Let’s start with the January results. Both states went ahead and allocated delegates based on those votes, before a revote looked likely. In Florida, Sen. Clinton would have won 105 delegates to Sen. Obama’s 67 and former Sen. John Edwards’s 13 delegates. In Michigan, where Sen. Obama removed himself from the ballot, Sen. Clinton won 73 delegates and 55 delegates were assigned to “uncommitted,” the uninspiring ballot line urged on Obama supporters. That yields a combined margin of 111 for Sen. Clinton — which is roughly Sen. Obama’s lead in most delegate counts. The Tricky Math of a Florida and Michigan Revote
Florida, Michigan and the Democratic National Committee appear near a deal to resolve a long-running dispute between the party and the two large states: How to seat their delegates. The party stripped the states of their delegations after they announced they would hold January primaries, which kept candidates from campaigning in those states and even, in Michigan, appearing on the ballot. Now DNC chairman Howard Dean is indicating he’d accept a revote, with some suggesting mail-in ballots as the mechanism.
That raises many difficult questions about how the delegate math would play out, including the relevance of January results, the lack of polling data, the possibility of bonus delegates and the potential effect on superdelegates.
Let’s start with the January results. Both states went ahead and allocated delegates based on those votes, before a revote looked likely. In Florida, Sen. Clinton would have won 105 delegates to Sen. Obama’s 67 and former Sen. John Edwards’s 13 delegates. In Michigan, where Sen. Obama removed himself from the ballot, Sen. Clinton won 73 delegates and 55 delegates were assigned to “uncommitted,” the uninspiring ballot line urged on Obama supporters. That yields a combined margin of 111 for Sen. Clinton — which is roughly Sen. Obama’s lead in most delegate counts.
If those delegates were seated, it would create confusion. Even pledged delegates technically are free to vote at the convention as they please, but there’d be even greater uncertainty surrounding the Edwards and uncommitted delegates.
If there are revotes, would the first primary results predict how a revote would play out? It’s hard to say, as pollsters haven’t been active in Florida nor in Michigan since last January. SurveyUSA, which was one of the last pollsters active in Florida, doesn’t yet have a schedule for the two states, according to Jay Leve, president of the polling firm. Nor does Zogby, a spokesman said. Pollster J. Ann Selzer, whose firm directs the Detroit Free Press’s poll, said she has no set plans to poll more in Michigan. “This is a completely different contest than it was in January,” she told me. Polling in Texas and Ohio in the month-plus period before those states’ primaries but after Florida and Michigan balloting showed Sen. Obama gaining by about 10 points; Mr. Edwards also dropped out during that period.
These new primaries could have even more at stake than if they’d been held in February. Both states could be in line for bonus delegates, on top of their combined totals of 313 pledged delegates and 54 superdelegates. After I wrote last week that states with late primaries stood to gain bonus delegates, readers James Dechene and Chris Olsen emailed me to ask if that might apply to do-overs in the two states. Their Democratic parties, as well as the DNC, told me they haven’t yet figured that out. “It’s not clear,” said DNC spokeswoman Stacie Paxton, adding that the Rules Committee might decide. “Our goal is simply to get the delegates we are currently assigned seated at the convention,” Elizabeth Kerr, spokeswoman for the Michigan Democrats, told me. Florida Democratic spokesman Alejandro Miyar said, “Getting any add-ons would be pure speculation at this point. With these arcane rules, it’s hard to cut through them at this time.”
Part of the rules’ ambiguity lies in the proposal to use mail-in ballots. Beginning on Page 1, the party’s convention rules clearly state that primaries or caucuses in states that held votes before April in 2004 (a group that includes Florida and Michigan) are in line for a 15% bonus on their base delegation if they hold 2008 votes in April — which would add a total of 41 delegates to the pot — and a 30% bonus if the vote was held on or after May 1 — which would add on 81 delegates. North Carolina, for one, has picked up 24 bonus delegates. Mr. Dean has suggested that the delegations could be seated as long as the states follow the rules.
But the rules refer to “the period of time in which the first determining stage of the presidential nomination process takes place during 2008.” It’s unclear how to mark mail-in ballots on an electoral calendar — whether by the time they’re first sent out, or the deadline for returning them. Asked about this, the DNC’s Ms. Paxton replied, “None of that is clear.”
Even with bonus delegates, the states’ pledged delegations aren’t large enough for Sen. Clinton to close the overall delegate gap, even if she wins each state by 20 points, because Democrats assign these delegates proportionally rather than giving them all to state winners.
But if the 54 superdelegates are like those from other states, they may be affected even by a narrow win. Of the 399 superdelegates who are based in states that have already voted, 268 — or more than two-thirds — are aligned with the candidate that won their state, according to numbers updated through Mississippi’s primary vote and provided to me Wednesday evening by Mark Myers, co-founder of the Superdelegate Transparency Project, which tracks superdelegate alignment. Even small margins in the popular vote sometimes translate into a big edge in superdelegates: In Connecticut, Sen. Obama won by just four percentage points, but has picked seven of eight committed superdelegates. (There are more details in this spreadsheet provided by Mr. Myers.) In Florida and Michigan, where Sen. Clinton won both January votes, she’s picked up 15 of 21 superdelegates who have committed.
If the race is undecided by the convention, pressure likely will build on superdelegates to align their votes with their states, which may increase the winner-take-all effect on these 795 delegates.
Further reading: I examined how many Florida and Michigan voters had their voices “silenced” by the decision not to seat the states’ delegates.
Article printed from The Numbers Guy: http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy
URL to article: http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/the-tricky-math-of-a-florida-and-michigan-revote-296/
URLs in this post:
[1] is indicating he’d accept a revote: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-dems10mar10,1,2981600.story
[2] would have won: http://www.fladems.com/content/w/florida_delegate_selection_to_the_2008_democratic_national_conventi
on
[3] won 73 delegates: http://www.michigandems.com/020808prs.html
[4] Even pledged delegates: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8583.html
[5] Edwards: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18947692
[6] Florida: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/fl/florida_democratic_primary-261.html
[7] Michigan: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/mi/michigan_democratic_primary-238.html
[8] SurveyUSA: http://www.surveyusa.com/
[9] Zogby: http://www.zogby.com/
[10] firm: http://www.selzerco.com/
[11] Texas: http://www.pollster.com/08-TX-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
[12] Ohio: http://www.pollster.com/08-OH-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
[13] wrote: http://www.star-telegram.com/news/story/513600.html
[14] convention rules: http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/87b58105c024e2d151_bum6be6vb.pdf
[15] Superdelegate Transparency Project: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Superdelegate_Transparency_Project
[16] picked up: http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/03/florida-and-michigan-superdelegates.html
[17] examined: http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/how-many-florida-and-michigan-voters-were-silenced-294/
No comments:
Post a Comment