The radio pissed me off this morning...
...or, more accurately, people speaking over the airwaves. Today, it was a Hilary Clinton campaignista, maybe even Hil herself, reiterating the tired claim that she wasn't gonna quit the race because, after all, she's leading in popular votes! [emphasis mine]
To which I'd like to respond by copying this post from noted hate site DailyKos:
One of the wonders of this primary season has
been the ability of the Clinton campaign -- including Hillary herself
-- and their supporters to engage in some of the most patently
ridiculous and bald faced lies, knowing that everyone else knows they are engaging in patently ridiculous and bald faced lies.
Chief among those lies is the fiction that Clinton leads in the popular vote.
Aside from the idiocy of the argument itself -- 1) this is a
delegate race, and 2) unlike the 2000 presidential election, you can't
compare the popular vote from contest to contest since each state has
different rules (caucus or primaries, open, closed, or hybrid -- the
way the Clinton campaign and its supporters shamelessly stretch this
argument is almost embarrassing.
Clinton is "leading" the meaningless popular vote, but only if:
- You count the unsanctioned contests in Florida and Michigan, where candidates were not allowed to campaign;
- You give Obama zero votes in Michigan's Soviet-style election, where Clinton was essentially the only name on the ballot; and
- You don't count the caucuses in Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington.
In reality, Obama leads by over half a million votes, for whatever
that's worth (not much). But don't worry, the Clinton argument is so
asinine, it has gotten little traction among super delegates.
In fact, it's so insulting to people's intelligence, that it's hurting the credibility of anyone stupid enough to use it.
'nuff said?
...or, more accurately, people speaking over the airwaves. Today, it was a Hilary Clinton campaignista, maybe even Hil herself, reiterating the tired claim that she wasn't gonna quit the race because, after all, she's leading in popular votes! [emphasis mine]
To which I'd like to respond by copying this post from noted hate site DailyKos:
One of the wonders of this primary season has been the ability of the Clinton campaign -- including Hillary herself -- and their supporters to engage in some of the most patently ridiculous and bald faced lies, knowing that everyone else knows they are engaging in patently ridiculous and bald faced lies.
Chief among those lies is the fiction that Clinton leads in the popular vote.
Aside from the idiocy of the argument itself -- 1) this is a delegate race, and 2) unlike the 2000 presidential election, you can't compare the popular vote from contest to contest since each state has different rules (caucus or primaries, open, closed, or hybrid -- the way the Clinton campaign and its supporters shamelessly stretch this argument is almost embarrassing.
Clinton is "leading" the meaningless popular vote, but only if:
- You count the unsanctioned contests in Florida and Michigan, where candidates were not allowed to campaign;
- You give Obama zero votes in Michigan's Soviet-style election, where Clinton was essentially the only name on the ballot; and
- You don't count the caucuses in Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington.
In reality, Obama leads by over half a million votes, for whatever that's worth (not much). But don't worry, the Clinton argument is so asinine, it has gotten little traction among super delegates.
In fact, it's so insulting to people's intelligence, that it's hurting the credibility of anyone stupid enough to use it.
'nuff said?
Leave a comment