The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: Wretched Excess on April 03, 2008, 09:53:14 PM
-
goldcanyonaz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Thu Apr-03-08 02:42 PM
Original message
What If Democrats Used Winner Take All?
Even as the Obama and Clinton campaigns fight frantically to establish the appropriate yard-stick by which to judge the will of the American people, one fact has been largely ignored: Obama's significant delegate lead is largely a product of the Democrats' unique delegate allocation system.
A remnant of the bitter convention of 1968 and the McGovern-Fraser Commission that followed, Democrats now award their presidential convention representatives in a proportional manner, under which delegates are given to all those surpassing certain percentage thresholds. We have to wonder, what would the race look like if the Democrats used the same "winner-take-all" system used in the Republican Party? The results are quite surprising, to say the least.
If the Democrats were to allot their current state delegate totals in a winner-take-all format, Clinton would actually have a significant delegate advantage. Despite having won only 14 recognized contests to Obama's 30, Clinton would currently have a 120 (1738 to 1618) total delegate lead and a remarkable 167 (1427 to 1260) pledged delegate lead. These numbers give Texas' "prima-caucus" delegates to Clinton and do not include Florida, Michigan or the 693 total delegates and 566 pledged delegates still to be won in the next few months.
Rasmussen link (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_wesley_little/what_if_democrats_used_winner_take_all)
DU LINKY!! (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5369263)
this is going well. predictably, the thread is flooded with responses like, "what if cows had balls", and "what if my sister was my brother". I'm not sure I would have asked that last question at DU, but it's out there nonetheless. :rotf: :rotf: :-)
-
go Hilary!!! steal it! you can do it.... you go girl! :-)
-
goldcanyonaz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Thu Apr-03-08 02:42 PM
Original message
What If Democrats Used Winner Take All?
Even as the Obama and Clinton campaigns fight frantically to establish the appropriate yard-stick by which to judge the will of the American people, one fact has been largely ignored: Obama's significant delegate lead is largely a product of the Democrats' unique delegate allocation system.
A remnant of the bitter convention of 1968 and the McGovern-Fraser Commission that followed, Democrats now award their presidential convention representatives in a proportional manner, under which delegates are given to all those surpassing certain percentage thresholds. We have to wonder, what would the race look like if the Democrats used the same "winner-take-all" system used in the Republican Party? The results are quite surprising, to say the least.
If the Democrats were to allot their current state delegate totals in a winner-take-all format, Clinton would actually have a significant delegate advantage. Despite having won only 14 recognized contests to Obama's 30, Clinton would currently have a 120 (1738 to 1618) total delegate lead and a remarkable 167 (1427 to 1260) pledged delegate lead. These numbers give Texas' "prima-caucus" delegates to Clinton and do not include Florida, Michigan or the 693 total delegates and 566 pledged delegates still to be won in the next few months.
Rasmussen link (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_wesley_little/what_if_democrats_used_winner_take_all)
DU LINKY!! (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5369263)
this is going well. predictably, the thread is flooded with responses like, "what if cows had balls", and "what if my sister was my brother". I'm not sure I would have asked that last question at DU, but it's out there nonetheless. :rotf: :rotf: :-)
Yes, I guess the answer would be "you would be butt-****ing your brother."
These people are nuts.
-
goldcanyonaz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Thu Apr-03-08 02:42 PM
Original message
What If Democrats Used Winner Take All?
Even as the Obama and Clinton campaigns fight frantically to establish the appropriate yard-stick by which to judge the will of the American people, one fact has been largely ignored: Obama's significant delegate lead is largely a product of the Democrats' unique delegate allocation system.
A remnant of the bitter convention of 1968 and the McGovern-Fraser Commission that followed, Democrats now award their presidential convention representatives in a proportional manner, under which delegates are given to all those surpassing certain percentage thresholds. We have to wonder, what would the race look like if the Democrats used the same "winner-take-all" system used in the Republican Party? The results are quite surprising, to say the least.
If the Democrats were to allot their current state delegate totals in a winner-take-all format, Clinton would actually have a significant delegate advantage. Despite having won only 14 recognized contests to Obama's 30, Clinton would currently have a 120 (1738 to 1618) total delegate lead and a remarkable 167 (1427 to 1260) pledged delegate lead. These numbers give Texas' "prima-caucus" delegates to Clinton and do not include Florida, Michigan or the 693 total delegates and 566 pledged delegates still to be won in the next few months.
Rasmussen link (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_wesley_little/what_if_democrats_used_winner_take_all)
DU LINKY!! (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5369263)
this is going well. predictably, the thread is flooded with responses like, "what if cows had balls", and "what if my sister was my brother". I'm not sure I would have asked that last question at DU, but it's out there nonetheless. :rotf: :rotf: :-)
Yes, I guess the answer would be "you would be butt-****ing your brother."
These people are nuts.
yes, that would be the quick answer.:rofl:
-
go Hilary!!! steal it! you can do it.... you go girl! :-)
you knew this was inevitable . . . :-)
PA Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Thu Apr-03-08 03:11 PM
Response to Original message
29. It would be less democratic, which is my objection to the Electoral College system.
Of course George Bush just LOVED the undemocratic Electoral College system because it made it much easier to STEAL the 2000 election.
of course, the electoral college is designed to fulfill the first requirement of any election; a clear winner.
-
so, in a thread titled "winner take all - good idea or not" these idiots still dont get the electoral college?
that is so awesome :-)
-
BlooInBloo (1000+ posts) Thu Apr-03-08 04:10 PM
Response to Original message
41. HAHAHAHA!! The new Clinton supporter tactic: HYPOTHETICAL winning = winning!
GENIUS!
:rofl:
-
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Thu Apr-03-08 04:23 PM
Response to Original message
43. If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.
Obama would have run a winning campaign. It would have been a little different, but he does his homework, organizes and wins whatever the parameters.
you better check. I'll bet your aunt is already your uncle. :-)
-
so, in a thread titled "winner take all - good idea or not" these idiots still dont get the electoral college?
that is so awesome :-)
all they know is that it was a bad thingy in 2000. their blame fell, in order of hysteria, on bush, the supreme court, diebold, the entire state of florida, and the electoral college. bill clinton's bent winkie amazingly escaped any responsibility at all at the time. :rotf:
(I guess that's not entirely unusual, though :-))
-
so, in a thread titled "winner take all - good idea or not" these idiots still dont get the electoral college?
that is so awesome :-)
all they know is that it was a bad thingy in 2000. their blame fell, in order of hysteria, on bush, the supreme court, diebold, the entire state of florida, and the electoral college. bill clinton's bent winkie amazingly escaped any responsibility at all at the time. :rotf:
(I guess that's not entirely unusual, though :-))
well, to be fair though.. it wasnt the Clenis that we cared about. it was the *lying* under oath thingie :-)
-
so, in a thread titled "winner take all - good idea or not" these idiots still dont get the electoral college?
that is so awesome :-)
all they know is that it was a bad thingy in 2000. their blame fell, in order of hysteria, on bush, the supreme court, diebold, the entire state of florida, and the electoral college. bill clinton's bent winkie amazingly escaped any responsibility at all at the time. :rotf:
(I guess that's not entirely unusual, though :-))
well, to be fair though.. it wasnt the Clenis that we cared about. it was the *lying* under oath thingie :-)
that was only when we wanted to impeach the clenis. when it came time to elect the vice-clenis or not, then where the clenis had been hanging out became fair game. :-)
-
When it comes to some of these idiots, it's clearly obvious that their cockpit is missing a pilot.
-
When it comes to some of these idiots, it's clearly obvious that their cockpit is missing a pilot.
their cockpit is missing just about everything, but yeah, I get your meaning. :-)
-
so, in a thread titled "winner take all - good idea or not" these idiots still dont get the electoral college?
that is so awesome :-)
all they know is that it was a bad thingy in 2000. their blame fell, in order of hysteria, on bush, the supreme court, diebold, the entire state of florida, and the electoral college. bill clinton's bent winkie amazingly escaped any responsibility at all at the time. :rotf:
(I guess that's not entirely unusual, though :-))
well, to be fair though.. it wasnt the Clenis that we cared about. it was the *lying* under oath thingie :-)
that was only when we wanted to impeach the clenis. when it came time to elect the vice-clenis or not, then where the clenis had been hanging out became fair game. :-)
do you think we can use Clenis enough to get it added to Webster's? :popcorn:
-
so, in a thread titled "winner take all - good idea or not" these idiots still dont get the electoral college?
that is so awesome :-)
all they know is that it was a bad thingy in 2000. their blame fell, in order of hysteria, on bush, the supreme court, diebold, the entire state of florida, and the electoral college. bill clinton's bent winkie amazingly escaped any responsibility at all at the time. :rotf:
(I guess that's not entirely unusual, though :-))
well, to be fair though.. it wasnt the Clenis that we cared about. it was the *lying* under oath thingie :-)
that was only when we wanted to impeach the clenis. when it came time to elect the vice-clenis or not, then where the clenis had been hanging out became fair game. :-)
do you think we can use Clenis enough to get it added to Webster's? :popcorn:
you never know. it's the internets; if that screwed up kid dancing around with the flashlight
lightsaber can become a cultural icon, maybe we can get "clenis" added to websters . . . .
we need a formal definition, though.
clenis (n) klee'.nis
the bent genitalia of a crooked president; often found hanging around chubby chicks wearing
kneepads, followed immediately by surreptitious discharge into a sink, or onto an ill fitting dress
from the gap. known to immediately shrivel at the mention of the word "hillary" or "ken starr".
Usage:
"I would be president if it weren't for the f*cking clenis". (pun probably not intended)
Al Gore, December, 2000
I am open to additional suggestions. :-)
-
dont forget to add that the word comes from the merging of the overuse of "Clinton's Penis" in articles and posts on the internet, which made the Clenis famous all throughout the 90s.
we should send this to Olberman STAT... :popcorn:
-
dont forget to add that the word comes from the merging of the overuse of "Clinton's Penis" in articles and posts on the internet, which made the Clenis infamous all throughout the 90s.
we should send this to Olberman STAT... :popcorn:
one slight suggestion to your wise suggestion. :wink:
olbermann . . . *sigh* . . . he was great on sportscenter. I wish he had stayed there, before he became
the walking incarnation of the "Peter Principle".