Saturday, March 29, 2008

Clinton vs Obama (The Stats)

Here's a look at some 2008 Democratic Campaign Statistics:

Pledged Delegates (Includes Florida and Michigan)

Obama 1768 (+105)
Clinton 1663

Super Delegates
Obama 307 (+27)
Clinton 280

Total Delegates (Includes Florida and Michigan)
Obama 2075 (+132)
Clinton 1943

Popular Vote (Includes Florida and Michigan)
Obama 47.6%
Clinton 47.7% (+0.1)

Contests Won (Includes Florida and Michigan)
Obama 33 (+12)
Clinton 21

Primaries Won (Includes Florida and Michigan)
Obama 19
Clinton 19

Caucuses Won
Obama 14 (+12)
Clinton 2

Democratic States Won (According to 2004 Results)
Obama 12 (+4)
Clinton 8

Republican States Won (According to 2004 Results)
Obama 17 (+5)
Clinton 12

Big States Won (70 or more delegates)
Obama 10
Clinton 11 (+1)

Small States Won (Less than 70 delegates)
Obama 19 (+10)
Clinton 9

Money Raised
Obama $234,745,081 (+ $45,648,028)
Clinton $189,097,053

Categories Won
Obama 9 (+7)
Clinton 2

Upcoming Contests (Predicted Winners)
Obama 2 (SD, MT)
Clinton 0
Toss-up 1 (Puerto Rico)

I'm a life-long Independent who supports Obama for the Democratic nomination. I'm still undecided about voting for Clinton if she happens to obtain the nomination. Personally, I see very little difference between Washington DC Republicans and Democrats when it comes to corporate influence, over-spending, waste, voting to authorize unnecessary wars, disconnect from middle and lower class citizens, trade, and politics as usual (partisanship). And the longer this democratic process continues, the more Clinton acts like a Washington DC Republican.

When the nomination process began, conventional wisdom, the media, and the Clinton campaign projected that the nomination was Hillary Clinton's to win or lose. Even Mrs. Clinton said the process would be over on February 5, 2008 (click here for video). Well, conventional wisdom, the media, and Clinton were wrong.

Mrs. Clinton and the Clinton brand of politics are losing the election to a candidate who was a relative unknown until 2004, the year Barack Obama came on the scene at the Democratic National Convention. How could this have happened? How could Mrs. Clinton and the Clinton Machine be losing to such a political lightweight? How could the Clintons be losing in fundraising, the popular vote, number of pledged delegates, and number of contests won (even if you include Florida and Michigan)? How is this possible? How could the former First Lady of a popular Democratic president, a person with 35 years of experience and thousands of political ties, be losing to a bi-racial man whose father was from Kenya and who once lived in Indonesia? And how could the Clintons be losing to a man whose preacher once said "God Damn America"? It just doesn't seem possible. Perhaps it is the "vast right-wing conspiracy" Mrs. Clinton talked about many years ago. Perhaps "THEY" are behind this.

Or maybe it's something else. Perhaps it's Mr. Obama's character; his genuineness, intelligence, and inspiration. Or maybe it's because he doesn't change himself, his message, or his tactics every other week. Or perhaps it's because he doesn't appear desperate to win at all costs. Or maybe it's because he doesn't want to change the rules. Or possibly it's because he doesn't pit "US" against "THEM". Or maybe it's because he doesn't appear to think he's somehow entitled to the presidency. Or perhaps it's because he appeals to people's hopes that the government can and should empower people from the bottom up, not the top down. Or maybe it's because he stays on message week after week and talks about the issues (Those who say he doesn't give specifics are not listening or looking. Click here for Mr. Obama's specifics). Or possibly it's because words do matter, and people believe he will put his words into action (if given the chance). As Mrs. Clinton said, actions speak louder than words. Indeed, Mrs. Clinton has 35 years of action, but the majority of people just aren't buying it. I wonder why.

Perhaps Mr. Obama is winning because he opposed the war in Iraq on principle from the beginning while Mrs. Clinton appears to have favored the war for political reasons. Or maybe it's because Mr. Obama is acting "dovish" or "feminine" while Mrs. Clinton is acting "hawkish" or "masculine". Or possibly it's like Mrs. Geraldine Ferraro said, it's because Mr. Obama is black or because America is more sexist than racist. I hope not.

Or maybe it's because Mr. Obama's positives are higher and his negatives are lower than Mrs. Clinton's. And why should we believe Mrs. Clinton when she says she is more electable in the General Election when she can't even win her party's own primary election? And why should we trust that Mrs. Clinton will be better in the General Election when she has to lend her own campaign 5 MILLION dollars and she can't even raise more funds than her opponent in the primary election? Where are the organizational skills? Where is the Clinton Machine?

I agree with both candidates that Mrs. Clinton should stay in the race until June 3, the date of the last primaries. When the dust has settled, the (conceptually undemocratic) Super Delegates should vote for the candidate with the most Pledged Delegates. Hopefully, that candidate will also have the popular vote, but if he or she doesn't, get over it. We all know the popular vote is not the way we elect our nominees or presidents. If you want to change the rules, do it before the process begins, not during it.

Considering the statistics above, I find it difficult to believe that the Super Delegates or anyone else will override the "will of the people" (Look at the stats). As you might have noticed, I included the results from Florida and Michigan for the sake of argument. Even if you include these results, Clinton is still losing. And if Clinton somehow obtains the nomination without winning the Pledged Delegates, I will probably vote for a third party candidate.

The nomination was Mrs. Clinton's to win or lose. She lost it.
Or maybe you could say Obama won it.

No comments: