Lies, Damn Lies and Pledged Delegates

Many of you know me from my silly diaries and/or comments, but what you may not know is that I also have a serious side.

It's located below the fold.

A post by Kos earlier tonight inspired me to wonder about how the state-by-state pledged delegate margins stacked up against each other, and that ultimately led to the following:


States that Hillary Clinton won

State	Total Pledged	Delegate Split	Net Gain (% of Total Pledged)
Arkansas	35 delegates	C+27 / O+8	19 delegates (54.3%)
Oklahoma	38 delegates	C+24 / O+14	10 delegates (26.3%)
New York	232 delegates	C+139 / O+93	46 delegates (19.8%)
Massachusetts	93 delegates	C+55 / O+38	17 delegates (18.3%)
Tennessee	68 delegates	C+40 / O+28	12 delegates (17.6%)
California1	370 delegates	C+204 / O+160	44 delegates (11.9%)
New Jersey	107 delegates	C+59 / O+48	11 delegates (10.3%)
Arizona	56 delegates	C+31 / O+25	6 delegates (10.7%)
Nevada	25 delegates	C+12 / O+13	-1 delegate (-4.0%)
New Hampshire2	22 delegates	C+9 / O+9	0 delegates (0.0%)

<sup>Notes
1. There are 6 pledged delegates that have not been awarded in California
2. John Edwards received the other 4 delegates in New Hampshire</sup>

• Combined Total Pledged: 1,046 delegates

• Combined Net Gain for Clinton: 164 delegates (15.7% of Combined Total Pledged)

States that Barack Obama won

State	Total Pledged	Delegate Split	Net Gain (% of Total Pledged)
Idaho	18 delegates	O+15 / C+3	12 delegates (66.7%)
Alaska	13 delegates	O+9 / C+4	5 delegates (38.5%)
Kansas	32 delegates	O+23 / C+9	14 delegates (43.8%)
Washington1	78 delegates	O+35 / C+15	20 delegates (66.7%)
Georgia2	87 delegates	O+57 / C+27	30 delegates (34.5%)
Nebraska	24 delegates	O+16 / C+8	8 delegates (33.3%)
Colorado3	55 delegates	O+19 / C+9	10 delegates (18.2%)
Minnesota	72 delegates	O+48 / C+24	24 delegates (33.3%)
Illinois	153 delegates	O+104 / C+49	55 delegates (35.9%)
South Carolina4	45 delegates	O+25 / C+12	13 delegates (28.9%)
North Dakota	13 delegates	O+8 / C+5	3 delegates (23.1%)
Louisiana5	56 delegates	O+33 / C+22	11 delegates (19.6%)
Maine	24 delegates	O+15 / C+9	6 delegates (25.0%)
Utah	23 delegates	O+14 / C+9	5 delegates (23.7%)
Alabama6	52 delegates	O+26 / C+25	1 delegate (1.9%)
Delaware	15 delegates	O+9 / C+6	3 delegates (20.0%)
Iowa7	45 delegates	O+16 / C+15	1 delegate (2.2%)
Connecticut	48 delegates	O+26 / C+22	4 delegates (8.3%)
Missouri	72 delegates	O+36 / C+36	0 delegates (0.0%)

<sup>Notes
1. There are 28 pledged delegates that have not been awarded in Washington
2. There are 3 pledged delegates that have not been awarded in Georgia
3. There are 27 pledged delegates that have not been awarded in Colorado
4. John Edwards received the other 4 delegates in South Carolina
5. There is 1 pledged delegates that have not been awarded in Louisiana
6. There is 1 pledged delegates that have not been awarded in Alabama
7. John Edwards received the other 14 delegates in Iowa</sup>

• Combined Total Pledged: 925 delegates

• Combined Net Gain for Obama: 225 delegates (24.3% of Combined Total Pledged)

Top 10 "Biggest Prizes"

Total Pledged Delegates		Winner		Net Gained Delegates		Winner
#1	California (370)	Clinton		#1	Illinois (55)	Obama
#2	New York (232)	Clinton		#2	New York (46)	Clinton
#3	Illinois (153)	Obama		#3	California (44)	Clinton
#4	New Jersey (107)	Clinton		#4	Georgia (30)	Obama
#5	Massachusetts (93)	Clinton		#5	Minnesota (24)	Obama
#6	Georgia (87)	Obama		#6	Washington (20)	Obama
#7	Washington (78)	Obama		#7	Arkansas (19)	Clinton
#8	Missouri (72)	Obama		#8	Massachusetts (17)	Clinton
	Minnesota (72)	Obama		#9	Kansas (14)	Obama
#10	Tennessee (68)	Clinton		#10	South Carolina (13)	Obama

All of the above is based on data from CNN. If you have better data from from other sources, please provide links in the comments and I'll update the diary accordingly. Please also feel free to provide corrections to any mathematical errors I may have made, and/or suggestions on how this diary might be improved upon.

•  Tip Jar

  

  by Trix on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:17:50 AM PDT

  •  A tip for

    doing all that calculation. I've always hated doing math.
    'A' for effort.

    by Libertaria on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:40:10 AM PDT

    •  The math wasn't hard...

      it's the table formatting that's a pain in the ass.

      :-)

      by Trix on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:41:13 AM PDT

  •  Silly rabbit

    Everybody knows that Trix is fer kids.

    by spotDawa on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:41:01 AM PDT

    •  And by the way, what else

      has been programmed into my psyche by a lifetime of commercials?  yikes

      by spotDawa on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:47:39 AM PDT

      •  Better that than...

        ..."vivaaaaa viagra!!!!"

        ack...ugh...brain...pouring...out...through...nostril...

        by floundericiousMI on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:06:16 AM PDT

  •  Great work, except...

    New Iowa?  We have a 51st state?!?!

    (Footnotes to the Obama table.)

    In all seriousness, excellent job.

    by RoscoeOfAlabama on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:58:43 AM PDT

    •  Thanks... fixed :) n/t

      by Trix on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:07:19 PM PDT

  •  great fun but

    I get different numbers when I add things up on the first chart: 1046 total delegates - 10 (unpledged CA & 4 Edwards) = 1036
    600 for Hillary
    436 for Obama

    This is based totally on your chart -- check your addition (I do numbers for a living so I'm kind of obsessive about this stuff).

    Haven't checked the other charts but am enjoying your presentation!

    by Tamar on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:27:43 PM PDT

    •  Thanks...

      I just double checked the numbers and corrected the totals.

      :-)

      by Trix on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:07:59 PM PDT

  •  suggestion...

    on your chart of "biggest prize" by "Total Pledged Delegates", why don't you include the runner-up's prizes as well?

    for example, the 4th biggest prize by total pledged delegates would be obama getting 160 in CA.

    by jethropalerobber on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:42:17 PM PDT

    •  That's a good idea

      I'm gonna do a follow-up after tomorrow's results come in, and I'll include a table with that data in it.

      :-)

      by Trix on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:08:48 PM PDT

•  how are we supposed

  to start a flamewar with this?

  this diary is riddled with facts...therefore inappropriate.

  by Irishkorean on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:27:38 AM PDT

  •  LOL

    I wonder if my numbers would've been the same if I'd started out doing this with preconceived notions.

    ;-)

    by Trix on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:29:58 AM PDT

    •  this will be valuable for the NYT oped page

      since they apparently do their research here.

      by Irishkorean on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:35:00 AM PDT

    •  Preconceived notions

      always sounds to me like disposable sundries. But yeah, I think you could tell any story you like with such a dataset!

      Not that you did -- it's just that the danger of relying on numerical presentations is that it's pretty hard to tell from them what kind of disposable sundries were implicated in their calculation.

      whiskey.  need whiskey.

      by spotDawa on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:46:20 AM PDT

  •  Your praise is entirely misplaced ...

    ...The Diarist is obviously up to something. I don't know what exactly, but it's obvious that her full name is dirty Trix, and I'll get to the bottom of her secret strategy soon enough.

    by Meteor Blades on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:19:20 AM PDT

    •  I don't know about this "Dirty Trix" character...

      but I do have a repressed alter-ego named Bizarro Trix.

      by Trix on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:22:08 AM PDT

    •  I thought her full name was Trixy Dicky n/t

      by Bouwerie Boy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:23:23 AM PDT

•  My delegate count

  Trix, I've been using the Obama campaign's spreadsheet and have added my own worksheet to it, where I'm keeping track of pledged delegates. Many of the delegates who have not been awarded, can clearly be projected based on the 99% counted vote. My count has Obama up by 71 pledged delegates.

  by bmozaffari on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:27:44 AM PDT

  •  Well...

    I wasn't really looking at who's up overall... I was more interested in seeing this particular data set.

    Like I said, this grew out of my own wonderment.

    I thought other people might find it interesting ntoo, which is why I decided to diary it.

    by Trix on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:29:23 AM PDT

  •  I have to say...

    I've been very impressed by the accuracy of the "leaked" prediction memos we've seen come out of the Obama campaign.

    Granted, they were off in Maine, but I don't think they minded.

    ;-)

    by Trix on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:34:30 AM PDT

    •  I wonder how the rest will play out

      Some have said it tried to lower expectations, but I saw it as very optimistic overall. It predicts a win in Wisconsin, which although possible, is far from certain. It also assumes pretty close loses in Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania and even Puerto Rico.

      I didn't check all the numbers, are they pretty much what you had?

      Also, aren't you in NYC? What are you (still?) doing up?

      by bmozaffari on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:43:14 AM PDT

      •  I have a very abnormal sleeping pattern :) n/t

        by Trix on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:44:03 AM PDT

•  error in the last table

  it should say "Idaho" where it says "Iowa" in the Obama column.  Best example yet of how a "small" state can translate into a not-so-small net delegate haul

  by TomY on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:34:22 AM PDT

  •  Thanks... I'll fix it now :) n/t

    by Trix on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:34:56 AM PDT

•  good compilation

  i'm getting a little weary of arguing over delegates now...

  My blog. Come visit.

  by hekebolos on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:43:50 AM PDT

  •  Yeah... me too

    I don't think this really lends itself to argument... I didn't inject any opinion or whatnot... it's just straight-forward numbers... and I think there are good things both sides can take away from them.

    :-)

    by Trix on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:45:42 AM PDT

•  Good work, Trix. n/t

  by Meteor Blades on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:16:54 AM PDT

  •  Thanks, Meteor Blades :) n/t

    by Trix on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:17:57 AM PDT

•  So basically...

  what your diary says is:

  Clinton won the big states by smaller margins than Obama won the smaller states.

  I don't think anyone disputes this, and infact it is great evidence that Obama is generally more electible than Clinton.

  by Yoshi En Son on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:17:10 AM PDT

  •  oh, and as for your bottom numbers..

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/...

    Has some pretty good numbers that you might use to update yours...  to give an idea:

    Obama has 1000 pledged and Clinton has 922 pledged... if my maths and understanding of the chart is correct.

    by Yoshi En Son on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:22:52 AM PDT

  •  Yeah... that's basically what jumps out at me

    She needed bigger delegate margins in the states she won, which were the biggest of the delegate-rich states.

    by Trix on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:28:38 AM PDT

    •  With the exception of Ilinois, obviously :) n/t

      by Trix on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:29:21 AM PDT

    •  Just an aside...

      Earlier when I was thinking about the differences between the Republican Primaries and the Democrats - it occured to me that Clinton is running for the Republican Nomination... NO I am not saying that her policies are Republican (that can be argued elsewhere if one chose to).. I'm just saying that her campaign strategy seems to be better taylored for the Republican rules than the Democrat rules.

      If she had gotten winner take all in California... and everything else remained the same - she'd be the nominee in waiting for sure.. but by just tackling the big states and ignoring most of the small states - she set herself up for failure. I haven't really looked at the inside baseball of her campaign, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that this strategy was developed by Penn and after it is all done and said - he will be given the blame for such an aweful strategy.

      by Yoshi En Son on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:33:41 AM PDT

      •  That's an interesting point

        I wonder how much John Edwards factored into their strategizing... in terms of their expectations for his stamina (for lack of a better word).

        Whether they figured he would've stayed in til Super Tuesday, and thus cut into Obama's delegate margins in many of the smaller states.

        by Trix on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:40:25 AM PDT

        •  That's another good point

          .. and one which I'm not sure anyone knows.  How much effect did Edwards dropping out have on the Delegate counts?  There was a lot of spectulation as to whether his dropping out would help Obama or Clinton more --- but in hindsight, I think it clearly helped Obama more for exactly he reasons you point out: diluted delagates in the smaller states would have emphasized the importance of the big states.

          Clinton counting on Edwards remaining in the race longer to contest the small states while she picks up the big prizes.

          by Yoshi En Son on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:50:47 AM PDT

          •  Yup...

            another big thing that jumped out at me is that Illinois produced the biggest delegate margin, despite having only the 3rd largest pledged total.

            Hillary needed to cut into that margin.

            by Trix on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:56:18 AM PDT

            •  I wonder if people will look back

              and say "Oprah decided this election" ...

              Obama is loved in Il..  but so is Oprah.  It is entirely possible that Oprah's support helped him achieve the margin in Il. to offset Clinton's CA and NY wins.

              by Yoshi En Son on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:14:16 AM PDT

              •  Yeah, really...

                If Obama had picked up 5 fewer delegates in IL, that would've cut the margin by 10... and that could theoretically be the nomination right there.

                Crazy.

                by Trix on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:18:45 AM PDT

•  Too early in the morning to say anything

  coherent. But I did want to stop by and say thanks.

  I think this will counter all the Obama can't win big states hooey that swishes around the MSM.

  by Brahman Colorado on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:22:39 AM PDT

  •  Thanks, but...

    I just want to be clear in that I did not set out to prove anything pro- or anti- Obama/Clinton.

    That being said, I think the tables make a persuasive case that one needn't bring delegate-rich states to a delegate fight... you're better off bringing delegate-rich gains.

    :-)

    by Trix on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:30:45 AM PDT

    •  Or, to put it another way...

      if you're gonna bring delegate-rich states, you'd better be prepared to use them.

      ;-)

      by Trix on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:33:47 AM PDT

      •  Actually, the Electoral college was

        a feature designed by the framers of the constitution as a way to give proportion and balance for small states vs. big states. The very idea that big states and their population advantages could overwhelm small, rural or far flung states was checked and balanced by several electoral processes.

        The Obama campaign has reinforced this process by winning in many large states but capturing a wide swath of smaller states who happen to be Red states. The margins of victory in these smaller states demonstrate their electoral power via these processes.

        It is a compelling argument for representative government, proportional representation and keeping the electoral college. It gives voice to the other America outside of NY, L.A., DC, and Mass. who have disporportionate influences that can swamp the voices of rural, remote, regional Americans who are not part of the establishment epicenters.

        I hope someone is paying attention to all of this, because an Obama/ Clinton or visa versa ticket might be an electoral landslide in the making.

        by Brahman Colorado on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:00:09 AM PDT

        •  Well...

          it's a totally different story when it's winner-takes-all like the electoral college.

          It'd actually be interesting to look at past elections from the perspective of proportional allocation of electoral votes.

          by Trix on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:06:54 AM PDT

          •  Oh I agree... that is what is screwing up

            the Republican primaries and fracturing them into 3 separate camps: the Fundies, vs. the moderates vs. the Neocons.

            The new reforms of proportional electoral delegates in the  Democratic party are an excellent power sharing feature that improve upon the  constitutional traditions of representative government and electoral college allocations in the selection of nominees. It seems to have come to an equilibrium in American politics:
            A balance of power between Party officials, elected officials, voters in primaries and local caucus bosses creating a real diverse and balanced approach to nomination processes.

            Winner take all is so passé.

            by Brahman Colorado on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:17:09 AM PDT

            •  And I agree with that :) n/t

              by Trix on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:18:45 AM PDT

              •  Thank you Trix,

                Lotsa numbers columns, spread dheets. Clear, easy to read, understand.

                On Daily Kos?

                Who coulda thought?

                Nice work.

                More.

                by gogol on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:56:20 AM PDT

                •  Thanks, gogol :) n/t

                  by Trix on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:18:05 PM PDT

•  Q?

  What is the deal w/ the 55 delegates not awared for Colorado and Washington?

  by hommey on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:30:00 PM PDT

  •  I don't know...

    but that did seem kinda weird to me.

    by Trix on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:10:05 PM PDT

    •  Not that they should be the source...

      ...but barackobama.com has Colorado allocated to 55 (37-18) and Washington at 78 (53-23).  This puts him out about +93ish if it is indeed how they will be awarded.

      http://origin.barackobama.com/...

      And if that is the case, including the SD's (super dicks), he has the first lead of the election.

      by hommey on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:29:45 PM PDT

      •  I'm gonna do a follow-up diary tomorrow

        after the results come in.

        Maybe I'll also include some tables with superdelegates... I have some other ideas for delegate comparisons as well.

        I'd rather not use a campaign's numbers, lest anyone be able to accuse me of bias or whatnot... and using the same source (CNN) for all the data seemed to make the most sense.

        :-)

        by Trix on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:33:59 PM PDT

•  silly rabbi...

  by condoleaser on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:14:02 PM PDT