You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

WSJ: Testing Clinton’s Big-State Theory [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
bunnies Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 03:43 PM
Original message
WSJ: Testing Clinton’s Big-State Theory
Advertisements [?]


March 17, 2008, 3:29 pm
Testing Clinton’s Big-State Theory

(snip)
But there are several problems with the big-state theory. First, several of those wins come with asterisks. Texas’s mixed primary-caucus system leaves that state a toss-up, and the January primaries in Florida and Michigan likely won’t be counted. The upshot: Sen. Clinton holds the delegate lead in only four of the big states.

Also, middle-tier states are crucial, and Sen. Obama has been strong there. And regardless, there is no backing from historical numbers that primary results will translate into November viability.

The big-state argument makes sense if winning big states is a prerequisite to winning the general election. But voters in big states are underrepresented in the Electoral College because each state starts with three electors, regardless of size. The 10 biggest states in the 2000 Census, which is the basis for the elector apportionment in this election, held 54% of U.S. residents but control just 48% of the Electoral College.

President Bush won a second term in 2004 despite winning barely a third of the electors from the nine biggest states (81 of 241); he won only in Texas, Florida and Ohio. But he won 12 of the next 17 biggest electoral-vote prizes, and 71% of those states’ electors, making the biggest 26 states essentially a wash. (The same held in 2000, when Mr. Bush’s results in those 26 states were identical.)

In that next tier of states, Sen. Clinton has been weak.

(snip)



More at link: http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/testing-clintons-big-state-theory-298/?mod=googlenews_wsj
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC