Clinton's Not Sufficiently-Debunked Popular Vote Myth

Email Print posted by Verified1 05/29/2008 12:23:26 AM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
If This Is Her Final Solution Why Is Nobody Examining And Pounding Away On This?

From time to time, I've heard Cenk refer to the popular vote falsehood of Hillary Clinton's, and Michael was defending her again on Wednesday based upon the (rather smug I thought) argument that she has what he described as "half "of the primary voters supporting her.

She is betting all she has left on this construct in order to convince the Democratic Party Rules Committee to roll over and anoint her this Saturday, and will no doubt repeat it ad nauseum after Puerto Rico where it especially won't matter. The rules committee could buckle, since she has so much support among its members. And we all know, too sadly, how little intestinal fortitude that established Democratic politicians have shown over the last few years. It's not at all difficult for me to envision her taking that bony head of hers, with Bill lighting the path, right to the credentials committee at the convention. Yet another deadline in order to protect the sanctity of the vote for white working class Floridians (aka New York retirees). So I think it's time we brought up again again and again why her argument is bogus.

The party rules say delegates, pure and simple. Not the popular vote, not the latest Gallup poll, but delegates. One person-one vote is not the way we elect officials in this republic, either in primaries or in general presidential elections. How often does this need to be said? How many ways can we say it? Why am I so red in the face? Primaries are not equal, and therefore the popular counts are not applicable statistics for general election predictions. Some primaries, as we all know too well, are open, allowing Republicans to influence them at will, and then there are the caucuses, but my blood pressure is up again. Commercials polls are not elections. Exit polls are not elections.

Here are a couple of quick links that say it better than I did.

From Jedreport: Clinton Superdelegate Memo Gets Vote Count Wrong

And an older one from the Daily Kos that had it all right 2 months ago:  Popular Vote: Listen Up Obama Surrogates

 

<h1>
</h1>
< Obama's Auchwitz comment | Did you see Colbert Wednesday? >
 Display:
Clinton's Not Sufficiently-Debunked Popular Vote Myth | 4 comments (4 topical, 0 hidden)
Obama's "Electibility" Issue (none / 0)

Most of Obama's "Electibility problem" is centered around Hillary and her Supporters campaigning NEGATIVELY against Obama.  If Hillary gave up her campaign on June 4 (as she SHOULD) and actively campaigned FOR Obama, his numbers would be THROUGH THE ROOF and Obama would win in a LANDSLIDE.

Hillary's only chances in the Convention overturning the Primaries (1% chance) and then somehow getting a National Campaign that only starts in Late August to defeat John McCain, with all the bad feelings Hillary pressing it until the Convention would create.  (Again, a 1% chance.)  So, she has a one in TEN THOUSAND chance of being President.  Is this WORTH throwing the Election to John McCain???

I hope the PARTY can see through this and the Supers will decide to give Obama an indisputable lead, regardless of Michigan and Florida way before the Convention.

But Hillary is counting on the WEAKNESS of rank and file Democrats to SUCCOMB to her power, just like the '06 Congress CAVED to Bush's power.  Get out the KNEEPADS.

Because there will be NO CONTESTS after South Dakota and New Mexico, hopefully the Hillary campaign will FIZZLE.  No new VICTORIES for Hillary to campaign on between June 4th and the Convention.  Only agruments to the Supers.  Only resolution to the MI and FL fiascos to campaign on.

With no new Victories or Arguments left, the Clinton campaign can't generate any new MONEY to campaign with, only the die-Hard Hill-Heads.  Who certainly can't contribute enough for her to run a national campaign until August with.  They're already $20 million dollars in DEBT.  Trying to run a national campaign after June 4 will only BLEED more money at RECORD rates.

Hillary wants an Exit Strategy.  Campagning for FL and MI gives her the High Road, Quixotic point to argue to the Death for.  (Rewarding BREAKING the RULES in a bad precedent.  Disenfranchising MI and FlL is even WORSE.  There ain't NO WAY to resolve THAT.  Especially since 38% of Michigan Primary voters voted for "Uncommited," and NOT Hillary.  How do you deal THAT out fairly between Obama and Clinton.  Ouija board, anyone???)

"MAKE EVERY VOTE COUNT!"  Whither the 38% in Michigan???  Or the Michigan voters who SAT ON THEIR HANDS, NOT voting because they assumed that the results of the Michigan Primary would be THROWN OUT.  Whither the VOICE of would-be Obama, Edwards, Richardson et all, supporters, not voting because their candidate wasn't ON THE TICKET, while Hillary supporters showed up because their candidate WAS and wanting a BAD PRIMARY to COUNT.

by sunsawed on 05/29/2008 02:58:57 AM EST

Dubya Parallels (none / 0)
sunsawed, As I read your post, I was struck by the parallels that can be drawn between HRC and GWB. Both have an astonishing capacity for denial, and refusal to honestly accept that they could have made mistakes, especially in offending others. Also there's that bull-nosed, hard-headed drive that says that my cause is so righteous that I don't care who or what is destroyed as I carry out my God given mission. Both seem to have been made to feel less than worthy by their fathers and now, by God, they are determined to prove their worth in the world. It's an abusive narcissism in the end. I am unsympathetic with her need for an exit strategy. She is an embarrassment to women and to the party. The Clinton/Carville cutthroat approach may have been useful during the so-called Gingrich revolution. But we've moved on. They're still fighting the same old battles.

by Verified1 on 05/29/2008 04:41:28 AM EST

[ Parent ]
How funny (none / 0)
I have heard Cynk make tha argument that Obama had more popular votes as well as delegats in prior shows and now the popular vote means nothing. Hmm, I find it amusing that they use the argument when it suits their need and dismiss it when it does not. he has been against Hilery since day one and nothing anyone can say will convince him that she is a viable canidate. I will bet any amount that if the tables were turned, he would be arguing the same points for Obama to stay in the race and get the nomination. Why can you guys just be honest for a change. If anyone is causing the rift in the party to grow it is you and your ilk.

by Mystic24 on 05/29/2008 02:45:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You misunderstand (none / 0)

What Cenk says is "Hillary says she sould win because she is winning the popular vote.  This argument is irrelevant.  And even if it was, its not even true.  Obama is wining the popular vote anyway."

This is either a failure to understand what Cenk is saying or a deliberate (and clumsy) attempt to spin his words into a pro-Hillary argument.

Just stop.  She has lost. 

by ProfRich on 05/29/2008 04:15:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Clinton's Not Sufficiently-Debunked Popular Vote Myth | 4 comments (4 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: