Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Rules, rules, rules ...
Posted by: McQ on Saturday, April 05, 2008

Here's an interesting little exercise.

What if the Democrats, instead of doing the proportional delegate thing, had done the same thing as the Republicans and had a winner-take-all primary system?

Well it would be Obama talking about not denying the remainder of the states the chance to vote and it would be Obama attempting to avoid the pressure to drop out of the race:
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. These numbers give Texas' "prima-caucus" delegates to Clinton and do not include Florida, Michigan or the 693 total delegates and 566 pledged delegates still to be won in the next few months.
And as tenuous as it is, she also has some claim to FL and MI. So had it been a winner-take-all contest, it would have been a horse of a completely different color. The Obama bandwagon may not have had as many jumping on and it could have conceivable gotten worse and worse for him.

As Rasmussen points out, this could provide a fairly reasonable (at least as reasonable as it gets in this primary) argument for Clinton staying in the race:
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 may be an effective argument for Sen. Clinton to justify going forward in the race, especially if she is able to pull closer to even in the popular vote after the contests in Pennsylvania, Indiana and North Carolina.
On to Puerto Rico, Ms. Clinton, please. I don't want to miss out on a minute of the fun this continues to bring.
________

Linked by Shaun Kenney - Thanks!
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Since we appear to be playing ’what if’ games, let;s consider this one:
Hillary CLinton decided to run here in NY because it was friendly to her being elected, moreso than her Native Chicago, though just why remains a bit of a mystery to me.

Now for the what if: What would have happened, had she decided to run in Chicago instead of NY? Would there even BE an Obama, today?

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
This is what Hillary had to say about the electoral college:
"We are a very different country than we were 200 years ago," Clinton said. "I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people and to me, that means it’s time to do away with the Electoral College and move to the popular election of our president."
I wonder if she believes the same principal applies to the primaries>
 
Written By: tom scott
URL: http://
McCain should start asking the public if the Dems can’t even run a primary properly, how can they run the country?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Hillary couldn’t run for the Senate in her home state in 2000 because neither seat was up for election that year. And if she waited until 2002 she would have to try and get the Democratic nomination against the incumbent Dick Durbin, so Illinois was out.

Seeing that Robert Kennedy proved New York is open to celebrity carpet baggers running for Senate, so the Empire State was Hillary’s best chance in 2000.
 
Written By: Andrew V
URL: http://
Hillary couldn’t run for the Senate in her home state in 2000 because neither seat was up for election that year.
The other problem for Hillary in Arkansas was she would not have won.
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider