Let me take the moment to make a humorous editorial aside on the presidential race. As the debate seems to continue in the comments of BOR (understanding that we're going to try to shift back over to Texas specific reporting as best we can), let's address a simple request if we're going to get into such debates: OMG Plz stop w/ teh stupid!!1
- If we're going to debate who won what (which is tedious in its own right), let's be really anal-retentive about it.
A) You're right, the final national delegates from the Texas caucuses won't be determined until the state convention in June. But if you are a Clinton supporter and wish to use that line of reasoning, you'd better ask your candidate to remove similar statements about winning the Nevada caucuses from her website and not count those delegates before they've hatched either. Seeing as that hasn't happened, Barack Obama has, yes, won the Texas caucuses. No one is going to make up a 10-12 point loss by niggling over delegates here and there, and there is no guarantee that niggling would even fall in your favor.
B) If we're going to insist on not calling anything until last possible binding date, then we need to rescind calling Texas for Clinton as the vote has not yet been legally canvassed. And on election night, when claiming victory, were you not considerate of the overseas military ballots that could still be received up to 5 days after the election? Clearly, it is too early to call the state's primary, not to mention the fact that provisional ballots at the time of it having been called, had not been reviewed by each county's ballot boards. The final determination of the delegates awarded from the primary thusly should not have been claimed by Clinton.
- If you are going to claim that your opponent is conspiring to defeat you- you're right! But be warned, that it looks really silly when you stoop to former Rep. Jack Stick levels in claiming that registering voters and turning them out is "gaming the system"... Well if that's the case, then game on I say. I really hope a lot more of this type of scandalous activity takes place before the election is over. There is nothing quite so undemocratic, as getting people to register to vote...as Democrats!. The horror!
- On a whole new, and much higher level of "teh stupid" is the concept that if you don't win a state's primary/caucus you can't win that state in the general election. OMG, is anyone actually believing this? Like seriously- did you think this through? Would you read it again to see how incredibly insane this argument sounds?
Ickes, speaking of states Obama won or is likely to win, said:
"Most of those states haven't voted Democratic in a presidential since the Johnson landslide over Goldwater in 1964, and we don't see that changing. They're great states, but Idaho, Nebraska and the Carolinas are not going to be in the Democratic column in November. He's winning the Democratic process, but that is virtually irrelevant to the general election."
This would be funny if it was coming from random bloggers, but slightly shocking (and degrading) if it was coming from people who could be credibly called "speaking for the campaign". Thankfully, Harold Ickes is simply an advisor to Clinton's campaign, so like Geraldine Ferraro, his comments can be written off as not being official.
Hillary spokesperson Phil Singer responds:
The path to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue goes through Pennsylvania so if Barack Obama can't win there, how will he win the general election?
Well, hell, I tried. I guess it is an official message being pushed by a campaign after all so we better deal with it.
Yes, Clinton winning the Texas primary (wait, we can't say that yet) means she will win the state in November! Of course, polling says otherwise and suggests that Obama currently has the state in a tie with McCain while Clinton trails. But maybe that's just because Obama won Texas by the delegates that decide the nomination (wait, sorry, keep forgetting we can't talk about that).
But ok, let's accept that measure of reasoning seeing how history has shown it to be true (insert eye roll). Let's count numbers based upon the states that have been won (without debate or contest, which takes NV & TX (which each claim) and MI & FL off the table for now).
Hillary Clinton Electoral Votes: 180
Barack Obama Electoral Votes: 195
Please be aware that John McCain faces some problems winning the general election because Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee have now made it impossible for him to win 18 states this November by winning their primaries. His only saving grace is that he won most of the big states in the Republican primary (which does seem to raise a bit of a problem because it is my understanding that those are guaranteed Clinton states in November since she won them in the Democratic primary). Hmm. This seems to be a problem! How can both nominees win the state in the general if they won them in the primary?
- It's simply absurd to suggest that your campaign may have already raised in the first 12 days of March more than your opponent raised in all of February. It would be even more absurd to make this assumption based upon simple mathematics.
At the current rate of donations received, Barack Obama will surpass 1,250,000 donations during the month of March. Assuming he has an average donation at the end of the month of $50, that would be $62,500,000. If the average donation size remains at $75, that would be $93,750,000.
Barack Obama raised $55 million in February which is more than John McCain has raised for his entire campaign to date. Breaking that record a month later will be useful to compete in all the states that Obama has not won like California, New York, New Jersey, and Ohio that McCain and Clinton have both won in their respective primaries and will both win in November.
Thank you. That is all. |