Byron York makes a strong case for comparing Hillary to the Goremeister. She may very well lead in the popular vote and still lose to the MSM’s darling little messiah. He breaks down the primary season into four quarters:
First Quarter - Popular Vote
Clinton - 1,123,3780 Obama - 975,927
Second Quarter - Popular Vote
Clinton - 8,086,836 Obama - 8,000,574
Third Quarter - Popular Vote
Clinton - 1,313,256 Obama - 2,192,813
And now were into the fourth quarter:
But Clinton has made a huge comeback in the fourth quarter. Beginning with her victories in Texas and Ohio and going through last night’s win in Kentucky, she has won 6,505,231 votes to Obama’s 5,983,422 — a margin of 521,809 votes. That number will likely grow after the remaining contests in Puerto Rico (where she has a significant lead), South Dakota, and Montana. At the moment, counting all four quarters, Obama has a popular-vote lead of 123,033 votes. By the end of the day on June 3, Clinton might well be ahead.
If that happens, she will be the Al Gore of the Democratic primaries: the winner of the popular vote who lost the election. But unlike Gore, who lost the 2000 presidential race because of the constitutional requirements of the Electoral College, Clinton will lose because of the Democratic party’s arcane — and changeable — rules of delegate allocation. For example, Clinton won Texas in the sense that most of us understand winning an election, but Obama ultimately walked away with more delegates, because of the party’s idiosyncratic allocation process.
Byron argues that in 2000 every Democrat walking the streets was angry that Gore lost even though he won the popular vote. But eight years later with the prospect of Hillary losing, even though she may win the popular vote, no one seems all too upset. Funny how that happens huh?
Why the change? It’s not clear. Certainly party elites view Obama as the fresher and more attractive candidate. But contests in which the winner of the most votes doesn’t get the prize produce lasting after-effects, and in the months ahead, Democrats may be in for more than they know.
I find it incredible that the party doesn’t understand the hole they are digging. Allowing a elitist primary rule pick a nominee that is much weaker, much more niave and inexperienced, and has questionable judgement issues to represent them is going to be their downfall I believe.
Not like I’m upset about that prospect. Quite happy about it actually. Its just funny how no one from the left questions this super delegate rule as being elitist because their chosen messiah is in front.
UPDATE
John Bolton with a wonderful quote about Obama while being interviewed by Hugh Hewitt yesterday:
HH: Do you think [Obama] had any kind of a serious vetting yet in terms of the media drilling down on things like…do you think he understands the relationship, say, between Hezbollah and Iran?
JB: I think the, we haven’t plumbed the depths of that ignorance yet, but I wouldn’t count on the mainstream media to do it during the course of the campaign. Look, he has led a very cosseted, privileged existence in his life, that this is not somebody born in poverty who was risen by his bootstraps. He’s had, basically, a fairly comfortable middle class life. He’s gone to Ivy League universities, he’s lived in a liberal bubble in Chicago. And you know, you don’t have to acquire a lot of knowledge to be acceptable in those circles, and I think what we’re seeing is, as he emerges from that bubble, we’re seeing his view of reality. And I think it’s right there for Senator McCain to go after.
More here.


Trackbacks
15 comments so far
Leave a reply