Minister of Science and Chief Protector of the Faith

Monday, June 02, 2008

Hillary Clinton - When a Rule Gets in Her Way, She Changes It!

 

What is exactly is this 'popular vote' that the Clinton's speak of? It turns out that we are taking about fractions of one percent. To see exactly how the numbers play out, check out this link. Hillary Clinton's argument to the American people and the superdelegates is based on these numbers. Admittedly, Clinton has run a strong campaign, but it is madness to argue that she is more 'electable' and the rules of the Democratic party should be overthrown and delegate count doesn't matter because the numbers can skewed one way or another to prove that she gains an advantage in fractions of one percent.


Hillary wins the popular vote (by fractions of one percent) only if she gets her votes Michigan, and Obama gets none. The argument being that he took his name off the ballot, so he should not get any votes - like those are the rules. (The whole election was against the rules! Seemingly, rules only count when they are to Clinton's advantage.) This premise especially ridiculous if you consider that 41% of the Michigan voters chose to vote against her when given the opportunity to vote for her and no one else.

And if we're really interested in that "popular vote" metric, here's a fact that should interest Democrats: More people have voted against Sen. Clinton than have voted against any primary candidate in American history. Take Michigan: Even though it was an "election" worthy of Joseph Stalin or Saddam Hussein, with no major opponent on the ballot (because the others honored an agreement she retroactively broke), 41% of voters chose nobody when given the opportunity to vote only for Sen. Clinton.

Here's what would have happened in Michigan if Hillary Clinton had not been the only leading candidate on the ballot : Based on exit polls taken at the time, she would have received 46% of the vote to 35% for Obama and 12% for John Edwards. That means that, with Edwards' endorsement, Obama would now be getting more Michigan delegates -- and more of its "popular votes" -- than Clinton. But because he honored the agreement and she didn't, she now wants a one-sided agreement that rewards her behavior. smirkingchimp.com


If only popular votes are used Obama leads by almost 25,000. Since the caucus states of Washington, Iowa, Nevada, and Maine do not keep actual vote totals their numbers can only be estimated. Adding in those estimates Obama’s lead increases to nearly 135,000. The only way Hillary leads is if one assumes that Obama would not have received one single vote in Michigan. chron.com, via Real Clear Politics

Obama leads in popular votes, delegates and states won in the race against Clinton for the Democratic nomination and the right to face Republican candidate John McCain in the November presidential election. FACTBOX-Reuters 06/01/08


 

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

16 Comments:

At Mon Jun 02, 03:22:00 PM, Blogger Bradda said...

Why do I here the Twilight Zone theme song in my head when I read Hillary and her "I won the popular vote" BS?

 
At Mon Jun 02, 04:34:00 PM, Blogger Freida Bee said...

I see that you are refuting her argument, and impressively so, but my biggest beef with the popular vote argument is that we have endured 8 years of Bush after Gore won the popular vote and I don't recall Clinton doing anything to change the rules as a Senator before now.

 
At Mon Jun 02, 07:10:00 PM, Blogger Dr. Monkey Von Monkerstein said...

Why do you hate women so much?

 
At Mon Jun 02, 08:09:00 PM, Blogger Omnipotent Poobah said...

Dr. Z, watch out. I posted on her today and got two comments within the first 30 seconds going off on me.

It's OK though, 'cause I'm omnipotent and can defend myself.

 
At Mon Jun 02, 08:24:00 PM, Blogger Übermilf said...

Wait -- Hillary's a WOMAN?

 
At Mon Jun 02, 10:41:00 PM, Blogger BAC said...

The popular vote count chart is facinating, because it seems to mirror the opinions of Democrats. Half want Obama and half want Clinton.

This has got to be the closest, or at least one of the closest primary contests ever.

So with all the numbers being so close, it's amazing that the electoral college vote swings so wildly in Clinton's favor.

Basically what it says is that if the election were held today Clinton would win, McCain would have the second best chance of winning and Obama would have the third best chance of winning. Isn't that amazing ...


BAC

 
At Tue Jun 03, 12:28:00 AM, Blogger Utah Savage said...

I scream and bitch about her or her surrogates every day, and no one screams at me. I did have one couple that came to tag team me when I wrote something remotely critical of Hillary, but I let them rant and rave for days. Then I told them ever so politely to go fuck themselves and they haven't been back. Also I did threaten to "moderate" their comments. Now nobody reads me. Therefore no one disagrees with me. I win. I'm right.

 
At Tue Jun 03, 09:13:00 AM, Blogger Jess Wundrun said...

Something that doesn't seem to get mentioned much is that once the Republican race was decided was when Hillary started to win more primaries. Since the margin between the two candidates is razor thin, even an uptick of 1 to 2% from a "Limbaugh Effect" is significant.

 
At Tue Jun 03, 10:44:00 AM, Blogger Randal Graves said...

Wow, no one voted for Date? I'm kind of surprised at that.

 
At Tue Jun 03, 01:19:00 PM, Blogger Dr. Zaius said...

Bradda: Indeed! Undoubtedly Rod Serling is spinning around in his grave right now.

Freida Bee: I know what you mean, but that's actually different. I don't think that you can compare the two. As John J. said the other day, "As far as the eight years ago argument with Al Gore (yes, I know it's completely tangential), he won the popular vote, AND, more importantly, won the Florida popular vote and so should have won the electoral college." Also, you have to factor in Diebold, etc. That election was a lot more complicated.

Dr. Monkerstein: If only I wasn't such a sexist, I would eschew Obama's delegate lead and Embrace Clinton's new math!

Omnipotent Poobah: Jeepers! I wanna be omnipotent, too! Maybe if I practice real hard...

Übermilf: Of course. That's just mean! :o)

BAC: I think that this says it all.

Utah Savage: Ha! it is important to "moderate" with moderation. :o)

Jess Wundrun: The "Limbaugh Effect"! I wonder why the media didn't factor that into their calculations. The certainly manage to put Rush Limbaugh's agenda into everything else.

Randal Graves: Apparently the voting wasn't chronological. ;o)

 
At Tue Jun 03, 02:44:00 PM, Blogger Übermilf said...

Well, I mean, it's not like she's made a point of it or anything.

 
At Tue Jun 03, 04:55:00 PM, Blogger Dean Wormer said...

I hate the whole "electability" argument anyway.

Objective analysis is impossible. Polling is meaningless at this point with two candidates still in the race and the general being so far out.

So it's all subjective and based on the person's point of view.

In that case I think John Edwards is most "electable."

 
At Wed Jun 04, 01:35:00 AM, Blogger Swinebread said...

What the hell is a matter with her, she is just pissing everybody off...

 
At Thu Jun 05, 09:45:00 PM, Blogger BAC said...

So much for "unity"...


BAC

 
At Thu Jun 05, 09:52:00 PM, Blogger Dr. Zaius said...

Don't worry, BAC. I am confident that Hillary Clinton will make good on Saturday.

 
At Fri Jun 06, 03:23:00 AM, Blogger Mark M said...

Bad Doc Z bad monkey! You know....I really should have checked before using the Username Dr. Zaius.....now everyone thinks I'm you.....till now. LOL!

Although I do not agree with article....I do like your style. =)

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

 
Newer Posts  |  Older Posts