Posted on 02/07/2008 2:40:18 AM PST by CitizenUSA
I made three assertions about the primary process in an earlier thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1966070/posts?page=17
After that post, I decided to take a closer look. Based on the most recent data from CNN Election Center, I analyzed the primary results. I assigned blue or red status to each state based on the 2004 election (red for Republican, blue for Democrat). Here are some interesting aspects of the race that I haven't seen anywhere else:
McCain: - 60% of his delegates come from BLUE states. - His strongest state was New Jersey with 60.3% of the vote. - He earned >50% of the vote in every RED state except Arizona. - Missouri had the most distorted outcome of any contest. It awarded him 58 (100%) of its delegates for only 35.2% of the vote. - McCain has 200 (150%) more delegates than he would have based purely on votes. - He earned a majority (>50%) vote in five contests, four of them BLUE. - He only earned 5.6% of the vote in Utah. - He won all of the delegates in seven "Winner Take All" primaries, four BLUE. - He earned his most delegates from California, a BLUE state (thanks Arnold). - He has 42.6% of the vote, including the MOST votes (2,169,498) in RED states.
Romney: - He has 142 fewer delegates (only 62%) than he would have otherwise based on actual votes! - 60% of his delegates are from RED states. - He received 93% of the vote in Utah (hmmmm). - He won 4 of the 11 BLUE state primaries. - He earned majority (>50%) victories in seven contests, five RED. - Minnesota, a "Winner Take All," gave him twice as many delegates as he actually earned based purely on votes. - He only earned 14.5% of the vote in Arkansas, his worst race. - He tied Huckabee for the most RED state wins (6 each), including the Huckabee "win" in WV. - He only netted +3 delegates on his opponents in N. Dakota, a state with one of the fairest apportionments of delegates but also the weakest compared to "Winner Take All" states.
Huckabee: - 98.8% of his delegates came from RED states, almost entirely from the South. - He has 57 fewer delegates (75%) than he would have otherwise based purely on votes (the fairest distribution because there are fewer "Winner Takes All" Southern states). - Only two BLUE states, New Hampshire and Michigan, gave him delegates (one each). - He earned 45 (100%) of Georgia delegates despite only winning 35.5% of the vote (the second most distorted race). - W. Virginia gave him 1.94 times more delegates than he actually earned, thanks to McCain votes. - His strongest showing in a BLUE state was Minnesota with 23.8% of the vote.
BTW, it’s pretty clear that Huckabee has virtually no support outside of RED states. In other words, I don’t see any way possible for him to win the general election, even if he somehow slides into the nomination.
Mitt has support in both RED and BLUE states, but McCain is clearly more popular. Although the “Winner Takes All” primaries are giving McCain a greater percentage than he actually won (based on votes), McCain is the leading vote getter in both RED and BLUE states. In other words, the delegate apportionment has increased his margin but it hasn’t distorted the will of the voters. They, unfortunately, favor McCain.
Correction: McCain earned LESS THAN 50% of the vote in every RED state except Arizona.
With 98% of precincts reporting McCain has 48% of the vote in Arizona.
glad you caught that
More results may have come in since I looked at the data this afternoon. According to CNN Election Center, he had more than 50% at that time. Either way, it won’t change the outcome. McCain earned the majority of the votes, even in RED states. He’s getting enough of the conservative vote along with moderates to win the nomination. Huckabee is no threat whatsoever (sorry Huck fans) and Romney is well behind on delegates. I was surprised when I saw just how much Romney is behind on delegates, even though his actual votes are much closer to McCain’s. That’s the distorted primary process for you.
I spent about six hours working on this, then I make a major mistake typing it in from my printout. Yikes.
I hope you found the information interesting. As much as I hoped to find McCain getting an unfair advantage based on his showing in “Winner Takes All” states, I couldn’t prove it. He may not be winning the majority of the conservative vote, but he’s getting enough of it to win the nomination.
What do I attribute that to? Well, a lot of voters don’t take the time to educate themselves on the issues. Frankly, I’m astonished at how easily the electorate shifts from one candidate to another. The whole thing is far, far more chaotic than I’d really like to admit. In fact, it’s kinda scary that someone like McCain can still win after all he’s done. I’m starting to think the party is populated with masochists.
Finally, the veep is usually the heir apparent after the current president serves his two terms. And that's if McCain survives 8 years of the presidency. Keyes could become the defacto president sooner.
the people who know him best, their favorite son from Arizona, barely saw fit to give him a purality. BTW thanks for the posting, Barone is the baron.
sportutegrl: “How about Alan Keyes?”
First off, thank you very much for replying to my post. Despite appearances, I put a lot of work into it.
Yes, I do think McCain will win, because we’d have to have unbelievable voter shifts in the remaining primaries to stop him. McCain could still self destruct, but I doubt it.
As for Keyes, I don’t know if he’d help much. Remember, McCain is so incredibly polarizing, he’d need to pick someone who could overcome conservative opposition and bring in votes from areas where McCain currently is weak.
Huckabee, for example, would help deliver the South. On the other hand, someone like Crist would be TERRIBLE. He’d only inflame conservatives more, something McCain definitely doesn’t need.
Thompson would also be a good choice. I think he would help sooth the primary wounds. However, I don’t think he’d take the job.
McCain’s best selling points with conservatives are his age and health. Those are about the only reasons I’d vote for him, and even that depends on how strongly conservative his running mate is.
ping
gusopol3: “the people who know him best, their favorite son from Arizona, barely saw fit to give him a purality.”
Yes, it was hardly a vote of confidence. Nevertheless, facts are what they are. Who would have ever thought we’d be stuck with McCain, but math doesn’t lie. He’s got the numbers. Not a lot of them, but probably enough. I hope for a brokered convention, but it’s a long shot. We’ll know more soon.
One thing I noticed was the numbers that voted either Repub or Demo. The number of Dim votes was 2 to 3 times greater in most states. Whatever happens between now and November, Conservatives and Repubs need to excite the voters.
BTW: McCain won’t do it.
wolfcreek: “The number of Dim votes was 2 to 3 times greater in most states.”
In some cases, Hillary got more votes than all the Republicans combined. My only hope in that regard is for a long, protracted battle between her and Obama. I hope they tear each other apart and spend every dime they have.
McCain is winning because there are no conservatives running against him. Its as simple as that.
Thanks for you effort.
Beagle8U: “McCain is winning because there are no conservatives running against him. Its as simple as that.”
I tried to prove “Winner Takes All” states were distorting the race, but they haven’t so far changed the outcome. Yes, McCain received more delegates than his popular vote would justify (as a percent of total votes), but he does have the lead in both actual votes (even in RED states) and delegates.
I’m still trying to figure out a way to quantify the impact of the early primaries on the process. I also have open/closed primary data, and I could run the numbers to see if independents are distorting the results.
If FReepers are interested, I could look at how the race would change if every state had a “Winner Take All” primary. I can tell you now that Huckabee would do a lot better, but I don’t know by how much. Perhaps he’d actually end up with more delegates than Romney, but he’s third overall for votes.
I am more interested in supporting leaders that will uphold the principles elucidated in The Declaration of Independence and the impartial Rule of Law, both of which undergird the Constitution. I'm not interested in supporting candidates merely because the "polls say they have the best chance to win". The future of our country is at stake.
Huckabee is a big-government "nanny-stater".
Like *C.S. Lewis, I have nothing but contempt for the contrary ideas of tyrants (calling themselves, "Christians"), whose god encourages them to covet the political power that will enable them to impose their moral conscience on their neighbors.
Mark Steyn on Huckabee: “...Where I part company with Huck’s supporters is in believing he’s any kind of solution. He’s friendlier to the teachers’ unions than any other so-called “cultural conservative” which is why in New Hampshire he’s the first Republican to be endorsed by the NEA. His healthcare pitch is Attack Of The Fifty Foot Nanny, beginning with his nationwide smoking ban. This is, as Jonah Goldberg put it, compassionate conservatism on steroids big paternalistic government that can only enervate even further “our culture.” So Iowa chose to reward, on the Democrat side, a proponent of the conventional secular left, and, on the Republican side, a proponent of a new Christian left. If that’s the choice, this is going to be a long election year."
C.S. Lewis:
"If we must have a tyrant, a robber baron is far better than an inquisitor. The baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity at some point may be sated; and since he dimly knows he is doing wrong he may possibly repent.
But the inquisitor _who mistakes his own cruelty and lust of power and fear for the voice of Heaven_ will torment us infinitely more because he torments us with _the approval of his own conscience_ and his _better impulses appear to him as temptations_.
And since Theocracy is the worst, the nearer any government approaches to Theocracy the worse it will be.
A metaphysic held by the rulers with the force of a religion, is a bad sign.
It forbids them, like the inquisitor, to admit any grain of truth or good in their opponents, it abrogates the ordinary rules of morality, and it gives a seemingly high, super-personal sanction to all the very ordinary human passions by which, like other men, the rulers will frequently be actuated.
In a word, it forbids wholesome doubt. A political programme can never in reality be more than probably right.
We never know all the facts about the present and we can only guess the future.
To attach to a party programme--whose highest claim is to reasonable prudence--the sort of assent which we should reserve for demonstrable theorems, is a kind of intoxication."
~ C.S.Lewis -- (Lewis addresses theocracy - the most potent form of Religious involvement in government - in an essay entitled, "A Reply to Professor Haldane" (75-76). On Sotries. ed. Walter Hooper. Harcort & Brace Co. Orlando, Florida. 1996.)
Another thing you may wish to crunch data on...
How many delegates were awarded based on caucus votes as opposed to direct vote primaries?
The simple truth is that winning in a caucus doesn’t relate to true support because the best funded is going to win.
With enough cash to invest any candidate can locate and bus to the caucus site enough supporters to stand in the corner and cheer, then go to a pizza party when its over.
Add to that the fact that a caucus isn’t a secret vote and you can see how things might be skewed as to how a real election might turn out. Would you want to caucus for who you really wanted if you knew that choice might get you booted from your church or even fired from your job?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.