And The Prize for Most Ludicrous Primary Analysis Goes To…
Robert Creamer and co-winner The Huffington Post
In an overview written with Bushesque distortions, Creamer makes the case that Clinton lost her Presidential bid last night based on… yes that’s right, a double-digit victory in Pennsylvania.
Having trouble with that logic already? I sure was while reading his piece.
Creamer then goes on to use mathematic predictions for pledge delegates which are based on primary results from states which haven’t yet even held their primary elections to support his claim that Clinton’s mathematically out of the running for the nomination.
Of course, what Creamer failed to mention is that Obama is in the exact same position at this point. Unless Clinton were to drop out of this dead-heat race, Obama has no clear path to the nomination either.
Every time I hear or read people spewing on about Clinton’s hard road ahead I can’t help but wonder where the notion of Obama’s position being any more favorable is coming from? The race is a virtual tie at this moment with neither candidate having a clear victory in sight and about 20% of the states still waiting to be heard from. It’s a good fight being made by both opponents and it’s going to go the distance. There will be a winner in the end, so why are so many constantly dismissing Obama’s obstacles while trying to claim an early victory rather than waiting for the final round?
Creamer then moved on to the popular vote, and in another move worthy of Republican politics uses the fuzzy math of including speculated vote counts from caucuses to beef-up Obama’s numbers and portray a larger spread.
We have absolutely no clue how many people have participated in the caucuses because those numbers aren’t recorded, or are blocked from the public in numerous states. So, there’s nothing but “best-guess” math, or as I would call it “best-favorable-guess” math being touted there.
But even still, regardless of how you pad the numbers to favor either candidate, the margin is between 1% and 2% total. Of the millions of votes cast so far and with 9 states remaining, a margin of under 2% is nothing more than a tie that has yet to be decided. That’s the reality of the situation.
What else does Creamer use to support his position? Well, he seems to argue that Clinton’s only case to be made to the super delegates is that Obama isn’t electable.
That’s narrow minded and silly (albeit a very accurate assessment in my view), but the actual case for Clinton to make is the she IS the electable candidate in November.
The numbers from the big states (which have held primary votes where the participation levels are known) that will matter most in the general election all show that Clinton would carry those states hands-down.
States like Pennsylvania, and Ohio, where blue-collar and senior voters will decide the outcome have all gone for Clinton, and those two core demographics have overwhelmingly gone for Clinton.
Looking into my own Crystal Ball I would argue that Creamer stretched the facts a little in saying that the “polls, and even Pennsylvania Governor and Clinton supporter Ed Rendell, make it clear that Obama can win Pennsylvania in the general election.”
Actually, what I’ve heard Governor Rendell say on several occasions is that he believes either democratic candidate can win Pennsylvania in November. With the emphasis always on the words “believes” and “can”, because he takes that position on faith that voters won’t cross party lines this year.
The problem with faith though, is that it depends on belief in the irrational despite facts or logic. You know, like us bitter Pennsylvanians who have faith to believe in talking snakes, dead people flying and our imaginary friend(s) in the sky.
A slightly more practical evaluation of Pennsylvania’s results, and Ohio’s too, seems to paint a different picture to me though. What I see are a lot of blue-collar and senior voters, common core democrats that the pundits like to label as the Reagan Democrats, not really feeling comfortable with Obama.
And if Obama wins the nomination and that lack of comfort continues these people will most certainly cross party lines for a decorated War Hero who doesn’t threaten their core values, or use them as anecdotes while speaking to wealthy donors.
Sure, I’m a Clinton supporter and have been absolutely clear about that from the start, but I’m also a practical, realistic, honest and fair person. I don’t write this stuff to further my own positions or agenda, I simply comment on what I see as I see it, even when I don’t like the facts being presented.
And what I see is a lot of red appearing on the election results boards in November if the race is between McCain and Obama. That’s based on voting results from the primary (again, actual numbers that aren’t guessed at) elections held so far, as well as what people here in Pennsylvania are telling me when we talk about the elections.
The pundits and everyone else can keep speculating on whether Obama supporters would move to Clinton, or vice versa if one or the other is nominated, and it makes for great television drama on the talk shows (formerly known as the news). But, if you look at the reality of the situation it just isn’t pretty for Obama no matter what.
He isn’t going to get a lot of support from the so-called “Reagan Democrats”, and he isn’t likely to carry the Latino voting block in crucial states either.
Any way you slice it, McCain overtakes Obama in November if any significant level of voters from these groups cross party lines in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida and etc.
As popular as Obama is with his core groups of supporters, they aren’t the numbers a democrat must have to win the White House. They just don’t hold enough votes to swing any of the crucial states that a democrat needs to win; and we know exactly how crucial some states are after 2000 and 2004, states Clinton would have without question. It just is what it is, support for Clinton’s case that she is the electable candidate in November.
I’m looking state wide at the results from Pennsylvania last night, and in some counties Clinton won by margins at or near 60% over Obama. And these are the voters who come out every election day, they make their voices heard, and they won’t back Obama in November, there’s no question in my mind at all. These folks will back McCain over Obama if that’s the choice they’re given.
Some think that’s sad, and that I’m being divisive when I point it out. As if there’s some party loyalty that I or others stating these facts needs to protect. Well, I’m sorry but I’m calling it like I see it, it isn’t my place to spin anything. Even “for the sake of the party”.
Let me make this real clear, I don’t vote in general elections for “head of the party”, I cast my vote for President, and I make my choice based on who I feel is best suited to do that job.
I certainly prefer it when I feel that person is in-line with my political opinions, but at the end of the day it isn’t about who agrees with me on issues as much as it is who I feel will best be able to lead our country forward. And sometimes, that can be someone who is opposite of me on much of the political spectrum.
I have said that I would support McCain over Obama here before, and I’ll say it again. If those are the choices then my confidence is in McCain to not cause further damage upon this country. I do not hold that same level of confidence in Obama, so despite Obama being closer to me on most issues I will support the man I’m most assured won’t bungle the job. And based on yesterday’s results, it doesn’t look like I’m the only one living in my practical world.
Image source: CNN
Related Writings
Categories:
2 Responses
!important}</style><![endif]-->
<script type=){kind=link}
Your joking right? And get your facts straight, HRC only won by 9.2% NOT by double digits. See here http://www.npr.org/blogs/news/2008/04/clintons_victory_in_pa_nine_pe_1.html
Reply to this specific comment
by Taylor on Jun 22, 2008 at 1:53 am
Okay, we’ve used the same rules for rounding numbers in math forever. From .5 and above you round up to the nearest whole number, and from .4 and below you round down to the next whole number.
So, 54.6 would become 55, and 45.4 would become 45 and just using my fingers it seems like 55-45 = 10
So now Obama supporters want us all to change the rules for rounding to whole numbers so that his defeat doesn’t feel so bad for them?
Please, that’s another tactic I’d expect from the Bush administration, have we democrats sunk so low?
Reply to this specific comment
by Scott Bannon on Jun 22, 2008 at 1:53 am