Under Winner-Take-All, Clinton Would Lead
By Alan Stewart Carl | Related entries in 2008 Election, Barack, Democrats, HillarySean Wilentz at Salon points out that, if the Democrats used a winner-take-all format, Hillary Clinton would be ahead:
If the Democrats heeded the “winner takes all” democracy that prevails in American politics, and that determines the president, Clinton would be comfortably in front. In a popular-vote winner-take-all system, Clinton would now have 1,743 pledged delegates to Obama’s 1,257. If she splits the 10 remaining contests with Obama, as seems plausible, with Clinton taking Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana and Puerto Rico, and Obama winning North Carolina, South Dakota, Montana, Oregon and Guam, she’d pick up another 364 pledged delegates. She’d have 2,107 before a single superdelegate was wooed. You need 2,024 to be the Democratic nominee. Game over. No more blogospheric ranting about Clinton “stealing” the nomination by kidnapping superdelegates or cutting deals at a brokered convention.
While that’s mostly a sour grapes argument, I think it’s fascinating how often perceptions drive reality. John McCain is the Republican nominee primarily because he won winner-take-all states. Under the Democratic model, it’s hard to conceive of McCain ever winning a majority of delegates. But under the Republican system, he took an early lead and we all crowned him the winner.
If the Democrats conducted their nomination with fewer byzantine rules, Clinton would almost certainly be ahead. But as it is, she’s behind and regularly accused of kamikaze like behavior. This is why I am amused when Obama supporters indignantly claim his nomination is the will of the people. Not really. It’s the product of a quirky system. A different, just as democratically acceptable system would have produced as different “will†and a different nominee.
Obama has not yet won the nomination and it is not inconceivable that Clinton could come from behind. Up until now, the party’s bizarre rules have benefitted Obama. Ironically, his downfall could come because of the same convoluted system. In that case, Democrats will have no one to blame but their own party.
This entry was posted on Monday, April 7th, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, Barack, Democrats, Hillary. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 7th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Yes, and if your aunt had balls, she’d be your uncle. :-)
April 7th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
How is a proportional system more quirky than a winner-take-all election? Under the Wilentz scenario, Obama would be winning the popular vote but losing the nomination. Candidates would ignore the vast majority of the country to campaign in a few populous states.
This system has problems (superdelegates, caucuses, etc.), but at least it doesn’t disenfranchise 49% of a state’s voters simply because they didn’t vote for the 51% majority winner.
April 7th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Call it what you will, but it is strange that the dem system operates so differently than the way the national elections works. It makes no sense to run a primary where the candidate could have such markedly different results than they will have in the actual elections.
Personally I’d love to see strict proportional interest primaries without caucuses and superdelegates for both the Republicans and the Democrats.
Combine that with winner take all elections for the real deal and we’d have a lot more moderates making it to the top.
April 7th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
And if Obama gets hit by a bus. Maybe, just maybe, Hillary will win.
April 7th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
What kills me about people who play scenarios like this — and point to them as if they actually mean something — is that they assume the one they’re trying to discredit wouldn’t have used strategies designed to meet the rules of the new scenario.
This sort of what-iffery happens all the time in sports:
Dallas beat New York. And New York beat Philadelphia. So Dallas should beat Philadelphia.
The logical leap — whether used in sports or politics — is as wide as the Grand Canyon. And the dumbness is as deep, too.
April 7th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
She also would be winning if the rules were based on the number of Starbucks stores in states won.
April 7th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
and obama would be president already if it was all over today.
April 7th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Well, hold on a second…that’s game changing. I think I might switch…
April 7th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
And if there were no superdelegates, Obama would be nominated.
I am just glad that we can all finally agree, that the rules are the rules, and there is no problem with superdelegates overriding pledged delegates in Denver. They’ll find the big state argument, the winner take all argument, the electoral state argument, and Hillary’s popular vote plurality and momentum at the end convincing. The Starbucks argument won’t be needed, but it is good to keep in reserve. I am just relieved that the Obama supporters have finally decided to go with the “rules rule” meme and won’t be whining and crying when it happens.
April 7th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
That is a good point: what will Obama supporters say if the superdelegates break for Clinton?
April 18th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Rob asks: “What will Obama supporters say if the superdelegates break for Clinton?”
Answer: If the super delegates coronate Hillary, this particular Obama supporter will not be voting Democrat, as I will never vote for another Clinton or another Bush for the rest of my life.
Pretty simple really…those of us who are campaigning for Obama, are doing so not because we are party pundits (Dem or GOP). Instead we follow Obama because of who he is, because of his integrity, and not because of party affiliation or because of Washington “experience” (the same experience that got us into the huge mess we are in).