Comments on: Under Winner-Take-All, Clinton Would Lead

By: Robert S

Robert S — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 02:18:39 +0000

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).

By: Rob

Rob — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 23:10:49 +0000

That is a good point: what will Obama supporters say if the superdelegates break for Clinton?

By: mw

mw — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 21:29:58 +0000

“Yes, and if your aunt had balls, sheâ€™d be your uncle.” – JG

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.

By: Justin Gardner

Justin Gardner — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 20:24:44 +0000

She also would be winning if the rules were based on the number of Starbucks stores in states won.

Well, hold on a second…that’s game changing. I think I might switch…

By: oh yeah

oh yeah — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 20:15:34 +0000

and obama would be president already if it was all over today.

By: Elyas

Elyas — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 20:08:07 +0000

She also would be winning if the rules were based on the number of Starbucks stores in states won.

By: Rob in Denver

Rob in Denver — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 20:06:54 +0000

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.

By: Can Hillary Win

Can Hillary Win — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 19:38:11 +0000

And if Obama gets hit by a bus. Maybe, just maybe, Hillary will win.

By: Rob

Rob — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 19:15:38 +0000

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.

By: Elyas

Elyas — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 19:07:01 +0000

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.

By: Justin Gardner

Justin Gardner — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 19:05:56 +0000

Yes, and if your aunt had balls, she’d be your uncle. :-)