In the primary/caucus contests, Sen. Barack Obama won DC as well as 10 of these "Republican" states (all but Oklahoma). They are key to his leading Sen. Hillary Clinton in pledged delegates (those determined by state caucuses and primaries), but will they help ensure a Democratic win in November? Unlikely.
The states are overwhelmingly western/rural (not overwhelmingly "southern" - which may come as a surprise to some):
- Alaska - 3 electoral votes
- Idaho - 4 electoral votes
- Indiana - 11 electoral votes
- Kansas - 6 electoral votes
- Nebraska - 5 electoral votes
- North Dakota - 3 electoral votes
- Oklahoma - 7 electoral votes
- South Dakota - 3 electoral votes
- Utah - 5 electoral votes
- Virginia - 13 electoral votes
- Wyoming - 3 electoral votes
I think this math is fascinating. If only the states that had voted Democratic at least once in the past nine election cycles were to select the Democratic nominee, then Sen. Clinton would, I think (based on other analyses) lead the Democratic nomination race. Some of my commenters say that this means Sen. Obama is pulling non-traditional Ds into the fold -- a good thing for a party that obviously needs a coalition candidate to win the White House. But coalitions in those 10 states will do the party little or no good, or so it appears.
Remember this: the president is not elected by popular vote but by electoral votes - a minimum of 270, so the Republicans start the contest with, in effect, a 23% advantage. Those state-by-state contests are important! Super-delegates should remember that they are playing a game of chess: their role, per their creation, is to help ensure that the party select a nationally viable candidate. These numbers suggest Obama may not be that candidate.
Should super-delegates basically disenfranchise Democrats who are a clear minority in their own states when deciding who to pick as the nominee -- and cast their votes for Clinton? Should states that consistently vote "Republican" have their nomination votes count as much as states that more consistently vote "Democratic"? These are questions that Democratic party leaders will have to ponder either before or after August. (Then there is the "what to do about Florida and Michigan" question -- disenfranchise voters because their leaders were stupid?)
And no, these decisions should not be made behind closed doors before the convention in August. That's what the convention is for, at least in a historical sense.
Next, I'm going to look at those states that voted Democratic since 1992 (Clinton, Gore, Kerry). For folks who continue to hypothesize that I am a Clinton supporter, let me again publicly state that this is not the case. I think both Clinton and Obama have flaws, and I'm not sure which candidate's flaws are the more fatal. I think McCain has flaws, too, as do many Republicans. Is it time to say good-bye to the two Party system?
Comments
LOL… at some point, you’re going to have to get past Hillary Clinton losing the ‘08 Democratic nomination to Barack Obama!
She’s run an awful campaign, and, on the whole, wasn’t helped by her husband. And Obama ran a smarter, more stealth campaign, which seems to burn you and many other Hillary supporters up.
Frankly, I’m glad to know that over the years, he’s played a bit of politics. Maybe he’s less naive that Hillary supporters like to claim?
I get your point, but I think what you and many pundits may be missing is what amounts to a fundamental shift in electoral politics, fueled I believe by real change in the basic lives of people. In looking to analyze 08 pundits, as well as the Clinton campaign seem to be turning to a very old model for Democratic victory. A coalition of northwestern liberals and a blue collar block as well as african american and minority voters. but the world we inhabit has changed. The blue collar vote dwindles, as blue collar work as traditionally ascribed has wained in America. It has been replaced by a new wave of working class “white collar” jobs. Combine that with the continuing growth in many traditionally “rural states. Look at the polls in Colorado and New Mexico, as well as Virginia. The rise of the post-industrial economy has created a new new left. Look at how close Obama polled to McCain in of all places Texas as recently as April (reuters SP?. Ignore this new America at peril. Look to the west, and the technilogically developing south, and you may see somthing rising…
Hi, Deborah — it’s unlikely that I will hold my nose and vote for either of them. I do wish you’d stop implying that I’m a Clinton supporter simply because I don’t look at the race like the MSM or because I don’t like Obama. Not liking Obama does not equate to supporting HRC.
The race is going to be up to the super-delegates — and if no one wins on the first ballot, then the convention is wide-open : all state delegates are *released* after the first vote. Hence my closing graph.
And Ansy, you could well be right that 2008 is going to be a watershed year — that old boundaries and patterns will go “poof”. I have admittedly looked at gross data — who won the state — and not margins (which states see the win “narrowing”).
I am less convinced about this idea of a “new” Democratic party. It looks to me like there may be two D parties — and neither is sufficient to win the WH. As someone on Newsvine observed (and I “saw” but did not “see”), Clinton’s 1992 win was partially engineered by third party votes pulling R votes away from Bush the elder. However, this could happen in 2008 as well, with the Libertarian candidate, which would effectively mean four parties.
And in order for there to be a viable system other than the duopoly we have now … we have to keep the electoral college. A straight popular vote, unless it’s ranked voting, will devolve to a two candidate race.
My apologies for typing you as an avid Hillary Clinton supporter.
You write, “I am less convinced about this idea of a ‘new’ Democratic party. It looks to me like there may be two D parties — and neither is sufficient to win the WH.”
Yes, I hear you on that. Sometimes it seems that perhaps the Democratic party will eventually split in two, and the Republican party, as is (controlled in large part by the religious right, social conservatives) will fade into a minor third party.
Liberal vs. conservative are no longer descriptive of the divide. Seems like libertarian vs. big government might be more apropos.
Another real split is pro-globalization vs. anti-globalization, and all that implies, including trade, more open borders, foreign ownership of U.S. public assets, etc.
These topics really aren’t covered by my site, though, so I don’t devote About.com space to them.
Hi, Deborah — it’s ok! Commenters do it all the time.
But thanks!
I need to spend more time thinking about the impact of digital technologies on political party alliances/allegiances. I agree with you that “liberal” and “conservative” are meaningless – and we need graduations not dichotomies!
Maybe once I finish spring quarter I can do some research into how the parties have evolved over time — since the Party of Lincoln is now more like the Ds than the Rs. Weird.