It's hard to get an exact count, but my best guess is that Barack Obama will end up being down by between 5 and 15 delegates in the Super Tuesday contests. In most states, the percentage of delegates awarded closely matches the popular vote share, with two exceptions: Alabama, where Obama should have won by 7 delegates, but only won by 1; and Georgia, where he should have won by 31 delegates, but only won by 26. At the moment I think he'll be up by about 36 delegates outside of California, and my guess is he'll lose California by between 40 and 55 delegates.
If he loses by less than 15, he will maintain a delegate lead, which, if he rolls through the February contests, will put him on path for the Ohio/Texas showdown on March 4th. Two wins on the 4th would probably end it; a split would keep him ahead; and two losses will take us right back to square one.
Why did the Democrats decide on such a weird system of proportional representation? Hopefully for 2012 they will go to a simpler system based on the overall popular vote for a state.
There is no chance it is over on March 4. Even if Obama wins more slightly delegates than her in Ohio and Texas, Clinton will still be right in the race especially with Michigan's and Florida's delegates in her back pocket. This is probably her only shot at the Presidency (Obama could easily run again in 2012 or 2016 despite Michele's hints that this year was voter's only shot at him), so I don't see her dropping out until she is mathematically eliminated which won't be on March 4.
Posted by: Ron | February 06, 2008 at 11:01 AM
Jesse Jackson had the rules changed after he ended up with so many fewer delegates than popular votes in ... '84? '88?
Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | February 06, 2008 at 11:13 AM
Okay, after looking at it closely, if Obama manages a "bull case" through February, he'll be up by just over 100 delegates by March 4th. If he can win those two by a 5-8% margin, he'll be up by 150 delegates. In the bear case, even if goes into those contests with a 20 delegate lead (losing ME, VA, and WI) and loses those two by 10%, he will be down by 10 delegates. And Texas is a primary/caucus hybrid, which helps him out.
Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | February 06, 2008 at 12:01 PM
The Clintons aren't throwing in the towel until the last dog dies, as Bill would say. That means when Obama gets 2208 and no sooner.
Posted by: Ron | February 06, 2008 at 12:10 PM
I can see the logic behind allocating delegates proportionally. Where it loses me is the multilevel aspect of it - allocating delegates proportionally partly at the state level, and partly at the congressional district level.
If the problem was that Jackson got all of the Black votes in a state, but few white votes, leaving him under the 15% threshold, it would seem simpler just to lower the threshold to 10%, which would still weed out the kooks and vanity candidates.
But the number of superdelegates - an earlier 'reform,' if I recall - needs to be greatly reduced. If 20% of the delegates are superdelegates, then to win without superdelegates, the nominee needs to win 5/8 of the delegates that are determined by people's primary and caucus votes.
That's one hell of a supermajority requirement. And antidemocratic as all get out.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | February 06, 2008 at 01:41 PM
Hey Nick,
I hope you are not doing your calculations on the metric system and without sleep. :-)
Am I right though that if Obama is only behind by 15 or so delegates that it is good news for .... John McCain.
Posted by: Sir Charles | February 06, 2008 at 02:10 PM
As long as the campaign stays mostly positive and civil (at least on the level of TV ads and the kind of coverage than non-election obsessives read and watch), I don't think that the Democratic race extending through March helps McCain too much. If it goes through the summer, that is probably another story.
Posted by: ikl | February 06, 2008 at 05:43 PM