Mavs<Spurs
05-16-2008, 05:14 AM
Clinton’s New 2208 Florida/Michigan Math
Suppose that we agree to seat the Florida / Michigan delegates according to the original election, awarding Obama the uncommitted votes. Suppose that Clinton wins Kentucky by 67 to 33 margin. Suppose that Obama wins Oregon by 54 to 46. Suppose that they tie in Montana and South Dakota. Suppose that Clinton wins Puerto Rico 63 to 37. Then Obama would have 1812 pledged delegates. Clinton would have 1736.5 pledged delegates. That would give Barack Obama 51.06 % of the pledged delegates. It would give Hillary Clinton 48.94 % of the pledged delegates. Barack Obama’s pledged delegate margin as a percentage would be 2.12 %. On a graph where the y axis begins at zero, the difference would look minimal. As an absolute number, he would have exactly 75.5 more pledged delegates than she would. He has 297.5 SuperDelegates. She has 273 SuperDelegates. He would have exactly 2108.5 total delegates. She would have 2009.5 total delegates. As a percentage, he would have 51.2 % of the total delegates. As a percentage, she would have 48.8 % of the total delegates. Then, he would have 2.4 % more total delegates than she would. On a graph where the y axis started at zero, this difference would look minimal. As an absolute number, he would have exactly 99 more total delegates than she would. He would need 99.5 more SuperDelegates. She would need 198.5 more SuperDelegates. He would need 50 % as many SuperDelegates as she would. There would remain 224.5 uncommitted SuperDelegates. He would need 44.1 % of the remaining SuperDelegates. She would need 88.42 % of the remaining SuperDelegates. Apart from those SuperDelegates, he would have 95.5 % of the total delegates he needs, apart from the remaining SuperDelegates. So, without those remaining uncommitted SuperDelegates, he would remain 4.5% short of his goal. Without those remaining uncommitted SuperDelegates, she would have 91 % of the total delegates she needs. So, she would remain 9 % short of her goal. On a graph with a y axis that begins at zero, this difference would appear minimal. Looking at the graph, if it started at zero, the total number of delegates earned by the candidates would look quite close. It would look as if the difference in who got the most SuperDelegates had a greater influence upon who won the nomination than who earned the most pledged delegates. Let us suppose that Obama garnered the support of the remaining 99 uncommitted SuperDelegates he needed to get to 2208. Let us suppose that the remaining 125.5 uncommitted SuperDelegates went to Clinton. Senator Clinton would, then, have 2135 total delegates. Senator Obama would, then, have 2208 total delegates. The difference would be 73 total delegates. The number of SuperDelegates in this process would be 10.89 times as much as the difference in total delegates. He would, then, have garnered 50.84 % of the total delegates. She would have garnered 49.16 % of the total delegates. Obama would have won 1.68 % more total delegates than Senator Clinton did. On a graph with a y axis which begins at zero, this margin would appear minimal. The 795 SuperDelegates would compose 18.31 % of the total delegates.
Clinton’s goal, in this scenario, would be to convince 88.42 % of the remaining uncommitted SuperDelegates that they are free to vote their conscience. She would use the above data to attempt to convince those SuperDelegates that since the contest is this close (with Obama winning only 75.5 more pledged delegates in a contest to obtain 2208 [3.4 %]), they are free to utilize the power granted them by the rules and vote their conscience.
She will state that it is known that she will perform better against McCain than Obama in Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Florida. She will say that it is certain that she will win Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania. She will say that it is unclear if Obama will win Ohio or Pennsylvania. She will say that it is clear that he won’t win West Virginia. She will say that she will be more competitive in Florida than he will. She will say also attempt to use some version of the popular vote. Several versions of this statistic are presented below:
Popular Vote Count
State Date Obama Clinton Spread
Popular Vote Total 16,104,613 49.3% 15,511,003 47.5% Obama +593,610 +1.8%
Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 16,438,697 49.3% 15,734,865 47.2% Obama +703,832 +2.1%
Popular Vote (w/FL) 16,680,827 48.4% 16,381,989 47.6% Obama +298,838 +0.8%
Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 17,014,911 48.5% 16,605,851 47.3% Obama +409,060 +1.2%
Popular Vote (w/FL & MI)** 16,680,827 47.6% 16,710,298 47.7% Clinton +29,471 +0.08%
Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 17,014,911 47.7% 16,934,160 47.5% Obama +80,751 +0.22
**(Senator Obama was not on the Michigan Ballot and thus received zero votes. Uncommitted was on the ballot and received 238,168 votes as compared to 328,309 for Senator Clinton.) Florida: 870,986 Clinton 576,214 Obama IA, NV, ME, WA Caucus votes: Obama 334,084 Clinton 223,862 votes
Projections:
Kentucky: Clinton wins by 250,000 votes in KY: Clinton 425,000 Obama 175,000
Oregon: Obama wins by 100,000 votes in OR: Clinton 250,000 Obama 350,000 Obama
Puerto Rico: Clinton wins by 300,000 votes in PR: Clinton 500,000 Obama 200,000
Montana : 0 vote margin - Clinton 71,221 Obama 71,221
South Dakota: 0 vote margin- Clinton 47,012 Obama 47,012
Popular Vote Total Obama: 16,829,613 votes
Popular Vote Total Clinton: 16,686,003 votes
Popular Vote Winner: Obama by 143,610 votes
Popular Vote with Florida Obama: 17,405,827 votes
Popular Vote with Florida Clinton: 17,556,989 votes
Popular Vote with Florida Winner: Clinton 151,162 votes
Popular Vote with Florida and all Caucuses: Obama 17,858,144 votes
Popular Vote with Florida and all Caucuses: Clinton 17,899,084 votes
Popular Vote with Florida and all Caucuses Wiiner: Clinton 40,940 votes
Popular Vote with Florida and Michigan but no Caucuses: Obama 17,643,995 votes
Popular Vote with Florida and Michigan but no Caucuses: Clinton 17,885,298 votes
Popular Vote with Florida and Michigan but no Caucuses Winner: Clinton 241,303 votes
Popular Vote with Florida, Michigan and all Caucuses: Obama 18,096,312 votes
Popular Vote with Florida, Michigan and all Caucuses: Clinton 18,227,393 votes
Popular Vote with Florida, Michigan and all Caucuses Winner: Clinton 131,081 votes
Pledged Delegates Obama: 1812 pledged delegates
Pledged Delegates Clinton: 1736.5 pledged delegates
Pledged Delegate Winner: Obama 75.5 pledged delegates
SuperDelegates Obama: 396 SuperDelegates
SuperDelegates Clinton: 398.5 SuperDelegates
SuperDelegate Winner: Clinton 2.5 SuperDelegates
Total Delegates Obama: 2208 Total Delegates
Total Delegates Clinton: 2135 Total Delegates
Total Delegates Winner: Obama 73 Total Delegates
:lobt2:
Suppose that we agree to seat the Florida / Michigan delegates according to the original election, awarding Obama the uncommitted votes. Suppose that Clinton wins Kentucky by 67 to 33 margin. Suppose that Obama wins Oregon by 54 to 46. Suppose that they tie in Montana and South Dakota. Suppose that Clinton wins Puerto Rico 63 to 37. Then Obama would have 1812 pledged delegates. Clinton would have 1736.5 pledged delegates. That would give Barack Obama 51.06 % of the pledged delegates. It would give Hillary Clinton 48.94 % of the pledged delegates. Barack Obama’s pledged delegate margin as a percentage would be 2.12 %. On a graph where the y axis begins at zero, the difference would look minimal. As an absolute number, he would have exactly 75.5 more pledged delegates than she would. He has 297.5 SuperDelegates. She has 273 SuperDelegates. He would have exactly 2108.5 total delegates. She would have 2009.5 total delegates. As a percentage, he would have 51.2 % of the total delegates. As a percentage, she would have 48.8 % of the total delegates. Then, he would have 2.4 % more total delegates than she would. On a graph where the y axis started at zero, this difference would look minimal. As an absolute number, he would have exactly 99 more total delegates than she would. He would need 99.5 more SuperDelegates. She would need 198.5 more SuperDelegates. He would need 50 % as many SuperDelegates as she would. There would remain 224.5 uncommitted SuperDelegates. He would need 44.1 % of the remaining SuperDelegates. She would need 88.42 % of the remaining SuperDelegates. Apart from those SuperDelegates, he would have 95.5 % of the total delegates he needs, apart from the remaining SuperDelegates. So, without those remaining uncommitted SuperDelegates, he would remain 4.5% short of his goal. Without those remaining uncommitted SuperDelegates, she would have 91 % of the total delegates she needs. So, she would remain 9 % short of her goal. On a graph with a y axis that begins at zero, this difference would appear minimal. Looking at the graph, if it started at zero, the total number of delegates earned by the candidates would look quite close. It would look as if the difference in who got the most SuperDelegates had a greater influence upon who won the nomination than who earned the most pledged delegates. Let us suppose that Obama garnered the support of the remaining 99 uncommitted SuperDelegates he needed to get to 2208. Let us suppose that the remaining 125.5 uncommitted SuperDelegates went to Clinton. Senator Clinton would, then, have 2135 total delegates. Senator Obama would, then, have 2208 total delegates. The difference would be 73 total delegates. The number of SuperDelegates in this process would be 10.89 times as much as the difference in total delegates. He would, then, have garnered 50.84 % of the total delegates. She would have garnered 49.16 % of the total delegates. Obama would have won 1.68 % more total delegates than Senator Clinton did. On a graph with a y axis which begins at zero, this margin would appear minimal. The 795 SuperDelegates would compose 18.31 % of the total delegates.
Clinton’s goal, in this scenario, would be to convince 88.42 % of the remaining uncommitted SuperDelegates that they are free to vote their conscience. She would use the above data to attempt to convince those SuperDelegates that since the contest is this close (with Obama winning only 75.5 more pledged delegates in a contest to obtain 2208 [3.4 %]), they are free to utilize the power granted them by the rules and vote their conscience.
She will state that it is known that she will perform better against McCain than Obama in Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Florida. She will say that it is certain that she will win Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania. She will say that it is unclear if Obama will win Ohio or Pennsylvania. She will say that it is clear that he won’t win West Virginia. She will say that she will be more competitive in Florida than he will. She will say also attempt to use some version of the popular vote. Several versions of this statistic are presented below:
Popular Vote Count
State Date Obama Clinton Spread
Popular Vote Total 16,104,613 49.3% 15,511,003 47.5% Obama +593,610 +1.8%
Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 16,438,697 49.3% 15,734,865 47.2% Obama +703,832 +2.1%
Popular Vote (w/FL) 16,680,827 48.4% 16,381,989 47.6% Obama +298,838 +0.8%
Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 17,014,911 48.5% 16,605,851 47.3% Obama +409,060 +1.2%
Popular Vote (w/FL & MI)** 16,680,827 47.6% 16,710,298 47.7% Clinton +29,471 +0.08%
Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 17,014,911 47.7% 16,934,160 47.5% Obama +80,751 +0.22
**(Senator Obama was not on the Michigan Ballot and thus received zero votes. Uncommitted was on the ballot and received 238,168 votes as compared to 328,309 for Senator Clinton.) Florida: 870,986 Clinton 576,214 Obama IA, NV, ME, WA Caucus votes: Obama 334,084 Clinton 223,862 votes
Projections:
Kentucky: Clinton wins by 250,000 votes in KY: Clinton 425,000 Obama 175,000
Oregon: Obama wins by 100,000 votes in OR: Clinton 250,000 Obama 350,000 Obama
Puerto Rico: Clinton wins by 300,000 votes in PR: Clinton 500,000 Obama 200,000
Montana : 0 vote margin - Clinton 71,221 Obama 71,221
South Dakota: 0 vote margin- Clinton 47,012 Obama 47,012
Popular Vote Total Obama: 16,829,613 votes
Popular Vote Total Clinton: 16,686,003 votes
Popular Vote Winner: Obama by 143,610 votes
Popular Vote with Florida Obama: 17,405,827 votes
Popular Vote with Florida Clinton: 17,556,989 votes
Popular Vote with Florida Winner: Clinton 151,162 votes
Popular Vote with Florida and all Caucuses: Obama 17,858,144 votes
Popular Vote with Florida and all Caucuses: Clinton 17,899,084 votes
Popular Vote with Florida and all Caucuses Wiiner: Clinton 40,940 votes
Popular Vote with Florida and Michigan but no Caucuses: Obama 17,643,995 votes
Popular Vote with Florida and Michigan but no Caucuses: Clinton 17,885,298 votes
Popular Vote with Florida and Michigan but no Caucuses Winner: Clinton 241,303 votes
Popular Vote with Florida, Michigan and all Caucuses: Obama 18,096,312 votes
Popular Vote with Florida, Michigan and all Caucuses: Clinton 18,227,393 votes
Popular Vote with Florida, Michigan and all Caucuses Winner: Clinton 131,081 votes
Pledged Delegates Obama: 1812 pledged delegates
Pledged Delegates Clinton: 1736.5 pledged delegates
Pledged Delegate Winner: Obama 75.5 pledged delegates
SuperDelegates Obama: 396 SuperDelegates
SuperDelegates Clinton: 398.5 SuperDelegates
SuperDelegate Winner: Clinton 2.5 SuperDelegates
Total Delegates Obama: 2208 Total Delegates
Total Delegates Clinton: 2135 Total Delegates
Total Delegates Winner: Obama 73 Total Delegates
:lobt2: