Tuesday, April 29, 2008
By Steven L. Taylor

CQ Politics looks at Indiana and notes a now-familiar pattern: CQ Politics Projects a Close Delegate Split in Indiana Primary

Following up a similar projection published prior to the April 22 primary in Pennsylvania, CQ Politics below has performed an analysis of the Democratic presidential primary in Indiana that projects how many delegates the candidates will win in each of the nine congressional districts.

This analysis gives Clinton a 24 to 23 edge over Obama in the race for the 47 district-level delegates — with the disclaimer that this is a projection and not a hard-and-fast prediction, because of the convoluted way in which the delegates will be distributed can produce some unpredictable results.

The whole piece is interesting and worth a read. Of course, the bottom line for Clinton is this: she can still “win” some state and still not overtake Obama’s pledged delegate count.

h/t: Marvin King

Filed under: Uncategorized | Comments/Trackbacks (4)|
The views expressed in the comments are the sole responsibility of the person leaving those comments. They do not reflect the opinion of the author of PoliBlog, nor have they been vetted by the author.

4 Responses to “More Evidence that Clinton Can’t Win”

  1. MSS Says:

    Ugh. What is “convoluted” about the delegates being allocated in proportion to the votes?

    Sure, one can’t know just what the percentage is going to be in each district, or statewide. But one can know, with great precision, what the cut points are–the vote spreads at which, in any given district (and statewide for the 35% of delegates so allocated), one candidate will earn an additional delegate. I mean, really, with only two candidates, this is elementary arithmetic.

    The only uncertainty is the votes themselves. That–and not any “convoluted” or “complex” procedures–is why it can be only a projection, and not a prediction.

    UGH. Stoooopid press corps.

  2. Dr. Steven Taylor Says:

    I take the point about PR not being at all convoluted.

    However, I will defend the press corps a bit, in that the allocation of delegates to specific districts based on the previous election’s voter turnout is, in my mind, convoluted–indeed, I believe that that is what is being referred to there.

  3. MSS Says:

    With apologies in advance to dead equines everywhere, CQ said: “because of the convoluted way in which the delegates will be distributed can produce some unpredictable results.”

    That sure seems to refer to the allocation method itself, and not to projecting the votes.

    There is nothing unpredictable about the allocation process, given a known input (i.e. the votes distribution). It is the input that can’t be predicted with precision.

    That’s what I was getting at.

    Anyway, let the horses rest.

  4. Dr. Steven Taylor Says:

    Poor horsies.

blog advertising is good for you

Visitors Since 2/15/03

Wikio - Top of the Blogs - Politics



Powered by WordPress