…Obama won with a 32-point margin in Illinois, whereas Hillary only won with a 17-point margin in New York! Also, McCain did worse than Hillary winning by only a 12-point lead…
Do the senators’ performance in their states’ primaries say much?
No. It is winner take all the electorals in the general.
I do think it is something people should consider when talking about winning the popular vote. If I win NY by 17% and Cali by what? 10%? That means the popular vote numbers will skew in my favor.
In the general, it is much better to be winning NY by say 8% and winning 5-6 more states by 5% than to be winning NY by 17% and losing the same 5-6 other states.
(Which brings up a pet peeve of mine — national polls. We don’t vote on a straight vote nationally, therefore national polls have an inherent skewing towards candidate stronger in the bigger population states. The only way you could begin to make a national poll approach relevance is to poll people by state and then assign winners of each state electoral votes to match election law. That goes far beyond the concept of a “quick and dirty” poll. National polls are too quick and too dirty.)
The facts are that Obama has won a TON of caucus states that their procedures don’t accurately track the individual voters who show up, reporting instead raw “state delegate” counts which are often 1/50 or much less of actual turnout.
“As of 2006, Iowa has an estimated population of 2,982,085.” “As of 2005, New Hampshire has an estimated population of 1,309,940”. (wikipedia.)
Is it not likely that Iowa’s Dem turnout was at least double New Hampshire’s?
Therefore crediting Obama for 940 state delegates for his win in Iowa while Hillary gets 112,000 votes for her win in New Hampshire is simply unfair. It is Apples vs. Oranges. That is why the national delegate count is the only fair way to judge the election.
By all reports the Iowa Dem turnout dwarfed the Republican turnout. The republican side had different rules though so they had an actual voter count. About 120,000 voters voted in the republican primary in Iowa. Obama won by 8% in Iowa, but the best number he gets if you don’t count delegates is 940 (state delegates vs. Clinton’s 744.) Using this logic, Obama’s 8% win in Iowa is worth +196, while Clinton’s 2% win in New Hampshire — a state with less than 40% of Iowa’s population — is worth + ~8,000!!!!
Obama winning Minnesota, a state with a population of almost 5 Million people, by 34% yeilds him 70,000 state delegates. There were only 210,000 state delegates in that state. Election turnout surely dwarfed that.
Counting the popular vote effectively disenfranchises all of the Caucus states. You are going to punish THEM, because Florida and Michigan actively and knowngly broke the rules?
Understand what you are doing.
You are going to tell the voters of Iowa, Nevada, Alaska, Samoa, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Washington, Maine, Hawaii, Wyoming, Guam, and North Dakota that since they didn’t have primaries their votes will be at best worth 1/50th the value of a single Florida voter’s vote? Or a Michigan voters vote — in a state where Obama wasn’t even on the ballot?
No one who thinks about it can honestly can consider this fair. The facts are, the people in Florida and Michigan who knowingly pushed up both state’s primaries screwed this election up big time and should be forced out of office and/or out of the local party management.
The idea that you count florida and michigan and suddenly you have an honest vote count that shows Hillary winning the popular vote is first and foremost, TOTALLY dishonest, and secondly it being close as it would be at this point only means she is likely competitive in far fewer states — something the head to head, state by state polls strongly suggest.
The Obama camp is a collection of bean counters who have read the rules and dug up extra delegates in every “at risk” area in each state to be a heavy favorite in Hillary. To win a general election with electoral votes vs. the Republicans, that is exactly the skillset you need.
I’m not sure what he means. If I break it down like this: “If a legislator is “safe” from competition, or if he represents groups with the same economic and political beliefs, he does not have to change his ideas or respond to the needs of the broader population.” That reads to me that if legislators don’t have to be elected, or only speaks for folks that think like him, then he doesn’t have to worry about the rest of the country. As long as his little group is happy, he’s fine. “He can rest content with a mediocre, absentee performance knowing he will be returned to office. And as he is returned year after year the seniority system gives him immense control over people from other parts of the country whose views he need not heed at all.” He can be happy and not even try all that hard, never show up to work, and know that his job is safe. Thus he gains senority, and influences newer members. So is he saying that all seats of Congress should be voted on by Americans to keep them working hard, and to give them less power and influence. Now, what if we got to vote for every high ranking official at the federal level? Instead of the candidate choosing a running mate for vice president, the vice president ran on his own? Same for Secretary of Defense and so on?
yep. It got people to go out and vote for maybe the first time. It got more people registed to vote. Voting history will decided most of the time what a state to vote as a whole. Democrat or Republican. Texas is a Ruplican state so mark those votes to McCain. New York, California, and the rest of the north east are all blue states no matter what. So right now, Obama has a big lead going into November.
It shows the States bias toward them not actual voting results.
No… the dem will lose to: