Obama can't win a majority of pledged delegates.

[techs]

Its interesting how Obama is being written about as "on a roll".
Politicos.com quotes the AP delegate count, including super and certain projected delegates as Obama 1210 to Clintons 1118. A mere 102 delegate difference out of 4049.

BUT with 796 super delegates out of 4049 total delegates that means that about 20 percent of the delegates are super delegates!.
So in order to win the nomination outright, a candidate would need to win 2025 delegate out of.....4049-796='s 3253 delegates up for actual voting and not super delegates.

In other words there are onlly 3253 delegates up for grabs in the voting. To win the needed 2025 without any super delegates a candidate would need to win 2025 out of 3253!
Which means a victory margin of roughly 2/3. Even if Obama takes 90 percent of every vote still to be cast he will be far short.

While Obama has gotten far more press for the winning of most of the small states, in fact he is maybe 100-200 delegates at the very most ahead in the actual delegates won.
A number which, at this point, will not hold up after the March 4 voting, if the polls hold, and of course they may not.

But the bottom line is the democrats set it up so unless one candidate won a huge, huge, huge, majority of the elected delegates the super delegates were going to be needed to determne the candidate.

So folks, its going to the super delegates to decide.

 

[RichardE]

You missed the fact that all the democratic leadership has more or less said the super delegates will follow the popular vote so as not to destroy the party.


Not to mention the fact that almost half the super delegates have chosen a side, and even with Hilary having more Obama, still leads in overall delegate count.

 

[Pabster]

The Supers will follow the popular vote. Democrats can be stupid sometimes (Kerry in '04 a glaring example) but they won't destroy their own party.

Sorry, techs, it's over. :laugh:

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: techs

So folks, its going to the super delegates to decide.

Well no shit. It's not about the people. The powers that be decide. Democracy my ass.

 

[Pabster]

Here's NBC's latest take:

*** The statistical front-runner: No matter how one slices the election results from last night, there's no denying that Obama is the statistical front-runner. He's got a 100-plus pledged delegate lead and even has the lead if you factor in superdelegates. Here's our math: The NBC News election unit hard count stands at 1078 to 969. If you factor in the unallocated pledged delegates, our estimate rises to approximately 1128 to 1009 in Obama's favor (margin of error +/- 5 delegates). Toss in the superdelegates and Obama's lead is 1306 to 1270 (again +/- 5 delegates). What does this mean? For Clinton to overtake Obama for the pledged delegate lead -- which we think is the single most important statistic for the superdelegates to decide their vote -- she'll have to win 55% of the remaining delegates. Assuming next week goes Obama's way in Wisconsin and Hawaii, that percentage rises to 57%. Toss in likely Obama victories in Vermont, Wyoming, Mississippi, Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota, then Clinton's percentage need tops 60% of the remaining delegates available. And this is simply for her to regain the pledged delegate lead? *** Staying on the statistical front: Check out these cumulative vote totals for primaries and caucuses to date:

States Awarding Delegates
Total Vote %
Obama 9,373,334 50%
Clinton 8,674,779 46%
Others 726,095 4%

With Florida
Total Vote %
Obama 9,942,375 49%
Clinton 9,531,987 46%
Others 984,236 4%

With Florida and Michigan
Total Vote %
Obama 9,942,375 47%
Clinton 9,860,138 47%
Others 1,249,922 6%

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Pabster
The Supers will follow the popular vote. Democrats can be stupid sometimes (Kerry in '04 a glaring example) but they won't destroy their own party.

Sorry, techs, it's over. :laugh:

Yes it is. For Obama.
Listen carefully. Obama has taken most of the caucus states. In fact his entire lead and more is based on caucus states. And in caucus states far, far, far fewer voters turn out.
So Obama has a higher percentage of delegates than votes.
All Hilary has to do is win Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania at anywhere near what the polls say, and EVEN IF SHE FALLS SHORT OF OBAMA'S DELEGATE TOTAL SHE WILL HAVE HAVE MORE VOTES CAST FOR HER THAN OBAMA. Hilary is a mere 550,000 votes behind with huge states yet to vote where she is favored big.
Can you imagine the convention trying to take the nomination away from the candidate who got the most votes. Unlike the US Constitution and the electoral college, the Dem super delegates can and will vote for the candidate who received the most votes.
So the two most important results from now till the nomination are delegates and number of votes.
And number of votes is most important.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: RichardE
You missed the fact that all the democratic leadership has more or less said the super delegates will follow the popular vote so as not to destroy the party.


Not to mention the fact that almost half the super delegates have chosen a side, and even with Hilary having more Obama, still leads in overall delegate count.

exactly!! In fact democratic leadership has even stated that on various news programs.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Pabster
The Supers will follow the popular vote. Democrats can be stupid sometimes (Kerry in '04 a glaring example) but they won't destroy their own party.

Sorry, techs, it's over. :laugh:

Yes it is. For Obama.
Listen carefully. Obama has taken most of the caucus states. In fact his entire lead and more is based on caucus states. And in caucus states far, far, far fewer voters turn out.
So Obama has a higher percentage of delegates than votes.
All Hilary has to do is win Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania at anywhere near what the polls say, and EVEN IF SHE FALLS SHORT OF OBAMA'S DELEGATE TOTAL SHE WILL HAVE HAVE MORE VOTES CAST FOR HER THAN OBAMA.
Can you imagine the convention trying to take the nomination away from the candidate who got the most votes. Unlike the US Constitution and the electoral college, the Dem super delegates can and will vote for the candidate who received the most votes.
So the two most important results from now till the nomination are delegates and number of votes.
And number of votes is most important.

I really think your the one not getting it.
Unless you really get it and are just seeing how many people you can purposely get a reaction from.....

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Pabster
The Supers will follow the popular vote. Democrats can be stupid sometimes (Kerry in '04 a glaring example) but they won't destroy their own party.

Sorry, techs, it's over. :laugh:

Yes it is. For Obama.
Listen carefully. Obama has taken most of the caucus states. In fact his entire lead and more is based on caucus states. And in caucus states far, far, far fewer voters turn out.
So Obama has a higher percentage of delegates than votes.
All Hilary has to do is win Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania at anywhere near what the polls say, and EVEN IF SHE FALLS SHORT OF OBAMA'S DELEGATE TOTAL SHE WILL HAVE HAVE MORE VOTES CAST FOR HER THAN OBAMA. Hilary is a mere 550,000 votes behind with huge states yet to vote where she is favored big.
Can you imagine the convention trying to take the nomination away from the candidate who got the most votes. Unlike the US Constitution and the electoral college, the Dem super delegates can and will vote for the candidate who received the most votes.
So the two most important results from now till the nomination are delegates and number of votes.
And number of votes is most important.

Didn't you say it was over on Tuesday because of the polls? You got burned by polls before.

 

[Arkaign]

The desperation is strong in this one ..

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: techs
And number of votes is most important.

Obama leads that too. Look at the charts I threw up from NBC.

 

[palehorse]

I almost feel sorry for the OP... almost.

HRC will not win the popular vote, the "pledged delegates," OR the superdelegates.

bet?

edit: Just an FYI, with 3253 "pledged delegates" on the line, Obama only needs 1627 of them to win the "majority," so I believe the thread title is wrong/misleading as well.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: techs
And number of votes is most important.

Obama leads that too. Look at the charts I threw up from NBC.

And his post says what happens if by the convention Hillary has more. What then do the supers do, follow the delegate count, or the popular vote. It's an interesting question actually.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
And his post says what happens if by the convention Hillary has more. What then do the supers do, follow the delegate count, or the popular vote. It's an interesting question actually.

And they're saying she would need to win 60% of the vote in all remaining states to do that.

Not gonna happen.

It's over.

 

[shiner]

It cracks me up when someone ties their self esteem to a particular candidate.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: techs
And number of votes is most important.

Obama leads that too. Look at the charts I threw up from NBC.

And his post says what happens if by the convention Hillary has more. What then do the supers do, follow the delegate count, or the popular vote. It's an interesting question actually.

The question will come down to do the dems want a candidate that can follow the typical blue/red state pattern we've had for decades, or one that might be able to get voters from everywhere. Hilary has more or less said that the voters in the smaller states that Obama has been winning don't matter.

?It?s not a factor,? was how Clinton dismissed Obama victories in Maine, Nebraska, Louisiana, Virgin Islands and Washington state in an interview with WJLA and Politico on Monday.

?We had a great night on Super Tuesday. We?re winning the states that we have to win. The big states that are really going to determine whether the Democrats win,? she said during the televised discussion.

Clinton has laughed out loud when asked about her losses in red state bastions such as Kansas and other caucus states, backhanding them as products of her own party ?activists? and not real voters.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: sirjonk
And his post says what happens if by the convention Hillary has more. What then do the supers do, follow the delegate count, or the popular vote. It's an interesting question actually.

And they're saying she would need to win 60% of the vote in all remaining states to do that.

No, they were talking 60% of the DELEGATES, not individual votes. It will be harder to catch up in delegates than popular votes. Even if she wins Texas 60/40, the delegate split won't be very large, but she could win by hundreds of thousands in the popular vote, like she did in CA. So, the question remains, if ahead in popular votes and behind in delegates, where do the supers go?

 

[alchemize]

If you are wrong, will you stop posting?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
No, they were talking 60% of the DELEGATES, not individual votes. It will be harder to catch up in delegates than popular votes. Even if she wins Texas 60/40, the delegate split won't be very large, but she could win by hundreds of thousands in the popular vote, like she did in CA. So, the question remains, if ahead in popular votes and behind in delegates, where do the supers go?

Yes, that's right. We could sit here and "IF" all day long. We'll just have to see.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: sirjonk
No, they were talking 60% of the DELEGATES, not individual votes. It will be harder to catch up in delegates than popular votes. Even if she wins Texas 60/40, the delegate split won't be very large, but she could win by hundreds of thousands in the popular vote, like she did in CA. So, the question remains, if ahead in popular votes and behind in delegates, where do the supers go?

Yes, that's right. We could sit here and "IF" all day long. We'll just have to see.

Dude, if speculation is out of bounds, there is no P&N. It's a perfectly valid question.

I just realized one of the serious mental blocks I've had on throwing all my chips in with Obama is the fact that you think it's a really good idea to elect him.

 

[Sinsear]

The dumbest thing the superdelegates could do would be to overturn the poplular vote. I don't think there is any way this will happen. Fact of the matter comes down to that the majority are not for Hillary.

 

[StageLeft]

Yes it is. For Obama.

Are you off your meds or having problems with the new ones the doc gave you? A while ago you said "It's over" for Obama and he should concede if he wants to have any future. Now that he's AHEAD of hillary and that's with a ton of momentum, you still think he's done? This is rich!

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Dude, if speculation is out of bounds, there is no P&N. It's a perfectly valid question.

Fair enough. But the answer...no one knows.

I just realized one of the serious mental blocks I've had on throwing all my chips in with Obama is the fact that you think it's a really good idea to elect him.

I'm going to have a whole lot of fun once Obama is nominated and we start towards the general election. It's going to be great watching a whole lot of folks here eating crow. You know, the ones who have predicted I'm just looking to defeat Hillary, and I'll be against Obama as soon as he is nominated. (Oh, and the nuts who think I'd actually back McCain at some point...)

And really, who cares what I think? The voters have spoken, and, apparently, they seem to think the same. :laugh:

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: alchemize
If you are wrong, will you stop posting?

Lies always have flavor. Techs can keep posting after Obama wins.

 

[manowar821]

lol aristocracy