Posted by Jed Lewison on Mon May 5, 2008 at 11:10 AM Pacific

Michigan, Florida, and superdelegates

The discussion about Michigan and Florida has focused entirely on the votes that took place in both states in January, and the question has mostly been framed around whether or not we should count those votes.

I think there'd be a real problem with counting those votes. It's not just that Barack Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan -- it's also that the candidates agreed not to campaign in either state, and voters there were told their votes wouldn't count.

But let's leave aside that objection for a second, and assume that the Michigan and Florida delegations should awarded according to the votes. Where would that leave us at the end of the process?

Since what we care about is "counting the vote," let's start with the pledged delegates which represent the will of the people:

  • Currently, Barack Obama has 1,492 (52%) pledged delegates and Hillary Clinton has 1,338 (47%)
  • A realistic yet conservative (from Obama's point-of-view) projection for the remaining sanctioned contests would have Clinton doing better than Obama down the stretch, putting the final total at 1,690 (52%) to 1,544 (47%).
  • Now let's assume the most favorable deal to Clinton imaginable -- she gets all 178 delegates that would have been awarded had the votes been sanctioned. Meanwhile, Obama gets just 107 delegates -- all of the Florida delegates plus 73% of the 55 uncommitted Michigan delegates. That leaves 15 uncommitted Michigan delegates, and let's assume Clinton gets 9 and Obama gets 6.
  • The final pledged delegate distribution -- in a very favorable scenario for Clinton -- would then be 1,803 (51%) for Obama and 1,729 (49%) for Clinton.

Now, I don't know about you, but as far as I'm concerned 51%-49% is close -- but it ain't a tie.

So why would Clinton be so interested in seating Michigan and Florida even if it won't make a difference as to who is leading the pledged delegate battle?

The reason is simple: superdelegates.

And here is where we have the bitter irony: the entire point of all the bloviating about "respecting the vote" in Michigan and Florida is to give Clinton a better shot at overturning the will of the people.

::

The last thing to consider is that as I showed above, the spread between Obama and Clinton would be about 74 delegates even under this rosiest of scenarios.

Currently, Clinton leads Obama by about 20 superdelegates. So even under this best-case scenario, she still would then need to go and win the remaining undeclared superdelegates by a 54 vote margin -- otherwise she would still fall short.

So after all this, even with Michigan and Florida, it probably wouldn't be enough. But it would drag this process out into July or August. And you know who that would make happiest, right?

John Sidney McCain.

Michigan, Florida, and superdelegates

The discussion about Michigan and Florida has focused entirely on the votes that took place in both states in January, and the question has mostly been framed around whether or not we should count those votes.

I think there'd be a real problem with counting those votes. It's not just that Barack Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan -- it's also that the candidates agreed not to campaign in either state, and voters there were told their votes wouldn't count.

But let's leave aside that objection for a second, and assume that the Michigan and Florida delegations should awarded according to the votes. Where would that leave us at the end of the process?

Since what we care about is "counting the vote," let's start with the pledged delegates which represent the will of the people:

  • Currently, Barack Obama has 1,492 (52%) pledged delegates and Hillary Clinton has 1,338 (47%)
  • A realistic yet conservative (from Obama's point-of-view) projection for the remaining sanctioned contests would have Clinton doing better than Obama down the stretch, putting the final total at 1,690 (52%) to 1,544 (47%).
  • Now let's assume the most favorable deal to Clinton imaginable -- she gets all 178 delegates that would have been awarded had the votes been sanctioned. Meanwhile, Obama gets just 107 delegates -- all of the Florida delegates plus 73% of the 55 uncommitted Michigan delegates. That leaves 15 uncommitted Michigan delegates, and let's assume Clinton gets 9 and Obama gets 6.
  • The final pledged delegate distribution -- in a very favorable scenario for Clinton -- would then be 1,803 (51%) for Obama and 1,729 (49%) for Clinton.

Now, I don't know about you, but as far as I'm concerned 51%-49% is close -- but it ain't a tie.

So why would Clinton be so interested in seating Michigan and Florida even if it won't make a difference as to who is leading the pledged delegate battle?

The reason is simple: superdelegates.

And here is where we have the bitter irony: the entire point of all the bloviating about "respecting the vote" in Michigan and Florida is to give Clinton a better shot at overturning the will of the people.

::

The last thing to consider is that as I showed above, the spread between Obama and Clinton would be about 74 delegates even under this rosiest of scenarios.

Currently, Clinton leads Obama by about 20 superdelegates. So even under this best-case scenario, she still would then need to go and win the remaining undeclared superdelegates by a 54 vote margin -- otherwise she would still fall short.

So after all this, even with Michigan and Florida, it probably wouldn't be enough. But it would drag this process out into July or August. And you know who that would make happiest, right?

John Sidney McCain.

The Jed Report Home Page

© Jed Lewison