What If Democrats Used Winner Take All?

[goldcanyonaz]

Even as the Obama and Clinton campaigns fight frantically to establish the appropriate yard-stick by which to judge the will of the American people, one fact has been largely ignored: Obama's significant delegate lead is largely a product of the Democrats' unique delegate allocation system.

A remnant of the bitter convention of 1968 and the McGovern-Fraser Commission that followed, Democrats now award their presidential convention representatives in a proportional manner, under which delegates are given to all those surpassing certain percentage thresholds. We have to wonder, what would the race look like if the Democrats used the same "winner-take-all" system used in the Republican Party? The results are quite surprising, to say the least.

If the Democrats were to allot their current state delegate totals in a winner-take-all format, Clinton would actually have a significant delegate advantage. Despite having won only 14 recognized contests to Obama's 30, 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 and do not include Florida, Michigan or the 693 total delegates and 566 pledged delegates still to be won in the next few months.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_wesley_little/what_if_democrats_used_winner_take_all

[grantcart]

1. then Obama would have run a winner take all campaign

[DemVet]

11. Isn't that what he's supposed to be doing now? Why yes it is.

[Usrename]

26. No, he's running a winning campaign.

[stahbrett]

44. No, he's not supposed to be running as if the nomination contest was winner-take-all

That's a dumb strategy when the nomination contest is NOT winner-take-all. Instead, he's doing something crazy - running to get as many delegates as possible under the actual rules in each state.

[DemVet]

52. If he were doing that, he would have the 2025 required. He doesn't....and won't.

[FatDave]

57. OK, that doesn't even make sense.

I know it's getting harder every day to try to spin things positive for Hillary, but please, can we at least scrape up a baseline of coherence?

[DemVet]

61. Don't worry

You can work on your reading comprehension in night school. Good Luck!!!

[populistdriven]

62. Obama Stopped the Clinton Machine in its Tracks and Won

[anigbrowl]

47. No, that's what he's supposed to do in the GE.

Let me guess, you're going to say he won't win the GE, but without offering any solid arguments to back up your claims.

[DemVet]

51. Solid arguments? In predicting an election?

Sorry, but my crystal ball is broke.

[joshcryer]

58. Correct. He ran a caucus strategy.

It's about as bad as the souther strategy since most of those states will not go blue.

[cali]

60. By making that statement you demonstrate that you don't have clue

as to what the southern strategy is.

[joshcryer]

64. I didn't say they were the same.

I said they were comparable. They both focus on a subset of the population utilizing a specialized tactic.

[Jersey Devil]

2. What if cows had balls?

What if night was day?

[DarienComp]

20. What if my sister was my brother?

[LakeSamish706]

3. I do think in the future what they should do is conduct the Primaries like...

the General Election (minus the electoral college) and just have it on the same dates in all states with the winner of the Popular vote wins... Period.

[DemVet]

14. No, that would make too much sense.

People in the following states wouldn't be able to "pile on" the current leader.

People would actually have to investigate each candidate and make an informed decision for themselves.

What are you thinking? :sarcasm:

BTW - I fully agree with you.

[LakeSamish706]

30. Imagine how much money that would eliminate in wasteful spending! This millions...

of wasted $$$$$ could certainly be used in some other more productive means. So what they need is to have the same donations go into a pot that could then be used by a "very" reputable charity that uses the funds in this country.

[damntexdem]

4. Then we would be in real trouble.

Thank goodness we don't.

So I'll go on to the Texas Dem Convention, trying to help get a few more delegates for Obama.

[thevoiceofreason]

25. Good for you! Ya'll did a good job up there this weekend, BTW.

[GarbagemanLB]

5. ...but we don't.

[RoadRage]

6. Hillary thought she was running a Winner Take All Campaign..

Ignooring all of the small states that DO ACTUALLY MATTER in this election. States like NE, KS, ID, VA, etc.

If this was a winner take all contest, I have a feeling I wouldn't have seen Mr. Obama in my little red state of Nebraska - his (correct) strategy would have been to focus like heck on the big states. But, he knew that this WAS NOT a winner take all election, and thus he focused on ALL states. That is something that Mrs. Clinton erronously chose not to do.

So, had this been a "winner take all" primary, then Obama would have strategized differently.

[depakid]

7. You actually believe that?

Wow.

Dems have almost no chance of taking Nebraska, Kansas or Idaho and I'd give them maybe 1 in 3 for Virginia.

Not saying don't campaign there, but how about being slightly realistic.

[rox63]

17. But these states DO make a difference in the primaries

They all have delegates to contribute. And wouldn't it be nice to possibly flip a couple of those states from red to blue in the GE? It's not impossible. HRC ran her primary like it was a GE, which was a bad choice.

[depakid]

21. Not arguing that...

The OP was a hypothetical, and as another poster pointed out, in that case Obama would have changed his campaign, too.

[RoadRage]

45. Did I mention ANYTHING about the General Election?

Nope.. i didn't.

I was merely talking about strategy for the Primary. Each state counts in the Primary - and Obama had the CORRECT strategy which was to work each state to garner votes. Clinton chose to focus on the "big blue" states and forgot that in the primaries the little red states count too.

Also, regarding the Primary - I don't think most red states will go to Obama.. but I think it's possible that one or two might. Think back 4 or 8 years ago to what could have been if we would have gotten one or two red states. We wouldn't have had Bush for 8 years. So, writing them off and using the same strategy as we did in 2000 and 2004 really doesn't sound to intelligent to me. Going after states that just might surprise you is a good idea if you can afford it, and Obama certainly can.

[anigbrowl]

48. I don't think you understand a 50 state strategy

The idea is that you organize and raise enough funds to campaign even in states where you are not likely or expected to win, in order to make your opponent do the same. McCain will almost certainly win Utah, for example, but campaigning there forces him to spend money in Utah that he would rather spend campaigning in swing states.

Besides which, the nomination contest is quite different from the GE contest. Sure, it's quite unlikely that the states you mention will vote for the Democratic nominee in November...but you fight the battle you're in now, not the one you're going to be in later.

[tblue37]

50. I live in Kansas, and it has been growing more blue almost by the minute.

Our popular Democratic governor, Kathleen Sebelius, took as her running mate a high-profile Republican who had turned Democrat in reaction against the way the far right had taken over the state's Republican Party. In fact, a number of other high-profile Republcians have become Democratis specifically to run against RW Republicnas--and they have won.

Furthermore, that nonsense in 1999 when the Board of Education tried to slip Intelligent Design into our science standards happened again, even after the hard right BOE members had been voted out for their similar stunt in 1999. The fact that the Republicans ran stealth candidates to get RW fanatics into the BOE once Kansan had voted out the original jerks and then let down their guard has made moderates and liberals a bit more alert and engaged here than they used to be.

Unfortunately, one high-profile Republican turned Dem, Paul Morrison, who ran as a Dem specifically (and successfully) to unseat our scummy former AG Phill Kline, was brought down by a scandal (an affair with a subordinate).

But hard right and once popular Representative Jim Ryun (yes, the Olympic runner) was defeated in 2006 by moderate Dem Nancy Boyda.

At the DOuglas County Dem caucuses on Feb 5, the usual and expected small turn out was blown away by thousands of people who showed up and stood in the freezing rain for 45-90 minutes, then stayed for hours inside to caucus, despite the fact that the freezing rain turned quickly into a blinding blizzard that we then had to negotiate to get home late that night. Of the ~2,700 people there, almost 2,000 went for Obama. The caucus site I went to had been moved, because the party realized they would not be able to fit the unexpected crowd into the original site. Another site had to be closed to newcomers because it was overflowing and the fire marshall called a stop to it, so they had to open a satellite site at the last minute to accommodate all the rest of the people standing in the freezing rain waiting for a chance to caucus for Obama.

One thing that pleased me was how many of the new voters were young people who probably had never been interested in politics before. They are genuinely excited about Obama and eager to help him get elected.

(BTW I went to caucus for Edwards, but when we didn't reach viability, I moved into the Obama group.)

Obama has brought so many new voters into the process that I think he might not only take Kansas, but also really help Dems win downticket as well.

[rodeodance]

15. stop making up stuff and posting lies about what ASSume.

[RoadRage]

46. I've really done well to keep you off of Ignoor this long..

but really, calling me an Ass, and telling me i'm making up lies when i just merely stated some obvioius facts is the end of the road for you.

[rndmprsn]

8. but we don't so obama has a remarkable pledged delegate lead, contest lead and popular vote lead...

deal with it

[LulaMay]

9. K & R for the Truth!

[Levgreee]

10. and with the projected states left Obama would still end up winning

[SeaLyons]

12. K&R

great post....

[rodeodance]

13. rec

[Bad Thoughts]

16. Why should it count TX as a Clinton win? eom.

[goldcanyonaz]

18. Popular vote.

[Bad Thoughts]

22. So, to make this fantasy true, you must make TWO changes? eom.

[goldcanyonaz]

28. No, the OP shows the results if we did primary's the same as Republicans.

Try to keep up.

[Bad Thoughts]

31. Incorrect

The op says, "what would the race look like if the Democrats used the same "winner-take-all" system used in the Republican Party?" It refers only to the allocation of delegates. There is no other basis for this speculation. There is nothing written about holding the same kinds of contests as the Republicans, or using the popular vote as the basis for awarding delegates. That would require some more significant recalculation, given that not all contests are primaries (or caucuses) for both parties.

[TheDoorbellRang]

33. No, they're changing TWO parameters

If they want to go by winner-take-all, Texas goes to Obama and he still wins. If they want to go by popular vote, Obama loses Texas but still wins overall. They've combined the two parameters here.

[TheDoorbellRang]

32. Yeah. I caught that, too

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. In either scenario played separately, Obama still wins.

Also, notice how in 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."

[Bad Thoughts]

35. Yep

Part of the logic was that Republicans wouldn't hold a hybrid primacaucus. However, Washington State has both for the RNC. And come to think of it, that makes Washington non-winner take all.

[NanceGreggs]

19. What if Democrats used ...

... a "primary loser becomes the nominee" rule? Hillary would have had it in the bag months ago!

Moving goalposts, especially non-existent ones, is hard work ...

[NDambi]

23. What if Rat had wings or Pigeon had Paws...

[LowerManhattanite]

24. If Barbara Bush had wheels...

...she'd be one helluva locomotive!

[stevietheman]

67. OMG LOL!!! n/t

n/t

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

27. and we'd be in a heap of shit because he'd still have a massive pop vote lead

it's a lot easier when the same person has kicked ass with delegates, pop vote, and states.

[PA Democrat]

29. It would be less democratic, which is my objection to the Electoral College system.

Of course George Bush just LOVED the undemocratic Electoral College system because it made it much easier to STEAL the 2000 election.

[cascadiance]

34. Kinda like asking "What if our country was communist?"

[Bad Thoughts]

36. More flaws in the study

The Republican contests are not all winner-take-all -- at least not by state. Many are so at the district level, meaning that several candidates might get delegates out of a single state. I don't have a comprehensive list, but Massachusetts and Washington State are two examples. In order to make the numbers comparable, the voting numbers would have to be re-calculated at that level.

[DemBones DemBones]

37. Obviously there are many who don't want to think about whether this system

is good or bad,though no changes will be made this year so a
simple discussion of the merits of each system and the flaws
of each system would not endanger their beloved candidate in any way.

1968 was a very bad year for Democrats and we haven't done well since, holding the presidency for only 12 out of 40 years. Perhaps what seemed like a good idea in 1968 needs to be re-examined. After all, people are calling for change and rejection of everything the boomers had anything to do with.

I will note that since the oldest boomers were just turning 22 in 1968, boomers had little to do with the convention except perhaps as protesters outside and I believe all of those arrested and tried after the riots were older than 22. Also, in 1968, you had to be 21 to vote so only boomers born in 1946 and 1947 could vote that year.

[City Lights]

38. You cite a piece that calls a hypothetical Clinton lead of 167 pledged

delegates as a "remarkable" lead, putting to rest the silly notion continually put forth by you and other Clinton supporters that a real Obama lead of 162 pledged delegates is a "tie."

I'll keep this one bookmarked to use next time I see someone claim the race is "tied." :hi:

And here's a hypothetical of mine - What if Clinton had been prepared from day one for the primary season to continue beyond Super Tuesday? The hypothetical questions one could ask are endless.

[scheming daemons]

39. "What if the rules of the game were different in such a way that Clinton was ahead?"

If the states were "winner take all", then neither candidate would be working every nook and cranny of each state in order to get an extra delegate here or there.

The candidates campaigned based on the RULES in place.... and campaigning is different when you are trying to get an extra delegate here or there than if it is winner take all.


For instance.... if it was winner take all, there would have been no reason at all for Hillary to campaign for even one second in states that she lost big, because there would be ZERO possibility for her to get even one delegate. The same is true for Obama in states that Hillary won big.

Hillary would have spent the entire time between February 6 and March 3 not campaigning AT ALL anywhere, since she had little chance to win any of those states.

She would've made NO stops in Wisconsin, for example.


Change the rules, and you change the way the game is played, and so you cannot apply rules for a winner-take-all model to a game that was already played with a proportional model.

It's like saying, "what if the 35-second shot clock were in effect in 1985 in NCAA basketball? Would Villanova still have upset Georgetown?"

In an unanswerable question, because if the rules were different, each team would have approached the game differently.

[NeedleCast]

40. Then Hillary would be able to pull a bush

Lose the popular vote but win in delegates. who does that remind me of...

[BlooInBloo]

41. HAHAHAHA!! The new Clinton supporter tactic: HYPOTHETICAL winning = winning!

GENIUS!

[azmouse]

42. Another attempt to move the goal posts?

Or more grasping at straws?

[tekisui]

43. If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

Obama would have run a winning campaign. It would have been a little different, but he does his homework, organizes and wins whatever the parameters.

[MattBaggins]

49. Where's Rudyard Kipling when you need him

Look I am all for looking at our primary process.

Get rid of caucuses
Tell the SDs to go home
Mix up what states go when in the calendar year.

But following the repukes into a stupid winner takes all system is a show stopper. If I wanted to be a Republican I would have joined that party. Out of the the convoluted mess that is our primary system; the one sweet thing is that we don't buy into that asinine winner takes all system of giving one person a mile wide inch deep pseudo mandate.

[AX10]

53. K & R!

The GOP's system is fairer.

Let the winner of the popular vote get 50% of the delegates.
The other 50% are awarded proportionately.

[Duke Newcombe]

54. The the candidates would say "screw 'flyover country'..."

...only going for the massive delegate troughs of safe, large "blue" states. In other words, back to the electoral ghetto for the majority of the CONUS.

Duke

[Umbram]

55. What if Democrats automatically nominated anyone with the initials H.R.C.?

Hillary would win! Oh, let's do it that way! Pretty please?

[mtnsnake]

56. K&R for the cold hard truth and beauty of it all. Awesome, goldcanyonaz!!

:thumbsup:

[crankychatter]

59. fatuous retrospective

of course if you succeed in keeping the party small to retain power, you might pull it off by 2012

best of luck telling States' Parties how to do their business

[mikekohr]

63. If, If and Buts Were Candy and Nuts, We'd All Have A Merry Christmas

The rules that are in place were in place for all candidates. Senator Obama played by the rules, on the battlefield selected by the DNC.

Senator Clinton chose a strategy that ignored the high ground of that battlefield. She and her supporters must acknowledge this fact and give Senator Obama credit for his grasp of the reality of the task before him. There is great insight here into how effective of a President he will be.

mike kohr

[jgraz]

65. What If Democrats Actually Liked Hillary and Wanted to Vote for Her?

I bet she'd be doing a lot better!

[stevietheman]

66. If the system was different, their campaigns would have been run differently.

The same could be argued about the 2000 election -- if we didn't have the Electoral College, Gore would be the winner, except that this is a logical fallacy that doesn't take into account that campaigns are set up to win according to the rules, no matter what they are.

[phrigndumass]

68. What if bats flew out of Senator Clinton's ass every time she coughed?

My question is just as legitimate as yours.

[goldcanyonaz]

69. You mean they don't?

[ericgtr]

70. I can see this is an anti Obama thread but aside from that I agree

The current system shoudn't take crack rocket scientist analysts to determine the outcome. Just fucking let people vote, count them and the one with the most votes wins. It shouldn't be so difficult.

[GoldieAZ49]

71. If Dems did that there would be no need for super delegates

and it would not allow for party division


who would want that?

[weezie1317]

72. Are HRC and her supporters trying to change the rules AGAIN? So tiring.