If Democrats selected delegates like the Republicans

Great Debates
1

Well like most of the Republican primaries. Winner takes all pledged delegates for each state. It seems to make sense to me. Sort of follows the general election criteria which selects on the basis of the electoral college. Judging from the quickness that the Republicans have selected their nominee, its better for the party as well.

And finally, because I want Hillary to win, its better for her as well.

On that basis I have reviewed the results of primaries to date just after CNN reported that Hillary won Texas.

Hillary 1445
Obama 1190

The race isn’t so close any more. Hillary for President !

2

I’m actually surprised by this, I would have presumed that all of Obama’s wins would have given him a clear lead by voting this way. I suppose Clinton won two very large states (California and New York) so that must explain it.

I do think it is also worth mentioning that voting this way is how EVs are actually distributed in the real Presidential elections.

If Obama can’t win Ohio he can win states like Illinois with 90%-10% and he still won’t get into the White House. As it is though, I genuinely think Ohio is currently in the hands of the Democrats to lose, no matter who the nominee is.

I think the advantage to doing primaries this way is that you choose your nominee faster. McCain has serious problems when it comes to electoral math. While each election year is different, we also know that the whole country doesn’t start as a clean slate (meaning Republicans and Democrats don’t have equal shots of winning California, Texas, et cetera.)

Based on states Bush won in 2004, McCain is vulnerable in New Mexico, Iowa, Ohio, Colorado, and Nevada.

Obama might be vulnerable in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and New Hampshire. My gut feeling is McCain might do better in some of those states than Bush did (New Hampshire, Michigan, Pennsylvania) but overall I think McCain is “more vulnerable” in his vulnerable states than Obama is. Basically what I’m saying is I think there’s a greater chance that Obama picks up net states versus Kerry’s performance than I think there is a chance that McCain picks up net states (or EVs) versus Bush’s performance.

I lean towards thinking Hillary or Obama would probably beat McCain because of electoral math.

However, I do know that things can change. If you want to give McCain every chance you can to win the Presidency then diverting your eventual nominees attention all the way until the conventions is one of the best ways. Starting right now McCain gets to pour 100% of his resources into improving his standing in states in which he is vulnerable. Whereas Obama and Clinton will continue having to put the majority of their resources into their primary contests.

I can’t predict how all of this will turn out as it is an ever-shifting landscape (something I think a huge portion of the SDMB “misses” in every election cycle. It doesn’t mean jack shit who is leading in the polls in March. I’m not sure how many times that lesson must be relearned.) But if I had to guess, based only on things as they stand now, the most likely outcome I see is Obama wins the Presidency and about ~280-295 EVs.

3

I went to caucus today. I don’t have a problem with proportional distribution of delegates, even when certain districts get more because of their turnout in a previous election (seriously, WTF?). But the caucus seriously sucked ass. It’s the antithesis of democracy.

First, having to vote and caucus means two trips to the precinct for most of us (I’m in Texas). That’s a huge hindrance for most people. We have to drive everywhere here, and with a demanding job and a baby at home, getting out twice for the election is silly.

Second, the caucuses have no semblance of time (when can we start? When the last person votes. When will that be? Oh… I don’t know). They’re seriously disorganized. Misinformation spread by competing campaigns, because you know, nobody thought of printing out a brochure explaining it to people.

Third, all of the chaos and frustration is enough to turn one off from the democratic process. Now if you’re in Iowa, go for it, you’ve been doing it for years. But the system in Texas sucks, and I know a lot of voters feel royally fucked over about it.

Oh… congrats Dutchman and Elvis. I think we’re probably the only vocal Clinton supporters on this board, and while I don’t agree with Dutchman on virtually anything, I appreciate the spirited support and defenses of Hillary on the SDMB. Me, I’m going to talk politics elsewhere, but I am always glad to see you two (and others, I’m sure) presenting another view.

BTW, can I ask you where your numbers come from? Because I’m pretty sure Obama still has the lead.

4

FYI, only some Republican states were winner-takes-all.

5

As I understand it, the numbers represent the number of delegates each candidate would have if each Democratic primary was held in winner-take-all fashion. They weren’t, unfortunately.

6

Winner takes all is a horrible, horrible idea.
It allows candidates to skate by on name recognition and does not allow lower tier candidates, and more importantly their messages, to build up steam and gain attention.

If the Democrats switched to a winner takes all system, epecially after we’ve seen how it works for the underdogs and their messages this campaign, I believe(or at least hope) there would be severe hell to pay. I’m sure if you crossed the aisle and asked most Romney, Huckabee, and Paul supporters, they too would not mind going to a proportional delegate system.

7

I went to a website, listing results for each state and assigned the listed total pledged delegates to the candidate who had the most delegates except Nevada which i remember was won by Hillary in the popular vote although she got one less delegate. Then I added the results of today.

I appreciate your bravery in admitting support for Hillary here on the SDMB :smiley:

8

I question your math as well. Going down the list here, and awarding all the delegates (including supers) listed to the winner of each state’s contest, I get, before tonight:
Obama 1528, Clinton 1325, or, excluding supers, 1197 to 1075.
Using tonight’s results, giving Clinton 2 and a half of the four contests and splitting Texas’s delegates into two-thirds for the primary and one third for the caucus (as they are allocated), Clinton would just now have taken a lead, 1671 to 1626. (1366 to 1276 w/o supers)

9

Why question my math? I presented my case with criteria resembling a presidential election process. As stated I did not include super delegates like you since after all even Obama doesn’t think they should have a voice, and as far as Texas is concerned, she won the popular vote in Texas so she gets their pledged delegates.

10

One thing about Ohio is the open primary system. On my admittedly small sample, more than 20% of the people I spoke to were Republicans who crossed party lines to vote for Clinton not because they want her to be president, but because they perceive her as a weaker candidate against McCain in the general election. With the Republican primary essentially over there is no disadvantage for them to do this, and allows them to hurt the Democratic Party by extending an already divisive and expensive primary season.

I think that in Ohio, without the crossover Republicans “gaming” the system, Obama would have won.

11

How can you say that given what’s happenned so far in the nomination process. The Democrats only had two choices by February 5th, and the Republicans had three choices on March 4th. They included who? Names like Paul and Huckabee?

12

I’m not going to muddy your thread, I give you a lot of credit following your candidate and supporting Clinton. But seriously Dutch your horse is still faaar behind Secretariat - and unless she wins 60% of the next 12 contests she’s going to enter the final stretch far enough behind that the supers won’t wade into her side of the pool. If we’re being real here, she’s got to get to Base Camp II before summiting. Obama’s already at Summit Camp.

13

You can tell yourself that. To be honest some of the exit polling makes me start to reconsider whether or not I really consider Clinton to be a weaker candidate than Obama.

Clinton is winning overwhelmingly in the latino, senior, and union demographics. These are key demographics to the Presidency. Obama’s winning big in the African American and youth demographics (again, I’m talking about the states that were in play today) is nice and all, but those demographics almost never are the ones that decide elections. Blacks split overwhelmingly for Democrats anyway, and the youth are always a relatively small share of the voting pie (even with all those bright eyed youths coming out to vote for Obama, they were a smaller share of voters than were people over 65 on Tuesday.)

It’s nice that Obama has done well in Vermont and other places, but I think it’s worth noting many of the southern states he has done so well in, he has no chance of winning in the general election. Clinton has the best chance of winning Ohio and if she does that, McCain almost certainly can’t become the next President.

14

Think that all you want. But the polling in Ohio consistently showed that Clinton was ahead of Obama among those voters who identify themselves as Democrat. You’d be making a mistaken assumption.

I mentioned this in the other thread. Around here, middle class Democrats were strongly Clintonite in their views. That’s a large chunk of the Democratic vote here in Ohio, and it’s the important chunk, really, because that’s the demographic that needs to be strongly swelled in number for the general election in the fall if the Democrats want to tally the electors from Ohio on the side of their candidate. After all, the inner-city vote is strongly Democrat anyway, and most of the rural farm vote will be Republican regardless what the Democrats do. So it is the middle-class suburbanites who need to swing to Democratic thinking, along with the labor vote, which needs to be cajoled into coming out and voting. Not surprisingly, Clinton does that better than Obama does. And it showed here last night.

Pennsylvania, btw, much the same.

15

I question your math because I added them up myself, is why. And I presented both totals with, and without superdelegates, as I anticipated that line from you.
I’d also love to see a cite that Obama says that superdelegates don’t deserve a voice.
As far as Texas, that is the way delegates are being apportioned there. If you’re interested in looking at how it actually would play out and for us to take your argument seriously, then that what you should do. Otherwise you’re just saying “HILARY SHOULD WIN SO LALALALALALALA”.

16

This is sort of mirroring my thinking. For a long time I’ve felt that Obama would be a stronger general election candidate, now, I’m not so sure. Despite the predictions of many Obama supporters I don’t think he’ll take any states from the GOP which are part of the GOP “base”, i.e. those states the GOP won last election by a greater than 10% margin. There’s too many people out there who pretty much always vote for the same party for that to happen, is my impression. I also feel that many states these days are much less in play than they were when I was younger. I mean, California has long been a very liberal state, but it used to genuinely be in play and the GOP used to have a shot of winning there. Likewise I remember when the south started transitioning to GOP, the Democrats could still win the occasional state. I honestly think Florida is going to be less of a battle ground state this year than Virginia will, and I think both will go for McCain.

All that matters is EVs, and who has the most of them. That’s why I think it’s worth noting that Ohio and Pennsylvania are the two most important states for the Democrats. If the Democrats can simply match Kerry’s performance + Ohio, they win. If they win Ohio but Pennsylvania swings to McCain, they lose (all other states remaining the same.) Obviously it’s difficult to look at all the scenarios, but I have a hard time believing that a candidate who is strong in Pennsylvania and Ohio is a worse bet for the Dems than a candidate who is strong in states that are guaranteed Dem anyway (or guaranteed GOP and thus mostly irrelevant.) Winning Ohio and Pennsylvania makes it all but impossible that McCain wins the Presidency.

Personally I think the overwhelming chances are that losing Ohio will lose the Presidency for McCain–and while I’ve said Ohio is the Democrat’s to lose, it obviously looks like Clinton is stronger there than Obama is, no matter how people here are trying to spin it.

17

Spin aside, I am not convinced this is true. Take a quick look at the map of results for the primary. Obama carried the urban and suburban areas, Clinton carried the rest. In the general election, McCain will win these districts. The question is, which candidate will be stronger at getting out the vote in the cities of Ohio to offset the rural vote? Considering that Clinton did not win these critical areas, it is harder to make a reasonable argument that it will be she.

18

Mm, I agree Obama won the urban areas (so did Kerry, he still lost Ohio) not sure I agree about the “suburban” areas. Clinton also did very will in key demographics in Ohio which aren’t necessarily beholden to any one candidate. Clinton is also very strong amongst organized labor and her being the nominee there is a genuine chance more labor voters will come out to vote than would if Obama was the nominee.

If McCain wins all the districts that Clinton did then there’s no point in even campaigning there for the Dems, that means McCain will win Ohio.

19

Bolded for emphasis. This is the crux of my disagreement. Although your point is well taken, I think the critical issue is numbers. Whose get-out-the-vote machine is the strongest? McCain can win all of the districts that HRC did, but if his margins are small since the union voters will probably vote for Obama anyway, then not a lot of actual votes are in play. If Obama can get aircraft carrierloads of his core to the polls and wins in a few districts by large margins, then he can still carry the state.

The point I am making is that it is not at all clear how one can generalize from the primary to the general, especially when the demographics are so stark. What it really will come down to is how well each candidate can summon voters.

20

Well, that goes back to what John Mace said. Who “summoned more voters” in the Ohio primary? That’s a very easy question to answer.