Sunday, June 01, 2008

FL & MI By The Numbers

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

Here's our final FL & MI By The Numbers post, reflecting the state of the delegate numbers as of May 31, 2008.

Thanks to Yousri for putting all the FL/MI tables together, and keeping them all updated.


Delegates Available: 4233.0Nomination: 2117.0PD majority: 1705.0

ObamaClinton EdwardsOthers(1)NYA(2)YTV(3)Total
Pledged Delegates(GP)1660.51499.570--863253
MI Pledged Delegates29.534.5--------64
FL Pledged Delegates33.552.56.5------92.5
Total Pledged Delegates1723.51586.013.50--863409.5
Needed for PD majorityClinched!------------
Superdelegates (DCW)323.5282.5--190----796
FL & MI Superdelegates57.5--15----27.5
Total Superdelegates328.5290.0--205----823.5
Total Delegates2052.01876.513.5205--864233.0
Delegates Lead175.0-- ----------
Delegates needed to win Nomination65.0240.5------Left291

Others(1): Include Unknown, Uncommitted & No endorsements yet
NYA(2): Not Yet Assigned.
YTV(3): Not Yet Voted.

This page will not be updated going forward. See our Ultimate Delegate Summary and Ultimate Delegate Tracker for the latest numbers.

Previous FL/MI numbers post.

41 comments:

Me said...

Why not just move the Edwards delegates to Obama's column?

Lost Bob said...

Thanks. And please keep the table as is at least until I update my own spreadsheet tomorrow.

Paul Bradford said...

I wonder if the "Pelosi delegates" will decide that they are ready to support the winner of the pledged delegate contest.

Matt said...

Lost - the tables not being deleted. It just won't be updated going forward.

me - Because each Edwards delegate needs to say who they are supporting. We have delegates in NH and SC who have not endorsed Obama, so we won't assume anything about the FL delegates either until we get more information.

tmess2 said...

And 3 of the Edwards delegates are Iowa state-wide delegates (2 at-large and 1 PLEO). While I doubt that the enough state convention delegates will stay loyal to Edwards to allow him to keep them, how they split will determine who gets the delegates. Edwards plus uncommitted have 399 delegates at the Iowa State Convention. Assuming full attendance at the Iowa State Convention by all delegations, Obama needs 77 of those state convention delegates (approximately 20%) to get 1 of the national convention delegates, 160 (approximately 40%) to get of the second national convention delegate, and 327 (approximately 83%) to get all three. While my hunch is that Obama gets at-least two of the three, I don't see how anyone can award them to Obama yet.

Jeff in CA said...

These two Edwards delegates from Florida have endorsed Obama, per your Edwards page:

E. Alan Brock - Endorsed Obama 5/17
Linda E. Spisak - Endorsed Obama 5/17

How are counting them? As the equivalent of one vote in the Obama column?

Matt said...

Jeff - We moved them back to Edwards for now. Per the DNC decision today, all Obama and Edwards pledged delegates in FL have to be re-vetted by the campaigns. Until we get some clarity, we've decided to be conservative and keep them under Edwards for now.

3investors said...

Paul Bradford, probably the Pelosi SDs will wait till Tuesday night or Wednesday just out of courtesy.

As 3investors said before, given the failure of the party to enforce discipline earlier anyway, it should have given full support of Florigan. Doing so would have shut up these idiots http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/01/angry-clinton-supporters-tell-party-leaders-lets-go-mccain/
(the people, not cnn)

It would have shut up Hillary Clinton and Bubba FOREVER, or at least for the next 4-8 years... and guess what, Obama was going to win anyway! President Obama does have a nice ring to it, doesn't it :)

Amot said...

Matt, Yousri, does it make sense to keep a worst scenario table? I mean MI fully seated, Clinton receiving 73, uncommitted 55. I am not sure if it is true, but someone said Hillary has agreed to not appeal anymore about FL. However we know that she easily changes her mind, so full seating of FL should be added to the worst scenario. I think that is the old scenario 5 and that we will hear Hillary still saying this is the valid one!

frstan said...

Its ok to be "conservative" but lets not be timid. Is it at all reasonable that Edwards will vet these two delegates and then replace them with two others who will NOT endorse Obama? Lets be sensible. If a contingency that remote and unlikely should occur you can always change them then. To change them now, is to falsify the existing situation.

Amot said...

frstan,
I agree with you, but maybe Edwards has to release a statement saying he will do vet in order to support Obama, or not. I can't forget the Clintons said they don't consider Edwards lost for their cause...

Amot said...

BTW, the fact FL failed to be fully seated as is by only 3 votes is a bad precedent. It gives reasons to believe that in the future any candidate with enough party insiders can fully change the rules and go against them. A 100% FL decision would be a disaster for the party, but now the door is in fact wide open for such behavior next cycle.

edgeways said...

Got our first post RBC endorsement

Yvonne Gates, DNC NV

jfagan said...

Let's hope for a waterfall of supers.

Dean said...

Before adding FL & MI SDs you show 323.5 SDs. Obama'a website has it at 325.5. Who are the 2 you are not including?

Amot said...

I wonder what numbers will Obama campaign announce when they update. Maybe their number will be 2 or 3 delegates less than the one here...

Dean said...

The NY Times is reporting that Obama only has about 12 SDs ready to commit before Wednesday. They are saying a lot of those on the fence are from conservative districts that are reluctant to commit to either Obama or Clinton. I don't buy into that. There may be a few, but not the majority. I expect at least 40 or 50 to come on board Sun - Tues before the train leaves the station.

ahoff48 said...

Thank you dcw for the great job covering this race, and providing clear detailed information.
In addition to Gates, Obama will get a Maine add-on today!I would think that after Puerto Rico finishes voting, it will be easier to predict how many more Supers will be needed so that South Dakota and Montana put Obama over the top on Tuesday night. There do seem to be some discrepancies between what Obama' website says and what you and other news sources say: He still claims an extra Louisiana and Texas delegate; he does not claim the two pledged delegates who have swithched to him, he claims a couple of extra superdelegates, and he only claims one of the Edwards Iowa delegate switches. I hope he goes over by a substantial margin by Tuesday night, so that the Michigan situation is appeal proof!

Amot said...

ahoff,
TX is not done deal, so he can claim as many as he wants. I actually think he has the more probable number given yesterday's events. In LA I think the results will be presented to the credentials committee since I think the state party cheated. I really have no clue why the campaign does not acknowledge the second IA delegate...

Lost Bob said...

Thanks,

I have updated my own spreadsheet. My math still works and I am in sync with the site.

I show a total of 304.5 votes still in play (includes Edward’s delegates). Obama needs to win only 21.3% of those to cinch. Hillary needs 79%. Yesterday it was 14.5% / 85.9%.

By the end of today Obama will need no more than 18% of less than available 250 votes. Hillary would need more than 80% of them. Hard to see from those numbers but I think she would have won this thing easily if she had not dissed the caucus states.

I think we will learn a lot from Hillary’s victory speech tonight after PR closes.

I hope she does not decide to demonstrate her political prowess by turning her comments about Obama’s electability into self fulfilling prophecy.

GDB said...

Nevada super Yvonne Gates (also an RBC member) has endorsed Obama.

Jay, aka The Angry Little Man said...

I just gotta say you guys ROCK!! I can not believe how much effort you've put into the tracking and these tables!

Such a hobby! ;)

Kennyb said...

In her victory speeach in P.R., I will bet you Clinton will say that she has "clinched" the lead in the popular vote. We'll see how many major media outlets call her on it. My guess is CNN and ABC will just accept it.

sleepy9112 said...

It is disingenuous for the Clinton desperados to claim the popular vote when they know full well had there been a true primary where campaigning was done, the demographics in the two states in question including Florida and Michigan would have resulted in very different results. Florida's demographics are similar to Texas demographics and we know how tight that race was. Michigan's demographics are close to Ohio's. He lost that state by 14 points, not by the nearly 20 points as in Michigan if we assume the uncommitted were his people.

Another important point is that both of these States had primaries before the Wright debacle broke. Its highly possible that Obama may well have won either state without that albatross around his neck.

The Clinton camp is engaging in dishonest, divisive politics to make their case. It is as divisive as their trips to Appalachia to scare up white votes by claiming that Obama was some outsider who thought he was better than they. This was Bill's argument the whole time he campaigned in West Virginia and Kentucky. No one knows better than Bill Clinton how to stir fear in the heart of white working class folks as he is a good old boy from Arkansas who knows this group like no other. Shameful and disgraceful is the only term appropriate for the Clinton team.

Mike said...

Hillary will jubilate today. She'll celebrate and claim she has the majority of votes cast. She'll make some noise and rush to the remaining uncommitted supers to vote for her. Let's allow her. It is her last dance for this nomination. Her surrogates will turn up the volume, just as they have always done.

If she's wise she'll announce the end of her campaign today, or in few days time. I dont expect her to concede or endorse Obama. It's just out of character for her.

Yesterday's RBC decison seals her fate in this nomination and also exposes her as someone who would encourage breaking of rules to achieve her political means.

This week is the final lap of the nomination race, a game changing week. Democrats will have their prospective nominee and focus on the GE.

Pastor Bob Cornwall said...

If it will make her feel better, give her back her four delegates in Michigan -- and then split them in half, so she'll have 2. That should be enough to give her the nomination!

NJ said...

If DNC counts Florida & Michigan fully, the dynamics of the entire race will be different. Senator Hillary Clinton will be 10 delegates less than Barack Obama in Pledged Delegate count. Uncommitted 55 delegates in Michigan should not be allocated to Obama and should be available for grabs. Under this scenario, there are more chances for Hillary Clinton to overtake Barack Obama in pledged delegate count.

What has been decided by Rules committee is completely unfair and taking the nomination away from Senator Hillary Clinton. It only proves that there is no democracy within Democratic party. You punish the voters by reducing their vote but reward the politician who voluntarily removed his name from the ballot. Great, democracy in action and new way of outside washington politics by Obama is in display.

Bob said...

NJ??

Using present tally

O 1740.5, C 1624.5

Take MI compromise

O 1711, C 1590.5

Give 73 delegates to Clinton

O 1711, C 1663.5

Bring Fl to full strength

O 33.5, C 52.5

O 1744.5, C 1716

Obama has a 28.5 delegate lead
GIVEN the best of all possible worlds for Clinton.
This is, of course, ignoring that most of the Michigan Uncommitted delegates will declare for Obama (90% of 55 = 49). If you want to throw out superdelegates, Obama still wins. If you include superdelegates, Obama's lead is greater.

Do you also want to toss out the caucus state results?

Bob in Vancouver said...

Several blogs I've read claim that the RBC resolution of hte MI primary was totally unfair. I ask them, if Hillary received her full 73 delegates for her 60% of the vote, would you still claim that she was entitled to get more delegates on the basis of the uncommitted vote, which was clearly not for Hillary. And I ask, after enfranchising the electorate, would you be so undemocratic to turn around and disenfranchise a fully viable candidate?

My guess is that you would say no, and I would agree with you that the RBC could very well have given Hillary her fully earned 73 delegates, and should have.

And I'm sure you would agree, that the RBC were well aware of the fact that Barack Obama would have picked up the 55 MI delegates on hid oen in any event.

And it's also true that I expect those who support Hillary to dispute both of the above.

Kennyb said...

nj, there is only one thing we know about the Uncommitted vote in Michigan, and that is that no one who voted Uncommitted voted for the named candidate on the ballot, Hillary Clinton. So fine, let the Uncommitteds be up for grabs between all the other candidates that Uncommitted might have meant, but none should go to Hillary, otherwise you would be undermining the will of the voters who voted Uncommitted and NOT for Hillary. Given that the only remaining candidate is Obama (Gravel HAS dropped out, right??), and given that Edwards, Richardson and Dodd have endorsed Obama, it's not really that unfair, although the silly 69 vs. 73 strikes me as odd, but it's what the Michigan Democratic Party asked for, including those in the party, like Gov. Granholm, who are Clinton supporters.

Bob in Vancouver said...

Kennyb:

My point exactly, but better said.

NJ said...

Yes, uncommitted did not vote for Hillary Clinton. But we are in post Rev. wright, William Ayers, Michelle Obama's unpatriotic and Obama's bitter comment era. So there are more chances of uncommitted going for Hillary Clinton now.

Secondly, as you agree the pledged delegate difference can reduce to great number. It is more likely for superdelegates to swing the nomination to Hillary Clinton if the difference in pledged delegate is only 30-40 instead of 120 as she is the strong candidate who is leading in populare vote. With Rules committee's decision, the nomination has been taken away from Hillary Clinton.

I strongly believe that she should quit DNC for unfair treatment and run as independent.

Amot said...

There was one major reason why RBC relocated MI delegates - the primary was flawed!

RBC had to punish FL for timing violation and they did by the minimal penalty imposed by the rules!

RBC had to punish MI both for timing violation and flawed primary! And they did!

RBC wanted to punish both states more severely. There were enough votes to enforce 75% penalty on FL and 50/50 split on MI. RBC made a political decision and imposed the minimal sanctions they should.

To those who think a revote now would result in landslide victories for Hillary, open your eyes and face the reality. Today she would lose CA by double digit and probably lose both FL and MI. Face it! Obama's campaign agreed on RBC decision as a gesture of good will. If the race was really close they would carry this to the convention and guess what, they would defend 100% penalty.

Don't be sore losers, be Democrats and work to stop GOP staying in WH for a third term!

NJ said...

Are you referring to the polls discussed at MSNBC , CNN, NBC? Wake up! Obama can never win the WH.

Americans do not want radical muslim as their president. GOP will continue to be in WH if Obama is the democratic nominee.

info said...

The notion that Mr. Obama is a radical Muslim - or even a Muslim - is so non-sensical. There is nothing except prejudice to support the argument. please move on, America.

THuff said...

As the superdelegates from Florida and Michigan declare their support, is it possible that more Obama SDs will have their vote halved than Clinton??

bluedogdem said...

The unsubstantiated assertion that Obama is a radical muslin is worse than nonsense, it is repugnant - as repugnant as suggesting Clinton is a member of the black panthers. I hope this blog doesn't go downhill by letting a few bloggers who peddle patently false accusations take over this fine, instructive site.

Markk said...

Senator Obama a 'radical Muslim'? LOL

Man, if that's the best the Clinton supporters have left in the tank, they might as well just not bother to get outta bed...

As I've stated before on this forum, I'm a moderate Republican that will be voting for Senator McCain in the election but it's reassuring to know, regardless if Senator McCain loses, that there WON'T be another Clinton in the White House anytime soon.

Her politics and, for that matter, the BS her people and supporters spew is just rancid.

And incidentally, I personally think Senator Obama has a better chance to win against McCain than does Senator Clinton. If you want to energize a Republican 'get out the vote' drive, stick a Clinton on the ticket...

NJ said...

I'm just an independent female voter who is really upset by the media and DNC treatment towards Hillary Clinton.

Time will expose Obama. Just wait and watch! Good Luck !

0240726 said...

Can someone please verify that superdelegates get to vote twice--once in their state's election and then again as superdelgates? If this is the case, am I the only person here who is troubled by this?

tmess2 said...

State election is different than the convention.

The pledged delegates to the national convention also get to vote twice -- once in their state election and once at the national convention.

There are two differences between the unpledged delegates and pledged delegates.

First, the pledged delegates are elected based on the candidate that they support and the unpledged delegates are elected on a difference basis.

Second, the pledged delegates (and the unpledged add-ons) are elected as part of this year's presidential primary process and the "automatic" unpledged delegates were -- for the most part -- elected prior to the start of the presidential primary process (the DNC members in 2004, the Representatives in 2006, and Governors and Senators and DPLs at different dates in the past).