Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Speaking of math

Check out the regression analysis. The bottom line:

The use of low-turnout caucuses rather than higher-participation primaries is directly responsible for a net margin of 123 pledged delegates in Barack Obama's favor.

We'll have more about caucuses tomorrow:

TX, for example.

0
No votes yet

Comments

captainjohnbrown's picture
Submitted by captainjohnbrown on

If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry Christmas.

It's impossible to do any sort of regression analysis that accurately reflects what the outcome of the primary season would have been had the rules been different. Everyone knew what the rules were going in and Obama won playing by those rules. Nothing undemocratic about that.

Cap'n John Brown

SunnyLC's picture
Submitted by SunnyLC on

"Check out “American Pie” or: “Political Landscape for Dummies”

http://tinyurl.com/4q2qfr

This is something you should see...It's my way of spreading around a really great post by Gregory Chang...it's a VERY simple guide to the political landscape, now and in November, depending on who's the nominee...

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

Everyone knew what the rules were going in and Obama won playing by those rules.

Obama has won nothing. His campaign has been a failure... only slightly less of a failure than Clinton's, but there is a key difference.

Clinton's campaign failed because of a bad strategy that required a mid-course correction that was successfully accomplished.

Obama's campaign failed despite a better strategy because of Obama's weakness as a candidate. He had the money, the media, and the momentum all on his side -- he was 'inevitable' after winning '10 straight contests', yet his weakness as an actual candidate meant that he couldn't 'put it away'.

Clinton is a great candidate who had a bad strategy.

Obama is a horrible candidate who had a strategy that would have worked if he'd not been such a bad candidate.

Obama lost. So did Clinton. And only liars say that Obama has won.

As to 'everyone knowing what the rules were', while that's true, those rules have been selectively enforced. Rules don't really matter if they aren't consistently applied, because without the consistent application of the rules, there are no rules.

captainjohnbrown's picture
Submitted by captainjohnbrown on

Because I'll say it again. Obama won and he did so despite the fact that Hillary had unprecedented advantages for a non-incumbent candidate.

First, Hillary was running as a semi-incumbent for the third term of Bill Clinton. In the exit polls for the New Hampshire primary, voters were asked who they would have voted for if Bill Clinton was on the Ballot. About 57% of Clinton voters said they'd go with the Big Dog while 39% said they'd stick with HRC. Meanwhile about 24% of Obama voters said they'd prefer WJC while 76% said they'd stick with BHO.

Second, demographically speaking, Clinton had a huge advantage as the first credible female candidate considering that something like 55% of Democratic primary voters are women. That was a major thumb on the scale.

Third, Hillary Clinton had major institutional advantages. The Clinton's sewed up a lot of the major donors and cornered a lot of super delegates up front.

Fourth, the Clinton's have a massive personal fortune that they have been able to tap in order to stay competitive despite not being able to compete with Obama in fundraising.

Fifth, certain states (I'm looking at you Appalachia) have large populations of people who just plain aren't comfortable with the idea of a black president.

It is these factors that have allowed HRC to continue to not get knocked out despite the fact that Obama has thoroughly whupped her butt.

Cap'n John Brown

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

and should stop using that term. When Obama has enough delegates in August to be the nominee, he will have won. If he accrues enough delegates before then, he will have presumptively won.

Right now, he does not have enough delegates to claim the nomination, so he has not won. If you want to say he's favored to win, that's true. If you want to say he's likely to win, that's true. But he has not won.

Here's a clue to how I know this, btw, if he had won, he and his supporters would not spend their days and nights pushing lies about Hillary Clinton because she would not matter.

captainjohnbrown's picture
Submitted by captainjohnbrown on

Because while she has lost the primary, she's still capable of hanging around, rabble rousing and causing division until the convention. Thus, while she's lost the primary, she is not wholly irrelevant.

Cap'n John Brown

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

certain states (I’m looking at you Appalachia) have large populations of people who just plain aren’t comfortable with the idea of a black president.

Number one, smearing an entire region of the country that no Democrat can win without, is a bad idea.

Two, the race was a factor question had a larger response in states where Obama won, so are all those voters racist too?

causing division until the convention.

Clinton hasn't divided the party, Obama has. And I hope she takes it to the convention, where she'll win.

Also, the purpose of the primary isn't to find the best candidate who can game the rules to win, as a lot of Obama supporters like to claim. The purpose of the primary is to determine the best suited candidate to win the general. And judging by the decisions of the later deciding states, the ones who make the most informed decisions, by all possible metrics that candidate is Clinton.

So why don't you talk Obama into conceding, so Clinton can unite the party(which she will, she has no problem eating crow to earn votes, unlike Obama), so we can beat McCain in November, since that's what you keep telling me is the Most Important Thing Evah(though I don't believe you judging by your actions).

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

Davidson's picture
Submitted by Davidson on

If the Democratic establishment is so hellbent on committing political suicide by nominating Obama even after he's already imploded then how can HRC possibly challenge them and win in August? The media and the GOP are not going to bail her out by throttling Obama--until he's officially the nominee.

Besides, the public is hardly going to be paying any attention to politics in the summer. And since the overwhelming majority already believe Obama is the nominee they won't even realize they have Clinton as an option.

Shit.

captainjohnbrown's picture
Submitted by captainjohnbrown on

You're clearly not liberals, pragmatists, centrists or conservatives. You seem like you are just a bunch of cussed contrarians.

Cap'n John Brown

blogtopus's picture
Submitted by blogtopus on

I consider myself a Realitarian, actually. Obama hasn't won, neither has Hillary. Saying it over and over again won't make it so.

I'm looking forward to the convention. By then, Obama's implosion will be complete, and his supporters both on the floor and in elected offices will look more and more silly. Not to say he won't be awarded the nomination; I just like to see history in the making as we set ourselves up for McGovern 2.0