Math experts: What if we gave Hillary Florida?

This will be a short diary. I am growing increasingly concerned about MI and FL. I think it is very important to take this weapon from Hillary BEFORE August. Obviously, Michigan is the more complex of the two. Obama was NOT on the ballot there. But perhaps once he is over the top, the can give the votes Hillary earned in MI to her and it won't matter.

As regards Florida though, what is we took that weapon away from her:

The results were:
Hillary: 50%
Barack: 33%
Others: Edwards/Kucinich etc: around 15%

So what would happen if we gave Hillary her votes: 50% (and the number of delegates that gives her)
We give Barack his votes: 33%
We then divide the remain %: Each gets 7.5%

Thus: Hillary 57.5%
Barack: 40.5%

Yes, this is spotting Hillary 17 delegate points but it would take away a powerful weapon later in August.

But math is not my forte, so tell me if this is an off-the-wall idea.

•  While it doesn't specifically address splitting

  the remaining votes, this might be of interest:

  by Pym on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:44:18 PM PDT

•  I'm sure if the situation were reversed...

  Clinton would GLADLY do the same.

  Look, Hillary's arguments about "disenfranchisement" are copmletely disingenuous.  Harold Ickes himself was on the panel that agreed that FL delegates should NOT be seated at the convention, due to their breaking the rules.  The state party had plenty of time to reschedule some sort of primary or caucus after the governor signed the bill, and chose not to.

  The best way to take away Hillary's "powerful weapon" is to expose it for what it is - a joke.

  by jakester on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:44:50 PM PDT

  •  I know she wouldn't have done that, but

    for Obama to do this, I think he would score a masterful strike:

    Here are examples of possible headlines:

      Is he a real politician? Obama gives Clinton the Floridian Gift

      Ending the Zero-Sum Games: Obama decides to have illegal Florida votes count

      Florida will count; Thanks to Obama's

      Chutzpah: Obama confident of winning nomination agrees to lose in Florida

      The ball is in Hillary's court: Florida counts, but will she accept defeat?

    by yaddab on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:55:55 PM PDT

    •  You obviously don't know our media

      The more likely headline is:

      Rookie Obama caves in to Hillary's demands, raising doubts about his toughness

      by SLKRR on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:10:30 PM PDT

    •  This is nuts.

      What media will give these headlines?  The Onion?

      by RadioGirl on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:21:18 PM PDT

•  Only if you take away NH and Nevada. Part

  of her campaigning in those states was that she was on their side in not letting Michigan and Florida jump ahead of them.

  by Leftovers on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:45:28 PM PDT

  •  But didnt Obama get more NV delegates?

    Despite what the Hillbots quack out, this IS a delegate race. Those are the rules that everyone agreed to.

    by BlueGenes on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:54:05 PM PDT

    •  He did but he should get her delegates too!

      Makes as much sense as what she's advocating.

      by Leftovers on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:57:10 PM PDT

•  Screw that

  Don't give Hillary anything.  She'll take all she can get.  Besides, it's not up to anyone to break the rules and 'give' her delegates who, it was agreed before the race started, did not count towards the nomination.

  I think people should just be focused on one thing right now.  Obama wins Indiana.  If he wins NC and IN this thing really is going to be over and all of this numbers crunching will become moot.  

  People are so beat down at this point, they are missing the fact that there is a chance to end this thing.  

  The whole race is just symbolic at this point.  It stopped being a race for delegates a while ago because Obama won.  All that is needed now is the clear-cut victory where Obama claims the nomination and the supers have cover to say they are just ratifying and not creating the winner.  

  by Sun dog on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:45:47 PM PDT

  •  Why not let every exhibition game the Eagles win

    this season count towards the regular season?

    Funny McCain Pics archive updated regularly

    by InsultComicDog on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:47:49 PM PDT

    •  How would that

      change anything? :)

      by Grannus on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:59:11 PM PDT

  •  Don't count on it.

    If he wins NC and IN this thing really is going to be over and all of this numbers crunching will become moot.  

    Like I said before, no one has ever been as good at moving goal posts and setting new narratives than Clinton and her campaign. It's truely remarkable.

    by Mike S on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:49:40 PM PDT

    •  Win or lose Indiana, you'll here this on May 7th:

      "Meet me in West Virginia!!  YEEEAAAARRRGGHH!!!"

      Count on it.

      by SLKRR on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:51:37 PM PDT

      •  here = hear ;-)

        by SLKRR on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:11:33 PM PDT

  •  No...

    He did not win. Even he will fall short of the needed delegates no matter what happens. Saying he has won the delegate race is misleading...

    by RDemocrat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:51:22 PM PDT

    •  Not true at all

      Even he will fall short of the needed delegates no matter what happens.

      Just about 40-50 more supers plus the add-ons he's already going to get from state he won and this statement becomes inoperative  ;-)

      by SLKRR on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:07:04 PM PDT

      •  Yes it is true

        He won more delegates than she did.  He won.  It's a cheap trick to say he didn't win enough therefore he didn't win.  He won more than anyone else.  It's important because the supers will ratify the winner.  Obama is the winner.  

        by Sun dog on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:35:29 PM PDT

        •  But....

          If you say the rules should be followed in regards to MI and FL, and Obama doesn't get the required delegates to win the nomination in the primaries then technically he didn't win the required delegates. The supers are free to cast in with whichever one they want. If you go by the rules.....

          by RDemocrat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:16:13 PM PDT

          •  Obama won the delegate battle

            He won the election.  Yes, the supers can reverse that if they perceive a dire need.  That's the rules.  But in the interest of them not destroying the party and doing that, it seems worth the time to point out that Obama did win among the voters.  So, Hillary people can say he didn't win in the interest of trying to keep that door open for the supers to do that but I will argue with you until I'm dead or this thing is done that it is wrong beyond words to encourage them to do that.  Because Obama won among the voters.  

            by Sun dog on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:44:58 PM PDT

  •  I'd Give it to the people of Florida

    I was tempted to go with the
    breakdown + rest of the numbers divided, but I think I'll stick with "as is" divided by 2 plan.

    by Hey BB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:11:25 PM PDT

    •  That's not giving them anything

      Their 'election' wasn't based on a campaign.  It's not fair to any Obama supporter in FL because he wasn't able to come in and combat the superior name recognition of Hillary.  How is it 'giving' anything to them to ratify an unfair vote?  

      by Sun dog on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:51:23 PM PDT

•  He'd still be ahead

  but here's the thing. Every time Hillary moves the goal posts the media turns that into CW. Giving her this one inch will give the media the opportunity to give her 37 miles.

  by Mike S on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:46:42 PM PDT

•  I have a better idea

  Why doesn't Bill Gates give me a million dollars? He has lots of extra to spare.

  Funny McCain Pics archive updated regularly

  by InsultComicDog on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:49:10 PM PDT

•  its not about Hillary

  it is about the DNC being able to set a calendar.  If we let them break the rules - well just ask my kids - then anything goes in the future.

  by ETinKC on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:49:44 PM PDT

•  Florida

  Should be counted as is. All three major candidates were on the ballot. Although they did not campaign there at the time Obama and Clinton were getting plenty of free advertising in the form of media fawning. I supported Edwards and didn't like the results either, but Clinton scored a huge win against all comers there. They knew all three and voted overwhelmingly for her. That is valid.

  by RDemocrat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:50:06 PM PDT

  •  Except that in each and every

    They knew all three and voted overwhelmingly for her. That is valid.

    primary and caucus Obama has moved up and Hillary down after they have campaigned in those states.

    People here and elsewhere in blogastan think the whole country is watching like us. They aen't like us in any way, shape or form. They aren't paying attaention at all unless thay are forced to by us talking t them or them losing the remote and being stuck on a cable news channel.

    And even then their eyes glaze over.

    by Mike S on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:55:03 PM PDT

  •  Yeah, right...

    Florida should NOT be counted as is!  No, no, no!!!

    Obama has been doing well because he's been campaigning.  Take PA for example.  He started polling at 20 points behind Clinton right before he started campaigning there.  And that's three months into the primary race.  Once he did campaign there and people got to know him, his numbers went up.  

    The average person who votes does so with the information that's been forced down their throats from commercial after commercial, with the dreadful politcal activists going door to door telling voters what's so great about this man and why they should vote for him, and the apperances and speeches the candidate makes to the voters; the average person doesn't actively go out and seek the information for themselves.  

    What the voters did in Florida was that they went to their polling places (for those that bothered to go, for the others who knew this vote wasn't going to count, they just stayed at home), and looked at a few names on the ballot and picked the most familiar one.  

    For a black man with a foriegn-sounding name on the same ballot as the widely-known wife of a fairly popular president so early in the primary season, there was NO CONTEST that she would win.

    So, no.  I was pissed when Gore gave an inch on his true victory in Florida, and I'LL BE DAMNED IF FLORIDA'S GOING TO DECIDE ANOTHER ELECTION UNFAIRLY AGAIN!!!

    by DESGIV on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:30:57 PM PDT

    •  Actually

      If you consider how much he outspent her in PA, he didn't do that well. Plus, PA showed he has serious problems with blue-collar, Male, and Jewish voters, voters we need badly in the fall.

      by RDemocrat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:44:28 PM PDT

      •  Again...

        It's the name recognition!

        Clinton: President for eight of the nation's most properous years in recent memory.

        Obama: one letter away from our most evil enemy.

        Politically ignorant people needed to learn about who they end up voting for and it takes a lot more money to tell the truth about Obama than it does about Clinton.

        And if you're comparing the primary to the general election, you're drinking HER Kool-Aid.  Apples and oranges, my friend.  Apples and oranges.

        Once this baby's put to rest, this country will vote for a Democrat to be president, no matter what color/gender the candidate is.

        And if you say, we'll it's McCain, he's a maverick.  He called his wife a cunt.  Not his first wife who stayed faithful to him while he was a POW in Vietnam but the filthy rich, much younger, prettier one he left that one for after wife #1 was horribly disfigured in an accident after he came back.  Just wait until our 527's get a hold of the skeletons in his closet.  Oh, and he's a Republican!  

        Right now, I don't know which story will be more hurtful.

        by DESGIV on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:05:21 PM PDT

•  I think they should count half of them

  The DNC bylaws call for stripping states that broke the rules of half their delegates. The other half was a punitive measure. So they could seat half the Florida delegates and take the issue away from Clinton and the Republicans, who also stripped Florida of half the delegates. Michigan is more complicated, because Obama was not on the ballot.

  by democrattotheend on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:50:15 PM PDT

  •  What about the Edwards votes etc.

    Would they be divided equally?

    by gladkov on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:51:47 PM PDT

    •  They

      Should not be. The results should be taken as voted because all three were on the ballot. Like it or not, the Florida primary is valid as it stands.

      by RDemocrat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:53:24 PM PDT

      •  Are you familiar with 'CalvinBall?'

        The only consistent rule is that Calvinball may never be played with the same rules twice.[52] Scoring is also arbitrary: Hobbes has reported scores of "Q to 12" and "oogy to boogy."[

        CalvinBall

        Hillary Clinton is an expert on the subject.

        by BlueGenes on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:56:59 PM PDT

      •  Nope not valid

        Many people stayed home because they knew it was invalid.  The most that should be done is give half-votes, and I'm still not even sure that would be that great an idea.  

        Calling it a election valid is disingenuous.  It's exactly like counting preseason games in the standings, because, hey, both teams were there and both played a game and kept score, so therefore it should be included in the season totals!  

        by SLKRR on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:58:02 PM PDT

        •  No...

          If I remember right FL had pretty good turnout too. Obama voters knew he was on the ballot and had every much a chance to vote for him as Hillary supporters had to vote for her. Ditto with the Edwards supporters there.

          She won FL fair and square, and we should not disenfrachise those voters because we didn't like the results.

          by RDemocrat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:29:12 PM PDT

        •  The "many people stayed home" argument...

          ...is not a strong one given the turnout. If I did my math right based on Florida  Department of State numbers, the total Democratic turnout this year was 1,749,920. That's far larger than  the 2004 (753,762) or 2000 (551,916) numbers. It's also well above the 1992 results of 1,092,448 (which is the last time there was a serious contest still going on at the point Florida voted).

          Which is not to say that the election should count, only that the evidence doesn't support the idea that people didn't vote because they knew it wouldn't count.  They voted anyway, and in record numbers.

          by GreenCA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:41:30 PM PDT

          •  So-called High turnout

            ..was because of the property tax issue, which heavily favored turnout of the elderly, HRC's strongest demographic.  And even so, 1,949,498 voted on the Republican side (200,000 more than the Dems).  In every other earlier primary save one or two in deep, deep, red states (Utah for example) the Democratic turnout blew away the Republicans, but in Florida it was significantly less.  I think that's a very strong argument that a good portion of people did stay home.  To compare, Florida has over 50% more people than Pennsylvania does, yet PA turned out 500,000 more Dem voters.  

            (Note: I'm not claiming Obama would have won Florida in a fair fight, but he wouldn't have lost by 17% either, that's for certain.)

            Nope, this was just like a preseason game that has a "winner" and "loser," but that every one knows going in won't count in the final standings.

            by SLKRR on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:26:37 PM PDT

            •  Good point.

              That's a signficant factor that I overlooked. That's roughly a 51% turnout on the Republican side vs. 42% for the Democrats.

              Totalling the Democratic and Republican primary votes comes out to 3,699,418 votes cast. Total votes cast on the property tax measure were 4,165,513, which supports the notion that it drove the turnout.

              by GreenCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:36:45 AM PDT

    •  No, just give Edwards his delegates

      The breakdown would have been:

      105 Clinton
      67 Obama
      13 Edwards

      So make it:

      52.5 Clinton
      33.5 Obama
      6.5 Edwards

      And be done with it.

      Oh, one more thing: do this after Obama has already clinched the nomination.

      by SLKRR on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:54:44 PM PDT

•  As soon as Hillary concedes

  we can settle this any way she wants.

  by Seneca Doane on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:52:38 PM PDT

  •  She will...

    Not concede. With FL and MI counted she leads the popular vote.

    Our party created a huge mess with this terrible nominating process. Hopefully we will change it soon....

    by RDemocrat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:54:40 PM PDT

    •  Did you type this with a straight face?

      With FL and MI counted she leads the popular vote

      by Mike S on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:56:26 PM PDT

      •  Yeah

        There is no way on this EARTH MI should count when he was not on the ballot. That is ridiculous.

        by gladkov on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:57:23 PM PDT

        •  And yet people are arguing for it.

          But even better are the ones who say that her votes should count for her and he shouldn't get any BECAUSE he wasn't on the ballot.

          by Mike S on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:59:06 PM PDT

          •  Its just more CalvinBall

            The only rule is that there are no rules.

            by BlueGenes on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:00:30 PM PDT

            •  The only rule is Hillary wins

              She'll bend every other rule in service to that one.

              by SLKRR on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:03:02 PM PDT

            •  The first rule

              of the democratic primary is You don't talk about the democratic primary.

              The second rule...

              by NMDad on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:31:35 PM PDT

          •  I wasn't

            Saying I thought MI should count. However, I do believe FL should.

            by RDemocrat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:26:03 PM PDT

        •  I didn't say...

          MI should count, but that is the argument Hillary will make. FL should count though, they were all on the ballot, even my candiate Edwards. I don't like it that he lost there but he did.

          by RDemocrat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:25:12 PM PDT

      •  I agree

        That MI should not count because Obama wasn't on the ballot. However, I believe that FL should count. I didn't say I agreed with Hillary's argument, but that is the argument she is making or will make.

        by RDemocrat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:24:14 PM PDT

        •  You didn't say you

          agreed with her argument? You stated it as a fact. The Clinton campaign is putting forward arguments that are an affront to logic and an insult to the intelligence of the American people. Repeating them as though they are true and make sense only hurts democracy.

          by NMDad on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:28:08 PM PDT

          •  Well...

            It is a fact that if you include the votes from those two states, Hillary leads in the popular vote. However, since Obama and Edwards WEREN'T on the ballot in MI I have problems with that result. FL is a different story. They voted and decided and that result should be respected.

            by RDemocrat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:41:54 PM PDT

            •  Right.

              Obama wasn't on the Michigan ballot. That's a pretty important detail that the Clinton people are leaving out. In fact, without acknowleding that detail, it's a lie.

              Furthermore, caucus states don't have a popular vote tally. If we're counting the national popular vote, how many voters in how many states do you throw away?

              The whole argument is nonsense anyway. There was a contest. There were rules. The candidates looked at the rules at formulated their strategies. If votes were going to be counted a different way, they would have used a different strategy and we'd be arguing a whole new set of Clinton campaign hypotheticals that are just as meaningless as these.

              by NMDad on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:12:27 PM PDT

    •  Correction

      Our party created a huge mess with this terrible nominating process. Hopefully we will change it soon....

      Correction:

      Hillary created a huge mess to try to cover up for the fact that she is badly losing the nominating process agreed upon months/years in advance by all parties involved.  Hopefully she will drop out soon....

      by SLKRR on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:00:02 PM PDT

      •  No matter

        Who wins we should all agree that this nominating process is lunacy, and we should all fight to change it.

        by RDemocrat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:22:56 PM PDT

        •  I do agree

          The process is ridiculous, but you nominate your candidates with the caucuses and primaries you have, not with the ones you wish you had.  ;-)

          by SLKRR on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:28:33 PM PDT

    •  She'll concede when either

      she runs out of money or the superdelegates decisively move to Obama -- the latter of which will happen by Flag Day.

      by Seneca Doane on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:19:49 PM PDT

•  Brilliant Strategy

  If he did it now, it makes him look strong. It supports who he is. The good guy intead of the spiteful angry sore loser
  AND
  it forces the media to talk about why he did it, why he COULD do it BECAUSE HE IS SO FAR AHEAD THERE IS STILL NO WAY SHE COULD DO WIN.

  I think this is brilliant. He should do it like two days before the Indiana and NC primaries to control the news cycle. He needs stunts like this. He needs to be active instead of reactive. I think this is a brilliant strategy. But let's get the math wizards on it.

  by woodstockmom on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:56:28 PM PDT

•  She'll find something else to complain about

  Hillary won't quit playing the victim card no matter what happens.

  by my homeo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:56:35 PM PDT

•  I've been saying this for months

  Your offer is more generous than the one I proposed; only because Edwards support has been overwhelming for Obama, but fine.  Give it to her.  

  But do it publicly.  Make her accept and reject publicly so she can't spin him as "denying" the vote, like she did in MI -- where all the rules favored her and gee -- he objected to her supporters paying for the revote!

  But I've been saying it for months.  Have emailed the campaign repeatedly and even did so again this morning.  

  He's too smart to let this go.  I'm frustrated with him.

  by 57andFemale on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:00:17 PM PDT

•  I like this idea...

  But perhaps once he is over the top, the can give the votes Hillary earned in MI to her and it won't matter

  Since she clearly earned zero votes in MI

  by Sacramento Dem on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:01:16 PM PDT

  •  I agree with you..

    but again, the point of this is to take this issue off the table. I think the damage will be greater if we can leave it and have the MI cronies ready to pounce for the convention.

    by gladkov on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:04:09 PM PDT

•  A thousand times, no ...

  ... At least, not until Obama has the nomination firmly locked down for the convention in August. Then I could consider the possibility of giving Clinton and her supporters a consolation prize if it would make them feel better.

  by philimus on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:19:47 PM PDT