Would Different Primary Schedule Have Changed Outcome in Democratic Race?
Las night, as I returned him to review the results from West Virginia’s primary, I wondered how different things would have been had West Virginia held its contest last week, with the Indiana and North Carolina primaries this week. With that thought in mind, I concluded my post on the Mountain State’s returns thusly:
In that case, Hillary might have tightened the margin in North Carolina and widened it in Indiana. And we wouldn’t be talking about Obama today as the presumptive Democratic nominee.
Even after the thumping the Democratic frontrunner took last night, “he picked up three more superdelegates after the West Virginia loss, offering fresh recognition from Democratic leaders that he is likely to secure the nomination.“
What if the schedule had been different this year? Would those three superdelegates have moved to Hillary had she won West Virginia before getting shellacked in the Tarheel State and holding on only by the skin of her teeth in the Hoosier State?
One of the great ironies of this presidential election year is that so many states rushed to hold their primaries as early as they could so as to increase their influence, but all crowded together on the same day in February, they did not get the focus some contests held later in the cycle enjoyed.
Perhaps it was Obama’s solid win in Wisconsin (58-41) on February 19 that secured his status as likely Democratic nominee. But, what if West Virginia had held its contest that day, would Hillary have then been able to move into the lead?
3 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Quiet thread. Might have been one too many on this general topic, LOL
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 14, 2008 @ 6:02 pm - May 14, 2008
I have no doubt that the schedule of primaries and caucuses definitely impacted the race between Hillary and Obama. I didn’t hear what state was being referred to but last night one of the talking heads on CNN said this might have been a different ballgame had such and such a state held its primary in February.
And I am still on my soapbox about the caucuses — the most undemocratic part of the process by which we choose the leaders of our democracy. The situation impacts the Democratic Party more than Republicans but as long as there are caucuses Republicans should be worried.
I mentioned election day in a comment to your post about what kind of vote Hillary would get that I was also curious about what kind of support John McCain would get. In the comment I mentioned that I thought Nebraska was also holding a primary Tuesday.
McCain took 76 percent of the vote in West Virginia, which isn’t that good considering he’s the presumptive GOP nominee and has no one actively running against him. He did much better in Nebraska, taking a little over 83 percent of the vote.
When I checked the Omaha World-Herald for Tuesday’s primary results in Nebraska I was very surprised to see that Nebraska also held a Democratic presidential primary (I’m thinking it’s required by law). It was just a beauty contest since Nebraska’s Democratic delegates were chosen in February caucuses. The difference supports my argument against caucuses.
In the February caucuses, Obama took 68 percent of the vote — one of his strongest performances. But in yesterday’s primary he and Hillary were almost tied. He got 49 percent and she took 47 percent of the vote. Hillary carried 61 of Nebraska’s 93 counties and would have won but for Obama’s 4,000 vote margin in Omaha. In February, Obama won the caucuses in 61 of the 93 counties.
I don’t think Hillary picked up strength because of Rev. Wright, Obama’s elitist comments in San Francisco, etc. I know a lot of people in Nebraska becauses I have business operations there A lot of people who supported Hillary were complaining because it was so difficult for working people with children to find the time to attend the caucuses but dropping by polling places during a primary would not have taken much time.
My closest friend lives in Kansas and it was even worse there. Leftists in charge of the Democratic organization scheduled the caucuses by state senate districts instead of counties. That favored the cities, especially the larger cities with black populations and universities. Rural voters, who we now know strongly favor Hillary, were forced to drive long distances to participate in the two-hour-long caucuses and were thus discouraged. And there was a blizzard in much of Kansas that night, really curtailing long drives by rural residents. It’s no wonder Obama took 70 percent of the vote.
And, most importantly, I’d like to find a caucus set-up in the nation that 1) had a procedure for absentee voting; 2) provided absentee ballots for military personnel serving overseas; 3) provided transportation to the caucus sites for the elderly and disabled; 4) kept an accurate record of which registered voters cast votes.
I mentioned the 4th item because I’ve heard stories of college students voting at caucuses in states where they’re attending school and then voting again by absentee ballot in primaries where their homes are.
Comment by Trace Phelps — May 14, 2008 @ 6:11 pm - May 14, 2008
When 70% of Democrats in ANY state don’t vote for your presumptive nominee, how can the MSM deny there is an obvious problem with Obama? The MSM dismisses it as the votes of bigots.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — May 14, 2008 @ 9:57 pm - May 14, 2008