But while I was researching the last post, I saw a link to this article about how the John Edwards campaign intends to fight on.
The money line for me: "They also point to the fact that he did much better in SC than in NV where he got just 4%."
Oh, yes? Remember, please, that Nevada was a caucus, not a primary. Edwards didn't get 4% of the total vote, he got 4% of the delegates named by caucus-goers to the state convention in April. In Democratic caucus rules you have to get 15% or more of the vote in each precinct's caucus to get any delegates at all from that precinct. In Democratic primaries, the threshhold is 15% statewide... which Edwards, despite heavy campaigning in his birth state for months, just barely exceeded in South Carolina.
So, as a thought experiment, what if we gave South Carolina a caucus again under the rules used in Nevada? Nearly 20,000 delegates were named to Nevada's state convention under fairly arcane rules; for simplicity's sake, let's keep this hypothetical down to only 1,000 delegates divided on a strictly proportional basis by county, with candidates polling under 15% in a county not getting any of that county's delegates.
CNN has a by-county breakdown of the South Carolina results we can use for this. As I observed on my LiveJournal in passing, the total Democratic vote was 529,789. For this experiment, that means about one delegate per every 530 votes.
In Nevada, candidates who didn't meet 15% were disqualified, and their supporters had to declare support for someone else. Here we just can't do that, because we don't know where Edwards voters would have gone. Instead we'll presume that they split in proportion to how Obama and Clinton did.
| County | Obama Popular Vote | Obama Hypothetical Caucus Delegates | Clinton Popular Vote | Clinton Hypothetical Caucus Delegates | Edwards Popular Vote | Edwards Hypothetical Caucus Delegates |
| Abbeville (3,517 = 7 del.) | O 1,989 (56%) | O 4 | C 733 (21%) | C 1 | E 793 (23%) | E 2 |
| Aiken (14,476 = 27 del.) | O 7,722 (53%) | O 17 | C 4,881 (34%) | C 10 | E 1,858 (13%) | E 0 |
| Allendale (1416 = 3 del.) | O 933 (66%) | O 2 | C 388 (27%) | C 1 | E 91 (7%) | E 0 |
| Anderson (17,304 = 33 del.) | O 6,253 (36%) | O 12 | C 5,459 (32%) | C 10 | E 5,582 (32%) | E 11 |
| Bamberg (2701 = 5 del.) | O 1,720 (63%) | O 3 | C 751 (28%) | C 2 | E 221 (8%) | E 0 |
| Barnwell (2728 = 5 del.) | O 1,632 (60%) | O 3 | C 820 (30%) | C 2 | E 273 (10%) | E 0 |
| Beaufort (16,876 = 32 del.) | O 9,531 (56%) | O 21 | C 5,108 (30%) | C 11 | E 2,237 (13%) | E 0 |
| Berkeley (16,406 = 31 del.) | O 9,843 (60%) | O 19 | C 3,870 (24%) | C 7 | E 2,675 (16%) | E 5 |
| Calhoun (2722 = 5 del.) | O 1,605 (59%) | O 3 | C 699 (26%) | C 1 | E 413(15%) | E 1 |
| Charleston (47,676 = 90 del.) | O 29,951 (63%) | O 65 | C 11,256 (24%) | C 25 | E 6,413 (13%) | E 0 |
| Cherokee (4719 = 9 del.) | O 1,994 (42%) | O 4 | C 1,231 (26%) | C 2 | E 1,491 (32%) | E 3 |
| Chester (4292 = 8 del.) | O 2,550 (59%) | O 5 | C 1,087 (25%) | C 2 | E 649 (15%) | E 1 |
| Chesterfield (5493 = 10 del.) | O 2,732 (50%) | O 5 | C 1,466 (27%) | C 3 | E 1,290 (23%) | E 2 |
| Clarendon (6003 = 11 del.) | O 4,043 (67%) | O 9 | C 1,149 (19%) | C 2 | E 802 (13%) | E 0 |
| Colleton (4928 = 9 del.) | O 2,954 (60%) | O 6 | C 1,112 (23%) | C 2 | E 853 (17%) | E 1 |
| Darlington (8872 = 17 del.) | O 5,663 (64%) | O 13 | C 1,911 (22%) | C 4 | E 1,282 (14%) | E 0 |
| Dillon (4258 = 8 del.) | O 2,749 (65%) | O 5 | C 814 (19%) | C 2 | E 692 (16%) | E 1 |
| Dorchester (12,824 = 24 del.) | O 7,146 (56%) | O 13 | C 3,223 (25%) | C 6 | E 2,443 (19%) | E 5 |
| Edgefield (2907 = 5 del.) | O 1,906 (65%) | O 4 | C 754 (26%) | C 1 | E 243 (9%) | E 0 |
| Fairfield (4950 = 9 del.) | O 3,410 (69%) | O 7 | C 996 (20%) | C 2 | E 537 (11%) | E 0 |
| Florence (16,694 = 31 del.) | O 10,759 (65%) | O 23 | C 3,699 (22%) | C 8 | E 2,220 (13%) | E 0 |
| Georgetown (8856 = 17 del.) | O 5,323 (60%) | O 10 | C 1,950 (22%) | C 4 | E 1,569 (18%) | E 3 |
| Greenville (42,274 = 80 del.) | O 21,371 (51%) | O 40 | C 11,857 (28%) | C 22 | E 8,998 (21%) | E 18 |
| Greenwood (7242 = 14 del.) | O 4,308 (59%) | O 8 | C 1,507 (21%) | C 3 | E 1,419 (20%) | E 3 |
| Hampton (3321 = 6 del.) | O 2,231 (67%) | O 5 | C 726 (22%) | C 1 | E 362 (11%) | E 0 |
| Horry (25,691 = 48 del.) | O 8,503 (33%) | O 16 | C 9,937 (39%) | C 19 | E 7,222 (28%) | E 13 |
| Jasper (3053 = 6 del.) | O 2,285 (74%) | O 5 | C 577 (19%) | C 1 | E 190 (6%) | E 0 |
| Kershaw (7954 = 15 del.) | O 4,249 (53%) | O 8 | C 2,221 (28%) | C 4 | E 1,480 (19%) | E 3 |
| Lancaster (7492 = 14 del.) | O 3,495 (47%) | O 7 | C 2,312 (31%) | C 4 | E 1,677 (22%) | E 3 |
| Laurens (6813 = 13 del.) | O 3,561 (52%) | O 7 | C 1,541 (23%) | C 3 | E 1,705 (25%) | E 3 |
| Lee (3747 = 7 del.) | O 2,667 (71%) | O 6 | C 649 (17%) | C 1 | E 426 (11%) | E 0 |
| Lexington (22,754 = 43 del.) | O 9,274 (41%) | O 17 | C 7,871 (35%) | C 15 | E 5,587 (24%) | E 11 |
| Marion (6373 = 12 del.) | O 4,627 (72%) | O 10 | C 955 (15%) | C 2 | E 783 (12%) | E 0 |
| Marlboro (4201 = 8 del.) | O 2,454 (58%) | O 5 | C 989 (24%) | C 2 | E 755 (18%) | E 1 |
| McCormick (1758 = 3 del.) | O 1,189 (67%) | O 2 | C 382 (22%) | C 1 | E 186 (11%) | E 0 |
| Newberry (4535 = 9 del.) | O 2,209 (49%) | O 4 | C 1,200 (26%) | C 3 | E 2,120 (25%) | E 2 |
| Oconee (7214 = 14 del.) | O 1,872 (26%) | O 4 | C 2,098 (29%) | C 4 | E 3,240 (45%) | E 6 |
| Orangeburg (21,187 = 40 del.) | O 14,168 (67%) | O 29 | C 5,316 (25%) | C 11 | E 1,682 (8%) | E 0 |
| Pickens (8241 = 16 del.) | O 2,901 (35%) | O 6 | C 2,516 (31%) | C 5 | E 2,811 (34%) | E 5 |
| Pickens (8241 = 16 del.) | O 2,901 (35%) | O 6 | C 2,516 (31%) | C 5 | E 2,811 (34%) | E 5 |
| Richland (62,960 = 119 del.) | O 41,898 (66%) | O 88 | C 14,828 (24%) | C 31 | E 6,176 (10%) | E 0 |
| Saluda (2396 = 5 del.) | O 1,271 (53%) | O 3 | C 659 (28%) | C 1 | E 465 (19%) | E 1 |
| Spartanburg (25,306 = 48 del.) | O 11,245 (44%) | O 21 | C 7,717 (31%) | C 15 | E 6,325 (25%) | E 12 |
| Sumter (14,796 = 28 del.) | O 10,651 (72%) | O 22 | C 2,852 (19%) | C 6 | E 1,286 (9%) | E 0 |
| Union (4164 = 8 del.) | O 2,038 (49%) | O 4 | C 904 (22%) | C 2 | E 1,221 (29%) | E 2 |
| Williamsburg (7225 = 14 del.) | O 5,369 (74%) | O 11 | C 1,266 (18%) | C 3 | E 578 (8%) | E 0 |
| York (18,992 = 36 del.) | O 8,847 (47%) | O 17 | C 6,891 (36%) | C 13 | E 3,231 (17%) | E 6 |
This calculation gives Obama 598 delegates in our hypothetical caucus, Hillary 280, and Edwards only 124. (Out of 1,002. Yes, rounding errors produced two surplus delegates. I'm not going back to correct my math over it.) Put another way, Edwards would have had 18% popular support... but only 12.4% of the delegates at the state convention as opposed to 60% for Obama and 28% for Clinton.
Now take the above, reverse it, and apply it to Nevada. In a lot of precinct caucuses Edwards might have had 12%, 13%, or 14% of the vote... but those voters would not be allowed to vote for Edwards, because the rules say candidates with less than 15% support aren't viable. The 4% of delegates he actually drew wasn't an accurate measure of his support; it was a measure solely of how many precincts had 15% or more of their caucus members vote for him.
So don't believe it when Edwards claims to be riding big momentum, coming from 4% to 18% in the course of a week. Read it the way it should be read: support of between 12% and 14% in Nevada, mostly not counted due to caucus rules, raised to 18% in Edwards' birth state with the other two candidates attacking one another all the previous week.
That's not momentum. That's a favorite-son vote, nothing more.
Today's news: John Edwards' campaign is STILL dead.
No comments:
Post a Comment