Christopher Beam wrote a good article, "The Superdelegate Wall", which shows arithmetically why Hillary's chances at the nomination (short of a meltdown by Obama) are nearly null.

In short, one scenario shows that Hillary needs to win 70% of the remaining uncommitted superdelegates even if she wins each of the remaining contests by a 55-45 margin (which is not likely, and the growing gap in NC for Obama and the shrinking gap in PA for Clinton dooms that theory).

The chances for Hillary, however are even bleaker than Beam hypothesizes.

One of the most common mistakes made in regards to the Superdelegates is to see them all as uncommitted members of Congress, the DNC, Governors, etc. who have yet to make a choice and are "neutral" so far.

However, out of the 796 Superdelegates, 76 of them are "add-on" delegates awarded to each state (or territory). These "add-on" delegates were supposed to be rewards for states and wildcards that gave each state "flexibility" to "diversify" their delegation. These "add-on" delegates were not supposed to be the decision makers but this year is not the normal year.

What makes these 76 "add-on" delegates so different from the other superdelegates is that these "add-on" delegates are not likely to be neutral when selected, because the system in which they are selected (whether by state chair, caucus, convention, etc.) is not neutral. For example, California chair Art Torres has declared that the 5 "add-on" delegates for California (the largest number for any state) will be split 3-2 for Clinton-Obama based on the rough proportionality of the state vote.

In other states the caucus convention will choose the "add-ons". Loyalty to one or the other candidate will be a major factor. Arkansas just named its "add-on" delegate, and unsurprisingly that delegate announced for Clinton. Washington DC named its two "add-ons" and one has already become an Obama declared delegate. Missouri and Delaware picked their "add-ons" and Obama picked up two of the three, with the third uncommitted.

Seeing that Obama dominated the caucus states and has a large lead in the number of states won, it stands to reason that Obama will win the majority of these add-on delegates, perhaps by as much as 60-40%. Even in states where Clinton won, like Massachussetts, Obama's supporters (Kennedy/Kerry/Deval Patrick) control the state party, so it's possible that this "add-on" delegate would go with Obama.

What makes this precarious for Clinton is that only 12 of the 76 "add-on" delegates have been selected, with the rest selected over the next two months. Of these 12, 6 have endorsed Obama and 1 has endorsed Clinton. This means that of the remaining estimated 326 superdelegates, 70 are from the add-on pool (21%).

So, of the large pool of uncommitted superdelegates that Clinton needs to win by a 70-30% margin, 21% of this pool is poised to support Obama by a healthy margin.

Beam's calculations suggest that after a 55-45 sweep of the remaining contests for Clinton, the final pledged delegate total for Obama will be 1671 and Clinton's will be 1563. Adding on the current superdelegates committed and the Obama lead is 1897 - 1814.

Assume Obama wins 50% of the remaining "add-on" delegates, that would result in a 35-35 split, bringing the totals to Obama 1932 - Clinton 1849, leaving Clinton with needing 76% of the remaining 230 (est.) superdelegates. She would need 3/4 of the remaining uncommitted superdelegates to win. Obama would only need 40%. The discrepancy is caused by the 18 delegate gap created by the Edwards delegates that don't count for either side.

Obama winning only 50% of the "add-on" delegates is rather generous to Clinton. It is more likely, given Obama's impressive lead in states won, control of the caucuses and support even in Clinton-won states (including California, with the 3-2 split when a 5-0 sweep was needed for Clinton), that Obama will probably win 42 of the remaining 70 "add-on" delegates, creating a net 14-delegate gain from this pool of superdelegates.

If Obama were to net another 14 delegates out of this group, his lead would then be 1939 to 1842. Clinton would then need 182 of the 230 remaining undeclared superdelegates to reach the magic 2024 number, which is a 79% sweep. Obama would need 37%.

Keep in mind, this entire scenario presupposes a Clinton sweep by 10 points in each of the final 10 contests.

Let's say Obama splits the final delegates from the states (and PR) with Clinton, 50% to 50%. This would create a 285-285 split among the remaining 570 delegates (according to Slate.com).

That would mean that after all the contests, Obama's lead in pledged delegates only (primary/caucus) would be 1701 to Clinton's 1537. Adding the committed superdelegates (226 for Obama, 251 for Clinton) would make the race Obama 1927 to Clinton's 1788. Adding the "add-on" delegates by the 42-28 split that is expected, and the lead then becomes 1969 to 1816 for Obama. Of the remaining 230 superdelegates, Obama would then only need 55 of them, or 24%. Clinton would need 208 of them, or 90% of them (Edwards' delegates cause the discrepancies here).

This is a much more plausible scenario and shows how impossible the math is for Clinton, and how easily Obama can win the nomination outright. If Obama picks up 55 more superdelegates from the uncommitted DNC/Congress/Governor pool in the meantime (and there are quite a few superdelegates who have declared their allegiance to the winner of their state, with Obama expected to win), then the race could be over after Montana/South Dakota.

Could Obama win the nomination outright if he wins North Carolina, Oregon, Montana and South Dakota by a healthy margin, loses narrowly in Pennsylvania, Kentucy and West Virginia, and splits Indiana, Guam and Puerto Rico?

Let’s say Clinton wins PA by 6 points (10 net delegates), and West Virginia and Kentucky by 10 points (5 net delegates combined). And let’s say Obama wins NC by 18 points (21 net delegates), Oregon by 12 points (6 net delegates) and Montana and South Dakota by 12 points each (5 net delegates). Indiana, Puerto Rico and Guam split in delegates for Clinton and Obama (zero net). This would create a total of 290 delegates for Obama and 277 for Clinton.

Added to the previous totals and Obama has 1706 pledged delegates and Clinton has 1529 pledged delegates. Add the committed superdelegates (226 for Obama and 251 for Clinton) and the new total is 1932 for Obama and 1780 for Clinton. Add the 42-28 split in “add-on” delegates for Obama and Clinton and you get 1974 for Obama and 1808 for Clinton. Obama is short 50 delegates from a pool of 230 (needing 21%) and Clinton is short 216 from 230 (needing 94%).

I'm sure Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi could swing 50 supers to Obama easily to prevent chaos at the convention.

I wanted to mention (because I was in a rush) that the source of the add-on delegate information is demconwatch.blogspot.com.

Great analysis, for all that media is fawning over Obama, they have consistently underestimated how great his chances of victory truly are.

Awesome analysis!

Thanks for the in-depth analysis of a hitherto-unmentioned facet of the campaign! Slate? Feature article?

Jesus Christ, Looks like Chuck Todd joined the Fray is expressing what he wants to say on TV. Well done, Frayster who may or may not be Chuck Todd

If he knows this, then Hillary has to know it also. Yet she continues to do the Huckabee Shuffle. One has to wonder what her end game is. If it is this unlikely she can win the nomination, then what is she after. A nod as VP? Or is she already positioning herself for a run in 2012. This would presuppose an Obama loss in November. Is she intentionally undermining her own party's chances? I would not put it past her.

Obama 08

Thanks, guys...really am flattered. Checked back today and saw the article on the Trailhead and almost fainted when I saw the article by Christopher Beam. Thanks Christopher for the props, and glad this analysis adds more texture to the true status of this primary race.

And no, I'm not Chuck Todd. LOL

I want to give a quick shout-out to my cousin Christian P., brother Chris, sister-in-law April, sister Stephanie and my best bud Steve H. who turned me on to supporting Obama.

This is a great site, and I enjoy the articles very much. Glad I could contribute!

Peace

Of course it's all about 2012. She undermines Obama by this run and then come 4 years, she reappears with an " I told you he was unelectable. Now it really is my turn."

I don't believe Clinton is staying in to sabotage Obama and run again in 2012. There are other, less nefarious reasons for her to continue, even though she has practically no chance at getting the nomination.

First, there's the possibility of a massive Obama mistake. Since neither of them will get enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination, a tremendous gaffe by Obama could get superdelegates to desert him and back her. It's a slim shot, but there would be no shot if she stopped now.

Second, although the numbers would seem to have just about determined the matter already, many of her supporters still see the race as close and winnable. A look at the math would show that's really not the case, but perceptions are what they are. Suspending her campaign now would disappoint and anger her most loyal fans, and she doesn't want to do that to her base. Nor would she be able to do so after Pennsylvania, which most her supporters will see as a win (assuming she does win, as seems likely) even if the margin is too small to really help her. She'll have "momentum" and will have to go on at least to the next round, regardless of her own views, to satisfy her supporters.

Third, she may still believe that she can do well enough in the remaining contest to make it close. Maybe she really thinks she can pull an upset in North Carolina. When one has spent so much time and energy in such a huge undertaking, hopes can color one's view of the facts (we're all susceptible to this phenomenon, though the Bush administration seems to have a consistently extreme case of it). It may take a few more primaries and superdelegate commitments to bring reality to the fore.