The Candidates
From the 1996 primaries:
New Hampshire: Clinton 84%
Others: 16%
Delaware: Clinton 90%
LaRouche 10%
Colorado: Clinton 89%
LaRouche 11%
Maine: Clinton 88%
LaRouche 3%
Uncommitted 9%
Maryland: Clinton 84%
Uncommitted 11%
LaRouche 4%
Louisiana Clinton 81%
LaRouche 12%
Elvena E. Lloyd-Duffie 8%
Oklahoma Clinton 76%
LaRouche 13%
Lloyd-Duffie 11%
Tennessee Clinton 89%
Uncommitted 11%
Ohio Clinton 92%
LaRouche 8%
North Carolina
Clinton 81%
No Preference 12%
LaRouche 7%
West Virginia
Clinton 87%
LaRouche 14%
Arkansas Clinton 76%
Uncommitted 13%
LaRouche 7%
Lloyd-Duffie 4%
Kentucky
Clinton 77%
Uncommitted 16%
LaRouche 7%
Alabama
Clinton 81%
Uncommitted 15%
LaRouche 4%
Now most of these showings aren’t as low as McCain’s 72% in Pennsylvania. But some are pretty darned close. And none of them involved legitimate candidates like Paul (yes, he’s legit) and Huckabee. And Clinton ended up winning most of these states, including Louisana, where one out of five primary voters pulled the lever for a legitimate nutter.
Point is, after the main candidate has stopped campaigning, you’re left with the truly hardcore faithful voting in elections. And they don’t tend to favor the more mainstream candidates who win elections.
April 29th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Sean, you’re exactly right. Back in 2000, I was a diehard campaigner for McCain. Problem was, I lived in PA at the time and our useless April primary occured well after Bush secured enough delegates to become the presumptive nominee. I still proudly cast my vote for McCain, knowing full well it meant nothing to everyone except me (and I suppose Senator McCain).
April 30th, 2008 at 12:41 am
Still, shouldn’t we use a year without an imcumbent president? In 1996 there was no democratic primary at all. Jake’s Bush 2000 comparison makes sense.
April 30th, 2008 at 4:28 am
There will always be people who vote for other candidates and this is actually healthy for democracy.
April 30th, 2008 at 7:28 am
A personal friend of mine who is a Huckabee supporter used his performance in Pennsylvania as evidence that he should be selected as Veep.
April 30th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
#4 - That would be a sure fire way of losing a bunch of states unnecessarily. We don’t need bigots VP’s, nor those with many ethical violation convictions, nor those soft on prisoners, nor those that proclaim he was God’s chosen candidate, only to fall on his face.
April 30th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
There was talk among Romney supporters of trying to mobalize support in PA to produce a strong showing or win - also trying to get McCain to pick him as VP. Doesn’t seem like it ever came to anything though.