The answer is not so much.
If the delegations are seated as sent, then it lowers Clinton's hurdle rates, but not the timing of when she can no longer catch-up. It continues to be a race, now, only to decide her margin of defeat among the elected delegates.
The fight to seat these delegations, to the extent it is more than "fairness", seems largely to be about increasing the pool of supers, to make a convention fight plausible/doable. Although that is dubious, in practice, because Obama has a slight combined edge among FL-MI supers, with the vast majority of MI-FL supers admittedly undeclared (according to AP's tally).
As for the supers, a long time ago I indicated that the supers for MI and FL should not be seated, as apt penalty for participating in their State Party's decision to move the election up. Crooks & Liars agrees, via EmptyWheel. However, Ambinder noted a while back that the supers are "constitutional", so to speak. It might not be possible to exclude them via a credential process, if they have an "absolute right" to ... participate? to exist?. [I'm deep in the weeds beyond my expertise, on this, however.]
WHY THE CONVENTION FIGHT
In sum, if Obama's lead among the elected delegates narrows so that Clinton only needs to split the remaining undeclared supers 60-40 (20% margin), you can see why anyone might be tempted to "go for it", as improbable as it might be that the party would choose to "diss" the electorate.
You can also see why Carville was so quick to try to draw a firewall, to corral supers, just as soon as Richardson declared, perhaps.
You can also see why the Obama campaign would be self-interested in whether these delegations should submit to some type of penalty, however devised, rather than be seated "as is".
Table 3a. The Michgan delegation as it will be sent to the convention, barring a pre-convention deal. src: Green Papers.
| Michigan | Total | Obama | Clinton | Lead/ (Trail) | Edwards | Margin Obama | Margin Clinton |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pledged, Elected | 83 | 36 | 47 | -11 | 43% | 57% | |
| Pledged, PLEOs | 17 | 7 | 10 | -3 | 41% | 59% | |
| Pledged, At Large | 28 | 12 | 16 | -4 | 43% | 57% | |
| Subtotal | 128 | 55 | 73 | -18 | 43% | 57% | |
| Supers | 27 | 11 | 16 | -5 | 45% | 55% | |
| Add-Ons | 2 | 0 | 2 | -2 | 45% | 55% | |
| Subtotal | 29 | 11 | 18 | -7 | 45% | 55% | |
| Grand Totals | 157 | 66 | 91 | -25 | 42% | 58% |
Table 3b. The Florida delegation as it will be sent to the convention. src. Green Papers
| Florida | Total | Obama | Clinton | Lead/ (Trail) | Edwards | Margin Obama | Margin Clinton |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pledged, Elected | 121 | 41 | 67 | -26 | 13 | 34% | 55% |
| Pledged, PLEOs | 24 | 10 | 14 | -4 | 42% | 58% | |
| Pledged, At Large | 40 | 16 | 24 | -8 | 40% | 60% | |
| Subtotal | 185 | 67 | 105 | -38 | 13 | 43% | 57% |
| Supers | 23 | 11 | 12 | -1 | 50% | 50% | |
| Add-ons | 3 | 1 | 2 | -1 | 50% | 50% | |
| Subtotal | 26 | 12 | 14 | -2 | 0 | 50% | 50% |
| Grand Totals | 211 | 79 | 119 | -40 | 13 | 37% | 56% |
As seen before, here is the projection of the "must-do" for Clinton (which is the same as the break-evens for Obama). Clinton gets shutout at the same point in time, whether the FL, MI delegations get seated.
Table 2a. Projections, if the elected/pledged delegates from FL, MI are seated as sent.
| Projection1: Winner takes all of State's remaining "supers" | Days Until | All Remaining | Elected Remaining | Supers Remaining | Clinton Must Do Margin All Remaining | Clinton Must Do Margin Among Remaining Pledged |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pennsylvania | -5 | 703 | 411 | 292 | 16% | 36% |
| Guam | 5 | 696 | 407 | 289 | 8% | 22% |
| Indiana | 8 | 620 | 332 | 288 | 9% | 27% |
| North Carolina | 8 | 494 | 217 | 277 | 15% | 46% |
| West Virginia | 15 | 460 | 189 | 271 | 14% | 50% |
| Kentucky | 22 | 404 | 138 | 266 | 12% | 60% |
| Oregon | 22 | 343 | 86 | 257 | 18% | shutout |
| Puerto Rico | 34 | 286 | 31 | 255 | 17% | shutout |
| Montana | 36 | 265 | 15 | 250 | 22% | shutout |
| South Dakota | 36 | 248 | 0 | 248 | 24% | n.m. |
| FL, MI Adj | August | 303 | 303 | 20% |
Table 2b. The projected margins and the net pickup/(loss) under a winnder-takes-all assumption about the undeclared supers in each state contested.
| Projection1: Winner takes all remaining Supers | Days Until | Projected Margin Clinton over Obama | Clinton Net Pickup (Loss) Pledged | Clinton Net Pickup (Loss) Supers | Obama Lead / (Trail) | Obama Pledged Lead / (Trail) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pennsylvania | -5 | 0% | 115 | 146 | ||
| ...Michagan Adj | 0% | 18 | 97 | 128 | ||
| ...Florida Adj | 0% | 38 | 59 | 90 | ||
| Guam | 5 | 2% | 0 | 3 | 56 | 90 |
| Indiana | 8 | 2% | 1 | 1 | 54 | 89 |
| North Carolina | 8 | -10% | -11 | -11 | 76 | 100 |
| West Virginia | 15 | 20% | 6 | 6 | 64 | 94 |
| Kentucky | 22 | 20% | 11 | 5 | 48 | 83 |
| Oregon | 22 | -10% | -6 | -9 | 63 | 89 |
| Puerto Rico | 34 | 20% | 11 | 2 | 50 | 78 |
| Montana | 36 | -10% | -2 | -5 | 57 | 80 |
| South Dakota | 36 | -10% | -1 | -2 | 60 | 81 |
| Total: | - | 9 | -10 |
