Electoral College is what matters?
Senator Evan Bayh thinks that the only thing that matters is how well the Democratic Candidate does in regards to the Electoral College votes. Meaning a win in California for Hillary in the primary will translate to 54 Electoral votes in the General Election. Lets take a quick look at that.
First, a bit of knowledge, there are 19 states with 10 or more Electoral College votes. And only 6 of those have more than 20.
In 2004, Kerry won the following in the Primaries: Florida, Georgia, Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, Texas and Virginia, yet lost them in the General Election. 3 of those states being in the "Over 20" group as well.
In 2000, Gore won the following in the Primaries: Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas and Virginia yet lost them in the General Election. again 3 of those states being in the "over 20 group"
in 1996, Bill Clinton, being the incumbant, won every primary yet lost Texas, Virginia, North Carolina, and Indiana. Texas being the only one with over 20 EC votes.
In 1992, Bill Clinton won the following primaries: Florida, Indiana, North Carolina, Texas and Virginia yet lost them in the General Election. 2 being in the "over 20" group.
We could even go extreme and take into account the Walter Mondale fiasco. I guarentee you he won a few states in the primaries (Otherwise he wouldn't have won), yet he lost every single state on the map, excep for his home state of Minnesota.
Why do I bring all of this up? Just to point out that winning states in the Primaries absolutely does not translate into winning states in the General Election. And that the Clinton backers will go at any length to try and justify going against the will of the people. All it shows is which Democratic candidate the Democrats in that state prefer. nothing more, nothing less.
So Senator Evan Bayh, you sadass, try comparing apples to apple instead of apples to oranges next time.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/us/politics/24campaign.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
cited information here:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/scorecard/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_primaries,_2000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_1992
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1992
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/president/
First, a bit of knowledge, there are 19 states with 10 or more Electoral College votes. And only 6 of those have more than 20.
In 2004, Kerry won the following in the Primaries: Florida, Georgia, Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, Texas and Virginia, yet lost them in the General Election. 3 of those states being in the "Over 20" group as well.
In 2000, Gore won the following in the Primaries: Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas and Virginia yet lost them in the General Election. again 3 of those states being in the "over 20 group"
in 1996, Bill Clinton, being the incumbant, won every primary yet lost Texas, Virginia, North Carolina, and Indiana. Texas being the only one with over 20 EC votes.
In 1992, Bill Clinton won the following primaries: Florida, Indiana, North Carolina, Texas and Virginia yet lost them in the General Election. 2 being in the "over 20" group.
We could even go extreme and take into account the Walter Mondale fiasco. I guarentee you he won a few states in the primaries (Otherwise he wouldn't have won), yet he lost every single state on the map, excep for his home state of Minnesota.
Why do I bring all of this up? Just to point out that winning states in the Primaries absolutely does not translate into winning states in the General Election. And that the Clinton backers will go at any length to try and justify going against the will of the people. All it shows is which Democratic candidate the Democrats in that state prefer. nothing more, nothing less.
So Senator Evan Bayh, you sadass, try comparing apples to apple instead of apples to oranges next time.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/us/politics/24campaign.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
cited information here:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/scorecard/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_primaries,_2000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_1992
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1992
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/president/
posted by mud 6:35 AM
Home