I didn't say it, the Washington Post did, in their own words of course: Strategy Was Based On Winning Delegates, Not Battlegrounds. This is an interesting article, that is sure to upset many Clinton suporters.
Here is an interesting example:
Obama had prevailed in districts with an odd number of delegates, so he was awarded the extra delegate, whereas Clinton's strongest regions were districts with even numbers of delegates, and Obama had kept the margin close enough to result in an even split.
In these cases, Obama won by just a little bit, but the reward was much more valuable.
Clinton was popular across the state -- but delegates were apportioned based on turnout strength in previous elections, meaning that heavily Democratic districts were disproportionately valuable. The biggest Philadelphia district -- an Obama stronghold -- was three times as big as the Altoona district.
Will this stradegy pay off? It can't really be used in the general election where you need to win entire states, not just the parts that are most likely to vote for you.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment