First there was Reaganomics. Now there’s Clinton Counting. After her win in Pennsylvania, Hillary announced that she’s ahead in the popular vote. Funny so did Obama. Hmmm… Surely you’ve seen or heard the stories. They’re in the major news networks: CNN, MSNBC, FOXNews. Both campaigns made sure of that. That’s all fine and dandy, but to reach her conclusion Clinton included Florida and Michigan, in spite of the fact that the Democratic Party isn’t counting the primaries in those states (back to that in a minute). Then there’s the other problem with the ‘popular vote’ count. The 4 caucus states also excluded. That includes even Washington who actually had a primary with a popular vote. But they also held a caucus to decide delegates so apparently their popular vote doesn’t ‘count’ in Clinton Counting. Check Newsweek’s story about it. They’re calling it Hillary’s new re-count. She apparently still wants to have her cake and call it caviar.
One of Hillary’s main arguments for counting the Florida and Michigan primaries, in spite of the fact that neither state followed the rules even though they knew the consequences, is that the voters’ voices must be heard. So my question is: “What about the voices of the voters in caucus states?” Especially Washington which had a primary with a popular vote that she’s intentionally choosing to ignore. Could it be because she only won one of the 4 caucus states, while Obama won 3 including Washington in which he won in both the delegates and the popular vote? Yes, I realize a popular vote doesn’t exist in the other 3 caucus states, but that doesn’t mean she should ignore them because it looks better for her. She isn’t even acknowledging them when she says “I have received more votes by the people who have voted than anybody else”. Makes you wonder whether she’s deluded or deceptive - maybe both.
So my next question is: “What makes the Florida and Michigan voters more important than the voters in Washington in Clinton Counting?” The answer to that one is easy. They make her position look better. She won Florida and Obama wasn’t on the ballot in Michigan. She says she won more popular votes than any other candidate in Michigan, which is technically true; but there’s no way of really knowing whether Michigan voters favor Clinton or Obama since both names weren’t on the ballot. And that also leads us back to Washington and a 3rd question: “Why aren’t the popular votes in Washington included in Hillary’s count?” One answer that I’m guessing would come from the Clinton camp is because they are a caucus state. The real answer is because Hillary lost that state.
Her claims are kind of a moot point anyway because when it comes down to it, delegates, and not popular vote that decides the candidate. But apparently that’s not enough to stop a Democrat. If I remember right, wasn’t ‘popular vote’ Gore’s argument in the 2000 general election? When will they learn? And when will Hillary learn to count?
Not so strange bedfellows
I love living in Austin where you have all kinds of people, most of them just itching to spout off on any topic (and I’m one of them to some degree). The latest topic is the Clinton/Obama debate hosted by CNN on the University of Texas campus on February 21st. At first the TX Democratic Party said attendance would be by invitation only. Personally being a Republican, this didn’t bother me, especially when I can watch it on CNN if so inclined. Plus you can go to the watch party if you have $50 to blow. However, there were a LOT of people, both Democrats & Republicans, who started screaming and yelling, some having an outright hissy fit complete with indignant outrage, that it should be in a larger venue so that the public can attend, claiming a conspiracy with CNN & the Democratic Party. Quite a few posted their opinions on the Austin American Statesman website. Of course some just took the opportunity to rant and rave about other things, but that’s par for the course in these things.
Rantings aside for the moment, I actually like what Susan Binford, Assistant Dean of the LBJ School of Public Affairs said about it after they announced the release of 100 general public tickets. She said “First and foremost, this is a television show.” After I got over my self-amusing thoughts of “So does that mean it will be purely entertainment?”, I started looking at their position. I agree that larger venues have more logistical and production problems, i.e. security, audio that isn’t as good as it would be with a smaller venue, etc… All in all, I think it’s being handled the best it can be given the short notice in pulling together a production of this magnitude.
I think one of the biggest problems is that many see the target audience as strictly a Texas audience, or even an Austin audience, when in fact it’s a nationwide audience as are all Presidential Debates in this era of quicker, easier dissemination of information. The candidates are in the news every day for some issue or another, ensuring plenty of access to the candidates views & positions on the issues. People need to look at the larger picture and stop being so self-focused when it comes to this debate.And back to the topic of ranting for a minute, I think that the people who took out their anger and frustration on the people who answer the phones at the Travis County Democratic Party Office were way out of line. It’s not like they made the venue decision, and it’s not their fault, so don’t yell at them.
I’m sure people will continue to bash the TX Democratic Party, CNN, as well as UT and the LBJ School given their involvement, while throwing in the GOP and their candidates just because they can. They’ll also continue claiming some kind of conspiracy to prevent public access to the candidates, but it’s not. That’s all there is to it, and they need to get over it.
Share This