long as pledged delegates are up for discussion, did anything ever come of the rumors I was hearing that Oregon was on the verge of becoming 32-20 for Obama?

Rambling Johnny - I have it on good authority that President Carter is at least as neutral as Speaker Pelosi. Or Donna Brazile. Maybe a bit more than the other 90 or so Representatives and DNC officials from "The United States That Don't Matter"...

tmess2 said...

As far as Clinton delegates switching or failing to show up, the number is now four delegates.

Two switches after election to the national convention (Maryland and D.C. at-large).

Two losses of delegates based on the number of delegates who did not attend the state convention (Nevada and Alaska).

To be fair, both Clinton and Obama have had delegates fail to show at the state conventions. In Nevada, more of Clinton's failed to appear. In Alaska, it appears to be pretty close to even, but, since she had a lower number of delegates to start, it was a higher percentage of her delegates and her delegates were a higher percentage of those missing than her original percentage of delegates elected.

In Iowa, most of the change is from the votes of delegates originally pledged to candidates no longer in the race. I am unaware of any place where her votes went down in a harmful way. (I know that in one Congressional District, Clinton's campaign loaned delegates to Edwards which would have appeared to reduce her total but that loan cost Obama a delegate not Clinton.)

The real big state for this issue will be Texas which has some weird rules dealing with absent delegates and a lot of delegates at stake.

frstan said...

@amot
yes, you (and mike) are correct : HRC 0 net

Yael said...

Hey guys, TGP adjusted for 2 pledged counts. -1 for Clinton, +1 for Obama in both Alaska and Georgia.

Amot said...

Georgia? Why is that?

And, Bull, tell me about those rumors about OR. I was making the data and Obama was only able to do this in CD5. He was close to split 4/2, but he needed some 2000-3000 votes more...

tmess2 said...

What's up in Georgia? Did someone defect? That's a primary state so the pledged counts should have been final a good time back.

Amot said...

tmess,
you forget about CO - they both had problems at all tiers with their delegates. There were some changes but it finished close to the original result. And in IA Hillary lost some delegates too. In TX there will be many not attending the convention so it can end even better for Obama than he thought originally. We are talking about second NV here - 10% or more shift toward Obama, plus TX supers.

Clinton lost the nomination and that will cost her many more pledged delegates - in ID, NE and TX, maybe more. In IA Obama needs half Edwards' supporters to attend and join him at the convention to get all the three free pledged delegates. He will plus I believe some Clinton's will not attend also.

Amot said...

To me it looks like they adjusted GA in Clinton's favor! Or I get it wrong?

tmess2 said...

Amot,

It shouldn't have much effect in Idaho, the district delegates are apparently allocated based on the votes at the precinct caucus not the votes at the state convention. Maybe 1 delegate change. Nebraska has similar rules so again maybe 1 delegate.

While Iowa and Texas have allocated the district-level delegates, there is still room for change in both at the state-level (especially Texas). Maine has not yet allocated any delegates so again some room for change, but given Maine's size and the current estimate, I am guessing no more than one or two delegates.

I thought the final numbers from Colorado as far as pledged delegates matched the precinct level estimates.

Iowa was more of a change based on how the Edwards, Richardson, and others voted at the county level than an actual failure on the part of Clinton folks to make it as best as I can tell from the percentages. In the next stage, I see more of Obama picking up the estimated delegates for Edwards than Clinton losing any of hers (but a loss of one or two is possible).

As far as Georgia, that looks like a change that was made some time back since it is at the Congressional District level which was picked in mid-April.

Interesting note on Iowa, one of the two Edwards delegates that has not yet endorsed Obama is from the First District -- the district in which the Edwards delegation got the assist from Clinton to get over 15%.

Bull Schmitt said...

Amot -

I imagine you'd know the Oregon situation better that I do, I was just referring to some noise I heard Wednesday or Thursday that a CD might still be in play as the supplemental votes were counted. I thought someone might have heard more, or be able to say the rumor was unfounded.

Amot said...

tmess,
I spotted the IA situation too, I hope there is nothing fishy there... I said I expect gain of one in both ID and NE, didn't mention Maine cause just like in Kansas Obama needs too big shift to get plus one. Never thought of Clinton loosing more delegates in IA but there is chance for just one if many delegates don't show.

And, yes, GA is old story...

Amot said...

Bull,
the results in OR were not final untill Wednesday night and there was a CD in play but that CD went Obama and made the split 31/21. I know you want more but there is no more coming, there are no provisionals or absentees in OR :)

Galois said...

tmess2,

In Iowa at the county conventions there were also Clinton defectors in some counties. In Scott county she was projected to get 42 state delegates and only got 33. In Jones she got 5 instead of 6. In Cerro Gordo she got 15 instead of 18. In Marshall 8 instead of 10. In Cherokee she got 3 instead of 4. Finally in Woodbury she got 20 instead of 25. In some other counties she must have either lost some or else all the delegates of the other candidates moved to Obama.

Paul Bradford said...

Sometime today we will be getting information, not only about the HI add-on, but also about the two superdelegate vacancies for party chair and vice-chair. This means that two of the five vacancies listed on the list of superdelegates that have not committed to a candidate will be filled. That leaves the DNC vacancy in the Illinois delegation and the two vacancies listed as "at large" at the end of the superdelegate list.

As far as I know, Illinois had their state convention on May 5th, so I don't know when they're going to fill their vacancy. And I have no idea what is meant by "at large". I mentioned this on an earlier thread but I may not have made myself clear. I'd really like to know when and how the "at large" vacancies will be filled.

Paul Bradford said...

Amot,

I wish you would give me more details about why you think Obama might pick up a pledged delegate in Nebraska. As far as I understand it, Obama led Clinton 67.70% to 32.30% for qualified votes at the 9 Feb precinct caucuses. Since there are five At-Large delegates, he could improve his split from 3-2 to 4-1 if he could do better than 67.70% at the county conventions in the first ten days of June and get 70%+. Please tell me how this will actually work. How many county delegates were selected at the precinct caucuses, and how likely is there to be a shift? Also, where do you go to get information about the Nebraska county conventions?

On the other hand, it seems to me that Obama is closer to losing a NE-02 delegate than he is to picking up an At-Large delegate. Is there any danger of that?

tmess2 said...

In Nebraska, the district level delegates are apparently already set. They are based on the results of the precinct caucus.

The PLEO and at-large are based on the attendance at the state convention. According to the estimates of the Nebraska Democratic Party, Obama is currently estimated to have 434 State Convention delegates to Clinton's 224. That number is an estimate because the caucuses elected county convention delegates and the county conventions will take place between June 1st and June 10th.

As with Alaska and Nevada, the easiest way for Obama to pick up the extra at-large is non-attendance by Clinton delegates (at either the county conventions or the state conventions) rather than delegates switching their allegiance.

Galois said...

Paul,

Most of the members (about 3/4) of the DNC are selected by the states and territories. (Officially DC and Puerto Rico are considered states for DNC purposes and Guam, USVI, and American Samoa are recognized as territories). This includes the chair and co-chair of each state/territory party, a national committeeman and committeewoman for each territory and 200 additional members distributed among the states in much the same way that delegates to the national convention are apportioned the states (with the caveat that each state is guaranteed at least 2 additional members). When one of these spots goes vacant it is up to the state party to fill it.

Various other national Democratic organizations, (like the Democratic Governors Association, the Young Democrats of America, the Democratic Leadership in the US House and Senate, etc.) each get to select 2 or 3 members. Again, when there's a vacancy the same organization gets to select the replacement. I haven't bothered to count exactly, but there are probably around 40-45 such members.

Finally there are members of the DNC selected by the above members. This includes a chairperson, five vice-chairs, a treasurer, a national finance chair, a secretary, and up to 75 additional members. These are the at-large spots about which you ask. When a vacancy occurs, it is up to the remaining members of the DNC to fill it. This is done by having the chair nominate someone and getting approval from the other members. Right now there are two spots that have gone vacant. Unlike say the spot in Illinois or the spots in Hawaii it is not up to the state to fill these and they could get filled by someone from any state (including Michigan or Florida). So, for example, when Tom Lakin of Illinois resigned it left an Illinois vacancy that could be filled by them if they want. (I'm suprised they haven't filled it). But when John Stroger (also of Illinois) passed away it left an at-large vacancy and Illinois lost a superdelegate.

I asked Mr. Super (Edward Espinoza) his opinion on when we might see these spots filled. He said he didn't think they would be filled while the nomination is being contested. Yet the spots are still counted in the total number of superdelegates and hence the number needed for a majority. I'm fairly certain that at the convention you only actually need a majority of delegates present.

Paul Bradford said...

galois,

You gave me a good explanation. Mr. Super is of the opinion that the two vacancies won't be filled while the nomination is being contested. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that means that it's impossible that a candidate actually "needs" 2025 delegates in order to be nominated; because if the nomination is contested we can have, at most, 4047 voting delegates. On the other hand if we get to 4049 delegates it means that somebody has well more than the minimum needed.

Where should I look to find out when Illinois is filling their vacancy? And where did you get your interesting information about the distribution of delegates?

Galois said...

On the issue of the number of delegates needed I tend to agree with that assessment, but (1) that's assuming Mr. Super is correct that they won't be filled and (2) The number needed is largely a media thing (the chances there is an actual decisive roll call vote at the convention is practically 0) and so what the number actually is matters less than what the media views the number as.

You'll have to ask the Illinois Party about that (and they apparently intentionally don't give much information on their website). The info about how membership on the DNC is determined can be found in The Charter and Bylaws of the party.

DocJess said...

While waiting for the DEMOCRATIC Supers to come in, I checked out the Libertarian goings-on. (Luckily, C-Span will show anything)

1. I've been to Rotary Club meetings with greater attendance.

2. Bob Barr, in his "thanks to all" speech said that "Georgia was the largest state east of the Mississippi" -- I'm sure it will be on YouTube eventually -- but for now, take my word for it.

Between Bob's geography knowledge, and HillaryMath, I'm incredibly worried about those who only made it through the 8th grade.....

tmess2 said...

actually, there is always a roll call at the convention. It is normally a big production with states passing and yielding to each other so that the "chosen" state is the one that puts the candidate over the top (given the nature of this race, I am putting my money on Wisconsin getting the honor this time if Obama gets the nomination and Ohio if Clinton can pull the hat out of the rabbit).

At that point, the floor will probably be yielded to the delegation from New York (or conversely Illinois) to move that the nomination be by acclamation.

Rambling Johnny said...

Well DocJess that Hillary remaining base the uneducated, the racist and the frustrated old womens! Make you think what sort of Country she really wanted to lead. We might even say we dodged one hell of a sniper bullet! lolll

Stephen said...

Does anyone know when the results come in from Hawaii? Thanks.

jjm said...

Not having seen what Barr said, DocJess, Georgia can claim to be the largest state east of the Mississippi by land area. That's according to the World Almanac; Wikipedia uses a census figure that gives Michigan a little more land for some reason, and it is the subject of debate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_U.S._states_by_area

Whoever's right, in any event, Georgians do have some history in making the claim.

Kennyb said...

No relevant place to put this, but a new poll shows Obama over HRC in Montana 52-35.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/washington/AP-Poll-2008-Montana.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Dan said...

Some local reporting from Hawaii--but still no news on the add-on...

http://starbulletin.com/
2008/05/25/news/story05.html

Paul Bradford said...

I apologize for being slow, but I noticed a difference between the way delegates are selected in Hawaii and Alaska. In Alaska, the rule is:

The Alaska State Convention chooses 8 district delegates, such choice reflecting the support for the presidential contenders among the delegates to the State Convention from each Legislative District.

In Hawaii, it's a little different:

Hawai's Democratic State Convention: The 20 pledged delegates are actually chosen at this gathering. These 20 delegates must vote as pledged per the preferences expressed by participants in the 19 February Presidential Preference Poll.

In Alaska, Obama 'picked up' a pledged delegate because more than 75% of the convention delegates who showed up voted for Obama to determine how the two PLEO delegates should be apportioned. 74.6% of the delegates ELECTED were Obama's, but more than 75% showed up.

In Hawaii, the rules didn't allow any candidate to pick up anything over the votes cast on 19 Feb. If they followed Alaska's rules it would have been possible for Obama to pick up votes in both HI-01 (where he won 74.6% of the vote and needed 75% to get a 5-1 split instead of the 4-2 split he actually got) and in HI-02 (where he won 77.40% but needed 78.57% to get a 6-1 split instead of the 5-2 split he actually got.)

We need to REFORM Hawaii's delegate selection plan! They need to have district conventions sometime between Feb and May. That way the better organized candidate can be rewarded!

Hawaii was one of the many states where Obama lost out on the breakpoints. He has 38.46% more votes than she has in the delegation but he won 52.48% more votes than she did in the Feb 19 voting. That 14.02% difference is bad, but it's worse for Obama in NY, DC, RI, AS & AR where Obama loses out on breakpoints or because supers break for Clinton in a greater percentage than voters in the primary or caucus. Arkansas is the worst.

ahoff48 said...

The AP is reporting that obama picked up 1 hawaiian superdelegate today.

ahoff48 said...

Make that 3 now.

Brad said...

Do you have a link?

ahoff48 said...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DEMOCRATS?SITE=ALMON&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

ahoff48 said...

heres a better one
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080525/BREAKING01/80525050

Brad said...

That's the confirmation. Thanks!

Brad said...

For Obama:

Brian Schatz
Kari Luna
James Burns

Paul Bradford said...

galois,

Thank you for providing me a link to the Charter and Bylaws. I looked at Article 2, Section 2 of the bylaws and counted all the members that were ennumerated and I came up with 442 DNC members. It looks to me as if DCW has come up with 398 DNC members, plus 30 from FL & MI to come to a total of 428 (14 less than I would have thought).

Art 2, Sec 2(u) says: "No more than seventy five additional members of the DNC may be added by the foregoing members". Maybe they didn't add all 75. Maybe they only added 61. Where would that be noted?

Galois said...

The 398 number doesn't count DNC members who are also governors, or members of Congress. Reps. Joe Baca, Mike Honda, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Gregory Meeks, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Govs. Tim Kaine, Joe Manchin, Ruth Ann Minner, David Paterson, and Sens. Harry Reid and Debbie Stabenow are all members of the DNC. That's another 13 I think.

Paul Bradford said...

Thanks ahoff,

Chairman: Brian Schatz
Vice Chair: Kari Luna
Add-On: Judge James Burns

Paul Bradford said...

galois,

Well, that explains it. We're up to 74 now. Just one more for the mystery...

Paul Bradford said...

galois,

Maybe it DOESN'T explain it. Those governors and congressmen aren't AT LARGE members. They come in from other places. I'm still stuck at 61.

Galois said...

This list shows all the unpledged delegates, but doesn't include Florida or Michigan. It does describe how each DNC member is a member (what state or organization chose the member). Note that it counts that list of 13 (well 12 technically as it doesn't count Stabenow) above as DNC members and not in the governor, representative, or senator category.

Galois said...

Some of the 13 are at-large members, but that's irrelevant. You were counting 442 from the charter (counting 74 at-large), but then you said there only 398+30 DNC members. You weren't counting those 13. The TOTAL seems to be 441. So it seems either there are 74 at large, or in one of the counts you are off by one (or both). I'll see if I can help account for the missing one.

Ian said...

Say it with me, people... O-BA-MA! O-BA-MA! O-BA-MA!

Galois said...

OK. From Article II of the bylaws (not Article II of the charter which leaves out Democrats Abroad) I count:

(a) - Chairs/Cochairs from states/territories. 110
(b) - Additional state members. 200
(c) - Committeemen/women from GU, AS, and VI. 6
(d) - Governors. 3
(e) - House and Senate. 4
(f) - DNC officers. 9
(g) - Mayors. 3
(h) - Young Democrats. 3
(i) - Democratic women. 3
(j) - County officials. 3
(k) - State legislators. 3
(l) - Municipal officials. 3
(m) - Democrats abroad. 4
(n) - College Democrats. 2
(o) - State treasurers. 2
(p) - Lt. Governors. 2
(q) - Secretaries of state. 2
(r) - Attorney generals. 2
(s) - Ethnic coordinating. 2
(t) - Seniors coordinating. 2
(u) - At-large. Up to 75

By my count that's 316 from the states/territories. 43 from organizations. 9 officers. Up to 75 at-large. So I'm counting 443 if all the at-large were assigned.

Kennyb said...

After this weekend's pickups, Hillary must now win more than 44 pledged delegates in the remaining 3 primaries to avoid being mathematically prevented from reaching 2025 without switches. In other words, there would not be enough undeclared supers for her to reach 2025 (even if she won 100% of them) unless she picks up 45 or more pledged delegates in the last 3 primaries. Every super that goes to Obama between now and then increases her required number by one (FL and MI not included, of course).

Hollywood Mark said...

Please don't take this the wrong way, but what are you guys gonna do after May 31st when/if the RBC seats (all/some part of) Florida and Michigan pushing the delegate total needed for nomination to 2210 and Clinton captures the popular vote and expands it with large pickup in PR? If she says to the super delegates: "Look we both can't reach the delegate total minimum but I have the popular vote..." What do math guys like you folks do? How do you combat that particular argument? Just curious.

Galois said...

OK. Mystery solved. Rep. Cheeks-Kilpatrick (MI) is a member-at-large. (So that makes 14 DNC members who are governors or congresspersons), and Mark Brewer of Michigan is both a DNC Vice Chair and a State Chair. So that makes 398 DNC on this list + 30 from Michigan + 14 counted in other categories = 442 DNC members. Counting vacancies there would be 443 DNC members minus Brewer who gets counted twice. Thus we have the correct total. Mystery solved.

Me said...

You should update the count at the top of this post. It's now Obama +6, Clinton +1. The world deserves to know how Clinton is having her ass handed to her.

Jack said...

Hollywood Mark, I'm not so sure that there will be a "large" pickup in PR. I have only seen one poll, which gave Clinton a 50-37 lead there, but that poll ran from 3/31 to 4/5. It is quite possible that that margin has closed somewhat (and I suppose also quite possible that it has not).

And I think the math is still rather bad for her. She'd still be well behind in pledged delegates, especially if, as expected, she loses Montana and South Dakota. She'd still be behind in superdelegates, who have generally moved towards Obama. And the trend of superdelegates supporting Obama doesn't seem to be about to stop - if anything, it might accelerate after June 3 as the party tries to rally behind one candidate.

Ian said...

Obama is favored to win Montana and South Dakota and I believe Puerto Rico will be a very close one so basically there is no way Hillary can pick up enough pledged delegates to bolster her argument whatever the decision is from the RBC...

SarahLawrenceScott said...

Hollywood mark--I'm not entirely a math guy, but I do lean in that direction, so I'll take a shot at your question. If Clinton wins so overwhelmingly in PR that she unambiguously takes the lead in the popular vote--that is, even without counting FL and MI--then I agree that the situation continues to be "interesting." I suspect that using a huge PR margin to win the popular vote would be seen by some (and not just die-hard Obama supporters) as not a great argument, because PR doesn't get to vote in the general election. But it could be a heckuva argument, with ugly sentiments bubbling up on both sides. After all, it's perfectly reasonable to argue that PR should have a role in choosing the President, even if it's only through the primary process, as they are US citizens. I think that's why Obama is putting more of a personal effort into PR than he did in WV and KY; there are a lot of popular votes at stake there.

Barring a huge Clinton win, though, I don't think it has much effect. If Clinton takes the lead in the popular vote only if both MI and FL are counted, no one outside of Clinton supporters is going to flinch, because Obama's name wasn't even on the MI ballot. If FL alone does it, that's a bit more trouble, but he's still got the argument that her totals there were inflated because it was partly a "name recognition" election without active personal campaigning.

One publicity measure that would help Obama is if he can manage the superdelegates in such a way that MT and SD put him over the top. If he does that, it won't "feel" to a lot of people like the superdelegates stole the election from Clinton. If he reaches the magic number based on superdelegates before then, or if he needs more superdelegates after that, then I think the notion that Clinton was robbed will be tougher to completely dispel. (Yes, I know that for those of us paying close attention there isn't really any difference between using superdelegates now or using them later, but it can affect the perception of those not following the process as closely.)

SarahLawrenceScott said...

jack and ian--The point is that winning the nomination via delegates isn't enough. Obama also has to do it without creating too much lingering resentment. A lot of that depends on how gracious Clinton is in the end. If she willingly concedes in June, then there's no problem. If she uses other metrics to insist on continuing to lobby delegates to change their minds, then that's big trouble. I agree that Obama almost certainly ends up the nominee either way, but the question is whether he ends up as President...

Hollywood Mark said...

Thanks for the explanations. But I am still a little confused. Both ABC News' website and RealClearPolitics are saying Mrs. Clinton already has the lead in the popular vote if you count Michigan and Florida. I think Montana only has 90,000 votes but PR is near a million. If she picks up 500k votes or more in PR wouldn't she have a really substantial popular vote lead. Amost insurmountable? And wouldn't 2210 be insurmountable in a way, for both of these candidates? So the argument to the Supers might be, "Neither one of us can clinch with 2210, but I (Mrs. Clinton) has the substantial lead in the popular vote, hence I deserve the nomination. If not, do you want us to wrangle it out on the floor of the convention with multiple ballots?" And indeed, wouldn't the Supers be under immense pressure to vote with the "Will of the People" and the popular vote of their states and districts? So confusing to me. Can anyone help here?

Galois said...

OK Mark. A lot of if's in your statements. But suppose for the sake of argument that the RBC seats MI/FL as is with no penalty. Obama will still have won a majority of pledged delegates, and so Clinton would need a majority of superdelegates to compensate for this loss in the pledged delegates. She says they should do so because if some popular vote victory. Here's the response:

(1) What do you mean by a popular vote victory? According to Real Clear Politics Obama leads by over 550,000 votes when you estimate some of the caucus states. Clinton will not overcome this. Even with a 20 point victory in Puerto Rico with turnout of a million would earn her only 200,000. See this article for why turnout should be significantly less and a Clinton victory (if she does get one) should also be far less. Obama is likely to win Montana and South Dakota (but there aren't a lot of votes there). So any popular vote "victory" for Clinton almost assuredly counts Florida where she won by almost 300,000 and Michigan where she's claiming a win of 328,000 to 0. That last number is absolutely ridiculous to count as a reason to overturn the pledged delegates. The 300,000 from Florida and 200,000 from Puerto Rico alone aren't enough to get a popular vote victory.

(2) Furthermore it is unfair to count Florida as Obama couldn't campaign there and so it was largely a matter of name recognition (especially so early in the nominating contest). Even in states Obama lost he cut considerably into Clinton's lead once he could campaign and introduce himself to voters.

(3) Most importantly to now count things according to popular vote is ridiculous. Some states had closed primaries, some states had caucuses. If they had known "popular vote" was how we were going to determine a nominee they might have chosen to all have open primaries to increase turnout and thus increase their influence on the popular vote. Similarly Obama made campaign decisions based on the winning delegates. He probably would not have spent time in Idaho, Kansas, or Wyoming if popular vote was how we are going to count.

(4) There is a reason why the Democrats have a certain system for allocating delegates to states (the same system also plays a part in allocating representation in the DNC). They try to strike a balance between the electoral vote strength of a state (which in turn is a balance between equal weight to the states and weighting the states by population) and the popular vote of the state towards the Democrat in the last several Presidential contests (which in turn is a balance between how Democratic a state is and its population). To ask the superdelegates to ignore the pledged delegate count in favor of a popular vote count asks them to simply throw out this delicate balance that had been achieved. It's not going to happen.

Even seating MI/FL fully Obama is only about a 100 delegates away from the nomination (depending on how many of the uncommitted MI delegates he gets). He is going to have no problem doing this. Huckabee kept saying he majored in miracles and not math when people pointed out to him he had no chance. Now Clinton seems to be saying the same thing. Even Huckabee eventually conceded, and Clinton will soon as well.

SarahLawrenceScott said...

According to RealClearPolitics, Clinton needs to net about 570,000 votes to unambiguously win the popular vote. That's a tall order, although not impossible. But it's still not really unambiguous, because it's not unreasonable to argue that place like the Virgin Islands (which went Obama) and Puerto Rico shouldn't count the same because they don't get to vote in November.

Confusing? Yes! So when things are confusing, you follow the rules, and that means delegate counts. If there were somehow a substantial popular vote lead for Clinton at the end, I agree with you that it would put a lot of pressure on supers. But the popular vote will be a muddle; for example, four states don't even release the figures, so plaes like RealClearPolitics just estimate them!

Bottom line: you're confused about this, and so are a lot of supers. So they're not going to move en masse for Clinton on the basis of that argument. At least the delegates have been assigned following a process that was agreed upon beforehand, has rules for appeals, and doesn't lead to different counts or estimates in the end. (Media counts differ by a handful now, but in the end there's eventually a roll call!) Thus many supers will follow the pledged delegate count; some will follow their states; some their districts; and some their best view of the popular vote; and some other rationales. It's hard to see how all that mishmash ends up with a Clinton win.

Matt said...

Re: the 2 DNC at-large vacancies. We've asked the DNC about it, and the answer is rather simple. The vacancies may or may not be filled before the convention. If they are not filled, then clearly the number of delegates will go down by 2, and the number to win will go down by 1. But since we won't know for sure that the vacancies will not be filled until just before the convention, we have to assume they will be filled, and therefore the current numbers are still correct.

Galois said...

Mark,

Putting aside for a second the issue of "how" one should count the popular vote, I think part of your confusion stems from the opening claim that neither of us can reach 2210 delegates needed for the majority. That number 2210 assumes superdelegates. If you ignore superdelegates there are only 3566 delegates (even counting MI/FL fully). 1/2 of that would be 1783. Counting Florida but not counting any from Michigan Obama has approximately 1736.5 (what happens in Texas could change that slightly). As most of the MI uncommitted are going to Obama (see the recent post on this site) he's right at about the majority and since the last 86 pledged delegates are allocated proportionally he will certainly make up any loss of the uncommitted there. This means that if there was no such thing as a superdelegate, Obama wins. It's that simple. It's kind of hard to make a "will of the voter" argument at the same time you're overturning the results of the elections. Certainly the argument that Clinton won Michigan by 328,000 to 0 because Obama removed his name from the ballot and everybody including Clinton said it wouldn't count doesn't seem to be enough of a reason to have superdelegates come in an overturn the results of the elected delegates.

Hollywood Mark said...

I just looked at RCP. With Florida alone, Obama leads by 163K in the popular vote. If the delegate magic number is 2210 and neither one can reach it, then after PR, Clinton should probably lead in the overall popular vote. Isn't that correct. If Obama goes into the Convention with 2100 delegates and Clinton with 2000. But she has the clear popular vote lead, should he get the nomination because he is simply ahead by a hundred but trails in the popular vote? What is the opinion of the experts here? It doesn't seem possible does it?

Me said...

> Both ABC News' website and RealClearPolitics are saying Mrs. Clinton already has the lead in the popular vote if you count Michigan and Florida.

You mean "if you count Mighigan and Florida, *and* you don't credit Obama for all of the caucus states, *and* you don't credit Obama for the 40% of Mighigan voters who did not vote for Hillary (who was the only person to actually appear on the ballot)". That's a lot of if's.

> If she picks up 500k votes or more in PR wouldn't she have a really substantial popular vote lead.

It's not enough for her to "pick them up", she has to net them over and above any votes that Obama picks up. If Puerto Rico has a million votes total, for Hillary to net 500k votes over Obama she would have to beat him 75-25. That's extremely unlikely. A still unlikely 60-40 win for Hillary would only net her 200k, which still does not give her a popular vote lead with Florida included and the caucus states both included. So basically, she would need to win Puerto Rico by a margin greater than 60-40 for it to have any appreciable effect on the popular vote argument.

Hollywood Mark said...

So if she wins the popular vote and neither Obama nor her get to the magic number of 2210 does she get the nomination? Or do they fight it out on the floor of the convention to see who gets the 2210 for the nomination? I assume both sides have pretty darn good arguments as to who can win and all, so does the popular vote do it with no other metrix?

Galois said...

Mark,

You're still not counting Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington. Why do those voters not deserve to have their votes count. I also think you're overestimating how many votes Clinton can make up in PR. (I'm not even certain she's going to win it). Finally, if you count MI/FL then DCW already has Obama with 2055 delegates. That includes only 2 of Edwards delegates from FL. MSNBC is reporting 7 others that have committed to him. It's counting 0 of the uncommitted in MI, but Obama has most of those (and any realistic deal the RBC will reach will I believe at least ensure Obama gets all 55). Still let's give him only 45 of them. That's already over 2100 right there. He'll pick up at least 40 pledged delegates in the remaining contests. Add a few add-ons from ME, MN, TX, VT, etc. and a few delegates who have hinted they'll support Obama/pledged winner like the Pelosis and Carter and you're looking at around 2150 already. There's no way Obama is coming in with only 2100 delegates. SarahLawrenceScott said it well. It's one thing if Clinton had an unambiguous popular vote victory. But that's not the case.

Hollywood Mark said...

Thank you all for clarifying. One more thing. The votes in the caucuses. Are those estimates extrapalated out or did those people actually vote one person/one vote? Can someone help? I mean, why have some of these caucus states turned in estimates or none at all. Very confused on this math problem.

mike said...

All along, it was clear that this nomination is a delegate race- pledge delegates, superdelegates, etc. If clinton were in the same position as obama, she would have made the whole world to know that the nomination was hers and nobody dear take it away , or even suggest away of her losing. No matter how you look at it, this race is over and well beyond her. Her only chance is if something catastropic happens to obama. I'll just sit tight and enjoy how this plays out.

Hollywood Mark said...

So everyone agrees this is gonna go to the Convention in Denver? Is anyone going? How many ballots will it take for Obama? One? Probably. Two or three is unlikely I presume. What if its deadlocked? I hear all the delegates can switch all the time, back and forth depending on offers and such. Does anyone know the history of how the ballot voting goes on the floor?

Galois said...

Here's a nice summary about those caucus estimates. It's an attempt to estimate one person/one vote from those states. This is just part of the difficulty of trying to make a claim based on "the popular vote" in a contest designed to be decided by delegate vote.

Galois said...

Mark,

I don't think anyone agrees it's going to go the convention in Denver (in the sense of it being uncertain who the nominee is). A number of superdelegates including most of the remaining undeclared in the House, as well as Dean, Reid, and Pelosi have said this will be decided in June. The idea is that after the last elections in South Dakota and Montana all the remaining superdelegates will be asked to declare their preferences. At this point--if not earlier --someone (Obama) will have enough delegates total to have a majority. Then the other person (Clinton) will concede and depending all (or almost all) of the superdelegates will switch to support the presumptive nominee. The loser will probably also release her pledged delegates at this point, so the roll call in Denver becomes a formality. The superdelegates and both nominees know the party is doomed if this drags on until August. This will end the week of June 1st. I'm guessing Clinton concedes the night of June 3rd.

tmess2 said...

Part of the problem is discussing delegate numbers before the RBC meeting. Barring major surprises in the last three states, Obama will get to 2026. Without knowing how the rules will be changed, its tough to say where it goes from there. Half votes for Michigan and Florida with MIchigan going in at 69-59 before being halved doesn't move the goal posts that much. Seating with no penalty (extremely unlikely) moves the goal posts a lot.

Galois said...

The goal posts don't move all that much even with MI/FL seated fully. I have Obama needing 92 delegates. That counts MSNBC's numbers for FL Edwards delegates and all 55 uncommitted MI for Obama. Even giving him only most of those delegates puts him about 100 delegates away with 326 delegates left or about 30% needed. As is he needs 49 out of 292 or about 17%. Yes the posts move, but he still should have it.

Rambling Johnny said...

Galois you also have to add defection to Obama in the mix I expect her Friday remark to cost her a few if not many of her own SD starting tomorrow.

Obama right now is negotiating from a position of strength. She can try to seat the whole delegation but we all know it not going to happen. The best she can hope for is half. And half does not get her anywhere any minor gain she make is going yo be eat up by SD in a matter of days and some of them are going to come from her own rank. After last Friday and the firestorm of this weekend I have doubt about her making it to May 31. She been in the news all weekends and not in a good way. SD are for the most part politician and I don't see many of them wanting to be associated with her anymore.

Amot said...

I don't think the RFK remark will result in defection. And I think most supers that wanted to endorse have already endorsed. The next big wave will be at June 4th - 100 or so supers in 2-3 days!

Allyn said...

I thought that ABC said that Hillary led in the popular vote on the "planet bizarro"

lcu said...

I just ran some interesting numbers. If you look at the percentage of votes cast in each state, including both Michigan and Florida, and not including the Caucus results in Texas Obama has an average of 52.8 and Clinton 42.4 of the votes. If Michigan is excluded, then he goes to 53.92 and she is 42.23 - again excluding the Caucus results in Texas.

Of course, this is not how the system works, nor is looking at the popular vote total.

SarahLawrenceScott said...

lcu--In a vast oversimplification on my part, your stat reflects that Obama tended to win big in the small states and Clinton tended to win small in the big states. So averaging state by state as if they were all the same size makes Obama's margin look bigger. Since the Democratic Primary system slightly overrepresents small states, that leads to a bigger pledged delegate win for Obama than popular vote win.

Interestingly, not only is the Democratic Primary system tilted slightly toward small states (in the sense that individual voters in those states count "more"), so is the Electoral College in the general election. Each state gets a number of Electors equal to their number of Representatives + Senators. So there are a whole bunch of states that would get 1 electoral vote if everything was proportional to population like the House of Representative, but instead get 3 because like all states they have two senators.

I'm not opposed to that, by the way. We've organized our country by states, and there's a lot to be said for weighting things in such a way that sparsely populated regions with economies based on farming, ranching, mining, or the like still get a significant say. And I say that as someone who has always lived in or near big cities...

tmess2 said...

JThe difference in moving the goal posts is that if the numbers stay as is, there is a simple straightforward conservative projection from the remaining contests (including the selection of add-ons) that puts Obama over 2026 without more unpledged delegates -- 35 delegates from PR, MT, and SD; 2 from Iowa (50-50 split of Edwards delegates at state convention); and 13 add-ons (out of 20 from Maine, Minnesota, Texas, Vermont, Mississippi, Wisconsin, Idaho, Iowa, Virginia, Washington, North Carolina, Oregon, and Nebraska).

If you seat Michigan and Florida as is (even if you give all 55 uncommitted to Obama and the remaining 11 Edwards delegates in Florida), he would need 38 automatic unpledged delegates (and maybe more since I am not willing to assume 100% of the uncommitted in Michigan). While I think he will get the support from those delegates, it does open the door for arguments about what metrics should be used by unpledged delegates when under the rules as originally set there would be no debate left after June 21st.

Of course, if you combine options 2 and 3 (or even if you go with option 3) from the options listed on this site for seating Michigan and Florida, you get a much smaller number of new unpledged delegates needed.

Hollywood Mark said...

Can't Obama prevent the seating of MI and Fl by simply not agreeing to seat them and pushing the vote back to June 29th? I read that somewhere. Why should he agree? Even though he would look foolish stopping millions of people from having their vote count and losing the moral high ground to Clinton, shouldn't he just stand fast? 2210 will take him months to reach, won't it? I mean he barely has enough to reach 2025...At the convention can he change the rules again back to his favor? And still stop people from having their votes count. I'm sure Hillary would, so why doesn't he? Aren't they the same in that regard?

SarahLawrenceScott said...

hollywood mark--in all probability, even if FL and MI were given all of their potential delegates, Obama would reach 2210 on June 4 or very shortly after. Those two states really don't put him that much further away in the delegate count, because it's not like he's going to get zero from them.

As I said in an earlier post, superdelegates are choosing to follow all sort of different policies, as is their right. There's doubtless a big chunk of them who don't want to cut short the primary process, but as soon as it's done, they'll do whatever they're going to do. Some will go to the overall leader in pledged delegates (Obama), some will go the way their state went, some will go the way their district went, and some will do other things. But it's not like Obama has to win the remaining superdelegates, because he's quite a bit ahead even with FL and MI. Even though he probably will win them, that's just icing on the cake--a split or even a mild Clinton tilt (unlikely!) would still give it to Obama. So June 4 will probably mark the end as far as Obama is concerned.

Under those circumstances, it's madness for him to try to slow down the MI and FL decision, because it means the process will still be going. Leaving it unresolved might even make some superdelegates hold back. At this point, his concern is party unity, and for that he needs to appear as fair and magnanimous as he can.

None of that tells us what Clinton will do. She could, for example, refuse to concede even when sites like this one indicate Obama is way past the magic number, because she could always lobby delegates to change their mind before the convention. That is the point at which it would be pretty clear that she was hurting the Democratic Party, but it has to be considered as a possibility.

Galois said...

SarahLawrenceScott said it all quite well. I just want to add to/clarify some of the things she pointed out. As she points out it's incorrect to say he's not quite at 2025, and so he'll be far from 2210. (CNN's John King was guilty of giving the same impression recently). His count making him close to 2025 doesn't count any delegates from FL/MI. If you move the number to 2210 it's because those states are seated and then Obama picks up the delegates in those states that support him. So at the same time the line moves (if it moves) he'll jump up drastically in the number of delegates he has. So even if it moves he should get the requisite number of delegates the week of June 1st. Most of the undeclared superdelegates will declare at that point and even under the worst case scenario he only needs a handful of them.

Obama can't cause or prevent anything from happening to MI/FL. The RBC said their plans (and therefore their delegates) couldn't be accepted because it violated the calendar conditions. The RBC is going to reconsider that decision on Saturday, but Obama isn't on the RBC. They will make their own decision. Whatever they decide I'm sure Obama will go along with it because it's to his benefit to try to stay above the fray and as noted above, he can easily win no matter what they decide.

SarahLawrenceScott correctly noted that after the superdelegates decide it will be up to Clinton to decide what she will do. I'm almost positive, though, she will concede very shortly thereafter. Some of her superdelegate supporters might wait a few days to give her a chance to concede graciously, but almost nobody in the Democratic party wants this to drag on any longer than it has to. Once Obama gets whatever the number happens to be, even most of Clinton's superdelegates will say it's over. She put up a good fight, but it's time to get in line behind the next President of the United States, Barack Obama. Clinton, though, realizes this also. She's pushing the FL/MI thing now and trying to make any case she can, but she's also said the party must unite. It's one thing to extend this one more week so that everyone votes in a contested election, but that will be the end.

kamali said...

So with the 6 supers from the weekend, and the 1 PD switch, how many remaining delegates does he need to clinch now? and how many total delegates does he have??

SarahLawrenceScott said...

kamali--you can always check the updated numbers in the left sidebar of the main page for this blog (2008 Democratic Convention Watch).

Incidentally, all, I didn't punctuate my screen name very well: Sarah Lawrence is the college I'm at, and my name's Scott. Some people have understandably been guessing my name is Sarah... :D

Alii said...

This will not go to the convention. It will be over next week.

Read Jimmy Carter's statement here:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL2562414520080525

And then:
http://online.barrons.com/article/SB121158302459818657....

It has been fun(?), more or less, but it is over. The pleasingly plump lady will be singing for Senator Obama NLT June 6.

Alii said...

This will not go to the convention. It will be over next week.

Read Jimmy Carter's statement here:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL2562414520080525

And then:
http://online.barrons.com/article/SB121158302459818657....

It has been fun(?), more or less, but it is over. The pleasingly plump lady will be singing for Senator Obama NLT June 6.

Alii said...

Please excuse the duplicate post above...a neophyte here.

Let's see if these tags work:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL2562414520080525

http://online.barrons.com/article/SB121158302459818657....

Rambling Johnny said...

From the look of it I say he need around 100 more to seal it. Now all of this depend on the RBC ruling it could be higher or lower or it could not move at all. If they split 50/50 both states the line does not change because they both get the same amount of delegates. The RBC could also stick to their gun and say it was our decision and we don't change it! But I don't see that happening they would throw a bone to Hillary to make her shut up! But nothing substantial just enough for her to save face and get the frack out!

Paul Bradford said...

galois,

Thank you for the comprehensive list of unpledged delegates. You've been very helpful.

When I go over the list I notice that there are about 9 delegates that are unaccounted for. I think there were vacancies when the list was compliled and no note was made of the vacancies.

Matt said...

Paul, please expand on your 9 delegates you think are unaccounted for. thanks.

Galois said...

Paul, the list looks complete to me except that it doesn't include Michigan or Florida, and it doesn't include the add-ons. It also doesn't have the new chair and vice-chair in Hawaii (but it has the old, so it still has the slots). It lists Rep. Wynn who technically is still a representative into his resignation goes into effect. So with those caveats the list seems complete. It even has the new representatives from the recent special elections and the new DNC members from Guam. I'm not sure what you mean by 9 unaccounted for.

Paul Bradford said...

Matt, galois,

I will be very happy to expand on that list tonight when I'm back at my desk. What I did was to build a spreadsheet with rows of states (and territories) and columns of categories ennumerated in Art 2, Sec 2 of the bylaws. There were 21 categories listed ("a" through "u") and I plugged in numbers according to the way they were characterized in the list. I also included FL and MI based on the list of DNC delegates from DCW and included Rep. Cheeks-Kilpatrick as an at-large delegate (I also included her son in the mayoral category). I couldn't get to 443 (or even 440 taking into account the two at-large vacancies and the fact that Mark Brewer is holding down two positions.)

Tonight I'm going to check the state by state tallies against the names of DNC members included on DCW -- but I expect it will take me a little time.

Thanks for your help (and your interest!)