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!"
6.01.2008
Delegate Update, Post-Puerto Rico
@ 8:55 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 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.
Anonymous (who is hiding his/her real identity for some strange reason):
The reason why most reputable news sources are no longer talking about Clinton is for the same reason why they are no longer talking about Dodd for President, or Biden or Richardson or Huckabee or Guiliani.
Clinton's run for the presidency is over, so talking about her is no longer news. Hence no coverage. Why talk about something that is not important?
"One correction...there's only one half of Montana, so to speak, right? MT-AL is the only Congressional district."
Actually, from the montana delegate selection plan:
"3. Apportionment of District-Level Delegates and Alternates
a. The district-level delegates and alternates shall be elected by a Presidential preference
primary followed by a post-primary caucus. Montana, being a single congressional district
state, will be broken down into two (2) districts. These districts are formed from the two
previous congressional districts."
there's 10 district level delegates, so each gets 5. Hence, the numbers are accurate.
What stinks about that, though, is it means He's virtually assured of not getting MORE than 9... he'd have to get either 62.5% statewide or 70% in one district to get another delegate.
Honestly, the main stream media has been living in delusion for months now out of a desire to appear "nonpartisan" in the nomination battle.
Not just the MSM.
digby has taken this line all along, and lately has ramped it up a notch. Yesterday she put up a post entitled Photo Finish in which she argued that this primary has been incredibly close and that Hillary Clinton has always had a real chance of winning it, so calls for her to drop out as far back as February were ridiculous.
This "analysis" makes a number of mistakes. Virtually nobody was calling for Clinton to drop out, though many were appalled by the tone of her campaign. But those who said she had no path to the nomination as far back as late February were spot on. And reminding us that she was winning contests (digby's big data point) does nothing to address that reality.
In terms of raw numbers, this race is close. But it's been over since February. Both those things are true. Obama supporters do themselves no favors pretending that Clinton didn't garner a large minority of support. And Clinton supporters have done themselves no favors pretending she was still in this for the last two months. This is not a photo finish.
BTW, if there's a "Clinton fan club for numbers geeks" I assume it's been a pretty depressing place for the last eight weeks.
Although plenty of Obama fans hang out here (I'm not one particularly, in fact), this place has always been about the numbers. You tell 'em the truth, Nate, and they they think it's hell.
Did you even read the article? They aren't his turnout projections. They are from Jay Cost at RealClearPolitics. And his projections were made from an "optimistic" pro-Clinton point of view.
"I used Cost's default turnout numbers and estimates of the two-candidate percentages which I consider optimistic from the Clinton point of view but not wildly unrealistic."
But it's kind of funny to see you launching Dick Bennett type attacks, especially when you have been the victim of them in the past.
Anon - First off, I wrote the post, not Nate. So don't blame him. It was a tweak.
Here's the thing. High profile people have to make an effort not just to slap stuff up there willy nilly. The idea about all 55 and all 8 supers going to one candidate was laughable from the getgo. And the morning after he put up those "optimistic" but "not wildly unrealistic" numbers, Joe Scarborough was screaming on Morning Joe how Barone was The Authority on this stuff, and if he said it then it was going to happen, blah blah blah, confronting every guest with, here's what I say, and Michael Barone backs me up!
Barone's writings were used to push the media narrative, that the popular vote is even measurable in a primary season where so many arbitrary choices (open vs. closed, primary vs. caucus, etc.) render moot any comparison to the "one person, one vote" concept of the general election.
And as long as that dishonest concept is alive, it enables Clinton to give permission to her supporters that she-wuz-robbed and to explicitly hold a grudge against Obama. That's just the extortion play for whatever her slate of demands are for conceding.
So getting things wrong like isn't just some mistake-in-a-vacuum. Leveraging one's big name to push an idea, namely that the popular vote is valid and Clinton can win it using non-wildly-optimistic scenarios (like Clinton in Montana by 20%) can deserve a tweak when they are so absurdly wrong and never stood a chance of not being absurdly wrong.
That's where I'm coming from. There's a responsibility for people to use data in support of honest intellectual argument. If you still have hard feelings about it, remember to blame me not Nate.
The race is down to McCain and Obama and as such people who report on the race will be reporting on what each needs to achieve in order to win. This particular article has nothing to do with McCain and so it focuses on what Obama needs to achieve in order to win, specifically what amount of delegates he needs to justify a victory speech and, more importantly, to prompt Clinton to give a concession speech on tuesday so that party unity will be bolstered.
Anyone complaining about this is gonna have a whole lot of trouble reading political reporting for the next four years or eight.
Sean, I chuckled at the tweak. Reading months-old election coverage from anyone could elicit "Nailed it!" from Colbert, but some are particularly egregious, eh?
New POLL by PPP in NC...Obama is only down by 3. MCCAIN 43-OBAMA 40-Barr 6
With the hard work for registered new voters, Obama will win NC.
New POLL by PPP in NC...Obama is only down by 3. MCCAIN 43-OBAMA 40-Barr 6
With the hard work for registered new voters, Obama will win NC.
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,
^^ nice blog!! ^@^
徵信, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
^^ nice blog!! thanks a lot! ^^
徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 離婚, 外遇,離婚,
徵信, 外遇, 離婚, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要到打工兼差、打工,兼差,或者八大行業,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的,還是想去制服店當上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作、兼差打工、假日兼職、兼職工作、酒店兼差、兼差、打工兼差、日領工作、晚上兼差工作、酒店工作、酒店上班、酒店打工、兼職、兼差、兼差工作、酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作和特種行業內容,想兼職工作日領、假日兼職、兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!
艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚，無業績壓力，無脫秀無喝酒壓力，高層次會員制客源，工作輕鬆，可日領、現領。
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已，對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有！艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪，不需擔心！只提供最優質的酒店上班,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。心動嗎!? 趕快來填寫你的酒店上班履歷表
水水們妳有缺現領、有兼職、缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學缺錢嗎?妳是傳播妹??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,假日兼職賺錢的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??
艾葳酒店台北酒店經紀招兵買馬!!徵專業的酒店打工,想要去酒店的水水,想要短期日領,酒店日領,禮服酒店,制服店,酒店經紀,ktv酒店,便服店,酒店工作,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀人,
等相關服務 幫您快速的實現您的夢想~!!
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment