1) Prediction: the “green bubble” (which obviously hasn’t fully formed yet, but will start to really take shape when the next president starts creating even more incentives for green innovation) will burst around 2013.
2) Wow, Hillary’s still in it. Clinton has now won the nation’s largest state (CA), the 2nd largest state (TX), the 3rd largest state (NY), the 4th largest state (FL), the 7th largest state (OH), and the 8th largest state (MI). (5th=IL=Obama, 6th=PA=has not voted yet). A part of me is beginning to think the Democrats don’t have a chance in the general election unless Clinton and Obama run together.
3) Some spin-free numbers*:
Counting Florida and Michigan
| Obama | Clinton | Total | |
| Total votes | 13,492,263 | 13,520,568 | 28,190,088 |
| % of Total | 47.86% | 47.96% |
Not counting Florida and Michigan
| Obama | Clinton | Total | |
| Total votes | 12,923,222 | 12,335,209 | 25,911,588 |
| % of Total | 49.87% | 47.60% |
*These numbers are subject to change as final tallies from yesterday’s election are updated. In fact, I’ve already changed them once. Here is the source data I’ve used.
4) Some light-spin commentary: in light of the 2000 election, I think it is only fair that the candidate who actually wins the popular vote takes the nomination. Surprisingly, that appears to be Hillary at the moment. Some will undoubtedly argue that Michigan and Florida don’t count—and by party rules, they technically don’t. But this country is supposedly built on fair and free elections. I think it’s ridiculous that State party leaders (specifically the Republicans in Florida, and the Democratic governor of Michigan) have the ability to disenfranchise as many as 28 million people (of which 1.7 million voted for Clinton or Obama in the FL and MI Democratic primaries). The Florida and Michigan results should either count as is or both states should hold another election in accordance with party rules. And Obama should get himself on the Michigan ticket this time.
From the article I got my data from above, this quote framed the election numbers nicely: “Clinton’s comeback yesterday appears to have been just strong enough to put her back in the total popular vote lead, inching Obama out by 28,305 votes out of a total combined Clinton-Obama vote of over 27 million. That leaves Obama as having received 99.8% as many votes as Clinton. (Meanwhile, McCain has received only 54.2% as many votes as Clinton, and all Republican candidates combined have received only 78.4% as many votes as Clinton.)”
5) P.S. Caucuses are undemocratic.
Comments 3
6) Superdelegates are also undemocratic.
Posted 05 March 2008 at 11:36 am ¶I agree fully. Hopefully, when all is said and done, the delegate count matches with the popular vote.
Posted 05 March 2008 at 11:38 am ¶I’m not sure it’s fair to call caucuses “undemocratic”, especially without any evidence or reasoning. I think that they ensure the security of the party because members of the party are able to choose the candidate for whom they believe whole populous should vote.
A caucus, to me, reminds me of nothing more than perhaps the most true and simple form of “democracy” in the United States–the town hall meeting. Any meeting where ideas and opinions are exchanged openly (even if the attendees are limited to a single party) is admirably democratic.
I think it would be interesting to witness an election where nominees were chosen through only caucuses. Because caucuses generally attract the more involved, educated, and well-informed party members, I think we would be presented with better nominees–maybe void a “Bush” or “Clinton” surname or maybe a true intellectual.
After all, when the nominees are chosen everyone gets to vote to decide between them. Call me an elitist, but I don”t know why non-party members are able to choose the parties’ nominees anyway.
Hey, at least I wouldn’t have to really suffer through this burdensome nomination process.
Posted 06 March 2008 at 2:01 am ¶