A Chuck Todd Simulation: What if FL & MI had voted after March 4?

[DemsUnited]

Hillary netted 24 delegates from Saturday's ruling.

MSNBC's numbers whiz, Chuck Todd, takes a look at what might have happened if Michigan and Florida had just followed the rules. His simulation has Hillary netting 5 - 13 delegates if the two states had held their primaries when they were supposed to.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24890836/

A few weeks ago, I attempted to simulate what the results would be in Florida and Michigan had both primaries taken place after March 4 when both candidates were at their full strength with their respective demographic groups. After interviewing experts in both states, my simulation gave Florida to Clinton by a margin of about six points (53-47), netting her nine delegates (97-88).

In Michigan, my experts believe timing would have been everything. Had the primary been in March, these folks gave it to Obama by 2 points. Had the primary been held post-Rev. Wright and the “bitter-cling” comments, our experts believe Clinton would have eked out a win. Nobody believed either was capable of anything more than an Indiana or Missouri margin for either candidate.

My simulation gave Michigan to Clinton, 51-49, which would have netted her approximately 4 delegates (66-62).

Bottom line: simulations are obviously not perfect, but I think it's VERY safe to assume that, in valid primary elections, Clinton wouldn't have netted any MORE delegates out of MI & FL than Saturday's ruling gave her, and likely would have netted substantially LESS.

So I truly don't understand the reasoning behind the Clinton supporter charge of "unfair".

[ellisonz]

1. That's why they tried to move as far up as possible in the first place...

...name ID is a hell of a mass media force.

[DemsUnited]

5. The only way to solve name ID problem is a single primary election day for all 50 states,

just like the general election.

If primary elections are going to continue to be staggered over several months, then states have to suck it up and follow the calender.

[ellisonz]

6. That would only make the problem worse...

put nicely, Hillary Clinton has relied on the less informed and less involved in her attempt to vanquish the Democratic wing of the Democratic party. A national race would exacerbate that issue which is not healthy for democracy.

The problem here is that states are refusing to stagger it to allow time to campaign adequately.

[DemsUnited]

9. Ah, I see your point and it definitely is a good one. nt.

[ellisonz]

12. You may be...

...too polite for GDP.

:rofl:

No really, name's are extremely powerful when the electorate is uninformed: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/elections/la-ed-johnson5-2008may05,0,6707856.story

Voters aren't showing much excitement over the June 3 election, apart from a race to replace Supervisor Yvonne B. Burke in Los Angeles County's 2nd District. Turnout is expected to be light. Many who do vote will do so by mail, beginning today. It is a stealth election, providing an opportunity to a dangerous candidate with a small but dedicated following of people who make it a point to vote when others don't bother.

That's especially true in the races for Los Angeles Superior Court judge. Little is known to voters about judicial candidates except for their names, their three-word ballot designations and the slate mailers that, for a price, show their photos and list their qualifications. Two years ago, voters relying on such information ousted accomplished jurist Dzintra Janavs and replaced her with Lynn Diane Olson, the owner of a bagel bakery who had not actively practiced law for a decade; political observers speculated that voters simply preferred the sound of Olson's name.

It was a bad choice, but Olson was simply underqualified. This year it's more serious. Los Angeles voters, if they don't pay attention, could hand judicial robes to a racial separatist who called for restricting U.S. citizenship to persons "of the European race" and deporting blacks, Asians, Latinos and others who don't meet his racial criteria.

The candidate is Bill Johnson. Under the name James O. Pace, he wrote the racial exclusion as a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution and a 1985 book supporting it. Under the name Daniel Johnson, he ran a losing race for Congress in Wyoming in 1989 with a Ku Klux Klan organizer as his campaign manager. As William Johnson, he ran a losing race for Congress in Arizona in 2006. He now may have found a race he can win, unless voters here find out who he is.<.div>

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

7. That actually exacerbates the problem. nt

[napi21]

10. As much as that sounds neat and clean, it wouldn't work!

Think back to Jan & Feb. We had 8 candidates! If you would have had a single primary day, no matter what date you'd choose, NOBODY could have gotten 50% of the vote! Then what? A runoff? That just puts you back to multiple primary votes again!

[DemsUnited]

11. very true and excellent point. nt.

[boobooday]

2. I watched the whole damn meeting

Had it on all day.

One thing I can say about it. I thought that all sides were heard and respected, and the decision was fair. I was impressed with everything until some of the observers started acting out at the end.

[trumad]

3. I believed in my party rules and didn't vote in the Florida Primary

as did many other fellow democrats in this state. I am damn certain that if Obama campaigned in Florida and was on the Michigan ballot, and the vote was cast in early March, the numbers would have been far different.

[writes3000]

4. Let's see if most Clinton supporters here actually acknowledge this point. n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. Clinton might have gladly traded off netting less delegates in those states

for the momentum she might have gained by beating Obama twice in two important states early in March in primaries that actually were fully contested, which the media fully covered, and which everyone agreed actually counted. Which is why I think the Clinton camp came to the realization that they would be better served by trying to arrange new primaries rather than have those states play out the way that they have now.

But that falls within the genre of alternate history fiction. It didn't happen that way. I think the DNC ruling was about as overall fair as possible under the circumstances. I really hope Clinton doesn't fight this any further.

[MindMatter]

16. By the time they could have run new elections

Obama would have won Michigan handily, and pulled even in FL. Because by that time, Obama had effectively won the race. This thing was over when Obama won Texas.

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. It either was "over " when Obama won a dozen or so in a row, or it was "over"

when Obama kept Clinton from winning a solid victory in Indiana. Texas was either meaningless or a set back for Obama, depending on how you look at it. The handfull of delegates he netted from Texas from the caucus were statistically insignificant. Clinton winning the popular vote in the Texas Primary was politically significant. Had Obama done so instead the Clinton campaign would have started collapsing, instead money started rolling into her coffers again because of her showings in Texas and Ohio.

[MindMatter]

18. I don't see how Texas could possibly be a setback for Obama

It showed he was one hell of a smart guy who put together a truly savvy campaign team that didn't rely on dirty tricks and cheap shots. They were able to win by understanding the rules and then putting together strategies to win BY THE RULES. That is exactly what happened in Texas. I'm not sure if Hillary, even today, understands how crushing her Texas defeat was. Remember, that was to have been the grand comeback in PA and TX, and instead that played that week to a draw.

Once that happened, she had no more legitimate paths to the nomination. Her money dried up. That was right about the time she started going deeply in debt. And without any possibility of a legitimate delegate victory, she had to start relying on all the bogus arguments.

If we had to pick a moment when the deal was clinched, I'd say it was Texas. Obama has built a nice lead with the string of victories after Super Tuesday. But if Hillary had been able to win Texas convincingly and maybe another 5-10 points in OH and PA, she would be in the running now.

A candidate with any vision and character would have gracefully bowed out after Texas. She has neither. We were wise not to nominate her for the job.

[Ravy]

13. I think FL was entirely fair, with the exception of they should have

made their ruling *before* the election so that turnout wouldn't have been supressed.


The MI ruling boggles me. To invalidate a certified state election was insane, for what? A swing of four votes?

This is why I said the RBC should stay out of the apportionment argument.

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. If the Michigan Democratic Party had not been the one making that proposal

I might have agreed with you. But if they closed ranks behind it I think it was right for the DNC to also. The Michigan primary was a mess, there was no really fair solution possible.

[Ravy]

15. But it was the DNC that made it a mess

by saying that it wouldn't count. Then, they imposed their will for the delegate selection because the election they "ruined" was ruined.

[AllentownJake]

19. Michigan ruined their own primary

by moving the date. The state leaders are responsible for their actions.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mystieus]

21. Because he didn't..

[Median Democrat]

22. The GOP In Florida Wanted The Dems To Pay . . .

For a new state-wide election. The Democratic Party did not have the money. Google it. It was considered, but they could not agree on who would fund it.