If there was an election

[SSSnail]

Just for shits and giggles, I calculated the electoral colleges that either Hillary or Obama would have received if they were running for president right now. If you don't count Michigan, Hillary would have 247 vs. 171 of that of Obama.


Edit: Hmm... maybe I should have cleared this up a bit. The scenario is that Clinton runs AGAINST Obama in the primary, as if Obama is in another party. And we're using the votes that have been tallied so far.

 

[miketheidiot]

mad props, empty suit, etc.

this analysis is clearly relevate, since if obama is the nominee massechusetts, new york, and california will all go for mccain

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
mad props, empty suit, etc.

this analysis is clearly relevate, since if obama is the nominee massechusetts, new york, and california will all go for mccain

agreed.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: SSSnail
Just for shits and giggles, I calculated the electoral colleges that either Hillary or Obama would have received if they were running for president right now. If you don't count Michigan, Hillary would have 247 vs. 171 of that of Obama.

That's because you're using a winner-take-all system in which more votes are "wasted." Obama has racked up his lead via blowouts, while Clinton has had marginal wins in larger states. So obviously this calculation will favor her. I don't think it means much.

 

[SSSnail]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
mad props, empty suit, etc.

this analysis is clearly relevate, since if obama is the nominee massechusetts, new york, and california will all go for mccain

No, I'm just saying if they were to run against each other, as in a nonexistence scenario. Something so you guys can fight about.

 

[rockyct]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
mad props, empty suit, etc.

this analysis is clearly relevate, since if obama is the nominee massechusetts, new york, and california will all go for mccain

agreed.

Uh...no...those states will not go for McCain against Obama.

 

[Rike]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
this analysis is clearly relevate, since if obama is the nominee massechusetts, new york, and california will all go for mccain

Highly improbable.

 

[abaez]

*Cue big Whooosh sound*

 

[rockyct]

I just looked at the numbers for the primaries

California
Obama 1.9 million votes
McCain 1.1 million votes

Mass
Obama 511,000 votes
McCain 205,000 votes

New York
Obama 698,000 votes
McCain 311,000 votes

Looks like Obama wins 2-1 in those states. If you want to use fuzzy math, I can too.

 

[SSSnail]

Originally posted by: rockyct
I just looked at the numbers for the primaries

California
Obama 1.9 million votes
McCain 1.1 million votes

Mass
Obama 511,000 votes
McCain 205,000 votes

New York
Obama 698,000 votes
McCain 311,000 votes

Looks like Obama wins 2-1 in those states. If you want to use fuzzy math, I can too.

Orly?

Hillary

California 2,553,538 votes
Massachusetts 704,591 votes
New York 1,068,496

Nothing about my math is fuzzy.

 

[FoBoT]

that is illogical

 

[TheRyuu]

Originally posted by: Rike

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
this analysis is clearly relevate, since if obama is the nominee massechusetts, new york, and california will all go for mccain

Highly improbable.

Agreed.
NY will never go republican in the near future.
Cali will probably go dem as well, dunno about Massachusetts

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: rockyct

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
mad props, empty suit, etc.

this analysis is clearly relevate, since if obama is the nominee massechusetts, new york, and california will all go for mccain

agreed.

Uh...no...those states will not go for McCain against Obama.

Sorry I left out my /sarcasm, thought his statement was ridiculous enough itd stand on its own

Frankly I think mike might have been joking himself, but i wasn't sure

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: SSSnail

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
mad props, empty suit, etc.

this analysis is clearly relevate, since if obama is the nominee massechusetts, new york, and california will all go for mccain

No, I'm just saying if they were to run against each other, as in a nonexistence scenario. Something so you guys can fight about.

Yes. Because that's what's best for the party. Infighting. Somewhere John McCain and crew are laughing. Are you among them? :Q

 

[SSSnail]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: SSSnail

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
mad props, empty suit, etc.

this analysis is clearly relevate, since if obama is the nominee massechusetts, new york, and california will all go for mccain

No, I'm just saying if they were to run against each other, as in a nonexistence scenario. Something so you guys can fight about.

Yes. Because that's what's best for the party. Infighting. Somewhere John McCain and crew are laughing. Are you among them? :Q

I don't know what's best for the party, but I think a strong 247 (if not 254) electoral votes is moar bettur than 171.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Sorry I left out my /sarcasm, thought his statement was ridiculous enough it'd stand on its own

Frankly I think mike might have been joking himself, but i wasn't sure

Not your fault. There are many in P&N whose sarcasm meter has never been function checked, much less calibrated. Mine picked you up immediately - almost 3/4 scale.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: SSSnail

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: SSSnail

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
mad props, empty suit, etc.

this analysis is clearly relevate, since if obama is the nominee massechusetts, new york, and california will all go for mccain

No, I'm just saying if they were to run against each other, as in a nonexistence scenario. Something so you guys can fight about.

Yes. Because that's what's best for the party. Infighting. Somewhere John McCain and crew are laughing. Are you among them? :Q

I don't know what's best for the party, but I think a strong 247 (if not 254) electoral votes is moar bettur than 171.

Does this change the polls showing Obama is a better match for McCain in the general election? I thought the goal of the (D) party was to win that, right?

 

[blackllotus]

This comparison makes absolutely no sense. It has no relevance to the general election (or anything for that matter).

 

[SSSnail]

Originally posted by: blackllotus
This comparison makes absolutely no sense. It has no relevance to the general election (or anything for that matter).

Oh hey look, someone else agrees with me.

He just writes a lot more than I do.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: SSSnail

Originally posted by: blackllotus
This comparison makes absolutely no sense. It has no relevance to the general election (or anything for that matter).

Oh hey look, someone else agrees with me.

He just writes a lot more than I do.

Both of you are comparing the Dem primaries in terms of electoral votes.

What would be the scenario if the pledged delegates were divided the way most Repub primaries are - where the winner takes all.

How many pledged delegates would Obama & Clinton have?

Maybe the Dems need to go back to that method instead of the proportional system they currently have. I'll bet the nomination would be much clearer by now.