Primaries

Remove all ads!

No (I had to add this as the new board requires responses to be at least three characters )

 

It's a joint ticket. It used to be that whoever won the election was the president, and whoever finished second was the VP (the framers of the Constitution did not foresee the development of political parties, and thus this system places the President and VP in adversarial roles). I am not sure when exactly this change took place, but political parties developed very early in American politics, and it became evident very early that the initial system imposed was lacking in many respects. Now they run on the same ticket. For example, in 2004, the line for presidents read as follows:

President:

Republican: George W. Bush, (Dick Cheney Vice President)
Democrat: John Kerry (John Edwards Vice President)

The green party and a few others had a candidates as well, but I don't remember who they were. The point is, that the box you check, the lever you pull, or the computer screen box you touch has you voting for the president and vice president as a unit. There isn't one line for president and another line for VP.

 

You could have said "nope".

 

Fuzzy math?

Everyone said that Hillary really needed a 10 point win yesterday, and sure enough, she got a 10 point win. However, I would like to dispute that fact. The final vote percentages were HRC: 54.6%, BO: 45.4%, which is a 9.2% difference, which usually rounds down to 9 and not up to 10.

The only way I can see you getting to 10 is if HRC is rounded up to 55%, while BO is rounded down to 45%. But that's some fuzzy math by my book. I will concede that this is a matter of semantics more than anything, but I'm surprised there aren't BO supporters trumpeting Hillary's 9-point win, as 9 sounds much better than 10.

 

Well, Aldeth, at this point there is no way Hill can pass him in delegates; that was decided sometime ago. She is now trying for the popular vote, and hoping that will persuade the Supers to vote her way at the convention. IMO, either Obama or Hill will trounce Mac in the general, so I don't think that will matter much from the stand point of general electability. Don't believe the polls on this because ATM there is almost no way that the supporters of either Hill or O will break for the other. Their supporters are playing the "if my guy doesn't win, then I will crossover" to Mac game. Yeah, GWB Junoir - just wait and see how many Dems are really willing to go for another 4 years of that BS.

The real problem is that there is a threshold in delegates - 2048 -I think, but I'm not sure, to close the nomination. I don't think either of them can make that number at the current rate they are both heading, so it's not really that clear-cut an issue on delegates, even though Obama is the clear winner in the amount of delegates he is sending to the convention.

I'll be honest, I did not think that Hill could win PA, the way things were going for her a just few weeks ago. This is a huge win for her and really, much to my surprise, gives her a slim chance. And just when I was counting her out of it....

 

I am wondering who supports Hillary though. I guess the Americans on this board isnt a good sample but it seems that the "leftists" here all support Obama and the "rightists" of course supports McCain or possibly no one. There are a whole lot of people who really dislike Hillary (tempted to only use her name but I actually do find it sexist the way we call Hillary for Hillary but McCain and Obama for well, McCain and Obama even if I am aware that calling her Clinton would be confusing as we think of Bill then) Clinton but is there anyone here who supports here? Which part of the Democratic party supports her? The unions? The "establishment"? I am rather curious.

 

You needn't. Hillary Clinton's own campaign is largely responsible for the use of her first name alone. The campaign materials and posters she distributes often make no mention whatsoever of her last name. Barack Obama is commonly referred to by his first name, as well. McCain's last name is always used, but John is a rather common first name (and there was more than one John running during the primaries).

 

Ah, but you know, women can be sexist as well even to themselves. By using the first name you make people think they are closer, it signals a bit more softness and actual feminity. If you look at public figures in general women are often refered to with their first names alone while men most often with their last name or full names. Using the full name signals authority and distance, respect even. While first name only give the person a more familiar vibe. HRC has a very thin line to walk between seeming to be tough and capable and still signal that she is actually a woman. Now this was a confusing rant.

I am still curious as to who her supporters actually are, she does not seem to be popular with the left leaning Americans I have contact with (mostly you guys) and the right definately do not like her.

 

It is true that BO is more to the left in his politics than HRC. However, both are Democrats, but their voting bases are surprisingly different. HRC supporters tend to be:

• White females
• over 65 years old
• blue collar/less education
• live in rural areas/small towns

Conversely, BO supporters tend to be:

• Black, regardless of gender
• under 40
• white collar/more education
• live in urban areas

So at least one reason that you see a lot of BO supporters on this board is that a lot of us are under 40, white collar, urbanites.

Clinton also fared very well among Catholics in both Ohio and Pennsylvania, with nearly 70% going with her. That is somewhat surprising because staunch Catholics tend to vote Republican because of their typically anti-abortion stances. Pennsylvania is also one of the few states that you see pro-life Democrats for this very reason.

I hope you're right (and I am cautiously optimistic that you are). The sentiments you state are not uncommon to see during and immediately following a primary race. Usually, when voters have a few weeks to cool off, they come around to the other candidate. However, that is why I think that it is essential to wrap this up in June. Once all the primaries are over, there's no reason that the supers will need until the end of August to decide who they will support at the Convention, which brings me to...

There are 4047 total delegates (supers and elected delegates), so you need 2024 to secure the nomination. You are correct that it is practically impossible for either candidate to reach that threshold with the elected delegates alone. That's not news though. It's looked that way since Texas and Ohio voted 7 weeks ago. There are currently a little over 300 uncommitted superdelegates. It appears that BO will need about 100 of them to break his way after the primaries are over to reach 2024.

As a former Pennsylvanian, HRC's victory in PA was not surprising to me in the least. Going down my list of supporters at the beginning of this message, almost ALL of them or in HRC's favor. PA has a small black population (less than 10%), the second largest percent senior citizen population in the country (only Florida has a higher percentage), has an unusually large blue collar population, and has exactly two cities with more than 80,000 people living in them (Philly and Pittsburgh). Oh, and did I mention that Rodham family is from Scranton, PA? HRC's grandfather was born, lived most of his life, and is buried in Scranton. I find it odd that you were surprised by HRC's victory there, simply because almost everything about the state indicated it would go HRC's way...

 

Aldeth - Well, the Dems are looking even more muddled after PA (if that's possible). What's surprising is that it appears as if Obama has lost momentum as a result. Just a several weeks ago, everyone was talking about how Obama was cutting into Hill's base, those on your list (so it's not really all that odd). If those whom you list have an independent streak in them, they are just as likely to vote for Mac, instead of Obama, if he appears to be too "shaky" after losing to a fairly large margin in both Ohio and PA. Along with FL, those are often the states to watch in the general election. But I suspect that those states will still probably vote Democratic regardless of which one gets the nomination. Obama does not seem to be able to "close the deal," as they are saying.

 

It is true that Obama hasn't done well in the Rust Belt. And HRC's argument at this point is that she is more electable because she'll have a better shot in states like Ohio and PA in the general election. She also has a better shot in Florida. I agree that either Dem candidate can likely win those races, so it matters little in the winner-take-all system of the EC whether you win a state by 5 points or 10 points. But I also think that BO has a different victory map than HRC. I think HRC needs at least two out of three from FL, OH, and PA. I think Barack only needs one of those three, because he has a genuine shot at winning Iowa, Colorado, Missouri, and Virginia. In fact, is he wins all four he might not need PA, OH, or FL at all. I do think HRC will be competitive in Missouri as well, and she'll carry Arkansas.

I'm not sure how much PA changes the bigger picture for Hillary though. With the exception of Indiana, is the ultimate outcome of any of the remaining contests in doubt? Indiana is going to split their delegates pretty evenly (I don't see either candidate winning by more than 5 or 6 points). Hillary will take Kentucky, West Virginia and Puerto Rico easily. Barack will win in North Carolina, Oregon, and South Dakota (or is it North Dakota? Does it even matter?) I don't know which way Montana will go (Barack if I had to guess based on the surrounding states), but they have so few delegates that it won't have a big impact either way.

Add it all up and I don't see how Hillary closes the gap to less than 120-130 delegates, meaning she would need about 3/4 of the undecided supers to go for her to get the nomination. I don't see that happening, unless Barack makes a major gaffe that would convince them he's unelectable.

 

If she manages to win the popular, the Supers will notice. They are not called "Democrats" for nothing,

 

And how do you propose we do that? How do we measure who won the popular vote? Does Florida count? Does Michigan count? Do caucuses count? What about caucuses that don't list counts of actual voters (like Iowa for example), that just give delegate totals. What about caucuses where a certain candidate does not receive the 15% minimum to be counted, and people have to get in line behind another candidate? Does a person's second or third choice count?

Check out this story in Newsweek:

Why the popular vote doesn't add up.

 

The only way she's ahead in the popular vote is to count Florida and Michigan.

Edit: Aldeth beat me to the punch -- with a lot more punch.

 

That's fine, dude - if want to leave out the Democrats in those states, which, IMO, is idiotic. The counting of votes is a problem for the Democratic Party. THEY were the ones who decided not to include them. You want to talk about the voters in those states as if they don't count. Well, if I was a Democrat (which I'm not), then they better start counting ALL the votes before they start a lot of double-speak about how, "the popular vote" can't be counted - if they are true to their Democratic roots. It's simple: You count the votes, for whom Democrats voted and add them up. I was an English major in college, but even that math doesn't look all that hard, even to me. Maybe the dudes at Newsweek were in the same journalism classes that I was - we pretty much ignored basic math also....

The last time I heard, the primary wasn't over yet. But maybe my info is not complete.....

 

Even with your limited math skills you have to be able to see the unfairness of Michigan. According to Aldeth's link Clinton received 328,309 votes and Obama received 0 as he wasn't even on the ballot. 45% of the ballots came back marked "uncommitted."

I'm pretty good with math, but I don't see any way to "Simply count the votes". I suppose we can make an argument to disenfranchise Michigan

 

That's quite a statement, since you are equating "math" skills with a "value statement" regarding "fairness." It may be that my "math skills" are limited, but my rhetorical skills are not.

Yes, that was my point. Reading skills are just as useful as "math" skills, it seems....

 

Chandos, you aren't seriously positing that the votes in Michigan (where Obama wasn't even on the ballot) and the votes in Florida (where no one actually campaigned) can be fairly counted, are you? Such an idea is absurd on its face. A (weak) argument can be made for counting the results of the Florida beauty contest, but all the Michigan results showed was more "democratic" voters (members of either party can vote in either primary) would rather have Hilary Clinton than Dennis Kucinich, a Republican, or no one at all.