Thank you to the read reader has correctly pointed out that I made a mistake in an earlier post about the effect of the Democrats’ proportional assignment of delegates on Hillary Clinton’s delegate count. Even if the Democrats followed the Republican winner-take-all approach to assigning delegates, Hillary Clinton would not yet have clinched the nomination. She would have been ahead for most of the time after winning delegate-rich California, despite Obama’s long string of wins in smaller states, and would have a lead today. Additionally, if the Democrats penalized Michigan and Florida by subtracting only half of their delegates, as the Republicans do, then her lead today over Obama would be even greater.
Thank you to the read reader has correctly pointed out that I made a mistake in an earlier post about the effect of the Democrats’ proportional assignment of delegates on Hillary Clinton’s delegate count. Even if the Democrats followed the Republican winner-take-all approach to assigning delegates, Hillary Clinton would not yet have clinched the nomination. She would have been ahead for most of the time after winning delegate-rich California, despite Obama’s long string of wins in smaller states, and would have a lead today. Additionally, if the Democrats penalized Michigan and Florida by subtracting only half of their delegates, as the Republicans do, then her lead today over Obama would be even greater.
But under the Democrats’ system, her chances of winning the contest are slimmer. The NYT outlines how she could still pull it off.