Win for Obama, rejected by Clintons as a small black state whose people don’t matter.
60- 40 = 20 - 13 ? (percentage = delegates)
Well, duh. 
Al Giordano, whose analysis I respect, says that a win for Obama in the high 50s doesn’t get him much of a delegate advantage - that a 58-41 win in votes could still leave him with only a 17-16 win on delegates.
Something similar happened in Alabama, where a 56-42 Obama win, votewise, turned into a much narrower 27-25 win on delegates.
Part of the deal is that, again, middling wins under the Dems’ system have a way of having their effect diluted in the delegate count. We’ve got 11 delegates apportioned statewide, and 7,5,5,5 in the four CDs. The 7-delegate district is the majority-black one; the other 3 are majority white.
If I’ve crunched my numbers correctly, any margin of victory of less than 18.18% gives the winner just a one-delegate advantage amongst the statewide delegates; a 59.0-40.8% win would give Obama a 3-delegate advantage there. Similarly, in the majority-black district, a 28.57% margin of victory gets Obama a 5-2 delegate win, but it takes a 57.14% margin of victory to get a 6-1 delegate edge. Meanwhile, the majority-white districts will likely go 3-2 one way or the other, depending on how many of the whites vote in the Dem primary today. I’m starting to think 21-12 for Obama would be huge.
One thing I don’t understand about the polling to date is that they seem to assume assume that blacks will constitute about 53-55% of today’s electorate. This is weird in a state that’s 38% black, and votes 60-40 GOP in Presidential elections. You’d think that would add up to a 90-95% black Dem primary electorate, but apparently not even close.
Anyway, I’m gonna go with 19-14 in delegates, and hope for the best.
CNN is now reporting that Obama won the Texas caucuses, with delegates split 38/29 for Obama/Clinton. The primary resulted in a 61/65 split in the delegates, so Obama ends up with a net gain of five for the state. Given the huge amount of coverage when Hillary “won Texas” on Tuesday, I hope that the caucus results receive similar coverage.
Should we expect some screaming about the people’s clearly-stated will having been subverted?
Right now it looks like RTFirefly is right - I think CNN has awarded Obama 16 delegates so far and Clinton 15. Here’s something interesting, though: I read a story or two that said Mississippi Democrats were expecting relatively low turnout of 120,000 to 150,000, compared to around 100,000 in 2004. But with about 2/3 of the precincts in, they’re already got a little more than 240,000 votes counted. Who that favors or what it says, I don’t know.
How do you figure?
When you’re right, you’re right. At the moment, it’s 57 - 41 and 17 - 14 with 2 delegates left to apportion.
Good job!
And congratulations to Senator Obama for his 30th win in 44 contests!
Whiteknight, I wouldn’t count on the MSM paying any attention. They’re still saying Hillary won “big” in Texas, even though that was never the case, not even on election night. And they haven’t even mentioned California’s certified results that provided an 8 delegate swing in Obama’s favor on the same day, which, when you add that to her “big wins”, Obama still added more pledged delegates that day than she did!
I heard a few talking heads say that Obama got more delegates in Texas, actually. It’s certainly muted compared to the “we got us a race!” excitement last week, obviously.
The margin for Obama in Mississippi keeps waffling between 17 and 18 percent, so it’ll be interesting to see where that ends up.
Two questions:
At what point can we assume Clinton will need twice as many unconfirmed superdelegates at the convention as Obama?
What are the rest of the remaining pledged delegates looking like? Clinton’s probably going to take Pennsylvania by 10-15, but how many delegates will that net her? What about North Carolina, Indiana, Oregon, Kentucky (is it a safe assumption to say Puerto Rico will go to Obama)?
Okay, sorry, that’s more than two questions…
ETA: RCP is saying Pennsylvania and North Carolina will net Clinton a whopping four delegates, but I don’t know where to look for other polls.
And your response was a “so what” not any sort of refutation. Its still perfectly legal, within the system, and not a “trick” for the credentials committee at the Democratic National Convention to decide to seat the Fla delegates.
What I think** ElvisL1ves** is talking about is that Clinton got 101,029 more popular votes than Obama did in TX, but Obama may have got more delegates. Clearly, the “will of the people” is being scorned. 
So, is it the will of the people r the system?
Clearly the Obama-its want whichever is better for Obama at any given moment. :rolleyes:
And the Clinton-its don’t? :rolleyes:
ETA: Don’t want what’s best for Clinton at the moment, that is. :smack:
Once again you wrongly impute motives to an entire group of people.
“Obama-its” (whatever those are) want whatever the results are from every contest that is held that conforms to the rules established by the DNC and their state legislatures. Period.
In Texas that means a combination of primary and caucus delegates. Both candidates had the same opportunity to sway the electorate to come out and both vote and caucus for them. One of them got a few more people to show up during the primaries and one of them got a few more to show up during the caucuses. Each group got a proportional, weighted number of delegates assigned based on a pre-established formula that both were made fully aware of.
The results came in and one candidate took more delegates from one portion and one candidate took more delegates from the other. When combined, only one of them was able to come out ahead. Whichever one it was, it was.
The only thing that’s clear here is that one candidate has supporters who understand the system and respect all of the outcomes and the other does not.
To explain why something’s technically true but devoid of meaning is still a refutation. Thanks for playing, Delegate.
It’s even crazier than I thought. According to pocketnines over at DKos, the 11 statewide delegates are allocated proportionally - but in two separate groups: the four PLEO delegates and the seven at-large delegates.
So the 4 PLEOs split 2-2 rather than 3-1 because Obama didn’t win by 25%, and the 7 at-larges split 4-3 Obama rather than 5-2 because he didn’t win by 28.57%.
If they’d all been in one pot, Obama would have won 7 of 11, on the basis of his 61-37 win last night.
Looks like he got a majority in 2 of the 3 5-delegate districts, though, and if so, I’ll hit my WAG (and that’s really all it was - dumb luck!) on the nose.
Another 3% statewide would have picked him up 4 more delegates quite possibly - 2 statewide, and 2 more in two CDs where he was only a few % short of the threshold for another delegate.
Crazy system.
Wait–Clinton is leading in North Carolina? How is that possible? That seems really weird to me.
edit: Looks like Obama’s got an 8-point lead in NC, more or less. You were probably lumping PA and NC together.
Daniel
Barack won MS 61-37 and got 17 delegates. I see no reason this doesn’t continue for the next several months. Hillary may pick up a win or two but she’ll not get herself into first place. I wonder when she’ll hang it up, or will she simply dig a hole and grab Barack as she plummets into it.
If I say it once, I say it a thousand times. There are a lot of ways of turning the individual preferences of thousands or millions into a social preference. Simply majority rule is neither the only way nor necessarily the best way. The fact that sometimes the rules we use conflict with majority rule does not necessarily reveal their inadequacy. This is a complete canard.
Yes, I was, and I inadvertently used percentages instead of delegates because of the way it’s listed at RCP . The table above shows delegates, and the second table shows percentages, but they’re not labeled.
That brings up another question I have, though. How does Clinton leading in North Carolina not make sense? I mean, I understand why Illinois, Arkansas, and New York went the way they did. But how do people predict the other states without any poll data?
True, but at least Barack ran up his popular vote totals, which may help seal the deal with supers.