Skip to main content

One of the latest Clinton campaign talking points making the rounds is that if the Democratic primary had been run using Republican delegate allocation rules, she would be winning.  However, I had never seen the campaign produce an actual attempt to break this down by state and analyze it.  And considering her campaign's track record with understanding the rules (California winner-take-all?  Crying over the Texas prima-caucus?), well, color me skeptical.  A few diaries have been floated here with state breakdowns, but all that I have seen have committed egregious errors, such as counting every state as winner-take-all (very few truly are), or failing to understand the very different district-level rules used by the Republicans.  

So, I decided to crunch some numbers and do it myself.  The details are below the fold, but the final tally is that Obama would be holding an 82-delegate lead going into the West Virginia primary.  Another Clinton talking point shot down by the cold hard sniper fire of truth.  

OK, now the details:

First, this is not as easy as it looks.  The Republicans use a mish-mash of rules that make the Democratic system positively elegant in its simplicity.  The states can be divided into the following categories, though there are exceptions that don't fit any of them:

  1. Caucuses - delegates technically unpledged, usually assigned proportionally
  1. Winner-take-all statewide primaries
  1. Winner-take-all district-level primaries
  1. Proportional statewide primaries
  1. Proportional district-level primaries
  1. Winner-take-all district-level plus proportional statewide primaries
  1. Winner-take-all/Proportional primaries (If winner 50%+, then takes all - otherwise proportional)
  1. Hybrid caucus-primary systems

There are also a few states, such as New York, where a set of unpledged delegates are added on to the pledged delegates earned by primaries.  It is, plain and simple, a confusing mess, which can arbitrarily help or hurt a candidate depending on the rules in place in states where he may be strong.  

Second, attempting to map these rules onto the Democratic results requires some fairly large assumptions to be made.  These are the assumptions I have started with in order to make this attempt feasible:

  1. Democratic delegate allocation.  This is an attempt to remap the Democratic results using Republican rules.  However, I have kept the Democratic delegate allocation by district and state intact.  California still has the same 370 pledged delegates.  Only the rules have been changed as to how those delegates are assigned to a candidate. [UDPATE] There has been some questioning in the comments about this choice and about what would happen just using the full Republican system, delegate allocations as well.  So, I have created an alternate scenario using Republican delegate allocation and added it to the table below.  
  1. No 50% delegate penalty for NH, WY, or SC.  In keeping with assumption #1, I decided to retain the full delegate slates for these three states. [UDPATE] I have created an alternate scenario using Republican delegate allocation, including the 50% penalty.
  1. Unpledged delegates assigned proportionally.  Most Republican caucuses do not send pledged delgates to the convention.  In some ways, they are similar to the Democratic add-on superdelegates, in that they are picked because they are loyal supporters, but are not technically bound to vote for their candidate.  Although final caucus results rarely follow the original voting at the precinct level, they generally attempt to maintain a proportional representation.  In order to run the numbers, I have assumed proportional representation for all caucuses electing unpledged delegates.  Considering that approximately 20% of the delgates go to the convention officially unpledged, this variable is the largest in terms of its potential effect on the final results.  
  1. Hybrid "primacaucuses" excluded.  Texas delegates were assigned using only the results from the primary, since the Republican rules have no caucus.  This actually proved to be a massive net gain for Senator Clinton, since the 57 statewide delegates went to the primary winner instead of the caucus winner.  Conversely, in Washington, Republican delegates are assigned from both the caucus and the primary, but since there was no valid Democratic primary, I assigned them all using the caucus rules.  
  1. Campaigns ran the same strategies with the same results.  This is of course the biggest stretch.  There's no way that this would have really happened.  Using a different set of rules requires a different game plan, and there's no way the campaigns would have run the same under these bizarre rules.  But the numbers are what they are, and I can't make up what I think they would have been under a different strategy.  Which makes this exercise purely academic, of course, but we all knew that going in.
  1. No Michigan or Florida.  Sorry, Clinton supporters.  Based on assumption #1 (use the Democratic delegate allocation) and assumption #3 (no valid primary held) these were dropped.[UDPATE] I have created an alternate scenario using Republican delegate allocation, which includes MI and FL.

OK, enough explanation, here is the table.  The rules for the various Republican primaries and caucuses were taken from The Green Papers.  Go there for detailed explanations on how to arrive at these numbers.  If you have questions about any of the numbers or how I got them, well, that's what the comments are for!  I make no claims to infallibility - these were quick calculations and I may have made an error somewhere.  

[UDPATE] I have added an alternate scenario using Republican delegate allocation.  Interestingly, this scenario comes out even better for Obama, mainly because the "insignificant" red states, being Republican strongholds, get a higher share of delegates in comparison to the blue states.  In fact, this scenario even includes MI and FL and Obama still ends up with a 101 95-delegate lead (fixed error in Mississippi count).  This lead is even more significant because there are fewer total delegates on the Republican side!  I have added these columns to the right of the table.

Dem.Dem.Rep.Rep.Rep.Alt.Rep.Alt.
StateClintonObamaClintonObamaChangeClintonObama
Alabama25271834+7 Obama1629
Alaska4949none620
Am. Samoa2121none42
Arizona3125560+25 Clinton500
Arkansas278341+7 Clinton301
California20416631159+107 Clinton13733
Colorado19361936none1531
Connecticut2226048+22 Obama027
Delaware69015+6 Obama018
Dist. Columbia312015+3 Obama016
Florida0000none570
Georgia2760384+24 Obama369
Guam2222none33
Hawaii614614none515
Idaho315315none623
Illinois491040153+49 Obama057
Indiana38344032+2 Clinton2925
Iowa14241424none1214
Kansas923032+9 Obama036
Louisiana2333056+23 Obama044
Maine915915none711
Maryland2842961+19 Obama037
Massachusetts55385439+1 Obama2317
Michigan0000none182*
Minnesota24482448none1226
Mississippi1320528+8 Obama333
Missouri3636072+36 Obama058
Nebraska816816none1020
Nevada12131312+1 Clinton1614
New Hampshire9999none55
New Jersey59481070+48 Clinton520
New Mexico14121313+1 Obama1514
New York1399319933+60 Clinton935
North Carolina49665065+1 Clinton3039
North Dakota5858none914
Ohio746711526+41 Clinton7015
Oklahoma2414380+14 Clinton380
Pennsylvania857310058+15 Clinton5417
Rhode Island138129+1 Obama107
South Carolina1225045+20 Obama (8 fr. Edwards)024
Tennessee40284325+3 Clinton3220
Texas959813063+35 Clinton9938
Utah914023+9 Obama036
Vermont69015+6 Obama017
Virgin Is.0303none06
Virginia2954083+29 Obama063
Washington2652969+17 Obama928
Wisconsin3242074+32 Obama040
Wyoming5748+1 Obama59
TOTAL1424158614681550+44 Clinton/-36 Obama9831078

Originally posted to SLKRR on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:18 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

kos, Meteor Blades, skybluewater, ethan, Galois, Thumb, Lestatdelc, Doug in SF, buffalo soldier, democrattotheend, sipples, Ray Radlein, Lipo, Stevie, Odysseus, ABB, grollen, XOVER, AaronInSanDiego, glitterscale, zonk, Haus, Guaunyu, lrhoke, Delaware Dem, limulus, FaithAndReason, FenwaySteve, existenz, angrycalifornian, sacrelicious, dan in sd, ETinKC, nemoplanetia, celdd, GWBblows, Ddeele, theran, dlcox1958, bethcf4p, pollyusa, bumblebums, Beckylooo, Voxefx, Nonie3234, TexasDemocrat, Ruth in OR, mldostert, frayster, Troutnut, Babsnc, zoopnfunk, ProfessorX, C Mac, Alden, dicta, HippyWitch, Morague, gillangreen, peace voter, KMc, stevetat, boadicea, Melquiades, kalman, mkfarkus, roses, shanghaiboy, sgilman, skertso, LondonYank, Bronxist, jbeach, Nate Roberts, griz4u, Yomberto, dmsilev, Alna Dem, CocoaLove, terence, dksbook, OutOfManyOne, aitchdee, ChristieKeith, SneakySnu, webweaver, dangoch, kharma, sandranot29, annan, BlueDWarrior, paluxy1945, pat bunny, Chicago Lulu, RedStateDem, ccr4nine, Nina, jaywillie, EngineerEd, Penny Century, ArcXIX, wulfhere, AbsurdEyes, arielle, smartguy11, dkmich, dadan, dft, DemDog, sfluke, ScienceMom, eve, xndem, bibble, sawgrass727, truthbearer, davidincleveland, A Citizen, chumley, synuclein, maybeeso in michigan, radarlady, sterno, Hoomai29, Elise, MasonLee, furiousxxgeorge, LostInTexas, OpherGopher, PBen, billy pilgrim, stagemom, NeuvoLiberal, Ianb007, concerned, Jaime Frontero, lauramp, sunbro, davidslane, Marcus Junius Brutus, beaumarchais, dazed in pa, ZinZen, jct, timba, Alan Arizona, Snud, Land of Enchantment, Crisis Corps Volunteer, Reality Bites Back, RoseRash, forbodyandmind, jiordan, PointGuard, Do Tell, 417els, BlueInARedState, Samwoman, mintosh, abe57, Squirrel2634, a gnostic, fou, sesquioxide, phillyPete, atrexler, jasonbl, BalkanID, MarciaJ720, Potus2020, ER Doc, doinaheckuvanutjob, Cato come back, DemocraticLuntz, Timothy J, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, FiddleDeeDee, va dare, HRs Kevin, Grant Caesar Peters, RantNRaven, liberaldawg, Statusquomustgo, bstotts, Lurtz, lams712, pcoleman, c0wfunk, gwriter, nocore, Ken in MN, Fredly, Mom to Miss M, Deadicated Marxist, LV Pol Girl, ricsec7, cfaller96, Allogenes, bearian, walkingdeer, Kyle the Mainer, Seneca Doane, rivamer, Templar, vbdietz, cyncynical, thursdays child, Demosthenes112358, jhop7, theorem, JML9999, BasharH, seabrook, furiouschads, konscious, Empower Ink, cville townie, Miss Snarkypants, lump1, VelvetElvis, davewill, BlueStateWatchdog, ShadowSD, The Bagof Health and Politics, califdem, MikePhoenix, karin x, zerone, Cordwainer, brooklynbadboy, Cat Servant, afx114, Pragmaticus, Akonitum, adamfromsd, Lujane, mayim, icebergslim, vernonbc, Ladyhawk, American Phoenix, echatwa, CeeusBeeus, haruki, Dewey Kneadleeders, Uncle Bob, BYw, nklein, BlueGenes, allie123, mtosner, Radical Moderate, debheadley, watercarrier4diogenes, LuckyCharm, statsone, ryangoesboom, dirtdawg, 207wickedgood, maggiejean, Not Brit, bhagamu, Bule Betawi, SDChelle, rudewarrior, MTmarilyn, hannahlk, sunhaws, cantelow, bluevillage, eltee, kteasdale, Partisan Progressive, chicago DEM, bigmikek7, history geek, SciVo, Yalin, Hopeful Monster, Michael Lawrence Gallagher, Daily Activist, smartheart, wyliecoat, mkaplan, jwilson, Shep001, zbbrox, ThatPoshGirl, followyourbliss, NWSteve, AvoMonster, dansmith17, MKSinSA, TheOpinionGuy, dawnt, Rick in Oz, MooseHB, Leslie in KY, hyper, paintitblue, Keith Pickering, Exquisite, dbriefel, Denni, SnowItch, Petey2, audiored, Lava20, notksanymore, Cardinal Tiger, Lacy LaPlante, 57andFemale, Katie71, Canadian4Obama, Snickers77, BA BarackUS, chrisblask, shannona, vcthree, orangeuglad, futureliveshere, ayanna a kazana, voila, deviant24x, jpmassar, Ellie the Kat, JAMill, GretaG65, PL50, Chris in West Seattle, Super Grover, TallJames, dorknob, Choom Gang Vets for Truth, Hunter Huxley, Julia C, bryker, jem286, kydoc, lyingeyes, Dave Sund, Midwesterner in NYC, keepingitstraight, unertl, SolarAngel, doktarr, Caringthinkingperson, ATLanthony, Gramarye, ibtz, Loli, jayhawkdem, debrazza, MinnesotaEskimo, tash5809, TessaV, vixenflem, elforko, swh269

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site