[LUconn]

*** The Delegate math: After last night’s contests, here’s where things stand: The NBC News Hard Count is Obama 1,168, Clinton 1,018. There are 53 delegates unallocated, including 19 in MD, 10 each in CO and GA, 6 in WI, 4 in HI, and one each in DC, TN, NY and IL. We estimate a conservative 27-26 split here. The Superdelegate Count: Clinton 257 versus Obama 185. That’s a grand total of: Obama 1,355, Clinton 1,276. Counting only the superdelegates he has now, plus his pledged delegates, Obama needs 65% of remaining PLEDGED delegates to hit the magic 2025 number. Reaching that is probably unrealistic, but when you add in the unaffiliated 353 superdelegates (76 of whom are not yet known yet and won't be appointed until April, May and June), his magic percentage number is down to 48%. On the flip side, Clinton needs to win 58% of all remaining pledged delegates simply to get the pledged delegate lead back. Forget 2025. And if you assume Obama wins Vermont, Wyoming, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota, then the magic percentage number in the states Clinton wins rises to 65% -- SIMPLY TO GET THE PLEDGED DELEGATE LEAD BACK...

America, could you think of a more complicated system? I have no idea who is winning.

[ToTheLeft]

All I know is that Huckabee sucks.

That is all.




Yes Knuck, I am saying this only to tick you off.

[Fumblerooskies]

It means there will be backroom deals leading up to the dem convention.

[TylerBakersGonnaBGreat]

All I know is that Huckabee sucks.

That is all.




Yes Knuck, I am saying this only to tick you off.

And Ron Paul is a lot better

[01LUGrad]

*** The Delegate math: After last night’s contests, here’s where things stand: The NBC News Hard Count is Obama 1,168, Clinton 1,018. There are 53 delegates unallocated, including 19 in MD, 10 each in CO and GA, 6 in WI, 4 in HI, and one each in DC, TN, NY and IL. We estimate a conservative 27-26 split here. The Superdelegate Count: Clinton 257 versus Obama 185. That’s a grand total of: Obama 1,355, Clinton 1,276. Counting only the superdelegates he has now, plus his pledged delegates, Obama needs 65% of remaining PLEDGED delegates to hit the magic 2025 number. Reaching that is probably unrealistic, but when you add in the unaffiliated 353 superdelegates (76 of whom are not yet known yet and won't be appointed until April, May and June), his magic percentage number is down to 48%. On the flip side, Clinton needs to win 58% of all remaining pledged delegates simply to get the pledged delegate lead back. Forget 2025. And if you assume Obama wins Vermont, Wyoming, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota, then the magic percentage number in the states Clinton wins rises to 65% -- SIMPLY TO GET THE PLEDGED DELEGATE LEAD BACK...

America, could you think of a more complicated system? I have no idea who is winning.

I know what your point was, but this isn't that complicated. They were just trying to tell everyone how hard it will be for Hillary to get the nomination.

Let me dumb it down for you: President Barack Hussein Obama.

[JDUB]

obama was in chapel hill recently, very close to John Edwards home. hmmm, i'm sure its just a coincidence though.

[Ed Dantes]

The democrats have a ridiculous proportional allocation system. Let's dumb it down:

Suppose Obama wins a state with 60% of the vote to Hillary's 40%. A true proportional allocation system would mean that Obama would win 60 percent of the delegates and Hillary 40 percent. If a state had 100 delegates, Obama would claim 60, Hillary, 40.

Here's where it gets tricky...

Instead of state-wide proportional allocation, the states are divided up into districts. Each district has its own proportional allocation system.

And here's where it gets really, really tricky...

Instead of saying "we have 10 districts and 100 delegates, so each district is worth 10 delegates" or "district A is twice the size of district B, so district A will have twice the number of delegates as district B", the democrats have a different system, especially in Texas. They'll arbitrarily award delegates to districts based on a number of factors, such as that district's past voting history.

So -- say district A and district B are completely equal in size. However, more people in District A voted during the last election cycle than district B, so district A will have more delegates.

All that to say... Heck yeah, there's gonna be some backroom dealing come Convention Time.


Republicans are easy. You win Virginia, you get all the delegates. Even in the few states (like California) where they base it on districts, those districts are winner-take-all. For example, John McCain won California by a 55-40 margin over Romney, I think. But he also won all but three districts or so (my numbers are off but my point is the same)::: so, McCain gets all the delegates from California except the ones from the three distrcits that went to Romney. Simple, huh?



One of these political parties wants to manage every aspect of your life, like where you can go to get health insurance. The other doesn't. Which one would you prefer?

[RagingTireFire]

All I know is that Huckabee sucks.

He was pretty good on SNL last night, though.

[Sly Fox]

Don't be shocked with a brokered convention to see the democratic nominee be .... Al Gore.

And no, that was not a poor attempt at humor. Its not likely but still a real possibility. He'll be the only dem possibility not covered in mud.