Clinton actually lost ground in West Virginia

That's right - math is rearing is ugly head again.  Hillary Clinton failed to do what she needed in one of her best states to get the nomination.  As a testament to how infinitely improbable her quest is at this point, here's where we stood before the election results tonight:

Obama: 1,591.5 pledged + 284 super delegates = 1,875.5
Clinton: 1,425.5 pledged + 270.5 super delegates = 1,696

With Clinton needing 329 out of 458.5 remaining delegates to get to 2,025 and the nomination, she would need 71.76% of the remaining delegates.  She did great in West Virginia yesterday, but she only got 20 out of 28 or 71.43% of the delegates.  Sorry, Senator Clinton, but you'll have to do a little better than that in Kentucky and Oregon and Montana and South Dakota and Puerto Rico and among the remaining super delegates to win.

But wait, there's more...

Unfortunately for the Senator from New York, not all the remaining super delegates are really up for grabs.  Thanks to Obama's wins in so many states, he's going to get about 28 out of the remaining 49 add-on super delegates.  5 super delegates are in the "Pelosi club", pledging to support the pledged delegate winner.  Pledged delegates aren't exactly random either, and polling projections indicate Clinton will win about 100 to 89 for Obama.  So after adding in the results from West Virginia, where does the math take us?

Obama: 1,883.5 + 28 add-ons + 5 Pelosi Club + 89 projected = 2,004.5
Clinton: 1,716 + 21 add-ons + 0 Pelosi Club + 100 projected = 1,837

To get to 2,025 delegates, Clinton will need 188 of the remaining super delegates, but there are only 186.5 left!  Senator Clinton may be tenacious, but she can't get over 100%.

•  I love math!

  Especially when, for the first time ever, it actually works in favor of my candidate in the primaries!

  by CA Pol Junkie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:53:25 AM PDT

  •  My math is already obsolete

    Obama has scored 1.5 more delegates already today, so Clinton now needs 188 out of 185 to get the nomination.

    by CA Pol Junkie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:00:32 AM PDT

    •  It's all moving too fast

      I submitted 2 minutes after you, so I'm even obsoleter.

      by Caj on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:11:46 AM PDT

•  Good point. n/t

  by ObamaManiac2008 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:53:45 AM PDT

•  100% is chump change

  Didn't you hear Terry McAuliffe Explain that 2+2=7?

  by Steven R on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:55:04 AM PDT

  •  Terry McAuliffe reminds me of a

    a slick used car salesman

    by aaraujo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:00:38 AM PDT

    •  and thats all he ever has been

      n/t

      by mytribe on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:03:36 AM PDT

    •  Ok I'll bite

      Isn't, uh, that what he is?  Trying to sell the Clinton brand to the American people again?.....

      Although really I thought that the Clinton brand would've had higher resale value..but the engine kept stalling out, it leaked like mad, kept losing its coolant, I guess it really wasn't good for long trips.

      by salsa0000 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:08:01 AM PDT

    •  terry mcauliffe = baghdad bob of politics

      by MasterHurrikane on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:13:10 AM PDT

    •  Actually,

      I think snake oil saleman is closer.

      by lilysnana on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:14:01 AM PDT

•  Technically she could get > 100%

  By convincing SD's to flop. However, so far the flopping has been away from Clinton.

  by johngoes on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:57:26 AM PDT

•  First time in my adult life that NC mattered.

  It was incredible that:

  1. It took THIS LONG for the Primary to be resolved

  2. That a Primary FOUR MONTHS into the process was the decision point

  3. That I actually got to make a difference.

  w00t!

  by polecat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:58:22 AM PDT

  •  A BIG THANK YOU TO NC VOTERS!!

    by lvv on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:16:17 AM PDT

•  It is really impossible for her to win

  so the question is why is she still in the race?

  My bet is that she wants to be VP

  by aaraujo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:59:54 AM PDT

•  Winning Texas finished the job

  If Hillary had been able to maintain her coalition and win big in Ohio and Texas she could have caught up.  But she won a fairly narrow win in Ohio and outright lost Texas and that is what finished her off.  Since then the race has been propped up by the media for fun and profit.

  But thank goodness it's over and we can focus on winning in November.  After MS-01 I'm feeling pretty good about things..for the first time in forever no Democrat anywhere has to actively denounce the top of the ticket in order to win a local office.  Now that doesn't mean that Obama's going to help in every distrcit, everywhere - but he won't be a poison pill even in the blood red South and in Republican districts in the North he could really help (see IL-14 for example where he cut ads for Bill Foster).  Very exciting.

  by salsa0000 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:00:55 AM PDT

  •  Let's not get carried away...

    I don't think Childers is going to be giving Obama a big hug any time soon, but you're right - it was great that throwing Obama and Wright at Childers was spectacularly ineffective.

    by CA Pol Junkie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:04:43 AM PDT

    •  Exactly

      At worst Obama will have nonnegative effects on our candidates across the country - he won't be a poison pill.

      Of course to take it a step further even Hillary probably wouldn't have been quite the poison pill that Republicans make her out to be because the Bush is just that unpopular.  It's hard to get excited about "Troopergate" (or other such nonsense) when we've got 4,000 dead in Iraq and $4/gallon gasoline.

      by salsa0000 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:11:03 AM PDT

    •  Nice catch by the way

      I think on MSNBC Chuck Todd pointed out something similar (that even 75% wins in primaries here on out would leave Hillary needing ~80% of remaining superdelegates) but he was doing on-the-fly analysis and didn't account for the additional add-ons, etc.

      by salsa0000 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:18:39 AM PDT

•  it was over after Super Tuesday

  You left out the actual answer on your poll.  The most astute observers here (and elsewhere), including the Great Kos, called this thing over after Super Tuesday.  HRC failed to do what she needed to do that day and one could read the tea leaves based on the contests coming up and see that Obama was likely to run away with it in the next 11 contests.  

  I did vote above and I voted for after the Patomic Primaries.  At that point, Obama jumped out to a lead that was so large that it was very, very unlikely HRC could catch him, even if she won by some decent sized margins.

  by Nathan in MN on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:01:35 AM PDT

  •  Super Tuesday

    Kos made the observation that Obama did what he had to do by pulling Super Tuesday into a draw, but then Obama had to rack up 20 point victories in the rest of February.  The Potomac Primaries (or I suppose Maine the weekend before that) was the first indication that Obama would be able to put Clinton away.

    by CA Pol Junkie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:06:27 AM PDT

•  Actually it's 2.5 SDs so far

  2.5 + Obama so far
  http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/...

  by cmpnwtr on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:18:41 AM PDT

•  FL and MI

  Not a Clinton fan here at all. You've done a kick-ass job of explaining why it's over.

  However, there is still that nagging question of FL and MI. I'd like to see an update with the most likely FL and MI seatings -- FL as-is, and with MI, Hillary's as-is and the remaining for Obama. Seems very likely that, since they're uncommitted they'll go for Obama with the way it's going.

  It seems to me that it's that number that will really close the door. Because that's what Hillary's waiting for.

  by reklemrov on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:19:54 AM PDT

  •  FL and MI

    I resist giving credence to Clinton's message that FL and MI should count, as I think it's important in a democracy not to change the stakes of an election after everyone has voted.  However, you do raise a good point, and with a little math we probably could deflate Clinton's FL/MI talking point just like we did with the "popular vote".

    by CA Pol Junkie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:27:10 AM PDT