oberliner
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-05-08 12:14 PM
Original message |
If we used a winner-take-all instead of a proportional system Hillary would be ahead |
|
If we had the winner-take-all system, Hillary would be leading Obama 1427-1260 in pledged delegates. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_wesley_little/what_if_democrats_used_winner_take_allInteresting how the system itself has a pretty significant role in this process.
|
gateley
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-05-08 12:16 PM
Response to Original message |
1. But we don't and she's not -- |
|
Our system needs to be overhauled. Totally.
|
Inuca
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-05-08 12:20 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Andf if we used such a system |
|
Obama would have adopted a different strategy. Therefore we have no idea what the numbers would actually be.
|
tyne
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-05-08 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
oberliner
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-05-08 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
|
Obama really did have a strategy that recognized an awareness of the way this process works. Moreso than Hillary, it seemed.
|
SwampG8r
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-05-08 12:21 PM
Response to Original message |
|
i crapped roast beef you could make her a sandwich
|
Bolo Boffin
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-05-08 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
BlooInBloo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-05-08 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #20 |
37. naughty AND funny - the best kind! |
Joe the Revelator
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-05-08 12:29 PM
Response to Original message |
6. If we used a one household system, and my house was picked, I'd be ahead... |
BklynChick
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-05-08 12:29 PM
Response to Original message |
7. winner take all is not democratic. that's why the repubs do it. |
Sensitivity
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-05-08 12:31 PM
Response to Original message |
8. IF YOU DECIDED TO USE THE TEXAS PRIMARY NOT THE CAUCUSES AND NOT BOTH . . .IF ..IF |
|
As they used to say: "If wishes were horses, beggars would ride!" But they don't, they stand by roadside and as for coins.
|
PBS Poll-435
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-05-08 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
14. The Model of Charity! |
blogslut
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-05-08 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
|
"If IFs and ANDs were pots and pans, the world would be a great big kitchen!"
|
hedgehog
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-05-08 12:32 PM
Response to Original message |
9. And if we got rid of the electoral college, Bush would never have been President. |
|
And if cows could fly, we'd all carry umbrellas!
|
JackORoses
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-05-08 12:32 PM
Response to Original message |
10. this analysis is incorrect. Obama won Texas. |
PoliticalAmazon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-05-08 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
41. It's incorrect because it tries to place blame for Hillary's failure on the system... |
|
...when the simple fact is this: if Hillary loses the nomination, it was because of Hillary and the campaign she won.
|
goldcanyonaz
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-05-08 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
46. It's not incorrect, because it's the popular vote that determines the delegates. |
|
Check out California's results with McCain and Romney.
|
Sir Jeffrey
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-05-08 12:33 PM
Response to Original message |
11. And both campaigns would have been run completely different... |
|
from how they were ran. Nobody could have afforded to ignore any states. The media coverage would have been completely different. The altered media coverage might have affected enough voters to swing a state like MO, where the margin was razor thin. Edwards might have dropped out sooner. If you are still assuming we had Superdelegates, they might have come out much sooner for a candidate or they might have held off declaring for a candidate.
There are too many variables to make any kind of meaningful comparison.
|
malik flavors
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-05-08 12:34 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Edited on Sat Apr-05-08 12:35 PM by malik flavors
|
stray cat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-05-08 12:34 PM
Response to Original message |
13. and Obama would still have the lead with the popular vote |
|
but look where that got Al Gore...
|
TheDoorbellRang
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-05-08 12:36 PM
Response to Original message |
15. That article does a nice spin job, but they're wrong |
|
Already said this in another thread on this article, but it bears repeating. From the article:
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
In their alternate-world scenario, they're not just changing one parameter to put Hillary ahead, they're changing two. If they want to play winner-take-all, then Texas goes to Obama with all 193 delegates. They've just decided to throw another arbitrary rule into their alternate world scenario of winner-take-all AND popular vote. If either scenario is played separately, Obama still wins.
Also, notice how in their winner-take-all alternate world, Clinton's lead of 167 pledged delegates is "remarkable;" in the real world, Obama's lead of 164 pledged delegates is "almost tied."
|
bowens43
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-05-08 12:37 PM
Response to Original message |
16. So? We don't have winner take all system. |
|
so why even post this tripe?
|
lapfog_1
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-05-08 01:06 PM
Response to Original message |
17. Of course, you have to choose either primary vote or |
|
caucus results for Texas...
If you picked caucus, it would be Obama 1,453 to Clinton 1,234.
|
SeattleGirl
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-05-08 01:08 PM
Response to Original message |
crankychatter
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-05-08 01:09 PM
Response to Original message |
19. The Electoral College system is undemocratic |
|
that's why we do it this way
|
adoraz
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-05-08 01:11 PM
Response to Original message |
21. makes sense because of 2 reasons |
|
1. This is assuming Hillary wins Texas and they only have a primary 2. Obama's margin of victory has always been MUCH larger than Hillary's.
|
TahitiNut
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-05-08 01:11 PM
Response to Original message |
22. If cows could fly ... |
|
... there'd be big money in the steel umbrella business. (Only silly people would invest based on such a hypothetical.)
|
Why Syzygy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-05-08 01:11 PM
Response to Original message |
23. You (or whoever) cannot say what would *BE* *IF* .. |
|
You mean IF they changed the rules in mid game .... That's the ONLY way your prediction can be True.
If there were a winner take all in effect, as pointed out repeatedly, Obama would not have campaigned as he did. He campaigned within the rules in effect and is winning there.
All the Hellbent supporters have left is animosity, isn't it? Nothing good there at all. Must suck to be you.
|
cliffordu
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-05-08 01:12 PM
Response to Original message |
24. If the monkeys flying out of my butt were Catholic, I'd be the Pope. |
AZBlue
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-05-08 01:22 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Sorry, but this big "if" is pointless and irrelevant.
|
Spider Jerusalem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-05-08 01:23 PM
Response to Original message |
26. But we don't, and she isn't, so your post has no point. |
|
Edited on Sat Apr-05-08 01:24 PM by Spider Jerusalem
|
Elidor
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-05-08 01:38 PM
Response to Original message |
27. And if it was backwards day... |
PseudoIntellect
(701 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-05-08 01:50 PM
Response to Original message |
28. Hillary didn't win Texas. She won the primary, so if you were actually going to follow this |
|
system, give her 100% of the primary delegates, and give BHO 100% of the caucus delegates. But really, Obama won Texas overall.
Regardless, if Hillary was ahead in everything, you wouldn't even be looking for nonexistent statistics like this to conveniently show her ahead somehow. So it's obvious who's grasping at the straws.
|
WillyT
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-05-08 01:52 PM
Response to Original message |
29. And If Cows Could Fly... |
|
you'd need a bigger umbrella.
:wtf:
|
TahitiNut
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-06-08 12:07 AM
Response to Reply #29 |
LowerManhattanite
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-05-08 01:57 PM
Response to Original message |
30. If home plate was 40 feet away instead of 60... |
|
...we'd all be Cy Young.
If the lottery only used 10 bouncing balls, there'd be five million more millionaires.
And if Barbara Bush had wheels...man, she'd be a bitchin' locomotive.
|
ClassWarrior
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-05-08 01:58 PM
Response to Original message |
31. "Interesting how the system itself has a pretty significant role in this process." |
|
You just figured that part out? I hope at least some of the people who are suddenly screaming about the f'ed-up system will use their newfound knowledge to drive for significant change AFTER the elections.
NGU.
|
oberliner
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-05-08 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #31 |
39. Well, I just never saw these numbers before |
|
I didn't mean to anger/upset anyone.
I like both our candidates.
|
SKKY
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-05-08 01:58 PM
Response to Original message |
32. And if worms had shotguns, birds probably wouldn't fuck with them too much... |
Mooney
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-05-08 02:01 PM
Response to Original message |
33. She would also be ahead if she started out with 1000 pledged delegates. |
|
It doesn't work that way either.
|
donheld
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-05-08 02:09 PM
Response to Original message |
34. If wishes were horses... |
|
Edited on Sat Apr-05-08 02:09 PM by donheld
|
BlooInBloo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-05-08 02:14 PM
Response to Original message |
36. And if we used a Clinton-take-all system, she'd be leading 2730-0.... |
|
... The SYSTEM is what's holding Clinton back! Squawk! It's the SYSTEM'S fault! Squawk!
|
elizm
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-05-08 02:18 PM
Response to Original message |
38. If a bullfrog had wings... |
|
...its ass wouldn't bump the ground.
|
PoliticalAmazon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-05-08 03:14 PM
Response to Original message |
40. Hillary supporters are as bad as Hillary! Hillary isn't ahead because she ran... |
|
...ran a shitty campaign. She was way ahead of Obama in the beginning, when Obama was relatively unknown, but as people have seen more of both of them, they are turning away from Hillary and towards Obama.
This is no one's fault but Hillary's! She has run a Rovian campaign (and most Democrats loathe the BushJr/Rove tactics), she has lied, she has insulted Obama supporters, she has been unethical, and shown herself to be absent of integrity.
This is not the system's fault. This is Hillary's fault.
Please quit making excuses for her. If she loses this election, she herself lost it.
|
oberliner
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-05-08 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #40 |
42. Not an excuse - I like both our candidates |
|
I just think its interesting the way the system impacts the process.
Not sure which system makes more sense, the proportional allocation or winner-take-all.
|
PoliticalAmazon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-05-08 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #42 |
45. I think it is an excuse. The Clintons keep monkeying with reality, trying... |
|
...to find a scenario in which Hillary Clinton is winning. This is actually harming HRC's chances of winning because they are denying the reason she is losing: it's the way she has run her campaign.
You can't fix something if you don't acknowledge its broken.
|
dchill
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-05-08 03:38 PM
Response to Original message |
43. * sigh * - Both candidates know what system is used... |
|
in the Democratic Primary. There's no changing it now. The rules are the rules - if the rules were different, different strategies would have been employed by both campaigns. Obama would still be ahead, and Hillary would still be whining about the rules, trying to change them in the middle of the game. National polls still have Obama in the lead, and any attempt to "game the system" won't change the fact that he is the preferred candidate.
|
kevinmc
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-05-08 03:57 PM
Response to Original message |
44. If we never left Viet Nam McCain would still be a POW and not the GOP Nom…. |
|
And we wouldn't have to worry about him in Nov.
Funny how "if" can be made into anything one wants to use it for.
|
TomBall Democrat
(332 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-05-08 04:08 PM
Response to Original message |
47. And why do YOU think we don't have a winner take all |
|
system?
Perhaps you could look into the reasons why we don't
Now that's an interesting question.
|
MadBadger
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-05-08 04:09 PM
Response to Original message |
48. But we have a more fair proportional system. |
stevenleser
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Apr-05-08 04:11 PM
Response to Original message |
49. No, you cannot say that. It is inaccurate. Here is why |
|
Its like saying after a football game in which one team won 21-15, three touchdowns to five field goals that the team that kicked five field goals would have won if touchdowns and field goals counted the same.
We dont know that because we dont know how the teams would have played if those were the rules. Almost certainly both teams would have adjusted their strategies not only in the game, but in practices leading to the game and everything about how they prepare their teams.
|
DesEtoiles
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-06-08 12:19 AM
Response to Original message |
51. so? if pigs had wings they'd fly. But they DON'T. |
TexasObserver
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-06-08 12:25 AM
Response to Original message |
52. If we called ourselves the Democratic Leadership Council Party, we would have that. |
|
Since the DLC is based up what the Republican party does.
|
Alexander
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-06-08 12:26 AM
Response to Original message |
53. One party does use that system - it's called the Republican party. |
|
You'd rather we take after them in our primary system?
|
kwenu
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-06-08 12:31 AM
Response to Original message |
54. If IF was a fifth, we'd throw a damn party!!! |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sat May 04th 2024, 07:16 AM
Response to Original message |