The media's over-emphasis on "who wins a given state?," while ignoring cumulative delegate count, makes the nomination look like a tally of 1 vote per state, where the winner will be the first to get a majority of the States.
It's nonsense, for several reasons.
First, some states are much bigger in delegate impact. Michigan is 3x bigger than New Hampshire in the delegate totals and 10x bigger than Iowa.
Second, the most recent financial campaign finance reports show something like
Clinton - $90 million Obama - $80 million Romney - $60 million Giuliani - $45 million
(and I don't know how recent those numbers are).
In the big picture, we still have an electorate where registered Republicans are in the minority and in need of cross-over Independents and Democrats to win in the electoral collage. In other words, we need the Reagan coalition or the numbers work totally against us.
That means that the best Republican nominee will be one who shows he has the voter appeal, money and the organization to win in many states - not "cherry pick" where he wants to run. (That's a sign of a weak candidate, isn't it?)
If only 4% of the delegates have had a chance to vote so far, it's still way too early to predict the most successful candidate. However, when one candidate has competed well in all 4 states and put together a sizable early lead in total delegates and popular vote, it should be reported accurately = not ignored, as in the media's "who won the state" myopia.
Finally, with such a long campaign ahead, every delegate counts. The media basically ignored Wyoming as if it did not exist, because it was not hotly contested. The media is thinking about exciting ratings, not covering the marathon.
It is a marathon, and Romney does not need to place first or second in every State to be the ultimate nominee. If he keeps picking up votes in each State, and then wins a few of the all or nothing States, he may not have the necessary number to win on the first ballot, but he'll be in a competitive position in the convention.
The Electoral College math forces the winner of the election to combine enough big States, with enough small States -- and to take enough of all of them away from the other party.
That's why a candidate who shows broad appeal, and the energy, deep pockets, and intellectual capacity to compete in all States, will be a force to reckon with.
Cumulative totals of delegates won, after only 4% of the national primary/caucus votes are in, is not much of a base to make a final prediction. However, if the leader has done so by doing well in each State, it's a good sign.
What happens between now and Super Tuesday will also be important, because solid showing and broad appeal will impact the perceptions of those who vote on Super Tuesday.
The result of inaccurate poll after poll will be in the ash heap, as more and more real voters will have spoken.
Maybe after Nevada, South Carolina and Florida the lightest of the light weight candidates will be watching from the bleachers, so that the Super Tuesday voters can concentrate on several candidates with sustainable campaigns.
We're gonna need a sustainable campaign when facing the Democratic money machine in November.
My money is on the guy who is building his sustainable campaign, brick by brick without "cherry picking" or hoping for a grand slam home run in only large states, because after the convention, the Electoral College will kill a candidate who cannot broadly compete in large and small States.
As an aside, my mother was born in Wyoming. If I was a resident there, I would find the East Coast mentality that my State doesn't matter patronizing and arrogant. I suspect that a lot of other "inconsequential" States feel the same way.
In a tight race for the nomination and the Electoral College, it may be that there are no "inconsequential" delegates.
Thanks for recapping the cumulative totals on delegates and popular vote.
1 Comments | Post a Comment