Hillary has a strong argument

[wombat13]

It seems to me that Hillary has a very strong argument that she should be the Dems nominee if they are committed to winning the White House. She has clearly done better than Obama in the swing states. And then there is this (from the Corner blog at National Review):

The President of Chicago [Byron York]

Fun facts from the Democratic popular vote race:

Obama's lead, including estimated
vote totals in caucus states
(which favors Obama) plus results
from Florida (which favors Clinton),
but nothing from Michigan: 411,915

Obama's margin of victory
over Clinton in Cook
County, Illinois: 429,052

(Obama's lead is from the Real Clear Politics total; Cook County result is from the Illinois Board of Elections website.) By other counts, Obama's lead is far less than his winning edge in Cook County. Only in counts which do not include either Florida or Michigan does his lead in the national popular vote exceed his margin in Cook County.

05/14 07:59 AM



The question for Democrats is will the anti-Republican sentiment be so strong that they can get away with running Obama and still win the swing states?

[KEVWYO]

Hillary may be making a strong case but the bottom line is delgates is it not?

A year ago I thought the White House was there for the Dems to lose. With what's going on in today's Dem primaries I am thinking that McCain may have a far better chance than anyone would've given him just a few months ago.

[AZXD]

Originally Posted by KEVWYO

Hillary may be making a strong case but the bottom line is delgates is it not?

A year ago I thought the White House was there for the Dems to lose. With what's going on in today's Dem primaries I am thinking that McCain may have a far better chance than anyone would've given him just a few months ago.

Yea, it does make things easier as they squabble and in a few more months we will view the results. Hold On!!

[Bree]

I ran the math today. To win, Hillary must score 70% of the remaining delegates and 75% of the total superdelegates. Barring a miracle, she hasn't got a chinaman's chance. It will be McCain vs Obama.

[jmichna]

Originally Posted by KEVWYO

Hillary may be making a strong case but the bottom line is delgates is it not?....

You are absolutely correct that it is the delegates that will select the nominee. Having said that, there is another consideration in addition to the winning margins:

About a week/10 days ago I read an article in the Chicago Tribune regarding delegates versus Electoral College votes. Though Obama is winning the popularity contest among the delegates, he has won in those states which have a lesser impact on the electoral votes. The states that Hillary has won combine for a total of something like 280 electoral votes, while the states Obama has won would total roughly 218 electoral votes.

Assuming this is accurate, and nothing changes in the remaining primaries, that would give Hillary a very strong argument to present to the DNC for her to be the nominee for president.

[Frenchy]

Who is winning the swing/battleground states? Who is winning the states that the Dem's need to take the general election?...Nuff said.

[mpak87]

Originally Posted by jmichna

You are absolutely correct that it is the delegates that will select the nominee. Having said that, there is another consideration in addition to the winning margins:

About a week/10 days ago I read an article in the Chicago Tribune regarding delegates versus Electoral College votes. Though Obama is winning the popularity contest among the delegates, he has won in those states which have a lesser impact on the electoral votes. The states that Hillary has won combine for a total of something like 280 electoral votes, while the states Obama has won would total roughly 218 electoral votes.

Assuming this is accurate, and nothing changes in the remaining primaries, that would give Hillary a very strong argument to present to the DNC for her to be the nominee for president.

That is an interesting fact that I had not yet considered. I thank you for bringing it up, and I also think that it is sad that you have to. I could maybe see the system of electoral votes making sense a couple hundred years ago, but in this day and age...

I would like to see somebody write a program that compares the number of voters to the district lines, and do an analysis of where in the country your vote matters the most. I would imagine that in some states, a vote is worth a great deal more than in others. No matter how carefully the areas are calculated and Electoral Votes allotted, people still slip through the cracks. When I took chemistry, I would get yelled at every time I made a rounding error and things didn't add up. To me, the entire system of the Electoral College seems like an enormous rounding error that was willfully constructed. Should we switch to an at-large voting system? I'm honestly not sure. It might even do more harm than good. But at the same time, how ridiculous is it to count the popular vote AND THEN the electoral vote? It seems almost like a waste of time, and an inaccurate picture of "the will of the people." Put in quotes because most people, especially most people on here are reduced to the choice between, to quote South Park "a turd sandwich and a giant douche."
/rant

Anyway, I find it funny that they have the superdelegate system set up so they can basically tell the voting public "It is up to you to determine our nominee" and then they get to horse trade around for who actually gets the nomination. Oh well.

[jmichna]

mpak87,
For a long time I was very much against the Electoral College, and thought that pure popular vote should determine the presidency. But, the more I read about the arguments, pro and con, and the more I read about our Founder's fear and concern of "mob rule" (majority rule) and their reasoning to found a (democratic) republic rather than a pure democracy, the more the Electoral College makes sense.

Having an Electoral College helps mitigate regional differences and antagonisms. It also tends to grant more weight to the smaller states, whose impact on an election based purely on popular vote, would really be diminished. It helps ensure that the winner is popular over a widespread area of the country, and is not elected solely on support in the large population cities of the East and West Coast.

Without the Electoral College, it is likely a single, highly populated region (say the North East, or the West Coast) voting strongly in favor of one candidate could elect someone who is not desired by voters in a majority of the states. Same as a candidate (who is) popular only in large urban areas, but unpopular in small town and rural areas... the large city vote would overwhelm the others.

A given state's electoral votes may be cast as the state's college members see fit. There is no Federal level requirement that all the votes be cast for the popular vote winner in that state (though that is customary). I believe there are a couple states who do/can cast split ballots.

[one-eyed-fatman]

I listened to her getting interviewed tonight. All she really said was, I'm a rich bitch and used to getting my own way. She's about to find out different.

[KEVWYO]

Originally Posted by Frenchy

Who is winning the swing/battleground states? Who is winning the states that the Dem's need to take the general election?...Nuff said.

Things are going to get very interesting between now and May 31 or June 3.

The DNC meeting on 5/31 will surely spark many a conversation perhaps for years to come.