Hillary Clinton often claims that she has won the big states and therefore the superdelegates should hand her the Democratic nomination even though she has won less delegates, won less states, and won less of the popular vote. Notwithstanding the fact that this thinking is illogical, it basically says that only the states that she has won really mean anything. I'm not sure the people in the 29 states/jurisdictions that Obama won to date would agree (vs. the 14 that Clinton won).
But for the sake of argument, let's look at the "Big State" theory that Hillary Clinton espouses. There are basically 5 "big states" that have had primaries that counted: California (377 pledged delegates), Illinois (153 pledged delegates), New York (232 pledged delegates), Ohio (139 pledged delegates), and Texas (193 pledged delegates). Note that the total Texas delegate count is split between two contests, the primary and the caucus.
Illinois: Obama won 65% to 33%, 104 delegates to 49 delegates. Not surprising given that Illinois is his home state.
New York: Clinton won 57% to 40%, 139 to 93 delegates. Again, home state, so no surprises here.
California: Clinton won 52% to 43%, 205 to 172 delegates. A super Tuesday contest.
Ohio: Clinton won 54% to 44%, 74 to 65 delegates. One of the post-"3 am phone call" primaries.
Texas - The Primary: Clinton won 51% to 47%, 65 to 61 delegates. The other post-"3 am phone call primary.
Texas - The Caucus: Obama won 56% to 44%, 38 to 29 delegates.
Okay, so let's look at the numbers.
(1)
Clinton did win 4 states to Obama's 2 (counting the Texas primary and caucus as separate contests). So her claim to have won more big states seems to be accurate on the surface. [Though Obama also won Missouri, a slightly less big but very important state, by a slim margin and tied on delegates awarded.]
(2)
Clinton's claim to have "won" Texas is false. Clinton won the primary by a small margin (4% and 4 delegates), while Obama won the caucus by a larger margin (12% and 9 delegates). In fact, Obama "won" Texas by winning a total of 99 delegates to Clinton's 94. But the Clinton campaign seems to think that winning half the state contests and less delegates somehow means she wins anyway.
(3)
The average differential for states Clinton won: 10%;
The average differential for states Obama won: 22%
So Obama won his states by significantly larger margins than she won hers, i.e., he was a lot closer to her than she was to him.
(4)
Clinton won a total of 561 pledged delegates to Obama's 533 pledged delegates, a differential of only 28 delegates.
So, her "big state" strategy netted her a grand total of 28 additional pledged delegates out of 1094 delegates available (i.e., 2.6% of the delegate count). Given that Obama is roughly 171 pledged delegates ahead of Clinton (142 ahead if you throw in committed superdelegates), this small net for Clinton hardly seems to make the specious argument that she wins the big states and therefore all other states should be ignored.
Oh well.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 55
Phyllis, Senator Obama surely would have won Michigan if his name had been on the ballot. But he plays by the rules.
Linda, the change in polls over the last few days is a direct result of the media overplay of the Rev. Wright video, and the unjustified hysteria it has created among those voters who accept it at face value, without listening to reason and the many educated commentators who have taken the time to understand and explain the role of the African American church throughout history. Sadly, those are the uneducated, blue-collar voters who would benefit most from Senator Barack Obama's economic policies, health care plan and leadership at home and abroad. That said, I am confident the polls will turn in Obama's favor again, once the focus returns to the issues. He is the only candidate who can bring about much-needed change and put our nation back on track.
Frankly, I'm not a big believer in general election polls this far ahead of the election, but it agrees with my own limited experience. I personally cannot vote for someone who so egregiously games the system. All of my Independent friends agree.
But hey, perhaps we'll both be voting for McCain this fall. :)
"I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton's Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I've gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world's poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners - an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.
It's a story that hasn't made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts - that out of many, we are truly one. "
In the end, I think they'll follow the perceived public choice, though it may be hard to determine that.
Would you run away from her because she doesn't accept you for who you are?
Sometimes it would be nice if we listened to the whole story before passing judgment.
But you're exactly right about neither candidate getting enough pledged delegates to reach the automatic nomination threshold (unless one of them wins something like 75% of the vote in each state). It will come down to the superdelegates.
Forget big state Florida. If Al Gore won Tennessee he would have been president. Another example to show you that is is a ridiculous argument manufatured for its supporters to run with and shape public perception. The super delegates are not fooled.
More importantly, the states she considers small have democrats high ranking officials who can help deliver those states. Gov Sebelius and Sen McCaskill understand that with Hillary on top of the ticket Dems will not win those states. For senators it's worse. Everybody forgets the debacle in 94 (not that I remember, I read about it). We lost major seats in the senate.
What bothers me most is that she so transparently makes personal attacks, while both Obama and McCain do not, yet so many people are still so in love with Bill that they think she is him. I liked Bill. I liked her as a Senator. But she has lost my respect as a Presidential candidate.
I can say this for sure - Obama has my vote and that of most of the folks I know here in Santa Barbara. I do not understand why he has to account for so many things that are obviously not important. I've attended baptist churches that are primarily 99% African American and I can't be accountable for what the minister says - I have my own mind. I think that ignorant folks have brains like sponges and they believe anything they are told - they do not understand that intelligent folks can decipher and glean what they want out of sermons, speeches, etc.
I would no more accuse members of a Catholic congregation of all being child molestors just because their Priest was accused of being such. So for anyone accusing Obama of anything evil - well, believe me, that stems from an ignorant attitude to begin with.
Go Obama! He will be the next president of the United States of America! SAlud.
Lisa - that's why they are usually in the position where they will stay. Salud.
When she said that, I started believing she was running for 2012 and was going to destroy Obama thereby setting up a McCain win. That's the only logic I could come up with because it's killing your party!
Don't get in trouble!
Phyllis - all civil opinions are welcome. Ironically, people used to accuse me of defending Clinton...or of defending Bush...or of defending any number of the other candidates. In the end, I'm afraid Hillary showed her true colors. But I'm happy that Obama has shown that he can think differently. People support him for various reasons, some rational...some emotional. I have to say that I began supporting him for cerebral reasons. Abraham Lincoln once said that he liked Ulysses S. Grant because after a series of listless Generals, Lincoln felt "he fights." The reason I like Obama is...he thinks!
Though it's too late for Hillary to bow out gracefully. Unfortunately, there are another 4 or 5 weeks before Pennsylvania, and she is likely to win it. So I'm afraid it won't be over until the superdelegates decide after the primaries end in June.
It just struck me that at one point in a debate (after Bill began this whole race mess in South Carolina), that Obama said he couldn't figure out which Clinton he was running against (Hillary or Bill). Now it appears it is Hillary and the Republicans working together to gum up the campaign. Talk about odd bedfellows.
I'm less concerned about the fact that more states than ever will have a chance to cast meaningful primary ballots as I am the tone that the race took after Clinton fell behind. Whereas Obama has been respectful of his competitors - praising their abilities and service but disagreeing with their policies or proposals - Clinton has taken to attacking Obama as a person. This is unconscionable. She has cast aspersions on his integrity, which not only is specious given her own obvious lack of integrity, it is false and hurts the Democratic party. She is attacking every Democrat.
Whereas Obama has helped bring people together into the party, Clinton seeks to divide it for her benefit. Whereas Obama speeks to the change the public wants to see in the future, Clinton manipulates old fears to somehow restore us to the 1990s. Which is odd given that while a good part of the 1990s were prosperous, the Clinton term, in fact, ended with a depressed economy and the dot.com crash. Not to mention the constant personal turmoil and divisiveness of the time period, rivaled only by the divisiveness of the current Presidency. A Clinton candidacy would be good only for Hillary and Bill Clinton. The Republicans would love to beat Hillary in the fall, which is why they are voting in droves for her in open Democratic primaries, with Clinton's tacit approval. They know that they can rally the Republican base against her. They know that most Independents will vote for McCain in the hopes that his signature maverick personality will somehow reemerge after the election rather than vote in the Clinton past and hubris. Haven't we had enough arrogance and hubris in the White House?
Through all of the idiocy of the press and attacks from the Clinton camp, Barack Obama had been calm and reasonable, neither crying on cue like Hillary Clinton to win sympathy, nor having the kind of temper tantrum John McCain is so famous for. He has the gravitas that the other two lack, and I would feel a lot safer with him in the White House than either Clinton or McCain.
And, for the record, I'm an Independent.
Alan - your icon photo isn't showing up for some reason.
One of the things I like about Obama is that he thinks. It's not about "winning" the nomination, it's about letting the voters get to know him. Once they do, they tend to support him. The man thinks, and that is something we very much need in this country.