Skip to main content

View Diary: How Obama REALLY won the Texas Caucus (133 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  so what will you say (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lying eyes

    when she wins?  She may be in the so-callled weaker sex, but she's standing up for her values, and she didn't just go home when she had a bad day, she was out there fighting for my values.  

    Hillary - Alternative Energy

    by anna shane on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:24:54 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Don't you dare imply that I'm sexist (0+ / 0-)

      I take real offense to that, and I won't tolerate, I can say that Hillary Clinton is a weak candidate without it meaning because she is a woman.

      Hillary Clinton's campaign is weak, they had all the money in the world, all the institutional advantages in the world, and all the good will in the world, they have still lost. She has lost, by the way, I don't care what anyone says, it's not possible for her to close the delegate gap, a difference of 150 delegates means a lot. Giving Hillary Clinton 60% of all the delegates which are still to be apportioned still leaves the pledged delegate count 17 below what Obama's is. That's unrealistically generous, so I'm going to give Obama wins in Wyoming, South Dakota, Montana, North Carolina, and Mississippi, but I'm only going to split the delegates by 4% [I know that Slate's delegate calculator is flawed, but it drives the basic point home] This gives Obama a 75 delegate lead. Of course, this is still being really generous to Clinton, so I'm going to make a few more adjustments, I'll leave Pennsylvania alone at 60-40, but I'll move Indiana over to 55-45 Clinton, I'll change Mississippi into a 60-40 victory to Obama, and I'll give Obama a 55-45 victory in North Carolina, I'll also turn Montana and Wyoming into a 65-35 victories for Obama, as well as grant Obama a 55-45 win in Oregon: that gives Obama a 105 pledged delegate lead. And even that is being pretty generous to Clinton, since it isn't realistic that Clinton wins Pennsylvania by 60-40 (Ohio, which is about the same demographic make up as Pennsylvania, gave Clinton a 54-44 victory, so I doubt that Hillary Clinton will do substantially better there) and Indiana, by virtue of being a neighboring state, will probably be a lot more favorable to Obama than 55-45 Clinton, but this is a reasonable place for the numbers to end up, even though they give Clinton the benefit of the doubt.

      The pledged delegate number ends up at 1657 Obama to Hillary Clinton's 1552 pledged delegates. The magic number is 2025, so naturally both sides will need to superdelegates to make up the difference. However, because as basic math tells us, the person with the higher number of pledged delegates needs fewer super-delegates in order to go over the top. Obama only needs 368 super delegates to put him over the top, while Hillary Clinton needs 473 of them. Right now, Barack Obama has 209 superdelegates, while Hillary Clinton has 242 (a 33 delegate difference), adding these to the pledged delegate number, Obama has 1866 delegates  and Clinton has 1794 (according to this scenario and assuming that no more super delegates pledge or desert either candidate. Even then, Obama only needs 159 supers compared to Hillary Clinton who needs 231. There are 405 super-delegates who haven't pledged, that would mean that, even in a scenario which is biased in favor of Clinton, she still has to convince far more super-delegates than Obama. She also has to convince super delegates that she is the better candidate to go against McCain, even though Obama polls better against McCain, even though Obama has more money than she does, and even though he's run a better campaign than she has. Do you see the problem with this?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site