I was flying on Frontier Airlines today, coming back from my conference in Stillwater, Oklahoma, when I decided that watching CNN on the plane was a great idea.
Wolf Blitzer was speaking to a correspondent, whose name I didn’t catch, who said that the Clinton camp is still working strongly under the assumption that they have the lead in the popular vote.
The speaker explained how this idea could be true, under the right circumstances:
* The vote and delegate totals in Michigan and Florida are added completely.
* Obama receives NO delegates from Michigan where he wasn’t on the ballot.
* The estimated totals of the popular vote in Iowa, Nevada, Washington and Maine are thrown out because they are not official totals. (These states do not publish their vote totals, just the delegate totals)
Furthermore, there was an idea that I didn’t really understand in the 30 seconds that it was explained on my small 4×5 inch screen:
*caucus states should be disregarded because in those states voter turnout is lower, they don’t have a secret ballot and overall they are not representative of the party.
Thus, under these circumstances and only these circumstances, is Clinton ahead in the popular vote. However, it was added on to the broadcast that the rules of the party state that delegates should vote with their conscience, and that only the pledged and super-delegates count.
That last part reminded me of Al Gore in 2000, winning the popular vote but loosing the election. I am still conflicted how I feel about that. In that case I felt it wasn’t right, that if a majority of the voters in the country voted for someone, that person should take office.
However, when I’ve looked at this race I’ve gotten confused because if we take Clinton’s numbers then the delegates should vote for her at the convention.
I think what my problem still rests on, I don’t really trust the numbers in the Clinton camp; they rest on way too many “ifs”.
I don’t think it’s right to exclude the caucus states, and while I think it is sad for Florida and Michigan those state parties broke the rules and had the opportunity to make corrections, they chose not too.
I’ll have to consider this more.
4 responses so far ↓
1 Hillary Clinton Updates » Blog Archive » Obama/Clinton math still fuzzy // May 19, 2008 at 7:38 pm
[…] Read the rest of this great post here […]
2 My new WordPress MU Site » Blog Archive » Obama/Clinton math still fuzzy // May 19, 2008 at 8:33 pm
[…] Lynn Sweet wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptThus, under these circumstances and only these circumstances, is Clinton ahead in the popular vote. However, it was added on to the broadcast that the rules of the party state that delegates should vote with their conscience, … […]
3 test » Blog Archive » Obama/Clinton math still fuzzy // May 19, 2008 at 9:20 pm
[…] math still fuzzy Lynn Sweet wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptThus, under these circumstances and […]
4 Obama/Clinton math still fuzzy // May 19, 2008 at 9:57 pm
[…] Continue Reading […]
Leave a Comment