Can Hillary Still Win?

There have been a lot of people here at Think Youth asking, “Can Hillary Still Win?” or various others claiming she can’t win.

The simple answer to the question is, yes, Hillary can still win. And if Barack Obama, his campaign, or his supporters didn’t think so, they wouldn’t have spent the last few days attacking Clinton’s character. The attack style politics he denounces on the campaign trail, yet takes part in, is further proof of this. And, if Hillary Clinton could no longer win, there wouldn’t be any question of whether she can.

I would just like to go over many issues concerning the course of the Democratic nomination for president. So please read carefully.

First off, when did we get into the business of announcing a winner of a state before that state has yet to vote? Let’s first finish the process, let the voters of West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Montana, and South Dakota have their say.

Isn’t it impossible for Clinton to overtake Obama’s lead in pledged delegates?

Currently, as of May 12, 2008, Barack Obama leads Hillary Clinton by about 173.5 delegates (1873.5-1700). This metric includes the superdelegates where Obama now leads Clinton (279-276.5).

It is very hard to see Clinton overtaking Obama’s lead in pledged delegates. Based upon recent polling data, and demographic predictions of the remaining states, Barack Obama looks in a most comfortable position of retaining his lead in pledged delegates, alone. I believe the legitimate Democratic nominee will not be the one with the most pledged delegates, because it is clear neither candidate will meet the 2,025 (2,209 If we include Florida and Michigan) required in order to declare victory for the nomination. He shouldn’t get too comfortable though; there are many other various factors deciding this race: the popular vote, and what to do with Michigan and Florida.

The Flawed Democratic Delegate System

The proportional system Democrats have chosen this primary season, and past primaries, is a flawed system. It’s why we have no Democratic candidate right now. The reason the Republicans had their nominee so early, John McCain, is that their winner take all allocation of delegates many states chose, has lead them there. Under proportionality, he gets a delegate, you get a delegate, everyone gets a delegate! Even if a candidate loses a district, that candidate will still pick up delegates. And no one can build up a credible lead.

Under the winner take all scenario, for Democrats, not including Florida or Michigan, Hillary Clinton would be leading in pledged delegates by 147.5 delegates (1,869.5-1,722). With Florida included, her lead grows even more, by 332.2 delegates (2,054.5-1,722). For fairness, since Obama’s name wasn’t on the ballot in Michigan, it was not included in that result.
Why am I making this argument? Because the general election in the fall is winner take all electoral votes, state by state. The same way the Democratic primary should have occurred.

Here are a few examples of why the pledged delegate count is not representative of the direction this race is going.

• New Hampshire - Clinton won the state by 7,589 votes, yet the delegates were split evenly 9-9.
• Nevada - Clinton won the state by 50.8% to Obama’s 45.1%, yet Obama got one more delegate out of state, (12-13).
• Missouri - Obama barely won the state, got more votes (11,732 more) 49.7% to Clinton’s 47.3%, and the delegates split evenly 36-36.
• Texas - Clinton received more votes than Obama in the Texas primary, and Obama won the caucus. Overall, Obama got 5 more delegates (94-99) but received less votes than Clinton. Only votes out of the primary are counted, not of the caucus, because double votes would be counted. (One person, one vote.)
• If Texas had only held a caucus, Obama would have won the state handily. This questions whether or not Obama would have actually won other caucus states had those states held primaries instead. Presidential elections are not decided by caucuses, they’re decided by voting booths and absentee ballots. The latter two ensure that as many people as possible participate in the voting process. What we’ve come to realize is that the more people voting, the better Clinton has done.

But aren’t all delegates equal?

Not exactly. Taking a few examples from random states, the ratio of delegates to votes among different states does not add up fairly.

Why should a delegate from the state of Pennsylvania be different from a delegate from a state like Idaho?

In Pennsylvania, one delegate = 14,360 votes.

In Idaho one delegate = 1,768 votes.

In California, one delegate = 13,695 votes.

In Virginia, one delegate = 11,882 votes.

In Illinois, one delegate = 13,178 votes.

In New York, one delegate = 8,028 votes.

The ratio between delegates and votes state by state is neither fair nor representative of the will of the voters.

These are clear examples of why the proportional delegate system is flawed, and if it’s possible for the candidate with the most votes to not get the most delegates at the state level, then it’s definitely possible at the national level. The final popular vote including Florida and Michigan will be the correct representation of this race, not the delegates. And if the Obama campaign wants to disenfranchise voters of two states, and be the Democratic nominee of 48 states, then we will count all the votes.

So the question is, why do some states hold caucuses, and other states hold primaries?

A trend of these caucus states I have seen is that they usually are red states which Democrats hardly ever have a chance to win in Fall presidential elections. These red caucus states choose the caucus process because caucusues are less expensive to hold, and the minority party of the state, Democrats, usually don’t raise as much money as the GOP in these red states, so the caucus is an easy solution, and a great way for Democratic parties to save money. Of course there are many other reliably blue states that hold caucuses, but the trend of red state’s Democratic Parties holding caucuses is clearly evident.

Caucus states Clinton won are in bold. Caucus states Obama won are not in bold.

Caucuses in red states include: Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, North Dakota, Iowa, Nevada, Nebraska, Wyoming, and Texas.

Caucuses in reliably blue states: Minnesota, Washington, Maine, Hawaii.

Caucuses in swing states: New Mexico

It’s obvious the caucus system has given Obama an advantage in delegates, and that’s not a good thing.

If you’ve ever been to a caucus, you should know how confusing and problematic the process can be. In January I attended the Nevada Caucus. It lasted hours, and there was mass confusion. People didn’t know how to “caucus,” where to “caucus,” and they didn’t have time to spend three hours caucusing. Many people left because they had to go to work, they had children, or it was just too much of a hassle than voting in a booth. Minutes before the caucus started, many people in the vehicles parked on sidewalks, curbs, and in the middle of the parking lot. Caucuses also start at an exact time, and if you are not there right at the exact time, you are barred form participating. Voting booths are open all day.

The fact that Barack Obama sweeps the floor in caucuses does not represent anything about his electability in November. Caucuses are the most undemocratic system I have ever witnessed in my life.

Why didn’t the revotes in Florida and Michigan take place?

I’ve also read a few of you outspokenly disagreeing with Barack Obama’s campaign on revotes in these states. Many readers believe revotes should have occurred. Instead the Obama campaign, blocking revotes in both states, clearly showed he is trying to sit on his lead of pledged delegates. And in the process, the Obama campaign chose to silence millions of voters. Had I been an Obama supporter, I would have not continued to support a candidate willing to re-disenfranchise voters for his own benefit.

It is true that had Michigan held revotes, Obama would have likely won Michigan and Clinton would have likely won Florida. The main reason the Obama campaign blocked revotes is because they were worried what that would do to the final popular vote metric. Could Florida give Hillary the lead in popular votes, and Obama the lead in delegates?

Conclusion

This paranoia that Hillary Clinton can only win by somehow stealing the election is just that, paranoia. There are many various unknown factors still dictating the final outcome of this race, as I previously stated.

If the superdelegates do not honor the will of the popular vote, of all votes, including Florida and Michigan, it will be a morally unjust outcome. As Democrats, we have seen firsthand in 2000 what happens to the winner of the poplar vote when they lose due to a flawed election system. Don’t let it happen again.