Clinton Campaign UNDERCOUNTS delegates by 11-14%. Nationwide "Florida" anyone?

[FlyingSquirrel]

I think the Clinton campaign has settled on a game plan. And it won't be a very pleasant game plan either.

Here are various projected pledged delegate estimates from various sources:
(These include projections from non-binding contests)

O Campaign: Obama 1,386; Clinton 1,230 (53.0% to 47.0%)
MSNBC: ..... Obama 1,366; Clinton 1,227 (52.7% to 47.3%)
CBS: ......... Obama 1,362; Clinton 1,210 (53.0% to 47.0%)
AP: ........... Obama 1,360; Clinton 1,220 (52.7% to 47.3%)
NYT: ......... Obama 1,341; Clinton 1,205 (52.7% to 47.3%)
CNN: ......... Obama 1,321; Clinton 1,186 (52.7% to 47.3%)
C Campaign: Obama 1,201.5; Clinton 1,042 (53.6% to 46.4%)

Average: .. Obama 1350; Clinton 1209.6 (52.7% to 47.3%)

The above average used the five sources EXCEPT the official Obama and Clinton campaign numbers.

Now of course you can expect the Obama campaign's numbers to be biased in his favor, and you can expect the Clinton campaign's numbers to be biased in her favor.

But here's the interesting part:

The Obama campaign puts it at 53.0% to 47.0%
The Clinton campaign puts it at 53.6% to 46.4%

NONE of the above sources, not even the Obama campaign, differ from the average lead by more than 0.3% -- EXCEPT
the Clinton campaign. Her numbers differ by 0.9% from the average.

It gets more interesting.

Why would her campaign purposely show her losing by a larger margin than any of the rest?

Because her delegate totals are MUCH LOWER than the rest.

Well so what, Obama's totals are HIGHER than the rest. What's your point?

Obama's totals give himself and Clinton 2.7% and 1.7% more delegates than the average, respectively.
Clinton's totals give Obama and herself 11.0% and 13.9% FEWER delegates than the average, respectively.

That's not just a minor difference. It is, in fact, a MAJOR difference.

What that means is, the Clinton campaign does not agree with any of the news sources on how the delegates from the non-binding contests should be apportioned - and refuses to include them in their totals. What it means is, they plan to vigorously contest each and every one of the delegates that pretty much everyone else seems to think are either already assigned, or should be assigned in a certain manner.

They have, in fact, stated as much.

So don't let it come as a surprise when it happens. This will be getting very nasty and lawyers will be showing up on your newscasts.

[anonymous171]

1. They're taking Kristol's advice, FEAR 24/7

[FlyingSquirrel]

2. Nice speed reading. n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. To quote Lee Mercer...

(all three)

[LSparkle]

4. I agree with Margaret Carlson: They have a plan. For TODAY.

Tomorrow? Stay tuned ...

[jazzjunkysue]

5. It's sort of like Rudy's plan, but longer. Much, much, longer.

They both thought it was theirs for the taking. Walk in the park.

[FlyingSquirrel]

6. Wow. Can I hit "Reply all"? Dude. If you're just gonna respond to the OP line

and not the content, don't bother responding.

I'm gonna change my subject line, maybe I'll get fewer one-liners and more actual discussion.

[C_U_L8R]

7. They took Cheney's advice... they're reality makin'

but they've cocked up their reality so bad
it's just a monstrous mess.

[FlyingSquirrel]

10. Hey, you said monstrous.

:wow:

[Bright Eyes]

8. She's staying in this race to poison the well against Obama.

Throw so much shit at him, so that when he does win the nomination, he'll lose to McCain. Then she can run again in 2012.

She's willing to subjugate us to 4 more years of Repub misrule to further her own damn ambition.

*Edit for spelling*

[Diane R]

12. Exactly. And this is the message that needs to get out.

[CreekDog]

9. because not all of them count

haven't you been paying attention??? :dunce:

[lligrd]

11. How Could They Contest Them?

What would be their grounds?

[FlyingSquirrel]

13. They could say some of them have been apportioned incorrectly

They could say some of the ballots were invalid
They could say some of the machines were tallying votes incorrectly
They could say everything that was said in FL in 2000 and OH in 2004, and more.

They could contest each and every delegate and they have stated that this is their intention.

[lligrd]

16. What A Mess That Would Be

I don't think that would go over to well. Then again, I doubt she would care.

[Gore1FL]

14. the totals listed by her are roughly the same

same numbers as listed by Slate, pre March 4.

They have it as

Clinton: 1036
Obama: 1192

CBS's pre march 4 delegate totals are:

Clinton: 1035.5
Obama: 1192

18.5 -- not assigned

The additional numbers from the Clinton page pretty much equate the the CBS unnassigned numbers:
9.5 diff + 6.5 diff = 18

It seems that their scores were just not updated in the past few days. Hence it is a slow web admin rather than a conspiracy.

[FlyingSquirrel]

20. The numbers showing Clinton's count is from Friday's NYT

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/delegates/index.html

[ExFreeper4Obama]

15. Very revealing post

The Clinton Campaign will take this election to the Supreme Court. Bank on it.

[Gore1FL]

17. I would bank on the late website update

based on my post above.

[Stephanie]

18. I have been saying for months that she will litigate this election.

She will litigate over FL & MI if necessary, she has already started in TX. God she's just disgusting.

[snappyturtle]

28. I haven't heard that about Texas! If you have a link I'd sure like

to have it....or I'll get off my lazy butt and Google it.....I think Hillary is going to run the party into the ground. I know Skinner felt it neccesary to close down a thread about assigning the "T" word to Hillary but if she goes through with this, what other conclusion could we possibly come to...against her own party? Sad.

[madfloridian]

19. March 17...appellate hearing. Could affect election.

If they don't get what they want there, they will take it to the Supreme Court.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1871

Florida and the Supreme Court...together again. Thanks, Vic and Michael.

:eyes:

[snappyturtle]

29. Again, we all owe you alot of thanks.....I thought 2000 was awful but

now this in OUR party against us!(?) Truly scary.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

21. K&R. The difference between PLEDGED and BOUND delegates may play a big part

in the discrepancies you've uncovered. Have you seen Ugnmoose's brilliantly sarcastic thread on this, at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4954428&mesg_id=4954428 ?

As I understand it, most PLEDGED (as opposed to SUPER) delegates elected at primaries and caucuses are BOUND to vote for a specific candidate at least through the first ballot in Denver, but some are not. HRC and Bill must be planning to go to state conventions between now and then and buy or blackmail as many unbound pledged delegates as they can. IMO they're limitlessly sneaky, those Clintons.

All this electoral madness, even after the so-called "Help America Vote Act", in which Chris Dodd caved to the Bakerites in the conference, drives home the need for GENUINE electoral reform, with strict uniform national standards in all statewide elections. And Hillary's shenanigans have disqualified her from the task. When dealing as pResident with even craftier Republicans, who are pushing Prince of Darkness Baker's brilliant Voter ID disfranchisement plan, Hillary could hear, "At least we require that all the candidates' names be on the ballot!"

[FlyingSquirrel]

22. Very interesting.

It's getting uglier and uglier in this country with any kind of election.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

23. Thanks for your hard work so far. This is the best thread I've found on DU this week.

Are you familiar with http://www.thegreenpapers.com ?

If you want to do even more work on this, to unravel state-by-state discrepancies with analyses of delegate responsibilities, IMO that's the place to start.

Somebody's GOT TO do this before the backroom mischief takes place, and we cannot count on the media, not even the newspapers.

[FlyingSquirrel]

24. I'm gonna be taking a break from all this for awhile

I'll have to hope someone else is paying attention.

By the way, if you go to Clinton's official website, center of the screen at bottom under "spotlight" you'll see a wonderful indicator of the mindset of their campaign:

Voting Problems?
Send a report to our voter protection team.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

25. I was surprised just now when I googled "bound pledged delegates Obama Clinton"

I got 121,000 hits!

I've only looked at one so far, at URL http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/02/dems-debate-poa.html :

Very interesting, with Wolfson denying he's going after Obama's unbound pledged delegates last month.

But this is THIS month!

I guess this is one of those stories that editors deem too complex for today's dumbed-down readerships. But googling might take somebody pretty far toward understanding the state-by-state data you've uncovered.

Do you have any links for the stats in your lead-in? I might take a look if you're not going to.

[boston bean]

26. This shit has got to stop. They are using a formula, things can change

many delegates in these caucus states are not pledged. They can vote for who they want.

The media doesn't want to tell you that, do they.

All this focus on the delegates is an Obama/Media fabrication. Things can and have changed at past conventions.

[FlyingSquirrel]

Dupe

[FlyingSquirrel]

27. They choose loyalists to the campaigns. It's unlikely they'll change their votes

But the big thing is, which campaign gets to choose the delegate? And put their loyalist in that position to ensure that they DON'T change their vote at the convention?

And why exactly do you think it would be a good thing for this to happen, when the popular vote is going to the other candidate in so many states?

Oh, right... because the system is flawed.

:sarcasm:

You wouldn't think it was so flawed if Hillary was a better organizer and did better in the caucuses.

[snappyturtle]

30. This is the biggest 'heads up' I've ever come across. Thank you. K&R n/t

[FlyingSquirrel]

31. Well... I hope I'm wrong. But her website is soliciting "voting problems"

Obama's website countered with its own request for people to report voting problems a couple of days later so clearly they're paying attention.

[snappyturtle]

35. I've heard a lot of flack about the TX caucus (convention) system

too. Heard nothing about it here though,oddly enough, since I live in Texas! I don't put anything past her. I wish I knew why she is so hell bent on winning. On second thought,maybe it's better I don't know!

[Johnny__Motown]

32. This will be settled well before the convention, we have from June to August to get hard numbers

But I agree, you can't trust them for even a second

[Colobo]

33. Very informative. Thanks!

[FlyingSquirrel]

34. You're welcome..

Just wish I'd thought up a more clever OP line to get this more attention.

[snappyturtle]

36. Kick!

:kick: