Three weeks ago we calculated the Democratic race as if each state awarded it's pledged delegates on a winner-take-all basis, rather than proportionally, concluding that it wouldn't make all that much difference. (See "Democratic Deadlock: Don't Blame Proportional Representation . . .") At the time, Obama would've had a small lead in delegates under the winner-take-all formulation.
What about now? It would still be close, but Hillary would have a distinct advantage, mainly based on winning Texas.
If the pledged delegates from every state were awarded on a winner-take-all basis, Hillary Clinton would now be leading Barack Obama by 1417 to 1212. It wouldn't be enough to put her over the top without superdelegates, but it might be enough to be an insurmountable lead, potentially leading to a deal where Obama agreed to be the VP nominee.
If you include all the superdelegates from each state as pledged delegates, the result is about the same, with Obama actually a tad closer: Clinton 1746; Obama 1551. Of course, in this scenario, one of them--probably Hillary--would eventually win, without resort to unpledged "superdelegates."
Still, it isn't like the Republican party where McCain, despite some very slim victories, has waltzed in by a wide margin.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Why has nobody talked about this in the media?
It should be winner take all like the rebuplicans. John McCain would not have the nomination yet if he were a democrat!!
The democrates would have Hillary Clinton as the nominee, winner of most all the large states, then need to change the way theu elect!!
Um, Can you show your math please? In particular, how do you account for Texas having a primary and a caucus? So, really, why shouldn't Obama get some or all of the delegates in Texas because of that? HRC only won half of Texas.
In our math, we included Texas in Hillary's column. But it's not a bad point--if Texas was a caucus state, Obama won it.
Our overall point, however, was that it's close no matter what. The issue with Texas only illustrates that point--it was close; whichever candidate won it, would be in the lead in a winner take all format.
It's somewhat pointless to consider the democratic race in hindsight with regards to winner take all. Obama would have still won Iowa, and received 100% of the delegates. Would HRC still have won NH? And then Obama had a string of wins in southern states. By Super Tuesday, it's likely that he'd be way out in front, and voter turnout would drop precipitously as a result.
Post a Comment