Winner Take All? That’s Clinton
As Hillary Clinton’s lead shrinks in Pennsylvania, Rasmussen says a winner-take-all system for allocating delegates would give Clinton a 167 delegate lead over Barack Obama.
If the Democrats were to allot their current state delegate totals in a winner-take-all format, Clinton would actually have a significant delegate advantage. Despite having won only 14 recognized contests to Obama’s 30, Clinton would currently have a 120 (1738 to 1618) total delegate lead and a remarkable 167 (1427 to 1260) pledged delegate lead.
…
The Clinton campaign could contend that it is the proportional allocation system’s inherent “over-fairness” that is denying her the significant delegate gains that she justifiably deserves from winning states like Ohio, where Clinton’s 10 percent margin of victory only garnered her 9 more delegates than Obama.
This is certainly true of Texas, my home state, where the “Two-Step”, a nasty little system that lets the team with the most vociferous following steal an undeserved win, is in play. And that’s exactly what happened in this year’s Democratic primary.
Clinton won the popular vote rather handily despite the intense media buzz that gave her no chance to do so, only to end up behind in the state’s delegate count after the nasty little back room deals were done being cut in the post-primary caucuses.
Rasmussen:
The Clinton campaign could contend that it is the proportional allocation system’s inherent “over-fairness” that is denying her the significant delegate gains that she justifiably deserves from winning states like Ohio, where Clinton’s 10 percent margin of victory only garnered her 9 more delegates than Obama.
I’m not buying that.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
So much creative math…rules are rules. Just quit already.
Obama may beat Hillary, but he won’t win against McCain.
I don’t buy this ridiculous article…if the rules were completely different, the Obama campaign would have drastically adjusted its strategy, don’t you think? Are you really suggesting that if the rules were completely different (no caucuses, no proportional allocation) despite having a resource advantage since February, Obama would have campaigned the same way? If the rim were 5 feet lower I could dunk.
Are you suggesting that the Clintons should go to the convention and argue she should win because… if the rules had been different she would have won hands town? Is that really your contention? You don’t see how that is absolutely inane? Because caucuses are unfair, because she wants to tear up and take back everything she signed or said about Michigan and Florida not counting, she should overturn the pledged delegates, be allowed to change all the rules, create some BS path to victory and win the nomination? I want THAT person to lead the free world…lovely.
All I am saying is if you are really open-minded (as I was when the race started), really listen to her for awhile. Make up your own mind all over again. I think any supporter of any candidate should do that from time to time. Tell me if I am wrong, but it does not seem to me like she cares about anything but power, least of all voters. I feel like if she could say anything on the stump it would be something like ‘oh my GOD why can’t you uneducated fools just vote for me and stop asking so many questions…yeah yeah I will make your lives better…sure…you betcha’. Am i the only one who gets that from her words and actions? Next time her campaign or surrogates put forward their ‘path to victory’, just close your eyes and listen to how silly the arguments are. I am amazed smart people on cable news even sit around and discuss the merits of her ridiculous arguments in a serious way. I find myself wanting to yell ‘are you kidding me?!’ at the TV.
If the primaries were held like a real election, she’d have won. That isn’t fantasy or manipulation, it is true. The fact that BO has moved ahead in a non-representative election format means nothing politically.
By that I mean he can say what he wants (typically unchallenged)–but he’s lost an election with his Democratic opponent by the standards of the real US election system. If he can’t beat HRC in that way–he doesn’t stand a chance against McCain.
My only solace is that if he gets the nomination he will get no where near the White House. The most Liberal Senator. The most inexperienced candidate since Carter (great humanitarian AWFUL President–and I’m a Democrat).
As America buys another shiny new load of hype (W was the same–filling stadiums–talking through his ear about generalities), the world watches the US decline. As America pays attention to itself–but not the things that matter in itself–the world picks up the pieces.
BO is the perfect representation of American values:
Racism and inciting people to hatred is fine–if you are not Muslim–Jeremiah Wright would be ‘a terrorist’ if he were (to be clear I support Mr Wrights free speech as I would anyones)
Prejudice is fine–but only against women–please sell HRC nutcrackers–but don’t talk about how race if affecting this campaign (Jane Fonda apologises for using the ‘C’ word in talking about a feminist play–but rappers don’t apologise for using it as a descriptive name for women in their ’songs’)
We the people are never responsible for our country’s actions. We did not elect W twice, supporting his policies at hugely high rates. It is HIS fault we are where we are. Only BO can redeem us because he tells us what we want to hear. We are not responsible. He is not responsible. He is good and represents our goodness–in spite of the fact that our decisions have not been informed nor good–he who has done nothing of any merit–who has no experience of any measure–he represents us.
You know what? Pitifully that is true.
G-d bless America. She needs it…
Ofcourse you will have lunatics on either side of the campaign who vow they will jump from the State Building if the rival candidate wins. But most ordinary, normal right thinking Americans want a better country for themselves and their children. Fundamentalist stands are a preserve of the minority who will have no effect on this election.
This is so much bunk it’s almost funny. Dear, if the primaries were held like a real election, all votes would have happened on the same day in all 50 states. The funny thing about this is that it would have been Gore all over again, with the winner of the popular vote so far losing on delegates because of the winner take all system. And yes, Obama has more of the popular vote. Even if you count Florida. Even if you count Florida AND Michigan, with Obama getting not one single vote in Michigan because he wasn’t on the ballot, which is of course not how it would have been if primaries were like national elections. A winner take all primary system that DIDN’T have all the votes on the same day (which ISN’T like an election) would be a Republican primary.
This is ridiculous, if the rules were different, I too could be Ms. America. They aren’t different, and Clinton never objected to the rules until she saw that they might not work for her. The reason a national primary isn’t viable is that it forces candidates to campaign in all 50 states at once, which means that candidates who aren’t members of the establishment and don’t have huge funds to pull from initially have no chance. Obama would have lost to Clinton because he wasn’t as well known and she had more money than he did, initially. Primaries held on different dates, though longer and more expensive, allow smaller candidates to compete with bigger ones.
Grumbling aside, like Dangone said, the vast majority of Democratic voters aren’t so bitter that they will react with acid glee if their favorite candidate doesn’t win and the opponent loses in November. In fact, I’ve seen a lot more of this rumbling from Clinton supporters like you Megan (incidentally, you wouldn’t happen to be web-pals with Holly, would you?). Then again this is biased by the fact that no matter the changing goalposts, Clinton is currently losing, so the bitterness is naturally coming more from her ranks.
If my aunt had balls she’d be… A transgenderer…erer?
Anyway, Obama is in the lead and the democrat candidate that is more prone to sell out her party’s values in favor of catering to "moderate" media babblers and other GOP-leaners is not in the lead. Make an actual case for her that doesn’t consist of "Obama is scary/He doesn’t go abroad like McCain the Mighty international statesman" and this might change.
If DEMS had a winner take all system, Obama might have focused on California and gotten Richardson to drop early to endorse him. You have no more idea what would have happened under different rules than anyone else.Different rules mean different campaigns different strategies and allocations of time money and effort.An example is Super Tuesday which was obviously Clinton’s strategy going in. It failed because Obama had a better one which swept caucuses and delegates even though Clinton won bigger states.What I see is that Obama adapts better and is naturally aided by Clinton’s ceiling. Look at Texas… under the rules he won the delegate total. If it was winner take all he would have camped there like Clinton who needed to win the state just to stay in it.The analysis is a “if pigs had wings” one.
What is more apparent is that Clinton has a ceiling and that the anybody but Hillary sentiment was always real. Early on it looked like Hillary was “inevitable” but as soon as someone emerged as a viable option she went down.
I doubt winner take all changes that reality. It may have been harder to do, but the anti-Clinton dynamic is what has caused the result not the allocation mechanics.
I think if it were winner take all Obama would have won CA and Texas. But that’s a if pigs had wings analysis too. lol