Get into a debate with Obama folks, as a Clinton supporter, these days, and you're bound to get "the math problem." It goes something like this: Obama has more popular votes. Obama has more delegates. It's mathematically impossible for Clinton to win more of either than Obama, even if she had stupendous margins. She should just get out. QED.
Then they go... "what... don't you understand math?"
Well, yes, I do. And the reality is that there is, yes, a math problem... but it's actually more complicated than anyone makes out at first blush; however, the real problem has to do with the ongoing, still unresolved issues of Florida and Michigan, and that's not math... it's politics. But before we got there, let's look at, er, the math:
- Obama has more delegates - well, sort of; in theory, if you take the victories Obama has had, match them up to the (fairly convoluted) methodology for dividing delegates in various states, then he's in the lead. Exactly what that lead may be... is actually a matter of some debate. Here's just a few reasons why:
- Caucus states have not actually allocated delegates - most will do so in state conventions that start in June (you could then, get into the caucus vs. primary debate...)
- Several primary states have delegates that are awarded at state conventions.
- Superdelegates do not have to commit; and many of them have not.
- The delegate allocation of Florida and Michigan is in dispute
- Obama has more popular votes - well, sort of; in fact there are no actual vote counts for the Iowa, Washington, Nevada, and Maine caucuses. Obama won three, Clinton won Nevada. In addition, you could have a long argument about whether Texas voting should count both the primary (Clinton won) and the caucus (Obama won), though the caucus voters were already counted in the primary, and they amount to less than 100,000 votes. Never mind. The real problem here, again, is Florida and Michigan. Without them, Obama does lead, by some 700,000 votes. However, add both states back in, and his lead drops to 80,000, something that could be undone simply by his losing Pennsylvania. But let's accept the stipulation that Michigan shouldn't count because Obama wasn't on the ballot; his lead then is 400,000 votes. That, too, is surmountable.
- However, perhaps more illustrative of the fairly dead heat here is percentages - all votes in, the difference between Clinton and Obama is .2%. Using the most generous totals (i.e., excluding FL and MI), Obama leads by 2.6%. He isn't even over 50% of total votes (because Edwards and others siphon off about 5% of the total, for one thing).
- Clinton can't win enough delegates - again, complicated. In the first place, she doesn't have to; Obama will not have the necessary 2025 delegates when all the voting is done just by counting pledged delegates - both candidates will rely on the decision of superdelegates, whose presence, as I mentioned a while back, was designed to make a decision on more factors than simply popular will. More to the point, barring massive shifts, their delegate totals will be most likely within about 100-200 delegates of each other. Commanding lead? Again, not so much.
Sure I get annoyed by the suggestions that I don't get math and can't see the obvious. I happen to love math, and it pains me to see the less math literate act as if they've got something highly definitive here. But the point is... It's very close. It has been all along. We don't have a great sense of total delegates... we don't even have a correct count of total votes. To say we know, to a vast certainty, how the math here plays out is just absurd. All we know is that it's close, and we will have to wait to see if things get closer... or clearer for one candidate.
And anyway, the elephant - er, donkey - in this room is Florida and Michigan, anyway.
The main math problem is how to count Michigan; for various reasons - I'll get to them - Florida is less disastrous. But the decision, in Michigan, by most candidates to drop off the ballot as a way to punish Michigan for going early really does render a judgment about their vote totals hopeless. One can - and I certainly could - argue that Clinton's 55% vote total can be maintained by giving the 40% "Uncommitted" vote to Obama. It's a solution. But honestly, not a good one. Indeed there's no good solution... which is why Michigan's plan to redo the primary is probably a done deal.
Florida, however, is harder. There was a primary, with all names. Though turnout may have been lower than it could have been (there was confusion at polling places, and some voters definitely got the "you will not count" message), in fact Florida Democratic turnout was, as elsewhere, quite high. The delegate split is not way out of line with the rest of the states, and neither Clinton nor Obama's campaign has really objected to the idea that, in some form, the delegates could be seated, in theory, as is.
The problem is, what form. It's been suggested, lately, that the Florida delegation be seated with each delegate getting half a vote. That may make some sort of negotiated sense... but the implications are atrocious, suggesting that Florida "counts less" than other states... is a recipe to hand Florida to the GOP, when we do, realitiscally, have some shot of winning in November.
But a revote in Florida is problematic, too. It turns out the plan to have a mail in vote (or a mail in supplemented by some in person polling) is illegal in Florida - though the Party says that, done privately, that's not an issue. Moreover, the entire Democratic Congressional delegation opposes the redo, partly because, in June, many "snowbird" voters are back home in other places.
Do I have an answer? No; I just think this is a terrible mess, and frankly, I blame Howard Dean. This is a prime example of a piece of business that needs to be solved by the DNC taking sensible steps to enfranchise as many as possible. But that, ironically, brings us back to the math problem. Part of the problem here, clearly, is that Clinton is expected to "re-win" a Florida revote, possibly with a better margin, probably with more votes (because overall turnout would likely go up). That will blow serious holes in Obama's claims to more votes and undermine any argument he makes about large states, which he has not won, except for Illinois, in primaries. And while Obama supporters believe Michigan holds the possibility of a win, there too, Clinton would be quite viable (especially among working class auto workers) in a way that could offset Obama's strengths in Detroit (minorities), and Ann Arbor (U Mich students and faculty). But the point is, anything other than revotes in both states opens up a tremendous can of worms - about our belief, as Democrats in giving everyone a say, about the opportunity to vote, and about having as open and fair a process as possible.
So that's the math problem, and the political problem. Any questions?
More to the point... any answers? Bueller?
Comments