Hillary has been making an argument about the popular vote to draw a connection to the 2000 presidential election, particularly with regards Florida. But why is she so close in the popular vote, even with Michigan and Florida included?
- First, the caucus states, almost all of which were won by Barack, did not have elections and therefore had very few votes.
- Second, regardless of how many superdelegates switch to Barack or declare for him from among the uncommitted, their votes are not actually cast until the convention.
Regardless of what happens now, because the superdelegates will put him over the top at the convention, the outcome of the primary will be in doubt until the convention. She will be lurking and as the convention approaches, will be continuing, I believe, to undermine the validity of his candidacy as will the Republicans.
- Third, I believe that Barack and his campaign must show their toughness in some way, once the primary elections are over.
If he does so and with grace, he will do a great deal to move himself toward the eventual nomination and the presidency. Everyone is watching and if he is to be our president, he must show he can. And I think in doing so, he will allay most of the fears about his readiness for the office.
30May2008:
The number of delegates from these 12 caucus states is over 1100, i.e. about 25% of the total: Iowa, Nevada, Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Maine, Hawaii, Wyoming. These state between them represents approximately 1/4 of the democrats, but there was no popular vote.
The split in delegates was 770 (Obama) / 383 (Clinton) . If there had been a popular vote instead, Obama would easily have netted several million votes compared with Clinton.
In the primaries, the states are allowed to set their own rules. Most of these are "red" states. It makes sense that they would have caucuses in order to save money. But now look at the polls. Several of them show Obama as very competitive.
He has energized the voters with his local organizations, his message. Some of these states will almost certainly be in play in November.
The popular vote is not what determines the choice of nominee because there is inhomogeneity in the state by state selection process. It is profoundly disloyal to the party of the Clinton campaign to continue to undermine the credibility of the selection process with their fallacious, deceptive, and self-serving arguments.
8Jun2008:
Senator Clinton reasserted her claim to a strong voice at the convention on behalf of the voters who supported her. She then cast her support to Mr. Obama's side in unequivocal terms. Finally she portrayed a genuine historical perspective on her candidacy for presidency.
What remains for the next speech in which she shares the platform with Senator Obama is to counter the harmful statements she made during the campaign, particularly those questioning his judgment and asserting his unreadiness for office. These are already being used in anti-Obama ads.
She made it clear that he stands strongly on policy. She left for next time that he is competent, that his judgement is mature and sound, that his measured, humble, understated style will move a sane and compassionate domestic and international policy forward.
9Jun2009: "Angry White Women"
This issue is off the mark and marches in step with the sexism which it discusses. "Angry White Women" is surely an exaggeration, a mischaracterization, and a negative comment to use in reference to disappointed supporters of Senator Clinton.
Certainly there was and is anger, but the over-the-top comments such as the ones articulated immediately following the DNC Rules Committee ruling are not what carries the day. It's not reasonable to assume that that anger, e.g. "Obama is an inadequate black man," is anything but the extreme.
We must allow time for the polls to settle down before drawing conclusions about the long term from them. We must take into account the contribution to those polls of Republicans who voted for Senator Clinton but would never do so in the general election.
"Angry white women" is a tempest in a teacup; it's hype; and it demeans the extraordinary accomplishment of the Democratic voters in choosing who we did.
We must use non-deceptive dialogue. In an interview this morning, Gloria Steinem stated that the average time between dropping out of a race and endorsing one's opponent is 4 months. This deceptive statement was disappointing coming from this source. The problem with Senator Clinton's timing was not the delay prior to her endorsement. It was the delay prior to her concession. And it was her defiance at the critical moment on prime time TV Tuesday.
Clinton Calls for "Catharsis" - 7Aug2008:
I predicted this months ago. The whispers will grow louder and louder to hijack the convention and steal the nomination for Hillary. And if Obama has a significant and sustained dip in the polls, there will be a real danger.
I would like to see him smack down both Hillary and Bill so that the electorate sees that he is strong. We will not tolerate a weakling president, which Obama is not. But he must show it as he is beginning to do with his thoughtful counter-punching approach to McCain's attacks.
What bothers me the most is the drama. It seems like an extraordinary insult to women that they require a "catharsis" at the convention. And it's a disgrace to the Democratic party, which is the party of the outsiders. Someone from an outsider group gets the nomination, so the members of the others each must have their moment in the sun? It's just too much.
No comments:
Post a Comment