I’m curious to know how things would be if the Democratic primary had the same winner-takes-all approach to awarding delegates as the GOP primary.
Obama has won more states but they have fewer delegates than the states that went for Clinton.
Any one with some math skills (not me, I’m afraid) want to take a stab? My own casual glance at the delegate totals for each state leads me to suspect that Clinton would be farther ahead of Obama than she is.
Correct.
Final delegate count after Super Tuesday, according to MSNBC is this:
Obama 838. Clinton 834.
That could still change a little bit depending on final counts, but it’s going to end up being in that ballpark.
If the Dems. did it like the Republicans—-winner take all—the count would be something like this (depending on N.M. and Missouri):
Clinton 969. Obama 707.
So, it certainly made a difference. Obama was helped by rules orginally put in place for Jesse Jackson. Hope I don’t get in trouble for saying that, a la Bill Clinton.
Quite a race.
Quite a race indeed. Let’s hope it maintains the civil tone of the past few days … (I’m talking to you, Bill.)
Thanks for your math skills, Con Queso.