The news orgs haven't called all the pledged delegate allocations in Puerto Rico, but here's what it looks like:
Dist 1: 2; Need 25.001% for 2 of 6, Obama's got 28.09% with 98% reporting
Dist 2: 2; Need 30.001% for 2 of 5, Obama's got 30.88% with 100% reporting
Dist 3: 1; Need 37.501% for 2 of 4, Obama's got 30.38% with 100% reporting
Dist 4: 1; Need 37.501% for 2 of 4, Obama's got 31.23% with 100% reporting
Dist 5: 1; Need 37.501% for 2 of 4, Obama's got 29.10% with 100% reporting
Dist 6: 1; Need 37.501% for 2 of 4, Obama's got 33.74% with 100% reporting
Dist 7: 1; Need 37.501% for 2 of 4, Obama's got 35.29% with 98% reporting
Dist 8: 2; Need 30.001% for 2 of 5, Obama's got 34.73% with 100% reporting
PLEO: 2; Need between 21.43% and 35.71% for 2 delegates, Obama's got 31.59% with 99% reporting
At-large: 4; Need between 29.17% and 37.50% for 4 delegates, Obama's got 31.59% with 99% reporting
Total: 17
Obama Pledged Delegates Before Today: 1709.5
Edwards Pledged Delegates for Obama: 16.5 (includes 4.5 Edwards per Chuck Todd)
Superdelegates: 330.5
Guaranteed Michigan add-ons per yesterday's deal: 1 (2 people, half votes each)
Pre-Puerto Rico Total: 2057.5
Majority: 2117
Needed: 59.5
Puerto Rico pledged for Obama: 17
Needed: 42.5
Donna Edwards is running to replace Al Wynn in Maryland-04 a majority-minority, heavily gerrymandered Democratic district, and with her election the needed to win number goes up by .5, but Obama gets a full delegate, thereby making this number essentially 42.
A one-vote win in South Dakota gives Obama 8 delegates.
A one-vote win in each half of Montana gives Obama 9 delegates.
Needed superdelegates before Tuesday night so that the primaries put Obama over the top: 25
In the next 48 hours, will Obama get 25 superdelegates to declare publicly?
Here's what we know about 10 specific supers:
Jim Clyburn intends to announce on June 3.
Deb Kozikowski intends to announce by June 4.
Jimmy Carter will endorse after the primaries conclude.
Margie Campbell, who had one false start and had to retract on technical grounds, will become official after Montana ends.
Maria Cantwell has endorsed Clinton, but says she will endorse whoever gets 1705 pledged delegates.
Denise Johnson says she will endorse whoever gets 1705 pledged delegates.
Chris Van Hollen says he will endorse whoever gets 1705 pledged delegates.
Christine Pelosi says she will endorse whoever gets 1705 pledged delegates.
Nancy Pelosi says she will endorse whoever gets 1705 pledged delegates.
Donna Brazile says the RFK remark made her "numb," that she will quit the Democratic Party if the superdelegates decide the party's nomination, and there is only one way they can do that.
Finally, here's a shout out to Michael Barone, Mr. Almanac of American Politics, who predicted turnout of 1 million in Puerto Rico, as well as ardently writing that all 55 plus all 8 superdelegates in Puerto Rico would go to one candidate.
As Stephen Colbert would say, "Nailed it!"
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Delegate Update, Post-Puerto Rico
-- Sean Quinn at 7:55 PM
Labels: pledged delegates, puerto rico, superdelegates
24 comments
It is funny coz I thought of Michael Barone's ridiculous predictions today too.
I hope there is a flood tomorrow but I dunno.
I believe Gov. Brian Schweitzer has said he will supporter whoever wins Montana, so that's almost the same situation as Pelosi club superdelegates that you list.
br- I looked for that the other day. I have a vested interest in Schweitzer to some degree. I have peeps on the ground there and I haven't heard it, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. I have known since April 20 of a different prominent MT super who has been locked up until after the primary, and whose endorsement is not dependent on the outcome. Regardless, I'd be a little surprised if Schweitzer didn't endorse Obama.
Why is this site so Obama-centric? Clinton whomps Obama in Puerto Rico and you're counting how many delegates Obama will get? As a statistician, you know there are countless ways to manipulate numbers and I have to question what little biases may be creeping into all of the wonderful analyses on here if you are shilling for Obama 24/7.
Umm, perhaps becuase he's the freaking nominee and we all know it and it's time to move on.
Face it, most of us, especially stats guys - know the odds.
And in that, we're more worried about when we can start the general election polling than ever thinking that Hillary can come back. She'd have to win something near 85% of all remaining super delegates to do it. This thing is over.
Sean -
I felt like I've read a stronger statement somewhere, but here's one reference to Schweitzer looking to what the voters of Montana do before he votes:
http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2008/02/21/bnews/br18.txt
Hillary who?
That back-handed slap to Michael Barone is uncalled for. He simply wrote that PR bosses tended to award all delegates to one candidate, and that was before PR decided to hold a primary instead of a caucus (which, as you know, is much easier to manipulate). Barone even noted a week later that since Obama got the PR gov's endorsement, he was likely to get some delegates regardless. His turnout estimate was from 2 months ago, when RCP was also assuming a 1 million turnout.
Someone, Russert I think, said he knows of a super or two who intend to endorse the SECOND the polls close!
To anonymous: Okay, you think it's unfair that Nate is listing the number Obama now needs? You want an equal showing for Hillary?
Sure, no problem: If she gets 14 more in Montana and South Dakota, she'll need nearly all of the remaining superdelegates to overtake Obama. In fact, even if a flood of superdelegates came out and endorsed her tomorrow, and only a fraction came out for him, he'd still win. Happy?
Seems to me that Barone deserves to have his credibility slapped around by any blog or person that places a premium on good reporting. Barone is one of the worst propagandists in the establishment media.
mark - so Obama's the likely Democratic nominee and all statistical analysis on this site should be geared towards whether it helps or hurts him? What about in the general election? It's okay to assess everything in terms of how it furthers electing Obama?
My question is simply whether this site aims to be a respected non-partisan source of analysis or an Obama fan club for numbers geeks. Right now it is clearly the latter.
Anon - Welcome to the internet age. Most of the best sources of information are operated by people who admit to being real people. For instance, the guys over at DCW are so effective because they communicate with their readers, and therefore don't have to scan the whole web themselves. Aloofness is an impediment to good work.
as for the "Obama fan club for numbers geeks" thing... at this point, anyone who can crunch numbers knows Obama's gonna win the nomination. This primary analysis is basically about the dynamic going into the general election. Honestly, the main stream media has been living in delusion for months now out of a desire to appear "nonpartisan" in the nomination battle. Note, however, that Pablano has largely kept his work here to statistical analysis, although he's done it in a slightly more personal way than you'd see from a major news organization. That's blogging.
Finally, keep in mind that Pablano is doing this on his free time -he's not getting paid. So he's allowed to be honest.
The question of bias is important, and I think it is very well handled by Nate: he makes his preferences explicit (unlike many pollsters) and tries, as best he can, to use his data objectively. Of course he will fail part of the time (he noticed that both Oregon and Kentucky seem to go off his projection; what he did then was to revise his projection to suit the trend of the polling for Oregon, but he did not do the same for Kentucky - which no doubt a Clintonite would).
However, his great asset is his transparency: the methodology is for all to see and it binds him - to the point that for the last few weeks he has been the most effective supporter of Clinton's electability argument.
Our job is to help him by trying to find biases in the future, but I must say I have deep respect for how Nate deals with this issue right now.
Hey anonymous,
Nate and Sean are phrasing things in terms of what Obama needs because Obama's the one about to win the nomination; that's all. It's not bias, it's reflecting the reality of the race; the number of delegates he needs is much more important than the number of delegates Hillary needs since Obama is pretty much guaranteed to get there, and we're all curious to know exactly when.
It's like in baseball, where it's traditional at the end of the year to give the "magic number" of games that a team needs to clinch its divisional title. No one talks about the magic number for a team that's far behind. Phrasing things in terms of the magic number is not saying you're a fan of that team, it's just saying you know the reality of the race. The remaining delegates are Obama's magic number.
If Hillary starts getting a huge and unexpected swing of supers, I'm sure her delegate count will be plastered all over this site. Until then, these guys are being totally reasonable.
One correction...there's only one half of Montana, so to speak, right? MT-AL is the only Congressional district.