WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com
The final day of the 2008 Democratic Primaries takes place today. Montana and South Dakota are holding their primaries which will count for a total of 31 pledged delegates.
Montana's 16 delegates are broken down as 10 district, 4 at-large and 2 pledged PLEOs. Polls opened 7am Mountain Time and close at 8pm Mountain Time.
South Dakota's 15 delegates break down as 9 district, 4 at-large and 2 pledged PLEOs. Polls opened at 7am local time and close at 7pm local time. South Dakota lies in both the Central and Mountain time zones.
Clinton wins South Dakota. Obama wins Montana and the nomination.
| Delegates Left | % Vote In | % Clinton | %Obama | Delegates Clinton | Delegates Obama | |
| Montana | 0 | 99% | 41% | 57% | 7 | 9 |
| South Dakota | 0 | 100% | 55% | 45% | 8 | 7 |
| Previously Pledged Delegates (GP) | 1624.5 | 1749.5 | ||||
| Total Pledged Delegates | 1639.5 | 1765.5 |
Next up is the Democratic National Convention on August 25th!
del.icio.us
43 comments:
Montana is broken down into two districts with 5 delegates each, so here are montana's breakpoints:
PLEO:
00-33%:0
33-67%:1
67-100%:2
At-large:
00-20%:0
20-40%:1
40-60%:2
60-80%:3
80-100%:4
CD1:
00-16%:0
16-33%:1
33-50%:2
60-66%:3
66-83%:4
83-100%:5
CD2:
00-16%:0
16-33%:1
33-50%:2
50-66%:3
66-83%:4
83-100%:5
The most recent poll has these results:
Obama 52%, Clinton 35%, Undecided 13%
(http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2008/05/25/news/local/news02.txt)
With a margin of error of 5%. To be safe, subtract twice that from each candidate, and we get Obama at least 42%, Clinton at least 25%.
This means the minimum delegates will be:
PLEO:1-1
At-large:2-1 (most likely will be 2-2, unless obama gets 60% of the vote)
CD1:2-1
CD2:2-1 (both CDs most likely will go 3-2)
This adds up to 7-4 obama.
I'm assuming the total of 21 pledged delegates in the article is actually meant to be 31?
South Dakota uses a single CD with 9 delegates along with 4 more at-large delegates off those same results and 2 PLEOs
Breakpoints:
PLEO:
00-33%:0
33-67%:1
67-100%:2
At-large:
00-20%:0
20-40%:1
40-60%:2
60-80%:3
80-100%:4
CD:
00-10%:0
10-20%:1
20-30%:2
30-40%:3
40-50%:4
50-60%:5
60-70%:6
70-80%:7
80-90%:8
90-100%:9
Most recent poll has Obama 46%, Clinton 34% (http://www.dwu.edu/press/2008/apr15.htm) with a 4% margin of error. Subtracting twice that for safety gives 38% Obama, 26% Clinton as minimums.
This isn't enough to award Clinton any PLEOs, but Obama wins one. Since it's far more likely that Clinton will be 7 points above these projections than it is that Obama will be 29 points above, it's safe to allocate those as 1-1.
The at-large delegates can also be awarded as 1-1, and the CD delegates as 3-2. This comes out to 5-4 as a bare minimum, using 2 month old polls where 20% of respondents didn't even indicate a preference.
Also, to dlanod, you are correct.
switched to 31 delegates in the text. thanks.
Dan, your break points are not accurate:
The two districts in Montana are
0-15% = 0
15-30% = 1
30-50% = 2
50-70% = 3
70-85% = 4
85%-100% = 5
The two PLEOs (in both states) are:
0-25% = 0
25-75% = 1
75-100% = 2
The four at-large (in both states) are:
0-15% = 0
15-37.5% = 1
37.5%-62.5% = 2
62.5%-85% = 3
85-100% = 4
On South Dakota, the delegate splits on the 9 "district" delegates are:
0-15% = 0
15%-16.67% = 1
16.67-27.78% = 2
27.78-38.89% = 3
38.89%-50% = 4
50%-61.12% = 5
61.12-72.23% = 6
72.23-83.34 = 7
83.34-95% = 8
85-100% = 9
The two mistakes that you are making in your math are
a) forgetting the Party Rules making 15% the minimum to get delegates
b) adding one to the number of delegates and dividing whereas the mechanism under the rules is dividing by the actual number of delegates and giving the fractional delegates to the candidate with the higher fraction which means that, for example, in a two-candidate race, the candidate with 0.51 of a delegate gets the full delegate and the candidate with 0.49 of a delegate gets nothing.
That's true, I fail at math.
Tmess,
And in your explanation, you also had an incorrect break-point:
83.34-95% = 8
85-100% = 9
It should read:
83.34-85% = 8
85-100% = 9
(I also made a mistake like that a couple of times [incorrect 'qualifying vote' point] at and just after Super Tuesday in some of my spreadsheets.)
VBG
Mike
thought I fixed that typo,
mental note do not touch type without glasses on
How sad and joyous it is that we are nearing the end of this seemingly FOREVER nomination race ;)
Montana has just one (at-large) congressional district, so I was left a little puzzled by the news that they will allocate convention delegates according to the vote in TWO districts. It turns out that in their "Delegate Selection Plan" (you can find a link to it on the Green Papers site) they say that they will use "the two previous congressional districts." Montana's previous two districts were merged in 1993 and so far I haven't been able to find out what the boundaries of the old districts were. Does anyone have any information on that?
The Green Papers also has information regarding the boundaries of those old districts:
* The Western district consists of Montana's "old 1980 CD 1" (when Montana had 2 Congressional districts). The region includes: Beaverhead, Broadwater, Silver Bow, Deer Lodge, Flathead, Gallatin, Glacier, Granite, Jefferson, Lake, Lewis and Clark, Lincoln, Madison, Mineral, Missoula, Park, Powell, Ravalli, and Sanders counties.
* The Eastern district consists of Montana's "old 1980 CD 2" (when Montana had 2 Congressional districts). The region includes: Big Horn, Blaine, Carbon, Carter, Cascade, Chouteau, Custer, Daniels, Dawson, Fallon, Fergus, Garfield, Golden Valley, Hill, Judith Basin, Liberty, McCone, Meagher, Musselshell, Petroleum, Phillips, Pondera, Powder River, Prairie, Richland, Roosevelt, Rosebud, Sheridan, Stillwater, Sweet Grass, Teton, Toole, Treasure, Valley, Wheatland, Wibaux, and Yellowstone counties.
As predicted, Hillary's campaign is winding down. Reality is setting in
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/
This would suggest that Montana senator, Max Baucus, will endorse Obama. Although personally I think this serves to underline just how artificial the whole process of superdelegate endorsements is.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/foreign/tobyharnden/june2008/baucussign.htm
Why haven't there been any recent polls on SD? Obama talking heads on Sunday were saying they expected it to be close. They were saying the same thing days before Texas and Indiana. Has anyone seen anything regarding comments on internal polls from Obama or Clinton?
Thanks for the information about Montana's two (old) districts. Checking a map shows that the Eastern District (old CD-1) basically runs from Great Fall east (mostly High Plains), while the Western District (old CD-2) runs from Helena west and south (mostly mountains, and including Bozeman, Livingston, Butte, and Missoula).
What appears to be a lousy poll from ARG today shows Clinton very much ahead in SD. It seems unlikely given previous polls and regional tendencies, but it might reflect some of the Obama camp's messaging.
According to todays ARG poll and reported on CNN there has been a 40 point swing in South Dakota with Clinton now leading by 26 points. Montana now too close to call with Obama hanging on by slim 4 point lead within the margin of error and 8 % undecided. What gives here? He was up by 28 point in South Dakota and 24 points in Montana very, very recently. Please comment if anyone knows anything. If this goes down it would be the biggest upset in terms of polling numbers in the primaries and might add to her argument to the 216 undecided Supers. Remember, the last time a Democratic Nominee did not win the popular vote was way back in 1972. Hin name was George McGovern and he was from ...South Dakota. Is this the curse of McGovern? Hope not.
for all those worried by the recent "polls": poblano/nate has some comments at 538:
this is an ARG "poll". they were 30 points off in nevada, 25 in south carolina, 20 in illinois, 16 in iowa, 16 in conneticut and 20+ in most wisconsin polls.
i guess that says everything. this is not serious, or at least i can't call it serious polling.
rofl thx siu.. had me worried for a bit
It's pretty jacked up that they'd post those polls when their track record is so bad, but I guess if the Clinton camp was taking it seriously we'd be hearing more about it and I haven't heard them touting it much if at all.
Ok, my projections for Tuesday
First, the safety level -- I am seeing Obama getting at least 40% in both states and Clinton at least 30%. That breaks down as follows:
Montana District 1 -- Clinton 1, Obama 2, toss-up 2
Montana District 2 -- Clinton 1, Obama 2, toss-up 2
Montana at-large -- Clinton 1, Obama 2, toss-up 1
Montana PLEO -- Clinton 1, Obama 1, toss-up 0
Montana totals -- Clinton 4, Obama 7, toss-up 5 -- My projection Obama 55-45, Obama 9 delegates, Clinton 7 delegates
In South Dakota, that means:
South Dakota District -- Obama 4, Clinton 3, toss-up 2
South Dakota at-large -- Obama 2, Clinton 1, toss-up 1
South Dakota PLEO -- Obama 1, Clinton 1, toss-up 0
South Dakota totals -- Obama 7, Clinton 5, toss-up 3.
My projection, Obama 53-47, Obama 8, Clinton 7.
If those projections are right, Obama needs about 24 more unpledged/Edwards delegate votes over the next 25 hours to clinch the nomination when the polls close in Montana.
If the Senate 17 unannounced delegates were to endorse today, he should be only 7 supers shy of nomination. Maybe this could be The Day!
There is discrepancy between the table in this post and the sidebar tally.
This post: Obama pledged 1740.5, super 336, total 2077.5, needed 39.5
Sidebar Obama pledged 1741.5, super 336 total 2077.5, needed 39.5
My count is 1741.5 pledged consistent with the sidebar.
For those of us who like to play with the numbers:
The most recent endorsements mean that, as the final polls open today, Obama starts out almost exactly where he was on Saturday morning prior to the RBC meeting. That is, he needs to win 16% of the remaining available delegate vote pool) to win. The pool is smaller at 237.5 (31 MT & SD, 194 super, 12.5 Edwards) but the percentage is the same.
I wonder if CNN having "breaking news" that Clinton is conceding victory to Obama tonight will have a serious effect on voter turnout or voter choice in Montana and South Dakota.
Today's article on Politico on SD is worth a read. It points out that it could take a looooong time for the results to trickle in (since ballots must be driven from each precinct to the county seat, and then run through an optical scan machine...also, ballots in Indian country take a while to come in...).
I'm expecting SD to be rather tight. No matter who wins, though, the result will be 8/7.
I really hope Obama wins both MT and SD tonight, it would be a great way to end the primary.
MT is a sure Obama-win, the question is the margin, im betting on a 20%+- margin.
SD, some say tight, I think Obama will win by more than 10%. I think a lot of people are forgetting the native american vote, I think the native americans in SD will go heavily for Obama. I also think that him campaigning in SD this weekend will have a positive effect. Clinton spent so much time in PR, I don`t think she managed to spend enough time in MT or SD to have a real chance here. PR did have more delegates, but is less important since they can`t vote in the GE. SD and MT (specially MT) could actually have an important role in the GE. When these states help him secure the "magic number", he will get a boost in these states,I`m 100% sure.
Obama has a special strength in Iowa because thats where it all started, he will have a special strength in SD and MT as well. Because thats where the primary is ending and these states secured his victory.
I`m willing to bet A LOT on Obama having a lead in MT against McCain in the next poll from a serious pollster and SD being closer than 10%.
Just watching the scroll on Fox News*, and their exit polling numbers from Montana and South Dakota sure do look extremely promising for Obama. I don't have the exact numbers on-hand (and I cannot find a web link yet), but it's along the lines of 20% of voters want experience to 60% want change; 15% say race/gender is an important issue to 85% who say it isn't, 60% say Obama can beat McCain versus 35% for Clinton.
Also, their bottom-of-the-screen scroll says Obama has 2123 delegates out of 2118 needed (compared to most other news organizations that have him at just under 2100 right now). Of course this is Fox News, so I take it with a pretty big grain of salt. Still interesting, though.
*Yes, I do watch Fox News and other biased news organizations/sites on occasion, just so I can keep an eye on what being talked about in corners of the world I don't visit often.
Some exit polls info.
51% in MT and 55% in MT wants Obama to choose Clinton as VP. 40% of Obama supporters in SD wants him to choose Clinton. I think it is safe to say from these numbers that Clinton will not win SD with the margin ARG predicted:)
polls closed in eastern south dakota, 22 more minutes for polls to close in western south dakota, 82 minutes for polls to close in Montana.
MSNBC just called SD for Clinton. The delegate breakdown will be 8/7.
Thesis: Superdelegates are bandwagon jumpers.
Evidence:
(1) Clinton was treated as the frontrunner from 2007 until Feb 19 when she lost Wisconsin.
(2) Obama has been accepted as the frontrunner since Feb 20.
(3) From 2007-2/19/08 Clinton got 239 supers to Obama's 162. That's 59.60% to 40.40%
(4) From 2/20/08-now (I know, I know the numbers are changing every minute!) Obama got 195 supers to Clinton's 50.5. That's 79.43% to 20.57%
(CONCLUSION) Superdelegates know which way the wind blows! (And as much fun as I've had on this 'site lo these past five months I'm ready to see the superdelegate system RETIRED.)
Interesting Side Note:
Voters seem to favor the underdog!!
(1) From Jan 3 until Feb 19 Obama picked up 1285.5 pledged delegates to Clinton's 1129.5. That's 52.93% to 46.51% (with 0.56% for Edwards).
(2) From Feb 20 until yesterday Clinton picked up 495 pledged delegates to Obama's 455. That's 52.1% to 47.9%
(CONCLUSION) Voters don't CARE which way the wind blows. They vote for whomever they think will be the best president!!
This means that Sen. Tim Johnson is now going to vote for Clinton. He should be now switched to Clinton.
Did someone not tell Hillary that she lost???
I, too, am an Obama supporter outraged by the fact that she has repeated certain talking points (for example, the popular vote) that seem to be designed to make her supporters feel like she was cheated and therefore not support Obama in the general election. I was originally going to write a very angry comment.
But I think it's important that Obama supporters keep their feelings in check, keep their outrage amongst themselves. We can do no good by saying angry things and alienating Clinton supporters who are feeling upset, frustrated, and yes, because of their candidate's words, cheated. We have to keep these feelings to ourselves and adopt a softer tone, to try to encourage Clinton's supporters to wholeheartedly support Obama, no matter how much Clinton seems to be trying to discourage them from doing so.
I strongly urge Obama supporters (of which I am one) to read this: http://www.dailykos.com/story/
2008/6/2/221720/2609/44/527797
Basically we need to be gracious winners. We will need the Hillary supporters in November.
I'm sorry but that was so class-less! NO congratulations, etc... WHAT was that all about?? Talk about stealing the limelight - ALL DAY with this VP talk, and then this speech, it always has to be about HER! THIS IS HIS DAY! HIS LIMELIGHT! This is why she cannot be VP - she will undermine his at every turn.
She did congratulate Obama ... but she didn't say what she was congratulating him for.
Very disappointing even from someone who didn't expect her to concede and from someone who doesn't expect her to think of anything but her own political prospects.
I'm not happy that Clinton carried SD. That's a state that should be right in his wheelhouse.
Clinton did better than I thought she'd do in IN, better than I thought she'd do in WV, better than I thought she'd do in KY, better than I thought she'd do in PR and now she's done better than I thought she'd do in SD.
It leaves me with kind of an empty feeling. Clinton couldn't get the superdelegates to buy her baloney but she's selling it briskly to the voters.
We who support Obama have to work very, very hard to win over the Clinton supporters -- even though she's making it hard for us to do this.
jane doe,
I read the Daily Kos article you suggested. It was fabulous!
We should keep in mind that OVER THE PAST THREE AND A HALF MONTHS Clinton has picked up more pledged delegates than Obama (and, no, I'm not counting MI or FL). She has done as well as anyone could wish she could do and her supporters are heartbroken that all this effort has amounted to nothing.
I was mad at John Kerry too. I couldn't even vote for him. I wrote in Lincoln Chafee's name because I was so upset I wanted to vote for a Republican -- but it had to be a Republican who voted against the war!!
I'm not happy about the fact that Clinton hasn't exactly helped her supporters to move into the Obama camp -- but those of us in the Obama camp should work triple time to help them make the transition.
And they can take their time about it too -- there's still five months until the GE.
Meantime, Obama should announce that he's picked Linda Chavez to be his running mate.
Paul Bradford,
Linda Chavez is a reactionary, and in an incredibly dark time you voted for another Republican instead of Kerry against Bush. Whose side are you on, anyway? Not ours, it sounds like. If I get mad at a Democrat, I feel like voting for Peace and Freedom or Green--not a Republican. Why would ANYONE want a Republican?
Paul Bradford,
There's also the matter that Obama basically stopped campaigning against Clinton after NC, while all three Clintons have been campaigning like crazy since then. It was a tactical decision, and one made largely because the Obama camp didn't want to inflame the Clinton supporters.
In my opinion it kind of backfired, since the strategy depended upon Clinton showing some glimmers of class and graciousness, things which, as we've come to see, neither Clinton possesses.
But in another way, it succeeded, of course, because he's the nominee.
One very revealing thing about the relative passion of Clinton's much-vaunted 18 million supporters is the fact that their passion apparently doesn't extend to financial contributions. If every one of those 18 million people gave merely $2 to Clinton's campaign, her $30 million debt could be wiped out. But they haven't. Which makes me think that there are less than 2 million supporters at most who are diehard Clintonites.
In my own experience, of the 13 people I know who voted for Clinton in the CA & CT primaries, 11 are now stauch Obama supporters. This is because of the nasty, divisive turn and crass pandering in Clinton's campaigning once she started losing. It totally turned them off. Of the 2 who still consider themselves Clinton supporters, both will vote for Obama without a problem.
But phenomena like these, of course, are much less exciting to the media than the spectacle of angry women yelling about how they'll vote for McCain if Clinton isn't the nominee.
nuisance man,
I'm guessing you don't know a heck of a lot about Lincoln Chafee ... who supported Obama even while Sheldon Whitehouse backed Clinton.
Post a Comment