Sarah Churchwell: Hang on in there, Hillary. It's too soon to quit
If you bother to read the article, it is obviously biased as pro-Clinton. The telling mark is this line:
"Meanwhile, that much-vaunted primary "popular vote" that Clinton has lost doesn't take account of the Democrats or independents in Michigan or Florida, both of which will be swing states in November; or that only 60,000 popular votes separate Clinton and Obama"
First of all the popular vote has been the Clinton campaign rallying cry since she realized she won't win on delegates. Secondly, many of the states held caucuses, not primaries, so popular vote numbers in these states are estimates. Third, in Obama was not even on the ballot. Obama supporters in Michigan voted for "uncomittedwhich won 35% of the vote. These numbers are not added to Obama's tally when this author computed the popular vote. And lastly, even using the author's slanted metrics, Obama is ahead by almost 90,000 votes, not 60,000.
Giving Obama the votes tallied as "uncommited" would extend this lead by another 210,000. to 300,000.
But the race is about the delegates, not the popular vote. At this point, if Clinton could somehow get 60% of all the remaining delegates in WV, KY, OR, MT, SD, and Puerto Rico, she would still need to have the support of 70% of the remaining superdelegates. The odds keep getting slimmer and slimmer, and reality has to sink in before we get into summer.
It is interesting how the author also glosses over the fact that whenever a party (Democrat or Republican) waits until the summer or up to the convention to name their frontrunner, they almost always lose. No one contests that Clinton has a right to keep going. But yes, history shows that if she drags this out the odds are it will mean a President McCain in 2009.
Anyway, that is my retort to this article. I find it insulting that the author saw the need to raise the ghost of the 2000 election as a rallying cry for Clinton. The 2000 election crisis is in no way comparable to this.
Posts
