-
Subscribe Today!
Apr
7
If Dems Had Winner Take All, It Would Be Hillary vs. McCain
Filed Under Election 2008, Hillary Clinton, Indiana primary
Salon’s Sean Wilentz argues that if the Democratic party had a winner take all system, they’d already have Hillary Clinton as their nominee. Wilentz also writes that Hillary Clinton could be John McCain if she becomes the Democratic party’s candidate — a contention that contradicts Barack Obama’s statements that he can beat John McCain.
If the Democrats ran their nominating process the way we run our general elections, Sen. Hillary Clinton would have a commanding lead in the delegate count, one that will only grow more commanding after the next round of primaries, and all questions about which of the two Democratic contenders is more electable would be moot.
- Hillary Clinton wins in upcoming primaries would be good news for John McCain, opines the Weekly Standard. Now Democrats are...
- Theodore B. Olson writes about the possibility of Democratic lawyers playing out a repeat of the 2000 election legal showdown...
- An AP-Yahoo poll shows that John McCain is winning over independents, undecided Republicans, and some moderate Democrats as the fight...
- The conventional wisdom of just a few months ago -- that the Republicans were finished because of concerns about the...
- Usually voting in May means Indiana's primary voters don't have much say in the presidential nominating process. This year is...
Comments
2 Responses to “If Dems Had Winner Take All, It Would Be Hillary vs. McCain”
Leave a Reply
If DEMS had a winner take all system, Obama might have focused on California and gotten Richardson to drop early to endorse him. You have no more idea what would have happened under differnet rules than anyone else.
Different rules mean different campaigns different strategies and allocations of time money and effort.
An example is Super Tuesday which was obviously Clinton’s strategy going in. It failed becasue Obama had a better one which swept caucuses and delegates even though Clinton won bigger states.
What I see is that Obama adapts better and is naturally aided by Clinton’s ceiling. Look at Texas… under the rules he won the delegate total. If it was winner take all he would have camped there like Clinton who needed to win the state just to stay in it.
The analysis is a “if pigs had wings” one.
What is more apparent is that Clinton has a ceiling and that the anybody but HIllary sentiment was always real. Early on it looked like Hillary was “inevitable” but as soon as someone emerged as a viable option she went down.
I doubt winner take all changes that reality. It may have been harder to do, but the anti_Cliinton dynamic is what has caused the result not the allocation mechanics.
I think if it were winner take all Obama would have won CA and Texas. BUt that’s a if pigs had wings analysis too. lol
Hi Tone,
You’re right.
It’s always easy to look back at something and make it work — especially having the luxury of suggesting various rule changes to make the desired scenario work.