There’s a wonderful post over at dKos that really breaks down the b.s. behind Clinton’s assertion of a popular vote lead (recognizing that only delegates matter but also recognizing the psychological strength of the popular vote).

I’ve lost most of my desire to respond to every Clinton claim at this point. After all, I don’t respond to Mike Gravel’s statements, and she’s got about as much chance of being president as he does.

However, there’s something nail-scratchingly annoying about these claims of a popular vote lead. It’s just so silly because it requires a highly selective use of numbers.

RenaRF at dKos introduces more appropriate math…

I’m sorry. I simply can’t take some of what I’m hearing on cable news as they cover the Clinton win in Puerto Rico and continue to repeat Clinton campaign talking points in her “rationale” to secure the Democratic Presidential nomination.

In the past three or four hours I have heard Harold Ickes, Terry McAuliffe, and Bill Schneider (CNN political analyst) repeatedly assert that Clinton is winning the popular vote. I have further heard each refer to the 1972 Democratic nominating process, where Humphrey won the popular vote yet McGovern won the delegates, and McGovern was resoundingly shellacked by Nixon (what that has to do with anything, I don’t know, but they’re saying it). Yet there was only one caution, from Anderson Cooper, that Clinton’s popular vote “lead” over Obama comes with substantial caveats on the part of the Clinton campaign. So I’ve done my own math.

The short version. Obama is ahead in a legitimate attempt to count the popular vote.

Shorter version: it’s all about the delegates baby.

BTW, can somebody do a remix with that from “It’s All About The Benjamins?” That would be hot.

Related Posts with Thumbnails