Edwards will know who the next nominee will be after Tuesday.

OK here is my take on all remaining contests updated.

NC Obama +6 nets 7 delegates
IN  Hillary  +10 nets 6 delegates.

Ky Hillary +24 nets 13 delegates
PR H +20 nets 11 delegates - This is Obama's best chance to do better.
WV H +30 nets 10 delegates

Ore O +12 nets 6 delegates - This is Hillary's best chance to do better
South Dak O +8 nets 1 delegate
Montana O +12 nets 2 deleg

Expected net change in pledged delegates from remaining contests H 40 O 16

OK here is my take on how it will likely go down.

Florida and Michigan will count 100%  Hillary has too many members on the committee and needs 2 uncommitted to have a majority.  To avoid a floor fight which Obama can trigger with his members I believe the will get a compromise of the following.  Enough people understand that if Hillary pushes Florida and Michigan she wins that they won't fight it.

Obama will get a fair number of delegates in Michigan based on 2/3 of uncommitted votes being his.  Hillary will net 55.  37 from Florida and 18 from Michigan.  

Now Assuming that Edwards delegates vote 100% for Hillary as do all other non Obama pledged delegates she needs the supers to break for her 164 to 123.

If all non Hillary pledged delegates vote Obama then Hillary needs 183 to 104 break from supers.

If Obama has a demographic problem that will cause him to lose in November it will be clear by June.

So to sum up I expect Hillary to win if any of the following occur

1)  If Hillary wins the popular vote.  She currently needs roughly 147385 if you take real clear politics estimate for all states and give Obama 2/3 of uncommitted in Michigan which nets him 158778 from her current "lead".  If you count the Washinton primary instead of the washington caucus the net gain in popular votes Hillary needs is ~97385.  Its pretty clear to me that Hillary gets that number but again it will be much clearer on Tuesday.  If she wins the popular vote I expect Edwards and the majority of supers will endorse her.

OR

2)  If Edwards and other unaffiliated pledged delegates vote Hillary.  I believe Hillary has at least 41 supers loyal more than 50/50 from this point on.  Hillary has been the overwhelming choice of the Democratic party members and as soon as voting is over expect to hear that a LOT.  Even if popular vote goes against her if the pledged delegates of Edwards go 100% for Hillary I think she wins.

OR

3)  Obama continues to show unelectable demographics with SWING states in general polls.  This won't move too much and is a fair predictor of who will win against McCain.  This is a total game changer as his super delegates could defect making his position MUCH worse than it currently appears because each defection counts as 2 uncommitted going against him.  If he is unelectable there is a good chance he loses EVEN if he wins pledged AND popular vote.  Hillary will have some LARGE victories and that will give plenty of cover to anyone who wants to switch.

OR

4)  Its also possible that Hillary has a MASSIVE number of sleepers and if she has about 80 sleepers above 50/50 break she will win assuming the contests go as expected.  This is unlikely but because she had 8 years and affected much of the makeup of the DNC from Bill she may have MASSIVE DNC unelected support.  If that is the case she may have already won this and its just a matter of running out the clock.

To the Obama folks it may seem strange to you that the contest actually works out to  give Hillary several shots at winning.  The reason for this is that the Obama crowd have been lying about what constitutes victory.  Pledged delegates is not what American's have historically understood as what determines a WINNER, popular vote is.

And pledged delegates AND superdelegates AND pledged delegates includes Edwards pledged delegates and a few uncommitted ones too.

After Tuesday the die will mostly be set as Tuesday represents 187 of the remaining 404 pledged delegates and 2 highest delegate count states.  Lower delegate states like guam are very unlikely to change by much as a much higher percentage move is required to move the delegate total.  Thus small states match delegate projections MUCH better than larger states.


Poll
Who do Edwards delegates support?
Clinton
Obama
Neither possibly forcing a brokered convention

Votes: 41
Results : Vote Link : Polls

Display:


Re: Edwards will know who the next nominee will be (2.00 / 1)

Hillary will not win Indiana by more than Obama wins North Carolina...you are dreaming.  Obama by 12 in NC, Hillary by 4 in Indiana is a better guess.


by gorebeatbush2 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:05:57 AM EST

Re: Edwards will know who the next nominee will be (none / 0)

Oh, and the Washington primary was not the sanctioned election for delegates...HRC people are so quick to throw out rules if it suits them, and that is sad.


by gorebeatbush2 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:09:12 AM EST

Re: Edwards will know who the next nominee will be (none / 0)

See, that's what George Bush does. Why isn't everyone scared by that??


by Becky G on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:26:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards will know who the next nominee will be (2.00 / 2)

I am really scared by the fact that many 'democrats' will argue to ignore the voices of 669,856 thousand voters who cast their vote in a primary in Washington state in a popular vote calculation. THAT is what GWB does, he ignores votes, and yes, that scares the heck outta me!


by DemMom on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:38:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards will know who the next nominee will be (none / 0)

In Article 1 of the US constitution we have the explicit statement that "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." This is a core principle of our democracy, that it is the height of injustice and corruption to change the rules in the middle of the contest.


Everyone agreed to the rules going in--particularly Clinton supporters who controlled almost half of the rules committee. To try and change things now is an assault on one of the core principles of our Constitution, and the repercussions would be disastrous.


So, please do not whitewash what you are suggesting as a fight for voter's rights. It is not; the Clinton campaign walked away from that fight last summer without hesitation. What you are suggesting now is, in fact, an act of tyranny.


by noop on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:48:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards will know who the next nominee will be (none / 0)

Everybody agreed the rules which state that the rules committee can decide there is no offense should apply.

Those rules will be followed as written.  The states will count.

Quit crying about "rules" which are really your candidates reading on how 2 states should lose democracy for a cycle.

Its simply a matter of right to vote vs when to vote.


by DTaylor on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:46:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards will know who the next nominee will be (none / 0)

The rules committee could overturn the ruling, just like Congress could pass an amendment overturning ex post facto. But it's not going to happen because it runs counter to the very foundation of this country and party.

Look, I'm sorry that your preferred candidate is almost certainly going to lose, but Democrats still have an election to win in November. If you genuinely support the Democratic policies, please keep your eyes on that goal. Because attacking your fellow Democrats and fomenting discontent only helps John McCain.


by noop on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:02:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards will know who the next nominee will be (none / 0)

Hillary has the votes.

It will happen.

And if it doesn't then our party is worse than Bush.

I don't want anything to do with a party that doesn't understand that democracy isn't an option.


by DTaylor on Tue May 06, 2008 at 05:18:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards will know who the next nominee will be (2.00 / 2)

Sure, it may have not been sanctioned for delegates, but we are talking popular vote here! Whats sad, is pretending that 669,856 thousand people's votes should not be counted in the popular vote calculation.

The 250,000 who participated in the caucus should be counted in the delegate totals...which they are. Why should the popular vote totals not count the  primary votes in which 419,856 thousand more people made their voices heard, not be counted as popular vote?

by DemMom on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:34:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It's hilarious (2.00 / 1)

to think that one should count the popular vote from a state primary that didn't count for anything, after the sanctioned vote had happened.

I live in WA state, and was darn sure to vote in the caucus -- b/c that was the vote that counted.  I didn't vote in the primary -- it didn't count.

It's amazing to watch Hillary supporters struggle to argue that votes that everyone was told (and Hillary herself said!) "wouldn't count for anything" should now be counted as if they were real expressions of the public will.


by Bluebeard on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:46:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's hilarious (2.00 / 1)

I guess for some, it is a stretch to say that families who could not make it to the caucuses due to work, childcare, etc, should not have a voice in WA state even when considering popular votes cast...it seems to be the 'progressive' way to argue against actually counting a vote someone took the time to make.

Whats sadly hilarious is that your state has such an asinine primary system, but it is what it is.

669,000 people (400,000 + more than were able to participate in the caucus) thought enough to vote in your states primary so your decision not too does not discount their efforts.  


by DemMom on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:13:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards will know who the next nominee will be (none / 0)

Even if we did double count the non-binding WA primary voters (some of whom also voted in the WA caucus) towards Hillary, do DTaylors numbers also double count the TX caucus voters (some of whom also voted in the TX primary) for Obama?


by DreamsOfABlueNation on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:17:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards will know who the next nominee will be (2.00 / 1)

Who said anything about doubling anything?? The TX caucus should count for delegate dispersal (as should thh primary since that is TX rules) just as it was intended to as should the WA caucus. The primary vote should be tallied in popular vote. I truly don't understand what is so hard to understand here...


by DemMom on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:04:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards will know who the next nominee will be (none / 0)

People voted in the caucus in TX just like they voted in caucuses in other states that did not have primaries.  When you are counting popular votes what basis do you have for not including the caucus votes in TX while including the caucus vote in other states?


by DreamsOfABlueNation on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:11:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards will know who the next nominee will be (2.00 / 2)

So you think we should count some peoples votes TWICE?????

I stated the WA case both ways so that both possibilities could be clearly understood.

I am not for double counting ANYONE.

This is AMERICA for pete sake.


by DTaylor on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:11:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards will know who the next nominee will be (none / 0)

Stating the case both ways with WA is one thing, but will you do the same with the TX two step?


by DreamsOfABlueNation on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:16:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards will know who the next nominee will be (2.00 / 1)

No the caucus being a SUBSET of the Primary is less valid.

Every voter in the caucus by law was also a voter in the primary or an incidence of voter fraud.


by DTaylor on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:31:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re:House YEs, Presidential Disaster (2.00 / 2)

Great diary!

I hope you're right on Clinton winning the nomination.

The way we are performing in the  House seats reminds me of the 80's.

We will most likely hold on to our House advantage but do very poorly in the Presidential level.

If not for the worse polling of any President in history , Obama would be in even worse situation today against McCain.

Obama is relying very heavily on hope that Bush continues to mess up. Yet, with that said, if the elections were today, McCain would still easily beat Obama.

The sons & daughter's of liberal democrats who nominated Mc Govern,Mondale & Dukakis are about to lead our party to another painful disappointment.


by libdemusa on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:25:24 AM EST

Re: Edwards will know who the next nominee will be (2.00 / 1)

I don't see how you get all Edwards delegates going for Hillary. All his supporters I've heard of went to Obama. You're really having pipe dreams with this diary. If everything you want to happen was to happen, Hillary wins!


by Becky G on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:29:04 AM EST

Re: Edwards will know who the next nominee will be (2.00 / 3)

Not this one.


Waiting for the Glorious Train Wreck.
by Rooktoven on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:17:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

nor this one (2.00 / 2)


by 4justice on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:38:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards will know (none / 0)

Certainly Hillary has a chance, but I'd disagree that she only needs one of your four conditions to come true.  Honestly, I think she needs all four at this point.


Nos causidicus Obama , ergo nos non suadeo
by rb608 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:58:29 AM EST

Re: Edwards will know who the next nominee will be (2.00 / 2)

I don't know what will happen to Michigan and Florida, but, if you are correct that they will be seated, I think you have seriously undercounted Hillary's advantage in Michigan.  If she wins all her own delegates and 1/3 of the uncommitted delegates, I think her advantage will about 50, not 17. (Does anybody know?)

Plus, I believe that Hillary has a solid advantage among Florida and Michigan Super Delegates.


by markjay on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:01:17 AM EST

Re: Edwards will know who the next nominee will be (2.00 / 1)

Sorry, Senator Clinton is not going to win on soooooo many IFS!


"I am standing with Barack Obama to say, `Yes, we can!'" Hillary Clinton 6/7/08
by feliks on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:03:44 AM EST

You... um... see the little map... (2.00 / 1)

...in the upper left corner of this website, yes? Not that ANY polls mean ANYTHING at this point, but pretending for a moment that they do... Senator Obama is currently President Obama if the election were held today. So... what's the "November" problem you speak of? There will be a delgate count at the end of this and 99% the vast majority of the Superdelegates are going to go with the pledged delegate leader. Figure out how to win the majority of the pledged delegates and... you're the nominee... beyond that, nothing else will matter.


by Lieber on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:20:41 AM EST

Re: You... um... see the little map... (2.00 / 1)

notice that IN is given to both DEMs in that lil map? really think either will carry it? take that out and BO losses, but HRC still wins.


by swissffun on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:48:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You... um... see the little map... (2.00 / 1)

Lieber

A while back Obama supporters were saying Wright was over and it wouldn't hurt him.  Hillary supporters generally were saying it would.

Who does it appear was correct?

Ayers, Rezko, auchi etc

Obama has a problem both with active scandals and demographically.


by DTaylor on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:15:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards will know who the next nominee will be (2.00 / 1)

"Pledged delegates is not what American's have historically understood as what determines a WINNER, popular vote is." Funny, that's how *Democrats* have historically understood how we determine the winner of a primary designed to elect *delegates* to a convention. Indeed, Hillary made a point of arguing it was all about delegates for most of the first half of this campaign, until she started losing by that measure. As ever, expediency and hypocrisy trump principle and fairness when it suits the Clinton machine. The rest of your numbers are fantasy and wishful thinking.
by realcountrymusic on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:39:10 AM EST

Re: Edwards will know who the next nominee will be (2.00 / 1)

Its all about delegates.

Its not all about pledged delegates.

That is exactly the point I was making.

It has never been all about pledged delegates.

Just like America thinks Obama lost Texas and would view it as Unfair if states like Texas actually make Obama win.


by DTaylor on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:18:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards will know who the next nominee will be (2.00 / 1)

And if we're going to play by "winner of the popular vote," can we go back and redo the caucus states as primaries?  Because you're saying that -- while Florida and Michigan must be counted -- the caucus states don't deserve to be considered.  

Again, hypocrisy in the service of expediency, just like HRC's Iraq war authorization vote.


by realcountrymusic on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:41:42 AM EST

Re: Edwards will know who the next nominee will be (2.00 / 2)

wow, you really shouldn't bring up hypocrisy out of expediency! at least she explained that seeming contradiction in a vote. BO and his taking oil company lobbyist money, rezco association, ayers association, wright association and then denunciation for political reasons --- he can't seem to explain ANY of those.


by swissffun on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:51:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Add on Delegates ** corrected ** (none / 0)

Now Assuming that Edwards delegates vote 100% for Hillary as do all other non Obama pledged delegates she needs the supers to break for her 164 to 123.

Did you factor in the add-on delegates which are tied to how the state voted or are you lumping them in with the regular SD's?


Lost rate and rec for issuing a '1' to a trollish comment. The troll, not so much.

by map on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:04:12 AM EST

Re: Add on Delegates ** corrected ** (none / 0)

I have not factored them in.  They will tend to go much more 50/50 than the SDs.

I also haven't factored in the Un-committed delegates or Kuchinich  delegates in Florida.


by DTaylor on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:20:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.