Archive for the 'USA' Category

Democratic primaries’ results since February 20th (final)

June 4, 2008

Since February 20th, there have been 16 Democratic Primary contests. Hillary has won 9, Obama 7. So Hillary has won more Democratic Primaries since February 20th than Obama.

In the 16 contests since February 20th, Hillary has won 507 pledged delegates; Obama 470. So since February 20th Hillary has won more pledged delegates than Obama.

In the 16 contests since February 20th, Hillary has gathered 6,929,767 votes, Obama 6,313,396. So since February 20th Hillary has won more votes than Obama.

Summing up, since February 20th Hillary has won more states, pledged delegates, and votes than Obama. Are the democrats going into the Presidential Election not only with the weaker candidate of the two, but with a candidate that stopped being viable more than 3 months ago?


Rove’s maps: is Obama really gonna bring even New York back into play?

May 23, 2008

One striking feature of Rove’s electoral maps – which I hadn’t noticed the first time I looked at them the other day – is that with Obama as the Democratic candidate even the state of New York (N-E-W Y-O-R-K!!!) is in play! Obama has only a 4% advantage, just enough to paint the state blue on Rove’s maps (3% advantages count as toss-ups).

I don’t know which polls Rove used for New York, but here there is a pretty comprehensive list, which appears to suggest that maybe Rove is underestimating Obama in New York: have a look at the list and you will also see, though, that there is at least one scary poll for Dems…

Democratic Primaries results since February 20th (update)

May 23, 2008

Since February 20th, there have been 13 democratic primary contests: Obama has won 439 pledged delegates; Clinton has won 456 pledged delegates.

So since February 20th Obama has gathered fewer pledged delegates than Hillary Clinton.

In the same last 13 contests Obama has received 6,085,465 votes; Clinton has received 6,569,504 votes.

So since February 20th Clinton has received 484,039 votes more than Obama.

Hillary’s dilemma

May 22, 2008

While we wait for the final numbers from Oregon to establish what kind of win Hillary needs in Puerto Rico to overtake Obama in the popular vote count even without Michigan, just a wee thought: many agree that, with the kind of numbers she has, Hillary will be hard to stop if she really wants to become VP. Let us suppose that to be true.

Conventional wisdom also has it that, the way in which Obama and Hillary have over the last few months brought to the polls such diverse elements in the electorate – and in such substantial numbers – their ticket could not be stopped: Hillary would campaign in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, New Hampshire, West Virginia; and Obama in Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan. And they would win. Let us suppose this also to be true.

Finally, conventional wisdom also has it that Hillary is convinced that Obama cannot win in November (not alone, anyway). Let us also suppose that Hillary thinks that, independently from the merits of such view.

Now, suppose you are Hillary Clinton. Given the above, you have a clear path to become VP – neither Democrats nor Republicans, we have supposed, can stop you. But also, given the above, you are convinced that if you don’t push yourself onto the VP seat, Obama will lose, and you will very likely pick up the shuttered pieces of the Democratic Party in 2012, and probably defeat old John McCain – after all, there would be no need to remind everyone that you did warn them against Obama: even unborn babies know that much. So what do you do, Hillary?

Is Obama finished?

May 20, 2008

In the last three months – since February 20th – there have been eleven democratic primary contests (two more, Oregon and Kentucky, take place today).

In these eleven contests, Obama has obtained a total of 394 pledged delegates, while Clinton has taken 398.

So in the last three months Obama has gathered fewer pledged delegates than Hillary Clinton.

In the same last eleven contests Obama has received 5,515,438 votes; while Clinton has received 5,858,938.

So in the last three months Clinton has received 345,500 votes more than Obama.

Hillary’s last supers

May 16, 2008

Primary Folk will unquestionably remember the last few weeks as the time when Obama overtook Clinton in her last desperate stand: the number of super-delegates.

I am rather surprised, on the other hand, by the fact that Hillary got around twenty super-delegates endorsements of late. Why would a super-delegate who has been courted by both candidates for months come out and endorse the candidate that, according to everyone, has already lost? Why wouldn’t you stay on the fence a while longer and then endorse the next President of the United States? Isn’t it peculiar?

Three possible explanations:

1) principles: those super-delegates have finally realized that they identify with Hillary and her politics. Not a chance in the all bloody universe…

2) short-term personal gain: the Clintons are still able to guarantee significant political gains for people that, let’s remember it, are nobodies. But can it be that Obama was not able to outbid them?

3) those superdelegates know something that we don’t, and that’d have to do with Hillary’s prospects…

1 is out of the question and 2 isn’t very convincing. Can it really be 3 is on to something?


May 13, 2008

I would be delighted if Hillary humiliated Obama today in West Virginia, say something above 70% against something below 25%.

But I actually think that it would be better for Hillary to win by a norrower margin: if the margin is too big and way out of line with anything we have seen in the last few months, then that will offer the MSM the perfect excuse – and God knows how desperate they are for it – to ignore Hillary’s continuing campaign – on the grounds that West Virginians are just freaks: starving racists with a religious problem.

Therefore it would probably be better if Hillary got a solid but realistic win: something comfortably above 60% to 30% something. That would ‘look’ better – while still guaranteeing a delegate landslide, district by district.

Then, with WV under her belt, Hillary should manage to hold off the party for another week to go on and try to win both Kentucky and Oregon next Tuesday (which, according to this very interesting post, isn’t impossible).

more votes, less delegates, and the anti-Hillary bias

January 20, 2008

This is for you, Nihil: yesterday HRC ‘won’ Nevada by 6%; but it is projected that she will get one delegate less than Obama. Just as HRC had got one more delegate than Edwards in Iowa notwithstanding receiving fewer votes. The same explanation applies to both cases: it is also the geographical distribution of votes, rather than simply their sheer number, that counts.

But here’s a crucial difference: in the case of Iowa the MSMedia largely ignored the delegate numbers in order to make the simple and sensational claim that HRC had come third. Yesterday in Nevada the number of delegates has been reported almost as much as the the number of votes, in order to underplay, I guess, HRC’s victory.

Did Hillary really lose in Iowa?

January 5, 2008

This is what Bill Clinton must mean when he talks of the anti-Hillary bias in the media: the number of state delegates each Democratic candidate received has been widely reported; while the number of national delegates each candidates will get from Iowa has been massively under-reported. Why? Because otherwise the story would no longer sound as a crashing defeat for Hillary Rodham Clinton. In fact, Clinton got one more national delegate than Edwards (15 to 14), and only one less than Obama (16) – even though she got way less state delegates than Obama and a few less than Edwards, thereby giving raise to the embarrassing percentages that have been all over the news in the past two days. With the national delegates’ numbers, that are the only actual numbers in terms of who will be nominated, it looks a lot more like a race split three ways than the Obama triumph reported by the media (apart from the obvious fact that, counting national delegates, Hillary came second in Iowa and not third).

One more reason why it is unfair to report only the state delegates is, obviously, that while for Republicans we know the actual number of votes, for Democrats we only know how those votes translate into state delegates. So it is possible that, just like the number of national delegates is very close, so is the actual number of votes, which we are not going to find out. In the absence of the sheer number of votes, there is all the more reason for reporting both state delegates and national delegates.


January 5, 2008

Since nobody’s offering predictions (there are no polls) for Wyoming, here’s one (based on very little, to be honest):

1) Romney

2) Thompson

3) Huckabee

4) Paul

p.s. there are 12 delegates at stake