« Hillary Raises $2.5 Million Since Victory Was Declared Tonight | Home | Will Obama Campaign Start Hitting Hillary Over Whitewater And Cattle Futures? »
The Latest Delegate And Popular Vote Breakdowns Out Of Pennsylvania
Here's are MSNBC's most recent numbers tallying up the breakdown of Pennsylvania's 158 delegates:
Hillary 75Obama 65
Not allocated yet 18
According to MSNBC's political team, Obama now leads by 156 pledged delegates: 1,482-1,326.
And the current superdelegate total is Clinton 262, Obama 237.
That means that Obama now leads by 131 delegates overall: 1,719-1,588.
Other networks have different counts. Total required to win: 2,025.
Meanwhile, here's the Associated Press' popular vote breakdown of yesterday's vote, with 99% reporting:
Hillary 1,258,245Obama 1,042,296
Our handy Election Central calculator tells us that gives Hillary a net popular-vote gain of 215,949.
Advertisement
Greg:
The popular vote metric is irrelevant since it excludes at least 15 contests where pledged delegates were awarded. The Clintons propose that as a metric because it (1) allows them to argue for Florida and Michigan and (2) makes the caucus results irrelevant.
The only metric that measures the "will of the people" in this Democratic contest would be pledged delegates. Any other number is contrived.
April 23, 2008 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
And they can't argue that they got the popular vote in Michigan, since Clinton was the only leading candidate on the ballot.
April 23, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The popular vote metric is irrelevant..."
I think it's probably relevant to some superdelegates. The Clinton campaign is really pushing this metric, so Obama will need to counter it more effectively, I think. Chuck Todd did a piece last night where he illustrated that, counting Florida (but not Michigan), Hillary needs to find about 200,000 more votes in the coming contests to overtake Obama in the popular vote. Even then it will be up to the superdelegates.
April 23, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
And then he turned right around suggests that it does count.
The media needs to be taken to task for promoting the fictional Hillary path to the nomination story. It doesn't exist.
The electability arguments don't wash either. To suggest that Obama cannot win certain demographics is specious because you have two candidates who are in effect splitting the vote. This is not a race where Clinton runs against McCain and that is measured to see which groups she pulls, and then Obama runs against McCain and we see which groups he wins. We're not comparing apples to apples.
April 23, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Something nobody's mentioning, but I just confirmed from a Philly Inquirer article that the total number of registered Dems in PA is 4.1 million. The latest raw totals on CNN show that 2,300,542 voted in the primary -- a hair more than half of those registered. So what happened to the other half?
Well, if the message boards of my old hometown newspaper in southwestern PA are any indication, those folks either didn't vote, or voted only in their local elections. They don't care for either candidate (and this is in John Murtha's district, interestingly). They despise Bush, but they're planning to vote for McCain in November -- and they don't particularly like him, either! Very complex group of people. They call themselves Democrats, but they are barely Democrats by most measures.
So, if they don't like anyone at all, as it seems, I'm wondering how many will stay home in November?
April 23, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the "popular" vote that keeps getting talked about is mostly a myth and I wish it wouldn't be talked about anymore.
This is the primary. This is not Bush v. Gore. It's the fracking primary and there is no real popular vote. How can there be? He wasn't even on the ballot in Mi, and it doesn't count. Florida broke the rules, too, so their votes are in limbo.
there is no real popular vote. Jesus. It's Clinton-Speak.
April 23, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Which is 54.7 to 45.3 which is 9.4.
If our journalists are too stupid to do math, why do we trust them with any analysis at all?
April 23, 2008 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fantastic question. I'm growling every time I hear or see someone say "10-point victory" or "double-digit margin," and rapidly turning hoarse.
Also worth noting that The Green Papers is projecting a final split of 84-74. They're pretty clever, and I'd bet they've got that right. If so, we'll stick with the present 10-delegate margin. Interesting question of the morning: can Obama roll out 11 superdelegates to erase the advantage? We've got one so far (OK Guv) and more are rumored in NC.
April 23, 2008 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fly, I certainly hope that the rumors of supers on tap for Obama are true and that they start rolling out as of today. That may be the only way that the Clinton campaign gets the message that her claim of "momentum" is a false one and that it was she who couldn't seal the deal since she was expected to win PA handily. It is important to remember that Obama was never expected to win PA - we were told ad nauseum that the state was tailor-made for Clinton and yet she couldn't pull off more than a 9% victory there. Yes, she lives to fight another day but she exhausted her resources in PA just to win, she's in debt, and the alleged $2.5M that she raised last night won't go a long way. The supers have to take all of this into account, don't you think?
April 23, 2008 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
haha, really pissed, aren't you. just picking away.
heard hills has raised $2.5 mil since last night. ;)
April 23, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hope she uses it to pay off some of her creditors, then because they have been bragging about that to the point of folly - inasmuch as they owe money across the country.
They're gonna get sued if they don't pay some bills.
April 23, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fail
April 23, 2008 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
In pundit praise of Hillary, I keep hearing "Barack can't close the deal."
BUT, what deal is Hillary closing? SHE CAN'T WIN THIS. She lost the nomination more than a month ago.
Obama closed the Deal a month ago [.]
April 23, 2008 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I heard only one person on TV last night actually say, "But Hillary can't close the deal, either, and she started out way ahead." Excellent point. She's the brand name, she had all the money, all the name recognition, the big party machine behind her, yet this upstart has kept her on the run and prevented her from "closing the deal" at every turn, including her "big states." So what this means is, basically, Dems are pretty evenly divided.
April 23, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
So she cut into his delegate lead by 11 (based on the delegates allocated so far), which will be eradicated with his win in NC. At what point does the Clinton campaign face the reality of these hard numbers? At what point do the superdelegates (and the party) tell her that it simply is not possible for her, regardless of her moving goalposts and alternate-universe calculations of popular vote (which includes Florida even though she agreed to the DNC rules) and "big states"? Does it come after NC? According to Chuck Todd she will have to win 80% of all delegates in the upcoming primaries to overtake his lead - that is a mathematical impossibility and someone has to sit her down and give it to her straight. Dragging this out until June (or, G*d(des) help us, the convention) is really going to hurt us in November, I fear.
April 23, 2008 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
It already has hurt the Democratic Party.
April 23, 2008 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a pretty good breakdown by spreadsheet of the remaining delegate math:
Clinton's impossible destruction derby-
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=prPmm9XFdTjgHCLlXR8maHw
April 23, 2008 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is a wonderful spreadsheet - all Hillary supporters (and superdelegates) should take a good, hard look at it and understand that she needs 85.2% of all remaining delegates (pledged and super) to win the nomination outright. There's no way on earth she will be able to do it. All of the fuzzy math in the world is not going to clinch this for her. It's over and it's been over for a while - she's just running on fumes now and dragging the Democratic nominee and the party down with her.
April 23, 2008 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
The remaining few precincts are all from Philadelphia. So I bet the final number will be more like 210 or 205K, and the spread will be about 9%.
Obama kept it under double digits, and he improved with white voters, older voters, and working class voters compared to the recent contest in Ohio. The demographics in Pennsylvania worked against him, but he still proved he could improve in those groups. Now onward to Indiana and North Carolina.
April 23, 2008 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're right, but it won't matter because journalists don't care if they're accurate, just if they get the story they want. In this case it's that HRC won by double digits. "Who cares what the facts are. We'll just make some stuff up because Americans are too stupid to know the difference".
April 23, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure this take of the AP having more accurate numbers than the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is something to take at face value. I mean, where does the AP get their numbers? Greg Sargent fails to mention and my inquiring mind would want to know that before I say, oh right. It doesn't make much difference. We're talking about decimal point shifts, but I for one don't take the AP for the horse's mouth either.
April 23, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing changes. Obama will go into the Convention with a lead in delegates (pledged and supers). Which raised the question of what the point of all this bullshit is anymore, other than to help elect McSame.
Today's editorial in The New York Times, which as we know, endorsed Hillary, says it all:
April 23, 2008 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
And this is from the paper that endorsed her!!! She won't listen, though - evidently a 9% victory is a "mandate" to her to continue throwing sh*t to see what sticks. Very sad - there are a lot of people in New York who are not going to be happy with her when she runs for the Senate in 2012 (count me among them). If she truly cares about her future and her legacy she will stop this nonsense now and think about what's good for the party.
April 23, 2008 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
In her mind, everything she is doing is good for her future and the party. It's called narcissism.
April 23, 2008 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but the Shill has no intention whatsoever of running for re-election in 2012. Her only goal for the past two months has been to bloody Obama, hand the election to McSame, and claim her "rightful" throne at 1600 Penn. Ave. in January 2013. Sad to say, for the immediate time being, her evil machinations appear to have some traction.
April 23, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Keep in mind that the Times was preparing to endorse Obama until one of Hillary's big backers went and leaned on them. I'm sorry I can't remember the guy's name or link to where I read that about a week ago, but the dude is some big money banker type. So it's not as if Hillary was first choice of the Times, or that their endorsement of her under duress will stop them from pointing out the obvious.
April 23, 2008 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's time for the remaining undecided superdelegates to say ENOUGH and knock "The Thing That Wouldn't Die" out of the race. Any which way you look at the numbers it is impossible for her to win the delegate count/popular vote. If she steals the nomination the democrats will lose forever their African-American base. Why aren't the party leaders getting thru to her???
April 23, 2008 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's a hilarious avatar.
April 23, 2008 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also from today's New York Times:
April 23, 2008 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not quite the "Comeback Kid" narrative HRC was hoping for....
April 23, 2008 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah - they called her campaign vacuous, desperate and mean.
And I think for once the NYT got it just right.
April 23, 2008 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just curious, how does the AP have better numbers than the official Pennsylvania website?
http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/ElectionsInformation.aspx?FunctionID=12&ElectionID=27
April 23, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Talk about a pyrrhic victory!
All that money for nothing, essentially.
April 23, 2008 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
She didn't make a comeback so much as she grabbed the door jam on her way out.
April 23, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just win the remaining contests by 71%, it's that simple. If she's as great as the Clinton supporters claim she is, it should be no problem. Don't whine about MI and FL, don't cry about electability, just beat him by the rules you agreed to at the beginning of the contest. Close the deal.
April 23, 2008 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
40 densely populated Philadelphia precincts have not yet reported, so the margin is likely to drop to 46/54.
April 23, 2008 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
O yeah? I like the sound of that.
April 23, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are also 4-5 precincts in the next county over that have not reported. These counties went heavily to Obama so he likely to pick up a good bit there.
April 23, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why would this article use the AP numbers over those reported by the PA Department of State?
According to http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/:
CLINTON, HILLARY (DEM) - 1,237,221 - 54.3%
OBAMA, BARACK (DEM) - 1,042,893 - 45.7%
With 9,203 out of 9,264 Districts (99.34%) Reporting Statewide
Which is an 8.6% spread. If only my former professors would have seen fit to round up my 86 scores to 100 or more. You're a generous grader Greg.
As for the NY Times article, the only part I want folks to pay attention to is this:
Which I suspect is what is going to happen. Once the PA results have been given a chance to cool off, but hopefully somewhat in advance of the Indiana and NC primaries, the Supers should start stepping in and saying "enough." That will allow the voters in Indiana and NC to legitimize the Supers choice, and put this thing to bed.
April 23, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Greg -
I see you're citing 2,025 as the needed delegate total to win. I know the number dropped to 2,024 after some superdelegates lost their status, either via death or resignation of their public office, but then there have been some special elections to replace some vacancies. Is the total now back up to 2,025?
April 23, 2008 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also? The NY Times opinion should not have been titled "The Low Road to Victory". A better title would have been "The Low Road to Defeat".
April 23, 2008 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Greg:
Could we please get an update on Hillary's magical transformation of an 8.6 point victory into a "double-digit" win. I'm still under the impression that blogs are here as an antidote to stupid media scripts, not as their enablers. Either correct your story or acknowledge that all you're doing is repeating the lines penned by your betters at AP, CNN, Fox, etc. There's no reason to rely on AP's vote tally when there is a primary source at hand.
http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/
April 23, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
What I don't understand is how CNN has
Clinton 1,258,245, Obama 1,042,297 and the SoS of PA has Clinton 1,237,696 and Obama 1,043,174.
That's the PA SoS having Obama +877 from CNN's numbers and Clinton -20,549 from CNN. Now I can see one not being updated but how can this be?
Clinton won, I'm just asking, not complaining or boasting.
April 23, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yesterday, I finally came up with an analogy that I think fits. The nomination fight is like a boxing match - one of the old timey ones that went WAY more than 12 rounds. Clinton opened with a flurry trying to score a KO, but Obama fought her to a draw in the early rounds. Clinton then had very little left for the middle rounds, and Obama built a point lead that was impossible to overcome (absent a late KO).
Clinton gets a second wind, goes for the KO in the late rounds. She even wins a few rounds, negligibly cutting into his lead in points. But she doesn't knock him out, or even come close.
Even in a sport as historically crooked as boxing, the judges wouldn't give the title to Clinton just because Obama didn't knock her out. He doesn't NEED to knock her out, since he has a huge point lead. He just needs to avoid letting his guard down and get KO'd himself.
That's a long way of saying that Obama doesn't need to get down in the mud with the Clintons. As the old saying goes, you shouldn't get into the mud with a pig. You'll just get dirty, and the pig will like it.
April 23, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your analogy is good, but unfortunately overlooks an important component, which is the preconceived bias that boxing judges come in with. Put simply, Clinton was the "Champ" coming in, and Obama just a contender. In a title fight, the old conventional wisdom is that you can't win a decision off of the champ to win the title, you have to knock him (her) out. Many a good technical boxing performance went for naught as the champ walked away with the belt they didn't deserve anymore simply because one group (the judges) had their own standards for what the rules meant.
April 23, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
OBAMATONS SAY PLAY BY THE RULES. THE RULES SAY 2025 (?2024 WITH RECENT LOSSES OF NY AND PR GOVS) OBAMA HAS THE POTENTIAL TO REMAKE POLITICS FOR THE BETTER, IF HE CAN WIN. THE PROFESSIONALS KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT BETTER THAN THE COLLECTION OF IGNORAMUSES ON THIS SITE. IF OBAMA IS GOOD ENOUGH, IT WILL BE EASIER FOR THE AUTOMATIC (SUPER)DELEGATES TO PUT HIM RATHER THAN HER ACROSS THE FINISH LINE. IN THE MEANTIME, EVERYWHERE THIS ROADSHOW GOES, PEOPLE COME OUT OF THE WOODWORK TO JOIN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. PEOPLE WHO THINK THIS IS THE DIRTIEST CAMPAIGN THEY HAVE EVER SEEN ARE LIMITED BY THE FACT THAT IT IS THE ONLY CAMPAIGN THEY HAVE EVER SEEN. LIGHTEN UP AND ENJOY; IT'S ONLY APRIL.
April 23, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
CAPS LOCK off please. Otherwise you seem like a ranting crazy person.
April 23, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
how shallow and pathetic
April 23, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bzzt, bruno. Basic netiquette says that typing in ALL CAPS is SHOUTING. (Although, IME, what it really shouts is I AM AN IDIOT WHO DOESN'T KNOW HOW TO PUNCTUATE OR CAPITALIZE.) Moreover, there's a reason we have capital and lowercase letters: ALL CAPS is incredibly difficult to read. Dorn76 is absolutely correct. Use lowercase appropriately if you expect to be taken seriously.
April 24, 2008 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
The most bogus argument that Scarborough and Buchanan and others push is that HE can't seal the deal.
Hillary is the one who can't seal the deal. She started this race with an over 80% market share and she lost it despite having truckloads of money and being a well-established 'brand' name for the past 15 years. She is unable to seal thedeal against a rookie Senator who was unknown 4 years ago. It is Clinton who is unable to seal the deal. Obama has fought her outstandingly.
The money he spends does not tell the story of how he loss. He is Cola Royale and she is Coca-Cola. Of course he has to outspend her just to break into the market and for him to be running neck and neck with her is phenomenal.
These pundits get on my nerve talking about Obama not being able to seal the deal when a former President is campaigning with her in every darn district in these states he follows Obama like a bee looking for nectar.
The truth is that Obama is giving the Clintons the political fight of their lives and for people to be casting this in the light of he can't seal the deal is a failure to acknowledge how fantastic he has done and how poorly they have campaigned. The Clintons were supposed to have had this wrapped up on SuperTues and Hillary told the nation that in Dec 2007...she said it would be over by Feb 4th.
Why are the pundits not asking Hillary why this race is still going on when she said it was supposed to be done in Febrauray...why has Hill failed to seal the deal. She is the status quo and he is the challenger.
Ask Hillary why she can't seal the deal. It is just another string of failures for her just like the colossal healthcare failure, her failure to read the NIE report, her failure to plan to win delegates instead of states and her failure to demand a plan to secure the peace when she voted for Bush's war.
Hillary has not ever sealed the deal on anything. She has not ever won anything against the GOP either. She claims to be such a good fighter against the GOP yet she has not beat them once. She is just still standing and fighting but she has no wins.
So why can't Hillary seal the deal with Bill in tow? She had all the advantages and yet she is having to slug it out in a no win fight to Denver while her and Bill once again pull the Democratic party down in the bushes and reduce it to shambles with her and Bill's divisiveness just like they did in the WH.
Obama needs to start talking about the demise of the Democratic party that began with the Clintons winning the WH and how the party loss the majority and Bill was unable to govern due to all the scandals.
The Clintons are bad news for the Democratic party and the sooner the superdelegates wake up and realize it the better off the party and nation will be.
Hillary 'can'tsealthedeal' Clinton needs to suspend her campaign. TODAY.
April 23, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama got the endorsement of superdelegate Brad Henry this morning (Governor of Oklahoma).
April 23, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Face it, a win for her is IMPOSSIBLE, period:
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/04/pennsylvania-results.html
April 23, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Looks like shenanigans in 40 mostly black precincts in Philadelphia. Their results are being held up for some reason.
April 23, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
The best place to keep track of delegates and superdelegates is:
http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/
Democratic Convention Watch
They keep track of everything, including add-ons, on or off depending on if a superdelegate moves to another state etc.
I don't think that they have updated yet today for the NC Edwards supporters who just endorsed Obama (49 of them). I believe that the list includes 3 new representatives to the Obama list.
April 23, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink