Hillary Clinton's Fuzzy Delegate Math: Michigan and Florida

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.

Or take the Florida election: Clinton and her supporters want those votes counted because it will add numbers to this "popular vote" argument. But John Edwards got 251,562 votes in that invalidated primary. Shouldn't those votes be added to Obama's total now? That would bring Hillary's meaningless "popular vote" margin there down from 294,772 to 43,000. Throw in the votes from Dodd et al. and Hillary actually lost Florida's "popular vote" (she received 49% of the vote total).

See how meaningless this metric really is? Please, Clinton supporters: Stop using this damaged and destructive logic. I know that "counting every vote" sounds like a high-minded principle, but it's not. When the Clinton campaign dreamed it up, they knew it would mean defending a Stalin-like vote in Michigan and using M.C. Escher logic in Florida, but they guessed that these nuances would be lost on many supporters - and they have been. They knew it meant reversing a pledge that Sen. Clinton acknowledged on video (in defending the fact her name stayed on the ballot), but so what? Apparently "counting every vote" is a more compelling "principle" than "keeping your word."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/more-people-have-voted-ia_b_104093.html
A reader writes:
My question to you and anyone else who may be interested is: Why is it that the Democrats who played by the rules are now to be punished? I am a 51 year old white woman with two daughters who live, work and attend school in Florida. Both of them played by the rules and did not vote in the Florida primary as they were told their votes would not count. Why is no one concerned about their disenfranchisement? Why should people who broke the rules and voted be granted better treatment than those who did the right thing?..the rules are for the little people, not the Clintons.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/05/playing-by-the.html
What you'll see televised from the DNC's Rules and By-laws Committee meeting on Saturday, May 31, will be a swarm of irate Hillary Backers carrying signs and protesting any possible outcome of the Mich./Fl. debacle other than a no-fault decision with the votes going to HRC. She needs 'em. And she needs the rules changed, despite the fact that she agreed with the DNC's decision last fall. But that was when she was still "inevitable".

While Camp Clinton bats their collective baby blues and denies organizing a mini-mob scene to influence the decision..they've been actively urging Clinton supporters to pressure the DNC to fix the game Hillary's Way.Obama's volunteers, with a little encouragement, could have overrun the city. They got no such encouragement. What Obama volunteers got from HQ was a clear message: Do not go. Do not protest. Do not pressure the DNC. This is not who we are. We are about changing this kind of political posturing. There are better ways, more positive ways, to use your time. Phone banking. Canvassing. Registering new voters.

Whether he liked them or not, Senator Obama played by the DNC's rules in Michigan and Florida. Senator Clinton thought the rules were just fine so long as she was front runner and destined to win the nomination. The specter of losing compels Hillary to change the rules. Of course, she's not playing this bait and switch game only because she has to win this thing any way she can--she's the new, improved populist who cannot bear the thought of a single vote not counting for all it's worth. Not a one. Unless it's a caucus state vote.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-hansen/washington-rules-committe_b_104264...

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Barack
• Obama
• Hillary
• Clinton
• John
• Mccain
• Montana
• South
• Dakota
• Iraq
• war
• George
• Bush
• bill
• iran
• puerto
• rico
• primary
• edwards

[skin4ner]

I would never vote for Hillary, she has lied so many times. She can't be trusted.

[beornborg]

Hillary is not entitled to a thing. She tried to destroy the DNC and overturn the will of the people.

[Darlenerock101]

Hillary is such a phoney and yes i am saying that because shes a liar and that i am pure right wing, thats right and let me say that if you people have a problem wiyh that then let me say your party had its turn!

[guyanacomfa]

hello

[Jayjatjay]

Every young person- please registar to vote- they are not pushing that enough this year- I do not know why!!

[Stiagra]

FUCK OFF! HILLARY IS NOT A GOOD PERSON.

[skin4ner]

Not going to happen, so come out of that la-la land.

[fengfu]

poor for bill, completely lost his retiremen life which would otherwise will be meaningful and valuable to him, and to all of us

[tersse]

and im a bit confused with the popular vote verses the delegate vote, are the clintons now advocating proportional representation voting be uses in america now, or do they want to just get rid of voteing and go with a poll, and nominate the delegate that polls highest chance to win presidency against republican, i cant understand what they are saying, and remember she said if we were runing a republican type presidencial campain she would allready have won ,so dose she want to be a republican?,

[tersse]

im no expert in American politics, but it seems that the clintons want play by the rules only if those rules alow them to win, if not they want rules changed, rules state these states should be punished.

[beckpod1]

sore loser!!!!!

[Y2ANJ]

You know what Harold Ickes (HRC advisor) wanted at the DNC meeting. He wanted the pledged delegates to be split 40% "uncommitted" i.e. made superdelegates and the rest to be pledged to HRC. That is, the only solution they would except is that she wins all the Michigan pledged delegates and Obama gets zero. This only works if you assume that no one in Michigan (no one in Detroit or Ann Arbor) supported Obama and that 100% of them supported Clinton. It is like these guys are professional trolls.