http://gamingtrend.com
April 17, 2014, 01:02:52 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Hillary Clinton and the No Good, Terrible, Very Bad Math  (Read 1440 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Fireball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1572


View Profile WWW
« on: March 20, 2008, 05:18:15 AM »

Hillary Clinton has a math problem.

In her campaign to win the Democratic nomination to the presidency, Senator Clinton embarked on a strategy designed to paint her as "inevitable." Clearly, she wasn't. In fact, if anything, with just a handful of states left to vote, her path to the nomination has become a very, very long shot. So long, in fact, that she should withdraw from the battlefield, support Senator Obama and unify the party to defeat Senator McCain in November.

That's a bold request. After all, Senator Obama, though he's won the majority of states, leads in the popular vote and has a pledged delegate lead of over 170 delegates, hasn't locked up a majority yet. He hasn't "won." But that's not the point. The point is that Senator Clinton almost certainly will not win, and five more months of a brutal, divisive primary campaign could very well ensure that no Democrat can win in November.

Consider the current state of the race:



As all delegate counts are estimate, there will be a slight "wiggle" in numbers from source to source. These numbers are from CNN.

Presently, Senator Obama is clearly ahead in pledged delegates won in state contests, leading Senator Clinton 1,413 to 1,242, with Senator Edwards trailing with 18 delegates. Clinton's once-formidable lead amongst super delegates has also waned to a mere 37-delegate margin, giving Senator Obama an overall margin of 134 votes with only 914 delegates left unallocated.

Senator Obama has won 53% of pledged delegates that have been allocated thus far; Senator Clinton has claimed 54% of announced super delegates. Over one-third of super delegates, including 75 unnamed super delegates to be elected at upcoming state conventions, remain unaffiliated. Senator Obama's lead amongst pledged delegates has held effectively flat for over the past month, while Senator Clinton's lead amongst super delegates has tightened from an almost 2-to-1 lead in early February.

Projection Based on Current Momentum

The remaining contests include races that favor both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton fairly evenly. It is likely that the two candidates will effectively split the remaining pledged delegates. Presuming that, on top of that split, Senator Clinton's margin amongst super delegates ceases to shrink, we can allocate the remaining delegates, super delegates and unnamed super delegates to produce this projection:



Thus, even by splitting the remaining pledged delegates, and winning almost 55% of the remaining super delegates and unnamed super delegates, Senator Clinton would not win the nomination, as Senator Obama would capture a 45-delegate majority. This projection does not allocate the remaining 18 Edwards delegates, as it is unclear where they would go -- though over the weekend some Edwards delegates in Iowa switched to supporting Senator Obama, indicating that his lead, under the precepts of this projection, might actually be a bit higher that is shown here.

Projections Including Florida & Michigan Resolution

Of course, the Clinton campaign argues, the above projection involves only 48 state delegations, and excludes delegates from Florida and Michigan. Though Senator Clinton agreed to support the party's rulings last Fall that Florida and Michigan would not receive delegates after moving their contests, she has changed her position on this, and is now demanding that they be seated.

The present state of the race with Florida and Michigan unallocated:



Since she will not go into the Convention with a majority of the automatically-seated delegates, it will be up to Obama's supporters to determine how Florida and Michigan are seated. There's been a lot of talk about this situation in the two weeks since Texas and Ohio (since there's really nothing else to talk about). Right now, the most plausible solution appears to be this:

Recognizing that Florida and Michigan cannot be ignored, but also the political reality of the situation, the Obama-dominated Credentials committee will do something like this: seat the Michigan delegation as a 50-50 split amongst pledged delegates (recognizing the complete invalidity of the contest there), and seat the Florida delegation in proportion to the results in the January primary but with half voting strength (the baseline punishment spelled out in DNC rules for the violation committed by Florida). Super delegates from both states will likely be seated without prejudice.

What does that do to the race?



Presuming, in a best case for Clinton, that she wins all of the resulting Florida and Michigan super delegates, and not allocating the Edwards delegates, Obama still has a 9-vote majority.

And lest someone cry "unfair" about Florida, note that even seating Florida's pledged delegation full strength won't give Clinton the win:



Obama still takes exactly half the delegates, and is certain to win at least one of those 18 Edwards delegates, still giving him a majority.

But let's say that doesn't happen, and consider this:

If all remaining pledged delegates are split and Hillary holds her super delegate margin through the rest of the super delegates and Michigan is seated 50-50 and Florida is seated at full strength and Clinton gets all super delegates from Florida and Michigan and Clinton wins all 18 remaining Edwards delegates, then, at best, in this incredibly unlikely scenario: Clinton and Obama tie.

Now, in reality, some of these numbers will shake a bit. As conventions ratify results, Clinton will pick up a delegate or two here, Obama will pick up a delegate or two there (he's already picked up 10 more delegates in conventions than he won on election days). Some of the Florida and Michigan super delegates will go with Obama. Many, if not most, of the remaining Edwards delegates will go to Obama.

So how can Hillary Clinton win?

Realistically, she simply can't. Her only hope is that her share of the super delegates, which has been shrinking for months, will suddenly start to grow dramatically. The only way to achieve that would be to run an incredibly destructive, nasty and divisive campaign that likely won't work, leaving the party in a terrible position come August.

Hillary Clinton is a great Senator. She would be an excellent President. But she's run a poor campaign, and has ceded her momentum and realistic chance for victory. It's time for her to accept this. The risk of tearing the party apart is too great, the threat of a John McCain presidency too dreadful.

It's time for her to show the same kind of loyalty to the Democratic Party that the Democratic Party showed in standing strong by her and her husband through the battles of the 1990s, and step aside in favor of the only candidate who has a clear path to the Democratic nomination. That candidate is Senator Barack Obama.
Logged

Fireball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1572


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 20, 2008, 06:16:13 AM »

And here's a nice PDF version if anyone wants to share this information with non-boardians:

http://homepage.mac.com/fireball1244/hillary/can_hillary_win.pdf
Logged

Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: March 20, 2008, 06:22:30 AM »

Yeah, there've been quite a few similar conclusions post at Kos, etc, in the last couple of weeks.  This is very well organized and reasoned, so more comprehensible than the majority of them. slywink

It's clear that "coup by superdelegate" is Hillary's only real chance at this point.  It's similarly clear that she's not going to concede anything to Obama given her trip to Michigan this week, and her lauding of McCain's credentials last week.  Argh.
Logged
denoginizer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6538


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: March 20, 2008, 12:21:55 PM »

I think this has been obvious for weeks.  When she included Michigan and Fla as "victories" in her Ohio victory speech it was obvious things were going to get ugly.  I still think the Democratic proportional delegate system is also partly to blame for the situation.
Logged

Xbox Live Tag: denoginizer
PSN Name: denoginizer
Purge
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 18512


Thirty. Minutes.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: March 20, 2008, 02:05:48 PM »

I think she should wait the decade and have another go; there's really no reason to not wait. slywink
Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #5 on: March 20, 2008, 03:00:20 PM »

Quote from: Fireball1244 on March 20, 2008, 05:18:15 AM

It's time for her to show the same kind of loyalty to the Democratic Party that the Democratic Party showed in standing strong by her and her husband through the battles of the 1990s, and step aside in favor of the only candidate who has a clear path to the Democratic nomination. That candidate is Senator Barack Obama.

+1
Logged
Kevin Grey
Global Moderator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 13976


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: March 20, 2008, 03:02:42 PM »

Quote from: Purge on March 20, 2008, 02:05:48 PM

I think she should wait the decade and have another go; there's really no reason to not wait. slywink

She's what 62?  Assuming Obama gets elected then her next chance to run is when she's 70 and even then if he does two terms and she's not Obama's VP then the Democratic front-runner for that election is going to be Obama's VP.

There's already been some grumblings about McCain's age (72) so I imagine that's gotta be a concern for Clinton if she waits. 
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #7 on: March 20, 2008, 03:17:04 PM »

I think part of the desperation comes from knowing that this is, realistically, her last shot.  But hey, that's not our problem.  She tried, it didn't work out.  Lots of politicians can say the exact same thing.

IMO, she would have won had she run in 2004.  But I think she was trying to cherry-pick her race for an easy victory, and never realized how good a chance running in 2004 actually was.  Had Gore run again, he likely could have won as well.
Logged
CSL
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1356


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: March 20, 2008, 05:10:19 PM »

Quote from: unbreakable on March 20, 2008, 03:17:04 PM

I think part of the desperation comes from knowing that this is, realistically, her last shot.  But hey, that's not our problem.  She tried, it didn't work out.  Lots of politicians can say the exact same thing.

IMO, she would have won had she run in 2004.  But I think she was trying to cherry-pick her race for an easy victory, and never realized how good a chance running in 2004 actually was.  Had Gore run again, he likely could have won as well.

I would have loved Gore in '04 - but only if he had kept the beard. We've gone too long without facial hair in the White House.

When was the last time we had war declared by a man with facial hair? Thats right, the Civil War.
Logged
gellar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8913


I'm a dolphin!


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: March 22, 2008, 01:02:40 AM »

You don't know how happy this analysis has made me.

gellar
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.104 seconds with 43 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.027s, 2q)