The Clinton Campaign: The Death Watch Continues
After yesterday's contests (again thanks to Slate.com's delegate calculator), if Hillary Clinton wins 100% of the vote in the three remaining primaries (Puerto Rico on June 1, Montana and South Dakota on June 3 AND the delegates from FL and MI are seated 100% AND the split of those delegates is the more-than-fair balance of 65/35 in her favor in FL and 57/43 in her favor in MI, only then does Clinton come out ahead in pledged (elected) delegates, by 7.
If any of those things doesn't happen, she loses the elected delegate race.
Given the current Super Delegate counts (obviously subject to change) of 306 for Obama and 278 for Clinton, that still leaves her needing to take 21 more of the remaining super delegates than Obama does.
Now, suppose MI and FL half half of their delegates seated, at the percentages I specified (which seems to be one of the most likely current plans). Obama drops by 60, Clinton drops by 96.5 and Obama is the elected delegate leader by 29.5.
My friend Ross clearly disagrees with me, because of the difficult-to-quantify element of the super delegates, but it becomes ever clearer to me that Hillary Clinton is not going to win the elected delegate race, and that the super delegates are unlikely to reverse the elected delegate results in the absence of some huge bombshell before the convention.
Liam.
posted by Liam at 5/21/2008 03:44:00 PM
8 Comments:
Interesting title "The Death Watch Continues" and your terminology of "huge bombshell before the convention," given Clinton's historic blunder two days after your post. The bombshell, it would appear, is her own -- the "assassination" remark now heard around the world. I have a hunch that any of the on-the-fence super delegates have now teetered away from Clinton. She's got the whole country shaking its collective head. It's a shame.
Friday, May 23, 2008 11:27:00 PM
I agree. As you may have noticed, about 20 minutes ago I posted a long essay on my disappointment in the Clintons.
I should say, just to be clear, that the term "Death Watch" referred to her campaign and not to herself.
It is sad to realize that in this country there are those who would assassinate a strong black man simply for being strong and black, and could conceivably be those who would take him out for going up against a woman.
I think Hillary was incredibly tone-deaf in her comment, but worse, she gave one of those non-apologies. Not a "mea culpa, I was tired, what was I thinking, I'm so sorry" but the tepid "if my remarks were offensive, I'm sorry". IF? There's no question, Senator.
Near the anniversary of that assassination, within a week of one of the closest living relatives of the assassinated having been given a horrific diagnosis, and running against a man who does run the very real risk merely by his success of being assassinated by some racist scum, that apology should have been complete, unreserved and heart-felt, or as near to it as she could convincingly portray.
I think (or at least, if there's any justice in the world) she's just put the final nail into her political career.
Liam.
Friday, May 23, 2008 11:55:00 PM
I had posted before you posted your commentary on this latest (you must have been typing when I was! lol ). And I knew your "death watch" comment pertained to her campaign. I had just watched Olbermann's commentary online before posting here. It was interesting how Olbermann reiterated how time and again the American public has forgiven many of her campaign blunders, how they could even forgive this if it weren't for her non-apology.
Saturday, May 24, 2008 12:42:00 AM
Yeah, Olbermann is one of the chief reasons I don't blog as much as I used to. There was a time when I felt there was a message that wasn't getting out there.
Now Olbermann is becoming more popular and he's giving voice to some of these issues, often much more eloquently than I could, and so I find my urge to write is dampened when I've already seen someone say the things I'd like to say, better, more completely and better researched than I would.
Liam.
Saturday, May 24, 2008 2:32:00 AM
Hey, don't sell yourself short. First of all, I found your "Growing Pains" piece amazing, as some of the others. Besides, a drumroll of two or many is much more effective than the drumroll of one. Don't stop. You have your own unique perspective. I come to your blog for information and insights.
Saturday, May 24, 2008 8:07:00 AM
Liam --
I just wanted to say that I don't really disagree that Obama is likely to be chosen as candidate. I just believe that the Clinton campaign had good reason to remain in the race.
Now all bets are off. This assasination thing seems serious. Perhaps they really ought to turn tail at this point.
Sunday, May 25, 2008 12:51:00 AM
Ross,
I know. I was just trying to make the point that I have heard you, even though I disagree, so you didn't have to come in here and tell the world where my logic was unsound again. :-)
Seriously, I do think the assassination SHOULD be the end of it, but... I also think it won't be. The electorate at large has an astoundingly tin ear on some things and is hypersensitive to others. This will probably blow over as a minor issue (perhaps a little too subtle for most to pick up), while the lapel flag pin remains a fairly major one in some circles.
The thing is, I do understand her arguments, I just don't think they've traditionally been seen as strong enough ones to continue damaging the party in the way that I think she is doing.
Her latest argument (spoken yesterday or Friday by her husband) is that if you count MI and FL, neither candidate can acheive a majority of the elected delegates, but the math on that requires that FL and MI be counted at full strength, and exactly as cast. By exactly as cast, I mean that Clinton needs to be awarded about 55% of the delegates in MI and NONE to Obama (because he didn't take any votes).
But the core of her argument for seating MI and FL is that those votes reflect the will of the masses there. When Obama, Edwards, Biden and Richardson were not even on the ballot in MI, there's simply no way to convincingly argue that, but without taking a 55%/0% lead in MI, her argument falls apart.
It just strikes me as fundamental dishonesty... which is I guess a part of politics, but stands in fairly stark contrast to what I believe I've seen out of the Obama campaign.
So I guess a lot of it comes down not to "should" Hillary get out, but is she just ticking me off enough that I wish she'd go away. :-)
Liam.
P.S. Linda, thanks for the nice words!
Sunday, May 25, 2008 8:43:00 AM
For lack of anything better to do this morning, I crunched some numbers...
Without FL and MI, there are a total of 3247 elected delegates to be had in the Democratic primary. This puts the "elected delegate" victory number at 1624 delegates. Obama is sitting at 1656.5 and Clinton at 1502.5 (I still haven't figured out where those half delegates came from).
With FL and MI counted fully, the total available is 3561 and the number required for an elected delegate win is 1781.
With FL and MI counted half, the total drops to 3404 and the winning count to 1703.
It's of course up to each of us to figure out how we think it would be most fair to seat (or not) the FL and MI delegates, but I think it's safe to say that there's not much legitimacy to the argument that MI is both legitimate and fair and should be fully counted AND that Obama should receive no delegates.
Liam.
Monday, May 26, 2008 11:12:00 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home