The electoral college system got Bush into the whitehouse instead of Gore. The Democratic primary/caucus system does not mimic the the general election, and puts the party at a disadvantage. Until we fix the general election system, it strikes me as a perfectly valid argument to say that we're going to be in trouble nominating someone under a different set of electoral math than what takes place in November.

A winner-take-all Democratic nominee winner doesn't suggest a better performance vs a Republican nominee.

There is simply no evidence to even entertain that logic. First of all there isn't a defacto two party fight nor agenda so a popular opinion shared by two candidates might end up splitting a 60% majority in to 30% each and 40% and all the delegates could go to a third candidate. Something like that helped McCain get his nomination in my opinion. But his advantage is that he is a liberal Republican that can get a lot more votes from undecided and independent voters than a conservative Republican. Imagine the Democratic party being winner-take-all and not being open. It might possibly lead to someone winning that is extremely liberal and with a minority 40% of the vote but majority compared to the two candidates who basically have the same agenda but split 30% of the vote?

Not only will the 60% of democrats not see much difference between their own nominee (a bit too liberal for their liking) but will probably entertain a switch if they had a liberal Republican as the alternative. Not to mention the zero appeal their nominee would have with independents and Republicans. Ergo very low chances to get the nomination even though one of the losers of the winner-take-all competition might have won against the Republicans. The 60% backers would go with their nomination. The 40% backers of the liberal democrat would go for the least of both "evils" and independents would be fair game.

That's why Hillary would have a harder time beating McCain. She probably would beat Obama in a primary system which was only open to Democrats and didn't have any causases. Not being open would mean a bigger barrier to vote for independents and Republicans looking to switch.

Primaries need to be proportional to make sure the most backed Democrat gets the nomination, or better still the best backed agenda gets the nomination. As nominees drop out they will be able to delegate their delegates to the nominees that they best identify with. In the case of a winner-take-all primary you basically cannibalized the votes for your agenda and let someone else get away with the prize.

I've already seen this Bizarro World article mentioned on the pro-Hillary myDD site (they're worshiping it as though it was handed down from God) and I'm sure it's countless other places, as well.

Hell, guys, if I wanted to read pointless drivel, I'd read slate.com more.

Thank goodness that in about seven hours Keith O. and his gang of reporters who still know up from down (Alter, Wolffe, Fineman, et. al) will be on to set everyone straight as to why Sen. Clinton needed to drop out of the race several weeks ago.

Of course, if you're lucky, this story might warrant a mention during Oddball.

I've heard a lot of contorted arguments about why the actual results of this primary season should be ignored in favor of Hillary, but this one may take the cake. In order to follow this one, you have to assume that the Democratic primary system would work like it NEVER has, that the mixed system of primaries and caucuses that have been around since 1972 doesn't really exist AND that the Obama campaign should be ashamed of itself for following and understanding the party rules as written and adopted by the national party. You also have to ignore Obama's overall lead in the popular vote. Oh yeah, and you'd have to ignore that the Clintons and their massive network had the biggest influence of all in setting the rules (and that Obama had NONE) and a huge initial advantage in superdelegates. Other than that, it is all very compelling.

Whatever one thinks of the current mix of Democratic primary sytems, one observation cannot be rebutted: In order to amass the insurmountable lead that Obama now has, one has to win a lot of primaries by WIDE margins. One cannot accumulate this kind of lead (160 delegates is actually a very LARGE lead under the proportional system now in place)without winning by big margins in many states or in virtually all of the big states. What has happened is this: Obama has won by large margins (15, 20 even 30 or more percent) in many smaller states (and in Illinois), by smaller margins in some states. Hillary has won some very big states by lesser margins (up to 10%- even NY wasn't much better). Obama has won twice as many states. Obama has won the popular votes. Obama has won (so far) by every measure.

Sean, where's the beef?

The fact is that all the states Hillary Clinton has won so far have been under the current rules. It is highly likely that if it was a winner take all system, then the focus of the Obama campaign would be on the big states on Super Tuesday and maybe he would have spent more time there and even won CA?

So this is a flawed argument. The reality is both candidates competed in the same system which both of them knew in advance and Barack Obama proved to be the smarter candidate.

All you Obanadroids wear blinders, fear reality, and dismiss facts at your own peril.

You talk about rules. Well there were 'white man' rules during slavery. That did not make the rules right or moral. Theer were rules about voting after the Civil War that disenfranchised blacks for decades. That did not make the rules right or moral.

You can ignore all the facts that you want. But come the morning of November 5, 2008 you will wake up and John McCain will be the President-elect. And it won't be Hillary's fault. This Hillary supporter will vote for Obama. BUT THE LOSS WILL BE COMPLETELY AND FULLY YOUR FAULT BECAUSE YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THE ELECTORAL PROCESS AND THE AMERICAM ELECTORATE.

We will all suffer foir more tears becasue of your blind stupidity and arrogant elitist attitudes. And I will be firsy in line to say, "Told you so."