« New McCain Ad: "Big Ideas For Serious Problems" | Home | McCain To Pitch Tax Cuts, Hit Obama's "Audacity" Of Tax Increases »
CQ: Clinton On Track For Only A Small Delegate Win In Pennsylvania
Although Hillary Clinton has an edge in Pennsylvania polls, an analysis by CQ shows that the current numbers would not project out to a huge delegate advantage. Of the 103 pledged delegates distributed at the district level -- another 55 will be allocated by statewide popular vote -- Clinton so far has an advantage of only 53 delegates to Obama's 50.
Assuming the statewide delegates closely match with the district votes, Clinton will need to seriously increase her lead at all levels in order to really put any kind of dent in Obama's pledged-delegate advantage.
Advertisement
Election Inspection predicts a better split for Clinton - 55/48, with an overall of Clinton +14 after state-wide delegates are added in.
April 15, 2008 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Super duper, she still doesn't come anywhere near the, oh, 150 or so she needs to catch up to Obama, not to mention he'll make those up in NC.
3-14 isn't anywhere near 150. She is over. The sooner her supporters realize this, and start thinking about the Democratic Party again, we can get on with this and take down the Republicans in a big way. Sooner rather than later would be nice..
April 15, 2008 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
As most of you Obama supporters secretly know, this race isn't about a pledged delegated lead, but about reaching the required number of *convention* delegates. Obama won't have enough pledged delegates to win the race unless *he* wins the remaining states by over 20%, so superdelegates will come into play. They can use whichever metrics they feel appropriate to decide who to vote for. One of these may be the popular vote, and a big win in PA will do more to swing that in Hillary's favour than the pledged delegate count.
April 15, 2008 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's currently leading by 143 *convention* delegates, not just pledged delegates. I fully expect that by mid-June he will have the 2,025 delegates necessary (including unpledged delegates, of course) to wrap this thing up.
April 15, 2008 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does Hillary still have a net-loss of SDs since Super Tuesday?
April 15, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is currently the case, Ben, although the beauty of superdelegates is that they can freely change their mind. Although this has favoured Obama up until now, we can't augur what may happen between now and June. Hillary coming off a string of big wins, and at the same time taking the lead in the popular vote, could convince 60 or 70 of Obama's supers to switch back to her, which would likely be enough to give her more convention delegates.
I agree, of course, that it's more likely Obama will win the nomination, but this contest isn't as foregone a conclusion as many here seem to have deluded themselves into believing.
April 15, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, of course, that it's more likely Obama will win the nomination, but this contest isn't as foregone a conclusion as many here seem to have deluded themselves into believing.
At least you're able/willing to say that. Seriously.
I don't know if it's possible for Hillary to string together a bunch of big wins, since there really aren't enough primaries left (and Obama is heavily favored in NC and OR) but as I've said all along, if Hillary is somehow able to take the popular vote lead (not counting MI and FL, obviously) then all bets are off.
April 15, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
More foregone that many have deluded themselves into disbelieving.
April 15, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, I know quite openly that Obama or Clinton will need the super delegates to win the nomination. I would submit that the popular vote in a primary contest in a few states will not be enough at this stage of the primary.
One would have to accept that a primary election in a state accurately forecasts the general election. Where is the proof of that?
April 15, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
An excellent point. Indeed, I wonder if the Clinton supporters who advance this argument have really thought it through thoroughly enough. After all, Obama has already beaten her in WI, MN and WA and is on track to beat her in OR. These four states (which went for Kerry in 2004 and Gore in 2000) amount to 28 electoral votes all totaled, more than Ohio's 20 or Pennsylvania's 21. If the thesis that the candidate who loses a swing state in the primary cannot possibly win it in the general is sound as their thesis holds, then Clinton has as much as lost already, because swinging OH into the blue column avails to nothing if those four swing red at the same time.
April 15, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I wonder if the Clinton supporters who advance this argument have really thought it through thoroughly enough."
Greg, please. You are an intellgent man (if way too forgiving of the mendacity and vicousness of Clinton and her supporters). But the Clinton camp doesn't "think," as you and I undertsand the term. They look for clubs to bash Obama with and then use them until their arms are so tired they can't lift them anymore.
They've been making this "only Clinton can win the bigs states that matter because she won them in the primary" argument since Super Tuesday, at least. They will continue to make it because, while it's a ridiculous conclusion from any logical perspective, it supports their candidate and has an air of "truthiness" about it.
That is where their "thought" begins and ends.
April 15, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not quite sure what you're trying to show by cherry-picking a few states here Greg, but if the Democratic primary were treated as a general election, thus far Hillary would have more electoral college delegates than Obama due to her "big state" wins.
April 15, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I am trying to show is that it is pointless to treat the primary as if it were the general election. A candidate can win a state's primary and lose that state in the GE. A candidate can lose a state's primary and win that state in the GE. The primary win/loss record tells us little to nothing about a candiate's chances of carrying that state in the fall, so the "big state electability" argument is a worthless lot of nonsense. That is the point I am trying to make.
April 15, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a growing number of Obama supporters secretly suspect, Hillary is no longer interested winning in 2008. She is clinging to the hope that she can damage Obama bad enough so that he'll loose the general election against McCain. Thus giving her an open path to running again in 2012.
April 15, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have heard this sabotage 08 and run for 12 strategy floated several times. To me, that doesn't make sense.
First, why would she be giving McCain potential talking points he could use in 12? Second, the damage and ill-will now being engendered within party will not soon be forgotten... its hard to imagine a succesful Clintin run in 4 years if she is seen by many to have committed fratricide in the run up to 08.
April 15, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain has said he's running only for one term. That said, I don't buy that theory either. I think Clinton is convinced Obama would lose to McCain, but she wouldn't. It's that simple.
April 15, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
And as most of you Hillary supporters ought to know, but apparently don't, if the superdelegates overturn the outcome of the primaries, all Hell will break loose within the party and Hillary will not be able to win the general.
Hillary's best case scenario: arrive in Denver behind in the pledged delegate count, behind in the total delegate count, and with a mere argument that if you count the popular votes the way she says they should be counted--i.e. include Michigan and Florida, giving Obama credit for none of the votes for "uncommitted" in Michigan, and don't count caucus vote from states that don't release an official attendance/voting total.
Behind in the pledged delegates, behind in total delegates, arguably behind in the popular vote. If she wins the nomination anyway, there is no way for the people who support Obama won't call that a stolen election. Democrats are kind of touchy about stolen elections. It's a sore subject with us. If Hillary was ahead and Obama stole the nomination, you'd feel the same way.
Would there be riots? I doubt it. Some superdelegates seem to think so, however. But if you think for a minute that African Americans are going to turn out to vote for the white lady who stole the election from Obama for their own good, because she knows what's best for them, you're crazy. If you think the kids who have gotten engaged in politics for the first time because of Obama are going to turn out for him, you're crazy. And if you think more than half of his other supporters would vote for her under those circumstances, well, you're crazy. And if you think anyone but you guys are buying this "a delegate is a delegate" thing, well, you're not crazy, but you are indulging in the wrongheaded contempt for the voters' intelligence that is at the heart of the Clintonista ideology.
And yet, obliviously you Clintonistas sail on, sublimely certain that once Mommy Dearest steals the nominated, everyone will see that she just had their best interests at heart and will come back into the fold. Indeed, in the more extreme form of the delusion, you guys will just change the principles of mathematics.
April 15, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
We've been saying all along in these comments for the past three weeks that Clinton needs to win by 20% in order to actually increase the delegate lead out of Pennsylvania.
April 15, 2008 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
As far as Hillary silly ideas of catching up to Obama in the pledged delegate count, a classic "Queen" song comes to mind --
Another One Bites the Dust!
April 15, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cue Marginal Intellect to shout at us about how Hillary's going to win PA by over 20% and go on to win the nomination....
April 15, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
After all of this breathless PA campaigning, Hillary is like a hamster running on a wheel...goin nowehere.
April 15, 2008 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
sorry, I meant "nowhere". Nowehere is somewhere in Western PA, and full of bitter small town folks.
April 15, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yup, it's down yonder past the holler near where I live.
April 15, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Standing ovation to TCFKNA NC Steve for this:
April 15, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Foreigner said:
Why is it that some people want to believe that there is no connection between the pledge delegates, super delegates and wining the nomination?
First, while the pledge delegates can't outright win the nomination for either candidate, they can certainly give on the lead. Imagine the super bowl with one team spotted 14 points. Sure that does not guarantee victory, but it really, really, really helps.
Second, Super Delegates WILL take the pledge delegates into account when casting their vote. If Hillary is worried about disenfranchising the voters of Michigan and Florida, imagine how disenfranchised ALL the primary voters would be to see their votes overturned. That electability problem is orders of magnitude greater than anything Clinton can dream up about Obama.
Continuing the football analogy, Hillary would like everyone to believe that the state primary races are the regular season, and the convention is the post season where the records gets reset. That simply is not the case, but I can understand why she is trying to sell it. She needs a Hail Mary pass to have a chance at winning.
April 15, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am standing up typing this. Yes, ovation for NCSteve, who has one of the best minds on these threads.
April 15, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
of course this can only be about the supers.
hillary the entitled believes she alone is worthy of the nomination.
and i certainly agree that her strategy is to make Obama as weak against crazy mccain as possible.
she is willing to wait 4 years but if Obama gets elected she will never get the second chance.
thats why she is running as a republican.
why mccain is only attacking Obama, because she is doing his work for him.
and he can run against Obama just by repeating "well my friends, this is what hillary clinton said about Obama"
get it??
where the hell is the backbone of the democratic party to end this womans destruction of Obama the party and the democrats chances to make big gains in the coming general election??
April 15, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink