Budgetgate-2

Budgetgate-2

Hillary Clinton trails Barrack Obama by less than two percentage points in total votes (when Michigan and Florida are counted the vote totals are almost a tie).

Even the though the popular vote is very close, Hillary Clinton trails Barrack Obama by 7% in total delegates. Yet the media doesn't report this as a delegate distortion, instead they make it seem like it is Hillary that is trying to take advantage of a losing situation and win by getting the super delegate vote.

The caucus states and their delegates were selected using 88% LESS votes per each delegate that was selected as compared to the states that held actual primaries. The Obama camp puffed up their caucus wins in an effort to manipulate the media into getting Hillary to drop out or make it look like Hillary was destroying the democratic party by staying in. The Obama camp has also used the caucus states votes to convince superdelegates that that they have an unquestionable mandate and that the super delegates should fall in line.

Caucus states don't allow voters all day to vote, nor do caucus states allow for voting to be done in the privacy of a voting booth. The media has focused way too much attention trying to prematurely end the democratic voting process and have overemphasized the importance of minimal vote totals in caucus states to try and end a very close race.

Is it possible that the news stations want Hillary to quit because the extended race is causing the news stations to go way over budget covering two different races that were supposed to have already combined into one? Budget Gate, as I call it, may exist, but should we expect the media to turn themselves in?

KCBS in Los Angeles has already announced a payroll cut and a cut in news jobs. Is it possible that the cable news stations and their on air talent and the writers that seem to be hostile towards Hillary want her out and the sooner the better, or perhaps they risk losing some of their own jobs?

What is a Mini Delegate and why this Label is needed.

2008 Election Results

and I have been in a give and take the past week or so. I come up with a hypothesis, their site updates the relevant stats, then I check if my hypothesis is on target. Excellent synergy, thank you!

So far in this years elections ( thru March 26, 2008), the primary states have averaged 11,009 votes for each delegate that has been selected. In the caucus states it only takes 1,304 voters for each delegate that has been selected. Besides the huge reduction in numbers that a caucus state requires to select each delegate, caucuses are very limited as to when one can vote, lack of privacy when voting vote, and inevitably those who are the loudest and most passionate can either manipulate, overpower, or simply scare off others who don't believe in this method of "voting". Entire demographic groups can be alienated or at the very least shunted in a caucus setting.

Since the term Super Delegates has already come into play, I think it is appropriate that the term Mini-Delegate be used in all states that use caucuses to select their delegates. A mini delegate is not a derogatory term, it is an accurate term that puts in focus the fact that 88% LESS voters have been required for each delegate that has been selected.

The significance of the term mini-delegate better helps analyze delegate statistics. The term mini delegate can now have its own header on statistical charts and thereby allow everybody to better understand the true breakdown in how the delegate votes have been selected. This data becomes critical when it comes to evaluating how each presidential candidate is doing.

If the Delegate Numbers were reversed, Obama would still be Claiming Victory.

If the Delegate Numbers were reversed, Obama would still be Claiming Victory.

Something about Barrack Obama's lead against Hillary Clinton is not adding up. After a bit of research, I think I found the rather weak foundation on which Obama's numbers are based on, and it surprises me that virtually no one other than myself has brought it up.

Based on the amount of electoral college votes that a win in each state brings, Hillary Clinton has 219 Electoral College Votes, Barack Obama has 202. But wait, this isn't counting Florida and Michigan. Some believe Barrack had a marginal chance in Michigan, but nobody thinks Barack would have won Florida.

Add in Florida's Electoral College votes and the numbers read Hillary 246, Barrack 202. Pennsylvania is right around the corner and Hillary is favored there as well. Hillary 267, Barrack 202. How can Hillary Clinton be "on the ropes" when she is dominating in the head to head electoral college vote against Barrack Obama?

I understand that a head to head electoral college competition isn't a perfect system since some of Hillary's wins probably won't happen again against a Republican candidate in the Presidential contest. Nonetheless, a 267 to 202 lead (and Hillary was favored in Michigan as well), is really a big, big difference.

If Barrack had Hillary's position his argument would be he has a huge lead in the electoral college between the two candidates and has also proven he can win in the big states, the decision maker states. Can't you see Barrack Obama using the phrase, "decision maker states", to drive home his point! But somehow, if Hillary makes the same claim, Hillary Clinton would get labeled as Hillary trying to change the voting landscape to give herself an unfair advantage.

That seems like media bias to me.

Among the top ten electoral college states, Hillary Clinton won CA, TX, NY, OH, NJ, and most likely would have won Florida, Michigan and probably will win Pennsylvania. Barrack Obama's two wins in the top ten states would be Illinois, the state he was a senator in and spent a good portion of his life in, and Georgia. That's it!

Barrack Obama wins two of the ten largest electoral college states in the country and he's the democratic favorite? Has there ever been a democratic candidate who only won two of the top ten electoral college states yet was nominated to run for the presidency?

And lets talk about these "Caucuses". I'm sorry, but after listening to the pundits go on and on that the super delegates should not decide the democratic race, what about all of these caucuses in which a very small percentage of the voting population, votes! Barrack Obama has won something like 10 caucuses, Hillary has won 1. I want a candidate who wins in the big states AND who wins when all the voters come out to vote. Caucuses are wonderful for showing the passion of the people who care the most, but at the end of the day, everybodys vote counts equally and caucuses clearly do not reflect the will of all the voters in that state.

Subtract the "caucus states" and add in Florida and Michigan and Barrack Obama has won 17 states, Hillary 15. Factor in that Hillary has those 8 wins in 10 of the largest states and it points to Hillary being well ahead, especially if Hillary wins in Pennsylvania. Hillary has truly been victimized by the "no votes will be counted plan" for the states of Michigan and Florida to such a huge extent yet nobody in the media will come out and just say it. If Michigan and Florida's votes would count, combined with a win in Pennsylvania, it's Hillary by a very wide margin in the electoral college vote and the ten largest states.

That is a news story I have yet to see anywhere.