An alternative analysis, if you have the time and interest:
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/phrigndumass/20
In short: THE MAGIC NUMBER
"Senator Obama’s Magic Number – 88 of 310 remaining superdelegates needed, or 28.4%
Senator Clinton’s Magic Number – 241 of 310 remaining superdelegates needed, or 77.7%"
Posted by tfitznc at April 1, 2008 04:25 PMgiven the nature of superdelegates, i wouldn't assume anything until the final states and territory have voted.
Posted by Turkana at April 1, 2008 04:29 PMwow you are good!
You read the whole (dense) analysis in 4 minutes.
Posted by tfitznc at April 1, 2008 04:31 PMit was not dense in the way you mean.
Posted by Turkana at April 1, 2008 04:38 PMFrom the Daily Kos:
In the wide-ranging interview, Ickes also [confirmed] that the Hillary campaign could still try to woo super-dels even if she lost the popular vote, with Michigan and Florida counted
Leading in the popular vote or not, the Clinton campaign apparently will continue in it's efforts to destroy the Democratic party.
Posted by Upton at April 1, 2008 04:50 PMupton,
i wouldn't put much stock in that.
Posted by Turkana at April 1, 2008 05:01 PM"Leading in the popular vote or not, the Clinton campaign apparently will continue in it's efforts to destroy the Democratic party."
Looked at from a different perspective -- Hillary is staying in the race for precisely the opposite reason. We are fairly certain that Obama can't win the GE. Most of the States he's won will not be Dem in the GE.
If he's the nominee, we'll have another 4 years of a regressive in the WH. From our point of view, the Clinton campaign will continue in it's efforts for the good of the country. ;)
Just a few weeks ago Obama supporters who pointed out the harsh realities of the delegate count were dismissed as the "math club." But now that Hillary is hanging on by her fingernails and desperately needs a hopeful scenario to stay in the campaign, we're seeing all kinds of fancy math, with colored maps and pie graphs and stuff that would stump the statistics faculty at MIT.
Posted by elrod at April 1, 2008 05:34 PMI have trouble imagining Obama winning South Dakota or Montana, but that's just me, I'm sure...
Posted by OldCoastie at April 1, 2008 05:43 PMHillary is the nominee. She will, sooner or later, find a way to slip a knife between Senator Obama's ribs (figuratively speaking) if Obama does not spontaneously implode first.
"Leading in the popular vote or not, the Clinton campaign apparently will continue in it's efforts to destroy the Democratic party."
Isn't it fun!
"We are fairly certain that Obama can't win the GE. ...From our point of view, the Clinton campaign will continue in it's efforts for the good of the country.)"
"Our" and "we"? So, Jen, what branch of the Hapsburgh family are you descended from. The only thing missing from your post is "the royal 'we'."
Posted by Bagley at April 1, 2008 06:02 PMI'm logging this post for sure. I look forward to reposting it in every comment thread underneath a Turkana post in the near future.
Posted by Luce Imaginary at April 1, 2008 06:05 PMcare to elaborate, luce?
Posted by Turkana at April 1, 2008 06:28 PMLOL!! Bagley, how did you know?? You're absolutely brilliant! Next time I will remember to include my title. [blush] (Did you work for my father? Stable boy, perhaps? Bagley sounds awfully familiar.)
Actual name is Countess Saygan Genevieve von Habsburg-Lothringen, descendant of William I "the Bastard" and daughter of Stefan von Habsburg-Lothringen Archduke of Austria, Prince of Tuscany.
And yes, I speak for many. ;)
Posted by jen at April 1, 2008 06:36 PMI guess the obvious question begs to be asked: If Hillary is so popular, why isn't she winning now? Why does it take a special formula to make her win? And the other question: who is next weeks Harold Ickes? Gotta keep that race baiting going.....whatever it takes to win.
Posted by T2 at April 1, 2008 06:41 PMWe are fairly certain that Obama can't win the GE. Most of the States he's won will not be Dem in the GE.
Oh really Jen? Here's the number of red and blue states won by each candidate:
Hillary Clinton – 6 Blue, 8 Red
Barack Obama – 11 Blue, 16 Red
"Did you work for my father? Stable boy, perhaps? Bagley sounds awfully familiar."
No, but I may know your Mother.
"And yes, I speak for many. ;)"
Voices in your head do not count as actual people.
P.S. I am unfamiliar with the ". ;" emoticon. Perhaps it is a recessive gene that you have observed in family members: one eye and hereditary over-grown jaw. (Google it.)
Posted by Bagley at April 1, 2008 06:49 PMOh, Bagley, I believe you are confusing the eye and jaw rumor with the famous Hapsburg lip gene.
http://www.scholarsresource.com/images/thumbnails/192/m/mif0874.jpg
"Oh, Bagley, I believe you are confusing the eye and jaw rumor with the famous Hapsburg lip gene."
No, Jen, I am simply unfamiliar with the emoticon ". ;" The rest of my post is conjecture.
P.S. Try again.
Posted by Bagley at April 1, 2008 07:36 PMBagley, I don't know why, but you crack me up. I guess the silly season has got to me...
Oh, and Upton -- are you using the "red state" "blue state" results from the '04 presidential election to get your figures?
Here is a map that shows it's not that easy to determine some states as either red or blue, so I respectfully take your figures with huge doses of salt.
http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/PurpleAmericaPosterAll50.gif
Posted by jen at April 1, 2008 08:32 PMthis is an interesting analysis.
but it doesn't address the central dilemma the democratic primary faces:
senator obama is simply not yet qualified to run as a democratic nominee,
nor is he yet qualified to be an american president.
that's the real bottom line.
there is no other simpler or kinder way to put it - obama is not even remotely ready to serve as president.
george bush presented himself to the american people and to the press eight years ago as similarly "competent" candidate,
but even he,
incompetent at governing as he has proved himself,
had modestly more governing experience (four + two years) as governor of texas,
than obama.
so why aren't democratic leaders telling obama that he has had a good run, but is not ready for the job yet?
does the democratic party really want to be remembered as foisting on the american people a candidate who may be even less experienced in governing, and possibly more incompetent than, george w. bush?
i am astonished and dismayed that this message - that obama does not have the experience,yet,
to be president,
is not being conveyed to senator obama by democratic leaders across the nation.
and even more astonished that obama, himself, does not recognize his own limitations of experience.
the only explanation i can come up with for this folly is that -
1) democrats do not, repeat, DO NOT, like any kind of political conflict (n.b republicans LOVE, and thrive on, political conflict - is there a message there to be heard?).
2) democratic party bosses are afraid that if they deny obama the nomination the youth and the black vote will desert them.
3) that obama is on a very worrisome ego trip.
and that
4) the old farts in the senate like daschel(retired), lieberman, leahy, casey
are determined to short-circuit a real american political revolution by an insider - senator clinton - who knows their games and is determined to chart a new way of governing.
Posted by orionATL at April 1, 2008 08:33 PMThe PA numbers sound very optimistic to me.
And the FL #s don't matter except for final legitimacy - Obama has succeeded in disenfranchising them unless it doesn't matter one way or the other. I can't imagine his supporters accepting a decision based on FL or MI.
So even +100k sounds rather unlikely.
Also the Obama side would have a good argument about using unreweighted caucus #s because that disadvantages (voters in) caucus states. And I wonder what he did with WA.
Posted by rilkefan at April 1, 2008 11:35 PMorionATL: "...senator obama is simply not yet qualified to run as a democratic nominee,
nor is he yet qualified to be an american president...."
obviously the person who voted for Dear Leader's war of aggression against Iraq is qualifed. Sorry, the point is judgment, not experience (you really want experience then vote for McSame)
and the MI and FL legislatures can solve this mess.....but Obama is evillllll
Posted by Gay Veteran at April 2, 2008 12:18 PM