If we used a winner-take-all instead of a proportional system Hillary would be ahead

[oberliner]

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_all

Interesting how the system itself has a pretty significant role in this process.

[gateley]

1. But we don't and she's not --

Our system needs to be overhauled. Totally.

[Inuca]

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]

3. Exactly.

[oberliner]

5. Very good point

Obama really did have a strategy that recognized an awareness of the way this process works. Moreso than Hillary, it seemed.

[SwampG8r]

4. and if

i crapped roast beef you could make her a sandwich

[Bolo Boffin]

20. That's naughty.

:D

[BlooInBloo]

37. naughty AND funny - the best kind!

[Joe the Revelator]

6. If we used a one household system, and my house was picked, I'd be ahead...

whats your point??

[BklynChick]

7. winner take all is not democratic. that's why the repubs do it.

[Sensitivity]

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]

14. The Model of Charity!

Nice quote

[blogslut]

35. I always liked

"If IFs and ANDs were pots and pans, the world would be a great big kitchen!"

[hedgehog]

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]

10. this analysis is incorrect. Obama won Texas.

[PoliticalAmazon]

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]

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]

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]

12. nm

[stray cat]

13. and Obama would still have the lead with the popular vote

but look where that got Al Gore...

[TheDoorbellRang]

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]

16. So? We don't have winner take all system.

so why even post this tripe?

[lapfog_1]

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]

18. But we don't.

[crankychatter]

19. The Electoral College system is undemocratic

that's why we do it this way

[adoraz]

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]

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]

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]

24. If the monkeys flying out of my butt were Catholic, I'd be the Pope.

[AZBlue]

25. And?

Sorry, but this big "if" is pointless and irrelevant.

[Spider Jerusalem]

26. But we don't, and she isn't, so your post has no point.

[Elidor]

27. And if it was backwards day...

[PseudoIntellect]

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]

29. And If Cows Could Fly...

you'd need a bigger umbrella.

:wtf:

[TahitiNut]

50. GMTA (see #22 above)

:pals:

[LowerManhattanite]

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]

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]

39. Well, I just never saw these numbers before

I didn't mean to anger/upset anyone.

I like both our candidates.

[SKKY]

32. And if worms had shotguns, birds probably wouldn't fuck with them too much...

...would they?

[Mooney]

33. She would also be ahead if she started out with 1000 pledged delegates.

It doesn't work that way either.

[donheld]

34. If wishes were horses...

[BlooInBloo]

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]

38. If a bullfrog had wings...

...its ass wouldn't bump the ground.

[PoliticalAmazon]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

48. But we have a more fair proportional system.

[stevenleser]

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]

51. so? if pigs had wings they'd fly. But they DON'T.

[TexasObserver]

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]

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]

54. If IF was a fifth, we'd throw a damn party!!!

But it isn't.