Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"Why Hillary Clinton should be winning" by Sean Wilentz

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 » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
politicalcenter Donating Member (16 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 02:14 PM
Original message
"Why Hillary Clinton should be winning" by Sean Wilentz
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DJ13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
1. ....
:nopity:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flor de jasmim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
2. If horses could fly...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pocoloco Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 02:21 PM
Response to Original message
3. Don't like the rules???
Tough shit!

They are there for a reason!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 02:23 PM
Response to Original message
4. The glaring flaw in Sean Wilentz's argument
http://www.jedreport.com/2008/04/the-glaring-fla.html

The glaring flaw in Sean Wilentz's argument


Sean Wilentz has a pro-Hillary essay at salon.com that arguing that "if the system made sense," Hillary Clinton would win.

Wilentz favors a state-based winner-take-all system, and it is indeed true that if we retroactively instituted a winner-take-all delegate allocation method, Clinton would have a lock on the nomination.

But there's a glaring flaw with this argument: if the system were winner-take-all, Obama would have used a different strategy -- resulting in different outcome.

Under the current system, you don't want to just win, you want to win big. There's also tons of bizarre quirks. For example, if you can get 50.1% in a district with an odd number of delegates, you can get 60% of the delegates. It pays to get 62.5% as opposed to 62.4%. (In Mississippi, a blogger noticed an error in math that had inadvertently put Obama under the 62.5% mark; once corrected, Obama netted 2 delegates.)

Obama expertly exploited this system. It's Clinton's fault that she didn't understand the system, and frankly, it suggests that she wouldn't be as good a president as some people think.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure the correct strategy for winning more delegates, and Hillary Clinton's failure to comprehend that strategy speaks poorly of her analytical and/or management skills.


more...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ladywnch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. excuse me, she had been through this "system" before. If she didn't
like it, understand it, approve of it, whatever, then she should have either spoken up long before this, not run, or figured out how to make it work. This should have been no surprise to her. As she is so fond of saying, she's been through all this before.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stahbrett Donating Member (855 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 02:24 PM
Response to Original message
5. Synopsis: "If the existing rules were different, THEN Hillary would have won"
It's just too bad Hillary didn't know what the rules were! Why didn't anyone tell her the damn rules?!? I blame Howard Dean, who very likely only told Obama what the rules were.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
C_U_L8R Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
6. A more insightful article might be..
"Why Hillary Clinton Lost"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prophet 451 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 02:50 PM
Response to Original message
7. a "winner take all" system which is profoundly unfair and undemocratic
Edited on Wed Apr-09-08 02:55 PM by Prophet 451
The problem with winner-take-all systems is that it means the person getting 51% of the votes takes everything while the person getting 49% gets nothing and it is undemocratic because it means the vast swathes who didn't vote for the winning candidate don't get represented. It also leaves the system open to the kind of abuses that were so visible in the winner-take-all general elections of 2000 and 2004.

Then again, as your journal says that you currently believe the Democratic party to be owned by the far-left and have only 15 posts to your name, I suspect you are either a sockpuppet, an idiot or a Freeper. The only geuinely leftist candidate running in this primary was Kucinich, Obama and Hillary are both moderates.

EDIT: Also, every entry in your journal was posted in the last two days and most of them are a hit-list of Obama smears.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. It's still a winner-take-all system.
But instead of its being a winner-by-geography, it's a winner by a more complicated system.

Ultimately, though, the winner still takes all. When Kerry walked away with the nomination in '04, what did the other candidates that started the race get? Edwards got the nod for the VP slot, but that was Kerry's decision.

And the general election for president will always be winner-take-all. I mean, seriously: Would you like Obama being 54% president and McCain being 46% president? (And you'd have to make that "54% of the time" or "of the decisions, allotted at random" and "46% of the time" or "of the decisions, allotted at random".)

No, I don't think so. But, ultimately, that's democracy: 50% of the voters + 1 voter rules. Unless it's a more complicated system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prophet 451 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Proportional representation works for many nations
Granted, it's difficult to see how it could be applied to the US system though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack Rabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 05:18 PM
Response to Original message
11. Excuses, excuses, excuses
Mrs. Clinton is losing because more primary voters have determined that Barack Obama is a better candidate and would be a better president. It's pretty tough to be ahead in delegates when one is behind in popular votes.

As for the winner take all system, I'm not so young to remember when that caused quite a squall among the party establishmentarians because Senator McGovern, not their man, won the California primary at a time when it was winner take all. So the Democrats did away with winner take all primaries.

What is so convoluted about apportioning delegates by popular vote? It sounds democratic to me. The reason Obama is ahead is that Mrs. Clinton has failed to beat him in a series of fair, democratic systems.

It is true that months ago, Senator Clinton was the undisputed front runner and on her way to winning the nomination. Then the voting started.

Now it looks like party establishmentarian Terry McAuliffe has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory once again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 05:52 PM
Response to Original message
12. McGovern won in 1972 because California was "winner take all"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnnydrama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. 1972
Was it winner take all before the primary season started, or did they change it in April?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack Rabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. The California primary had been winner take all for years
No one had talked seriously about changing it until right after McGovern won. Then the party establishment went into crisis mode.

As a matter of fact, it really should have been proportional all along, but it would be wrong to change the rules after the game is played. That is what the editorial in the OP wants to do.

There was reason to be concerned about a McGovern candidacy in 1972, as the election results showed. That was 1972 and this is 2008. What's the point now? Barack Obama is no George McGovern. He's going to kick ass and take names in November.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnnydrama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-10-08 12:29 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. just as I thought
My point is, whatever the rules are in a state, the candidate should do the best to strategize based on those rules.

This whining about, if only the states were winner take all, Hillary would be ahead is just as lame as any other stupid argument they've had.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack Rabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-10-08 01:32 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. With that we agree. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HooptieWagon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 11:26 PM
Response to Original message
15. Why Hillary Clinton isn't winning...
The rules were established, and all the campaigns signed off on them and had opportunity to challenge them before the primaries started. That Hillary and her campaign were ignorant of the rules (and now are whining about them) is entirely her fault and highlights the premise that she's not ready to lead the country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Sep 30th 2014, 08:26 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles 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