Anyone who ever played football knows that a touchdown is worth 6pts (+1 extra pt) and a field goal is worth 3 pts. However at the end of every game the loosing team can argue that the score would be different if the values were reversed and a field goal were worth 6pts instead of 3. However, does anyone believe that the strategy would have remained the same under those different rules?

Here's the point. Had the primary been winner take all Obama may have conceded states like Ohio and focused more time on close losses like Texas. His strategy was win states he could and minimize his loses in the more difficult states, because it was a game of proportional delegates. You have to be a complete idiot to assume that the outcome would remain consistent under a completely different set of rules. Sean Wilentz is no exception!

I have made this same argument in various posts, and it is refreshing to see it "published" properly.

Rules are rules -- but it does not hurt to point out that Obama is not a phenomenon who exudes charisma and wins over all who behold him. Quite the opposite. his campaign has played hard ball with a vengeance and his popular support is largely an illusion.

Even the claim that his support is grass roots is an illusion. His "edge" in fund raising over Clinton comes from donars who have contributed up to $200 ($78 million to $36 million), but like Clinton, he depends heavily on donars with more cash -- 14 percent of his money has come from those who donated between $1,000 and $1,999 ($27 million to Clinton's $24 million), and 29.5 percent from those who have given more thatn $2,000 ($57 million to Clinton's $74 million). In other words, more of his support comes from the well heeled (who are also one of his key demographics) than from a populist base. In the for-what's-its-worth category, Clinton's donar profile is comparable to that of Richardson, while Obama's more of less mirrors that of Edwards.

The only candidate who drew most of his support form small donars (less than $200) was Dennis Kucinich, who got three-quarters of his money ($3.2 million of $4.3 million) from the less affluent. Biden and Dodd, by the way, drew most of their support from those able to contribute more than $1,000.

of the "supposed tos"

If delegates were awarded proportionately to the popular vote (and not in the winner take all format) we wouldn't have had to endure eight years of the Bush presidency.

So, if this silly idea was adopted, we would have Barack Obama with the MAJORITY of ACTUAL votes, but a MINORITY of delegates.

I certainly don't like that idea.

Winner-take-all sucks. The Republican Party activists who supported Romney, Huckabee, and Ron Paul certainly agree with me. IN many cases, their candidates did well but got no delegates.

Count number as hits instead of scored runs in baseball. One with the most hits wins!

Only do this if your team is losing, but has more hits.

Count rushing yeards instead of points in a football game.

Only do this if your team is losing, but has more yards.

Victories is golf tourneys will be awarded to the player who hits the farthest from now on instead of the losest score.

But only do this if your player hits far, but sucks at golf.

Wow. Life is so much better for me when I can change the rules on a whim to allow myself to win all the time. Hurray for me!

Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have legitimate arguments to make regarding their electability. Sean Wilentz' column is not "drivel," "fiction," "useless," "sour grapes," or any of the other words used in the dozens of simplistic dismissals posted here by Obama supporters. It is a well-thought-out statement of the arguments favoring Clinton. Obama has his own arguments that the more fair-minded Obama supporters are posting--he's ahead in the popular vote and delegate count, has in some ways shown to have wider appeal among independents, etc. The scads of thoughtless, knee-jerk, group-think rejections are repulsive and lend credence to the idea that Obama and his supporters are afraid of any reasonable competition and view the election as a coronation.

Oh, you mean we should conduct primaries like the Electoral college? I always thought, still do as a matter of fact, that we ought to get RID of that unfair, un"DEMOCRATIC" way of conducting elections. If E. College had not been in place Gore would have been president. And by the way, Clinton and the other Democratic candidates agreed to the primary conditions in July of 2007. Of course there were more votes for Hillary because Obama, in accordance with the agreement signed by all candidates (not simply Howard Dean), did not campaign in Michigan or Florida. It would not be fair to count them now. She suffers the consequences of disregarding the rules. Too bad.

This is a ridiculous "plant" of some sort. It takes the current reality and pulls the rug out from under it as if the Obama strategy would have been the same under a winner-take-all scheme. A brilliant organizer, Obama saw the "eccentricities" (infinitely more democratic in my estimation) of the party primary system and crafted a strategy for winning. In a winner-take-all situation he would clearly have adopted a similar top-down, ham-handed, commercial-driven effort focused on larger states that doomed Clinton's campaign. I don't understand the purpose of this piece other than to lend the Clinton campaign's whining some creedence. The bit about Michigan and Florida is utterly partisan and ignores the fact Ms. Clinton signed the same pledge everybody else did. Shame on "Salon.'

"We should change all the rules, but only if they benefit Hillary Clinton.

The end."

If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be an omnibus...

Wilentz is an excellent historian who clearly understands the American political system as it operated some 175 years ago. Unfortunately, the same is not true of this partisan piece. Wilentz's argument essentially boils down to 2 things: The Electoral College is a much better way to choose a candidate; the rules that all Democratic candidates signed on to --and have since played by --are irrelevant if they do not favor Wilentz's preferred candidate.

The first point is riddled with problems, but it is based on a silly assumption that Obama cannot beat McCain in the primary states that Clinton won. Wilentz needs to fully consider the simple fact that Obama's vote count in those states far surpassed the total vote count in the Republican field. The second point is absurd --and is not unlike arguing that NCAA basketball rules should be changed this morning so that Princeton (where Wilentz teaches) could play in the basketball finals.

We should expect much better from Salon