The Un-Democratic Party
May 29th, 2008 at 01:46am Mark Noonan
From USA Today:
In Idaho, about 21,000 Democrats gathered for caucuses. Obama won in a blowout by a margin of 13,000 votes. For that, he won 15 delegates to three for Clinton — a net gain of 12 delegates.
In New Jersey, Clinton won by a margin of 110,000 votes out of more than 1 million cast. For that, she won 59 delegates to Obama’s 48 — a net gain of 11 delegates.
Now under what system does it make sense for Obama to collect more net delegates for beating Clinton by 13,000 votes in one state than Clinton does for beating Obama by 110,000 in another?
That inequity, by the way, won’t be repeated in the general election, when the winner of Idaho will collect four electoral votes while the winner in New Jersey will get 15 — and the losers get nothing.
It is becoming more likely that Hillary will end up with more actual votes, while Obama has more delegates, and then gets the nomination. The fissures are starting to widen in the Democratic party as the Obama and Hillary camps grow ever more angry at each other over various slights, real or imagined. To win, Obama will need a completely united Democratic party behind him, and I’m starting to figure he won’t have it.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Corruption, Democrats
7 Comments
1. Tom Thumb | May 29th, 2008 at 6:46 am
Republicans are afraid to run against Obama, so they are pushing Hilary. USA Today is just another Republican-run magazine trying to undercut Obama’s legitimacy. We all know Obama will crush McCain.
2. Danish Artist | May 29th, 2008 at 7:20 am
To the Democrats, it is not the process that is important, but the outcome.
Al Gore proved that in 2000. The process was not important, if it was he would have recounted the whole state and not thrown out absentee military votes. Instead, he and his party wanted the desired outcome.
We are also seeing it in the primaries, especially with Michigan and Florida.
3. neocon | May 29th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Mark,
Don’t you know that the super delegates are a lot smarter than the average liberal? Democrats willingly give up their vote in favor of their leaders to make these tough decisions for them.
Even though the popular vote in Mass went for Hillary, the states super delgates are firmly in Obamas corner. Now THAT’S representation.
4. jayhay | May 29th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
So winner-take-all Republican style is better? That really worked out for you guys. Romney and Huckabee would have a chance to make their case to more voters in more primaries if the delegate distribution was more proportional. Now y’all have to pretend you love McCain, when there was clearly a LARGE number of voters who didn’t feel that way. McCain got those delegates anyway…
5. Jeremiah | May 29th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
So winner-take-all Republican style is better?–Jayhay.
Yup.
Here’s how I feel about the situation…
I would not mind voting for a Democratic President, if the Republicans policies were what the Democratic Presidentials are at this point in time. In other words, if the Democrats had the morals that the Republicans have… then I would vote for them in a heartbeat.
As it is, the Democratic ones have no moral, economic, foreign, and immigration policies to speak of — Their obsolete — blank — empty suits.
Gotta run.
6. Jay Gaultieri | May 29th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Hillary’s claim to the popular vote rests on
1) Michigan and Florida going entirely to her
and
2) Not counting the caucus states.
A few months ago her claim was that the superdelegates would go to her. Before that it was the inevitable candidate, the white candidate, the Latino candidate, the women’s candidate. Mark is actually a little bit behind, perhaps he did not know that Hillary is now the candidate because Obama will be assasinated in June.
Hillary won’t drop out of this race until the inauguration, and even then she’ll go kicking and screaming.
7. FmrMarine | May 29th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
jay
>>>Hillary won’t drop out of this race until the inauguration, and even then she’ll go kicking and screaming.<<<
How Gorish