Pledged delegate margins look bleak for Clinton

As the nomination race stands today, Barack Obama leads Hillary Clinton by approximately 159 pledged delegates with about 993 pledged delegates (PD) remaining to be allocated in the contests yet to be held.

From that, one can calculate that in order to gain a PD lead, Clinton would need to outperform Obama by 16% (in PD tallies) the rest of the way.

On March 4th, 370 pledged delegates are at stake. That leaves 623 PDs for the contests to be held after March 4th.

If we distribute PDs from each state holding a contest on March 4th in proportion to the current poll standings from that state, Clinton would net 8 more PDs than Obama in the aggregate on that day. However, she'd then need to win 24% of the PDs remaining thereafter, to end up with a lead in the pledged delegate tally. A tall order given that Obama has run a strong campaign thus far and that his polls are trending upwards.

It's a fair expectation that super delegates would not overturn the democratic will of the voters as reflected in pledged delegate tallies. Therefore, unless Hillary Clinton can win March 4th states by a substantial net margin in the range of 15-20%, she would not have a reasonable case (in this author's opinion) for proceeding with the nomination contest beyond that day.

Using FleetAdmiralJ's superb "Primary Results" spreadsheet as a base, I've prepared this derived spreadsheet. Here is a snapshot of the results from the spreadsheet:

Methodology, assumptions and analysis follow.

1. We get the current PD standings from the "All States" sheet of the spreadsheet (which is left unaltered from FleetAdmiralJ's spreadsheet.)

2. The current tally gives a 159 PD lead for Obama (cell D8 = row 8, column D).

3. With 933 PDs remaining unallocated, in order take the lead in PDs, HRC would need to win 160  PDs more than Obama, the rest of the way, i.e. a PD margin of 16.07% (cell D10).

4. In order to explore how things could look like after March 4th, as a scenario, we make estimated calculations in the "March 4th Calculations" section (rectangle A11:H25, i.e the rectangle defined by taking cells A11 and H25 as its top-left and bottom-right corners).

5. In order to perform our calculations, we can use the current poll standings from Real Clear Politics: RCP polling averages for Ohio and Texas, the latest (Rasmussen) poll for Rhode Island (ignoring the 2/9-2/10 Brown University poll as that is somewhat dated) and the only currently available (Rasmussen) poll for Vermont.  These poll numbers are found in the rectangle D14:E17.

6. As a rough ball-park estimate for delegate allocation in each state, we distribute pledged delegates from that state proportional to the poll standings as in (5) above. For example, the current OH polling averages are HRC (49.6%) and Obama (41.6%) which break down OH's 141 pledged delegates into 64 PDs for Obama and 77 for HRC. After we do the apportionment for each state in this manner (rectangle G14:H17), we tally the resulting PDs to arrive at PD estimates as they might stand after March 4th.

7. Those estimates (rectangle A20:D25) tell us that HRC would need to win 24% more delegates than Obama after March 4th (under the scenario and estimations as above), in order to take the lead among pledged delegates (counting only and all contested states.)

8. The scenario above uses current poll standings which are, of course, likely to change in the coming days. At least currently, Obama enjoys a substantial momentum in these polls and his organization on the ground could (judging from earlier contests) be stronger than Clinton's.

9. Needless to say, actual delegate allocation is going to be more complicated than the proportional distribution that we have used here, but our ball park estimation should not be too far off the mark.

•  Mojo for number crunching, diary RECs,

  suggestions, thoughts and corrections (if any) are all welcome!

  by NeuvoLiberal on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:37:48 PM PDT

  •  you can play with the spreadhsheet

    if you have the interest and the taste for it by either downloading it to your PC (and using a spreadsheet program) or by setting up an editgrid account and editing a copied-over version of the spreadsheet!

    by NeuvoLiberal on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:41:55 PM PDT

  •  Nicely Done

    There are recent ARG polls available for both Rhode Island and Vermont.  They are very similar to the Rasmussen poll results, so they wouldn't affect your bottom line much if anything.

    If I had to quibble about your diary, it would not be about the numbers.  It would be your assumption that "super delegates would not overturn the democratic will of the voters as reflected in pledged delegate tallies."  I think that's generally correct.  But, I don't think it's as black and white as suggested.  For example, if it's a 10 or 20 (or more, but how much more?) pledged delegate lead, who knows?  If Clinton starts polling much better against McCain than Obama, she has a good electability argument and perhaps superdelegates go for her.  If Clinton is behind in pledged delegates, but is ahead in popular vote (including Florida?  Florida and Michigan?), then she has a democratic argument for why superdelegates should support her.

    I support Obama, but I think he needs to win Texas or Ohio to end this campaign on 3/4.  Even if he loses both on 3/4, I think he still eventually wins, but expect the campaign to continue at least through Pennsylvania and maybe longer.  We really need to take this opportunity to deliver a knock out blow!!!

    by Sicembears on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:26:24 PM PDT

  •  I voted no.

    She should drop out on March 4th.  She can make a nice concession speech after she loses Texas.

    by Yoshimi on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:30:10 PM PDT

  •  Poll Averages Don't Work...

    ...because all polls are not created equal and therefore aren't equally accurate.  You make the assumption they are.  The Real Politics average is anything but.  

    If you note the trends it becomes obvious -- Obama wins Texas and possibly Ohio because he has the momentum and a superior ground game in both states.

    On March 4, it's game, set, match.  If Clinton remains in the race, she will only disgrace herself and her husband's legacy.  

    by Triangulate on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:04:47 PM PDT

•  I always rec political math geek diaries

  by CaptUnderpants on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:40:12 PM PDT

  •  re

    I always where Underpants!!! :)

    by cookiesandmilk on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:55:07 PM PDT

    •  I Always Don't!!!

      ...so u can call me Commando Serrano...

      by serrano on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:56:32 PM PDT

      •  That's just cause you're merely a serrano, and

        not a poblano.

        by Mother of Zeus on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:10:30 PM PDT

        •  Hey, My Chiles R Just Hangin' Loose...

          by serrano on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:12:38 PM PDT

•  After Mar 4, there are only 10 states, Guam, PR.

  7 of the states are certain Obama wins:

  Wyoming
  Mississippi
  Indiana
  North Carolina (which has 115 delegates)
  Oregon
  Montana
  South Dakota

  (Guam only has 4 delegates, probably a 2-2 split, maybe a 2.5-1.5 for Obama if they break them into half.)

  Pennsylvania
  Kentucky
  West Virginia

  are the 3 other states.  I could see Clinton winning these three states (if you ignore the unrelenting bad narrative, inevitable superdelegate swing, big endorsements, etc. that will be beating against her during the 6 week downtime).

  But there is no question Obama is going to have a net gain in pledged delegates on this slate.

  by PocketNines on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:42:28 PM PDT

  •  But she could win those 3 states by 97%.

    by chicago jeff on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:03:26 PM PDT

  •  A few nitpicks

    1. Although I've seen a poll with a 15-point lead for Obama (with a Keith number in the forties) in Indiana, I'm not ready to say it's a sure bet for him there.

    2. You forgot Puerto Rico with its 55 pledged delegates. The governor endorsed Obama but it's almost 100% latino... so it's hard to say what will happen there.

    by ClaudeB on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:03:51 PM PDT

    •  Latinos in Puerto Rico

      are likely to be different from Latinos in the US proper, just as Asians in Hawaii are different from Asians in California.  I don't think those kind of assumptions work for Puerto Rico.  She might still have an edge, but not because of any supposed advantage among Latinos.  (On the other hand - lots of Puerto Ricans in New York.  That might help her the most, I guess).

      by jlkenney on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:16:16 PM PDT

    •  The problem with Puerto Rico

      for Clinton is that there are 8 senate districts that split 36 of the pledged delegates, and those are all 4 delegate areas.  So to get outside of the 2-2 split, someone has to break 62.5%.  In the absence of hard evidence, I think this is going to be a tough task for either candidate.  Obama's leaked spreadsheet has him losing 54-45 there, and it has proven to be conservative in all its projections since it became public.  So it is quite possible we see an 18-18 split.

      Then there are 19 that go by island-wide totals, but 12-7 seems like a stretch.  11-8 is more likely.

      So PR is not likely to give anyone a big margin.

      I will grant you Indiana does not have a lot of data points, and even note that Evan Bayh is a help for Clinton.  But I don't see him losing Indiana.  I don't think Clinton is popular in red Indiana.

      by PocketNines on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:19:04 PM PDT

  •  I don't see why

    Indiana is a "certain Obama win".  If the race is still going on after Pennsylvania, it's the obvious state for Clinton to go after (I assume she'll write off North Carolina, the other May 6 state).  And if she's come off a big win in PA, which followed what would presumably have to be big wins in OH and TX, she ought to be competitive in Indiana.

    I don't think that'll happen, but if the race is still going on in Indiana, unless it's a zombie campaign that Hillary should have ended ages before, she ought to at least be competitive in Indiana.

    I imagine, similarly, that she'll at least make an effort in Oregon, although it should be a tougher state for her than Indiana.  And, obviously, Puerto Rico is at least plausibly competitive territory for her.

    But, except for Puerto Rico, all those seem like long shots.  It seems unlikely she will noticeably close the gap between now and June 7.

    by jlkenney on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:14:47 PM PDT

    •  I think it will be a zombie campaign.

      Here's why.  Let's say she wins Ohio by, oh, 5-7 points.  And let's say Texas is within 2 points either way.  Obama romps in Vermont and Clinton wins RI by 8-10 points.

      If that happens, and that is the most optimistic scenario for Clinton on March 4 at this point, then she might, maybe get something like a 5-10 pledged delegate gain for the day.  She will lose in Texas delegates under all scenarios.  This is no longer a controversial position, especially considering Obama's caucus/enthusiasm cushion.  Obama gains at least 5 delegates in VT.  Vermont is looking a lot like Idaho.  He only needs an incredibly easy 65% + 1 vote to get a 7-3 split at the CD level, and that would also bring a 3-2 state split.

      In Rhode Island, Clinton has to win by more than 13 points to get more than a +1 delegate win (11-10).  And if that happens, she will get a +3.

      So Obama goes +4 in pledged delegates in New England on Mar 4 and picks up delegates in Texas even if he "loses."  Now, she might be able to pull back 14 delegates in Ohio if she holds off his charge there.  Let's give her the benefit of the doubt and say she nets 25 delegates in Ohio.  That gives her about +11 delegates for the day.

      Well, she is going to lose 8-4 in Wyoming and 20-13 in Mississippi within the week that follows.  There go her 11 delegates.

      What that means is two weeks from now, even in her rosiest scenario, she is looking at the same 160 pledged delegate deficit with only 8 states left.

      At that point it will be a spin campaign and a zombie campaign.  Everyone will know that mathematically she cannot win on pledged delegates, and we are back to superdelegates overturning the national verdict as the argument.

      by PocketNines on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:41:48 PM PDT

      •  I agree.

        This seems most likely.  But if that happens, it won't go to Indiana.

        See below where I tried to game out Pennsylvania.  I gave her a 12 point statewide victory, and that seems to garner her only about  +16 delegates out of the state, when you go down to the district level.

        by jlkenney on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:55:10 PM PDT

      •  I bet Hillary sees the same math as you.

        I suspect she's hanging in through March 4, hoping for miracle turnaround blowouts in TX and OH -- and if they don't happen, she'll gracefully bow out on March 5.

        Obama doesn't have to win TX and OH (though that would sure add some juice to his campaign). He just has to prevent Hillary from getting miracle turnaround blowouts.

        by HeyMikey on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:35:50 PM PDT

  •  Your list is correct except Indiana

    Given the blue collar demographics there as well as the campaigning being done by Evan Bayh for Clinton, I'm sure that it's a lock for Clinton in Indiana.

    by echatwa on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:36:43 PM PDT

    •  There is only one poll out

      And Obama is up 40-25 with a lot of undecideds.  It's a neighboring state to Illinois, and downstate Illinois is a LOT like Indiana.  Obama knows exactly how to speak to downstate Illinois voters.  Clinton is not well-loved in Indiana, regardless of Bayh.  Saying it is a "lock" for Clinton is silly.

      by PocketNines on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:44:21 PM PDT

      •  I agree.

        It's not a lock for Clinton.  But other than Puerto Rico and what should be easy wins in Kentucky and West Virginia, it looks like about the best state for her in the post-Pennsylvania period, so I assume she'll contest it hard, if it comes to it.

        But I don't think it will come to it.

        by jlkenney on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:56:10 PM PDT

        •  I don't think Kentucky will be an "easy" win

          I think she'll win, but I think he'll do well in Louisville.  He has an uphill climb in Appalachia.  I am sure he'd have gone to Tennessee if he'd had time.  By that point in the campaign, if it comes to that, he will get to go all over the state.

          The one immutable rule of this campaign season is that wherever Obama spends real time, he makes dramatic gains.

          One critical factor in the proportionality game is that there is a magic number sitting out there at around 58/59%.  58/59% is where all these 3-3s become 4-2s, where 4-4s become 5-3s.  And those are the ones that split.  The 5 and 7 delegate areas are easy to make +1 but very hard to get to +3.

          And the fact that Obama has won so many contests by getting over 58% is critical - he has been picking up a lot of +2s in a lot of Congressional districts.  In districts that she might win 55-45, those districts are splitting the delegates evenly if they are even-numbered districts.

          by PocketNines on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:08:47 PM PDT

•  If he finishes within 5 points of her in OH and

  TX, that's a win.

  by Geekesque on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:43:37 PM PDT

  •  I love math diaries!

    If Obama wins Texas and is close in Ohio, it's time for Hillary to drop out for the good of the party.  

    by nycanthony on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:50:05 PM PDT

  •  The math would kill her then

    and the grinding start.  then the superdelegates would move to Obama and it would be over or so close that the Party 'elders' would pay her that visit.  An Obama win and delegate split in Texas is a net gain for Obama.  Ties do her no good at all.

    by Rolfyboy6 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:50:59 PM PDT

    •  I'm hestitant to use this analogy, but

      Obama can take her out like an anaconda would--through unrelenting, unforgiving pressure--than a cobra would, with one swift blow.

      by Geekesque on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:09:13 PM PDT

      •  It's apt

        I've used the term grinding out delegates, and that's the worst case scenario.  the superdelegates will move soon with a clear path.  I don't know if we'll see it publicly or not, but sometime after next Tuesday the Party Elder visit becomes more likely. It'll be a certainty after Pennsylvania.  I'm hoping she'll listen to Bill before then.  Bill is more of a realist than the presently very driven Hilary.  A life as a Senator is not a wasted life.

        by Rolfyboy6 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:21:23 PM PDT

        •  If Obama were to somehow win either TX or OH

          she'd drop out within 48 hours.  Guaranteed.

          by Geekesque on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:35:48 PM PDT

          •  Hard to see how it would be anything else

            but she's real stubborn, it's paid off for her all her life.  Realism has to happen.  Bill is likely to be the one to say it.  There was a press report saying the staff was looking somewhat defeated.

            by Rolfyboy6 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:48:32 PM PDT

            •  Here's what happens if she loses either TX or OH

              and then hints she's staying in:

              Nancy Pelosi and about 100 other Superdelegates let Clinton know they'll publicly endorse Obama if she doesn't drop out.

              That being said, we have to operate from the assumption that she's going to win both states.

              by Geekesque on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:08:11 PM PDT

              •  Texas...

                looks more and more like an outright Obama victory.

                by jlkenney on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:15:11 PM PDT

                •  I don't trust the polling out of TX or OH.

                  These are two states that haven't been polled for meaningful primary races in how long?  I suspect all of the pollsters are winging it in those states.

                  by Geekesque on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:16:22 PM PDT

                  •  Do you trust this?

                    Last night, Clinton drew 600 (plus "a few hundred" more) to an event scheduled in Houston, a city where Obama packed 19,000 into the his event last Tuesday night.

                    (These are closer to Michelle Obama sized crowds, who drew 700 in Columbus last week, and 600 in Cleveland.)

                    And Clinton drew just 1,000 in Dallas on Friday, where Obama had drawn 17,000 two days prior.

                    Interestingly, in the 11 states where Clinton has won primaries, her crowd sizes have been at least competitive with those of Obama, whereas generally in the 25 states that she’s lost, crowd size turned out to be a pretty accurate predictor of voting preferences.

                    http://ruralvotes.com/...

                    by HeyMikey on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:40:37 PM PDT

                    •  Obama had big crowds in NH, CA, and MA.

                      No, I don't trust crowd size as a metric.

                      by Geekesque on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:42:15 PM PDT

                      •  How were Hillary's crowds in NH, CA, MA?

                        Interestingly, in the 11 states where Clinton has won primaries, her crowd sizes have been at least competitive with those of Obama, whereas generally in the 25 states that she’s lost, crowd size turned out to be a pretty accurate predictor of voting preferences.

                        I know, we're all just reading tea leaves. But man, I'm SO into this race.

                        by HeyMikey on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:47:28 PM PDT

                  •  What other metrics do we have?

                    The polls have mostly been pretty good up to now, especially SUSA.

                    by jlkenney on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:13:23 PM PDT

  •  exactly.

    even if we give O: 47.5%, C: 52.5% (i.e. 5% PD margin) wins in both TX and OH to HRC, she'd still need 23% rest of the way, as seen in this variation.

    by NeuvoLiberal on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:28:38 PM PDT

•  I will study later, sorry for not reading details

  As polls are now, I think Barack would still gain PD's on March 4th because of quirky TX Primary/Caucus rules.

  by egarratt on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:44:55 PM PDT

  •  take your time.

    by NeuvoLiberal on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:47:42 PM PDT

•  It's all end game now

  at worst Obama grinds her down and the Superdelegates add their votes and it's over.  Texas is the Decider and maybe Ohio too.  Even staying close is enough in Ohio for Obama.  Clinton needs to win by something like 15% in both Texas and Ohio just to come back even and reignite her candidcy.  Nope.  Bill said it himself, win Texas or it's over.  A tie won't do it.  She has no"Headroom."

  by Rolfyboy6 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:48:39 PM PDT

•  The Relevant Calculations

  ...are not on who can get the majority of pledged delegates, it's on what it will take for Obama to get to 2025 overall delegates.

  by vesuvius on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:49:56 PM PDT

  •  Shitty grammar

    sorry

    by vesuvius on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:50:19 PM PDT

  •  pledged delegate 'magic number' = 1627

    = (3253+1)/2

    by NeuvoLiberal on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:10:53 PM PDT

    •  In terms of superdelegates

      Notice how none has endorsed Clinton lately.  Obama has  178 superdelegates right now.  I'm going to guess that he increases his pledged delegate lead from +160 at the moment to about +180 on June 7.  That means he has about 1710 pledged delegates at the end of the process.  Add to those, Obama's 178 superdelegates (he's going to get at least twenty more superdelegates between now and June, I imagine).  That gets him up to 1888.

      Clinton will have, let's say, 1531 pledged delegates, and then her 239 superdelegates.  She'll have 1770 delegates.

      Of the remaining delegates, 12 are Edwards delegates from New Hampshire and South Carolina.  

      That leaves 404 remaining superdelegates who haven't endorsed.

      For Clinton to win the nomination, she'd have to avoid any defections and win 233 of the 404 supers, even if she gets Edwards.  Obama needs only 137 of them.  I think Obama will have picked up a substantial percentage of those necessary superdelegates already by that point, if not all of them.

      by jlkenney on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:25:35 PM PDT

  •  I don't think so.

    Like NeuvoLiberal, I think the superdelegates will fall in line with the pledged delegates. The only way the SDs could overturn the PD result without blowing up the party would be if, after the PD winner is set, the PD winner dies or is involved in some huge scandal -- and both of those seem pretty unlikely.

    by HeyMikey on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:27:47 PM PDT

•  nicely done....

  seems to be the same conclusion a lot of people are reaching.

  I keep hoping Dodd was the finger in the dam, and now we'll see a bunch of superdelegates (like Lewis, who is set to endorse) start the flood gates.

  I respect Senator Clinton a lot, but this will become Huckabeean soon for her.

  by anoodle on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:50:34 PM PDT

•  Nice job. It is all part of the magic!

  What is happening seems magical to me.  The country is alive again.  The poison of the last seven years is wearing off.  Let's take our country back!

  by don mikulecky on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:53:47 PM PDT

  •  I feel like that, too.

    I have never seen a campaign like this. It's like Obama has lightning in a bottle. It's like when Michael Jordan was in his prime with the Bulls -- he can do things nobody's thought possible before. (Not because of black maleness -- just the first example of total innovative dominance that comes to mind.)

    AND he seems like such a genuinely decent, smart guy. AND he seems to have chosen the ideal moment when the country is looking for somebody like him. AND the Repubs are as weak as they're ever likely to get. AND he seems to be tactically smart as hell, and will exploit that weakness to the max. AND he has the ability to steal the Repubs' southern base by driving African-American turnout through the roof (check these primary turnout numbers!).

    It's the perfect storm. I never expect to see another campaign like this one.

    by HeyMikey on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:55:55 PM PDT

•  I have to go umpire High School Baseball

  And when I get home, debate will be about ready to start.  

  West Virginia may be tough for Hillary as well.  I think some of the Red States just have so much hatred towards the Clintons (unjustified) that even the Democrats in those states have become infected via osmosis.

  The final narrative will be that Hillary could only win big Blue States that any Democrat not mirred in a scandal would win going away.

  Barack polls better head to head vs McCain, and the coattails are nicer.  SD's all know this, and even Hillary knows this.

  Hillary will bail out March 4th and give a concession speech from whereever she normally ignores voters in states who just voted.

  by egarratt on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:54:31 PM PDT

•  If anything...

  The district by district business is going to result in things going worse for Clinton than that, as is the Texas caucus that decides the at-large delegates.

  My guess would be that, if Obama wins the Texas primary narrowly, he's going to end up with well more than +3 delegates.  This analysis which seems very conservative, gives them an even split on the district by district delegates.  I would guess we actually end up with a +2 Obama, at least, since the model seems clearly wrong for the 14th District (Austin), where I'm fairly confident Obama ought to pick up 2 delegates.    And Obama should clean up at the caucuses.  Again, the conservative prediction in the link gives him +9 out of the caucus part.  I think it's likely Obama will do better than that, but, at any rate, I would guess Obama ends up at least +12 or so out of Texas.

  In Ohio, Al Giordano did an analysis of the districts with an odd number of delegates.  Best case for Clinton out of these appears to be +4.  Obama will make up at least 2 of those in the eight delegate, 60% Black 11th District, will probably be able to pick up all 4 there (the numbers to get him to a 6-2 split in that district seem easily achievable) and probably will do better in some of the other districts.  I think Obama is not likely to lose the district by district delegates in Ohio to Clinton at all.  Clinton will probably still win the at large delegates there, but that won't make up for a delegate loss in Texas.  So between Ohio and Texas, I'd say Obama is likely to be up +6 or so.  He'll also pick up more out of Vermont than Clinton does out of Rhode Island, so I'm going to say that he's likely to be up by about +8 after March 4, from where he is now.

  This is a scenario which seems plausible even if Clinton wins the popular vote in both primaries, and Rhode Island.  Clinton seems basically doomed.

  by jlkenney on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:11:29 PM PDT

  •  And that's before considering

    the Texas caucus, which should break heavily to Obama, thanks to his vastly superior ground game. I'm expecting Obama comes out of March 4th up at least 10 more delegates.

    by Nick Blas on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:22:34 PM PDT

    •  I was considering

      a fairly conservative delegate estimate for Obama winning the Texas Caucuses - he picks up 10 delegates there, and 2 from the primary, for +12.  Clinton picks up about 6 in Ohio, because she looks to be at only a very weak advantage in the odd-numbered districts, and Obama's at a very strong advantage in 8-delegate District 11.  Plug that in, you get +6 Obama.  Another +2 out of the Vermont/Rhode Island exchange, and Obama is up +8.  And that's pretty conservative.  So, yeah, I'd say Obama should be up with 10 or so, at least.

      After that, he ought to pick up several more in Wyoming and Mississippi.  Mississippi is 37% Black.  Presumably blacks will be close to 2/3 of the primary electorate.  If Obama gets 85% of the Black vote, and about 30% of the white vote, he'll have a 65% victory in Mississippi.  Given that Mississippi is 37% Black, and has only one Black congressman, presumably gerrymandering has not, as it has in Alabama, put all the blacks into a single district, so he should be able to pick up at least 5 or so out of Mississippi.  If he can dominate Wyoming as he has other caucus states, he should pick up about the same amount there.  So that's another +10.

      So, it looks like Obama ought to be at about +180 going into Pennsylvania.  

      Pennsylvania has 158 pledged delegates.  55 of those are at large.  Assuming she wins the popular vote by 12 points, she gets 31 to Obama's 24.  That's +7.

      Then, going to the district by district -

      District 1 - Philadelphia, 7 delegates, majority Black.  Obama at least +1

      District 2 - Philadelphia,9 delegates, super majority Black.  Obama +3

      District 3 - Northwestern PA, 5 delegates.  Clinton +1

      District 4 - Western PA, 5 delegates.  Clinton +1

      District 5 - North Central PA, 4 delegates.  Split

      District 6 - Philly Suburbs, 6 delegates.  I'll be generous and give Clinton +2.

      District 7 - Philly Suburbs, 7 delegates.  Clinton +1.

      District 8 - Philly Suburbs, 7 delegates.  Clinton +1.

      District 9 - South-Central PA, 3 delegates.  Clinton +1

      District 10 - Northeastern PA, 4 delegates.  Split

      District 11 - Scranton- and Wilkes-Barre, 5 delegates.  Clinton +1

      District 12 - John Murtha's district in western PA.  5 delegates.  Clinton +1

      District 13 - Northeast Philly and some Philly suburbs.  5 delegates.  Clinton +1

      District 14 - Pittsburgh.  7 Delegates.  Clinton +1.

      District 15 - Lehigh Valley.  5 Delegates.  Clinton +1

      District 16 - Lancaster.  4 delegates.  Split

      District 17 - Harrisburg to Pottsville.  4 delegates.  Split

      District 18 - More Pittsburghy stuff.  5 delegates.  Clinton +1

      District 19 - York.  4 delegates.  Split.

      This, which is quite generous to Clinton, giving her wins in every odd numbered district except the Philly ones with lots of African Americans, and an unlikely big victory in the six delegate PA-6, gives her another +9.  So she gets +16 out of Pennsylvania.

      That puts her at, er, -164 on April 23.

      by jlkenney on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:51:24 PM PDT

      •  I suppose...

        one might imagine Clinton getting +3 out of the 7th, 8th, and 14th districts.  That gives her 6 more delegates total, for a total win in Pennsylvania of +22.  That seems like about the best she can do.

        There just aren't nearly enough delegates to save her at this point.

        by jlkenney on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:58:56 PM PDT

•  On Pennsylvania

  Don't be so quick to count PA a win for Hillary if it goes past March 4th.  Obama will have a full month and a half to campaign.  That is an eterninty.  You've see what he can do with a few weeks.  The more time he has, the more he drinks her milkshake.  

  With that much time, he will make it extremely close or win it out right.

  by kdee on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:52:42 PM PDT

  •  True.

    But even a very favorable scenario to Clinton in Pennsylvania - a double digit win, and winning every congressional district other than the two majority black Philly districts, keeping the margins tight in those, and winning big delegate margins in a couple of the districts - still results in only about +20 for Clinton out of Pennsylvania.  (see my analysis above, in "I was considering.")  And that seems like a highly unlikely scenario, at this point.

    by jlkenney on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:03:39 PM PDT

•  Welcome to three weeks ago

  Hillary Clinton has not once, not ever been ahead in pledged delegates.  She's been without a chance since losing on Super Tuesday.

  The only thing that's kept her alive:

  1. New Hampshire

  2. Small victories in California and Massachusetts

  3. The media, which likes a tight race (and why not?)

  After 2/9, she was officially done.  The rest is just going through the motions to confirm that.

  by CheckRaise on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:04:09 PM PDT

•  An excellent diary

  The math rapidly become brutal.

  by Justanothernyer on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:13:09 PM PDT

•  You need two more poll choices:

  D) Yes - but only if she loses on March 4 (in case she does better than expected / forecast).

  E) She should drop out right now and stop disgracing the Democratic Party with Rovian tactics.

  Choice E) represents my opinion and wishful thinking only.

  by Chi on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:06:09 PM PDT

•  Hillary's secret weapon?

  Despite the accuracy of this number-crunching; despite the likelihood the superdelegates will fall in line with pledged delegates; despite the fact Hillary probably can't get the credentials committee to seat the MI and FL delegates . . .

  . . . Hillary has one more ace to play.

  The last currently scheduled primaries/caucuses are in early-mid June. The convention doesn't start till Aug 28. Plenty of time in between for MI and FL to schedule new primaries or caucuses, and get their delegates seated.

  I have heard no rumblings about this maybe happening. But maybe Hillary is working on the MI and FL parties behind the scenes. I don't see any other way she can win.

  by HeyMikey on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:10:23 PM PDT