Replies

The base number of delegates that each state has in the Demo Natl Convention is proportional to the population of each state. However, to that are added the "superdelegates," the slots given to the major elected Democrats in each state, which varies state by state, of course. The DNC website probably has a breakdown on the number of delegates from each state.

The laws of each individual state determine whether delegates chosen in their primaries are required to vote for the candidate they were pledged to, in the first ballot (or I think in rare instances, beyond the first ballot). The FEC website might have that information.

On the math of nomination, I think it's March when enough primaries are completed so a candidate who sweeps the field to that point will have committed delegates for a guaranteed majority. However, it's not strictly a matter of numbers. If one candidate -- presumably Dean -- has won 80% of the delegates chosen to that point and holds 60% of the delegates necessary for the nomination, he'll pick up enough to win among those who are afraid to cut their own political throats by not supporting the "man who would be President."

When, not if, it reaches that point, the only change that could derail Dean would be Hillary jumping into the race in March. This is going to be a nasty election with a solid win for Bush if Dean is the nominee. It is going to be a very nasty election, more like a mud-wrestling match, if Hillary! jumps in. But Bush will still have a solid win. IMHO.

John / Billybob

Introducing the Honorable Billybob, cyberCongressman from Western Carolina (for the unintroduced):

This here's ma home-brewed website afore n until I gits another one. It offers ma weekly columns n a chance ta have yer say, ta boot. Ain't gotta back issues file, n ain't got most ov the purty pixtures, but what the H-E-double-toothpicks, it's better'n nuttin, rat? -- (Don't even think of spell-checkin' this.)

cyberCongressman Billybob's Website

I like your style, part home-brew, part Eli, all good common sense. While I agree with much of your excellent analyses, I am leery of what the Dem candidate can throw, especially those October surprises, e.g., the Rockefeller Memo lays out the recipe for Molotov Cocktails. Thus, Election 2004 is no shoe-in for Republicans despite encouraging trends, given the antiBush (antiwar, anti-America) passions inflaming Democrat loins and the relentless connivance of the liberal press.

I was hoping Hillary would hop into the campaign to run this year, under the theory she is probably more beatable in 2004 than in a year less proximate to her White House occupation. The sooner her potential/power is destroyed, the better for America. But a GIGO outcome is becoming less likely.

Thus, it appears to me Dean has a wrap, as he benefits from his Mojo -- like someone who has goes over a cliff tends to pick up speed, and not a few endorsements and more money. Compared with Hillary, he's agile/facile, has a more likable personality, and has a better organization -- look at whom the Clintons sent to help Wesley. But those repelled by Dean fearing another McGovern-Mondale-Dukakis-Gore candidate who is soft on defense, loves costly entitlements and wants to raise taxes, are not likely to switch to her since Hillary embraces the same core positions, plus stratospheric negatives, despite what cleverly-worded polls may show today.

As for Hillary, she will probably decide she would have a better chance in 2006 beating her opponent in NY -- it may not be Giuliani, which would be bad news for her -- but even he doesn't have a lock as we saw in the first part of the last go-round. Then, assuming a Dean debacle, she might still have a chance in 2008, with better odds than she may get in the current campaign, and a chance to realize her lifelong ambition/dream (our nightmare) of becoming the first female US president.

But what do I know? At this time in the 1992 campaign, I thought there was no way Bush 41 could lose to Clinton 42.