Last week, I posted my back-of-the-envelope arithmetic to double-check the sanity of Hillary’s delegate math.
In case anyone’s interested, here is an update to that reckoning:
|
Obama’s Lead |
|||
|
Delegates |
Popular Vote |
||
|
Tally as of 21 May |
181 |
559,336 |
(RCP assumptions in caucus states) |
|
…if FL & MI included |
66 |
-63,745 |
|
|
… ” “, MI unaffiliated to Obama |
121 |
174,423 |
|
|
|
|||
|
Puerto Rico Forecast |
-8 |
-156,000 |
(RedState PV projections, extrapolated to delegate count) |
|
Montana Forecast |
1 |
14,000 |
|
|
South Dakota Forecast |
2 |
35,000 |
|
|
Total Forecasted |
-5 |
-107,000 |
|
|
|
|||
|
Projected @ 3 June |
176 |
452,336 |
|
|
…if FL & MI included |
61 |
-170,745 |
|
|
… ” “, MI unaffiliated to Obama |
116 |
67,423 |
|
|
Unpledged Delegates |
221 |
(Undeclared supers & Edwards delegates) | |
|
…if FL & MI Included |
289 |
||
|
% Unpledged Delegates Needed by Hillary to Win |
90% |
||
|
…if FL & MI Included |
61% |
||
|
…, MI unaffiliated to Obama |
70% |
||
Last week, the “% unpledged Hillary needs to win” figures were 80%, 56%, and 64%.
If Hillary could pull off an bigger rout of Obama than is expected — say by getting a margin of victory beyond 225,000 — she would have a better claim to winning the popular vote.
However, it looks like she hasn’t gained much traction with that argument among the superdelegates, so far. That bodes ill for her candidacy, since in the end, it’s the delegate count that matters.