The Numbers in Hillary's Favor

[Maribelle]

Here's a statement you're hearing all over the place: One of the Democratic presidential candidates should drop out of the race. Here's a suggestion you'll hear nowhere else: Why shouldn't that person be Barack Obama?

...

The most sophisticated analysis in Clinton's favor comes from my colleague Michael Barone. http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/3/28/projection-clinton-wins-popular-vote-obama-wins-delegate-count.html He points to the Clinton campaign's boast that the states it has won have more Electoral College votes than the ones in which Obama has prevailed, with the follow-on that this means her chances for winning the general election are better than his. Obama's supporters (Senators Leahy, Dodd, et al.) claim Clinton should drop out, because he has a larger tally of delegates and of popular votes.

But Barone posits an even better counterargument for the Clinton campaign—use population rather than electoral votes:

By my count, based on the 2007 Census estimates, Clinton's states have 132,214,460 people (160,537,525 if you include Florida and Michigan), and Obama's states have 101,689,480 people. States with 39,394,152 people have yet to vote. In percentage terms, this means Clinton's states have 44 percent of the nation's population (53 percent if you include Florida and Michigan) and Obama's states have 34 percent of the nation's population. The yet-to-vote states have 13 percent of the nation's population.

... more

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/erbe/2008/4/2/the-numbers-in-hillarys-favor.html

[goldcanyonaz]

1. But, Obama wins ALL 50 states!!!

[polpilot]

30. Exactly! And a Pro-War, Pro-NAFTA, McCain apologist Can't/Won't Win. Good point.

'08 Obama/ Good judgment = Good results.

[goldcanyonaz]

40. Yee Haw!!!!

[Arkansas Granny]

2. This is a very interesting perspective and one I'm sure won't be lost on the SDs.

Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

[Maribelle]

7. You're welcome!

:hi:

[DemVet]

3. People keep forgetting that..

...Senator Obama HAS won more states. However, this is not an accurate indicator of how well he would do in the GE if he is the Nominee. This may be an accurate picture of his popularity among Democrats, but getting the moderate/Independent/moderate Republican (yes, I said the "R" word) is what is going to win this election.

It absolutely sickens me when people on here assume beating McCain is a lock. I remember similar statements with Kerry in 2004.

Senator Clinton does stand a decent chance of overtaking Obama in the popular vote by June 3. Who should the superdelegates vote for then?

[ihelpu2see]

31. People keep forgetting that this is NOT the General election. He is up in

Popular vote, more than double the number of states won and up in delegates..... Hillary of course thinks that votes don't matter, remember the quote " PLEDGED DELEGATES SHOULD KEEP AN OPEN MIND AT THE CONVENTION."

[Maribelle]

45. Obama supporters keep forgetting that the number of states won does not count.

And, in fact, if the DNC had not bastardized Florida and Michigan, Hillary would have had a commanding lead that could have possibly forced Obama to drop out much earlier - - Had the DNC stuck to it's 50% rule as the RNC did.

Which begs the question: did the good folks at the DNC realize for even a second what they were doing?

[Asgaya Dihi]

50. 50% was the minimum

It was never the maximum. Setting aside the right and wrong of the penalty for the moment the States both knew what the penalty would be long before the primary ran and rather than set it back to where the rules said it should be they decided to play a game of chicken with the party. Michigan I don't know the story with so much but with Florida I'd bet it went up due to the laughter and such involved, they pretty much dared the party to do something.

I do feel for the voters in those States and I don't know how I'd feel if I was them, but no rules were changed in setting a penalty above the minimum and I'd lay the blame more on the State leaders than the party. What's the point of having rules if we set the precedent that ignoring them is tolerated? How it should have been handled I don't know, probably could have been better, but I think we're trying to lay the blame in all the wrong places.

[Maribelle]

51. Most Floridians believe the RNC did it correctly. 50% and they have no problems today.

Do they?

And punishing 1.7 million Democrats because of SUBJECTIVELY judging the laughter of one state legislature is truly sad.

Democrats in Florida knew full well that their legislatures could not do anything to change the primary date - - the laughter was merely a reflection of that true fact of republican dominance - - and not the false premise that some have tried to claim.

That Democrats in Florida were playing 'a game of chicken' is a flat out lie, and is merely based on more petty subjective rantings.

[Asgaya Dihi]

58. Have it your way

Up until the last lines I kinda thought we could have a conversation about views, but I'm not going to trade insults about lies and rants. Find another playmate.

This is why we're going to lose the next election though, and to a much lesser opponent. When push came to shove we got as bad as the other side and as eager to attack people we don't know and TELL them who they are and why they think what they do, and just like the other side was wrong most of the time so are we. Both sides offended to death because someone did to them what they just did to someone else, and they can't even see it.

When the nation needed leadership we offered this, and McCain is going to end up walking away with it due to the hard feelings in the party and the appearance of dysfunction outside of it. It doesn't much matter which candidate we put up. I don't think I'll be a part of it, not for either side. You all go ahead and commit suicide as a party without me, the angry ones on both sides.

[Maribelle]

63. Sorry. You're the one that brought up the 'playing chicken' and 'laughing' premise.

In the latest polls, Floridians favor Hillary over McCain, while Obama merely receives 37% to McCain.

[Asgaya Dihi]

65. That would probably be because

I saw the video and when asked by the repub chair if he was asking for a no vote, given the he hoped this effort to "stop or amend" the bill would buy him room with the party, he laughed and said no, we really want this. He was caught on tape trying an openly transparent trick and laughing, I said it because that's what happened.

As far as chicken, when you see a car coming and don't get out of the way that's playing chicken. When you see this kind of a penalty coming and don't get out of the way even given plenty of time it strikes me pretty much the same.

Finally, no matter if you agreed with my reasons, reasoning, or any of the rest of it, I did not at any point either insult you or get aggressive with you but you decided that was the best way to respond to me. Short of being in lockstep with you, how DOES one express disagreement without being called names?

It's not just you, it's this whole place these days and you probably feel the same to a point which would put you on edge too. Problem is that we're getting on edge because we think someone did something to us so we get pissed and do it to someone else. Too often to someone we don't know, and to someone who didn't deserve it anymore than we did.

I'm just left wondering these days, exactly what is the real difference between the two parties? When push comes to shove? How similar are we willing to become?

I don't want any part of it, I might browse the boards for another few days or weeks to see if things calm down but if this is who we've decided we want to be I'm just going to start thinking hard about moving to another country. The other party I was willing to fight but how the hell do we win against both of them acting like this? I think this nation is in for some very hard years ahead, and a bit of growing pain as we try to figure out who we really want to be.

[Maribelle]

66. When I said it 'is merely based on more petty subjective rantings' I did not mean you.

Not in the least. Sorry, perhaps I should have been clearer.

It is widely know. Both the laughing and the playing chicken have been tossed about with aplomb.

And in all of this, I have not read even one viable solution that the Democrats could have found to the primary being moved by the republicans. Dean offered something in the vicinity of $800,000 for the Democrats to hold a primary/caucus at a later date - - however the tax payers of Florida paid over $20,000,000 for the primary on January 29th. Dean said the party in Florida had to prove they tried to change the primary date - - when not one single party member could do anything about the republican controlled legislature.

Of course the democrats laughed over the legislation they introduced to change the primary date - - it was either that or cry.

Please remember, when the Democrats signed on to support the 'election reform' bill it was reform desperately needed in the state -and- the DNC rule stated if a state went early they would lose 50% of their delegates - - both the DNC rules and the RNC rules stated this 50% penalty. It was only after Crist signed the bill into law that the DNC decided to penalize at 100%.

It is tragic that we Floridians witness the Republican party proceeding so well with their 50% rule. Please forgive those that are ripping mad at the DNC over this, as many in these parts are.

[Asgaya Dihi]

69. To a point you're right

The repubs had control and could have pushed it through without the dems, they'd have been better off if that's what had happened. Personally I think the nearly unanimous vote with just one in dissent, the laughter, and all of that is what cost them. If they had made a good faith effort to keep the date legal it likely would have been the 50%, or maybe none. In that case I think both sides in Florida just thought the State deserved more prominence and they went about it the wrong way. Party went too far as well though, should have hit the citizens less and the ones with the egos more if they could.

Once the date was set changing it without repub cooperation would have been a tough trick but a good faith effort might have helped at least. I saw no signs of them making an effort, they liked the early date best I could tell.

It is pretty crappy for the citizens there though. I wouldn't be happy about it at all if I was them but personally I think they should blame their State party more than I get the impression that they are. We'll see how it works out when they get the settlement done, I'm hearing noises about them working on a compromise in the news recently. Maybe the citizens will come out.

On before... I'm more or less one of those who have fought enough, I'm done. It's not that I can't used to be pretty good at it, it's that it solves nothing and does too much damage. Look around this place these days, and not just here but the blogs and other places as well. Arguments are used with shifting logic, the only consistency being the side it advantages. Facts are twisted or used out of context and we're as quick to attack and smear each other as we've see the other side to be over the last 7 years.

That's not us out there anymore, that's them. The longer we live on their level the more like them we become. I've seen it happen too many times and in multiple contexts. Streets, prison, politics, returning vets, kids hanging out with the wrong crowd, we're changing who we are day by day when we live like that. The changes might be slow but play the game long enough and one day there won't be any difference between us and them.

We need to wake the fuck up, fast.

I'll leave it here, probably should take a break from posting for a few hours at least. I'd rather days. Sorry we got off on the wrong foot. Peace.

[ihelpu2see]

75. sorry, if you include FL and MI Obama still leads in Popular vote and Delegates.

Though there is NO Reason why MI should count....

[GarbagemanLB]

4. The SDs won't go against the guy who can bring in more money than Hillary and more

new supporters than Hillary. They also won't go against the winner of the pledged delegates. Sorry.

[Maribelle]

5. Seeing that most of the state caucuses will not 'pledge' delegates until June

when their state conventions are finalized, it looks like most MSM and Obama are stretching Obama's 'pledged' numbers.

[crankychatter]

6. keep scraping

I'm sure there is no bottom.

[Maribelle]

8. Pathetic response. You Obama supporters cannot let a positive Hillary thread go by without trashing

[goldcanyonaz]

9. They've made it perfectly clear that they don't need us in order to win in November.

Like Obama said, I'll get Clintons votes, but she won't get mine.

Uh huh....

[Maribelle]

11. Judging by Obama's poor numbers in Florida, I think most thinking Floridians heard him

The latest poll shows Hillary winning over McCain, and Obama losing to McCain pulling only 37%. And keep in mind that the 37% percent represents Hillary supports that will vote for the nominee regardless.

[goldcanyonaz]

15. Yeah, but we don't need Florida, he wins every other state.

I'm thinking a Mondale repeat this November.

[Maribelle]

19. And the totaly irony is that it should be the other way around after 8 years of neocons.

Things look pretty bleak from my southern point of view.

[cali]

21. No, what's pathetic is to say that Obama's pledged delegate count

is being inflated. By that measure,genius, so is hilly's. And this wasn't a positive hillary thread. It was a thread about what repuke Michael Barone says about Obama. Duh.

[Maribelle]

23. The truth is that Obama's 'pleged' delegate count is inflated. Nevada tried to tell you.

But you wouldn't listen.

[cali]

26. gad. you really are reduced to meaningless garble

now that's pathetic. try and explain what Nevada tried to tell me and why Obama's pledged delegate count is supposedly inflated but Clinton's isn't.

[Maribelle]

36. The truth is because Obama's numbers reflect more caucuses. About Nevada:

(but this is also true about all caucuses. Perhaps you would be more credible if you learned more about caucuses, no?)

Nevada:
On Jan. 19, party caucuses meet in each precinct to choose delegates to county conventions. The delegates selected are not bound to any candidate. At the county conventions on Feb. 23, delegates to the state convention are chosen. They are not bound to any candidate. The state convention is April 18-20, during which delegates choose 25 of the 33 delegates to the national convention. Sixteen of the 25 delegates are allocated proportionally to presidential candidates based on the support for the candidates in each of the state’s three Congressional districts. Nine delegates are allocated to candidates based on the support among all of the delegates attending the convention. The remaining eight unpledged delegates are chosen from party leaders.


http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/NV.html



So, Nevada's delegates are not 'pledged' until the state convention to be held April 18-20. This is true also for the Texas state convention and perhaps most other caucus states as well.

[cali]

47. sorry, the conventions in June are really just a formality

If you think differently, you're ignorant. Wishful hillbot "thinking" isn't going to change the results in the Caucus states won by Obama. And it's just tough for the delusional littlle hillbots that it won't.

[Maribelle]

49. I never even indicated I thought the results would change. Nevada said they were not 'pledged' ...

until the State Convention.

Please do try to keep up.

[hill_win_2008]

27. Kidding right?

How could say this is not a positive Hillary thread?

Honestly I think your Obama lovefest is affecting your thinking.

[kevinmc]

10. "Hillary Clinton is winning and Obama has been soundly defeated"

"Oh..... and Death to the Infidels"

[Maribelle]

14. Please remove that 'paid for by hillary' sign.

[EnviroBat]

57. Here's a sign for you. Like this one better?

[Maribelle]

60. Are you haveing a hard time sticking to the topic of this thread?

[EnviroBat]

61. Yep.

And now you have spanked me for it. Thank you.

[ampad]

68. LOL

:rofl:

[C_U_L8R]

12. Perhaps there is a place in the world these numbers might work

but here in the United States the Democratic nominee is NOT selected by
national referendum nor by the Electoral College. It's a simple time-tested
method of electing delegates who represent the electorate of individual states.
It's a state by state process. Maybe over in Hillaryland, this fantasy that the
Electoral College is the basis of the Democratic nomination, but not here
and not now and not in this party. Sorry, but this fantasy belongs with
your confabulated "sniper" stories and ginned up resumes.

[hill_win_2008]

18. Neither can win it now

The O supporters are always saying that Hillary CAN'T win unless Obama implodes (caught BBQing cats or something). Guess what, Obama CAN'T win unless Hillary drops out.

It's down to the SDs, and they will go with the most electable in the GE...when they actually pledge. In June.

[C_U_L8R]

25. That's actually not totally true

Obama will handily win Delegates and Superdelegates combined... which is how it works and is the only measure that COUNTS
He will also win more states
He will also will more votes.
He will also win more endorsements.
He will also win more fund-raising.

It stands to simple reason that he has a pretty fair chance at winning the nomination
and going forward and winning the election : - ))))

[hill_win_2008]

28. Will he walk on water?

A lot of 'will do this' and 'will do that'. Let's just wait and see.

I know you think he 'will' do everything, but 'can' he get all the delegates needed (aside from SDs) with Hillary still in the race?

[C_U_L8R]

32. No, of course not.

But he IS winning this race. That's a fact.

And you're right, lets see how it pans out for Hillary.
She's got a near impossible task in front of her.
There's only so many more states to win and she's gonna
have to win em really big. That's gonna take a lot less
whining and a lot more doing. We'll see.

[hill_win_2008]

33. That's all I'm saying

It will come down to the SDs, and looking at the original post, the SDs should consider this information.

[C_U_L8R]

38. cool.

added some more to my previous post.

have a great day and may the best candidate win.

[scheming daemons]

13. States like California, NY, Mass are Clinton *AND* Obama states for the GE...false argument....

...

[Maribelle]

17. What about Ohio, Michigan and Florida? Would McCain win against Obama by winning these?

[goldcanyonaz]

22. MA hasn't been looking good for Obama in head to head matchups.

He was tied with McCain last poll.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportPopup.aspx?g=692c0281-9ce4-4c71-8e4f-b970d4ea8193&q=45622

Kennedy and Kerry couldn't even deliver the state for him.

[Maribelle]

62. From the crosstabs at your link: Obama loses independents , +50 & seniors, males...

And Hillary wins far more Democrats and 18-34 year olds than Obama

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=692c0281-9ce4-4c71-8e4f-b970d4ea8193

Very interesting. Thanks!

[bowens43]

16. more irrelevent crap.

It's a shame that hillary supports are reduced to lies, distortions, innuendos and irrelevancies but I guess you work with what you have.

[Maribelle]

20. Please go poop somewhere else.

Obumma drippings are so messy.

[zulchzulu]

24. The Primary is about Delegates and states lost in primaries can be won in the GE

Bill Clinton lost Colorado, Vermont and Rhode Island to Jerry Brown in 1992 primaries. He won all those states in the General Election.

Comparing states won in the primary season is irrelevant to states that would be won in the General Election. It's apples and oranges.

Add that Obama chiselled 20+% leads in the early states down to 3-4% in a couple weeks time in states he lost.

[Umbram]

29. But..but...but...the new goalpost is always relevant! (nt)

[MadHound]

34. Faulty logic, sorry

This article is assuming that Obama won't win in some or all of the states that Obama won. Can you honestly tell me that Obama, or any Democratic candidate, won't win in states like NY or CA? No, you can't, it is preposterous to think otherwise.

Meanwhile, Obama's crossover appeal brings in some normally red states that Hillary absolutely can't win. Therefore Obama's numbers are actually better than Hillary's in this regard.

[totodeinhere]

35. You very conveniently left out this part of the article.

Thus the Clinton campaign could argue that Obama cannot win states with most of the nation's people even if he wins all the remaining eight primaries. Could argue—but I don't think that's going to persuade any super delegates that Clinton is the real winner.

And even though even Barone admits that this argument probably won't persuade any super delegates, the biggest flaw in his analysis is that it uses a winner take all formula, but as we all know, the Dem party uses proportional results in the primaries, not winner take all. It's the Rethugs who use winner take all, so perhaps Barone should take his phony analysis back to the Rethugs on Fox news where he is a frequent contributor.

[Maribelle]

39. It wasn't 'very conveniently'. Obama supporters scream 'copyright infringement' if I post more.

They do it all the time to try to get a positive Hillary post locked.
They NEVER do it when it is a positive Obama post, however.

[totodeinhere]

41. So you chose to post the part that makes your argument look the best.

You could have edited it so that you could have included the part I quoted without violating copyrights if you had wanted to.

But we all know why you didn't. You wanted to cherry pick the part of the article that made your phony argument look best. But your tactic didn't work.

[Maribelle]

44. Wrong again. I chose parts from the original page. You drilled down to another page for yours.

[totodeinhere]

46. No, we were both quoting from the same US News article at the link you posted.

[Maribelle]

48. 'Thus the Clinton campaign could argue...' is not on the page I quoted from.

It is on the excerpt page that the page I quoted from linked to.

[snooper2]

71. got something for you...

:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:

:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:

:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:

:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:

[onenote]

37. i would hope that before commenting, people would read Barone's entire article

Among other things, the part cited in Bonnie Erbe's blog (which is the source cited in the OP) as a "better counterargument" is not, in fact, a major part of Barone's analysis, but rather, by his own admission, simply another way to "spin" the numbers. He does provide, however, a very detailed analysis that, he claims, shows it to be likely that Clinton takes the popular vote lead by June, but continues to trail in delegates. A couple of things however: even he acknowledges that his projections about Puerto Rico -- which he anticipates giving Clinton her entire popular vote margin -- are speculative (and, implicitly, he acknowledges that the margin from Puerto Rico may count "less" since Puerto Rico doesn't have any electoral votes). Also, Barone forecasts a 20 percent margin for Clinton in Pennsylvania. While that may end up happening, its not something that most people would bet on at this point.

[ClassWarrior]

42. I can understand your hope... but last I looked, no one has a crystal ball.

All we have as evidence of "electability" is the campaign season up till this point, and it's pretty obvious who's run a better campaign.

NGU.

[indimuse]

43. k&R

Thanks for the post Maribelle. Maybe this will humble the Obama fans a bit...probably not. wink.

[saltpoint]

52. Not to mention, the Clinton campaign is the best positioned to

shovel snow next winter, having ordered all those extra snow shovels in Iowa.

But of COURSE, the mainstream media IGNORES this aspect of the nomination race.

[olkaz]

53. The delusion gets deeper and deeper....

I will say though, each argument brought up saying Hillary should be the nominee is more and more creative. Really imaginative stuff.

Can't wait to have all that creative energy working for Obama.

[IsItJustMe]

54. It's about the delegates. Keep dreaming though.

[Maribelle]

59. The truth is Obama cannot win 2024 (or whatever the # is now) in the primaries.

Regardless of how anyone tries to twist this, it appears it will be up to the super-delegates. How they will make their decisions will be based of factors that cannot be predetermined yet. However, some are calculating that the remaining uncommitted super delegates will factor in the big states that need to be one.

And there is nothing 'dreaming' about this.

[anigbrowl]

77. The truth is that Clinton will have to convince an awful lot more SDs than Obama will

And she doesn't have very many convincing arguments with which to do it. The column you quote is delusional - Bonnie Erbe may think that it's a 'sophisticated analysis' but this just shows how logically deficient she is.

[Milo_Bloom]

55. One big problem...

Winning a state in the primary doesn't mean you are more or less likely to win that state in the GE.

SO the entire analysis is bunk.

[Joe the Revelator]

56. So now we've gone from counting delegates, to counting popular vote, to now counting population?

You guys are pathetic.

[Jersey Devil]

72. We should also extrapolate the numbers to account for pregnancies

due before November 5

[Jersey Devil]

73. Hillary also leads in states with the largest numbers of puppies

I think we should also consider that Hillary leads in states with the largest collections of recycled plastic

[NeedleCast]

64. More Mathmatical Spin from Camp Hillary

So the argument is that because Clinton has won states with higher electoral vote count that this somehow shows she'll (but not Obama) will win those states in the General? Ridiculous! Is there any doubt that both Obama and Clinton would carry New York in the general? Any doubt that they would both win California?

What this tells me is that Clinton wins in the traditional blue states and loses in the traditional red states. Obama has at least a fighting chance of taking some of the south while Clinton has none.

[Orsino]

67. This continues the confusion of EC votes versus the Republican nominee...

...with delegate votes versus a Democratic candidate.

The alleged connection has never been supported.

[bvar22]

70. I'm against torture,

and the logic in the OP is painfully tortured.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[SeaLyons]

74. Hopefully the SD's will be

looking at this....if they don't, we will lose the WH. Electoral is how you win the GE.

[anigbrowl]

76. An idiotic argument, and here's why

Numbers are calculated for Obama or Clinton on a winner-take-all basis per state - just as the electoral college is winner-take-all...but then the numbers are aggregated together as if there were no electoral college and the general election was based on a national popular vote. The whole argument depends on shifting the goalposts.

Meanwhile, the column ends up:

"Let us assume for the moment that current schisms in the Democratic Party take their most extreme forms and all African-Americans refuse to vote if Clinton wins the nomination and/or all white, Asian-American, and Hispanic women refuse to vote in November if Obama becomes the Democratic nominee. Obama loses many more votes than Clinton under this scenario."

What a spectacularly stupid argument.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

78. California had the largest number of Bush voters.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/CA/P/00/