Hmph. Hillary is right. - Democratic Underground

krispos42

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 01:28 PM
Original message

Hmph. Hillary is right.

Edited on Fri May-09-08 01:53 PM by krispos42

If we had a winner-take-all system, she would be winning in
pledged delegates.

State	        Obama	Clinton
Iowa	        45	0
New Hampshire	0	22
Nevada	        0	25
South Carolina	45	0
Alabama	        52	0
Alaska	        13	0
American Samoa	0	3
Arizona	        0	56
Arkansas	0	35
California	0	370
Colorado	55	0
Connecticut	48	0
Delaware	15	0
Georgia	        87	0
Idaho	        18	0
Illinois	153	0
Kansas	        32	0
Massachusettes	0	93
Minnesota	72	0
Missouri	72	0
New Jersey	0	107
New Mexico	0	26
New York	0	232
North Dakota	13	0
Oklahoma	0	38
Tennessee	0	68
Utah	        23	0
Lousiana	56	0
Nebraska	24	0
US Virgin Is.	3	0
Washington	78	0
Maine	        24	0
Dems Abroad	7	0
D.C.     	15	0
Maryland	70	0
Virginia	83	0
Hawaii	        20	0
Wisconsin	74	0
Ohio	        0	141
Rhode Island	0	21
Texas	        67	126
Vermont	        15	0
Wyoming	        12	0
Mississippi	33	0
Pennsylvania	0	158
Guam	        4	0
Indiana  	0	72
North Carolina	115	0

Total:	        1443	1593


She's leading by 150 by my count.  With 217 pledged delegates
left in the process.

This excludes the Florida and Michigan delegates.

Of course, some of the nominating processes are rather
Byzantine and I'm not an expert, so this might not be a
completely accurate list.  Be gentle with me.

Note: Clinton won the Texas primary but Obama won the Texas
precinct conventions, which are two seperate events held on
the same day.  That is why the vote is split for Texas.




Unfortunately for Clinton, we have proportional delegate
allocation, not winner-take-all.  But I wanted to check this
after the Clinton campaign's false claim of "winning 90%
of the territory" that was made a few days ago.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

NJmaverick

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 01:29 PM
Response to Original message

1. If my aunt had a penis, she would be my uncle

Edited on Fri May-09-08 01:39 PM by nomad1776

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Doityourself

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #1

6. Lmaooooo...lol! If my uncle didn't have boobs, he might be a man..

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ShortnFiery

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 01:31 PM
Original message

...

:rofl: That quip NEVER gets old! :spray:

I bet Lanny Davis is "in seclusion" and is being "heavily medicated."

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

CreekDog

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #1

14. you're onto something there

please don't be so linear. :crazy:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Aloha Spirit

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #1

37. Ah, that brings back fond memories... of Jamal Simmons saying it to Lanny Davis on CNN.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Bucky

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #1

67. Good God, I hate that expression. As a matter of fact I have an aunt who has several penises

per week.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

FlyingSquirrel

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #67

81. OMG

Edited on Fri May-09-08 03:05 PM by FlyingSquirrel

I'm not sure if I should nominate that for a DUzy or just let it fade quietly into the mists of time.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

chitty

(918 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 01:29 PM
Response to Original message

2. Well....

We don't.

Is this another rule Hill wants to change?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

MonkeyFunk

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #2

5. No

she never suggested changing it. But it's part of an argument being made to superdelegates. I don't know why you guys have a hard time understanding that. There's a lot of pieces to the argument - each individual one doesn't mean she's trying to change the rules.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

chitty

(918 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #5

18. Then why even

make the argument.

Just another day on Planet Delusional

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

MonkeyFunk

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #18

52. Because she's making a case

as to why superdelegates should vote for her. I don't understand why that's even objectionable. Obama surely does the same exact thing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

RUMMYisFROSTED

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #52

59. The SD's are fair game.

Let's get rid of them in 2012.

--------------------------------

I like proportional voting. Quite fair. Keep it.

Caucus? Primary? Discussion time.

But next time, whatever we agree on, it gets signed in blood.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

msallied

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #52

82. Making a case by stipulating that if the rules of the game were structured differently

is NOT a convincing argument. It's like saying that if touch downs were worth 10 points instead of 7, the New England Patriots would have won the Super Bowl.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Cali_Democrat

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #5

45. You have to admit that it's a really stupid argument

"Make me the Democratic nominee because I would be ahead in delegates if we adopted Republican primary rules."

Dumb :crazy:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

MonkeyFunk

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #45

55. If that were the sum of her argument

I'd agree. But it's an argument meant to dispute the idea that the ONLY way to measure who's a better candidate is by who's ahead in pledged delegates.

Why do you guys get so offended that she's trying to gain superdelegates? Obama's doing it, too.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Voltaire

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #5

68. Since this is NOT a Republican Primary

Then there is no argument on that score, hence no reason to bring it up, right?

Oh, I forgot, for Hillary the motto is "Whatever Works"

You people never NOT crack me up.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

MonkeyFunk

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat May-10-08 02:27 AM
Response to Reply #68

93. She's arguing that the current way we elect

delegates is not the end-all and be-all of democratic representation. Texas proves that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

SeaLyons

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #5

87. ....

:thumbsup:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

krispos42

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #2

47. No, but it's an arguement that she makes when she talks about staying in the race

Somewhat surprisingly, it's an accurate assessment. When I started the post I figured it would be so much bullshit.

What I'd really like to see is instant-runoff voting nationwide. It would have given GK and others more of a voice in the process.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

TheDoorbellRang

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #47

76. If you're doing winner-take-all, you have to put Texas in Obama's column

Just because they have a distinct two-part process doesn't mean you can add the total as if it were for two states. Obama won Texas -- give him all the Texas delegates. Otherwise, it's not winner-take-all.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

cascadiance

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #76

91. Leave it to a Hillary camp person to bend even THESE set of rules in her favor...

If you gave it winner take all to Texas, then Obama would win 1569 to 1467. So just like everything else, if the outcome doesn't do what they want, they have to change the rules so that it does...

Sigh. Kind of a worthless thread. Even some states in the general election aren't winner take all like Maine.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

SoonerPride

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 01:30 PM
Response to Original message

3. Would team Obama have used the same strategy?

Edited on Fri May-09-08 01:35 PM by SoonerPride

Methinks the outcome of Obama winning would still be the same regardless of how we tally the bananas.

They would have changed their strategy to fit a winner-take-all scheme.

Though it appears (if reports of M. Penn's ignorance of the system are true) that team Clinton was undone by hubris and laziness.
They were outworked in every facet of rthe game from organization, planning, fundraising, and message management. There is no reason to beleive they would have worked any harder or raised any more money if the system was winner take all.

Obama would still be the nominee regardless of how we got there.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Doityourself

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #3

13. Exactly! Clintons don't get it..he would n't have approached it the same way..

Edited on Fri May-09-08 01:32 PM by Doityourself

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Exilednight

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 01:30 PM
Response to Original message

4. Winner take all is a rethug system and has no place in the Democratic party ......

our system allows for a more accurate representation of what the voters want.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

PBS Poll-435

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #4

16. Yep. 213K people in PA count less than caucuses in Idaho

Edited on Fri May-09-08 01:41 PM by prodn2000

...more accurate representation of what the voters want.

:rofl::rofl:

edited for clarity.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

enki23

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #16

22. er... obama netted 2 delegates from the wyoming caucus win.

Edited on Fri May-09-08 01:41 PM by enki23

hillary netted about 12 from her pennsylvania win. are you even *trying* to make sense?

in any case, a winner-take-all system would have made over a million pennsylvanians' votes count for nothing. one can make something of a case for winner-take-all, though i don't agree with it. but your comment... is inversely related to that case.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

PBS Poll-435

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #22

35. I found a better example for ya!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

enki23

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #35

63. obama had 80% of the vote in idaho

to hillary's 20%. once again, does not make your case. under winner-take-all, over a million pennsylvania voters would have voted for a barack obama for a total of zero delegates gained. talk about disenfranchisement!

a winner-take-all system has its advantages. it gets contests over more quickly, if that's what your goal is. but let's not pretend that it is somehow more fair than the current system. it isn't. period. arguing otherwise is absurd.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Exilednight

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #16

41. Caucuses have their own problems, but that's another debate for a different day ......

Hillary wants a winner take all system like the rethugs. Rethugs also use caucuses that are winner take all.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Clark2008

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #16

42. I think that's more because of media attention than number of voters.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

boobooday

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 01:31 PM
Response to Original message

7. That would make us . . .

Republicans.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

GetTheRightVote

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 01:31 PM
Response to Original message

8. Reality check is that this is the system the Dems have used and all others

in the past have lived with it just as HRC will need to as well.
Can not change the rules in the middle of the stream just because you wish it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

krispos42

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #8

51. That is absolutely correct

I'm not a Clinton fan, so I'm not advocating some sort of in-process rule change. I'm just mildy suprised that they make an accurate statement.

This means that somebody on the Clinton staff had the jobs of figuring this out so Clinton could whine about it!

:-)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Stop Cornyn

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 01:31 PM
Response to Original message

9. Hell yeah, Hillary is right. (too damn far right for my taste)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

krispos42

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #9

54. LOL n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Independent-Voter

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 01:32 PM
Response to Original message

10. And if HRC wasn't America's Ex-wife, she'd had the nomination sewn up in Feb

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

PBS Poll-435

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #10

19. Wow. A Rush Limbaugh Original!

In GDP

Shocking

:eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Independent-Voter

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #19

25. If the shoe fits...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

PBS Poll-435

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #25

31. Who? You or Hillary Clinton?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Independent-Voter

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #31

38. HRC - she's that shrill figure that everybody remembers. The Dems would be far better off getting

rid of her.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

PBS Poll-435

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #38

40. You missed the point.

Why bring that trash here?

DU is NOT for Dittoheads.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Independent-Voter

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #40

43. What dittohead shit are you babbling about? The Ex-wife bit has been used by numerous folks

Seems appropriate enough for me.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

last1standing

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 01:32 PM
Response to Original message

11. If it was good enough for bush* it's good enough for Hillary, I suppose.

I can't believe that she would use this argument KNOWING that it's the reason Gore lost the white house. If we had representational voting in the GE, Florida wouldn't have mattered.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

WeDidIt

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 01:32 PM
Response to Original message

12. Guess that proves She should have run as a Republican

since she can't win as a Democrat.

:shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

insanity

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 01:34 PM
Response to Original message

15. Wow.

Cool, so you are suggesting that if the rules were different there would be a different outcome?

One of the first lessons of political science is that the rules and the outcome are directly related.

Sorry that the Democratic Party uses a democratic system.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

krispos42

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #15

56. No, she's suggesting that different rules = different outcome

My point is that, in a shocking turn of events, she actually made a correct if irrelevent statement.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

nomorewhopper

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 01:35 PM
Response to Original message

17. if home runs were worth two points apiece, the yankees would have won the series last year

if the rules were changed, obama would have competed based on the new rules.

in other words, if california was an all or nothing proposition, he would have campaigned far differently. changing the rules is idiotic.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

grantcart

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 01:36 PM
Response to Original message

20. Yeah just don't touch our dirt

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

dbonds

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 01:37 PM
Response to Original message

21. If those were the rules up front, then the candidates could have run a campaing on those rules.

But the rules are what they are and that is the way the campaign is run. If winner-take-all was in from the start, no one would spend time in the smaller states. But interesting to note that the republicans want to change california's electoral college vote to proportionate. So, this appears one of the rules you set up front to tell you how to play the game, and winner-take all is not a better system, just one that allows for advantages to certain people/groups in certain cases.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

chitty

(918 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #21

26. Mark Penn apparently

was running her campaign that way.

DOH!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DemsUnited

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 01:38 PM
Response to Original message

23. This kind of "what if" is bogus because as Obama's campaign always says,

they tailored their strategy and deployed their resources according to the rules of the game. They won.

If the rules had been different (winner takes all delegates or popular vote) the Obama team would have implemented strategy and resources very differently and *still* won the game.

Enough of this already. It is silly.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Bensthename

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 01:39 PM
Response to Original message

24. Too bad she did not know how to run her campaign to win the correct way.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Arugula Latte

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 01:40 PM
Response to Original message

27. And if arrogance and sense of entitlement were the criteria for picking a nominee,

Hillary would have had this thing sewn up last year.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

scheming daemons

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 01:40 PM
Response to Original message

28. If it was winner take all, Obama would have run a different campaign....

That's like saying: "if the three-point line in college was the same distance as the NBA, then Kansas wouldn't have won the National Championship."

The Obama campaign taylored their campaign to the rules in place.

Had it been "winner take all", both sides would've approached things differently.... Obama would've spent NO time in PA... Clinton would've spent NO time in NC..... for example.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

stevietheman

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 01:40 PM
Response to Original message

29. Campaigns are devised around the rules as set up before the beginning of the process.

The Hillary campaign may want to change the rules mid-stream, but they aren't going to be afforded that unjust event.

If the states were indeed winner-take-all, this whole contest would have taken shape in an entirely different way. In that instance, if Hillary were behind, it's likely she would be complaining that the contests were not more democratic (proportional) in their design.

The bottom line is that Hillary is whining, but her complaint is empty.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

question everything

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 01:40 PM
Response to Original message

30. I don't have problem with proportional allotment

this is more democratic.

What I do mind is when the allotment of delegates is different from the popular votes, because some districts - in many cases, inner cities with majority of African Americans - get more delegates per votes than others.

She won the plurality in Nevada and in Texas. And in PA she beat Obama by more than 10% in the popular votes. In some rural areas she beat him 75-25.

Isn't it ironic that we still fume at the 2000 results, where the delegates allotments trumped popular votes, but we readily accept it in our caucuses and primaries?

I have to wonder: if it were Clinton who benefited from such a bizarre system, would the Obama supporters have just accepted it?

Yes, I know. Different bodies, different systems, etc. The final results are the same.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

stevietheman

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #30

33. And Obama would still be ahead in pledged delegates, even if Nevada and Texas weren't...

"unfair" about this allotment.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

thoughtcrime1984

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 01:42 PM
Response to Original message

32. And if I were Barack Obama

I'd be your next President.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

barack the house

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 01:42 PM
Response to Original message

34. Jon Stewart said it best if we had winner-takes-all we'd be Republicans.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Raineyb

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 01:43 PM
Response to Original message

36. There's a party that has a winner take all system

They're called Republicans. Perhaps she should run for their nomination. Otherwise she'll have to work with the proportional allocation of delegates.

Doesn't your back hurt from all this goalpost moving?

BTW, the winner take all system isn't the end all to be all of showing the will of the people. It merely allows the majority to completely disregard the will of the minority. That doesn't really work well in the long run.

Regards

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

RoadRage

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 01:48 PM
Response to Original message

39. Right.. it would be BETTER to have a situation where Clinton wins without the popular vote?

In a Rethug system - she'd have more pledged delegates, but she'd still be 700,000 behind in the popular vote. How would THAT look to Super Delegates? That might actually be something worth over turning.. you know "will of the people" and all.

Luckily the Dem's are smart enough to put a system in place that tries to represent the actual will of the people - not just the will of the larger demographic areas of the country.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

krispos42

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #39

60. I agree with you

I'm not a Hillary supporter at all, I'm just pointing out that this particular campaign statement (unlike several others) was actually correct!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

RoadRage

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #60

64. OK! Well the statement is correct.. but I am glad that the DNC runs

the primary's this way - it seems to be the best way to go about it.

Imagine if McCain had the most delegates and Huckabee had the popular vote.. how in the world would they figure that out? I guess that would be a dream, right... the spotlight wouldn't be only on the in-fighting amoungst dems!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

newmajority

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 01:54 PM
Response to Original message

44. The whole problem with Hillary using this lame argument

Is that she, of all people should know better. Seeing as she lives with a guy who won a previous Presidential primary.

As I said in another thread, this is what they get for hiring a Repuke sleazebag like Mark Penn. He probably assumed that the Democrats had the same rules that his party does.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DAGDA56

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 02:16 PM
Response to Original message

46. What's the story on Texas? It's the only one without a 0 in either column

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

SoonerPride

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #46

48. Primacaucus. The Texas two step.

What can I say, texans are screwballs.

snark.

:)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Joe the Revelator

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 02:19 PM
Response to Original message

49. If that was our system, Obama would have ran a campaign geared toward winner take all

Hillary picked the wrong type of campaign, which is funny, because we've been doing it this way for twenty years.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

zulchzulu

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 02:19 PM
Response to Original message

50. If I could trade in my 10 Dollar Bill and get a Fifty Dollar Bill, I'd be richer

Unfortunately for me, we have proportional currency allocation, not make-up-shit-and-call-it-a rule.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Lucky 13

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 02:20 PM
Response to Original message

53. If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, then we'd all have a Merry Christmas!

If football counted total yardage instead of most points...
If baseball counted hits instead of runs...
If basketball counted rebounds instead of baskets...
If hockey counted hard checks instead of goals...
If grades were calculated by number of hours studied instead of by exam scores...

See where I'm going with this?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

krispos42

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #53

58. Exactly right

Now we need to go tattoo your post to Hillary's retinas so she'd get the hint and drop out!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Lucky 13

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #58

69. She doesn't give a flying fuck what you or me or anyone else thinks.

She's made that pretty fucking clear. She doesn't care about the rules. She doesn't care about the party. She just cares about her self.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

kenny blankenship

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 02:23 PM
Response to Original message

57. If ONLY Democrats looked to Republicans to teach them the fair way to do things!

Edited on Fri May-09-08 03:10 PM by kenny blankenship

Why do we have to be different from Republicans? Forget different sets of rules for a second--Why do we have a separate party at all? Aren't the Republicans more concerned with fairness --I mean, what could be more fair than the principle of WINNER TAKE ALL--and aren't they just generally better at doin' stuff? They're always saying so - and we trust them, right?

Why must we divide America?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

lojasmo

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 02:29 PM
Response to Original message

61. She should have run for the republican nomination. EOM

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

kwenu

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 02:37 PM
Response to Original message

62. I think the system worked. We just have a candidate who can't deal with her loss.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Bucky

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 02:47 PM
Response to Original message

65. How did you get the numbers to tab out into columns in your post?

Yeh, I know it's off topic, but I'm still curious.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

FlyingSquirrel

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #65

85. I would give my eyeteeth to know that as well

Many times I've had to use dots to space things out and it still doesn't look nearly that good (plus it's a lot of work)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

killbotfactory

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 02:47 PM
Response to Original message

66. She seems to have a problem with confusing the democratic party with the republican party

I think the medical term for it is "DLCitis".

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Vinca

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 02:59 PM
Response to Original message

70. If we had a "winner take all" system, Obama would have run a different campaign. nt

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

gmudem

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 02:59 PM
Response to Original message

71. She should have run for the GOP nomination then.

It kinda seems like she's doing that anyway.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

marmar

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 03:00 PM
Response to Original message

72. Everybody wants to change the rules of the game when it's not working out in their favor......

:nopity:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

msallied

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 03:01 PM
Response to Original message

73. Apples and oranges

You can't simply extrapolate numbers from the current race and say who would win "if" we had a winner-take-all system, because Obama didn't run a winner-take-all campaign. It's Hillary who didn't retrofit her campaign strategy for the proportional system. If this were WTA, then Obama would have planned his campaign for it. As such, you cannot draw those conclusions.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Drunken Irishman

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 03:01 PM
Response to Original message

74. This argument doesn't wash.

Edited on Fri May-09-08 03:01 PM by Drunken Irishman

Because if it did, the whole trajectory of the primary season would be completely different. Both Obama and Clinton would have campaigned dramatically different than they originally did. If they did a winner take all system, I doubt Obama would have spent nearly as much time in smaller states and campaigned in the far larger ones like California. That changes things dramatically, since we don't know how the election would be different from today if it started out this way.

See, this is the problem with what ifs and ultimately why you can't count Michigan and Florida. What if they were real contests and Obama and Clinton both campaigned there? He probably would not have won Florida, but surely he could have made it closer? And he would have done far better in Michigan than he did (you know, since his name wasn't on the ballot).

You know your campaign officially sucks when your best argument is one that doesn't exist. Well if they called this and this differently, my team would have won. Guess what? They didn't and your team lost.

* Your not as in you, but some generic fool who tries to use this argument. :)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

high density

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 03:01 PM
Response to Original message

75. Hillary Clinton and Mark Penn agree with you

The rest of us... Well, we're Democrats and realize our system rewards delegates in a proportional manner.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

JVS

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 03:03 PM
Response to Original message

77. We don't so she's a big loser.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

msallied

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 03:03 PM
Response to Original message

78. Winner-take-all is the most undemocratic, disenfranchising system there is.

Be thankful that the Dems aren't using it. Take a basic high school or college-level civics course and learn about districting and you will understand why.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

NotThisTime

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 03:03 PM
Response to Original message

79. But we aren't Republican's.... she could become a Republican if it works for her

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

anigbrowl

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 03:04 PM
Response to Original message

80. If we had a WTA system, we'd be Republicans...and probably have different results

It's up to the candidates and campaigns to fight in the primary based on the system we do have, rather than the one we'd like to have. Hell, if Republicans had a proportional system Huckabee would likely be leading. And if Democrats had a winner-take-all system, the Obama campaign would have built their strategy around that rather than around maximising their gains in small states where they could campaign more directly to the electorate.

We might as well say that if we had stricter financing rules, Hillary would have droped out long ago due to her campaign running out of money.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

workinclasszero

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 03:05 PM
Response to Original message

83. More delusions from bitter Hillery voters

If...if...if...:nopity:

Please try to face reality.

She LOST.

You can't change the rules after the game is over.

Can we start kicking Rethug ass now???

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

AnarchoFreeThinker

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 03:05 PM
Response to Original message

84. and of course Obama would have run a different campaign...and still won

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Mooney

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 03:06 PM
Response to Original message

86. All signs point to Hillary becoming a Republican.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Bread and Circus

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 03:08 PM
Response to Original message

88. It all would hinge on California, had the rules been different then Obama would have....

changed his strategy.

Fantasizing about a different ruleset when losing is just plain weak.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

progressoid

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 03:16 PM
Response to Original message

89. Ironically, Hillary was one of those decrying winner take all after the 2000

presidential election. :eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

femrap

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 03:20 PM
Response to Original message

90. If we had the same primary rules as the

repugs, she would already be the winner.

Didn't the Dem rules change in 1984? I wonder how this primary would have turned out with the previous rules.

If the Dems can find a way to shoot themselves in the foot, it certainly will be done.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Radical Activist

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 03:33 PM
Response to Original message

92. Hillary would also be winning if

she wasn't such a shitty candidate.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

goletian

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat May-10-08 02:30 AM
Response to Original message

94. if hillary had run a better campaign, she woulda run a better campaign. hmph - nt

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

gbrenna

(104 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat May-10-08 02:44 AM
Response to Original message

95. I have thought lately that Hillary

should have run as a Republican what with the GOP being so nice to her and all. She seemed right at home on Fox News also.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Wed May 15th 2024, 07:55 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.