 egoldstein says: Though it seems likely that he'll get the nomination, democrats can not feel very good that he has lost handily to Clinton over the past 3 months. Not so! He's not losing in the popular vote unless she persuades the DNC to include FL and MI. And even then, he'd only be losing because the caucus states don't get counted in the popular vote (and they're states where she did badly). His lead in delegates has increased nearly every week since Super Tuesday, and has picked up pace in the last month. He won big in NC, essentially tied in IN, then lost in Republican WV. But he leads by increasing margins in every metric - this is not losing! It's just a close race. Don't forget, popular votes are not accurate representations in primary season, because: a) caucus states - hundreds of thousands of voters - are simply not counted b) states with open primaries - where Republicans voted, too - have tens of thousands more votes than states with closed primaries, even if two states have the same number of Democrats. When you add two similar states together, one state - say, MN, may have several times the number of votes as another - say MO - solely because they use different kinds of elections. The point of the process - as the DNC has said since the beginning, and the Clinton campaign used to say - is solely to pick delegates. Popular vote does not mean th... As a Democrat I do not put much stock in a conservative, Fox News contributing, writers analysis of the general election. I would have a better chance of believing someone with a somewhat less biased lens. Barone is a senior writer for U.S. News & World Report and a frequent contributor during Fox News Channel's election coverage. His political views are generally conservative, and Barone has said he is not a religious believer, although he is sympathetic to and respectful of socially conservative believers. Consider, for a contrasting view (and, I think, a more realistic one), this paragraph from today's New York Times analysis: If things continue to go as well for Mr. Obama on Tuesday as they have thus far this month, with a romp in North Carolina, a strong showing in Indiana and daily growth in his support among party superdelegates, he could actually end up with enough pledged delegates to proclaim, without fear of contradiction, that he is now the Democratic nominee for president.Hillary's task will be to convince the DNC that the raison d'être of the primary season (the selection of delegates) doesn't matter. It won't happen. It's like telling the Supreme Court that... Eric, I would argue that Obama hasn't "lost handily" to Clinton over the last 3 months. He has won 33 contests to Clinton's 18. West Virginia and Kentucky are the only states she has won with any significant margin in the past three months. And even then, she's not netting more pledged delegates than Obama. The way the Dem delegates are proportioned out (based on prior election voting patterns), that suggests to me that Obama is getting more of the Democratic base than Hillary. Even in states like West Virginia and Kentucky, she's getting 1 delegate for every 100,000 more votes she gets than Obama. That's Republican crossover right there. If those people were Dems, she would be getting more delegates. Obama has lead in popular vote. |
View the Top Clips from May 18, 2008
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
