Posted on

Hillary Wins with Nichols Method

Some time ago John Nichols became obsessed with Baldwin not getting in line with the 2nd District. For the longest time the meme of the Obamabots was that Super Delegates should vote with their district or state. It looks like now if we apply the Nichols Method Hillary wins under every scenario.

The Obama campaign has argued that Super Delegates ought to vote in accordance with the “will” of the people. Really? Then let’s run the numbers. Under that metric, who would have a lead in Super Delegates? The Super Delegate total from the states that Hillary has won thus far (including FL and MI) is 418, to Obama’s 372. If the MI delegates are split 50/50, Clinton still wins 403.5 to Obama’s 386.5. If Super Delegates are counted according to Barack’s formula, Hillary wins the nomination. Period.

Hillary has had been winning the popular vote for some time now. If you take Michigan out of the equation, Obama is winning by less that 300,000 votes. Chances are when this ball game is done, Hillary will have an incontestable lead in the popular vote.

The Obamacbots will have to articulate an anti-popular vote argument for the nomination. An articulation where it becomes less important if a delegate is super or not because the contrast is between delegates on the one hand and the popular vote on the other.


2 responses to “Hillary Wins with Nichols Method

  1. One has to measure the complete repudiation of Clinton (Obama won every ward in Dane County and as noted dominated the Second District as a whole) against Baldwin’s political payback to Clinton.

    Everyone recognizes that Supers have a right under the rules to vote as they like, but constituents have a right to petition their representatives to vote as their constituents wish, pointing in this case to Baldwin acknowledging the clear will of her constituents sooner rather than later.

    If other citizens of other states wish to make a similar case to their supers holding elected office, so be it.

    Arguing that the Dem Party ought to include uncontested primaries (like Fla) is ludicrous.

    And the issue is moot, the battle is over, and Hillary lost.

    And thanks to her race-baiting, even with a meltdown by Obama or the discovery that ‘as far as we know’ Obama is a Muslim-athiest-weatherman-friend of Satan-or whatever, Hillary’s chances in the general election are doomed by her GOP-like treatment of playing on fear and race.

    Dude, Hillary sucks.

  2. That is fair enough, but even there you have the Kennedy / Kerry’s in MA. If for example you called out Kennedy while calling out Baldwin, I could see your point, but that is not what happened.

    Including Florida and Michigan is no more ludicrous than including caucuses in which a vote carries 10 to 100 times the weight of a primary. Is it fair that a caucus vote in say Iowa carries so much more weight than a primary vote in Wisconsin.

    We agree on the “race baiting” just differ on who is more responsible. From NH on Obama has played a disgusting race baiting game, one which will cost him dearly in the general election. Not only that his sexism is of a variety that is even out of style is the south. Geeze, if I called an “equal” sweetie like he did I would be fired.

    I am not a Democrat and the chance of me voting in the general for one is highly unlikely. I enjoy the division, I find the thought of driving a hole right through the heart of the duopoly rather exciting. Its kind of like the Packers not being in the Super Bowl. Sure you take sides, but in the end its rather meaningless. But if I was a Democrat I would be careful, at least on the Obama end, about too much antagonism. In the end he will have very little control over having Hillary on the ticket.


    I am an economics voter and Obama fails miserably. I am not pro Hillary as much as I am anti- Obama. His stance on the interest rate cap is totally inexcusable, and is representative of the influence the banking industry has on him. If you have done even the tiny bit of research you would now that Obama and the Chicago financial industry are rather tight. Obama’s refusal to support universal health care is totally unacceptable. There is no universal almost, its universal or it is not. This is a minimal standard.The very fact that so called progressive do not hold his feed to fire on this is awful. Obama has about every free trader from the Clinton administration working for him. Obama’s top economic adviser has stated there have been no ill effects from NAFTA. Obama has plans to not only cap Social Security, but to increase the taxes to put into private accounts.

    Not only is Hillary better than Obama, so is John McCain. If Obama was white, we would not be having this conversation right now. You would not defend a white man or women with positions anywhere close to Obama’s.

Comments are closed.