A twist on the horse race

[Craig234]

A comment by Hillary recently made me ponder the issue that primaries can be analyzed differently in light of not all states being equal in importance in the general election.

Hillary's point was that while Obama is winning a lot of states, many are the reddest states which have no chance to vote for the democrat in the general election, and what we should look at is the states key to the democrat winning the general election. While I think the horse race is far too covered instead of the issues, when it is covered, this would be an interesting analysis.

The common wisdom from some political analysts is that there are three or four key states of which the democrat wants to win most to get the White House.

(Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and perhaps Washington).

It'd be nice to have the coverage say how those key states are doing regarding the two candidates. It could influence those who want the democrat with the best chance to win.

For me, I'd give more weight to their positions on policy.

It's an interesting question, though. Would parties be right to weight the primaries, so that the states with little chance to vote for their party get little say in the nominee?

That would help them win elections, while treating their members in some states worse than others.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Craig234
It's an interesting question, though. Would parties be right to weight the primaries, so that the states with little chance to vote for their party get little say in the nominee?

Craig, they sorta do under the current process.

Delegates aren't based on population, but rather the number of Dem voters and elected Dem officeholders. If your state is strongly Repub you gonna get less delegates than a similarly sized state voting Dem.

But I would suggest that they be a bit careful in "penalizing" states. Diminsh them too harshly and you're basically seeding them to the Repubs. Not much chance of ever getting them back either.

Otherwise, I don't think that traditional repub states outta be overlooked. Obama is pulling in a lot of new voters. I'd look closely at whether he could turn some of these states into Dem states before discounting them too much.

Fern

 

[Vic]

Obama is winning red states with record turnouts and more votes than the Republican candidates are getting in those states. Meaning that if those primaries had been the general, quite a few of those red states he won would have turned blue (and might still in Nov).
And how important is it that Hillary can win in blue states like CA, NY, and MA? If the Dems don't win those states regardless of who gets the nomination, then they have bigger problems.
And parties do weight the states in the primaries already. IIRC, the Pubs a lot more so than the Dems.

 

[Rainsford]

Doesn't the validity of this theory largely rest on the assumption that how a candidate does in the primary will reflect how he or she will do in the general election? Elections are about choices between candidates, and you can't expect the choices to stay the same if the candidates change...especially since the voting population changes as well. Primary voters may or may not be representative of the general election voters, and if they're not, who beat who in the primary has little meaning in the general.

The other thing worth keeping in mind is that the concept of "red states" and "blue states" is largely an invention of the media and partisan commentators. The margins in all but a few states are pretty small, certainly small enough to be upset by a popular Democrat and an unpopular Republican running against each other. The beauty of Obama's approach is that he DOES have the potential to pull support from across the spectrum. No need for Hillary to pull from the left in the swing states like Florida and Ohio if Obama can pull from the right and the center.

 

[RY62]

Originally posted by: Vic
Obama is winning red states with record turnouts and more votes than the Republican candidates are getting in those states.

Couldn't this be a sign that Republicans, in the red states, are turning out ot vote for Obama because they think he'd be easier to beat in the general election?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: Vic
Obama is winning red states with record turnouts and more votes than the Republican candidates are getting in those states.

Couldn't this be a sign that Republicans, in the red states, are turning out ot vote for Obama because they think he'd be easier to beat in the general election?

Large groups of voters don't really tend to get together like that, certainly not as part of some secret plot.

 

[JSt0rm]

I dont think the repubs have some kind of hive mind to orchestrate a large group of repubs voting for obama to set the dems up for a loss.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Craig234
It's an interesting question, though. Would parties be right to weight the primaries, so that the states with little chance to vote for their party get little say in the nominee?

Craig, they sorta do under the current process.

Delegates aren't based on population, but rather the number of Dem voters and elected Dem officeholders. If your state is strongly Repub you gonna get less delegates than a similarly sized state voting Dem.

But I would suggest that they be a bit careful in "penalizing" states. Diminsh them too harshly and you're basically seeding them to the Repubs. Not much chance of ever getting them back either.

Otherwise, I don't think that traditional repub states outta be overlooked. Obama is pulling in a lot of new voters. I'd look closely at whether he could turn some of these states into Dem states before discounting them too much.

Fern

Thanks for answering one of my unasked questions, to confirm that the delegates were proportional to the party rather than the general population.

I pretty much agree with your post - it's more just an interesting strategic issue, that there could be a tradeoff if one candidate did better overall based on states that won't matter in the general election, while another candidate did well in the swing states but poorly in the states that won't vote for their party (or will vote for either nominee).

Unfortunately, I think the swing states are critical. If you don't get them, you probably aren't picking up other states from the other side; and if you are picking up states from the other side, the first ones you probably got were the swing states. In the rare election where Reagan carried 49 states, the exception wasn't a swing state like Ohio.

But it is possible for a candidate to well with the other side, and not the swing states. If a very conservative democrat were running, he might carry the Republican states - but would he carry the swing states? Not necessarily at all. Of course, my solution is to let the south secede and stop choosing our presidents.

 

[alchemize]

Wasn't basically the opposite true for McCain? Doing well in Blue states?

Secret plot lol...:laugh:

 

[RY62]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: Vic
Obama is winning red states with record turnouts and more votes than the Republican candidates are getting in those states.

Couldn't this be a sign that Republicans, in the red states, are turning out ot vote for Obama because they think he'd be easier to beat in the general election?

Large groups of voters don't really tend to get together like that, certainly not as part of some secret plot.

It doesn't have to be a secret plot...just lots of like minded individuals. I know my wife and I both voted defense in the primary this year. I'm sure we weren't the only ones.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: Vic
Obama is winning red states with record turnouts and more votes than the Republican candidates are getting in those states.

Couldn't this be a sign that Republicans, in the red states, are turning out ot vote for Obama because they think he'd be easier to beat in the general election?

Large groups of voters don't really tend to get together like that, certainly not as part of some secret plot.

It doesn't have to be a secret plot...just lots of like minded individuals. I know my wife and I both voted defense in the primary this year. I'm sure we weren't the only ones.

Most states have closed primaries, and caucuses are always closed. I'm not going to look up the data right now, but I'd be willing to bet that there is no evidence of widespread "defensive" voting among Republicans in the primaries that Obama has won.
Additionally, it is the opinion of most political experts, supported by overwhelming poll data, that Obama is the more electable candidate against the Republicans in the general. So if the Pubs were defensive voting in the primaries, they'd be voting for Hillary.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: Vic
Obama is winning red states with record turnouts and more votes than the Republican candidates are getting in those states.

Couldn't this be a sign that Republicans, in the red states, are turning out ot vote for Obama because they think he'd be easier to beat in the general election?

Large groups of voters don't really tend to get together like that, certainly not as part of some secret plot.

It doesn't have to be a secret plot...just lots of like minded individuals. I know my wife and I both voted defense in the primary this year. I'm sure we weren't the only ones.

I'm sure you weren't, but my guess is not enough people are trying to play amateur Karl Rove for it to amount to very much influence.

 

[BrownTown]

The same is even more true for McCain, he won all the democrat states and lost most of the red ones (IE: the whole south). TBH I am very happy about this, it means that both candidates are more in the middle and not at the extremes of the political spectrum.

 

[Thump553]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
I dont think the repubs have some kind of hive mind to orchestrate a large group of repubs voting for obama to set the dems up for a loss.

If there was any sort of "plot" like this, it almost certainly would be to be for GOP's to vote for Hillary. Her personal negatives are so high it is delusional to think she would be the stronger candidate (between her and Obama) this fall.

At most, in states with open primaries (not necessary red or blue states) it is conceivable that independents and Republicans are flocking to the Democratic primaries because (a) it is a more interesting race with much more appealing candidates and (b) odds are pretty great they will be voting for the Dem candidate in the general election. I've spoken to many lifelong Republicans that are going to be voting Dem this fall because they do not want a continuation of Bush's horrible Iraq and economic policies-a continuation that McCain promises.

 

[ProfJohn]

I raised a point similar to this in another thread.

If Hillary and Obama end up close in total delegates Hillary could try to make the same argument in suggesting that she has the better chance of winning in the fall.

Ohio will probably be the difference in this. Democrats win Ohio and they should win the White House and I am sure a lot of people will be looking at what happens there as an indicator of who will be stronger in the fall.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Craig234
It's an interesting question, though. Would parties be right to weight the primaries, so that the states with little chance to vote for their party get little say in the nominee?

Craig, they sorta do under the current process.

Delegates aren't based on population, but rather the number of Dem voters and elected Dem officeholders. If your state is strongly Repub you gonna get less delegates than a similarly sized state voting Dem.

But I would suggest that they be a bit careful in "penalizing" states. Diminsh them too harshly and you're basically seeding them to the Repubs. Not much chance of ever getting them back either.

Otherwise, I don't think that traditional repub states outta be overlooked. Obama is pulling in a lot of new voters. I'd look closely at whether he could turn some of these states into Dem states before discounting them too much.

Fern

Thanks for answering one of my unasked questions, to confirm that the delegates were proportional to the party rather than the general population.

I pretty much agree with your post - it's more just an interesting strategic issue, that there could be a tradeoff if one candidate did better overall based on states that won't matter in the general election, while another candidate did well in the swing states but poorly in the states that won't vote for their party (or will vote for either nominee).

Unfortunately, I think the swing states are critical. If you don't get them, you probably aren't picking up other states from the other side; and if you are picking up states from the other side, the first ones you probably got were the swing states. In the rare election where Reagan carried 49 states, the exception wasn't a swing state like Ohio.

But it is possible for a candidate to well with the other side, and not the swing states. If a very conservative democrat were running, he might carry the Republican states - but would he carry the swing states? Not necessarily at all. Of course, my solution is to let the south secede and stop choosing our presidents.

In 'blue' states the Democratic nominee will get the electoral votes no matter who it is.

Swing states, while crucial, appear to be heading for the Democrats - for a number of reasons (Bush fatigue, war fatigue, desire for change in direction, no inspiring GOP candidate among others) so I would suggest that the swing states will go to Obama easier than to Hillary.

Once you count the blue & swing states going to the Democrat nominee, red states will not really matter in the Nov count. It remains to be seen if any traditional red state goes blue this election.

What bothers me more is what will happen after the election. Should Obama become president he's going to find it tough going to get his undefined concept of reaching across the aisle to make good his promises of undefined change. The old guard is still around on both sides and one man cannot break the decades long logjam in partisanship. Even his health care plan - which I think has a fatal flaw in itself - is going to face fierce opposition from the right and, honestly, is going to need partisanship to get it through. Much in the way we've seen partisan legislation pushed through the last few years. Throw in the problems of dealing with a war you don't believe in and the state of the economy it becomes an extremely difficult task to keep the message of hope alive and deliver on it.

I hope he can pull it off although I personally feel Hillary is stronger on policy & positions and, had it not been for the irrational negativity affecting her electability, would have a better chance of success as a president

 

[piasabird]

What Hillary has not pointed out is that the democratic party might be able to convert some of the red states to blue states. There could be enough republicans dissapointed in McCain that they are willing to vote for Obahma. Maybe they tried Republican and now they want to try Democrats. Many people vote with their pocketbook. The Republicans have not reduced the size of the government or spending.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Vic
Additionally, it is the opinion of most political experts, supported by overwhelming poll data, that Obama is the more electable candidate against the Republicans in the general. So if the Pubs were defensive voting in the primaries, they'd be voting for Hillary.

I think most political experts expect the democratic nominee to win regardless of which one it is. As to the polls, last year Hillary was, by far, the candidate voters picked to beat all the rep candidates in a general election. Now that obama has risen in the polls, his supporters obviously think he's the better candidate to win, if only by a small number of percentage points. All this reflects is that the larger a candidate's support base, the better they do in a poll asking who is thought to be the best candidate to win the general election. If I really thought Hillary couldn't win the general, or that Obama was significantly more likely to win it, my choice, and most other people's choice, would be much easier. I think either can win it, I think the country is fed up with reps in the white house, and McCain's recent GWB policy backing is just more fuel.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: piasabird
What Hillary has not pointed out is that the democratic party might be able to convert some of the red states to blue states. There could be enough republicans dissapointed in McCain that they are willing to vote for Obahma. Maybe they tried Republican and now they want to try Democrats. Many people vote with their pocketbook. The Republicans have not reduced the size of the government or spending.

I haven't heard her talk about this, but I have heard various politicos. If you look at the 6 states Bush won by less than 5 percent in 2000, Hillary has beaten Obama in 5 out of 6 (if you count Ohio, where she currently leads by 21pts in the polls): Florida, New Hampshire, Nevada, Tennesee, and potentially Ohio. Missouri is the only really close state Obama won, and it was essentially a tie. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...ntial_election%2C_2000

If you look at the 6 states Bush won by more than 5% but less than 10% in 2000, Hillary has won 3, Obama 3.

So among the 12 states Bush won by less than 10%, Hillary has won 8 (with ohio) and Obama 4. These are the swing states, and Hillary is doing better than Obama there.

Am now looking at 2004, will update.

In 2004, there were 5 states Bush won by less than 5%. Iowa, NM, Ohio, Nevada, and Colorado. Hillary won 3 (with Ohio), Obama 2.

There were 4 states Bush won by more than 5%, but less than 10%. FL, Missouri, Virginia, Arkansas. Hillary won 2, Obama 2.

Much closer, but to argue Obama is clearly better at winning the swing states is at best optimistic, and at worst, contrary to the evidence this year's primaries have provided.

That said, again, I think either dem candidate would win in the general.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Vic
Additionally, it is the opinion of most political experts, supported by overwhelming poll data, that Obama is the more electable candidate against the Republicans in the general. So if the Pubs were defensive voting in the primaries, they'd be voting for Hillary.

I think most political experts expect the democratic nominee to win regardless of which one it is. As to the polls, last year Hillary was, by far, the candidate voters picked to beat all the rep candidates in a general election. Now that obama has risen in the polls, his supporters obviously think he's the better candidate to win, if only by a small number of percentage points. All this reflects is that the larger a candidate's support base, the better they do in a poll asking who is thought to be the best candidate to win the general election. If I really thought Hillary couldn't win the general, or that Obama was significantly more likely to win it, my choice, and most other people's choice, would be much easier. I think either can win it, I think the country is fed up with reps in the white house, and McCain's recent GWB policy backing is just more fuel.

If the Democrats or the Republicans win the American people lose. This is why we need Obama.

 

[FoBoT]

discounting Missouri as a tie because it was close is a mistake
the latest shift in Missouri has been towards Democrats, the Dems got the senate seat from the Repubs in 2006 and now our incumbent Repub Govenor isn't running for re-election all but handing the Governor office to the Democrats, i expect Missouri to go for the Democrat (Obama i expect) in November by a wider margin than Obama beat Clinton in the primary

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Vic
Additionally, it is the opinion of most political experts, supported by overwhelming poll data, that Obama is the more electable candidate against the Republicans in the general. So if the Pubs were defensive voting in the primaries, they'd be voting for Hillary.

I think most political experts expect the democratic nominee to win regardless of which one it is. As to the polls, last year Hillary was, by far, the candidate voters picked to beat all the rep candidates in a general election. Now that obama has risen in the polls, his supporters obviously think he's the better candidate to win, if only by a small number of percentage points. All this reflects is that the larger a candidate's support base, the better they do in a poll asking who is thought to be the best candidate to win the general election. If I really thought Hillary couldn't win the general, or that Obama was significantly more likely to win it, my choice, and most other people's choice, would be much easier. I think either can win it, I think the country is fed up with reps in the white house, and McCain's recent GWB policy backing is just more fuel.

If the Democrats or the Republicans win the American people lose. This is why we need Obama.

He's now an independent? News travels slow around here. Even if he magically pulled in 5% of the republican vote, it doesn't make him anything other than what he is, a liberal democrat with an appealing message of change. Post-partisanism is a nice buzzword, but that's all it is.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
discounting Missouri as a tie because it was close is a mistake
the latest shift in Missouri has been towards Democrats, the Dems got the senate seat from the Repubs in 2006 and now our incumbent Repub Govenor isn't running for re-election all but handing the Governor office to the Democrats, i expect Missouri to go for the Democrat (Obama i expect) in November by a wider margin than Obama beat Clinton in the primary

Granted. NM was also extraordinarily close, but Obama will not bring out the large hispanic vote there in the general as strongly as Hillary would. We can niggle the individual state counts, but my point was about their overall chances in swing states, namely, that Obama doesn't blow hillary away as is recited.

 

[RY62]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: piasabird
What Hillary has not pointed out is that the democratic party might be able to convert some of the red states to blue states. There could be enough republicans dissapointed in McCain that they are willing to vote for Obahma. Maybe they tried Republican and now they want to try Democrats. Many people vote with their pocketbook. The Republicans have not reduced the size of the government or spending.

I haven't heard her talk about this, but I have heard various politicos. If you look at the 6 states Bush won by less than 5 percent in 2000, Hillary has beaten Obama in 5 out of 6 (if you count Ohio, where she currently leads by 21pts in the polls): Florida, New Hampshire, Nevada, Tennesee, and potentially Ohio. Missouri is the only really close state Obama won, and it was essentially a tie. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...ntial_election%2C_2000

If you look at the 6 states Bush won by more than 5% but less than 10% in 2000, Hillary has won 3, Obama 3.

So among the 12 states Bush won by less than 10%, Hillary has won 8 (with ohio) and Obama 4. These are the swing states, and Hillary is doing better than Obama there.

Am now looking at 2004, will update.

In 2004, there were 5 states Bush won by less than 5%. Iowa, NM, Ohio, Nevada, and Colorado. Hillary won 3 (with Ohio), Obama 2.

There were 4 states Bush won by more than 5%, but less than 10%. FL, Missouri, Virginia, Arkansas. Hillary won 2, Obama 2.

Much closer, but to argue Obama is clearly better at winning the swing states is at best optimistic, and at worst, contrary to the evidence this year's primaries have provided.

That said, again, I think either dem candidate would win in the general.

Another thing to consider is that 9 of the states that Obama has won, accounting for 200 delegates, were states that Bush won by more than 15%. I doubt Obama or Clinton would carry any of those states in the general.
http://www.nytimes.com/interac...DELEGATES_GRAPHIC.html

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Vic
Additionally, it is the opinion of most political experts, supported by overwhelming poll data, that Obama is the more electable candidate against the Republicans in the general. So if the Pubs were defensive voting in the primaries, they'd be voting for Hillary.

I think most political experts expect the democratic nominee to win regardless of which one it is. As to the polls, last year Hillary was, by far, the candidate voters picked to beat all the rep candidates in a general election. Now that obama has risen in the polls, his supporters obviously think he's the better candidate to win, if only by a small number of percentage points. All this reflects is that the larger a candidate's support base, the better they do in a poll asking who is thought to be the best candidate to win the general election. If I really thought Hillary couldn't win the general, or that Obama was significantly more likely to win it, my choice, and most other people's choice, would be much easier. I think either can win it, I think the country is fed up with reps in the white house, and McCain's recent GWB policy backing is just more fuel.

If the Democrats or the Republicans win the American people lose. This is why we need Obama.

He's now an independent? News travels slow around here. Even if he magically pulled in 5% of the republican vote, it doesn't make him anything other than what he is, a liberal democrat with an appealing message of change. Post-partisanism is a nice buzzword, but that's all it is.

Hope and vision have no appeal to you. You're a technocrat. What kind of mind can say people are fed up with Republicans and not include the Clintons?