Will The Democrats Choose A Nominee That Can Win?

[Bianca]

                               Will The Democrats Choose A Nominee That Can Win?





By Gordon S. Eggleston 
on  April 5, 2008
(updated: May 27, 2008)


Introduction

 

The Democratic nominee is determined by primaries and caucuses.  The candidate who receives over half of the delegates becomes the nominee.  Before 1972 a nominee was chosen in backroom deals by party “kingmakers”; although there were a few state primaries, delegates were not awarded based upon their results because, in those days, primaries were non-binding contests.

 

The President of the “United States” is determined by an election of 50 separate elections because America is a nation of 50 individual nations (or “states”).  Each state has a unique “electoral vote” based upon its population relative to the population of the other states.  The winner is determined by the electoral votes because the electoral system recognizes the population of each state and each state’s separate election.  The candidate who wins over half of the total number of electoral votes is recognized, by each of the 50 states, as its President.

 

Although the Democratic primaries and the general election are two different events, those who argue that a candidate’s primary results have nothing to do with that candidate’s general election results are sadly ignorant of one thing:  The “Primary-Electoral Richter Scale”.

 

This “Richter Scale” can accurately predict – before the general election – if the Democratic nominee
is vulnerable to be defeated in an electoral “earthquake”.


The Richter Scale works by looking at how nominees, past and present, faired in each of the primaries
of the eleven states which have the most electoral votes.  In this article, these states are referred to as the “MegaEleven”.

[Bianca]

The MegaEleven states and their 2008 electoral vote





The MegaEleven are (arranged according to their electoral value):



California (55),

Texas  (34),

New York (31),

Florida (27),

Illinois (21),

Pennsylvania(21),

Ohio (20),

Michigan (17),

Georgia (15),

New Jersey (15) and

North Carolina (15).

 

In the 2008 election the MegaEleven states will account for 271 electoral votes.

 
It takes 270 electoral votes for a candidate to win the presidency.

 

Note: 


Barack Obama removed his name from the Michigan ballot after that state violated Democratic
Party rules by advancing the date of its primary to January 2008. 

Obama did not, however, remove his name from the Florida ballot after Florida did the same thing
as Michigan (by advancing the date of its primary).  Therefore, since Obama chose to be a can-
didate in the Florida primary – by leaving his name on the ballot there – his loss in the Florida primary
is considered a loss by the Richter Scale; however, Obama’s loss in the Michigan primary, which he forfeited, is ignored.

[Bianca]

                     Accuracy of the Primary-Electoral Richter Scale in predicting landslides

 



It is a fact that (with one exception) in the general election every Democratic nominee always loses
a MegaEleven state which he had earlier lost as a candidate in the Democratic primaries. 

The lone exception was 1976 when Governor Jimmy Carter lost the New York primary but won New
York in the general election.  Carter would most likely have lost New York in the general election to President Ford except for an unfortunate remark which Ford made before the election that was proclaimed in newspaper headlines:  “Ford to New York:  ‘Drop Dead!’”.

 

The Primary-Electoral Richter Scale not only indicates which of the MegaEleven states the Democratic nominee is vulnerable to lose in the general election, it also indicates whether a landslide loss for that nominee in the general election is possible, likely, or guaranteed.

If a candidate loses three or four MegaEleven primaries, a landslide loss is possible. 


In 1976, Governor Jimmy Carter lost primaries in four of the MegaEleven states; in the general election he lost all of these states except for New York (as mentioned earlier).  If Carter had lost New York, he would not have had enough electoral votes to win the election.


In 1984, Walter Mondale lost primaries in three of the MegaEleven states; in the general election he
lost these same three and was defeated in a landslide.

 

If a candidate loses five or six MegaEleven primaries, a landslide loss is likely.

 

In 1980, President Jimmy Carter lost primaries in five of the MegaEleven states; in the general election he lost these same five and was defeated in a landslide.

In 1988, Michael Dukakis lost primaries in five of the MegaEleven states; in the general election he lost these same five and was defeated in a landslide.

 

If a candidate loses seven MegaEleven primaries, a landslide loss is guaranteed. 

 

In 1972, George McGovern lost primaries in seven of the MegaEleven states; in the general election he lost these same seven and was defeated in a landslide.

[Volitzer]

or should we say the Bilderberg's.

 

[Bianca]

How Red is Red and how Blue is Blue?

 



Other than his home state of Illinois, Barack Obama won the Georgia primary.  Some say this means
he could win that “Red State” in the general election.  (Georgia has been won by a Republican in the past three elections). 

The Richter Scale cannot predict whether a candidate will win a state, but a comparison of the 2008 Georgia primary turnout for the Democrats (1,028,495 votes for Obama and Clinton combined ) versus the 2004 general election votes for the Republican (1,914,254) indicates that Obama will not likely win it.

 

Some will argue that a “Solid Blue State” such as California – which has been won by the Democratic nominee in the previous four elections – will remain blue regardless of who the Democratic nominee is
in 2008.  But since Obama lost the California primary, the Primary-Electoral Richter Scale indicates
that he will lose California in the general election as well.



Bill Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry won California in the primary and they won it in the general election (1992 & 1996, 2000 and 2004).

Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale lost California in the primary and they lost it in the general election (in 1976 & 1980 and 1984). 

George McGovern and Michael Dukakis won California in the primary but they lost it in the general election (in 1972 and 1988), demonstrating that even a blue state like California is not a “Blue State”
by default.

[Bianca]

Hillary Clinton

 


There is a startling point to be made regarding three of Hillary Clinton’s MegaEleven state primary victories: 


She won the Texas primary,

the Ohio primary, and

the Pennsylvania primary against the front-runner who – as all the voters realized – would have essentially wrapped up the nomination with a primary victory in any of these states! 

Since Barack Obama, as the frontrunner, is unable to move such great numbers of Democratic
voters to rally behind him to win the nomination, it is doubtful that he would be able to get the
general public to rally behind him to win the presidency.

 

If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee in 2008, will she win the general election? 

This cannot be known. 

Hillary Clinton could win big, or she could win the election by a close vote, or she could lose the
election by a close vote.  But what is certain is that she would not lose the election by a landslide.

 

The Democrats, therefore, have two options: 

a chance to win the election
(if Hillary Clinton is the nominee) or

a landslide disaster
(if Barack Obama is the nominee). 



Despite polls which say an Obama-McCain match up would be a close contest, elections are won
by electoral votes in November… not by polls in April;

                        and the Richter Scale indicates that Obama will lose overwhelmingly

[Bianca]

Proportional allocation of delegates versus winner-takes-all



 

Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee today if the MegaEleven states did not split their delegates proportionally amongst candidates. 

Notice, for example, that even though Clinton won the California primary, 161 of its 363 delegates were awarded to the loser, Barack Obama.  Since Clinton received only 202 of the 363 – a mere 41 delegates more than the loser – California essentially reduced itself to a state roughly the equivalent of Oklahoma, which awards a total of 38 delegates. 

(Perhaps this is why the Primary-Electoral Richter Scale alarm has not been heard by the Democrats.  Although the MegaEleven states will count for 271 electoral votes in the general election, each of these states counts as only an insignificant gain for the candidate who wins it in the primary).

 



Because the proportional allocation system divvies up its delegates, the winner of a state primary
is essentially denied the victory.  It’s like a Super Bowl in which both teams are awarded the Vince
Lomardi Trophy… but the team which “won” the game gets to hold on to it for one month longer
than the loser. 

The winner of a state primary should receive all of that state’s delegates as the prize. 

That is how it is with sporting contests.  But more importantly, that is how it is in the general election.  The winner of the state election wins all of the state’s electoral votes… regardless of the candidate’s margin of victory.

 



Consider this: 

If Hillary Clinton had won all of the delegates from the MegaEleven states that she won, she would
have 1,182 from these eight states alone… and even though two of these, Florida and Michigan, currently have zero! 

(If the Florida and Michigan delegations were to be counted as victories for Hillary, and these states were winner-take-all, her MegaEleven total would be 1367 to Obama's 386... a difference of 981 rather than the current inconsequential difference).

[Bianca]

Caucuses

 

Besides winning delegates from the states he lost, Barack Obama is the frontrunner rather than
Hillary Clinton because of the caucuses.  Most of Obama’s victories have come from caucuses
(where thousands of fans of a particular candidate are willing to spend the time and resources
traveling to a few specific statewide locations, usually in the largest cities where Obama fairs
best, in order to assemble and be counted). 

In primaries, on the other hand, both fans and “lay folk” alike simply and speedily vote by the
millions at their local polling place.  (This best represents what America does on Election Day –
121 million voters in 2004). 

 

An example of how unreliable the caucus system is at gauging the voting mind of the public was demonstrated in the so-called “Texas Two Step”.  On March 4, 2008 Texans voted in a primary; afterwards they were allowed to also caucus for a candidate. 

Hillary Clinton won the state primary, but Barack Obama won the caucus.  If caucuses were representative of how voters actually vote, then Clinton would have won the caucus as well.

[Bianca]

Democrats can prevent disaster or watch it unfold

 

Perhaps the Democrats best hope for avoiding a November debacle (which would include the losses of lower-ballot Democratic candidates) is for Barack Obama to either withdraw from the race or make a deal with Hillary Clinton to become her running mate.  Perhaps Obama would thus be able to save his political career, which could be washed up following the inevitable landslide which would befall him as the nominee on November 4, 2008.

 

The most realistic solution, however, is for the superdelegates to heed the warning of the Primary-Electoral
Richter Scale and courageously make the right call. 

Unfortunately, the superdelegates seem intent upon ‘proportionalizing’ away their own vote in the
same way that each of the primary states have nullified their impact by splitting roughly 50-50. 




And thus the earth will slip away from beneath their feet when Barack Obama becomes the

2008 Democratic nominee. 




But perhaps by 2012 – when the Democrats are looking for the best candidate to challenge
President McCain (and regain their majority in Congress) – they will have learned something
from the 2008 primary season. 


And perhaps they will heed the warnings of the Primary-Electoral Richter Scale to prevent
another humiliating landslide.



http://www.ifind2.com/news/ChoosingANomineeWhoCanWin.html

[Rage Against the Machine]

Hi Bianca,

I'm actually not certain that Hillary is the stronger nomineee.  True, a lot of people won't vote for a black man, but several people have problem with a woman president, too, sadly enough.  And, if the polls are to be believed, they have less a problem with sex or gender? 

Also, even though the polls have Hillary doing better in Ohio and Florida, Obama seems to be doing better in the west and midwest.  For some reason, the Clintons aren't liked very well in the midwestern states and the western ones.  You look at the polls now, and Obama seems to be leading everywhere, even some southern states. 

[Lars Worthington III]

I wouldn't vote for either one. America's future is incumbent on it remaining in the hands of wealthy, middle-aged white males who know how best to distribute it.  Any choice other than one would be a wasted vote.

I don't know why people are so eager to get the Bush years over anyway.  We haven't had any terrorist attacks since 9/11, profits are up, there are some swell new justices on the Supreme Court and we are about to teach those Iranians a thing or two. If you have to be excited about a new President, why not John McCain? 

What's wrong with you people??

[Volitzer]

Cuz we actually want Constitutional government via Constitutional canidates not Globalist sychophants.

[Byron]

You tell him, Volitzer!  Sure, conservatives are all for wars, but just try and find any of them fighting for one.

[Volitzer]

Exactly, they...Neocons and neo-liberals... are nothing more than lap-dogs to the Bilderbergs.

[Bianca]

QUOTE:



"True, a lot of people won't vote for a black man"




                                                  H O R S E F E A T H E R S



I can think of at least one  dozen AMERICAN BLACK men/women  I would vote for as POTUS

right off the top of my head!!!

                                                        In a heart beat!!!


Democrats or exDemocrats ( like me) who are against him are so because we firmly believe

this individual is utterly and completely unqualified for the job......

So, forget the 'black man" bit.  As Vol would say,

                                                      "De nial  is just a river in Egypt....."