by Jerome Armstrong, Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:47:03 AM EDT
Is there any doubt that the nominating process needs a serious overhaul for 2012?
Tags: 2008 election (all tags)
That graph is totally deceptive - the scale doesn't go to zero.
Resize it so that the y-axis goes from 12,000 to 0, and we'll really see how much of a disparity there is.
That really is disgraceful - I wish I had my glasses on when I looked at it! Come on Jerome, that's unworthy of you.
Using the numbers from MyDD, it's either:
Obama - 1964 delegates x 10800 = 21.21M
Clinton - 1780 x 11750 = 20.91M votes
not including MI & FL, Obama up by 300K
OR
Obama - 2043 x 10800 = 22.06M
Clinton - 1973 x 11750 = 23.18M
with MI & FL, Clinton up by 1.12M
The first doesn't follow the "Hillary wins the popular vote" meme. The second just matches no estimates whatsoever.
It's must be great being a HRC supporter. HRC and her camp have selective concern. In one case, she is "concerned about" MI & FL not having their voices heard and counted. At the same time, she says that caucuses don't count and ignores them in her arguments.
So, even if accurate but deceptive - does this graph even include the caucus popular count for ALL states?
Jerome, I've said it several times - your are too smart to continue losing credibility like this.
Hope you recover, HRC sure isn't.
Jerome posts this, gets caught in a fudging of math, and another shameless distortion of the truth on behalf of his defeated heroine, and hasn't been by to defend his actions in the face of great dissent.
Too bad.
for some areas of some states over others..
Popular vote is the way to go.
Since March 4:
Hillary votes: 6,519,685
Obama votes: 6,007,744
Margin: Hillary +511,941
Hillary pledged delegates: 510
Obama pledged delegates: 495
Margin: Hillary +15 delegates
Hillary contests: 7 (OH, RI, TX, PA, IN, WV, KY)
Obama contests: 6 (VT, WY, MS, GU, NC, OR)
So none of the states before March 4th matter?
I also seem to remember Obama getting more delegates from Texas. But there's really no point in arguing this stuff anymore. Until Clinton leaves, her supporters will not budge either, and I can accept that. I just hope that when she supports Obama, then others will follow.
Yes, and his post thereby proves powerful in its evidence of something needing a serious overhaul.
What a crappy post to wake up to in the morning. Jerome should know that a good amount of us took some POSC in college.
Way to fire up the HillIs44 crowd!
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/arch ives/2008/05/some_new_data_from_the_clin ton.php
Since March 4:
Hillary votes: 6,519,685
Obama votes: 6,007,744
Margin: Hillary +511,941
Hillary pledged delegates: 510
Obama pledged delegates: 495
Margin: Hillary +15 delegates
Hillary contests: 7 (OH, RI, TX, PA, IN, WV, KY)
Obama contests: 6 (VT, WY, MS, GU, NC, OR)
And....that cherry picking is supposed to tell us what? She's a tough candidate with name recognition, lots of support, a winning record, and a nose for political success? We knew that going into the campaign. What we now know is that over the course of the last 5 months Barack Obama has won more of everything. She's a great 2nd place finisher. Congratulations.
Football - She can win the 2nd half by a field goal, but that doesn't help if he won the first half by a touchdown.
Baseball - We don't decide who plays in October by who lost September . . . unless you are the Mets :o)
The comparison between selecting a presidential nominee and a sporting event is just plain insulting.
This (for some people) is life and death.
That has never been more evident than through the words Hillary Clinton has used on the campaign trail... it's just that she's either made up the life and death situation, or just shouldn't have been so callous in the mention of another great leaders death. I mean, it does a great disservice to those who have died in the line of service. Don't you think?
Firstly, this calculation is done by realclearpolitics, which should be obvious for anybody paying attention (and clicking the link)
Secondly, of course this is about the PLEDGED delegates only, not about superdelegates, as anybody who is able to read should notice . Nobody voted for the supers, so this makes sense.
Thirdly, I haven't done the math, but since realclearpolitics doesn't count MI and FL in its delegate count, I guess they weren't used in establishing the numbers for this ggraph, either.
Well, imho it would be a good idea if someone at MyDD did the same calculation, using the all-inclusive (including MI and FL and estimates for the caucusses) popular vote numbers. Probabbly this will show that the disparity is even higher in Obama's favor. But pls use a proper scaling for the graph when you do this!
if the difference in voters is ~1000 (hard to tell with the graph lacking any supporting stats)... and the difference in delegates is ~170 (Jerome doesn't say whether he means pledged or all delegates) then to total voter differential would have Hillary ahead by roughly 170,000, I believe the nutjob count which excludes the caucus states but includes all of FL & the MI vote as 0 for Obama, 100% for Clinton has the differential at 180,000k. If you excluded the contest where Obama's name wasn't on the ballot and included estimates for the caucus states the graph would be even more stark... in the other direction.
"hard to tell with the graph lacking any supporting stats"
Yes, that's the problem.
"Jerome doesn't say whether he means pledged or all delegates"
The graph CLEARLY say it's PLEDGED delegates, and the text says it's not from Jerome, but from a guy called Jay Cost (and the link goes to realclearpolitics). Really, Tatan, did you lose your glasses? :-/
"If you excluded the contest where Obama's name wasn't on the ballot and included estimates for the caucus states the graph would be even more stark... in the other direction."
Certainly not. Obama winning most of the caucus states NECESSARILY results in him needing less voters per delegate.
Yes, Jerome imported the graph from elsewhere. But it's a dishonest visual representation, aside from its black-box provenance (i.e., which popular vote count are we using?).
Over at the Great Orange Satan, Kos would admit his error, fix it, and apologize. Inquiring minds wait with baited breath.
. . . then you probably shouldn't opine. I've been a regular here and at Daily Kos since 2002. When Kos messes up, he fesses up.
Interesting. I haven't seen those examples and would like to. Can you provide a link.
I'm not trying to undercut you here, but in my experience, posters who malign Kos's integrity generally offer what I consider specious arguments, e.g., Kos says he's in favor of a fair nominating contest but wants to totally disenfranchise MI and FL voters.
Won't be the last time. I am an Obama supporter, but I did miss the "Pledged Delegate" headline. No excuses. I still think this graph is misleading, but clearly I'm too tired to figure the figures correctly. Still not quite sure which states are included and which aren't.
Anyhow - sorry!
No big deal. Even knowing that it's only about pledged delegates, we're still in the dark about the calculation that realclearpolitcs guy did. What delegate count is behind this, what popular vote number? Would be a good idea for MyDD to redo this graph, with proper scaling and explanations about the method.
It is, in fact, a dishonest representation. The graphs should at the least be broken at the bottom (i.e., jagged breaks showing they're discontinuous). This graph is a textbook example of how to lie with statistics.
"the Visual Display of Quantitative Information"
That book is the Bible of visualization masters
While I agree that the graph as it stands is seriously misleading, the underlying fact that it does accurately capture is without a doubt true: that Obama has well fewer voters per his delegates than does Hillary -- though the factor is only about 10%, not what would appear to be visually much more.
There's not much getting around that fact, given how much Obama's pledged delegate lead is predicated on his lead in caucus states. Last I read, take away his margin based on caucus states, and he was behind Clinton (according to an analysis of Joe Trippi). I think that's only gotten worse for him in the last couple of months.
Certainly, the fact that Obama wouldn't win without the non-democratic contributions of caucus wins is something the people at large should think about when they try to decide in their own minds how much legitimacy Obama really might own as a winner of the nomination.
I suggesting commenting with ::invisible 2:: until the Obama-supporter-shutdown is over.
I am an HRC supporter and have had my privileges pulled for a while now so would you passive-aggressive lying BHO surrogates stop your stupid baseless whining now?
Obama supporters have lost privileges at a disproportionate rate, as evidenced by the growing "unable to rec or rate" signatures around here. I'm sure some Clinton supporters have too, but not in nearly as many numbers.
also, given that these comments:
"your stupid baseless whining"
"normal BHO'ers have a real 'issue' with reality"
are bordering on if not in direct violation of the site rules, it is not too surprising that you're privileges have been revoked. at the very least, it's evidence that the system isn't completely unbalanced.
I was going to photoshop my own version, but shrink it down to nearly infinitesimal for laughs.
I think we are seeing Jerome going through the necessary grieving process before he can give up on Hillary. What has prompted this, when the math has obviously been insufficient up till now? Perhaps it was assassination-gate?
Whatever. Now, rather than hearing how Hillary can or should burn down the party to achieve ultimate victory in Denver, we are going to get these threadbare attempts at proving that she wuz robbed by a corrupt/unfair system.
(Somebody needs to make a WE WUZ ROBBED! Lolkatz graphic for us! Please?)
I'm open to the idea of replacing caucuses with primaries. By the same token, I hope you're open to the idea of removing all superdelegates for 2012. The superdelegate system is FAR MORE UNFAIR than whatever disparities you perceive created by caucuses. A
t least, as it is now, both candidates have the opportunity to gear their campaigns for caucuses or primaries if they choose. Apparently Hillary didn't bother, and that bespeaks laziness and short-sightedness rather than unfairness. Perhaps that massive superdelegate lead she had before even one real vote was cast led her to play the role of hare to Obama's tortoise and to underestimate the danger.
Jerome can no longer point to momentary Gallup leads, the "as much bias as possible is better than any other kind of bias" myDD electoral counter, "preener" youtube low-blow attacks...this is what he has left.
Obama's support is soft in the crucial states as well..
We'll see...
You realize that for Clinton to get to the general at this point, she'd have to win the primary. Which, considering the pledged delegate count and her reliance on no-campaigning contests, would be regarded as theft by a ton of people who currently say they'd currently vote for Clinton in the general.
In other words, in order for Clinton to get the the point where the general election numbers matter, she'd have to decimate her own base. She'd tank everywhere.
You know what, I am for getting rid of the SDs and keeping things as they are now. For the first time in my voting life, my vote counted in the primary! Not only my vote, but look at all of the other states whose votes actually mattered this time.
Why is that a bad thing? I know you are not saying this, but it is what I hear all of the time from camp HRC, that it should all be decided early on and caucus states are undemocratic. Mine is a caucus state because the state cannot afford a primary (http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_%3Ca %20class='srNewsTitleLink'%20href='http: //www.denverpost.com/ci_8353626). Nah, let's not change how the 50 state strategy worked, as it did. I like that my vote counted. But the SDs, I can do without.
Why shouldn't Jerome skew the perception of this data? Isn't that the only way that Hillary Clinton has had a shot at the nomination for several months? It's almost like an infectious disease to distort on her behalf in order to avoid coming to terms with the obvious. What a shame.
You simply rescaled that realclearpolitcs graph, a good idea, but on what delegate count and what popular numbers is this based on??? Redoing the calculation, and posting the numbers behind it, would be a good idea, too.
I don't think it would be, because legitimizing the idea of combined vote count as a measure of the "true" winner is disingenuous, and I don;t want to encourage that.
As I've argued elsewhere, combining vote totals from 60 different contests, all with radically different times (over a five-month period), rules (times, candidates on ballot, etc.), eligibility requirements (open, semi-open, closed), and process (different implementations of primaries and caucuses) is not at all representative of the will of the electorate. Neither are pledged delegates, but at least they scale for lower-turnout events (like caucuses).
If you want to know the will of the democratic electorate, national polls are probably your best shot - despite their margins of error, they have consistent eligibility rules and they cover a small, recent slice of time. But Jerome has been curiously quiet about those since the Epic Clinton Four-Point Lead post.
"As I've argued elsewhere, combining vote totals from 60 different contests, all with radically different times (over a five-month period), rules (times, candidates on ballot, etc.), eligibility requirements (open, semi-open, closed), and process (different implementations of primaries and caucuses) is not at all representative of the will of the electorate."
Exactly. The whole process is totally f**ed up. Same rules for every vote, everwhere, this what a Democratic primary should look like. This crap right now isn't any better than the Supremes deciding on the presidency. If the Dems aren't even able to reform their own primaries, will they be able to reform the equally f**ed up general election system? Unlikely.
Hmm, I didn't know that using three * in a row switches to bold case. Sry!
it's cool.
that said, realize that a perfect system simply cannot be implemented, if only because state parties wield ultimate power over how they do their primaries. Iowa will never give up their caucuses, and neither they nor New Hampshire will give up their first-in-the-nation status without a huge fight. Nobody wants to pay for primaries in all the small states, so they'll stick with caucuses, which makes a true popular vote metric impossible. Good luck getting all the states to agree on an open/closed primary system while you're at it.
Our system could be improved - but only so much. It'll always have flaws.
"Our system could be improved - but only so much. It'll always have flaws."
After all this brouhaha about CHANGE, now this!
However, it bolsters my view that it was nothing but an advertising slogan from the very start.
change and realism are compatible. there's a difference between optimism and utopianism.
"there's a difference between optimism and utopianism."
Exactly. And I'm missing that difference when I hear and watch the Obama crowd. I can't help but feeling that lots of people will be utterly disappointed soon after he becomes President.
Every candidate has a few supporters who think that their candidate will fix EVERYTHING. Clinton has them too, over at hillaryis44. I see no evidence to support the idea that most Obama supporters feel this way, other than the constant derogatory "messiah!" and "cult!" taunts from the less-classy of the Clinton supporters.
You don't think the hype about "Change" is way over the top? Now, come on...
no, I don't. It's the little things which have made this real for me - like Obama being the only candidate to address net neutrality in any meaningful way, or his pushing sensible diplomatic foreign policy instead of getting into pissing matches with Republicans. It's the fact that his books actually have substantive, thoughtful reflections on Americans politics and issues of the day. It's the fact that he counts Lawrence Lessig among his friends. It's the fact that he's built the best fundraising machine in the history of American politics mostly through the internet and small donations. It's the fact that he isn't obsessed with the Vietnam war. It's the fact that my twice-Bush-voting mom supports him.
Yes, I do believe that there is something new and important here. It won't fix everything. But it'll be a bunch of steps in the right direction.
I guess I'm too much of a cynic too see it this way. But I have to admit, those are the best pro-Obama arguments I've read so far.
You're making Jerome's point. Clinton has more votes per pledged delegate than Obama has.
The simplest explanation I can think of is that Clinton has seriously underperformed in caucus states. If that underperformance is the primary "culprit" for this difference in votes per delegate, then the rational response would be to decide whether or not states should be allowed to conduct caucuses. And I'd suggest that it's the registered Democrats in each state who ought to decide that. If the voters of Iowa, say, want to keep the caucuses, then I don't see how I can sit here in Virginia and complain.
I think our process is unduly complicated, but I prefer it to the Republicans' winner-take-all approach, which moves us much further away from the "all votes should be equal" ideal so often expressed here -- especially when MI and FL are broached. Yet Bill Clinton tried mightily to establish the metric that, if we had employed the Republican process, Clinton would be leading. We're all Democrats here; without descending into a pissing match about which things should and should not count, do you good Clinton supporters see why many of us Obama supporters feel that the Clinton camp, in its attempt to find a metric that shows her leading, has often contradicted itself?
"And I'd suggest that it's the registered Democrats in each state who ought to decide that."
I don't think this is a good idea at all. The DNC ought to decide on how NATIONAL primaries are executed, the state party can decide on state races. everything else will only lead to scewing the rules to the advantage of the state party's preferred candidate. That's not democratic, that's just filthy favoritism.
I understand your point but disagree with your conclusion. Yes, state parties do at times demonstrate filthy favoritism. Here in Virginia, the Republican Party is infamous for doing exactly that. This year, they decided to select their senatorial nominee (i.e., their sacrificial lamb) via a state nominating convention rather than an actual vote. I believe Jim Gilmore had sufficient pull to achieve his goal of trying to secure the nomination without having to face real voters. But I hardly think that the same can be said of Iowa's Democratic Party, which is extremely proud of its caucuses.
On the other hand, the Michigan primary illustrates your point well. There's that well known exchange between Terry McAuliffe and Carl Levin, in which Levin declares that the MI party is going to hold its primary whenever it wants--whatever the DNC says. During that heated exchange, McAuliffe makes clear to Levin that MI will be penalized for doing so. I believe McAuliffe has had a change of heart.
I have some pretty radical ideas about a new primary system. What do you think of this:
The primary season would stretch from February to July. Votes would be held every three days, one state at a time. States would vote from smallest population to largest population, one at a time. There are no delegates, the winner is determined by total number of votes. Results are not published for individual states. At the end of the primary process, a winner is announced, but the vote totals never are.
In order to run, you have to be put on the ballot by the DNC. This allows the party elders an important say in the process, but removes the chance that they would have to decide a hotly contested election.
Voting is done by internet. There would be a cost to vote - $50 on senatorial election years, and $100 for presidential election years. Paying these fees would make you a registered Democrat. When you pay your fee, you are snail-mailed you user name and password. Only voters registered by the party in the previous paid primary are eligible to vote in any other primary election.
By voting in the states one at a time, each state is given an equal amount of time for the candidate to campaign there. Making the vote smallest to largest means that the candidates will spend more time in the small states prior to the election campaigning, and having the large states vote last means the election is actually decided as late in the process as possible, giving the candidates more time to be vetted. Individuals will not be forced to withdraw so early, giving them more time to get their point of view expressed.
Doing the vote by internet dramatically reduces the cost, while removing the ability of Republican legislatures to affect Democratic primaries. The big negative associated with this is that you no longer have to be registered to vote to vote in the primary. This could result in lower voter turnout in the general, so would have to be countered by voter registration efforts. The extra money generated by the process would pay for it.
The main argument against having a fee associated with the vote is disenfranchisement. This is a spurious argument; the party could chose its candidates by dice roll if it wanted. There is nothing wrong with having the Democratic candidate be chosen by Democrats; the price you pay for being an independent is not having a say in the primary. By having a fee associated with the vote, you remove the ability of another party to act as a "spoiler" by any real margin; 10,000 votes would cost a million dollars. The kind of numbers that it would take to sway an election would be in the millions, directly into your opponent's coffers for use in the general.
Everyone's vote counts equally. You remove the ability of the media to treat it as a horse race. Each candidate has to run on their own strengths, and not the weaknesses of their opponents.
Anyone care to offer criticism?
So is that going to tell us....what?
That Hillary Clinton won more voted per pledged delegate and lost. You are aware that she's about to lose, right? Moral victory. Bitter, moral victory. Congratulations.
if the difference in voters is ~1000 (hard to tell with the graph lacking any supporting stats)... and the difference in delegates is ~170 (Jerome doesn't say whether he means pledged or all delegates) then to total voter differential would have Hillary ahead by roughly 170,000, I believe the nutjob count which excludes the caucus states but includes all of FL & the MI vote as 0 for Obama, 100% for Clinton has the differential at 180,000k. If you excluded the contest where Obama's name wasn't on the ballot and included estimates for the caucus states the graph would be even more stark... in the other direction.
"hard to tell with the graph lacking any supporting stats"
Yes, that's the problem.
"Jerome doesn't say whether he means pledged or all delegates"
The graph CLEARLY say it's PLEDGED delegates, and the text says it's not from Jerome, but from a guy called Jay Cost (and the link goes to realclearpolitics). Really, Tatan, did you lose your glasses? :-/
"If you excluded the contest where Obama's name wasn't on the ballot and included estimates for the caucus states the graph would be even more stark... in the other direction."
Certainly not. Obama winning most of the caucus states NECESSARILY results in him needing less voters per delegate.
That was my very first thought as well. Statistics is part of my day job, though, so I'm on the lookout for the "damn lies" :)
The difference between the bars is probably reflective of how wronged Jerome feels by the primary contest more than anything else.
Not only that, but the bottom line is ALL THE CANDIDATES KNEW THE RULES. Obama was better at the game. I am one of many people who voted for Clinton but, unlike Jerome, I can admit she ran a poor campaign full of strategic blunders. This sour grapes stuff is really getting old.
I can't help but notice that he didn't start a thread about assassination-gate, but I am sure he would have if Obama made the same gaffe.
Is there an "HRC Math for Flunkies, 101" class being taught at the local uni or something? Everyone seems to always be on the same page in her camp.
This is beyond the pale. It is never honest to use a truncated scale for a bar graph. One only does so to try to deceive. I find it offensive that Jerome would even try that.
I'm willing to grant the possibility, however unlikely, that Jerome himself was deceived by the graph. The graph appears the same way in the article that Jerome is quoting. I think that whoever made that graph is extremely unprofessional, but that person was not Jerome.
That said, that graph needs to be modified to give a fair perspective. It should not be sitting on the front page as is.
What does it say about Jerome's thinking? Is he just grabbing anything he can to make his point without scrunity? What does this say about what he thinks of his readers? I personally think Jerome is behaving with the same kind of mindset that infects the entire Clinton Compaign. I had to smile at this sill diary to avoid being insulted by it.
Thank you, this is exactly what I thought the second I saw that chart.
Everyone should read this:
http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics
-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728/ref=pd_bbs_s
r_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=12117336
62&sr=8-1
Far too many people try to pull this kind of crap with numbers and far too many people don't know enough to see it when it happens.
and it's probably the most common way to mislead people with numbers and graphs. It's so common, in fact, that it's in EVERY introductory statistics book, usually in the first chapter before you even get into any real calculations.
This graph is not only misleading, but it breaks the basic rules of statistics in such an obvious way that I am left with no choice but to believe that Jerome knows what he is doing is wrong. No one with a college education could believe otherwise.
on the Y axis. I agree that the visual of this graph is misleading but I assume that is Jay Cost's fault not Jerome's.
The Y axis shows that Clinton has 1,000 more voters per delegate won than Obama. That may be different than the impression given by the visual, but it is still nothing to sneeze at.
Also, many of the Obama supporters, in their reflexive defensiveness, seem to be ignoring the critical date of the question ----- 2012.
Jerome is not suggesting in this diary that this discrepancy renders the 2008 result invalid. He is simply asking whether this possibility should be avoided in the future.
And if the nomination process had been about voter per delegate, do you think Obama might have run a different campaign, and that chart might look a bit different?
Nothing on the link to say how it deals with caucuses either. Shoddy.
if the difference in voters is ~1000 (hard to tell with the graph lacking any supporting stats)... and the difference in delegates is ~170 (Jerome doesn't say whether he means pledged or all delegates) then to total voter differential would have Hillary ahead by roughly 170,000, I believe the nutjob count which excludes the caucus states but includes all of FL & the MI vote as 0 for Obama, 100% for Clinton has the differential at 180,000k. If you excluded the contest where Obama's name wasn't on the ballot and included estimates for the caucus states the graph would be even more stark... in the other direction.
I may be mistaken, but I think it is about the same order of magnitude as the bonus for having a primary or caucus late in the season.
You did catch that that is 11,000 to 10,000, not 1,100 to 100, as the shoddy and dishonest top level graph might suggest, right?
It is, but that makes it a smaller difference than the difference in number of voters per delegate awarded than the difference between Michigan and Wisconsin if the Michigan delegates are seated. Even if Michigan is seated with half votes, the number of voters per delegate vote for Wisconsin will be about half again the number of voters per delegate vote for Michigan.
Delegates are awarded on a per district basis, independent of turn-out, so low turn out elections (like Michigan and Florida or the caucuses) mean a smaller number of voters per delegate. The difference between caucuses and primaries in general is smaller than the differences between particular primaries.
Unless we go to pure popular vote, or award delegates based on turn-out in the primary or caucus (which would require doing away with caucuses and either doing away with open primaries or requiring only open primaries, and still wouldn't reflect the fact that Democratic primary voters in some states are hugely unlikely to vote for a Democrat for president (the Dixiecrat problem), there are inherently going to be unequal numbers of voters behind each delegate.
Ut oh, I hear somebody calling for the WAAAAAAAMBULANCE.
Listen, Hillary was a strong candidate. A good candidate. No one's debating that.
But she also couldn't beat a one-term senator when she had:
1. Universal name recognition
Why the fuck should we elect someone that can't take all those advantages and win a goddamned primary, Jerome? Why would she do any better in the general?
Also, Jerome, are you willing to put up the costs for primaries in the 14 caucus states?
If not, I'd love to hear how you would reform the system.
Finally, I'd love to see some math saying caucus victories are less predictive than primary victories for general election polling. That is, see if caucus margin of victory correlates worse with polling vs. McCain for Clinton and Obama than primary margin of victory. I think the results might be surprising and illuminating
Below are some caucus states that will be either swing or blue states in the general election. Based on an analysis of polling data from pollster.com, I've listed the likelihood of either Obama or Clinton winning the state in the general election:
Iowa
Obama - 81% chance of winning
Clinton - 29% chance of winning
Colorado
Obama - 57% chance of winning
Clinton - 8% chance of winning
Washington
Obama - 93%
Clinton - 62%
Nevada (Clinton won popular vote, lost delegate count)
Obama - 64%
Clinton - 24%
Minnesota
Obama - 89%
Clinton - 70%
Maine
Obama - 89%
Clinton - 70%
Nebraska (note: NE allocates some electoral votes proportionally by congressional districts - meaning Obama actually has a real chance to pick up one or two electoral votes, per Jonathan Singer's analysis on the front page)
Obama - 10%
Clinton - 0%
Alaska
Obama - 10%
Clinton - 0%
Analysis: In each of the states listed above, Obama has a much better chance of winning the state compared to Clinton. I'm not a social scientist, but there clearly seems to be a correlation between Obama's caucus victories and his chances of winning the state in the general election. An inference that could be drawn is that Obama's caucus wins do reflect his greater popularity in the state compared to Clinton, and therefore his victories do have predictive value in terms of Obama's electability and strength in those states.
Colorado really shows how meaningful Obama's caucus victory was in that state, since he now is favored to win the state while Clinton has a very slim chance of winning Colorado, and Colorado could play a key role in Obama's electoral map strategy.
Data from the following link: http://www.hotlinkfiles.com/files/134108 3_co4h8/Obama-Clintonstates-May19.pdf
In caucus states that Obama won, he is doing significantly better than Clinton in virtually all the general election match-ups against McCain.
How are Obama and Clinton doing in the big states and swing states where Clinton won primaries? Below are the chances each candidate has of winning the state based on combined general election polling. Date from fivethirtyeight.com.
New Hampshire
Obama 46%
Clinton 48%
New York
Obama 93%
Clinton 98%
New Jersey
Obama 87%
Clinton 87%
Texas
Obama 8%
Clinton 9%
Pennsylvania
Obama 68%
Clinton 87%
Ohio
Obama 50
Clinton 79
Indiana
Obama 35
Clinton 29
California
Obama 95%
Clinton 95%
Conclusion: Clinton is doing significantly better in Ohio and Pennslyvania. In the other states, Obama and Clinton are performing equally well.
In short, when you compare the fact that Obama is doing significantly better than Clinton in all of his swing state/blue state caucus victories, primaries seem to have less predictive value than caucuses in predicting how well the candidate who wins a primary will do in general election match-ups in that state.
Can't argue with you there, professor. If only we could do something that could get her the nomination and the supers on her side. Next time, maybe we can have weighted states, or a system called the "Clinton Path" where by states we've no chance of winning can be given greater weight and other swing states are given greater weight based on popular polls in April and May. Just for kicks, let's pick different polls every four years so as not to disenfranchise Zogby and SUSA.
Oops, sry, didn't notice the second post is from you, too. Still, where is FL??? You noticed that the 2000 election was decided there, didn't you? Clinton kicked Obama's a** there.
My data is from http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/
I didn't include Florida because the primary didn't count.
One addendum - update on the Maine numbers. Clinton is doing very well there now. Obama has a 90% chance of winning, while Clinton has an 88% chance.
The comparison between caucus and primary states is interesting, because the data goes against the conventional wisdom that primaries are better predictors than caucuses of how well a candidate will run in a particular state. The data seems to suggest it's the reverse - caucus wins are more predictive of a candidate's strength in that state.
Case in point - while Obama is doing better than Clinton in all the caucus states that he won, neither Obama or Clinton is doing better than the other in all of the primaries that he or she won.
For example, Obama won Missouri, by Clinton is polling better in that state against McCain.
On the other hand, Clinton won Indiana, but Obama is polling better than Clinton in that state against McCain.
"I didn't include Florida because the primary didn't count."
Who says this? The Rules and Bylaws Committee will decide on this. It hasn't done so yet.
"caucus wins are more predictive of a candidate's strength in that state."
Where do you get this idea? From comparing preference polls (X vs. McCain) to caucus results, I understand?
"caucus wins are more predictive of a candidate's strength in that state."
Where do you get this idea? From comparing preference polls (X vs. McCain) to caucus results, I understand?"
I got this idea from Hillary Clinton, who argues that her primary wins in the big states and the swing states show that she will be the stronger candidate against John McCain. She pointed to the general election polling to support her contention.
...may not change the outcome of the nomination but history will be less forgiving.
As you can see into the future, would you put on record now the spread on the GE?
No one can predict the General Election results perfectly today. Assuming nothing drastic changes in between now and November (please no assassination jokes), I'd peg the results at:
McCain = Bush + New Hampshire + Pennsylvania + Wisconsin + Michigan
Obama = Kerry (minus the above) + Iowa + Colorado
I'd say:
McCain- Loses New Mexico, Iowa, Colorado, Virginia, maybe Ohio, Maybe Nevada.
Obama- Loses New Hampshire.
Funny, even if Obama is leading in a state poll, folks here won't recognize it. He's recently moved ahead in Pa. Nothing's guaranteed, but I'd suggest if our system was broken before this year, that was probably the time to address it. Right now, it looks like sour grapes and personal interests.
What will history say, that Obama won a campaign using a strategy that was based on the way the rules existed at that time? This more accurately reflects the will of people then great presidents like FDR and Lincoln who were nominated in smoke filled rooms. Are their Presidencies also illegitimate?
A silly system produces a silly result.
Lincoln and FDR had great presidencies. That's no excuse for "smoke filled rooms" suddenly being acceptable environments for a nomination.
I agree. We should eliminate superdelegates, the most undemocratic part of this process.
Tough call (considering why they were implemented) but... yeah, I think I'm with you on that decision.
Good point. I'd rather have the people (voters) get to have full control over the nominating process, even if that means they will sometimes pick a candidate that will not win. To me, that's a lot better than being guaranteed a win every time but having no effect on the outcome.
I think superdelegates are in at least one way more democratic than pledge delegates: unlike the pledge delegates, superdelegates must face the wrath of the voters and party leaders. Their purpose is similar to that of the Supreme Court (or at least its historic role and when it has been at its best) -- to leaven the nomination process, and serve as a bullwark against the majority's worst instincts. Now I'm not saying that Democrats should revert back to a smoke-filled room, but superdelegates should exist -- just maybe not at 20% of the delegates.
The scale doesn't go to zero, and the X axis numbers only go up by 200 each time.
If this is the new metric that Clinton people are going to be using to define her electability, then it needs some serious work.
and don't know where the original poster got his numbers to figure this out. Is he counting Michigan while leaving out the caucases? I bet so.
By your chart, then, the vote count is:
Hillary - 1973 delegates x 11750 = 23.18M
Obama - 2043 x 10800 = 22.06M
Difference of 1.12M votes
Is that math REALLY correct? I doubt it seriously.
This graph is coming from realclearpolitics, and in the delegate count there, they excluded MI and FL from their calculation. This is in Obama's favor,not Clinton's. So it's possible the numbers will look even worse if MI and FL were included.
in which the nationwide leader of the popular vote in sanctioned primaries and the overwhelming nationwide leader in caucuses is also the nationwide leader in pledged delegates. I simply cannot abide by the injustice...
With all respect, Barack hasn't won any such popular vote in "primaries." If you factor out the caucus states, Hillary leads, even if you exclude Michigan.
Yes he has
Popular vote without FL/MI/IA/NV/ME/WA
O: 16,685,941 C: 16,227,514
Check RCP.
Um...
There were more than four caucus states.
You need to subtract the totals from Colorado, Minnesota, Washington, Nebraska, Idaho, Utah, Kansas, North Dakota, Alaska, Hawaii, and the remaining caucus states and add Florida, a real election that most people acknowledge as straightforward.
I made a statement, which is empirically true, that if you count only primaries where all candidates appeared on the ballot, then Hillary won more votes.
When that statement was attacked, I defended it.
Well, if you only count party-sanctioned contests then Obama won more votes. 'party-sanctioned' is the criteria that has been applied to evaluate the legitimacy of contests for the last 200+ years, and 'only primaries where all the candidates appeared on the ballot' is a criteria that you invented only after the contests were completed and you were looking for someway to show your candidate was ahead.
We both know that the only way popular vote matters at all is in the minds of the super-delegates--many of whom are from the caucus states that you have dismissed. What do you think they're going to do with that? Are you going to convince a SD from Iowa that Iowa doesn't matter? Then what the fuck are you doing?
Yep, and if you exclude all left-handed people then Barack is winning.
What's your fucking point? that the people who participated in caucuses aren't people?
Actually, he has.
New Hampshire 8-Jan 104,815 112,404
South Carolina 26-Jan 294,898 140,990
Delaware 5-Feb 51,148 40,760
Utah 5-Feb 74,538 51,333
Arkansas 5-Feb 82,476 220,136
Connecticut 5-Feb 179,742 165,426
Oklahoma 5-Feb 130,130 228,480
Arizona 5-Feb 193,126 229,501
Alabama 5-Feb 300,319 223,089
Tennessee 5-Feb 252,874 336,245
Missouri 5-Feb 406,917 395,185
Georgia 5-Feb 704,247 330,026
New Jersey 5-Feb 501,372 613,500
Massachusetts 5-Feb 511,887 704,591
New York 5-Feb 751,019 1,068,496
Illinois 5-Feb 1,318,234 667,930
California 5-Feb 2,186,662 2,608,184
Louisiana 9-Feb 220,632 136,925
District of Columbia 12-Feb 93,386 29,470
Maryland 12-Feb 532,665 314,211
Virginia 12-Feb 627,820 349,766
Wisconsin 19-Feb 646,851 453,954
Vermont 4-Mar 91,901 59,806
Rhode Island 4-Mar 75,316 108,949
Ohio 4-Mar 1,055,769 1,259,620
Texas 4-Mar 1,362,476 1,462,734
Mississippi 11-Mar 265,730 159,273
Pennsylvania 22-Apr 1,046,822 1,260,937
Indiana 6-May 629,310 643,797
North Carolina 6-May 875,683 652,824
West Virginia 13-May 91,652 239,062
Kentucky 20-May 209,903 459,210
Oregon 20-May 366,421 254,894
total 16,236,741 15,981,708
I knew the situation was bad, and yes, the Democratic nominating process needs a serious overhaul for 2012. I'm sick of our Party's system being the laughingstock of political journalists and media pundits. It undercuts our message in that it makes us look amaturish.
I actually like the thrust of our party's system -- IA and NH (and NV and SC) having first-in-the-nation status; open/closed/semi-open primaries and caucuses with delegates serving as the common currency; number of delegates determined by Democratic Presidential turnout in the last two elections; proportional allocation and the 15% (guaranteed delegate) and 60% (bonus delegates) rule; bonus delegates for going later in the primary system; and superdelegates to leaven the process. Now I might lower the threshold for the 60% rule, I might reduce the influence of superdelegates, but the thrust is sound. The system -- certainly with weaknesses -- is far preferable to the Republican system.
"I actually like the thrust of our party's system"
What's to like there? You name all of the atrocities, but not a single advantage cominbg out of them.
"The system -- certainly with weaknesses -- is far preferable to the Republican system."
This is really the soft bigotry of low expectations. Yeah, even a donkey will look great compared to the rotten corpse of an elephant. Ridiculous.
An openly deceitful graph from Jerome with an axis that doesn't go to zero - the Clintonista despair is really showing, isn't it?
Lies, damn lies and statistics.
Well, you went those one better, Jay Cost. And Jerome, for posting it again.
Lies, damn lies, statistics, and manipulative graphs.
Make the axis start at zero next time, Pookie.
We're not as dumb as you seem to think we are.
Who's the "bot" now?
Besides, I thought Mama Hillary said that pledged delegates weren't an important measure of popularity?
Well, are they or aren't they?
Notice that Jay Cost has other graphs, including one that shows that Obama has more votes than she does.
Why so selective in the graph you chose to showcase, Jerome? Why chose the only graph on the post that doesn't start at a zero axis?
here's what it looks like if you scale to 0 and don't try to mislead your readers:
I think nearly 1,000 voters per delegate is a pretty shocking figure, but I suppose different graphs can tell different stories about how much we value individual voters.
Since delegates are allocated on the basis of the general election votes for the Democratic candidate in the last election, by district, you shouldn't expect the number of primary voters to match perfectly with the number of delegates (although a 1:0.9 ratio isn't that bad, much better than the Electoral College). The system is set up so that massive turn out is locally beneficial (it wins you delegates), but not overwhelmingly beneficial (higher interest in the primary election in one state doesn't cause that state to become more important).
It isn't a perfect system, but no election system this complicated can be. We could switch to total popular vote, and that might be a better system, but I'm sure it would have its own problems as well. It is very rare for a nomination battle to be sufficiently close that the exact details of the system matter.
I have problems with using the popular vote in a primary election (in the general, popular vote should be used) since political parties can include/exclude members of another political party in primaries. Heck, some states, i.e., Virginia, don't even have party registration. There has to be some common currency, which is why we use delegates.
Thanks. I'm not even going to try to get into the math here, especially since we don't know which popular vote tally is being used (boy, that's a condemnation of the pv metric in itself, isn't it?). But isn't it entirely conceivable that a disparity of this size could result entirely from one candidate winning smaller victories in big states? That is, Clinton won by 9% in PA, but because Obama clocked her in districts with more delegates, she didn't exit with 9% more delegates. To put it more simply, 59% of the vote doesn't usually lead to securing 59% of the delegates; rather, you have to clear 60% or 62.5%, or something like that.
So in a hypothetical matchup, one candidate could have a stirring string of 59-41 wins yet end up with a much more modest advantage in delegates from those states, while the other candidate might rack up much larger wins--especially in districts with more delegates or an odd number of delegates. Haven't we seen that scenario play out a lot this spring?
Wow, you mean Jerome was trying to deceive us?
Nah, never happens
Jesus, a less than 10 percent difference, and he makes a graph that makes it look like a 3/1 margin!
What is wrong with MyDD?
Absolutely YES. The nominating process needs a huge overhaul. Once the Obama supporters realize we aren't overhauling the system before 2008 (that includes the independence of the SD's to vote for the candidate of their choice and the one they feel can win the EV or any other metric they choose to use) I can't imagine a true blue Democrat not realizing our system stinks.
I remember after Gore lost and the voting machines without paper trails were found by the GAO and most 12 years olds to be easily hacked into, once the Republicans realized Bush would still be president- even some of them signed petitions to get paper trail or paper ballots for 'fairness'.
Lets hope we can all get on board and choose a more democratic way of electing our presidential hopefuls before 2012.
Jerome, This is the democratic party and we like losers and losing.
Hmm, a sure general election loser is now described as a winner? I guess that's the way it is in Obamaland. Okay.
A candidate that likes to insult and condescend to voters is really great isn't he?
A sure general election loser? MyDD's own poll tracker on the frontpage would disagree.
And, unless interestedbystander is the supposed Messiah himself, then you're not being insulted by him.
Well, unless you really think some random dude on a internet blog is an extenstion of the Obama campaingn.
You obviously are ignoring his demographic problems if you think he can win.
And his campaign supporters are the reason that people are saying they won't vote for him in droves. Some uniter heh? A candidate who calls himself a "uniter" and can't even unite his own party. LOL.
I'm not ignoring anything. I'm looking at that pretty map up in the top left hand corner of this website.
And, if people's feelings are hurt by what some Obama supporters say on the intertubes, then I honestly think that says more about how they process their own judgement, as opposed to anything else.
Furthermore, I didn't know that he was supposed to regulate what everyone in the free world says about him.
But hey, I guess that's how people think in Hillaryland. Don't you have some goalposts to move?
Of course, blame someone else for failures. It's the Obama way isn't it.
And if you are looking at that map, Hillary has way more votes and chances than Obama. Obama has a margin of 21 ev's. They'll be easy for the GOP to take away.
You have a very skewed way of thinking. Blame it on someone else? I'm not blaming anything on anyone else. Forgive me if I find the judgement of people not voting for Obama because of his supporters a little warped. I would hope that rational people would take a look and judge the man himself, judge him on his policies and beliefs, instead of automatically assuming that he is the one personally directing people to be hateful and nasty to Hillary supporters on his behalf.
And, again, I'm fully aware of how the map looks. Given the fragile state of the GOP and their canidate, and the overwhelming outpouring support for both Democrats, I have a hard time believing that certain states (Colorado, Michigan, Ohio, etc.) wont turn blue this year, regardless of who is running.
By the way, you don't get any kind of super secret presidential bonus for electoral votes beyond 270. You just need to get there first.
The problem is Obama and his supporters reflect the same problem.
MI will not turn blue unless the DNC seats the full delegation soon.
In 1976, post watergate, Jimmy Carter had a 20 point lead over Ford. He ended up winning in a squeaker. I'm old enough to know that Obama does not have much of margin and is likely to lose at this point.
And Obama has been hateful himself. Accusing Hillary of what he has is beyond disgusting. He should proffer nothing less than a full and complete apology for the way he has run his campaign and the accusations he has made. He should not assume that people are going to fall in line. It's condescending and disgusting. Honestly, I've never seen a more divisive candidate in the Dem primary. I've seen it in the GOP-George W. Bush.
Let see:
Racism
Wanting to be rid of him
calling her a fatal attraction nut.
The list goes on and it is beyond disgusting.
Go take your faux outrage to Hillaryis44. They might actually believe it.
Though, I will leave you with this little gem. I'll give you a couple of guesses who said it.
"He's not a Muslim....as far as I know."
You know what? Obama HAS not been honest about the muslim issue. The LA times did an article on it.
His campaign condoned those type of statements. Ultimately Obama is responsible. I know his supporters don't want to admit it. He should offer a full and complete apology. Quit with more condescending statements after condescending statements.
McCain is a paper tiger. I don't think any of our candidates would have a problem against him, poll-of-the-moment notwithstanding.
And I don't trust the polls at the moment. HRC, with her condemnations of "elitism" and embrace of identity politics, has practically been running as a Republican; she will not be allowed to do so in the general (not like it would be good if she were. I think we've all learned by now that running as GOP-lite doesn't really work, however enticing it seems to be to some).
As for him, Obama will not be facing two "GOP" opponents in the general as he is now. After the primary is over, I am confident he will go up in the polls.
This is a head in the sand belief of a lot of Obama supporters. McCain is a much better candidate than Bush ever was and I heard the same thing in 2004. Obama is not a great candidate. In fact, he's a very poor general election candidate. There's a reason the GOP now has their hopes lifted after being in the dumps.
I doubt that he will go up in the polls. He's been so divisive that people are leaving the party. Who can blame them? What his campaign has done is beyond disgusting. Who would want to be associated with that?
Well, I would say all the people who are currently putting him ahead in the polls. He is currently surging in a wide range of polls, including significant national head-to-had leads against Hillary and McCain.
Please show me the analysis that shows the GOP has their hopes lifted - because that certainly is not what their own blogs are saying. Mississippi anyone?
Your doubts are duly noted, and now we will return to the real world.
Jerome, its clear that you are posting this tricky bar graph because you desperately believe Clinton represents the best chance of seizing the executive in 2008. However, you are also undermining Obama who is practically guaranteed to be the real candidate. Its one thing to point out a flaw in the process, which I agree should be fixed. Its another to give us a misleading, zoomed-in bar graph which implies Obama does not have popular support.
Point 1: The primary process is totally messed up.
Point 2: That graph is a deceitful way of trying to prove Point 1. I trust this was an innocent mistake, and Jerome will do the right thing and replace the graph with "really not a troll"'s version.
Surely we can agree the primary process needs reforming, without having to resort to to dishonesty to prove it.
Given how important votes/delegate is, could you point me towards the myDD voters-per-delegate widget? Because I see one for delegates, and one for delegates if you count beauty contests, but none involving the amalgamation of sixty disparate contests that is popular vote.
I don't understand why, at this stage, you would put up a misleading graph on a site that supports Democrats. This is not "Hillaryis44".
Barack is 52 delegates (as 5/25 @ 7:09 am EST) away from officially being our nominee.
The primary process would not be in question if Hillary had locked it up in February, now would it?
Really appalling, IMHO.
With all respect, all candidates are officially three months and thousands of delegate votes away from being the nominee.
Out of curiosity, what sort of result do you expect from the 5/31 RBC meeting? Continued push for the full exclusion of Michigan and Florida?
Technically, yes, the nomination process is in August. As any pragmatic strategist would tell you however, if the Democrat party wants to take back control over how our country goes forward after 8 years of what can only be described as a nightmare, the party must unite around a leader/nominee as soon as possible.
If you can't agree with that assertion, than I believe you are allowing your emotional loyalty to Hillary to take precedence over what is best for the Democrat party and it's quest to beat John McBush in November.
I, for one, am desperate to take my country back. I hope you are too.
What do I expect out of the 5/31 meeting? I expect the committee to stick to what it said from Day One. As a parent, I know that if I've told my teen that there will be consequences for breaking the rules, and if I don't follow thru with those consequences, I lose credibility as a parent. I imagine the DNC, as a whole, would agree. I'm guessing, however, that they'll offer a compromise to seat half, but in a way that doesn't hurt our nominee.
One more thing - in January, nobody knew Barack Obama (including me, who originally supported Bill Richardson). California might very well have chosen Obama today, were it voting now. So you see? There can be lots of "what if's" that could change the outcome almost daily...
I realize that as a Hillary supporter, you believe she should get her way with Florida AND Michigan. I would ask you to really and truly try and think about how you would feel if the shoe were on the other foot.
Thank you for the comment.
"As a parent, I know that if I've told my teen that there will be consequences for breaking the rules, and if I don't follow thru with those consequences, I lose credibility as a parent."
The problem I see here is that the "culprits" were state legislators, many of whom were GOP although there were some complicit Dems as well. I think there has to be a punishment (or at least future deterrent) that addresses and keeps in check the legislators without silencing voters who had nothing to do with the decision. It's misplaced aggression.
"I realize that as a Hillary supporter, you believe she should get her way with Florida AND Michigan. I would ask you to really and truly try and think about how you would feel if the shoe were on the other foot."
I suppose I would want them to be excluded so that my candidate would have more delegates. If there were a way to deprive Bush of the presidency by invalidating the electoral votes of Texas, I probably would have seized upon it. But either way, I would know deep down that whatever technicalities I might claim for authority, my position would be inconsistent with democracy.
"The problem I see here is that the "culprits" were state legislators, many of whom were GOP although there were some complicit Dems as well."
It's not the voter's fault. So, seat all pledged delegates, but exclude the superdelegates who are responsible for this mess. Best solution imho, because it punishes the real culprits.
A good idea in theory but there are some problems.
The legislation in Florida was tied to funding for paper trails for the state's notorious electronic voting machines that corrupted at least three well known national elections.
Democrats voting for the primary date change had no other choice but to hope for understanding from the DNC. If they voted against the date change, they would be relegating Florida to mysteriously going Republican in a string of electronic... "irregularities" for the foreseeable future.
Secondly, the authority for the Superdelegates' voting rights extends from the DNC Charter, not the Delegate Selection Rules. Both states are arguing that penalizing them is beyond the rules' scope.
Also, keep in mind the Delegate Selection Rules appear to attempt punishing superdelegates (there's a very bad typo in the Rules that misreference a rule having nothing to do with Supers). The states aren't saying "the rules don't say strip the supers." What they're actually saying is that "the rules didn't have that authority in the first place, since supers come from the charter."
It's not my fault we're in Iraq, either--but the only way I can exercise any control over that situation is by voting against the people who made the mistakes and voting for people who will do things differently. That's how representative democracy works.
And that's the only way the DNC can control the primary schedule--by punishing the voters so that they can punish their elected representatives.
"And that's the only way the DNC can control the primary schedule--by punishing the voters so that they can punish their elected representatives."
Who says this? The could easily change their charter, and the rules, allowing them to directly punish the Reps who create such a mess. Take their superdelegate status away from them, drop DNC support for their primaries. This would teach them.
Actually, fine. If they can find another way to punish them in 2012 then that would be fine with me.
But for this cycle, the punishments were known upfront and they directly affected the legitimacy of the elections (no Obama or Edwards on the ballot in MI, no campaigning in MI or FL).
You stick with the rules that were in place at the beginning of the campaign--and then change the rules for the next time.
I don't see a good reason not to just go with a state's popular vote totals as the determining factor for delegate allocation. I understand the idea behind not having a "national primary day," but I don't understand at all the idea behind having delegates be apportioned by congressional district. It makes no sense.
because every state has different rules. Open primaries or closed? Or semi-open? What are the absentee voting requirements? Is there early voting, and where? What if we can only afford a caucus, thus dramatically diminishing our turnout?
This is why the process amounts to the DNC doling out a calendar outline, a few basic ground rules, and a set number of delegates, allowing the states to do everything else on their own.
I think I made my point poorly. What I meant was I would like to see the system reformed for 2012 so that if a candidate wins 55% of a state's votes (whether by primary or caucus or coin-flips), they get 55% of that state's delegates. I just want to do away with congressional district allocation of delegates. The popular vote as a metric separate from delegate count means absolutely nothing to me for this year (and apparently means nothing to the superdelegates either).
You actively decided to distort the scale on the thing, making the difference between obama and clinton like 50% of the total Y axis, or around 5,000 votes, when it is really ~10% of the Y axis, or 1,000 votes.
Are. You. Serious.
Also, is this going to be the next nonsense metric to show why HRC has this all locked up? Queue Alegre, TD, et al.
How about we look at voters per presumptive nomineehood circa 2007? Or how about Mark Penns per terrible campaigns for candidates prone to flameout?
Jerome,
When you finally do get aboard the Obama Bandwagon would you please cease and desist from using spin to talk to your fellow Obama supporters. We don't react to it well and IMO it hurts the campaign as a whole. Also, we have the truth on our side so we should be using the truth as much as possible.
Thank you, and I look forward to seeing you on the bandwagon.
Sorry, your heartless candidate assassinated her hopes of lying and cheating her way to the VP nomination a little over 48 hours ago. Bang.
Wow this is just divisive bullshit.
I can understand that Jerome wants to see this campaign through the lens of Hillary. That is his right. (dkos has a distinctly Obama skew for e.g)
But intentionally posting crap from an introductory course of how to lie with statistics ? I predict that we will see this referred to in multiple sites and postings now.
I can understand partisanship and strongly held opinions but using tricks to misrepresent data?
Like a NY Senator once said "You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts." Votes per delegate don't take into account that the rules of the DNC, a voluntary association not governed by the US Constitution but the RBC that you agree to when you join, say the measure is delegates. Delegates.
do you obama supporter understand that every time you insult hillary and her supporters, you harden attitudes against your guy? he has run a campaign against traditional democrats and the democratic party. now if you want to remake the party in the image of repulsive kos and his vicious minions and toxic media hand maidens, good luck with that. your guy might have won the battle, but he's going to lose the war because of his right wing framing, his jejeune foreign policy, his obsession with process and the nasty and brutish attitude of his supporters. I suggest you stop attacking Hillary and start making nice or you're in for a very sorry November and it will be of your own making.
And I am sick of your type of threatening tone of "be nice be Hill or we wont vote for your guy"!
Let McCain win but don't complain when he trashes all your liberal principles, if you really have any.
"I suggest you stop attacking Hillary and start making nice or you're in for a very sorry November and it will be of your own making."
Only cowards would listen to your blackmail.
If those Hillary supporters have to rely on deceitful graphs, then I think we'll be able to do fine without them and their obscene deceptions.
At some point we'll have to figure out whether we respect REALITY at all or not. And this graph does not. So I'd rather lose without them, than betray all my self-esteem and not call them on their bullshit.
Time to can the nuttiness of primaries/caucuses/nominees, and just have all candidates run in one general election, with set limits on campaign spending, and an instant runoff if necessary to determine the winner.
Political parties take too much power out of the hands of the people.
In all fairness, that graph came from Jay Cost at RealClearPolitics (the link is in the original post).
It's still a bad graph, but Jerome's just being a bit careless here, I think.
Just the latest example why Jerome is so lost on
Clinton that he can no longer see straight. I mean putting a deceptive graph like that, oh please. Did he even once criticize his beloved over the moronic RFK statement?
Don't worry Jerome, no matter how the Dems change their primary selection process, Hillary wouldn't have won because she has clearly shown that she really sucks when it comes to campaigning on a national level. Says a lot about her potential as the commander-in-chief, doesn't it?
Thank God, deceit still is not admired by the vast majority of Democrats. In fact, that's what we've been fighting about for the last eight years, ever since the 2000 election. Pls try to remember that.
Why don't you tell me what the one on the upper left hand corner of this site says?
And, as I pointed out before, you don't get bonus points for every electoral vote beyond 270. You just need to get to 270 first.
You may not get bonus points, but until the race is over, it's a lot better to be three laps ahead instead of half a lap. Because otherwise you may get overtaken by the finish line.
he will win in the general? Primary wins do not equate to general election wins. Every pundit and pollster is aware of that. That is why Clinton hasn't gotten the endorsements of superdelegates. They are all seasoned and aware ofher flawed argument.
This graph is just another way to say "I don't like caucuses."
The contest is for delegates. Each state chooses a delegate selection process that is different. This is why adding the popular votes is incoherent, it isn't what the contests were designed to add up.
Obviously if one candidate did a lot better in caucuses than the other candidate, that candidate will have relatively more delegates-per-vote. This statistic is totally meaningless. Why not put up a graph of delegates-per-caucus-victory to show how Hillary has more delegates than she should have.
The intellectual dishonesty of these arguments is really amazing.
"This graph is just another way to say "I don't like caucuses.""
Something like that, right. But it's also a good method for showing ignorants why using both primaries and caucusses randomly isn't a good idea.
"Each state chooses a delegate selection process that is different."
And it's not allwed to criticize this? You think that awful status quo is just fine? Putting so much emphasis on the states may e a good idea for the Republican Party, but the Democratic Party is supposed to care more about the individual, democratic vote.
Look how worked up the Obama supporters are getting over this. It touched a nerve.
because it's inentionally misleading. You would be saying the same thing if the names on this graph was reversed.
But, I guess that's hard for people to understand. Here's something easier.
"I lyke teh obamas. dis graph sux"
There you go. Have fun.
Yes, obvious lies tend to annoy honest people. They not only insult our truth-sense, they insult our intelligence.
That you approve of lies merely because of their effect on honest people, is also annoying btw.
slime ME, so I'll leave your obnoxious comment be.
I do find it amusing that you included yourself in the subgroup of people who have "truth-sense" (whatever that is) and intelligence.
Every single day I am more convinced that, with friends like y'all, Obama hardly needs Rethugs for enemies.
How did I slander and slime you? Because I called what you wrote annoying?
The difference isn't between the people who have truth-sense and intelligence and the people who don't -- the difference is between the people who value these qualities and the people who hate and scorn them.
You choose to be in the latter category by praising Jerome for producing such a stupid deceiving graph.
because it makes me so damn sad.
When I looked at the graph, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry, the same way I felt about Sen. Clinton's "assassination" nonsense on Friday.
I've been an admirer/defender of the Clintons since 1991, and her disastrous campaign seems to find new ways each week of sinking deeper into a seemingly never-ending ocean of humiliation.
The only thing Sen. Clinton is accomplishing by staying in this nonrace is giving false hope to her most ardent supporters.
It's as pathetic as Mr. Armstrong's Fox News-worthy chart.
Look at how HRC'ers still claim she's going to be the nominee.
Looks like primary voters and caucusers touched a nerve.
Nice graph. You really had me going for about four seconds--until I read the numbers.
This is propaganda, not advocacy. It reveals nothing to argue a point about an issue that deserves a serious look.
Is there any doubt that Jerome should respond to all of this criticism leveled at him?
Even when it would be better to have proper scaling, and an explanation about the math behind it, this graph clearly shows how idiotic the Dem primary process is right now. And superdelegates aren't even included! It's a shame for a party who calls itself Democratic that not every vote has the same impact on the outcome. That the Republicans with their winner-takes-all concept fare even worse is no excuse. This calls for urgent reforms!
Give or sell this site to Todd and Jonathan - please.
You are no longer able to provide rational discourse.
You are no longer able to know the difference between criticism and propaganda.
For the sake of this site, it's time for you to let go. If you don't, it's only a matter of time before you lose all credibility, and from there what remaining effective primary contributors you now have.
You are rapidly becoming the dBase IV of the left blogosphere.
So you heeded the Repub calls to get over '00, lest you be deemed nutty, huh?
Jerome, this is the Bush/Obama Era where only what each Dear Leader and their followers want to hear is what shall be put forth.
From my previous post...
You are no longer able to know the difference between criticism and propaganda.
The graph is tilted to show what Jerome wants it to show. Period.
When, let's say, OpenLeft, beat up on Obama (and they do), I don't always like what they have to say, but I read it through and try to ascertain if they have anything behind their comments, because they are providing criticism, which is a good thing, versus propaganda, which is exactly what Jerome presented in this article.
When Todd and Jonathan criticize Obama here (and they have), while I don't agree quite with their opinions on everything they say, most especially the need for Hillary to be our VP (which I honestly don't think she wants in either case), they usually do so within a realm of rational discourse.
Jerome no longer does.
Jerome needs to realize this, and for the sake of this blog, let go and move on.
So... the solution would be to i guess implement the maybe three-fifths-compromise? You know? So that the brown guys votes won't overturn the majority decision, only cause all the brown folk voted for him!
Pathetic, Jerome. You've hit a new low, if that's even possible. That graph isn't even worthy of Reagan Administration propaganda.
"Fortifying the Gates (with blatant lies)" should be your next book.
This is how Repubs spoke too after '00.
Never fails to amaze me how Obamans have taken up the Repub vernacular and attitudes.
What's next? unjustified war?
Nah, you support the one who was free to do so, wasn't subjected to the coercion, the popular opinion of the public at the time, the threats and intimidation.
Every single Democrats, except for Kucinich, who ran for president voted for that authorization. Why?
Because they knew they wanted to run for president, and the environment at the time was such that to vote against it was not only likely a career ender but surely a presidential aspiration killer.
Obama, had he been in the Senate, would have also voted to authorize.
Profiles in Courage, all of them.
And you haven't the slightest idea how Obama would have voted. The only evidence we have is that in 2003 he said he agreed with Dick Durbin and would have voted against it, and this was when the war was at its peak in popularity. So for you to say that he "would have voted to authorize" is smug bullshit.
An Obaman complaing about smug. That's rich.
No, I am sure he would have voted for it. He'd have had to if he had any presidential aspirations.
As soon as he got into the Senate, he started singing Bush's praises on Iraq, he voted to continue funding the war, etc.
In other words, he too capitulated to the political environment.
I'm not being smug, I'm being realistic, and I'd have understood why he had to vote for it too. I vehemently disagreed with her and Kerry, but I understood why they voted the way they did. I recall very well what it was like at that time, and i was horrified by the coercion, the American public's idiocy, etc. Congress is a representative body.
It's idealistic and unrealistic to say that Congresspeople will not or should not respond to political pressures. OF course they do.
Obama is no different.
Where people are dishonest is where they simply refuse to acknowledge that Clinton made clear her vote was a reluctant one and that she said war was a last resort. NOne of you Obamans will ever admit that. Just look at the video of her explaining her vote from back then. She is clearly disturbed and concerned.
But Obamans are not honest about this topic at all. Yet another irony.
Odd isn't it. We start with a chart that makes little sense and less difference and end up with a discussion about the war in Iraq.
If musing about the popular vote brings you pleasure, then by all means do it. We have a system by which popular vote means nothing and delegate count means everything. If popular votes made any difference, then Obama would have had a completely different strategy that focused on large urban areas.
But, we don't. We have a system in which popular vote is irrelevent. All that matters is the number of votes on the convention floor.
What your chart really shows is what a poor strategist Penn is and what a poor manager HRC is.
It's a preposterously disingenuous bar graph, Jerome! It uses the dual-tier, caucus/primary system to distort the data!
Yes - it's true that Hillary did better in states decided on popular vote primaries and Obama did better in states decided by caucuses, but you're distorting the proportions by not factoring in what the popular vote would have been in the caucus states. It's insulting to our intelligence. And because of this attempt to mislead us, I suspect you're also counting zero votes for Obama in MI. That's how far my trust in your integrity has fallen since your profoundly brilliant book brought me to this site.
You're also ignoring that fact that Obama allocated his massive funds and resources to win the battle the way it was set up. What your chart really shows is what a bad strategist Penn is and what a bad manager HRC is. They put their eggs in the wrong baskets ... over and over and over.
As reallynotatroll points out, you're also zooming in on the very top of the graph! C'mon man!! You should really update with an apology.
My comments above apply to reallynotatroll's fixed version. Even without the visual trickery, the whole argument is deeply flawed.
"you're distorting the proportions by not factoring in what the popular vote would have been in the caucus states."
What???? Check the other graphs at realclearpolitics, it's OBVIOUS that the caucus results don't represent the outcome of the real primaries. And now you not only say the caucusses were just fine, but you further call for artificially expanding this advantage by extrapolating the results into primary scale?
That's rich!
To make this more clearer: You can't simply use a caucus result to calculate what the popular vote would have been! The result of a real primary would have been DIFFERENT. Caucusses did result in disenfranchising many voters, especially the elderly and the working poor.
You can't simply use a caucus result to calculate what the popular vote would have been!
I'm not trying to! You're responding as if I'd extrapolated a popular vote total from the caucus results and made my own misleading bar graph!
Look at the chart and the diary. It's trying to say "Hillary got well over double the amount of votes but Obama is winning the nomination. The system is broken." The first part of the statement is flat out false - the graph cut off at the bottom to distort it and you can't properly measure the popular vote because of the caucuses, MI and FL. To show how ridiculous the chart is, compare it to the national Gallup poll.
Now ... the system may well need fixing, but the Clintons had ample experience with it going in and had every opportunity to change it in advance, and/or to adjust their campaign to deal with it before a single ad was run or vote was cast.
I have no problem with changing the system, but both campaigns would have been run very differently had it been changed in advance of this primary season.
A full discussion of how the primary system should be set up is clearly in order. This discussion should consider:
Each of these has intelligent arguments on both sides. It needs to be discussed and improved, but misleading mischaracterizations of cherrypicked data should not be used to further divide the democratic electorate at this late date.
Finally, I don't like the idea of superdelegates, but at least it provides for a way to override any failure of the rest of the system to fairly choose the best candidate. If the system has incorrectly chosen Obama, the superdelegates have the ability to reverse that choice. Currently Obama is leading among superdelegates and that lead is very likely to increase dramatically in the next week or two.
"You're responding as if I'd extrapolated a popular vote total from the caucus results and made my own misleading bar graph!"
Yup,that's how I understood your sentence. Sry for the misunderstanding.
"Now ... the system may well need fixing, but the Clintons had ample experience with it going in and had every opportunity to change it in advance"
Agreed, The rules shouldn't be changed in the middle of the race. However, contrary to popular misconception, seating the delegates is still an open question. There wasn't any final decision on it yet, according to the rules, the "Rules and Bylaws Committee" has to decide on this.
"but at least it provides for a way to override any failure of the rest of the system to fairly choose the best candidate."
For instance when the candiate leading the delegate isn't the winner of the popular vote?
Okay - so you're saying that:
If Hillary led convincingly in the popular vote with no caveats or extenuating circumstances, then you and the diarist would be able to make a case that the system is flawed and that the superdelegates should overturn the pledged delegate results.
However:
HENCE: For you to say that the super delegates must throw their weight to Hillary is unfair. The best you can hope for is that these professional politicians, after studying the various arguments and extenuating circumstances, choose HRC. Currently Obama is leading among superdelegates by a margin of 312.5 to 279.5 with 204 remaining.
Clearly the superdelegates do not agree with your (and Jerome's) methods of calculating and weighting the popular vote.
All of that said, I hope that after the nominee is decided, and cooler heads prevail, that we all engage in a long and thorough discussion of the way that democrats select their nominee. Looking forward to 2012, we'll no longer be debating HRC vs BHO, but debating the merits of the system.
For example, I would argue that winner-take-all is not necessarily a good idea for the simple reason that primaries have more than two candidates.
Let's say you have Joe Lieberman running against Obama, Edwards, Clinton, Dodd and Kucinich in CA and the results are:
Lieberman 21%
Obama 20%
Edwards 20%
Hillary 20%
Dodd 10%
Kucinich 9%
Do you give Joe all of California's delegates when 79% of the voters are clearly opposed to nuking Iran and staying in Iraq?
With multiple candidates, the candidate who can split his or her opponents will prevail as the worm-tongued warmonger from Connecticut demonstrated in 2006. Proportional allocation removes this problem.
A proposal that I like would call for each voter to rank the candidates. Let's say my first choice is Kucinich. You do an instant runoff of first choices. Hillary wins by a nose. Kucinich comes in last. Kucinich gets thrown out and now the 2nd choice of everyone who put Kucinich first gets added to the totals of the remaining contenders. Now Dodd comes in last and gets thrown out and so on. All of this is of course done instantly with a very simple spreadsheet or computer program.
I only now saw the reply, sry for answering so late!
"# 4 caucus states don't figure at all in the popular vote
# The calculations that result in a popular vote lead for Hillary involve giving ZERO votes to Obama for MI"
I'm very much for using estimated voter numbers for those 4 caucusses, plus giving the "uncommitted" votes of MI to Obama (np since Edwards joined that camp). That's why I call the "all inclusive count". You'll find this count at sites that go to the length to post the popular count in all six different varieties.
"Looking forward to 2012, we'll no longer be debating HRC vs BHO, but debating the merits of the system."
I fear we will be discussing the shortcomings of Obama's presidency...
"For example, I would argue that winner-take-all is not necessarily a good idea"
I never said anywhere it's a good idea. It's a distortion of democracy.
I think what this campaign has shown is that Clinton, who we know is very good at policy, is not good at politics, which I think is an asset.
Bush and Rove are great at politics, not so great at policy and governing.
Obama so far has shown he is very adept at politics. He's also shown he's got very good political instincts but doesn't have much backbone when it comes to leading and is easily shaken up.
I prefer the person who stinks at politics. It usually means their the more authentic person.
Is most of the difference accounted for by the HRC campaign not contesting smaller states?
Edward Tufte's book The Visual Display of Quantitative Information is widely considered the best book ever published on the subject. He introduced the "Lie Factor" of graphs as follows:
Lie factor =size of effect shown in graphic
-------------------------------
size of effect in data
What is the lie factor in this graph?
In the graph, the difference = about 40 millimeters.
In the "integrity version," the difference = about 5 millimeters.
(Note: these are rough estimates: I copied each graph onto OpenOffice.org's Draw program, zoomed to 100 percent, and measured manually. The graphs are about the same size but not exactly.)
So
The "Lie Factor" = 8
To quote Tufte, "Lie Factors greater than 1.05 or less than .95 indicate substantial distortion, far beyond minor inaccuracies in plotting."
Note: I'm not accusing Jerome of lying. Rather, I'm accusing Jay Cost of lying, based on a sound and established method of demonstrating lies in graphic representations of data.
There's no doubt that bullshit graphs like this should have no effect in whatever "overhaul" the nomination process undergoes.
Lies, damn lies, and statistics, as they say
If this is so, how come Obama leads Clinton handily in national polls?
And this sure smells like yet another new "metric" to offset the "math"
Sure, I'm all for reforming the primary process; all states should hold open primaries
But "voters per pledged delegate?" Are you kidding me?
"If this is so, how come Obama leads Clinton handily in national polls?"
If Obama leads in national polls, why isn't he much more ahead in the popular vote? Instead, there's a high chance he will lose the all-inclusive count after Puerto Rico. Not very impressive for the newly "inevitable" nominee.
This is so Republican of you. Stop with the deceptive graphs. Please show a true scale graphs.
Realclearpolitics is a right-wing site????
Since when?
Oh right, they sometimes post articles critical of Obama. Yikes.
RCP is the most balanced site, offering all perspectives, I've come across. We're lucky to have it.
that doesn't make it a right-wing site.
The two founders have an admittedly conservative leaning personally, but the fact remains that that site is independent and does a good job of publishing all points of views, publishes numerous polls, etc.
To say that it is a right-wing site is no different than conservatives shrieking about a "liberal media". (It is true that most journalists are Democrats. Does that mean to you then that they have a left-wing bias in their reporting? If so, you therefore agree with conservatives and Republicans on this point).
Fact is, I've been reading RCP for a while now and had no sense of any leaning one way or the other, and THAT is a good, balanced site.
There are balanced people on both sides of the political spectrum and there are irrationally biased people on both sides.
RCP is a very good site.
"The two founders have an admittedly conservative leaning personally, but the fact remains that that site is independent and does a good job of publishing all points of views, publishes numerous polls, etc."
That's a statement we both can agree on. Except that this time they screwed the graph up,of course.
"To say that it is a right-wing site is no different than conservatives shrieking about a "liberal media"."
Sry,but for me, "right wing"is synonymous for "conservative". And I guess many here will agree. But, ok, your mileage may differ. Let's not fight over semantics.
"It is true that most journalists are Democrats. Does that mean to you then that they have a left-wing bias in their reporting?"
That's a completely different question, but, no, I don't believe that this is necessarily so. And let's not forget it's often, uh, conservative editors who have much more of an impact on the published content.
Jerome, Please please please stop ruining your crediblity! Even some of us that long ago bet on Obama held you in high regard for your dedication, your hard work, and your passion. But really... constant cherry picked spin and parsing does nothing for the democratic "brand". It is time to just stop before real damage is done.
It seems to be much like HRC's actions. The thought is that you hang in by your fingernails because you just never know what might happen and you do not want to be seen as a quitter. But what just might happen is that she will go too far (i.e. RFK) and that she will do herself and others real damage. For those of us watching that admire the drive to fight, it is becoming unconfortable to watch. The bloodied fighter is admired for heart and determination, but eventually it turns sad and painful to watch.
Oh cripes, here we have another Obaman acting like Republicans.
There is not going to be any damage. That is emotional blackmail and nothing more. Also known at guilt tripping.
Hillary Clinton was simply pointing out that other primaries have gone on into June. Just because Obamans WANT it to have meant she was hoping for some tragedy to befall Obama (aka Republicans imposing their own vile interpretations on what other people say) doesn't make it so.
Besides, considering the viciousness with which the Inspired Ones who want change and are sick of negative politics attack Hillary Clinton, I'd say the worries about damage and dividing the party are a tad disingenuous.
The RFK comment was not meant as it was taken by some. Such is Obama's conclusion as well. "The Inspired One" and the rest of the "Obamans" are not so easily offended as you might simplistically assume. The point was that if she is waiting for an Obama gaffe to make a difference, she is just as likely to encounter a gaffe of her own. The RFK comment was quite minor in the scope of things. Waiting another 10 days will not harm anyone. I will still buy a lottery ticket despite the ridiculous odds, but I will not be telling people to treat me as a soon to be millionaire and complaining when the do not.
Jerome,
Contrary to others, I actually think this post is progress for you.
A couple of weeks you would have posted this graph and said this is a case for Clinton to be the nominee. However, in this case, you're only saying this it's evidence that we need to change the rules for 2012. This is progress.
The next step is getting behind our nominee.
Baby steps.
Obama's supporters make doing so very hard, which is so ironic since he's supposedly the big unifier.
Jerome is doing nothing different than Democrats did after Gore's loss in pointing out that the way the system is isn't working any longer and is not reflecting the will of voters and is putting the wrong people in office.
'tis true.
You couldn't be more wrong.
The reason smart Americans were so upset about the 2000 election had nothing to do with the fact that Vice President Gore won the popular vote and had everything to do with the fact that he won the state of Florida, thereby winning what really matters -- the Electoral College vote.
Sen. Obama has clinched a majority of the pledged delegates and by June 4 will have attained the magical number to be his party's nominee.
Also, Sen. Obama has won two-thirds of the primaries and caucuses. Even the most mathematically challenged Clinton supporters I hope realize this. I think the sysem is reflecting the "will of the voters" quite well.
Sorry, but I'm just pointing out that Republicans also insisted that Bush won by playing by the rules, that the Supreme Court agreed, etc.
And to say that Democrats didn't argue that Gore won the popular vote which gives pause about the Electoral College system is bunk.
They most certainly did.
And they too were called sore losers, told to get over it and move on, yadda, yadda, yadda.
This isn't about losing or winning. Neither was '00. It's about a system that is such that in a close race, where one candidate wins one factor and another wins another, each can argue they won by the rules, and it's about the genuine concern that the wrong person my get in, as was the case in '00.
I could care less if it's Obama or Clinton, per se. What I care about is winning in November, and I don't think Obama can,and that scares the bejeezus out of me.
What I said is that "smart" Americans disregarded the popular-vote debate concerning the 2000 election. You're certainly right that uninformed Americans battled on this topic.
You wrote: This isn't about losing or winning. Neither was '00. It's about a system that is such that in a close race, where one candidate wins one factor and another wins another, each can argue they won by the rules, and it's about the genuine concern that the wrong person my get in, as was the case in '00.
I don't even know where to begin with that, but I'll take a shot:
1. No, it's all about winning. That's all that matters.
2. The only "factor" that matters in the primaries is delegates. In November, 270 is all that matters. If you want to watch an event involving numerous competitions, each equally important, I suggest you follow the decathlon in Beinjing this summer.
3. The wrong person did get in in 2000, but because his minions stole Florida. Al Gore won Florida, as anyone with a functioning brain knows. With Florida, he has 303 electoral votes, and there is no argument.
4. Sen. Obama has won two-thirds of the primaries/caucuses. I am baffled as to why anybody surmises from this that Sen. Clinton is somehow the stronger candidate.
Had Sen. Clinton been our nominee, she would have run her general-election campaign using the John Kerry playbook, meaning a 20-state, no-margin-for-error campaign.
Sen. Obama will win the Kerry states and has a good chance of gaining back states like Iowa and New Mexico and turning blue Colorado, Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana, Nevada, and others.
Don't be scared, friend. This is a change election. Do you really think people want four years of John McCain?
Rewriting history; (Democrats to this day remind people Gore won the popular vote, but face it, in the end he had fewer delegates so I guess the "smart" Obamans therfore think Bush did in fact win! Interesting);
Speaking to me condescendingly like McCain with that 'friend' thing;
You didn't get my point about winning and losing;
AS I see the electorate, Obama can't win in November BUT for Republican malaise, so let's hope there is plenty of it;
Obamans need to learn to win more graciously. You all sound as angry and nasty as Republicans did when they won in '00.
It's his supporters, btw, who have made me not want to vote for Obama. So how is tht change and inspiration and unity?
I'm going to say this for the third time. Perhaps you'll finally get it: Smart Americans understood that Al Gore won Florida, therefore winning the state's electoral votes, which put him well over 270. Uninformed Americans prattle on to this day about Gore winning the meaningless popular vote.
You're leaning against voting for Sen. Obama because some of his supporters have upset you? That makes no sense to me.
Let's be fair: Some of Obama's supporters are obnoxious and graceless. So are some of Sen. Clinton's. It's human nature.
Let me give you an example. I'm a Pittsburgher, okay? When you see a Steelers' game on tv, assuming you're a football fan, and you the camera focuses on the drunken fat guy without a shirt on on a 19-degree December day, whose head is painted black and gold, he's not representative of the typical Steeler fan. Honest!
And you'll have to take my word on this, but I meant "friend" in the honest sense, as in we're both Democrats and neither of us want to see the, ahem, "maverick" in office. I didn't mean it in the phony, winking McCain sense.
Well, your implying that not only am I too stupid to understand your point but that only smart Americans understood '00 doesn't help your cause and claim of being a "friend" and some notion of Democratic unity.
At any rate, if it's only dumb Americans who paraded out the popular vote thing, then there are a lot of dumb Americans because it's by far still the most used point about '00 and the basis for Democratic calls for overhauling the system.
When Obama seemed to have a lock on the popular vote, his supporters were also using the 'will of the people" argument. That has since stopped since it is possible that Clinton could end up with the popular vote. So we're back to only smart people understanding the delegates thing. That was the Repub argument too.
I've been on enough left-wing sites to know that the nasty Obama supporter is not the exception. Obama supporting sites like Kos and HuffPo have driven the few Clinton supporters left there off, and when questioned about it, the principles of those sites laugh about it and express total disdain for those people, express a total lack of concern for how they were treated, call them paranoid or thin-skinned, etc. These are principles of the biggest left-wing sites, not a random individual here and there. They set the tone.
And since Obama is running on ending division and all that BS, there is no excuse for the way his supporters are treating Clinton and her supporters, andin fact, as I said, it totally negates his very candidacy.
But like Republicans, you all have your excuses and rationalizations and dismissals rather than taking responsibility and actually making those changes of which Obama speaks.
Let's agree to disagree then. I hate these back-and-forth arguments, and what's really sad is that we probably agree on 99% of the issues facing our country.
Overzealous supporters of anything -- be it a political candidate, religion, or brand of toothpaste -- are usually annoying pains in the ass, myself included.
Good day and God bless, but please, when in you're in that voting booth in November, consider what a McCain presidency would do to our country.
Btw, I never said I was considering voting for McCain or not voting for Obama. What I said is that Obama's supporters make me not want to vote for him.
I want to want to vote for the person I pull that lever for. I've never bought Obama's hope/change/unity stuff, and I think he's not ready for this job and is a bit of a fraud, but I think he has good philosophies and I wanted to come around to actively supporting him. His supporters have made that impossible now.
The point being, he cannot inspire people who agree with him to change and behave more decently. Indeed, they've gotten meaner. That, to me, negates his message.
I hear all the time that we can't debate or listen to conservatives. Realclearpolitics, which is a really good site, was dismissed by an Obaman simply because its founders are conservatives. Talkleft knocked a post of mine off that was critical of Obama, and when I asked why, I was told they do not publish information gotten from right-wing sources. I pointed out that my source was an Obama aide,hardly right wing. So they just assumed that anything critical must have come from a right winger so should not be heard, should be buried, etc.
But then we listen to how brilliant and great Obama is because he will talk to our adversaries (and he's right about that). Yet his supporters and too many left wingers practice censorship on their own blogs and dismiss anything coming from any source that is deemed right wing!
Dems are as hypocritical and irrational and unreasonable as Republicans, just not as insane.
Tominsti leave Jerome out of it. The facts are clear, and if you can't seem to realize it, then your drinking that Kool Aid.
Pardon my actual concern over Jerome's prestige. Perhaps I should consider your Bush-like "you are with us or against us" philosphy. But of one thing we already agree, the facts are indeed clear. As history shall prove one of us right and one of us wrong, I ask that you pledge as I do to concede error if in one months time I am proven to be the Kool-aid drinker.
In Jerome's defense, I see a whole lot of graphs used that don't go to zero and I think it is unfortunate that such imagery often is effective for deceiving many graph-illiterate viewers in the populace. It is deceptive here as it always is--but the practice has become exceedingly common.
In the Obama campaign's defense, he is simply beating Clinton by the rules the game is played by fair and square and he still has more total votes in the popular vote and more support among Democrats in national polls, albeit by a slimm margin.
To say that Clinton has more total yards or a does not mean the refs should take away Obama's 30-27 lead and hand the game to Hillary Clinton, just because she fumbled on 11 consecutive plays in mid-February, but otherwise gained more total yardage.
Yes, the process needs to be reformed, but the bottom line is Obama ran a superior campaign and was ready from day one to run a campaign.
Quite frankly, during the campaign, Obama has shown that he is better equipped to lead the nation, and Hillary has shown that she would be the better candidate for calling in and engaging in incessant whining on talk radio.
I'll take Obama for $200 Alex. The question is who would be the better president?
Obama has more Democratic support but the latest Newsweek poll has Clinton ahead of McCain and Obama behind him in the General.
Kerry also had more Democratic support. Bush "won by the rules" too.
I'm convinced Dean would have beat Bush, though, had Democrats been smarter.
Dems are making the same mistakes, and I suspect it's going to cost them the election.
I agree that Dean would have potentially been a stronger candidate against Bush, although I must point out the irony that in most early 2004 polls Kerry was performing better head to head against Bush than Dean. Also it isn't clear to me based on the volume of polls out there that Hillary is a stronger candidate. Nationally Obama and Hilalry run about the same and the RCP average actually gives the edge to Obama....
Perhaps more importantly, Obama's favorability rating even after the Reverend Wright flap is much better than Hillary's.....
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/us/obama_favorableunfavor able-643.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/us/clinton_favorableunfav orable-644.html
I think both Clinton and Obama could beat McCain, but in different ways. Clinton does it by carrying most of the Kerry 2004 states plus Florida, Arkansas, Ohio and West Virginia (she perhaps loses Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Oregon and Michigan but still wins overall).
Obama wins by carrying most of the Kerry states plus Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada, Virginia, Ohio.
One wins by bringing back in white blue collar Rust Belt Appalachian and Ozark voters, the other wins by pulling in Independent professionals out West and in Virginia and by large turnouts of young (under 50 not just college kids) and African-American voters.
Two different paths...same result...a Democratic victory.
Is there any doubt that the nominating process needs a serious overhaul for 2012?
As far as the post goes, I agree we need to overhaul the process. On the other hand, the graph is... well, sad.
None of this was an issue until HRC supporters realized the RULES Bill was nominated under twice are not working for Hillary this time around.
When this is all over and the elections are over, I hope we can come together as a victorious and Unified Democratic Party to change the rules of the primary process.
On another note, can the next front page post explain why so many of us have lost our ability to rate and rec please?
Leaving aside the obvious problems with the way this data is presented I have this question:
Would Clinton supporters, or specifically Jerome, be clamoring for a change in the system if she had won?
"Lost in the excitement of Barack Obama's coronation this week was an inconvenient fact of Tuesday's results: Hillary Clinton netted approximately 150,000 votes and is now poised to finish the primary season as the popular-vote leader. In some quaint circles, presumably, these things still matter. But, alas, her fate may be the same as Al Gore's in 2000."
Yes, this process is a joke but after the overreaction of the Obama pundits on the Kennedy comment, I think there is an opening to bring the fight to the convention.
aren't more important than small states. Though he'd probably win CA if held today but that's another matter.
If you don't like the outcome, then change the rule.
First and Foremost, if you want to rule change, lets worry LESS about caucuses and get rid of the SDs... Those SDs that gave Hillary a HUGE lead in 2007. She benefitted from the current system just as much.
I think we should be praising the Obama staff that they played by the rules in all states, in primaries and in caucuses and took on a candidate that was virtually known by everyone in the country and was the presumed winner by most and turned it into a significant victory. With those kinds of brains and expertise surrounding him, President Obama should be able to bring about many of the changes has talked about during the campaign. No whining, no changing of rules, no moving the goal posts....just play by the rules and win.
Rules seemed to work fine in 1992 and 1996 ---
The real problem, I think, is when you have the most money, have 100% name recognition, lead in every poll for more than a year, have an enormously talented campaign staff, hire top notch political strategists and media consultants, start the campaign with 100 plus Superdelegates in your pocket --- Its hard to accept the fact that given every advantage, you have lost.
Given who she is and the backing she had, I am surprised that she didn't get someone to learn the rules for every state, develop strategies for the caucuses, plan for open primaries (She lost virtually every one of these), etc
OH WAIT - HIS NAME WAS MARK PENN AND HE THOUGHT HILLARY WOULD WIN ALL 370 OF CALIFORNIA'S DELEGATES AND WAS TOLD ON NATIONAL TELEVISION THAT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY RULES PROPORTIONALLY ALLOT DELEGATES SO TAHT WAS IMPOSSIBLE.
FACE IT, HILLARY, YOU HIRED AN IDIOT
You Obamans really need to work on that change/unity, ending divisiveness and changing the tone thing.
Dear Juno
I worked in DC for 5 years and then was a political consulatnt for 3 more. Before my professional career, I worked for dozens of campaigns as a college student.
From a purely objective point of view (which this website used to be about); Hillary Clinton's campaign has been fraught with poor planning, shortsighted strategy and and inept fundraising.
Hillary Clinton is a gifted politician, an excellent campaigner, a skilled debater, and brilliant policy analyst. I don't like seeing people like Hillary flail and twist in the wind due in large part to a a campaign structure that appears top heavy with executives and terribly short in managers.
I take no joy in any of this ---- the only good taht can ccome of this is for Mark Penn to be permanently unemployable
Dear Juno
I worked in DC for 5 years and then was a political consulatnt for 3 more. Before my professional career, I worked for dozens of campaigns as a college student.
From a purely objective point of view (which this website used to be about); Hillary Clinton's campaign has been fraught with poor planning, shortsighted strategy and and inept fundraising.
Hillary Clinton is a gifted politician, an excellent campaigner, a skilled debater, and brilliant policy analyst. I don't like seeing people like Hillary flail and twist in the wind due in large part to a a campaign structure that appears top heavy with executives and terribly short in managers.
I take no joy in any of this ---- the only good that can ccome of this is for Mark Penn to be permanently unemployable
The intellectual dishonesty around here is unbelievable. Nice scale on the graph.
She's needed 9% more per delegate. The dishonest scale of the graph makes it seem like she needed 200% more.
That aside, the merits of calls for changing the rules are valid. We should keep Iowa as a caucus, for the sake of tradition, but other caucuses should be moved to a single-transferable vote system. Delegate distribution should remain as proportional representation, but it should be PR by state, thus making the popular vote in a state and the delegate distribution a closer match.
Also, no more superdelegates. PDs can switch, though shouldn't do so barring extraordinary circumstances, so the SDs really aren't needed.
Is there any doubt that the nominating process needs a serious overhaul for 2012?
It depends on what is meant by "overhaul."
If it means replacing the current complicated, corrupt, and incoherant system with a different one that is equally so -- just because some people don't like the way this year turned out for Hillary -- the answer is no.
If it means making every vote of equal weight and import by instituting a national primary with IRV which chooses the nominee based on popular vote (i.e. democracy) then the answer is yes (regardless of whom some will guess it serves best).
So which is it? The diary calls for change, but doesn't say how. And without that it's really just another sour gripe about how this primary campaign turned out.
Complete bullshit. Here's some questions / observations:
1. Are you counting the beauty contest in Washington as opposed to the caucus?
2. Are you counting caucuses and, if so, prorating caucus delegate votes for population?
3. A candidate could win his/her home state and California and "win" using your chart.
Look, you're just supporting a meme that, somehow, Obama's victory is illegitimate. He won. She lost. Get over it.
Lastly, I'm ecstatic she lost. To hear her constant barrage of delusional bullshit makes it apparent to all that she is absolutely not ready to lead.
Look, I've had my hand in a group of Obamans who have been trying to promote unity for months. Written a bunch and debated a lot of issues trying to keep in mind that soon enough all combatants will join the same team. Even making an effort at it, I have not managed to restrain myself from at least the odd sharp statement.
It's the nature of the competitive engagement.
In the corporate world I've built teams that are very competitive. It's a fine line to create the awareness that the competition is so evil that they want to take food out of your childrens' mouths, and simultaneously that they are not evil people (you may work for them eventually...). Fiercly competitive mutual respect is a touchy game, and no-one in the corporate world uses the kind of emotional personality weapons that are inevitable (and necessary) in the political world.
So while the camps are still competing - the whistle hasn't blown regardless what the scoreboard says, and players are still taking injuries - it's just going to be a funny mix of comraderie and hockey-fights...
-chris
Sorry, but Obama's supporters alone have proven his message moot, null and void and a failure.
Because you aren't willing to listen to more reasonable Obama supporters and actually seek out those that prove your beliefs.
There are those of us out there, who were Hillary people first... And switched to Obama along the way. She would've been an acceptable choice to many of us HAD SHE WON. But she didn't.
And along the way, she lost her soul. Which hurts a lot of us, myself included, who've defended the Clintons for what seems like a hundred years. I'm disappointed she helped proved the "vast right wing conspiracy" may have been at least partially correct.
Right, like I said, all I've seen Obama able to unite is his supporters with the GOP hatred of all things Clinton.
Talk about losing your soul! You're willing to get in bed with Republicans over your hatred of the Clintons (irrational) in support of Barack Obama!
Obama is just as tough at dirty politics as Clinton. The only difference is, she does it herself, while he has surrogates do it while he plays Mr. Magnanimous. That was Bush's playbook as well.
Democrats whined and whined about how Kerry and Gore didn't fight against the GOP hard enough, were "too nice", how Gore was stupid to distance himself from Bill Clinton.
They get a candidate who has the backbone and gall to fight to win, and you all complain again, as well as bashing the hell out of her and her husband.
When Obama loses, we'll hear the same damn complaints, because remember, Obama can't "throw the kitchen sink at McCain" because he's all about NOT divisive politics!
I guess you don't even bother to read the posts to you. You make these claims, over and over again, I can almost here you screaming the words as you type. That's sad. It's a beautiful day here in Chicago, I'm going to head out and enjoy myself. I hope you do the same wherever you are.
And I hope one day, you reach back and read some of the blind hatred you've posted here, toward people you don't even know, people who believe in 99% of the same things you do politically, and you're ashamed. Because I'm a good person and my belief that the right candidate won doesn't change that.
The candidate who read and understood the rules and built a campaign for longer than 1 month of primaries shouldn't be penalized by having the rules changed now. That's what I believe in, fairness. My support for the candidate who stood up against this war before it was popular to do so has nothing to do with Hillary. It took GUTS for him to do that. Hillary joined the crowd and has been closer to Holy Joe than the progressive wing of the party I identify with. But in your world, that makes me evil.
In my world, that makes you a sad, small person deserving of my pity.
It took no guts for Obama to oppose the war. That is one of the bigger myths and more dishonest points thrown out by the Obama campaign.
It's profoundly dishonest.
I love how, on the one hand, his supporters love to use this bogus point to portray Obama as so courageous. He wasn't subjected to the threats and coercion and intimidation and actually have to make the vote, but he's somehow so courageous. Yet Clinton and others WERE subject to them, but when the argument is made about their actually being subjected to those threats, suddenly those things have no meaning and are irrelevant.
It's a specious argument, always has been.
Again, I have no doubt that Obama would have voted to authorize had he been in the Senate at the time. What was his garbage about being on the same page as Bush about Iraq coincidentally AFTER HE GOT INTO THE SENATE??
Yes, I read the posts.
It is you trying to smear me with an ad hominem here, something about being sad in my pathetic screaming through my keyboard. IT's different and noble when you are on a blog making posts, but it's pathetic and screaming when I do, and I should be outside like you're doing.
Good grief. REmember, IOKIYAR? It's now IOKIYAO.
It's called hubris, and hubris blinds people.
There's no doubt that more people need to read Edward Tufte's excellent book, The Visual Display of Quantitative Information.
And she paid Penn another $2.8M in April, the largest single expenditure of her campaign that month.
Not bad for someone who was "fired."
A bunch of random charts with no explanations, I am convinced. What a joke.
Wow, this is a new low, even for this website, even for this front-pager. That graph is as misleading as statistics can get.
I urge everyone to read a little old book called "How To Lie With Statistics." It's required reading in all the high school science classes I teach. What we have above is a textbook example for the next edition.
Do you really think Obama supporters are so stupid that we can't read the axis on that graph? Talk about insults.
This has nothing to do with reforming the process. It's all about delegitimizing the Democratic nominee for President -- the 2012 strategy in action.
There are fair moderators here on MyDD. Jerome, you aren't one of them. That graph is the most intellectually dishonest thing I've seen in a long time. It makes it look like Clinton got double the votes per delegate. Looking closely one can see otherwise. Further, I'll bet the raw data includes a bunch of crap like Michigan, Florida and excludes votes we can't tally from the Caucus states. In short, it's your typical inflammatory BS we need to move away from, here and elsewhere, in this campaign.
This blog would be a better place if you say on your hands for about a month.
Still no response by the diarist/admin to the takedown of this graph by the readers.
Well, it's been a very weak take-down, and unlike the rest of us, Jerome probably has an actual life.
Using a widely accepted methodology, I calculated above a Lie Factor of roughly 8 in this graph (a good graph should have a Lie Factor close to 1). Others have taken it on from other directions. Nobody with the slightest knowledge of how data graphs are constructed has posted a worthwhile defense.
MyDD has been overrun by your ilk, so any defense is useless and no one is going to bother. Like I told someone else above, with friends like these, Obama may not even need Rethugs for enemies. You'll turn off so many Democrats with your pother that there could even be a landslide for McCain.
Another graph that would be interesting would show how much Obama paid per delegate vs. how much Clinton paid per delegate. The graph would be going the other way, methinks.
My prediction: the rec/rate privileges of many of those who made critical comments.
Just a guess. If you want, I can gin up a graph to support my prediction, but I can't promise that it will have any basis in reality or fair representation of data.
We don't even have an actual popular vote count... this is just mental masturbation
This is another kinda fake argument, because who doubts the following: 1) this disparity comes from the fact that Obama won more caucus states, where voter turnout (as we're always reminded) is lower what would find in a primary; 2) it's probably true that if these caucus states had held primaries instead Clinton would have done better in the pledged delegate count in these states (we've had that argument);
3) it's also true, though, that Obama would have won most or all of these states, and even if his margin of victory would have gone down the raw total of voters who cast ballots for him would have gone up. Eg., suppose 1,000 people vote in the Iowa caucus, Obama gets 66% of those ballots, his PV margin is 333. But if 10,000 people had voted, and Obama had won by 55%, his PV margin would have been 1,000.
And this, I'm pretty certain, accounts for the difference in the bar graph. It's not a general phenomenon. We're back to the argument about caucuses vs. primaries.
What the above also suggests, though, is that if the PV became the metric by which this race were decided, Obama would get screwed by the fact that he won more caucus states (this sword cuts both ways--if every state had the same rules his PV totals in these caucus states almost certainly would have been larger).
One more comment. Puerto Rico isn't a state, it doesn't have Democratic and Republican parties, its politics are distinct from those of the US, and it plays no role in the general. If 2+ million voters turn out in that primary, this number will exceed what turnout has been in 49 out of 50 states (CA would be the exception). And yet the race will still be about who gets what share of Puerto Rico's 55 delegates.
Is this unfair? Should Puerto Rico really have more influence on this race than states like New York and Illinois? Because that's the case the backers of the PV vote argument are getting ready to make if this election goes Clinton's way. It's a similar issue.
Except for the rule breakers, Michigan and Florida (which in the end did not effect the outcome), the system did work because the better candidate with the better campaign strategy and execution won. It was long, messy and not perfect (if there could even be such a thing), but it worked in a close contest.
that's actually quite hilarious. You have to be joking. The graph is meaningless and completely deceptive.
If you started the graph off at 10800, it looks like Obama doesnt have anyone voting for him. magic!
Posting this is just sad and desperate.
Unbelievable!
If this isn't a wake up call - especially to the super delegates - I don't know what is!!
"Is there any doubt that the nominating process needs a serious overhaul for 2012?"
Are you kidding me? First off, that graph is totally deceptive.
Secondly, Obama's team put forward a strategy to win. If the rules would have been different, they would have put together a different strategy to win.
I can't believe this is actually a front page diary.
What is wrong with this site?
I hope the Democrats do take a close look at the way they select candidates. Those who suggest that the system is deeply broken, though, are cherry picking. Let's not forget something: Clinton has said from the beginning of the race that if she arrived at the convention with a deficit of pledged delegates of any size, but was able to win enough superdelegates to make up the difference, that would be a victory as legitimate as any other. There is no way to reconcile that argument with a belief that the nominee should be decided by a democratic process. Clinton's supporters aren't bound to the same opinion, but c'mon, most endorsed this idea quite some ago.
Also, the Democratic rules for choosing a pledged delegates are far more grounded in basic concepts of democracy than those on the Republican side. The GOP has this mishmash of rules which are no less confusing than those on our side (the belief that the GOP has some simple "winner take all" rule for all states, for instance, is incorrect, some states have this, others don't, and if the GOP rules were applied to this contest, I've read, Obama and Clinton would be neck and neck, but Clinton would have taken a slight lead after West Virginia). I'm of the impression, btw, that some in the Clinton camp think that the GOP does have this general winner-take-all rule.
Would it be right to argue, though, that the GOP rules are undemocratic in some fundamental sense? Can no sound argument be made for the winner-take-all rule? Or the principle that states should be able to make different decisions about these sorts of things? The GOP candidates gamed these rules before the start of the contest (eg. NY was turned into a winner-take-all state by backers of Giuliani, CA was turned into a proportional state by supporters of the others, etc.). McCain essentially got the GOP nomination off of the votes of 1/3rd of their electorate.
But are these rules anti-democratic? Who would go that far?
My proposed rule changes for the process to select our nominee: 1) states should only have primaries; 2) toss the superdelegates; 3) delegates should be bound to vote for their candidates on the first ballot. The only way superdelegates should be kept, imo, is if the Dems are willing to adopt another rule: have a vote at the start of the convention, if 2/3rds of supers vote to release all delegates from their pledges so be it, otherwise the supers have to vote for the winner of the pledged-delegate contest.
Nothing unreasonable about that. But I wouldn't argue that if these rules weren't adopted the contest would be anti-democratic. There are reasonable arguments for doing this different ways.
The question answers itself.
GOBAMA!
And the incumbent President, Barack HUSSEIN Obama will understand the rules in 2012 (as he did for 2008), and he will be kicking ass once again in 2012.
First, use some depiction of the numberics you are talking about that isn't so blindingly skewed. Like this one, created with an appropriate grade-level tool to respond to that fluff above:
Second, given the actual numbers, you are arguing the picky-eater's fancy math that excentuates the arguable gap.
Thirdly, you post a single chart and a reference to another site and pawn that off as commentary.
I'm sorry, Jerome, but it's my humble opinion you need to snap out of it and think about your long-term plan . C'mon, I've wikied the history of MyDD and DKOS, you two go way back and you both have the same opportunity to own major chunks of this emerging media. Get on the stick and start being honest with youself before it slips away from you.
-chris
Since so many states have caucuses it is not possible to impute a "popular vote" or "voters per pledged delegates." I am disappointed in you Jerome. I don't expect such wicked deception and cherry picking such as this and I have supported Mrs. Clinton. She didn't win. By any "real" and "actual" scientific metric- she just didn't win. I have accepted it. That's life- you win some and you lose some. Get over it and move on.
Statistics...Mark Twain. No matter how you slice and dice the pie Clinton loses.
Jerome, this is sad. Honestly, really sad. You're smarter than this, you've made a decent career being smarter than this. Why are you trying to pull a fast one? Isn't that what the other party is supposed to do?
Hilariously distorted graph.
Start at zero for each one, and the difference is not quite so mighty.
Also, I do not think you can use this graph to contend that, but for caucus states, HRC would have won the nomination. Both sides (with the notable exception of HRC's Mark Penn) knew the rules, knew that the candidate with the most delegates would win, and strategized accordingly, aiming for the most delegates rather than the most popular votes.
No one can say definitively how the selection process would have played out if the process had been different. It is entirely possible that Obama would have been the nominee.
I feel embarrassed for those who take the time to write thoughtful diaries, to have to share space with this crappy one.
Stay classy, Jerome!
I just wish those superdelegates would make their moves. Wherever!!!
They need to be gone before 2012, this is a crazy system, agreed. However, this is the system we have this year.
After the election chaos in which Gore lost the elec vote and won the popular vote-I remember Hillary saying she was going to sponsor legislation to get rid of the electoral system? Did she ever initiate the process or was it only words. When I hear her blurring the lines between the Florida primary votes and the Gore lost votes election because of not counting all the votes I want to scream. She is not being honest. I remember and many others do also.
She still can salvage a diminishing support, if she does so with honor. It soon will be too late.
This talk about ending the use of caucuses is problematic for a few reasons. First off, I don't recall the Clintons talking trash about the caucuses until it was beginning to look like she might lose IA. There's a reason we have states run caucuses: first of all, they're cheaper to run. I also recall an article way back in 2000 about how caucuses seek to get the most passionate of the party out to support their candidate, even if it means trudging through an Iowa blizzard to get to the polling place if your car breaks down on the way. Obviously plenty of states don't use caucuses, for plenty of good reasons (in my opinion). But we do live in a federalist system. Still, perhaps it is worth it to the DNC to consider eliminating or at least keeping caucuses to a bare minimum; e.g. offering to cover the bill for those states who would hold a primary but don't or can't foot the bill. But others, like IA, take their caucuses very seriously, and I don't think the DNC should force them to hold primaries if that's not what they want to do.
You psycho he has more pledged delegates of course its going to be a lower amount of people. What is wrong with you? Seriously? Like I don't understand whats wrong with your brain. I don't. I REALLY don't understand it. Your candidate lost after agreeing to the rules and then trying to game the rules and now trying to change the rules. Get over it.
You are such a giant baby. You are a manchild. How you are able to tie your own shoes is beyond me.
Get over it.
You are Crazy and I know you'll see this a year from now when you go in your diaries you've written in the past and say to yourself "What the fuck was I thinking?"
I think Jerome owes the entire community a front page apology for his misleading nature of the graph.
I think abusing the front page for misleading "information" certainly warrants one. I don't even see a single response from Jerome in the comments section here to acknowledge the error in his ways.
as a scientist I find this abuse appalling, in my field your manuscript would be rejected for such a presentation of data. Unfortunately, on MyDD, peer review happens only after the fact.
A: I never claimed my comment was a peer review.
II: Just because Jerome is the Supreme Ruler of MyDD does not mean he should be fast and loose with the truth. In fact I would say it means he should be more careful about what he posts.
THREE: My comment is not about the data in the graph, in essence it is about the behavior of the supreme leader. He took information from a self-proclaimed conservative blog and plastered it on the front page of his supposedly progressive blog without checking to make sure the data was well presented.
From an interview with RCP founders John McIntyre and Tom Bevan:
In an interview with the conservative magazine Human Events, McIntyre described the philosophy behind the website as based on "freedom" and "common-sense values." Said Bevan, "We think debate on the issues is a very important thing. We post a variety of opinions. He further stated, "we have a frustration all conservatives have", which is "the bias in media against conservatives, religious conservatives, [and] Christian conservatives."[9]
"A: I never claimed my comment was a peer review."
Sry, but this "Unfortunately, on MyDD, peer review happens only after the fact." led me to believe you do, being a scientist and so.
"Just because Jerome is the Supreme Ruler of MyDD does not mean he should be fast and loose with the truth."
Why don't you simply stop complaining - start your own blog and create a shining example of how to do it better.
"My comment is not about the data in the graph, in essence it is about the behavior of the supreme leader."
I already gave my view. Simple lazyness. No big deal.
"He took information from a self-proclaimed conservative blog"
And thus, every info there has a right wing bias? Well, what did the RCP guy say in the interview you cited: "We post a variety of opinions." There you have it.
Comparing the amount of pledged delegates each candidate has per the amount of times the candidate has publicly made reference to the possibility that the other candidate might be assassinated.
John Edwards has 56,000 votes per delegate. This line of arguing is foolish. Quit treating us like we are dumb.
We don't have a straight democracy. It's representative. If voters per delegate was a legitimate metric, Edwards and Ron Paul would be the nominees.
"It's representative."
Uh, it ought to be representative, but it isn't always so. The representatives for Bush of the 2000 electoral college didn't represent the plurarity of the votes. And the Obama delegates of the 2008 Texas primary didn't represent the plurarity of the votes there, either. Only two examples out of many. Seems like this representative system is somewhat fraudulent...
I don't have a horse in this race, but it's obvious to me that the graph is ridiculously inaccurate.
This is the kind of weak spin that Hillary supporters have been coming up with for 2 months - how can anyone expect to take this stuff seriously?
Yes, the guy has a valid point to make, but he ruins any chance of anyone paying him any attention when he pulls the out of proportion graph trick.
you're right jerome...our nomination process could use some tweaking. you know what else really needs to be fixed: the electoral college.
However, with regards to the current race and/or our current (decided) nominee
IT'S JUST NOT THE FUCKING POINT
-----------
myDD - skin
-----------
411 Comments