Why 2209 is a red herring

I know that 2209 is the new talking point, but if - as expected - Obama hits 2024 before the rules committee meets, 2209 isn't going to matter.  Why?  Once again it's math.

In the first place, the odds of a new magic number being 2209 is minimal.  The rules committee is likely to at least enact the Republican 50% penalty which would lower that number.  I'm going to assume the best case for Clinton and give the states no penalty.

OK, let's look at how Obama got to 2025.  He needs 159 more delegates now according to DemComWatch, let's say he gets 60 from OR/KY/WV (a pretty achievable goal) and 25 from add ons (again low balling his likely total), and 74 superdelegate commitments after he clinches the pledged delegate lead.

So he's at 2025, the rules committee meets, and says FL and MI counts in full.  He's doomed, right?   Wrong.  Remember, Obama is going to get some of those delegates.  Michigan's recent plan - not the Obama camp's plan mind you, but Michigan's - would give him 59 delegates.  In Florida, he earned 67 delegates.  So immediately he'd be at 2151.  He also has 6 superdelegate commitments from those states (5 from MI, one from FL), so he's be at 2157. Moreover, the elections aren't over.

Puerto Rico, Montana, and South Dakota would still vote.  Of those 86 delegates, Obama would receive close to 40.  That gets him to 2197.  

So with conservative assumptions, even with MI and FL counted in full, Obama would be within 12 delegates of the nomination with 164 superdelegates left to commit (remember the number is higher because I'm giving FL and MI their superdelegates).  Clinton would not be able to reach the magic number herself even if all of them committed - the remaining Edwards delegates would block her chances of getting to 2209 - but the fact is that they're not going to go 153-11 against Obama barring the kind of disaster that would prevent Obama from getting the nomination without MI/FL counting.

So 2209 or 2024 doesn't make much of a difference.  If Obama can get to one, he can get to the other.

By the way, if you're wondering, if they halve Florida's delegates, the new number is then 2162. Obama would be at 2117. The 40 from MT/SD/PR would get him needing only 5 more SDs. If they halve both MI and FL, the number would be 2098. Obama would be at 2087.5, meaning he wouldn't need any more SDs at all since PR/MT/SD would get him the 10.5 he'd need.

Display:


Re: Why 2209 is a red herring (2.00 / 2)

No, see, you don't understand. The latest Clinton math plan means the supers will flock to Hillary because Obama can't win "hard working Americans-- white Americans".  (Psst... he's black.)


by neonplaque on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:40:23 AM EST

I was told there'd be no math! (2.00 / 3)

Good job.


John McCain supports privatizing Social Security.
by Travis Stark on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:41:00 AM EST

Re: Why 2209 is a red herring (2.00 / 1)

Indeed, even if MI were seated as is (with Obama getting the 36 delegates he won at the state convention) it would still be nearly impossible for her to win.  I'd like to see the Obama campaign just agree to seat them both as is and take this rationale for staying in away from her.


by Same As It Ever Was on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:44:19 AM EST

How we end this tomorrow. (none / 0)

Offer her the VP, but she has to accept by 4pm tomorrow.

WV votes, she wins and turns him down.

Obama can then claim the high ground and the vote in WV which is mostly being ignored becomes the second story.

He will be seen as the uniter, and her for what she is.


by IowaMike on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:49:59 AM EST

Wouldn't work. (none / 0)

Clinton would agree to VP instantly if offered.  That's why she's staying in the race.

A heartbeat away from the presidency is a better chance than what she has now.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:55:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

2209 is only number to consider (2.00 / 1)

  1. without Florida and Michigan convention is illegitimate
  2. supers cannot cast their vote before convention, so counting them before august is waste of time and meaningless. They are free to change their mind at will.

Welcome to a Landslide without white Working class, Latinos, Women, Seniors and holding-on sweeties
by engels on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:50:44 AM EST

Re: 2209 is only number to consider (2.00 / 1)

Take them.

The math is the math. She still loses.


by IowaMike on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:52:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Really? (2.00 / 1)

I may have heard that somewhere before.

So how does that make a difference in the final outcome?

Simply, how does Clinton reach 2209?  Is there some alternate math you are using for that calculation?


I trust Senator Obama.
by GFORD on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:57:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 2209 is only number to consider (2.00 / 1)

1. Even counting Michigan/Florida, she loses.

2. Newflash: no delegates, super or other, can 'vote' before the convention.  That's why they pledge or endorse and the nominee is normally presumptive before the convention.

Yes, they are 'free to change their mind at will'... as you've been seeing Clinton supers starting to switch to Obama in order to coalesce around our party's nominee.


by neonplaque on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:58:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 2209 is only number to consider (2.00 / 1)

While technically true, I find your second point to be one of the most mind numbingly silly arguments I've seen during this silly season.  Do you really thing superdelegates coming out for the candidate who appears to be winning the nomination are really going to defect?

It amounts to a strategy of "wait to see if Obama spontaneously combusts".  It could happen.  But it's not going to.


by Same As It Ever Was on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:59:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 2209 is only number to consider (none / 0)

well: supers currently supporting Obama who is going to lose  and their endorsement seems to me very silly and even more: idiotic and suicidal.


Welcome to a Landslide without white Working class, Latinos, Women, Seniors and holding-on sweeties
by engels on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:08:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why 2209 is a red herring (none / 0)

Also Clinton Campaign chair Terry M is now sayingg that they will accept seating of FL with half-delegate penalty (i.e. each pledged delegate counts as 1/2 and not full vote).  This is likely because they expect to a large net gain on FL supers, but underscores that the Clinton camp does not expect any miracles to be delivered by the Rules and Bylaws committee.  

There is no HRC path to the nomination that includes the rational counting of delegates.  Only a complete BO collapse due to new information being found about his past (likely HRC's fondest hope) or his negatives being driven higher and higher by end of campaign, leading to HRC surpassing him by large double digit margin in national match-up with McCain.  As Roger Simon noted, former is a desperate wish and latter is a fond hope.  


by Kensingtonbill on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:59:54 AM EST

Re: Why 2209 is a red herring (none / 0)

If they go halfies in FL, the number is then 2162.  Obama would be at 2117.  The 40 from MT/SD/PR would get him needing only 5 more SDs.


Beat McCain!
by thezzyzx on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:11:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why 2209 is a red herring (none / 0)

The SD's can change their vote up until the convention.

so it depends if Hillary is in it to win or if she wants to concede.

She, like Ted Kennedy did, can take it to the convention floor in August and fight. Kennedy did this in '80 against an incumbent Pres Carter and only had 800 delegates!!!

If things happen between now and August that make him an ineffective candidate, then this could happen.


by nikkid on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:03:28 AM EST

Re: Why 2209 is a red herring (2.00 / 1)

Yeah, and 1980 turned out great, didn't it!


by IowaMike on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:06:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why 2209 is a red herring (none / 0)

thanks to obama's buddy ted kennedy...


by nikkid on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:07:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why 2209 is a red herring (2.00 / 1)

So, you want Hillary to be thought of as fondly as Ted Kennedy?

That's setting the bar a little low, isn't it?


by IowaMike on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:13:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why 2209 is a red herring (none / 0)

I don't mind. I just want her to fight this the whole way to the convention floor.

I think she should and I think she can win as more and more stuff comes out on him between now and August showing us what a truly flawed candidate he is.

Since I'm not voting for him anyway - I want her to fight on til the bitter end and I hope she chooses to do that.


by nikkid on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:36:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why 2209 is a red herring (none / 0)

Well, thanks for being honest.

4 years of McCain and you get more (2-3) Bush type supreme court justices, something we will all be paying for for the rest of our lives.

BTW, the strongest political machine in our generation has been the Clintons. If they haven't found anything that takes him out, I doubt anyone else will.


by IowaMike on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:42:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I see (none / 0)

you are not voting for him anyway and you want a bitter convention fight that damages the party.

A good principled democrat you are, who vites his based on issues not personality, eh?


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:09:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why 2209 is a red herring (2.00 / 1)

If... if... if only if....

BTW, how did the 1980s GE turn out?


by neonplaque on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:09:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Eh, you do know Kennedy lost, and then Carter did? (2.00 / 1)

Right?


John McCain supports privatizing Social Security.
by Travis Stark on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:15:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Eh, you do know Kennedy lost, and then Carter (2.00 / 1)

For some of Clintons supporters, an Obama bruised and battered for November is more important than a Clinton unifying with the party.


by neonplaque on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:20:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Eh, you do know Kennedy lost, and then Carter (2.00 / 1)

A lot of those "Clinton supporters" are really for McCain and are trying to start fights here.


Beat McCain!
by thezzyzx on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:23:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why 2209 is a red herring (none / 0)

There is a divide in the Democratic party.  Regardless, of the number that is seen on MSM or backed by Dean.  

Here is my side or how I see this issue.  On every election day night coverage I see only 1 number for the delegate count.  Now, looking at the voting totals for Clinton -it is safe to say that half of the Democratic party disagrees with the 2025 number.  

I'm frustrated that our side or our numbers are not being shown.  I feel that so many people are being fooled into believing that there is only one number because MSM says the number is 2025.

I think the MSM is not doing their job in reporting what half the Democratic party thinks.  They are only reporting one side of the issue.  Look on the right side of the main page of MyDD -that count has been there.  

To drive my point home, many Dems disagree with the party leader (Dean).  To me it was a irrational decision to not count votes.  Obama took his name off of the ballot in MI (Period).

This is not a new issue or a deviation from past arguments being made.  Therefor, it is not a red herring.  But, in all fairness my argument of MSM  convoluting the issue may be.


by jelyfish on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:39:38 AM EST

Re: Why 2209 is a red herring (none / 0)

half the people don't believe in evolution. Does that mean we treat their beliefs like its a scientific conflict?

They "give the other side" argument falls apart when the other side doesn't have merit. Clinton, herself, said the number was 2024.


by IowaMike on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:44:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why 2209 is a red herring (none / 0)

half the people don't believe in evolution. Does that mean we treat their beliefs like its a scientific conflict?

What?!?  

And for the rest, voting does have merit.


by jelyfish on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:14:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why 2209 is a red herring (none / 0)

Your argument that the number is 2024 has no real merit. Clinton said it was 2024 herself. At least she was for 2024 before she was against it.


by IowaMike on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:37:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why 2209 is a red herring (none / 0)

People voted in MI and FL.  Many of us have been using the 2209 number here at MyDD since I can remember.  Perhaps this is new to you, but it is not new to many Hillary supporters.  I would say Hillary's recent victories in PA and IN do give it merit.  Half of all Dems believe it has merit.

Sorry, but open ended statements by you that it does not have "real merit" are baseless.  

Beware! Of anyone, who would tell you that your vote won't (doesn't) count.


by jelyfish on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:36:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why 2209 is a red herring (none / 0)

Its new to Clinton as well. She stated it was 2024. Again, changing the math because you are losing.


by IowaMike on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:18:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

no help (none / 0)

You just can't stop can you?

Your condencending tones,  snarky implies

Here you go with "the odds of a new magic number"

quit ad-libbing your frame


"Little Distractions Become Major Attractions" - How can you possibly win?
by ctmayor on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:07:49 AM EST

Re: no help (none / 0)

well,the Clinton campaign has been ad-libbing their rational for continuing and how/why they should win for awhile now.


by IowaMike on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:32:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why 2209 is a red herring (none / 0)

This is a good diary. Thanks. However, being from Michigan, I believe that any plan that seats the delegates without a do-over election is disenfranchising voters and essentially stealing votes. Not to mention that it weakens the Party by  showing it can't enforce its own rules. I hope that these contested delegates are not seated on principle. Protect the people's right to vote--don't seat these unfairly awareded delegates.


by luckymortal on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:24:28 PM EST

Re: Why 2209 is a red herring (none / 0)

You can do whatever math you want till Aug.  Until the vote in my mind nobody has this won.  The DNC made the rules they can wait.  I am just happy to wait and see what happens by Aug.


by orion1 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:50:29 PM EST


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.