Clinton Leading In Traditional Democratic States ...
Voters in traditional (read on for definition) Democratic states aren't as divided as the Democratic party as a whole seems to be this primary season, based on an analysis of presidential elections since 1976 (when Jimmy Carter beat Gerald Ford).
Recall that VP Gore would have taken the White House had he been declared the winner in Florida, a key state that holds 27 electoral votes in 2008. If we look at popular vote counts in the states that voted for the Democratic candidate for President in two of these four elections (1976, 1988, 1992, 2000), Sen. Clinton trumps Sen. Obama by 224 electoral votes to 133 electoral votes. Reduce that to three of the four elections, and Sen. Clinton beats Sen. Obama by 68 electoral votes to 51 votes.
Look at the truly hard-core Democratic states -- those that voted for the Democratic candidate (this includes Dukakis) in all four elections. Clinton still beats Obama. The states: DC (3), Hawaii (4), Massachusetts (12), Minnesota (10), New York (31), Rhode Island (4), and Wisconsin (10). Electoral votes: 47 to 27.
When we analyze the states that put Jimmy Carter into the White House, Clinton gets 166 votes and Obama only 113. Two of these states (13 votes) have yet to hold their primaries (Kentucky and West Virginia). The gap widens when we look at the states that went for Gore in 2000: Clinton gets 160 votes and Obama only 93, with one state yet to hold its primary (Oregon, 7 votes).
Yes, this analysis includes Florida and Michigan. Sue me. I'm simply looking at statewide results, because they show potential party member (voter) dissatisfaction.
This is evidence that Clinton's support is more fundamental to party cohesion and history than suggested by mainstream media pundits. It gives credence to my thoughts about party crack-up, as well. And it shows that the super-delegates have their job cut out for them, assuming that their priority is electability. I wouldn't want to be in their shoes.
See the data: Presidential Campaign: Results by State, 1972-2004; Democratic Primary Results, 2008.
Related:
North Carolina v Indiana
Nomination Process Reveals A Fractured America
Should Clinton Stay Or Should She Go?, from About's Guide to Women's Issues
Indiana & North Carolina, Conservatively Speaking, from About's Guide to Conservative Politics
Game Over. Obama Won. Clinton Supporters in Induced Denial., from About's Guide to Liberal Politics
Added: Why didn't I include 1972? Because McGovern only won two states: MA and DC.
Comments
Isn’t this a precise arguement for Obama? Afterall wouldn’t one expect either Democrat to take the traditional strongholds. It’s the other states that could help change the nature of the equation - not that I care, I’d prefer McCain.
Hi, Andrew — I wasn’t intending it to be an argument that either candidate should be the nominee.
When you look at the historical pattern, there are very few “safe” D states — ie, those that seem to vote D regardless of the nominee.
The issue is coalition of states that tend to vote D. They aren’t all in line behind any candidate, but their relative positions are the ‘opposite’ of the current delegate count.
The campaign is over; Obama won. All this grasping at straws won’t change the fact that Hillary is TOAST!
http://timesonline.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/05/07/toast.jpg
Wow! The NY Post declares Senator Clinton’s campaign is over! Yep they’re the source I always rely on for reliable info on the Democratic party.
Not.
But that’s to be expected of the most vocal of Senator Obama’s supporters: totally ignore the interesting set of facts Kathy raises, the issues these facts represent, and the dangerous choice they speak to, and instead, reduce the contest for leadership of the US to the level of a vote for the title of High School Senior class “Most Popular.”
Anyway, thanks Kathy for — as usual — presenting an interesting and decidedly different perspective to the race than I’m seeing almost anywhere else. I particularly value the fact that I can’t tell if you have chosen sides. That’s rare and very admirable — and I mean it as a sincere compliment!
Hillary is staying around just long enough to cause enough damage to make sure Obama doesn’t win the general election. That way she can come back in 2012 and run again. JMO
C
A few comments:
Obama has done this country a valuable service by booting Hillary out of the Presidential race.
I find it odd that many in the Democratic party seems to have a problem with the concept of Democracy. Hint: it has to do with voting.
While the NY Post may not be allied with the Democratic party (unlike, say, the NT Times), last I checked George McGovern does speak with some authority.
Finally, this site has been running thinly veiled pro-Hillary/anti-Obama articles for months. It’s obvious.
Funny how a supporter of Senator Obama can so glibly lecture about how the “concept of Democracy” has to with voting, yet they and their candidate see no contradiction with ignoring the votes of 2.2 million voters in 2 of the 50 states.
“But they violated the rules!” will be the response from Senator Obama and his supporters. And suddenly, that voting thing — the essential ingredient of Democracy — can be stripped away from millions of people by a committee appointed by an elite leadership of a national organization with no legislative legitimacy in order to punish elected state representatives for the results of a vote which they, as a minority party in their state, may have had no chance of defeating.
I guess “rules” trump voting, then. Or maybe just when it’s convenient to Senator Obama’s campaign. It sounds more like the shenanigans that go on in Mr. Putin’s party, where “rules” can be found to create any outcome the party elite desires.
Yes, accepting the results of the primary elections in Florida and Michigan might make his front-runner status questionable, but it’s the right thing to do. Sometimes doing the right thing hurts. I thought only the current Administration believed we can achieve grand goals without any personal sacrifice. But I guess Senator Obama thinks he can steer us towards “a new politics” while carelessly throwing two of our fifty states under the bus.
Senator Obama might talk about “a new politics” but when he puts his personal career ahead of the rights of 2.2 million million people, then he is just another self-serving, do-anything-to-get-elected, power-hungry politician which he accuses others of being. He has done this party no service if he accepts his crown at the coronation while condoning the silencing of a large portion of his party.
And Senator McGovern? If the “last time you checked” was 1972, then Senator McGovern might have had some authority, but after his great performance, losing 48 states in that year’s election, his relevance is somewhat diminished. As far as his switching allegiances from Senator Clinton to Senator Obama goes, this isn’t the first time his “1000% support” for someone has switched overnight to a desire to get them out of the race. Swapping Sargent Shriver for Senator Eagleton didn’t turn out so well then, either.
Still, there’s much to respect about Senator McGovern before his disastrous campaign. For instance, there’s his long and vocal opposition to the war, where unlike Senator Obama, Senator McGovern voted against war funding resolutions and authored and fought for legislation to end the war he opposed, rather than just giving lip-service to the concept. And Senator McGovern also was the chair of the McGovern Commission which reformed the Democratic Party, giving power to the voters in selecting the nominee. How sadly ironic, then that his flip-flopping allegiance has landed him on the side of Senator Obama, who wants to take power away from voters.
Finally, it is so tiring hearing from some of Senator Obama’s most cultish supporters that any publication which hasn’t sworn fealty to the Senator or which dares to suggest that he might have some flaws or that he is not the fulfillment of the prophecy of Kennedy’s return to Camelot is somehow “pro-Hillary/anti-Obama”. It is a childish, simplistic attitude, and invariably leads to a sharp and vehement disillusionment when it turns out that the object of veneration can’t wave his magic sword and return the land and people to health and prosperity overnight. Disappointed children and cultists turn incredibly quickly into haters and reactionaries.
Oops! I seem to have struck a nerve. LOL!
If Hillary was so concerned about the voters in FL and MI, she shouldn’t have pledged to ignore them. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=276341
She’s just trying to cheat, maintaining her family’s rich tradition of “self-serving, do-anything-to-get-elected, power-hungry politic[s].”
As far as the rest of that rabid tirade, I’m going to let it go because I know it must be very painful to watch one’s goddess fall from her pedestal.
Well, there’s always John McCain.
“Well, there’s always John McCain.”
It’s that attitude of stupid smugness and unwillingness to listen to anyone but your Obama echo chamber which could hand the Presidency to John McCain in November.
By labeling contrary arguments as tirades which you don’t even have to read, you just reinforce the impression that many of Senator Obama’s supporters give the contest all the intellectual attention they’d give to any sports event.
Senator Obama may be leading in votes, but his margin is tiny percentage-wise, which means nearly half of the Democrats have voted against him and are going to have to choose to support him if he is to have any chance of winning against Senator McCain.
Ignoring objections to Senator Obama’s style, platform, and campaign, then insulting and daring the people you need to convert to switch to the other side is asinine and politically suicidal.
It’s likely that Senator Obama can win the Democratic Party nomination without the Senator Clinton supporters who make up about half the party. And he might be able to win the nomination without the votes of Michigan and Florida. But there is no way for him to win the election without that support.
I have a great deal of respect for Senator Obama even though he isn’t my first choice for the nomination. It’s too bad most of his more vocal supporters have all the class and intelligence of drunken football fanatics. Sitting near some of those people in the stadium is enough to make you want to root for the other side, or maybe just stay home.
Hmmm…more name-calling and false accusations. Yup, that’s classy. ROFL!
How long can we expect the pouting Hillary worshippers to continue the temper tantrum?
Go ahead, take your ball and go home. Stay home. Root for the other side. See if I care.
The unconstrained votes of some 800 top Democratic Party officials, known as Super Delegates, now matter even more following the Pennsylvania Primary, which continued to leave both Presidential candidates short of the 2,024 primary-pledged delegates needed to secure the nomination.
Those believing these Party insiders (who include governors, mayors, state and Congressional lawmakers) should be more accountable to rank-and-file Democrats, can now have their voices heard through www.LobbyDelegates.com. This one-stop portal is the first and only one empowering grassroots Democrats to directly communicate with their state’s Super Delegates – via email, fax or postal letters.
LobbyDelegates.com maintains lists of Super Delegates who have endorsed Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or are still uncommitted. Users can, with one click, target all uncommitted Super Delegates and urge them to publicly endorse a certain candidate, or remain uncommitted. Users can similarly lobby Super Delegates to keep an existing commitment, or switch to the other candidate.
Although Sen. Obama leads with 1,490 pledged delegates to 1,336 for Sen. Clinton, neither would attain 2,024 even if one or the other won two-thirds of the remaining primary delegates. While Clinton leads among Super Delegates, 259 to 235, Obama has narrowed this gap steadily over the past six weeks. Over 300 Super Delegates remain uncommitted.
The LobbyDelegates.com website is strictly independent, and is not aligned with any political party, candidate, campaign or advocacy group. LobbyDelegates.com was created as a public service under the auspices of the nonprofit StateDemocracy Foundation, whose similar civic engagement website, www.StateDemocracy.com, is dedicated to delivering democracy to your desktop by connecting citizens and lawmakers.
Thousands have visited LobbyDelegates.com since it was launched on April 3. Since then, the website has been upgraded by adding a blog, the ability to invite friends, and free email delivery.