Wednesday, March 19, 2008

CT is bigger than TX

In the delegate department, it seems. Look at the CNN Delegate scorecard page, and you'll see what I mean.

Texas held it's election with the infamous "two-step" election process, where 2/3 of the delegates were awarded in the primary and 1/3 in the caucus. Looking at the numbers, along with the totals from the declared super delegates, we see that Obama exceeded Clinton by a score of 109-106.

Now look at our primary. Connecticut's delegate score is Obama 33-23. So that means Obama won huge Texas by merely 3 delegates, and tiny little Connecticut by 10 delegates.

We win.

I know this is a silly exercise, and means little other than filling a blog post without having to work too hard (and believe me, that's my goal more often than I care to admit), but it is kind of interesting to look at other contests and see where Connecticut stands in the delegate balance.

States we beat or tied in the delegate swing either way includes Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Delaware, D.C., Hawaii, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Ohio, Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming. With about 10 states to go.

Clinton won big in California, New York, and Arkansas (naturally), while Obama won by a huge margin in Illinois (again, naturally) and winning by substantial margins in lots of other states.

A weird twist in the delegate awarding process (based on the margin in Congressional districts or counties, not total statewide votes) gave Obama more delegates in states that Clinton "won", such as Nevada and New Hampshire.

There's still the question of Florida and Michigan, both of which are seemingly not very interested in holding another primary and apparently are satisfied to go into the convention without a resolution. Plus, there are a few hundred supers who haven't declared their support; besides, even those who DID state their preference aren't bound to it, so they can change their vote at any point up until the first ballot is cast in Denver.

The prospect of Clinton and Obama fighting each other right up to the convention, rather than attacking the Republicans for their rotten policies, certainly won't help anyone in the long run. Unless something significant occurs soon, it looks like the nightmare will continue all summer.

Jesus.

You know, I usually try not to overuse quotations (especially those that everyone has heard a ga-jillion times), but Will Rogers summed it up with perfect clarity:

"I am not a member of any organized political party...I am a Democrat."

Some things never seem to change.

9 comments:

fuzzyturtle said...

remember, Lamont was supposed to beat Lieberman in the election too... so Connecticut is allowed to change his/her mind the day of the election.

on a broader national note, here's a little tidbit using Reuters/Zogby data *Yahoo via Reuters
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080319/pl_nm/usa_politics_poll_dc

I'm not keen on any party that 'punishes' voters of any state. Next time I'm near the town center I'm switching parties again. I changed affiliation for the Lamont vote, but I'm not sure I'll continue to self identify as a democrat going forward.

CT Bob said...

Like you, I'm really disgusted at the lack of consensus by the powers that be about the situation in FL and MI.

This should have been resolved BEFORE the primaries. Look at the Republicans and their Michigan compromise; they allowed MI to run their primary with only half their delegates counting. They were fine with that. Why couldn't the Dems manage to figure something like this out before the primary?

I think there's nearly universal support within the Democratic party to have a redo for those primaries under fair circumstances. They're allowed to use soft money for funding the elections, so money shouldn't be an overriding concern.

However, it seems that both the DNC and the state Democratic parties are in a sort of pissing match over this. I just can't see this playing out well.

Anonymous said...

I propose a simple, yet equitable solution:

multiply the total delegates by the percentage each candidate got in the illegal vote (for MI this would be the non-Clinton votes); THEN multiply this product by the percentage of total delegates won by each candidate at the end of the primary season.

If you work this out as it now stands, both FL & MI would have their delegations cut in half (punishment for breaking the rules); Clinton gets the results of the primaries counted (as she professes she wants); Obama gets recognition for obeying the rules; and the votes cast are in this way counted:

Overall*:

Clinton: 1,242 Delegates (46.78%)
Obama: 1,413 Delegates (53.22%)


FL (210 Total Delegates):

Clinton: 857,208 Votes (50.89%)
non-Clinton: 827,182 Votes (49.11%)
TOTAL 1,684,390 Votes

MI (156 Totsl Delegates):

Clinton: 328,151 Votes (55.26%)
non-Clinton 265,686 Votes (44.74%)
TOTAL 593,837 Votes

ASSIGNED DELEGATES:

FL -
Clinton:
210 x 50.89% x 46.78% = 50 Delegates;
Obama:
210 x 49.11% x 53.22% = 52 Delegates;

TOTAL FL DELEGATES = 102

MI -
Clinton:
156 x 55.26% x 46.78% = 40 delegates;
Obama:
156 x 44.74% x 53.22% = 37 delegates

TOTAL MI DELEGATES: 77

Bob Symmes (rjsymmes@yahoo.com)

CT Bob said...

They might end up having to do something like that.

It's looking more and more like the delegates will have to be seated at the convention in order to not run the risk of alienating all the Democratic voters in those states in November.

Other than a re-vote, I don't see this being resolved earlier than that. Judging from the way she's been fighting so far, I can't imagine Clinton giving up her contention that she gets ALL the delegates she's "won" in those states while giving Obama only the delegates he's "won" in Florida. Anything other than that, and she won't have much chance of winning anyway.

So, unless there's a miracle and all the Dems decide to get their acts together for a new primary, we're in for a long five months.

sellitman said...

Remember that the decision to move up Florida's election was made by the Republican Governor not the Democratic Party.

fuzzyturtle said...

the whole system really is in dire need of reform. I know you don't want to hear it, but that's what this dude's campaign is all about
http://www.bestcyrano.org/cyrano/?p=498

*there's a real audio link too, it's a short interview

and I hate to tell you but my niece's high school civics club voted him 'hottie runningmate of the 2008 campaign' (the Alan Rickman similiarity helps ALOT haha). Some of these kids ARE old enough to vote. *just tryin' to scare ya*

CT Bob said...

Yeah, I remember it was the Republican governor who moved the primary date in FLA, but I don't remember the state Dems making a huge outcry, or filing a lawsuit, or appealing to the MSM at the time to get public opinion to help reverse the decision.

Nope, they were complicit. Probably because their leaders made a poor judgment call that the DNC wouldn't follow through on their threat to punish them.

Surprise! They fucked up!

And Fuzzy Turtle, I don't know if running a third-party candidate will help the problem. Plus, "instant run-off" elections are still elections and cost money.

FLA is a unique situation, and the state Dems don't seem very interested in holding another election.

Of course, my inner cynic suspects that the FL State Dems are probably run by Clinton supporters, who would much rather have it go to the convention than have a redo.

But that's just a hunch. I won't state that for sure without evidence.

And how can they kids vote anyone "hottest running mate" when neither major party has even selected them again? I want a full investigation!

Anonymous said...

when was that quote said?

CT Bob said...

check the link