Why Hillary Clinton should be winning

[journalist3072]

Why Hillary Clinton should be winning

Under a winner-take-all primary system, Hillary Clinton would have a wide lead over Barack Obama -- and enough delegates to clinch the nomination by June.

By Sean Wilentz

April 7, 2008 | The continuing contest for the Democratic presidential nomination has become a frenzy of debates and proclamations about democracy. Sen. Barack Obama's campaign has been particularly vociferous in claiming that its candidate stands for a transformative, participatory new politics. It has vaunted Obama's narrow lead in the overall popular vote in the primaries to date, as well as in the count of elected delegates, as the definitive will of the party's rank and file. If, while heeding the party's rules, the Democratic superdelegates overturn those majorities, Obama's supporters claim, they will have displayed a cynical contempt for democracy that would tear the party apart.

These arguments might be compelling if Obama's leads were not so reliant on certain eccentricities in the current Democratic nominating process, as well as on some blatantly anti-democratic maneuvers by the Obama campaign. Obama's advantage hinges on a system that, whatever the actual intentions behind it, seems custom-made to hobble Democratic chances in the fall. It depends on ignoring one of the central principles of American electoral politics, one that will be operative on a state-by-state basis this November, which is that the winner takes all. If the Democrats ran their nominating process the way we run our general elections, Sen. Hillary Clinton would have a commanding lead in the delegate count, one that will only grow more commanding after the next round of primaries, and all questions about which of the two Democratic contenders is more electable would be moot.

Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats in primary states choose their nominee on the basis of a convoluted system of proportional distribution of delegates that varies from state to state and that obtains in neither congressional nor presidential elections. It is this eccentric system that has given Obama his lead in the delegate count. If the Democrats heeded the "winner takes all" democracy that prevails in American politics, and that determines the president, Clinton would be comfortably in front. In a popular-vote winner-take-all system, Clinton would now have 1,743 pledged delegates to Obama's 1,257. If she splits the 10 remaining contests with Obama, as seems plausible, with Clinton taking Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana and Puerto Rico, and Obama winning North Carolina, South Dakota, Montana, Oregon and Guam, she'd pick up another 364 pledged delegates. She'd have 2,107 before a single superdelegate was wooed. You'd need 2,208 to be the Democratic nominee. That would leave her barely a hundred votes shy, and well ahead of Obama. It is almost inconceivable that she would fail to gain the required number of superdelegates easily. No more blogospheric ranting about Clinton "stealing" the nomination by kidnapping superdelegates or cutting deals at a brokered convention.

But Clinton does not now have 1,743 delegates. According to CNN estimates, Clinton has about 1,242 pledged delegates to Obama's 1,413. Most of that total is based on the peculiar way that delegates are apportioned in 2008. Some of it is because Obama's backers are using the same kind of tactics as George Bush's camp used in Florida in 2000.

Crucially, Team Obama doesn't want to count the votes of Michigan and Florida. (And let's note that in a winner-take-all system, Clinton would still be leading in delegates, 1,430 to 1,257, even without Michigan and Florida.) Under the existing system, Obama's current lead in the popular vote would nearly vanish if the results from Michigan and Florida were included in the total, and his lead in pledged delegates would melt almost to nothing. The difference in the popular vote would fall to 94,005 out of nearly 27 million cast thus far -- a difference of a mere four-tenths of 1 percentage point -- and the difference in delegates would plummet to about 30, out of the 2,024 needed to win. Add those states' votes to the totals, and take a sober look at Clinton's popular-vote victories in virtually all other large states, and the electoral dynamic changes. She begins to look like the almost certain nominee.

Entire article at: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/04/07/hillary/index.html

[TAWS]

1. This is like saying if Obama wasn't running, Clinton would be winning

[indimuse]

89. Or HIllary

step down...SO Obama can win!

[JVS]

2. Why should it be winner take all?

Proportional is more democratic.

[tigervalentine]

10. Totally agree.

Proportional allocation of electoral votes and we would have President Gore.

[struck_dumb]

49. I agree...

However, that's the way the Presidential race goes. Doesn't it make more sense to use the primary process as a rehearsal for the real thing?

[slick8790]

75. No, it doesn't make any sense at all.

Because certain states will vote for a democrat no matter what, and certain states will never vote democratic.

Do you think Obama would lose California in the GE?
Conversely, do you think he'd win Idaho?

Silly.

[struck_dumb]

84. ??

it makes sense to me. the people running as democratic nominees in each of the 50 states would be running against each other for the votes of the registered Dems in each state...winner take all.

[Symarip]

3. Sooooo.... The Democratic Party should start acting like

Republicans. Nice. Well, at least we have one candidate who's on her way.

[DearAbby]

Only if..........

:banghead: a frog had wings it wouldn't be bumpin it's ass a hoppin.

[NYCGirl]

4. And here's the answer to that:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5423002&mesg_id=5423002

[AX10]

5. True.

"Team Obama" is advocating for the disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan.
So are Howard Dean, Donna Brazille, Ed Schultz, and Randi Rhodes among others.

[tekisui]

11. And Hillary admitted MI was a non-counting contest before.

But, now it is oh so necessary.

[DearAbby]

14. disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan

Hillary could care less about Florida and Michigan, she wanted the nomination process to be over on Super Tuesday....but something happened to those well laid plans, ONLY NOW does she care...

[John Q. Citizen]

25. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time!

[shellgame26]

40. Sorry but nobody

buys that bogus "disenfranchisement" argument. That seems to be the problem with Hillary and her supporters. They (and the MSM)rely on the fact that they think people are stupid. Thank God for the internets!.

[Zhade]

82. For the thousandth time, it's not disenfranchisement.

Legal precedent backs up the fact that there is no right to vote in a party's primary.

Your use of the term diminishes the very real, actual disenfranchisement of mostly AA voters practiced by the republican party in FL.

[Zachstar]

6. Not this crap again.

We have discussed it a million time. So lets just be simple.

Don't like it? Ask for it to be changed before 2012.

If it was winner take all Obama would have campaigned differently so we have no idea who would be in the lead.

These topics are pointless.

[AZBlue]

7. Winner take all is a bad approach to politics.

Arizona is a winner take all state and I've never felt so unrepresented in my life!

[MannyGoldstein]

8. Why Not Arm Wrestle For The Nomination?

Hell, why not a steel cage death match? Seems as reasonable as winner takes all.

[MadBadger]

9. If it were winner take all, Obama would have had a different strategy

You fail.

[JoFerret]

47. Good answer

possibly true.

[tekisui]

12. There, there. You'll be ok.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

13. Maybe she should have asked to change the rules...

On, I don't know, Day One?

[Bensthename]

15. Obama is winning because he is playing this game better.

To win you have to win delegates. He went after the caucus delegates and she didn't. So who is the smarter candidate here? Answer me this?

The only way she could win right now is in the college electorate. If that is how you win the nomination that is how he would be planning his strategy to win.
Don't hate the man, hate the game..

And when it comes Nov. We need the candidate who can win.

[struck_dumb]

51. world power

not a game, really

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cliffordu]

20. Are you serious??

If you are, that could be the most ignorant thing I have read here.

And there has been some real ignorant bullshit slopped around.

[40ozDonkey]

16. Sean Wilentz, Professor of Hillstory at Princeton...

...is a questionable source for an objective opinion.

[kwenu]

17. This is just as dumb today as it was yesterday when it was intially posted.

[struck_dumb]

52. dumb?

is this the dumb post thread?

[kwenu]

69. Sorry, no offense intended. Mr. or Ms. Dumb.

[struck_dumb]

85. none taken, just looking to post at the right place ^-^

[Forkboy]

18. I say we settle it by dueling.

[cliffordu]

19. Well, I'll certainly agree with this:

If the monkeys flying out of my butt were real, I could go on Letterman!!!



:headbang:

[bilgewaterbill]

21. If we had some ham we could have ham and eggs! If we only had some eggs.

[JimGinPA]

22. She'd Already Be The Nominee If It Weren't For The Damn Voters!

:shrug:

[PoliticalAmazon]

24. LOL. Yeah, we really through her a curve-ball, didn't we, by voting for the best candidate. n/t

[PoliticalAmazon]

23. Yeah, and if it was "Backwards Day" in India every other day...

...we'd have a 50% chance of actually understanding the people who answer the phone when we call for tech support or customer service.

[L0oniX]

26. No point to reading shit from this poster anymore.

[Forkboy]

28. I don't know, there's still a good comedy quotient.

:)

[Zhade]

83. I stopped taking the OP seriously the day she said everyone needs Jesus to be decent.

That set off the cuckoo alarm!

[DrFunkenstein]

27. The Election Process Is DEAD to Me!

Obama's lead in the popular vote would nearly vanish if the results of the contest HE WAS NOT IN were included. (sorry, must have hit the caps lock randomly).

[hisownpetard]

29. Ooof! TYPO... You spelled "Whining" wrong.

[BlueJac]

30. Wake up.it is over for Hillary

The queen of poison politics. You need your pills so you can quit acting like a fool!

[NanceGreggs]

31. Or if we had a rule about only ...

... blondes named "Hillary", maiden name "Rodham", who are wives of ex-presidents being allowed to run for office, she might have squeaked by.

But alas, it was not to be ...

It just shows you how unfair this whole election process has been.

[jgraz]

33. No, Nance. I'm pretty sure she still would have found a way to fuck it up

Probably by paying Mark Penn to color her hair.

[NanceGreggs]

37. And after having signed the pledge ...

... that stipulated that only blondes named Hillary, maiden name Rodham, who were wives of ex-presidents were eligible, she would have (a) fought to have the rules changed, and (b) blamed Obama for disenfranchising brunettes.

[knight_of_the_star]

45. You used to be really good and above the fray Nance

Now you are just as FAIL as so many other people on here

[jgraz]

32. Completely agree. Hillary SHOULD be winning

And if she had the electoral competence god gave a dog turd, she would be.

How the HELL do you blow a 40 point national lead with the Clinton brand behind you? That's gotta be a new record for ineptitude, even among Democrats.

[struck_dumb]

53. she must be full of mystical powers

I think the article from Salon posted above tells you how it was blown (the idiosyncracies of our individualistic and idealistic party) and none of the reasons are that she is less of a politician and policy maker than a dog turd. If Barry is Prez, duz that mean all pseudo-swearing becomes valid political discourse for a World Power??? If so I'm staying in the UK for another 4 years (at least)

[jgraz]

74. Another reason to vote for Obama

Have fun on the other side of the pond. We'll miss you. Really.

[struck_dumb]

86. Dennis Kuchnich?? Brave soul

[SeattleGirl]

34. But we don't have a winner-take-all system.

Sounds like the writer is talking a lot of woulda-coulda-shoulda.

[VotesForWomen]

77. the GE is winner-take-all, remember? O's not getting a single electoral vote from, UT, WY, SC, etc.

[CreekDog]

35. Campaign strategies would've been different in winner take all

Obama wouldn't have campaigned to narrow the margins (and split delegates) he would've campaigned mostly to win contests.

That's the problem with hypotheticals...they exist in a vacuum that doesn't exist at all.

[crispini]

42. Indeed.

Obama has proven himself to be a good strategist and good campaigner.

If it WERE winner-take-all, he'd be running a different campaign. ;)

[JeffR]

36. Oh, please.

The rules for delegate selection may be arcane and cumbersome, but they are what they are. No candidate was taken by surprise going into this labyrinthine process. They all knew how the system worked much better than those of us who wheeze our opinions back and forth here at each other.

Six months ago, the frontrunner was nothing more than an intriguing and eloquent upstart, and the presumed nominee was Hillary Clinton. Then people started voting. Now we are where we are. Wilentz's crocodile tears are pretty meaningless at this point, don't you think? Or should we have a do-over of the entire primary season under brand-new rules?

[PseudoIntellect]

38. It's pretty sad when people have to make up new ways to count the votes

to make it seem like Clinton would have been ahead pretending that method had been followed, hahaha.

Obama's leads are all real and follow the rules.

Oh, but then again, I guess all he did was use Bush tactics, because you said so. He actually deserves to be behind.

[DarienComp]

39. You know, in golf, the person with the fewest points wins.

If we ran our primary that way, Hillary would be running away with it!

[charlie]

41. Is Hillary ever accountable for anything?

Ever?

This guy isn't a supporter, he's an enabler.

[Bigleaf]

43. Chargers really beat the Pats last year. I mean they had 4 field goals-Pats only had 3 TD's.

That is not fair. The NFL should have awarded San Diego the game because they scored 4 times, the Pats only scored 3 times.


:sarcasm:

[johnnydrama]

44. i'm thinking

Obama wouldn't have campaigned in states he was winning by 10 points, so he would win by 20 points.

And would have concentrated on states he was losing by 8 points, so he could win by 2 points.

In other words, Obama is playing the game by the rules that he was presented with, and is playing it the exact right way.

Hillary is playing football on a baseball field, and wondering why touching home plate isn't worth 6 points.

[bowens43]

46. More ridculous 'what ifs'.

Like we haven't heard this nonsense before. Face it Hillary lost because Hillary isn't presidential material. She is the poster child for everything that is wrong with politics in America toady.

[struck_dumb]

54. like facing the music...

she has been balls to the wall for 30 flipping years. She one of two of the most effective elected Democrats in history. There are no more effective and influential Democrats than Bill and Hillary Clinto. There is a difference between understanding human nature and leading by your principles and manipulating human nature. That is the difference between Barry and Hill. I honestly do not think that gives a flying you-know-what about anything except Himself. With a capital H. If the Cllintons only cared about themselves, they would have bowed to the pressure to clear out of Washingtion about 8 years ago, I reckon.

[struck_dumb]

48. NIce Post

Thanks for this article. It shows just how politician-y Barry is!!! Willing to do anything, fair or not. That's not the America I want!!

[Voltaire]

63. Oh my....that's called.....PROJECTING!!!!

Come now, who is more political than Hillary eh? The wrong kind of political. Which is why she'll be going home to bake cookies in Chappaqua any day now.

[MattBaggins]

71. There is nothing more fairer

than a proportional allocation. Go to the republican party if you think Obama is "unfair' becuase we Democrats decided a long time ago that winner takes all is a bogus.

[TheDonkey]

50. But she's not. SORRY

I know Clinton's campaign has problems with numbers but now they do with English and cannot read the rules. THIS IS NOT A NEW PROCESS.

[MrSlayer]

55. It should be titled "How Hillary would be winning."

And it would be true. But it's irrelevant because we are playing the system in place.

[struck_dumb]

56. Hello Democrats

let's make the primary system more of a rehearsal for the real thing by mirroring the actual Presidential election, ie, let's change the rules we're using.

[MrSlayer]

57. Well why don't we go all the way....

And have it just like the general election and let everyone in every state from any party vote in our primary? The way we do it is much more fair than the way the Republicans do.

[struck_dumb]

58. progressive vs principled

I know what you mean, it's hard to balance progressive trends (changing our rules) with maintaining our principled differences as a party. Jesse Ventura was on television here yesterday making a good common sense argument that the two parties are too alike already.

[MattBaggins]

72. Why don't you go to hell

I believe the caucus system should be changed
I believe the Super Delegates should be told where to go
I believe we should rotate the dates that various states hold primaries

Trying to setup a winner takes all and act like Republicans is a show stopper. One of the best things about our party is that we don't select leaders with "mile wide inch deep" support, that one gets from "winner" takes all.

[struck_dumb]

88. Clarification

I am as individualistic as you, and I love the concept of a more representative party. Would it be progressive to change, or would it be an injustice to good ideals?? I think for many decades the Democrats were unable to be practical enough to govern in the real world. The Clintons changed that, and I think the party should try to be a little more organised regarding our primary processes. OK? :)

[Vinca]

59. She wouldn't necessarily be winning. Part of the brilliance of Obama's

campaign was the way he geared it to the existing primary and caucus schedule. If it was "winner take all," he probably would have crafted a different tactic. Hillary's "big state" strategy is probably correct for a "winner take all" contest, but that isn't the way it's run at the moment. Obama's judgment and strategy have obviously been superior.

[Recursion]

64. Specifically, she was preparing for the GE during the primaries

and assembling the kind of team and infrastructure that would be a good bet for her in the GE.

She just seems to have ignored the possibility that the primaries wouldn't go her way.

[Vinca]

65. Exactly. She had convinced herself it would be over Feb. 5 . nt

[Medusa]

60. If Frogs had wings

they wouldn't bump their ass on the ground when they hopped.

Sorry but we can run scenarios here all day long and it still doesn't change the facts (or the rules of the game) as much as the Clintons and their band of faithful would like it too.

[MethuenProgressive]

61. Because voters should've rejected Obama's Swiftboating the Clintons on race in SC.

It's a shame the Obama Camp got away with that.

[struck_dumb]

68. here, here

Too right.

[ShortnFiery]

62. Oh hell, in addition to NOT following the rules for MI and FL, let's use GOP rules and declare ...

HRC the "nominee most corrupt" because ONLY THE MOST CORRUPT can compete in this swift boat environment?!? :crazy:

Our public school system isn't what it used to be, but don't underestimate the insight of The American People.

HINT: IMO, you've lived in "a political wonkish bubble" too long if you believe that the American Electorate is THAT dumb, i.e., break primary rules TWICE to anoint HRC the Democratic Nominee.

Please remember that IF "The Democrats" FAIL their constituents and snatch "Defeat" out of the "Jaws of Victory" it will have a devastating impact on our party, i.e., we all lose.

[Obamanaut]

66. Didn't it useta be 'winner take all' like the republicans until it was

changed in the 70's to improve/enhance opportunities for lesser known factions?

And now it's not.

edited to remove extra caps.

[IsItJustMe]

67. This guy has an opinion and I am not buying it. I think the way the system is now more accuratly

reflects the will of the voter than this winner take all bull shit. Obama is ahead in the delegates because he is ahead in the popular vote.

That is fair. That is democratic, and that is the way it should be. PERIOD.

[cooolandrew]

70. Hillary has been in politics far longer she had every opportunity to try adjust the rules before

the race began.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

73. And if Obama becomes the nominee, you won't vote for him:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4802933#4802988

[VotesForWomen]

76. and the GE is winner take all, but nevermind, O-folks. nt

[GarbagemanLB]

87. A simple question: would you vote for Laura Bush? Condi? If either were running against a male in

the GE?

[Mooney]

78. Jesus Christ, not this shit again.

The rules are the rules. They were this way before the primaries started and nobody had a problem with them. And now that Hillary Clinton is losing, suddenly the entire system is fundamentally flawed.

I hope that everyone who's complaining about the rules now will spend the next four years working overtime to get them changed. Otherwise, they can sit down and go back to being as completely oblivious about this as they were before.

You're welcome.

[GOTV]

79. Yes. We understand. There are different systems under which Clinton could be winning. So what?

[Zhade]

80. So she'd be winning if the system was far less democratic?

Yeah, I suppose you can make the argument, but I fail to see why it's an ATTRACTIVE argument.

[GOTV]

81. And if they changed the Bowing rules Obama could be AWESOME!

So should we just say he's an awesome bowler?