What if the primaries were winner-take-all?

[JCMach1]

And, what if we throw in all the SD's (i.e. locked-in SD's) for that state on the first ballot?


Obama 1586
Clinton 1928

We still would not have a winner! Most likely in that scenario, it would come down to Puerto Rico, WV, or KY for good or ill.

We would still be where we are! A change in the process would get us nowhere...



We would be even further from a nominee if we throw the Supers out of the mix... :(

So, maybe both candidates should cease whining about process and think about how they are going to win... EOM


*Note, numbers DO NOT include FL and MI

[mitchleary]

1. Well too bad for corp ho Hill, it is not

BTW, You counting MI and FL in that as well?

[galaxy21]

2. If Bill is so bothered about the system why didn't he change it when he had the chance?

[JCMach1]

4. Was fact-checking the argument...

and EVEN if you throw locked-in SD's we have no nominee at present.

I support Hillary, but the campaign's argument holds little water. True, she would have an easier path to nomination, but not a shorter one.

[JCMach1]

3. No, see added note...

I played with the numbers to see if would have helped either candidate...


Answer, not much... as of PA, there would still not be a nominee.

[RBInMaine]

5. The proportional system is fairer and more DEMOCRATIC. That's why we do it.

[baldguy]

6. Your math is wrong

WTA, plus declared SDs, not including FL & MI:

Clinton 1610
Obama 1641

Add the projections for the upcoming states:

Clinton 1744
Obama 1895

Clinton doesn't come out ahead in any scenario. But of course none of this matters since we have to play by the rules as they are (which Clinton does NOT want to do):

As is with projections
Clinton has 1795 and needs 229 to win
Obama has 1939 and needs 85 to win

Which is more likely?


Thanks to phrigndumass
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5639954

[scheming daemons]

7. If the primaries were "winner take all" both candidates would've followed different strategies....

You campaign in a COMPLETELY different manner.

For example... if you KNOW you have zero chance of getting 50%+1 in a state, you would spend ZERO time or resources there.

But under the Dem system... since you might be able to grab a few extra delegates, you WILL spend time in states you cannot win.


This argument is bogus.