Pages Menu
TwitterRssFacebook
Categories Menu

Posted by on May 21, 2008 in Politics | 2 comments

A Dense Mind’s Epiphany

Call me less than bright. I’m OK with that because I’ve never been the sharpest tool in the shed. Sharper than many, maybe, but not the sharpest, not by a long shot. And so it is, wallowing in my eternal density, that I finally realized this morning why Clinton decided to fight on, post-Indiana.

Yesterday, I noted and debunked her popular-vote argument. Granted, delegates are what counts; we all know that. But the pop-vote is one of the last remaining arguments she can make to the superdelegates — perhaps the strongest wedge of doubt she can drive into their hearts, as the remaining 200 or so continue to debate their allegiances.

As of yesterday, even that argument was relatively easy to dismiss. This morning, less so. After Kentucky and Oregon, she picked up nearly 155,000 net votes in the pop-vote tally, per RCP.

That net gain moved Clinton from winning in only one of six ways RCP offers for counting the pop-vote, to winning in two of six. Furthermore, after Puerto Rico — which she’s expected to win, last I checked; and which, I assume, has approximately the same voting-age population as Kentucky and Oregon (they all range in delegates between 51 and 55) — she could pick up even more net votes.

Her Puerto Rico gain will be partially but minimally offset by the final two, smaller states where Obama is favored (South Dakota and Montana) — however, with a WV/KY-like performance in Puerto Rico, plus a respectable performance in SD and Montana — she could conceivably end up ahead in three of the six RCP tallies of the popular vote; namely, in the popular vote counting Fla.; in the popular vote counting Fla. and Mich.; and in the popular vote counting Fla. and Mich. plus the estimated votes in the four caucus states (Iowa, Nevada, Washington, and Maine) that have not yet released pop-vote totals. Even with my assumptive alternative math on Michigan from yesterday, we would be hard-pressed to cancel her pop-vote lead in those three categories.

Now — is that enough to sway the remaining 200 super-D’s to her column? One would hope not, but this does appear (combined with her push to seat the Mich. and Fla. delegates in her favor) to be Clinton’s end-game.

And if we’ve learned anything this primary season, we should never, ever count out Hillary. Her reputation as a fighter is well earned.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2008 The Moderate Voice
  • So basically the only way she will win is by saying “If we count the votes of all the folks we all agreed not to count (Fla. and Mich.) I win the pop-vote so I should be the nominee, rather than the guy that actually beat me in the delagate count.”

    That should be a real winner of an argument. What happens to the Dems then when African-American refuse to vote for the white woman who played the race card every chance she had and robbed them of their first Presidential nominee. What does it say about the Democratic party in general to Hispanic voters as well?

    Hey, that’d be fine for me, because I think McCain will beat her and she is toast for 2012 and on as a political threat.

  • DLS

    1. Pete, I’ve read your material on here and had the honor of meeting you personally. Please be reassured: You are not dense.

    2. Prior to Super Tuesday, Hillary Clinton was the obvious leader with Obama an also-ran. This reversed after Super Tuesday and incrementally since then Obama’s lead has grown. It’s sad for Clinton because this is probably her last chance to seek the Presidency, but so many excitable youth (largely, though not exclusively, still in younger-adult years) she had likely planned to expect to have the support of, have idealized and selected Obama instead.

    3. Kennedy giving a speech at the Democratic convention would be especially powerful given his latest medical discovery; with respect to which candidate he would support, obviously it would be the one he has endorsed, namely Obama.

    4. Black Americans are arguably the most “loyal” or lockstep-partisan voters in this country, at nineties per cent plus Democratic. I don’t believe they would refuse to vote en masse if Clinton were nominated and I don’t believe they would vote for McCain across the USA any more than they would in the city of Washington, DC. (The Federal District is a sea of Democratic posters prior to elections — a fascinating, perversely pleasing challenge is to find one, just one, Republican campaign sign within the downtown area or any other part of the city other than the Northwest. The Dem-GOP political trivia store in Union Station doesn’t count!)

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com