I'm surprised no one has counted it this way yet.
In the ongoing campaign for the Democratic nomination, who's ahead has been counted by polls, pledged delegates, states won, big states won, swing states won, total popular vote, number of primaries won... etc etc
But one I hadn't seen yet was - If Clinton and Obama were running against each other for president in the general election and using the good ol' Electoral College winner-take-all system, would either one be ahead?
The answer - Clinton would have enough Electoral votes at 270 to win the general election. The signficane - nil. But I still thought it was (at least a little) interesting.
But maybe nobody has counted it this way because:
1) They are not running against each other in the general election
2) The Electoral College system, at least as currently used, is badly broken
3) It's in general a stupid way to look at the race.
Post 4 of 100 in the 100 Posts in 100 Days project.
But one I hadn't seen yet was - If Clinton and Obama were running against each other for president in the general election and using the good ol' Electoral College winner-take-all system, would either one be ahead?
The answer - Clinton would have enough Electoral votes at 270 to win the general election. The signficane - nil. But I still thought it was (at least a little) interesting.
But maybe nobody has counted it this way because:
1) They are not running against each other in the general election
2) The Electoral College system, at least as currently used, is badly broken
3) It's in general a stupid way to look at the race.
Post 4 of 100 in the 100 Posts in 100 Days project.