« John Edwards is not a superdelegate | Ben's Blog | Is it wrong to encourage certain friends to vote 3rd party? »
Obama has pledged delegate majority, including MI & FL (sort of)
Putting aside your feelings about including MI & FL, I think it's interesting to look at the total delegate count as it stands now if you include them. Including MI & FL gives us the following pledged delegate math:
Total pledged delegates: 3566
Needed for a majority: 1783.5
Number Obama has outright: 1725.5
including uncommitted: 1780.5
and Edwards' dels: 1800.5
Including the uncommitted and Edward's delegates is not unreasonable considering that Edwards has endorsed him, and (I believe) every Edwards pledged delegate that has changed so far has gone to Obama. The uncommitted delegates were also almost all undoubtedly intended for either Obama or Edwards, so that just continues the point. Even just giving him Michigan's uncommitted delegates would put him within 3, which I think it's safe to say he'll get in any one of the remaining contests, let alone all of them.
This doesn't answer the question about whether to seat and MI & FL (and if to seat, how many to seat), but it does change the context somewhat. Really, the only concerns now are setting a bad precedent vs. upsetting two states that we really want to vote for us.
Total pledged delegates: 3566
Needed for a majority: 1783.5
Number Obama has outright: 1725.5
including uncommitted: 1780.5
and Edwards' dels: 1800.5
Including the uncommitted and Edward's delegates is not unreasonable considering that Edwards has endorsed him, and (I believe) every Edwards pledged delegate that has changed so far has gone to Obama. The uncommitted delegates were also almost all undoubtedly intended for either Obama or Edwards, so that just continues the point. Even just giving him Michigan's uncommitted delegates would put him within 3, which I think it's safe to say he'll get in any one of the remaining contests, let alone all of them.
This doesn't answer the question about whether to seat and MI & FL (and if to seat, how many to seat), but it does change the context somewhat. Really, the only concerns now are setting a bad precedent vs. upsetting two states that we really want to vote for us.
Advertisement
Ben:
What don't you get?
States like KY and WV are important.
States like IA are not.
Why are you still counting all states equally? There are weighting factors, clearly laid out in Hillary's playbook, that you haven't taken into account.
Attributes include:
Primary vs Caucus
Early vs Late Primaries
States Dems win in GE vs States GOPers win in GE
States where your name was on the ballot vs Not
And on and on.
I expected a more careful analysis.
May 21, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now, now. Remember the magical unity pony and unity baby. We don't want to make unity baby fussy! ;)
May 21, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! I made a correct prediction. Mark the calendar.
On Feb 13 I predicted that even with MI and FL seated Obama would win the pledged delegate race.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/02/michigan-and-florida-will-be-s.php
May 21, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
However if it is allowed to get so close Hillary will then make her case that since the pledged delegates are not really pledged and since the SD's could change their minds at any time that the only right thing to do is to see things through to the convention floor votes.
Obama has a mere 157 pledged delegate lead, if you give Hillary her wins in either state and give Obama his number in FLA and all of the undecided voters in MI(which Hillary is fighting), and all of a sudden Obama's lead in pledged delegates is under 100.
Hillary's next plan of attack would be to claim that a certain number of Obama pledged delegates have jumped to her side. If she could convince,or have Haim Saban convince (if you know what I mean) 50 pledged delegates to switch, then it would be virtually a tie.
May 21, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink