Thursday, May 8, 2008

Hillary PLEASE don't quit, don't let the Media Aggressives Win.

Hillary PLEASE don't quit, don't let the Media Aggressives Win.
There are few progressives in this country. Most Progressives are actually "Aggressives" in saliva stained clothing. While these Progressive/Aggressives try and drive Hillary Clinton from the race as soon as possible, Hillary Clinton is right for staying in the race.

I believe the strongest case for Hillary Clinton to stay in the race is the misapportioned caucus state delegate votes. The caucus state delegate votes that should have gone to Hillary Clinton that went to Barack Obama instead resulted in a loss of TWO delegate votes per every delegate misvote. So if we verify that Obama got 80-100 extra delegates from the caucus state votes that should have gone to Hillary Clinton, (which is very EASY to do), that actually is a 160-200 gain for Hillary Clinton in the actual delegate race.

As I examine the delegate voting tallies for the following caucus states and a couple of primary states, please note that in each and every scenario Barack Obama RETAINS HIS LEAD in the delegate count and that his lead remains SIGNIFICANT. In most instances the delegate reduction still leaves Barack with around 60% of the delegates. This is very important to understand as I am trying to show that the bloated delegate numbers that Barack Obama currently is receiving from most caucus states and some primary states doesn't accurately represent the true popularity of each candidate in the states mentioned below.

Should Barack Obama really get 8 delegates from the Virgin Islands to Hillary's 0? Wouldn't a 5-3 vote be more reasonable? A 6 delegate shift.

Should Barack Obama really get 53 delegates from Washington to 25 for Hillary when the non binding primary vote held 10 days later showed the two were a LOT closer than the caucus vote? Instead of 53-25, how about 42-36? A 22 delegate shift.

Do the democratic citizens of Nebraska really support Barack Obama 22 - 8 in delegates? Is that really representational of the democrats in the state of Nebraska? How about 17-13? A 10 delegate shift.

Should Illinois really give Barack 132 delegates to Hillary's 49 when the most logical mid point is 121 to 60? Maybe even less since Barack got a huge concentration in a few areas of the state. A 22 delegate shift none the less.

Should South Carolina really give 28 delegates to Barack and only 12 to Hillary when the South Carolina popular vote only went to Barack by a 55%-45% margin? How about 23-17? A 10 delegate shift. Lol, Pennslyvania went to Hillary with that same 10 percent margin of victory yet Hillary picked up less of a delegate margin gain than South Carolina, even though South Carolina is a LOT smaller than Pennsylvania in total delegates.

Why should Texas and Nevada give more delegates to Barack when Hillary won the popular vote in both? A minimum 24 delegate shift.

Does Idaho really favor Barack by a 18-3 delegate count? Is that really representative of the democrats in that state? How about a more reasonable 13-8 victory for Barack? A 10 delegate shift.

Is Kansas really in favor of Barack by a 26 to 10 delegate count? Really? How about 21-15 instead? Another shift of 10 delegates.

Is Minnesota really in favor of Barack by a 58 to 27 delegate count? Really? Is Obama as well loved in Minnesota as he is in Illinois? How about 49-36 instead, a shift of 18 delegates.

North Carolina with its staunch plus 90% black vote for Barrack Obama, still only managed a 14% margin of victory. How can larger victories of delegates come from the caucus states than what was given out in North Carolina?

I just found 142 delegates, 71 less for Barack, 71 more for Hillary, by merely making the delegate allocations reasonable and fair. I'm not sure I hit all the states that have out of whack delegate voting totals either. North Carolina received 28 bonus delegates for NOT moving the date of their election. Is that fair? Were Michigan and Florida offered bonus delegates to not move their vote date into January of 2008?

Would the media aggressives and the television pundits really be crowing that the race was over if Barack had 71 less delegates and Hillary had 71 more delegates right now? Add in Florida and you see that Hillary would actually be winning right now. Florida is to Hillary what Illinois is to Barack Obama. How the Barack camp can look anyone in the eye and deny Florida to Hillary just proves that they cannot be fully trusted. As for the media progressive/aggressives, they need to be popped like the pimple that they are.

The above calculations do not count either Florida or Michigan. Florida and Michigan is not the central issue at the moment. It is the miscount in the caucus states and Obama's abuse of the miscount to then discredit Hillary Clinton back in late February that concerns me. The Obama camp used the miscounts in the caucus races to sway delegates and super delegates, that is the second issue that should be on the table right now.

The reason the Progressive/Aggressives want Hillary to resign is so her delegates jump ship and obfuscate the overall delegate count. If Hillary Clinton delegates jump ship they bury the statistical truth that the Obama camp stole the election in the caucus states with inaccurate and inflated caucus delegate vote counts.


Anonymous said...

You are sure you want to post this nonsense in a public forum? Have you ever heard of Congressional Districts? That is how the delgates are split, not by the total votes, i.e. a Congressional District with a larger population will have more delegates attached to it than a District with a smaller population.

Alessandro Machi said...

Uh oh, here comes an aggressive, and from the Hillary Clinton Forum no less, an obamabot no doubt. Just look at the numbers. Oh wait, when the numbers unfairly favor Obama by inaccurate amounts, that is ok, but trying to make the math more sensible and based on actual candidate strength per state, that is just too much to ask for, eh.

AnnJSmith said...

The plot thickens doesn't it? You're right, things just don't add up. I've seen similar numbers on other blogs.
That's probably why BO's camp is so edgy and nervous, and trying to rush everything.

Alessandro Machi said...

Please let me know where these blogs are. All I see are aggressives out there trying to say the race is over.

Anonymous said...

I believe Hillary Clinton was trying to rush things when she offered Obama the #2 spot on her inevitable ticket.

I used to respect Hillary Clinton but sort of drifted away with her racebaiting and fearmongering kitchen sink approach. She may be skilled at developing policy to do list but she lacks leadership, which is the primary role of the president.

I don't think Hillary Clinton appreciates the full impact of her racebaiting and fearmongering. Three-fourths of the people in the world are people of color. The implication of her racebaiting is not lost on our debtholders China and the Middle East (that's right, the Middle East a large portion of our debt that keeps our government running every day).

I am so saddened that she is willing to divide the Democrat party in pursuit of the presidential nomination. And ex-president Bill Clinton has truly destroyed the statesman-like qualities of all other ex-presidents no matter what their party affiliation.

Anonymous said...

Are you kidding? Your entire argument is that its "unfair" that the delegates awarded don't mirror the popular vote totals. And, maybe it is unfair, but thats not Obama's fault. He didnt "steal" any delegates and they certainly werent "miscounted". He just won in places where more delegates are assigned. Thats how they are apportioned by the RULES set by the state and national party, fair or not. He didnt make those rules. If you have a problem with them, complain to the state parties, or the national party.

Urging Hillary on because she was too short sighted to see the value of caucus states is ridiculous. She knew the rules, they havnt changed since the campaign began.

The fact that you havnt done enough research to know this kills your credibility.

Anonymous said...

I read your post with an open mind and a desire to understand your point of view, I hope you'll treat me with the same respect.

I was excited to see your story of how barack stole the election after seeing your advertisements in the comments on news stories. However the "Is that really representative of the democrats in that state?" lacks any factual proof. If you have voting totals for each state and then do the math to apply what percentage of the people voted for hilary and what percent of the delegates she received, that would be legitimate proof. You clearly are intelligent enough to do it, but haven't posted the numbers yet. I'd love to see that added, it would provide a more solid backing for your piece.

You say that it's statistically infeasible for the margin of victory to change so drastically. While a small (less then 30) sample size would support wild changes, in this case we have samples in the thousands and tens of thousands--which do not support the kinds of wild changes witnessed during the voting. Those changes are accounted for by the different districts having their votes counted. Barack and Hilary appeal to very different crowds. When a key demographic is geographically clustered, those districts will produce landslide wins for a certain candidate. So far the polling shows that any primarily black district will heavily favor obama, while working class white districts heavily favor clinton. Ironically the democrats within the highly educated white districts are also heavily supporting obama per demographics articles. (This isn't as ironic when you consider issues like the gas tax, where the highly educated understand the economics and the under educated will believe it will save them money)

Before I'm called any nasty names, I'm only recognizing key demographics. I've got nothing against people labeled in any of these demographics. I'm neither racist nor elitist. I find it disheartening that the racial demographic has been such a powerful predictor of whom people will vote for.

Because the districts will not all be counted at the same time, it should be expected that there will be significant changes within the states race based on which district's votes are currently being counted.

Therefore my first two points are 1. Actual vote totals for the events in the state should be posted to show the disparity between the allotment of delegates and the popular vote. Without this it is a hollow accusation.

2. It would be statistically unlikely for there not to be significant swings in the vote. The geographic concentrations of people often align with their key demographics. Since only a few counties are counted at once, when all counties being counted are being counted are black, obama will be gaining votes much more quickly, when the counties being counted are white, hilary will quickly gain votes. At the end of the night all the votes will be counted from all of the counties, but until then they will be reporting on the changes to total numbers based on the added votes from only a few districts at a time. If you stay up late during the presidential race you will hear alot of analysis as they attempt to predict which way a state will vote and they use the demographics of the unreported counties to guess which way the rest of the votes will go. (Yes, that was very long for a summation of point 2, however reading through your entire article it appeared this section of the political process was entirely lacking)

The final point I would like to add is that you suggested the margin of victory should not change, that if all districts would being reported at the exact same time (Which does not happen) the margin of victory should remain relatively equal.

However you then go on to suggests that the tens or hundreds of thousands of votes collected are not large enough to represent the will of the people. This is heavily contrary to your suggestion that with so many people the margin of victory should not change. By the logic that the margin of victory should not change--and it wouldn't if all the counties were reported at the same time) then this sample of a hundred thousand or so is clearly indicative of what the vote totals would be if everyone was counted--because as you said, the margin's of victory shouldn't change.

The only case you can reasonably make and logically support is that the caucus system is under representing key demographics that are crucial to the clinton campaign. If you took that platform though you would have to explain why the voting system should cater to people that don't wish to attend the caucus. I don't know what demographics do or don't represent themselves at caucus, but it would be within reason that the demographics that go to the caucus to vote are the same ones that would again vote in the general election.

If you do care to respond, my e-mail is

I am not quick to respond to my e-mails, but I am open to an intelligent debate of the subject so as long as the focus is on growing together in our understanding rather then aggressiveness.

Alessandro Machi said...

I appreciate your thoughtfulness in this matter. I am not really focused on the fluctuating margin of victory as much you think I am. All I am saying is as the total vote grows in a primary election, the voting margins begin to coalesce closer towards each other. I understand that certain regions may not have their votes counted as quickly, but as the vote totals grow, they become more and more statistically accurate and relevant even if certain regions are not counted right away.

If the Indiana voting count had been reversed, the same result would have occurred. Barack Obama would have been well ahead at first, and then Hillary Clinton would have made up ground the rest of the night and eventually won. The point being that the initial, lower percentage count would have favored Barack by a significant amount, and then would have eventually settled into a much closer final margin of victory for Hillary Clinton.

Once several percentage points of a primary election are tabulated, and the count is coming in from all regions of the state, the odds are that if the counts are initially far off they will still most likely "settle" into a closer range as the vote totals grow.

In the Indiana primary vote count, Hillary led by 14-18 points early on, but by the end she only won by two points. In the North Carolina primary vote count, Barack was up 70% to 30% early on, a 40% margin. Then Hillary crept back to a final margin of 14%. (a couple of regions that heavily favored Obama were actually counted twice and that margin may drop a percentage point before the final margin is officially tabulated).

In both instances the initial vote margin reduced in half as all the votes were counted. Unfortunately, in a caucus vote, this may not happen because of the severe undervote that goes on. 88% less voters are used to select each delegate, and that is where the innaccuracy comes in.


Your quote "The only case you can reasonably make and logically support is that the caucus system is under representing key demographics that are crucial to the clinton campaign. If you took that platform though you would have to explain why the voting system should cater to people that don't wish to attend the caucus......


I'll answer your last question first. ALL voting systems to best represent the way the votes will be cast in the fall, during the actual presidential race.
Primaries achieve this goal in a superior manner to caucuses. Probably the biggest reasons for this is in a primary one gets all day to vote, and the second reason is one votes in the privacy of a voting booth, and then they get to leave!

Documented types of voters who do not attend caucuses and are more likely vote to for Hillary Clinton include seniors, housewifes and husbands who are not going to leave their kids alone in the early evening or are taking of their kids, and blue collar workers who can't take time off or get to the caucus in time from work. Of course some Barack Obama voters will also not be able to attend as well, but the demographics seem to point towards more Hillary Clinton voters not being able to attend a caucus vote than Barack Obama voters.

People more likely to attend the caucuses are college age kids, and people into their early thirties who are not quite as saddled with family responsibilities of all kinds. These types of voters tend to vote more often for Barack Obama.

You then stated....

".... I don't know what demographics do or don't represent themselves at caucus, but it would be within reason that the demographics that go to the caucus to vote are the same ones that would again vote in the general election."


If that were the case, then the likelihood of such huge margins in the caucus states would not have happened. Barrack Obama's 11 largest winning percentages were all Caucus states, none of them were in states that actually had primaries. The odds of this are in the billions, UNLESS, something else interfered. That something else is the strict window of time for voting and the fact that a certain type of person (not race related) becomes in "charge" of the caucus locations. How each candidate prepared for the caucuses enters into the equation as well. So does the fact that the caucuses are not private events. One doesn't vote in private and the caucuses can take anywhere from an hour to 3 hours to be completed.

Caucuses DO NOT represent how people will vote in the presidential election this fall whereas primaries seem to be much more accuarate of each candidates popularity in that state. Washington State had a caucus result of 68%-31% in favor of Obama but a non-binding primary vote 10 days later of 50% to 47%, a huge difference, no? Try a 16% x 2 swing, or a 32% change in the margin of victory, OUCH!

North Carolina was very pro Obama, and the result shows a 14% victory for Obama. Yet the top 11 Obama caucus wins all show a 67% or higher victory margin. That is where Obama built up his insurmountable lead back in February. When comparing a very pro Obama state such as the North Carolina primary with 11 caucus states that finished with a 10% higher winning percentage or more for Barack (which actually means a 20% swing), are we to believe that there are 11 states in the United States that legitimately favor Barack by 20% MORE than North Carolina???

Boris the Bewildered said...

Guess what? There's an even easier argument: once at the convention, ALL delegates - regular, super - can vote for whomever they want to! So, the "math" is more BS than ever.

Anonymous said...

Oh my gosh, give it a rest sir. And, Hillary, please give it a rest and give it up. At the start of this campaign I thought I had a tough decision to make, but in reality, it has not been. In fact, YOU have been a HUGE turn off for me, as well as your husband, Bill and daughter, Chelsea. Seems you all have chips on your shoulders. With YOUR aggressive and continued campaigning for the nomination you are essentially holding the Democrats and undecided of this country hostage for your own political agenda!!!

Hillary, please be a good sport and for the good of the party, please give it up! The world is watching.

K Shaub

Alessandro Machi said...

Champions against cheating never quit.

Go start your own party if you support the rampant cheating that went on in many caucus elections.

Alessandro Machi said...

Just to recap, Hillary Clinton won more "congressional districts" than Barack Obama, even when Florida and Michigan are not counted.

Barack Obama's victory was completely related to caucus votes in states that used 88% less voters and involved questionable actitivities by ACORN.

moving on to now. The Credit Card Industry needs reigning in. Please help me fight them. It's easier than you think.