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?
Recent Comments