From: Harold Ickes [mailto:hickes Cadman] Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 2:03 PM To: Minyon moore Via J Paschal; mmoore@ Sammy .com; Hillary 08 - howard Wolfson ; Hillary 08 - mark penn via beth lester; Hillary 08 - neera Tancen ; Hillary 08 - patti sols doyle; Guy Cecil - hillary 08; Harold Ickes - IE; hillary 08 - kim molstre; Hillary 08 - isa Dibartolomeo ; hillary 08 - Mandy Grunwald; hillary 08 - Mark Pern; hilary 08 - mike henry; killary 08 - patti solis via adam; rkellman@gag.com Subject: delegates & 5 Feb 12.22.07 Attached is the memo, dated 20 December 2007, that Lisa and | circulated yesterday This version says "Resent 12.22.07" under the date at the top of page one. Lisa caught a typographical error which is now corrected. Nothing of importance change Thanks, Harold AED - ofiice SEE - coll REET - fax The information, and any attachments contained in this email may contain confidential and/or privileged information and is intended solely for the use of the intended named recipient(s). Any disclosure or dissemination in whatever form, by another other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please contact the sender and destroy this message and any attachments. Thank you.20 December 2007 Resent 12.22.07 Memorandum To: Interested Parties From: Harold & Lisa Re: Accumulating pledged delegates in 5 February states, assuming a hypothetical two candidate race Assuming that after Iowa and New Hampshire the presidential nominating contest narrows to two competitive candidates who remain locked in a highly contested election through 5 February, the focus of the campaign and press will shift to the delegate count. The dedication of resources (including candidate time) should be influenced, in part, by factors that will afford HRC an advantage in acquiring more delegates compared to her ‘opponent(s). Because of the Democratic Party rules that determine the allocation of delegates among, candidates, there are at least two particularly important factors we should take into account ‘when planning for the next phase of the campaign: () winning delegates in districts with an odd number of delegates allocated; and (ii) ensuring that our vote in districts with an even number of delegates is sufficient to at least evenly split the delegates and, hopefully, achieve the threshold needed to acquire an extra delegate. ‘The latter is much harder to accomplish, but scenarios taking into account these factors and other pertinent data, such as polling, demographic information, media markets, ete., need to be developed to guide our planning. Some rough pledged delegate projections for the 5 February states, as well as MI & FL, are set forth in this memo. These are “bare bones” projections in that they assume (i) only two candidates break the 15% threshold, (ii) do not reflect any polling data, and (ii) do not take into account any other attributes such as demographics that undoubtedly will influence the vote and, therefore, the delegate outcomes in particular congressional districts and statewide. The projections are generally conservative in that they assume very tight contests across the board except in the states with a favorite daughter or son. Moreover, they are intended to demonstrate the value of focusing on the odd number delegate districts first as # means of accumulating delegates and the need to develop scenarios that generally project the threshold we will need to evenly split the delegates and, hopefully, acquire an extra delegate in even number delegate distriets.Interested Parties 12.20.07 Application of proportional representation and the 15% threshold: Under national delegate selection rules, all pledged delegates (which make up 80% of the total delegate votes at convention), must be allocated to presidential candidates (including uncommitted status) to reflect the proportion of the popular vote each candidate receives in each congressional district ("CD") and statewide, Of the 3,566 total pledged delegates votes (3,253 excluding MI & FL), approximately 65% are allocated to the CD level and 35% are allocated to the statewide level. In order to win district-level delegates, a presidential candidate (including uncommitted status) must receive at least 15% of the popular vote (“Threshold”) in a CD and must break Threshold statewide to qualify for statewide delegates. (NOTE: It is possible for a candidate to win district-level delegates but no statewide delegates ifthe candidate breaks Threshold in a CD but does not do so statewide). Every presidential candidate who does not break Threshold is “dropped out” or eliminated from the formula used to determine the allocation of delegates. The percentages for the candidates who break Threshold are then recalculated (referred to in this memo as “recaleulated percentage”) to determine the number of delegates to be awarded to each. Acquiring Level Delegates CDs are either allocated an even number of delegates (c.g. typically 2, 4 or 6 delegates) or an odd number of delegates (c.g, typically 3, 5 or 7 delegates) based on formulas that the Democratic National Committee prescribes and that each State Party applies when developing its delegate selection plan. Ina race where only two candidates break Threshold, it is easier to pick up the “next delegate” in an odd number delegate district compared to an even number delegate district. That is, if candidate A wins more popular votes in a CD than candidate B, A can pick up an extra delegate in a 5 delegate district (3 of the 5 delegates) with a lower vote and a narrower spread between candidate A and B compared to an even number delegate district. Example #1: Ina race with three or more candidates, if A receives 25% of the popular vote in a CD, candidate B receives 20%, and each of the other candidates (including uncommitted status) receive less than 15%, and the total for such below-the-Threshold candidates aggregates 55%, then the recalculated percentage for candidate A is 55.5% (25/45) and for B is 44.4% (20/45). Applying these recalculated percentages to the delegates to be elected from the cD. © Ina delegate district A will win 3 delegates and B will win 2. © In.a6 delegate district A will win 3 delegates and B will win 3.Interested Parties 12.20.07 In order for A 10 win the additional delegate in an odd number delegate district (2 of 3 o 3 or 5 for example), A's recalculated percentage must be at least 51%, which, by definition will mean that B's recaleulated percentage is the difference between 100 and A’s recalculated percentage (here 49%). That will give B only 2 of the $ delegates. Example #1A: For A to win an additional delegate in an even number delegate district (3 of 4 or 4 of 6 for example), his/her recalculated percentage must be not less that 59%, which means B's recalculated percentage, which, depending on A’s recalculated percentage, will be no more that 41% and which will give candidate B only 2 of the 6 delegates. Obviously the percentage of the popular votc that A must secure in order to win the extra delegate will depend on a number of factors, including importantly the percentage B receives and the aggregate of the votes for the candidates that do not make Threshold, Example #2: In example #1, where A wins 25% of the popular vote; B 20% (a spread of only 5% between A & B), and where the votes for the candidates who do not meet Threshold aggregate 55%, A wins 3 delegates in a 5 delegate district but splits a 6 delegate district 3 and 3 with B By contrast, in order for A to win the extra (4th) delegate in a 6 delegate district, where B wins 20% of the popular vote, A must win no less than 29% (a spread of 9% between them), with the votes for the candidates who do not break Threshold aggregating 51%, in ‘order to gamer a recalculated percentage of 59%. Example #3: If A and B are the only candidates in a particular CD, then A must receive 59% of the popular vote (which, in this particular example, will be the same as the recalculated percentage) in order to win 4 of the 6 delegates in a6 delegate district, and B with 41% of the popular vote (which will be the same as the recaleulated percentage) will win 2 delegates. This is an 18% spread in the popular vote needed to pick up the 4" delegate ‘compared to the 9% spread in the popular vote in example #2. If, in this example, B were to receive 42% of the popular vote, then A will only receive 58% and thus will split the 6 delegates 3 and 3 with B. As the examples above demonstrate, we will need to work through a number of different scenarios to identify the exact set of conditions that must be met in order for a candidate's vote share to recalculate to 51% or 59% respectively ina CD so as to gain an advantage in terms of acquiring the additional delegate in the odd number delegate or even number delegate CD as the case may be. Proj ions The chart below and on the next page show the hypothetical allocation of district and statewide delegates between HRC & BO for FL & MI, as well as the 23 states holding nominating contests on 5 February.Interested Parties 12.20.07 ‘The charts assume that HRC wins every state (except IL) and all CDs such that her recalculated percentage is 51% everywhere and BO's recalculated percentage is 49%. The only exceptions are NY and MI, where her recalculated percentage is higher than 51%, ‘NM where there are three candidates, and IL where her recalculated percentage is generally 49% and BO's is at least 59%, Specifics with regard to this are set forth in the “assumptions” identified in the chart that follows.. Florida and Michigan FL 130dd 648 HC 12Evn 57 WO MI 90di 47 18 8 6Evn 936 «2400 ‘Total 40 204 1200-54030 FL&MI 40 313 182 85 0 46 NOTE: The delegate votes of FL. & MI would only count if delegations are seated at convention.Interested Parties 12.20.07 Below are projections for the states holding nominating contests on 5 February. 5 FEBRUARY STATES Total DISTRICT LEVEL DELEGATES # (LD) #CDs DLD HRC BO BR UNC All S Feb states, except NY, IL& NM 800dd 384 -232,:«152 0 3Evn 442 221 221 20 0 NY Rodi 11S 6 46 0 0 6Evn «836 14 IL 604d 30 12 «18 0 0 13Even «= 70s 3 10d 5 2 1 2 0 2Evn 1242 Total 24 104 589 497 8 ‘STATEWIDE LEVEL ‘Total DELEGATES (SD) #CDs #SD HRC BO BR UNC All 5 Feb states, except NY, IL & NM wa 444230214 00 NY wa 81 48 33 («OO 1 wa 3 2 NH 0 0 NM wa 9 3 2 4 0 Total wa 587 303 280 40 OVERALL TOTAL Total #CDs — #SD HRC BO BR UNC AILS Feb states, including NY, IL & NM 24 1681 892 777 12 0 Assumptions: ‘© Only two candidates, HRC & BO, break 15% Threshold in each state, except in NM, where three candidates break Threshold, with the third being Bill Richardson. © Other than for NY and IL, no distinctions were made for the ethnic composition of the electorate in CDs or other factors which may well result in different percentages of the popular vote for the respective candidates, © HRC’s recalculated percentage is 51% and BO’s is 49% in each CD and statewide for FL and each 5 February states other than NY, IL, NM, and MI.Interested Parties 12.20.07 «NY: The assumption is that HRC receives a recalculated percentage of at least '59% and BO 41% (both statewide and in each CD) except in CDs 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, for which HRC receives a recalculated percentage of 51% and BO receives 49% «IL: The assumption is that HRC receives a recalculated percentage of 41% and BO 59% (both statewide and in each CD) except in CDs | and 2, for which BO gets 70% and HRC 30%. NM: The essumption is that HRC receives a recalculated vote of 28%, BO 27% and BR 45% (both statewide and in each CD). © ME: The assumption is that HRC receives a recalculated vote of 65% as compared to 35% for uncommitted. Conclusion: [All other factors being equal, based on the foregoing assumptions our focus should be on first ensuring that we are positioned to, at least, evenly spit the delegates in even number delegate districts, (i) to win the additional or marginal delegate in the odd number delegate district, and (iii) then focus on increasing our chances to win the extra delegate in the even delegate districts. IfHRC were only to win 51% of the recalculated percentage in the odd number delegate districts in cach of the 5 February states (except IL, NY, & NM) and FL, she would win more pledged delegate votes than BO in odd number delegate districts, as outlined below: : 80 in the 5 February states (not including IL, NY & NM) : 12 in FL (these do not count if the delegation doesn’t get seated) + 92 more total delegates won in odd number delegate districts than BO In the states where a recalculated percentage higher than 31% applied (IL, NY, NM and M1), HRC would win more pledged delegate votes than BO in odd number delegate districts, as outlined below: . 18 in IL, NY & NM + 29 in Mi (Obama not on the ballot and these delegate votes only count if the MI dclegation is seated) + 47 more total delegates won in odd number delegate districts than BO ‘Taking all delegates into account, including statewide delegates and projections for IA, NH, NV and SC based on public polling data’, HRC would win more pledged delegate votes than BO as follows: . 14 total in IA, NH, NV and SC Projections for the 4 early states were calculated using the average of available public polls conducted for ‘each state as of 12.20 (attp:/;www.realclearpolitics.com epolls/2008 presidenv/democratic_primaries.htm). “The specific data used was, LA: BO 28.8%; HRC 27.8%; and JRE 22.7%, NH: HRC 34.3%; BO 26.8%: ‘and JRE 15.8%, NV: HRC 41.3%; BO 21.3%; JRE not break Threshold, SC: HRC 34.4%, BO, 35.8%, JRE 15.4%, The percentages were then recalculated according to the formula prescribed for delegate allocation,Interested Parties 12.20.07 . 15 in all the $ February states including IL, NM & NY . 15 in FL (these delegate votes only count if the delegation is seated) + 82 in MI (Obama not on the ballot in MI and these delegate votes only count if the delegation is seated) . 226 more total delegates (129 without MI & FL delegate votes) than BO In addition, HRC currently has 121 more super delegates supporting her than BO (which would be reduced to 115 delegate votes if the MI & FL delegations do not get seated at convention). Assuming that the super delegates currently supporting HRC remain committed to her even if we should lose lowa, the combination of super delegate votes and conservative pledged delegate vote projections outlined in this memo would position HRC to have at least 347 more delegate votes than Obama (or 244 more delegate votes if MI & FL delegations do not get seated) at the conclusion of the 5 February nominating contests. ‘This means HRC should have approximately 60% of the 2,209 delegate votes needed to seoure the nomination (or approximately 57% of the 2,026 delegates votes needed if the MI & FL delegations do not get seated). To ensure HRC’s delegate count exceeds that of her opponent(s), the campaign should focus on: () ensuring that we are positioned to, at least, e number delegate districts; i) to win the additional or marginal delegate in the odd number delegate district; (iii) then focus on increasing our chances to win the extra delegate in the even delegate districts; and (iv) _ have senior staff/ high-level surrogates prepared to aggressively contact committed super delegates on January 4 to shore-up support if HRC does not win Iowa or to contact leaning, uncommitted delegates and those committed to other candidates ifshe does win TA to secure their support. cnly spit the delegates in even Recta hilary 08