Hey guys! I've got a great idea! We're losing in just about every way, shape, and form to Barack Obama, so let's change the way we keep track of who's winning? That way, we can give the illusion that we have a chance and that the race is tighter then it is!
Brilliant!
Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, who backs Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for president, proposed another gauge Sunday by which superdelegates might judge whether to support Mrs. Clinton or Senator Barack Obama.
He suggested that they consider the electoral votes of the states that each of them has won.
“So who carried the states with the most Electoral College votes is an important factor to consider because ultimately, that’s how we choose the president of the United States,” Mr. Bayh said on CNN’s “Late Edition.”
In a primary, of course, electoral votes are not relevant, but the Clinton campaign is trying to use them as an unofficial measure of strength.
So far, Mrs. Clinton has won states with a total of 219 Electoral College votes, not counting Florida and Michigan, while Mr. Obama has won states with a total of 202 electoral votes.
Mr. Obama, of Illinois, is ahead of Mrs. Clinton, of New York, in most other leading indicators: popular vote (by 700,000 votes out of 26 million cast, excluding caucuses and the disputed Florida and Michigan results, a difference of about 3 percent); delegates (1,622.5 compared with 1,472.5 for her, according to The New York Times’s count); and number of states (27 compared with 14 for her, excluding Florida and Michigan). The opinion polls are mixed but give Mr. Obama a slight edge.
Asked how she could win the nomination, Mr. Bayh said: “Well, I do think the popular vote is important. But that’s a circular argument. It brings us back to Florida and Michigan.”
Well, unfortunately, Florida and Michigan broke the rules and their votes won't count because of those offenses. Now, Hillary needs them more than ever and it appears that unless there's some kind of miracle and upset of biblical proportions at the Democratic convention, Obama's pretty much got this one locked up.
We're talking human sacrifices, dogs and cats living together, MASS HYSTERIA type of biblical proportions. :)
But unfortunately for Hillary, she is only for something when it suits her:
Many Democrats, including Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Bayh, have opposed the Electoral College in the past, particularly after 2000, when Florida’s 25 electoral votes were awarded to George W. Bush, who became president, even though Al Gore, the Democratic nominee, had won the popular vote nationwide.
At the time, Mrs. Clinton, who had just been elected to the Senate, said, “I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people and to me, that means it’s time to do away with the Electoral College and move to the popular election of our president.”
So which is it Hillary? Would you rather look like a hypocrite or would you rather lose the nomination?
Either way is fine with me. :)
Travis
No comments:
Post a Comment