 |
The Myth of Hillary’s Big State Advantage |
 |
As the MSM continues to buy Hillary’s argument that she has won most of the “big states”, it is important to look at the facts. I’ve used Wikipedia and CNN’s election scorecard to take a look at how the democratic primary numbers are looking in big states so far.
The Top 5
California (Clinton)
Texas (Obama, it looks like he will take more delegates in the state.)
New York (Clinton)
Florida (No contest)
Illinois (Obama)
If Obama wins TX, it will be 2-2 with Florida not counting.
The Rest of the Top 10
Pennsylvania (April 22)
Ohio (Clinton)
Michigan (No contest)
Georgia (Obama)
North Carolina (May 6)
3-3 with FL and MI not counting, PA and NC upcoming
The Rest of the Top 15
New Jersey (Clinton)
Virginia (Obama)
Massachusetts (Clinton)
Washington (Obama)
Indiana (May 6)
5-5 with FL and MI not counting, PA, NC and IN upcoming
The Rest of the Top 20
Arizona (Clinton)
Tennessee (Clinton)
Missouri (Obama)
Maryland (Obama)
Wisconsin (Obama)
8-7 Obama, with FL and MI not counting, PA, NC and IN upcoming
It is a shame that the Associated Press and the mainstream media in general are too lazy to question the Clinon campaign’s claims. A little old-fashioned journalism would have done the trick.
Sure Obama may have won more delegates in Texas, but thats more to do with the fucked up way they count delegates there with their strange caucus/primary. Hilary won the popular vote and thats what will count in November and so I make it 3-1 to Hill in your top 5
You go into a primary election with the rules you have, not the rules you want.
Sure, thats not the point they are making though is it.
That is a variation on the argument that every state Hillary loses doesn’t count.
Clinton won the popular vote only if you completely ignore the caucus, which is also an expression of popular will. A better way to determine who won the popular vote would be to add up those who voted in the primary and those who caucused, rather than pretending that the millions of people who turned out for the caucus don’t exist.
In the Texas primary, Clinton won the vote by about 100,000. In the caucus, roughly 1.1 million people participated, and Obama won by about 56% to 44%. That means approximately 130,000 more people caucused for Obama than for Clinton, so his lead in the caucus more than cancels out her lead in the primary. Obama narrowly won the combined popular vote in Texas.
Ah, great point.
Correct me if I’m wrong. It was my understanding that a voter’s “ticket” to vote in the TX primary was their participation in the caucus. Therefore, you’d be counting all those people twice if you totalled caucus and primary votes in TX.
You’re wrong on the process, but right in the result. It’s the other way around. Voting in the primary was the ticket to vote in the caucus. The concept of adding the vote in caucus states to the vote in primary states to determine a more accurate “popular vote” makes sense generally. However, like you said, you can’t count Texas as both, because you would be double counting the same voters.
That said, I would make two observations:
1) The point of the primaries and caucuses is to win delegates to the national convention. Obama won more delegates in Texas. That is indisputable. Therefore, he won Texas. Any other analysis is just spin.
2) George Turner’s argument that we have to honor the popular vote because that’s what counts in November is completely bogus, because the election between a Republican and Democrat in November will be vastly different from the primary caucus contest between two Democrats. Obama and Clinton are very similar on policy, and you certainly can’t say that about McCain. No matter what people say now in the heat of the moment, the vast majority of folks who vote for either candidate now will be likely to vote for the Dem in November. Also, George, lest you forget the lesson of Al Gore in 2000, it’s not really the popular vote in November either… it’s the Electoral College.